Why did British leave ? The Story of Indian Independence

It's truly said a victory has thousand fathers, but a defeat is an orphan !!  As decades pass and very few left with clear memory of sequence of events, what would have been clearly dismissed as propaganda in another era has now a better chance of success. 

Every interest group is keen on explaining away events in a way it best suits them. The bigger the event and momentous the victory the bigger is the distortion.  

1) If you read Pakistani History World War 2 would be the only cause of Indian Independence. Muslim league's own contribution to Freedom struggle was minimal and negative so they necessarily have to undermine the Indian freedom struggle. 

2)  If you read British history, there is never much talk of Indian Freedom. Emphasis is on transfer of power to the colonies and the white man's burden and the good they did.

3)  Within India, several right and left wing groups groups never participated in the quit India movement. The Muslim league and the Hindu Mahasabha in fact very actively collaborated with British for power during quit India. As matter of fact Hindu Mahasabha even collaborated with Muslim League in formation of coalition ministries in Sind and Bengal, and Savarkar supported and appreciated this move of Hindu Mahasabha. 

There are several books that detail the events in the 1940s, but VP Menon's book on transfer of power in India is a must read in my view. VP Menon was Sardar Patel's right hand man in integrating the princely states in India and was intricately involved with the government both British and Indian from 1940s. As he worked for the Viceroy too before independence he was privy to the internal communication among the British and the British and the Indian leaders. 

Several myths such as Naval mutiny and INA trials miraculously  leading to independence is abundantly clear in it. At best it is like attributing the victory to night watchman who happens to score the winning runs or plays a  late cameo without concern to all those who setup that stage.

The link to the book:

http://books.google.com/books/about/Transfer_of_Power_in_India.html?id=FY5gI7SGU20C

The talks for transfer in power had began in earnest as soon as the Labour government came in power in Britain at the close of the world war 2 well before the INA trials. It was one of the stated manifesto goals of the Labour party before elections to reach a settlement with the Indians. The moment they were in power it was never so much a question of if and when, but only a question of how given the complexities of Muslim league, congress, princely states and the nature of British engagement if any that should remain. ( Besides the protests against INA trials were largely organized by socialist faction of Congress under the leadership of Jayprakash Narayan, so if protests against INA trials were a cause, than JP should be credited more than anyone else.)  

Coming back to the question, on why British left there is no one single cause, event or individual which can be attributed as the sole cause, but a series of factors and events. I enumerate 3 major factors the way I see it (not necessarily in order of significance):  

1) India was no longer a profit center for the British.

I think this is a perspective many lack, on how much India had become a liability for the British rule. One often hears of argument of World war 2 and the economic crisis Britain was in as the major cause of freedom and so forth.

The argument of world war 2 and corresponding economic crisis is at best incomplete. For if I am facing bankruptcy I will get rid of my liabilities and not my cherished assets or profit making units. So implicit in the argument of world war 2 as the major cause of freedom is the assumption that India was already a liability. But how and when did India, the jewel in the crown and that source of prestige and power became such a liability ?

Swaminathan Aiyar, the fianancial editor of Times of India, provides an answer in this article published in 2003. This is worth a read:
http://www.swaminomics.org/articles/20030817_fin_story_independence.htm

The key argument:

Historically, conquered nations paid taxes to finance fresh wars of the conqueror. India itself was asked to pay a large sum at the end of World War I to help repair Britain’s finances.

But, as shown by historian Indivar Kamtekar, the independence movement led by Gandhiji changed the political landscape, and made mass taxation of India increasingly difficult. By World War II, this had become politically impossible.

Far from taxing India to pay for World War II, Britain actually began paying India for its contribution of men and goods. Troops from white dominions like Australia, Canada and New Zealand were paid for entirely by those countries, but Indian costs were shared by the British government. Britain paid in the form of non-convertible sterling balances, which mounted swiftly. The conqueror was paying the conquered, undercutting the profitability on which all empire is founded.

Churchill opposed this, and wanted to tax India rather than owe it money. But he was overruled by India hands who said India would resist payment, and paralyse the war effort. Leo Amery, secretary of state for India, said that when you are driving in a taxi to the station to catch a life-or-death train, you do not loudly announce that you have doubts about whether to pay the fare.

Thus World War II converted India from a debtor to a creditor with over one billion pounds in sterling balances. Britain, meanwhile, became the biggest debtor in the world. It’s not worth ruling over people you are afraid to tax.
 

So if Britain’s economic crisis played a role in India's independence, it emphasizes the importance of Indian freedom movement and not undermines it.

2) Mass awakening in India: Slowly it was becoming impossible for them to govern. By 1940s nation has a whole had become extremely restive. There was a very real fear of the them loosing complete control. Each successive wave of protests was stronger than the prior years.  During the quit India movement there were districts where parallel governments were formed and British had no say left. There is fundamental truth in Gandhi's oft repeated saying "The power of the rulers is derived from the obedience of its subjects". In the end 100 thousand white man cannot rule the subcontinent, if the Indian people simply did not cooperate with it.

 3) Evolution of the British opinion: It would impossible to peacefully transfer power if British public opinion was in not in favor or at the least indifferent to it. So ethical/moral reasons were also a part of the reason of British leaving India and the entire decolonization process was actually effected by it. For this one has to observe the steady change in the British political landscape and public opinion over the years. The political landscape in Britain had changed significantly by late 1930s and early 40s. and there was a large body of opinion which was anti-imperialist in its outlook and sympathetic to Indian Independence. It was no longer a political suicide to grant independence to India. Our Independence movement had definitely helped bring about this imperceptible change. The evolving stance of major members of the Labour party was decidedly in favor of self rule for the colonies by late 1930s. 

George Orwell, one of the greatest literary figures of the 20th century and more of a critic of Gandhi, has raised this question "On the other hand, this (freedom to India) was done by a Labour government, and it is certain that a Conservative government, especially a government headed by Churchill, would have acted differently. But if, by 1945, there had grown up in Britain a large body of opinion sympathetic to Indian independence, how far was this due to Gandhi's personal influence?".

Bertrand Russel chronicles the feeling of average Britisher here:

http://www.mkgandhi.org/articles/russel.htm

Take, for example, the "battle" which occurred during the campaign against the salt tax, which was described by an eyewitness, Webb Miller, in an account of which the following is a summary: "The raid which Gandhi had planned on the salt-pans at Dharasana was now carried out by 2,500 volunteers, led by his second son, Manilal. Before they advanced, Mrs. Naidu led them in prayer and appealed to them to be true to Gandhiji's inspiration and abstain from violence. `You will be beaten, but you must not resist, you must not even raise a hand to ward off blows.' Round the depot a barrier of barbed wire had been erected and a ditch dug. As the first picked column of the volunteers went forward, police officers ordered them to disperse; they still advanced in silence. Suddenly scores of police fell upon them and rained blows on their heads. Not one man so much as raised his arm to fend off the blows. Soon the ground was carpeted with the prostrate bodies of men writhing in pain, with fractured skulls or broken shoulders, their white clothes stained with blood. Then a second column advanced, without wavering, knowing well what awaited it. There was no struggle; the volunteers simply marched forward until they, too, were struck down. Now the tactics were varied. Groups of twenty-five men advanced, sat down and waited. As they sat, the enraged police fell upon them, beat them on the head and kicked them in the abdomen or the testicles. Some were dragged along the ground and thrown into the ditches. Hour after hour this went on, while stretcher-bearers removed the inert, bleeding bodies. Over three hundred casualties were taken to hospital with fractured skulls and other serious injuries: two died. Mrs. Naidu and Manilal Gandhi were arrested."

This sort of thing filled every decent English person with a sense of intolerable shame, far greater than would have been felt if the Indian resistance had been of a military character.

There was, of course, also an opposite effect. The police and some of the British authorities in India were rendered furious as a reaction from their own shame, and became more brutal than they would have been against less passive opponents. But this was not the effect that was produced at a distance by those who read of what was being done. English people who were not familiar with India, and had no direct financial interest in maintaining the British raj, felt that something must be done to put an end to such atrocities. General Dyer, who at Amritsar ordered soldiers to fire for ten minutes upon a packed, peaceful mob, unable to escape, killing many and wounding many more, was recalled, and a Conservative Government even went so far as to deprive him of his pension. It is true that he had a number of admirers who presented him with a large sum of money and a Sword of Honour, but this did not represent average British feeling. People who were neither exceptionally rich nor exceptionally brutal began in the end to feel that if British rule could be preserved only by such methods, then it was not worth preserving.

In short reasons for decolonization were growing resistance in the colonies, changing moral perceptions in the west, and reduced economic incentives in holding on to the empire. 

Many countries for which the Indian subcontinent was the supply base (countries in south and southeast Asia), got their freedom at about the same point as we did mainly because having a standalone base for the smaller countries did not make sense and shifting perceptions in British public opinion which made this possible. Many had their own freedom movements. Some like Kenya and other African countries had to wait longer.

Non-Violence—The Greatest Force

[July 15, 1926]

Non-violence is the greatest force man has been endowed with. Truth is the only goal he has. For God is none other than Truth. But Truth cannot be, never will be, reached except through non-violence. That which distinguishes man from all other animals is his capacity to be non-violent. And he fulfils his mission only to the extent that he is non-violent and no more. He has no doubt many other gifts. But if they do not subserve the main purpose—the development of the spirit of non-violence in him—they but drag him down lower than the brute, a status from which he has only just emerged.

The cry for peace will be a cry in the wilderness, so long as the spirit of non-violence does not dominate millions of men and women.

An armed conflict between nations horrifies us. But the economic war is no better than an armed conflict. This is like a surgical operation. An economic war is prolonged torture. And its ravages are no less terrible than those depicted in the literature on war properly so called. We think nothing of the other because we are used to its deadly effects.

Many of us in India shudder to see blood spilled. Many of us resent cow-slaughter, but we think nothing of the slow torture through which by our greed we put our people and cattle. But because we are used to this lingering death, we think no more about it.

The movement against war is sound. I pray for its success. But I cannot help the gnawing fear that the movement will fail, if it does not touch the root of all evil—man’s greed.
Will America, England and the other great nations of the West continue to exploit the so-called weaker or uncivilized races and hope to attain peace that the whole world is pining for? Or will Americans continue to prey upon one another, have commercial rivalries and yet expect to dictate peace to the world?

Not till the spirit is changed can the form be altered. The form is merely an expression of the spirit within. We may succeed in seemingly altering the form but the alteration will be a mere make-believe if the spirit within remains unalterable. A whited sepulchre still conceals beneath it the rotting flesh and bone.

Far be it from me to discount or under-rate the great effort that is being made in the West to kill the war-spirit. Mine is merely a word of caution as from a fellow-seeker who has been striving in his own humble manner after the same thing, may be in a different way, nodoubt on a much smaller scale. But if the experiment demonstrably succeeds on the smaller field and, if those who are working on the larger field have not overtaken me, it will at least pave the way for a similar experiment on a large field.

I observe in the limited field in which I find myself, that unless I can reach the hearts of men and women, I am able to do nothing. I observe further that so long as the spirit of hate persists in some shape or other, it is impossible to establish peace or to gain our freedom by peaceful effort. We cannot love one another, if we hate English-men.We cannot love the Japanese and hate Englishmen. We must either let the Law of Love rule us through and through or not at all. Love among ourselves based on hatred of others breaksdown under the slightest pressure. The fact is such love is never real love. It is an armed peace. And so it will be in this great movement in the West against war. War will only be stopped when the conscience of mankind has become sufficiently elevated to recognize the undisputed supremacy of the Law of Love in all the walks of life. Some say this will never come to pass. I shall retain the faith till the end of my earthly existence that it shall come to pass.

The Hindu, 8-11-1926

They Gave Peace a Chance

The short story of the Chambal dacoits who laid down their arms and thereby gave Peace a Chance.

While traversing the country from north to south you would have passed through a land criss-crossed by deep ravines and dense jungles, set in the very heart of India, in Madhya Pradesh. This is the Chambal Valley-a place you must have heard or read about, even if you have never seen it. The name is enough to strike terror in one's heart-for this area has, through the ages, been an ideal sanctuary for people who, for various reasons, have turned outlaws. The martial background of the people, their fight against alien invaders and rulers, and the immense socio-economic disparities, have combined to produce rebels or "baghis"-a name also given to the dacoits.

Our story goes back to the 1960's when Tehsildar Singh, son of legendary dacoit Man Singh wrote a letter to Vinoba Bhave from his cell in Naini Jail. He was serving a death sentence and wanted to see Vinoba once to discuss the problem of dacoity in Chambal and how to rid it of the curse. Although Vinoba was on a padyatra in Kashmir at that time, Tehsildar Singh's letter drew him to the Chambal. In May 1960, he went round the valley, spreading his message of truth, love and compassion with the active co-operation of one Major General Yadunath Singh. Twenty dacoits surrendered their arms before him: it was a triumph of non-violence and human good sense. The dacoits were prepared to face the law courts and jail sentences courageously. The specially constituted Chambal Valley Peace Committee helped them in their efforts. After their release, they were given Bhoodan lands to lead a simple and peaceful life---they had no ambition of becoming film stars or politicians or gaining cheap publicity.

Legal and administrative wrangles proved to be obstacles to further surrenders, until eleven years later, in 1971, when Jagroop Singh, an emissary of Madho Singh, another notorious dacoit, met Vinoba to request him to come to the Chambal once again. But Vinoba had taken Kshetra Sanyas and expressed his inability to help. He directed them to Shri Jayaprakash Narayan--or JP.Madho Singh himself undertook this task and in the guise and name of one Ram Singh, a contractor, traced JP to Patna. In spite of his preoccupations and ill health, JP sensing a genuine change of heart and desire to solve the problem of dacoity, agreed to take up the challenge. He wrote to the Chief Ministers and government officials of Madhya Pradesh, Utter Pradesh and Rajasthan and requested two of his colleagues, Shri Mahavir Bhai and Shri Hem Deo Sharma, to help. After getting encouraging replies, he issued an appeal on 13 December 1971, advising them to surrender, requesting the community to open its doors for their peaceful return to normal life and the government-to consider their cases sympathetically. For six months, JP conducted his "Operation Persuasion" not as a spiritual leader but as a social worker. Except for the dare-devil Madho Singh, his contacts with the dacoits were through the Chambal Ghati Shanti Mission. Assisted by Pandit Lokman Dikshit, and Tehsildar Singh (ex-dacoits) and Madho Singh they worked day and night, not caring about their personal safety. The dacoits had to be traced in their hideouts, deep in the jungles and ravines. The Madhya Pradesh police had created an undeclared peace zone to make mobilization easier. JP came into personal contact with the dacoits when he camped at the Pagara Dak Bungalow 70 kms. away from Gwalior and situated atop a hill. The dacoits with their families had been camping in the village of Dhorera down the hill. Dhorera, an otherwise sleepy village, won world-wide fame almost overnight. The first to come to meet JP was Mohar Singh who carried the highest reward of Rs. 2 lakh on his head. The government was sceptical about his desire to surrender because, unlike Madho Singh's, his gang was intact and he was equipped with most modern arms. He told JP that his only condition for surrender was that he should be the first!

The dacoits formally surrendered in batches at the Mahatma Gandhi Seva Ashram in Joura, on 14 and 16 April 1972. Thousands watched them lay down their arms in front of a portrait of Gandhiji, and cheered them as they shouted "Mahatma Gandhi ki Jai", "Vinobaji ki Jai", "Jaiprakashji ki Jai." A wave of relief seemed to sweep the Valley of Terror.

(Adopted from 'Chambal Ka Bandooke, Gandhi Ke Charanon me' by prabhash Joshi, Anupam Mishra and shravan Kumar Garg)

http://www.gandhimuseum.org/sarvodaya/short/ev31.htm

Understanding the Gandhian ideal of Non-Violence -- II

For Gandhi Non-violence was an ideal and a religion in itself which he strived to observe in his personal life both in words and deeds.For him non-violence was an infinitely superior power.Non-violence was not his invention and the same was taught to the humanity by many great men in the past.As an ideal no one saw in it a means to achieve an end.

Gandhi put his ideas on non-violence in to action during the freedom struggle in the form of 'Satyagraha' to achieve the end 'Swaraj'.Swaraj didn't mean just political independence from the British rule but much more wherein all villages become self sufficient, the poor and the disadvantaged are not exploited but given a chance to live with dignity.

Non-violent action is not about inaction or passiveness.Many in our generation have a tendency to view it that way.One can understand it as fighting for a cause but not for punishing anyone.Gandhi's method of 'satyagraha' turned into a weapon in the hands of masses and even household women other than political activists.It brought people together, cutting across caste,religion and regional divides to fight for a cause for the first time in known history of Indian subcontinent.The nature of the grass root freedom struggle with a sense of participation and belonging among people has gone a long way in making the Indian nation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


There is nothing passive about Gandhian non-violent action.

Gandhi's non-violent action was not an evasive strategy nor a defensive one. Gandhi was always on the offensive. He believed in confronting his opponents aggressively, in such a way that they could not avoid dealing with him.But wasn't Gandhi's non-violent action designed to avoid violence? Yes and No. Gandhi steadfastly avoided violence toward his opponents. He did not avoid violence toward himself or his followers.

Gandhi said that the non-violent activist, like any soldier, had to be ready to die for the cause. The difference was that the non-violent activist, while willing to die, was never willing to kill.

Gandhi pointed out three possible responses to oppression and injustice. One he described as the coward's way: to accept the wrong or run away from it. The second option was to stand and fight by force of arms. Gandhi said this was better than acceptance or running away.But the third way, he said, was best of all and required the most courage to stand and fight solely by non-violent means.

From 'Mahatma Gandhi and His Myths'- By Mark Shepard
http://www.mkgandhi.org/faq/q14.htm

Understanding the Gandhian ideal of Non-Violence -- I

In the words of Gandhi:

The Doctrine Of Sword (Young India, 11-8-1920)


"In this age of the rule of brute force, it is almost impossible for anyone to believe that anyone else could possibly reject the law of the final supremacy of brute force. And so I receive anonymous letters advising me that I must not interfere with the progress of non-cooperation even though popular violence may break out. Others come to me and assuming that secretly I must be plotting violence, inquire when the happy moment for declaring open violence will arrive. They assure me that the English will never yield to anything but violence secret or open. Yet others, I am informed, believe that I am the most rascally person living in India because I never give out my real intention and that they have not a shadow of a doubt that I believe in violence just as much as most people do.

Such being the hold that the doctrine of the sword has on the majority of mankind, and as success of non-co-operation depends principally on absence of violence during its pendency and as my views in this matter affect the conduct of a large number of people, I am anxious to state them as clearly as possible.I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done, had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908,1 whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defended me, I told him that it was his duty to defend me even by using violence. Hence it was that I took part in the Boer War, the so-called Zulu rebellion and the late War. Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour.

But I believe that non-violence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment. Forgiveness adorns a soldier. But abstinence is forgiveness only when proceed from a helpless creature. A mouse hardly forgives a cat when it allows itself to be torn to pieces by her. I, therefore,appreciate the sentiment of those who cry out for the condign punishment of General Dyer and his like. They would tear him to pieces if they could. But I do not believe India to be helpless. I do not believe myself to be a helpless creature. Only I want to use India’s and my strength for a better purpose.

Let me not be misunderstood. Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will. An average Zulu is any way more than a match for an average Englishman in bodily capacity. But he flees from an English boy, because he fears the boy’s revolver or those who will use it for him. He fears death and is nerveless in spite of his burly figure. We in India may in a moment realize that one hundred thousand Englishmen need not frighten three hundred million human beings. A definite forgiveness would therefore mean a definite recognition of our strength. With enlightened forgiveness must come a mighty wave of strength in us, which would make it impossible for a Dyer and a Frank Johnson to heap affront upon India’s devoted head. It matters little to me that for the moment I do not drive my point home. We feel too downtrodden not to be angry and revengeful. But I must not refrain from saying that India can gain more by waiving the right of punishment. We have better work to do, a better mission to deliver to the world.

I am not a visionary. I claim to be a practical idealist. The religion of non-violence is not meant merely for the rishis and saints. It is meant for the common people as well. Non-violence is the law of our species as violence is the law of the brute. The spirit lies dormant in the brute and he knows no law but that of physical might. The dignity of man requires obedience to a higher law—to the strength of the spirit.

I have therefore ventured to place before India the ancient law of self-sacrifice. For satyagraha and its off-shoots, non-co-operation and civil resistance, are nothing but new names for the law of suffering. The rishis, who discovered the law of non-violence in the midst of violence, were greater geniuses than Newton.They were themselves greater warriors than Wellington. Having themselves known the use of arms, they realized their uselessness and taught a weary world that its salvation lay not through violence but through non-violence.

Non-violence in its dynamic condition means conscious suffering. It does not mean meek submission to the will of the evildoer, but it means the putting of one’s soul against the will of the tyrant. Working under this law of our being, it is possible for a single individual to defy the whole might of an unjust empire to save his honour, his religion, his soul and lay the foundation for that empire’s fall or its regeneration.

And so I am not pleading for India to practise non-violencebecause it is weak. I want her to practise non-violence being conscious of her strength and power. No training in arms is required for realization of her strength. We seem to need it because we seem to think that we are but a lump of flesh. I want India to recognize that she has a soul that cannot perish and that can rise triumphant above every physical weak- ness and defy the physical combination of whole world. What is the meaning of Rama, a mere human being, with his host of monkeys, pitting himself against the insolent strength of ten-headed Ravana surrounded in supposed safety by the raging waters on all sides of Lanka? Does it not mean the conquest of physical might by spiritual strength? However, being a practical man, I do not wait till India recognizes the practicability of the spiritual life in the political world. India considers herself to be powerless and paralysed before the machineguns, the tanks and the aeroplanes of the English. And she takes up non-co-operation out of her weakness. It must still serve the same purpose, namely, bring her delivery from the crushing weight of British injustice if a sufficient number of people practise it.

I isolate this non-co-operation from Sinn Feinism, for, it is so conceived as to be incapable of being offered side by side with violence. But I invite even the school of violence to give this peaceful non-co-operation a trial. It will not fail through its inherent weakness. It may fail because of poverty of response. Then will be the time for real danger. The high-souled men, who are unable to suffer national humiliation any longer, will want to vent their wrath. They will take to violence. So far as I know, they must perish without delivering themselves or their country from the wrong.

If India takes up the doctrine of the sword, she may gain momentary victory. Then India will cease to be pride of my heart. I am wedded to India because I owe my all to her. I believe absolutely that she has a mission for the world. She is not to copy Europe blindly. India’s acceptance of the doctrine of the sword will be the hour of my trial. I hope I shall not be found wanting. My religion has no geographical Limits. If I have a living faith in it, it will transcend my love for India herself. My life is dedicated to service of India through the religion of non-violence which I believe to be the root of Hinduism.

Meanwhile I urge those who distrust me, not to disturb the even working of the struggle that has just commenced, by inciting to violence in the belief that I want violence. I detest secrecy as a sin. Let them give non-violent non-co-operation a trial and they will find that I had no mental reservation whatsoever."

"Do or Die" - Speech on the eve of last fast

This is an addendum to the previous post on Gandhi's peace mission.Gandhi came back from Calcutta in Sep,1947 and was on his way to Punjab but the situation in Delhi made him to stay back.During his stay in Birla House he met thousands of refugees and other visitors.His daily prayer meetings helped in spreading the message of peace.When Delhi turned violent,he announced his 15th (and last) fast for establishing communal amity in the city.The fast began on 13th Jan,1948 and continued till 18th Jan,1948.He gave up the fast only after getting list of assurances to maintain communal peace from the community leaders under the mediation of Dr.Rajendra Prasad.

This is the speech written by Gandhi, read out by his associate in his presence(as Gandhi was observing silence day)on Jan 12,1948 after the prayer meeting at Birla house,New Delhi.

One fasts for health’s sake under laws governing health or fasts as a penance for a wrong done and felt as such.In these fasts,the fasting one need not believe in ahimsa.There is ,however, a fast which a votary of non-violence sometimes feels impelled to undertake by
way of protest against some wrong done by society and this he does when he,as a votary of ahimsa,has no other remedy left.

Such an occasion has come my way.When on September 9 I returned to Delhi from Calcutta,I was to proceed to West Punjab.But that was not to be.Gay Delhi looked a city of the dead. As I alighted from the train I observed gloom on every face.I saw even the Sardar, whom humour and the joy that humour gives never desert,was no exception this time.The cause of it I did not know. He was on the platform to receive me.He lost no time in giving me the sad news of the disturbances that had taken place in the metropolis of the Union.At once I saw that I had to be in Delhi and do or die.

There is apparent calm brought about by prompt military and police action.But there is storm within the breast.It may burst forth any day.This I count as no fulfilment of the vow to “do” which alone can keep me from death,the incomparable friend.I yearn for heart friendship between Hindus,Sikhs and Muslims.It subsisted between them the other day.Today it is non-existent.It is a state that no Indian patriot worthy of the name can contemplate with equanimity.

Though the voice within has been beckoning for a long time,I have been shutting my ears to it lest it might be the voice of Satan,otherwise called my weakness.I never like to feel resourceless;a satyagrahi never should.Fasting is his last resort in the place of the sword—his or others.

I have no answer to return to the Muslim friends who see me from day to day as to what they should do.My impotence has been gnawing at me of late.It will go immediately the fast is undertaken.I have been brooding over it for the last three days.The final conclusion has flashed upon me and it makes me happy.No man,if he is pure,has anything more precious to give than his life.I hope and pray that I have that purity in me to justify the step.I ask you all to bless the effort and to pray for me and with me.

The fast begins from the first meal tomorrow(Tuesday).The period is indefinite and I may drink water with or without salts and sour limes.It will end when and if I am satisfied that there is a reunion of hearts of all communities brought about without any outside pressure,but from an awakened sense of duty.

The reward will be the regaining of India’s dwindling prestige and her fast-fading sovereignty over the heart of Asia and therethrough the world.I latter myself with the belief that the loss of her soul by India will mean the loss of the hope of the aching,storm-tossed and hungry world.Let no friend or foe,if there be one,be angry with me.There are friends who do not believe in the method of the fast for reclamation of the human mind.They will bear with me and extend to me the same liberty of action that they claim for themselves.

With God as my supreme and sole counsellor,I felt that I must take the decision without any other adviser.If I have made a mistake and discover it,I shall have no hesitation in proclaiming it from the house-top and retracing my faulty step.There is little chance of my
making such a discovery.If there is a clear indication,as I claim there is,of the Inner Voice,it will not be gainsaid. I plead for all absence of argument and inevitable endorsement of the step.If the whole of India responds or at least Delhi does,the fast might be soon ended.

But whether it ends soon or late or never,let there be no softness in dealing with what may be termed as a crisis.Critics have regarded some of my previous fasts as coercive and held that on merits the verdict would have gone against my stand but for the pressure exercised by the fasts.

What value can an adverse verdict have when the purpose is demonstrably sound?A pure fast,like duty,is its own reward.I do not embark upon it for the sake of the result it may bring.I do so because I must.Hence I urge everybody dispassionately to examine the purpose and let me die,if I must,in peace which I hope is ensured.Death for me would be a glorious deliverance rather than that I should be a helpless witness of the destruction of India, Hinduism,Sikhism and Islam.That destruction is certain if Pakistan does not ensure equality of status and security of life and property for all professing the various faiths of the world and if India copies her.Only then Islam dies in the two Indias,not in the world.But Hinduism and Sikhism have no world outside India.Those who differ from me will be honoured by me for their resistance however implacable. Let my fast quicken conscience, not deaden it.

Just contemplate the rot that has set in in beloved India and you will rejoice to think that there is an humble son of hers who is strong enough and possibly pure enough to take the happy step. If he is neither, he is a burden on earth. The sooner he disappears and clears the Indian atmosphere of the burden,the better for him and all concerned.

I would beg of all friends not to rush to Birla House nor try to dissuade me or be anxious for me. I am in God’s hands. Rather they should turn the searchlight inwards,for this is essentially a testing time for all of us.Those who remain at their post of duty and perform it diligently and well,now more so than hitherto, will help me and the cause in every way.The fast is a process of self- purification.

The Hindustan Times, 13-1-1948, and Harijan, 18-1-1948.

Source:Collected works of Mahatma Gandhi

http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/cwmg.html