CHAPTER III

PLURALIST SOCIETY: A GANDHIAN PERSPECTIVE

GEORGE PATTERY

This paper is an enquiry into the nature of the components of `pluralist society' for India. Rather than arguing for such component from purely speculative philosophy, our starting point will be more sociological. The Indian social situation today presents a search for `primordial models' for social reconstruction. We shall enquire into one such primordial model, namely the Gandhian vision of society, and elaborate its essential features. Based on these features, we shall analyze more theoretically the nature of an Indian pluralist society. Our contention is that the request for freedom and selfless action resulting in suffering are two important constituents of a pluralist society. What is exercised in terms of Indian society seems to be equally valid for any pluralist society.

INDIAN SOCIETY

Master Narratives of Indian Society

Two master narratives dominate the sociological thinking about present-day India. Dumont's well known study conceived Indian society on the principles of hierarchy and totality. He gave the Brahmanic world view the status of objective truth and created a master narrative of Indian society as hierarchically based on the caste system.1 Thereafter, sociologists either actively rejected his model or tamely imitated his thesis.2 Another master narrative was fabricated by the colonial state and spoke of the eternal conflict between Hindus and Muslims, and the neutral mediator role of the British. Any instance of social conflict is seen as the inevitable repetition of this phenomenon.3

These two master narratives are the creations of the West, as part of their attempt to comprehend intellectually other cultures. In post-independent India, this discourse has been inherited by the nation-state. Today's political agenda cannot get beyond these stereotyped understandings. Any discourse about Indian society begins and ends on these two master narratives, and nation-state claims to be the sole authority to mediate on social problems. In the recent past, with the emergence of the Hindu revivalist party on the national political scene, the nation-state is increasingly claiming to be the sole authority to speak on Indian society, attempting to relegate all other agencies to the background.4 All agencies, including religion, are defined in a manner entirely consistent with the needs of the nation-state.

Community: A Sociological Perspective

In the background of these two master narratives and the claim of the nation-state to be the sole guardian of society, we would like to examine the concept of civil society, especially in the context of multi?cultures and religions. A sociological rather than a strictly philosophical approach is in order at this stage when we try to understand the nature of society as such. Community spatially bound, face-to-face with the sphere of human relationships, is based on an innate moral order.5 The most natural communities, like the family, have intimate human relationships and are bound morally. However, in modern times we have many more communities which do not fall into the natural community category. Sociologists speak of `imagined' or constructed community when talking about communities other than the natural ones.6 A constructed or imagined community ". . . consists of members who do not know each other in their concrete existence and yet, in each member, there lived an image of a larger communion."7 Such communities demand allegiance from people who have no concrete relations with each other. It fosters relations by creating images of communion and oneness.

In traditional societies like that of India, communities with multiple levels of relationships and moral agencies exist. However, the creation of a nation-state at the arrival of colonialism, and later by the independent India, led to increasing standardization of relationships. The nation-state, with its ideologies of nationalism and secularism and through its agencies of bureaucracy, legislation and judiciary, is encroaching upon and claiming the intimate loyalties of peoples. The increasing violence implied in the nation-state has led people to search for `identity groups,' and they nostalgically long for traditional models of communities.8 Indian sociologists are critiquing the pathologies of the nation-state and modernity, and are engaged in developing a concept of society that is more normal and healthy. In this search, they fall back on primordial identities.9 Gandhian social vision can be seen as one such primordial model for taking care of plural identities.10 Hence, An enquiry into Gandhi's social theory and vision might be a useful exercise as part of our enquiry into the nature of the pluralist Indian social fabric.

GANDHI'S SOCIAL THEORY

Gandhi's social theory evolved out of his engagement with life-issues and problems and also from his "experiments with truth" at the personal level. His social theory was not the result of philosophical analysis of social concepts, but the consequence of his engagements with the historical social forces of his time.

The development of his social theory had two phases: one of deconstruction, the other of reconstruction. The particular socio-political situation in which he lived and with which he struggled demanded a deconstructionive approach. It included deconstructing its colonial entrenchment from the fundamentalist forces.

This was not simply an attempt at political freedom from the colonial masters, but at deconstructing the understanding of Indianness and Indian society from the colonial constructions. The colonial construct of Indianness and Indian society had deeply affected the Indian psyche. The cultural deconstruction of India from the colonial construct occupied much of Gandhi's struggle. In the popular presentation of Gandhi, it is the political aspect of deconstruction in the narrow sense which is highlighted. However, the reconstruction of India formed the essential dimension of his program. In this attempt, he appealed to the `primordial traditions' of India. This `primordial appeal' should immediately be distinguished from the `primordialist approach' of the nationalist Hindus of his and also of our time. Their primordialism consisted of a `strategic' reference to a golden age in order to revive Hinduism; at the same time they are `syncretic' in adopting elements from Western developmental models and from organizational factors of Christianity.11 Gandhi's approach was different. He appealed to the mythological persons, cultural symbols and social systems of India's past to reconstruct India's present, not a past that is idealized but a past that embodies the essential and the ultimate values of life. His primordialism involved a faith-epistemic in constructing a society that is holistic, and that cares for the self-realization of the individuals. The master symbol of his social theory was `swaraj'.

Swaraj: A Primordial Narrative

Gandhi's social theories were already formed in 1908 when he wrote Hind Swaraj, during his return voyage from London to South Africa, in answer to the Indian anarchists whom he had met in London.12 Apart from its repudiation of modern civilization as based on power and wealth (greed), Gandhi elaborated his social theory based on `Truth and Non-violence'. That his social-manifesto was written as early as 1908 may prompt us to think that he would have changed much of it in the course of his life. However, he endorsed his theory as late as 1921 when he wrote: "The booklet was written in 1908. My conviction is deeper today than ever"; and again later in 1938 saying: ". . . after the stormy thirty years through which I have since passes, I have seen nothing to make me alter the views expounded in it [Hind Swaraj]."13

The two pillars of his ideal society are: genuine freedom, based on truth and non-violence, and selfless-action through suffering to achieve that freedom. Quoting James Allen, he said:

For ages the oppressed have cried for freedom and yet a thousand manmade statutes have failed to give it to them. `They can give it only to themselves; they shall find it only in obedience to the Divine Statutes which are inscribed upon their hearts. Let them resort to the inward freedom, and the shadow of repression shall no more darken the earth.14

Let us elaborate on these two notions in swaraj. Swaraj consists of striving for total freedom on a national scale that will guarantee real self-dependence and genuine interdependence. Gandhi's concept of swaraj meant that every village would be a republic or panchayat, having full powers as a self-sustained and self-dependent body, having the individual as the ultimate unit who would render his cooperation freely and willingly. The ultimate basis of the individual and the village-society is truth which is both a transcendent and immanent concept having non-violence as it operational principle.

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 center 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 for which they are integral units.15

The outermost circumference in this design would not wield power to crush the inner circle, but would give strength to all within and derive its own strength from it. Machinery would not displace human labor, nor would there be concentration of power in a few hands.

Gandhi preferred the Sanskrit word swaraj to the English expression `independence'. Swaraj meant rule of the self, where the self is a related entity: related to the nature, to others and to the ultimate. Here self is understood not as an isolated monad subsisting in itself and for itself. Here self is self of the Self which is the transcendent-immanent reality. It has immediately a transcendent reference which is the basis for its horizontal relatedness. The truth of the individual is the presence of the ultimate Truth. It is the realization of ultimate Truth that is the goal of the individual. Since all individuals are in the quest after Truth, they are related to one another in this search. This transcendent referentiality of all individuals gives them an axis and teleos that binds them freely and non-competitively. Swaraj presupposes the interdependence of the individual on others, nature and the ultimate. This inter-dependent nature of realities, this inter-relatedness and being-with-others constitutes the very core of the individual. Hence inter-relatedness is not an additional quality of the individual arrived at through a social contrast for the sake of socialization. The individual is related. This inter-relatedness presupposes pluralism which is not simply a philosophical concept in the Gandhian system, but an operational principle which immediately gives non-violence its legitimacy. The individual should not violate the Truth in others. This respect for the truth in others, and this relatedness with others non-violently is the path of self-rule or swaraj. It is the very striving after swaraj that takes care of swaraj.

In Gandhi's vision, this freedom or liberation is not an individualist affair. Freedom is a political reality: freedom from every kind of foreign domination; it is an economic program: freedom from oppressive and exploitative market-system; and it is more as well: freedom from every kind of inner compulsion and self-alienating desires.

Swaraj and Sarvodaya

For Gandhi, swaraj or freedom is not an anthropocentric project where human beings devise ways and means to achieve the highest social good through social contract and a manipulation of nature. It is based on the very nature of self, understood in its relatedness. The ultimate goal is mukti: the realization of the self. If so, in this search for liberation/freedom, how are we related to one another? The relationship is understood in terms of Swadeshi. Swaraj implies swadeshi, i.e., at homeness. This means being rooted in one?s immediate surroundings. As the entire creation is linked together, the correct mode of relating is to remain true to one's immediate surroundings. Fidelity to one's own earth and water will eventually prepare one for final emancipation and for reaching out to all, and thus achieving oneness with the entire creation.

At the social level swadeshi amounts to self-reliance and self-sufficiency. One does not become a burden to society, but relies on one?s own resources for subsistence.16 Swadeshi means:

. . . that spirit in us which restricts us to the use and service of our immediate surroundings, to the exclusion of the more remote. I restrict myself to my ancestral religion; if defective, I purge it from within. In politics, I use indigenous institutions; if defective, I improve upon them; in economics, I use the immediate surroundings.17

Swaraj as total freedom is true home-coming. Gandhi's vision of swadeshi is better expressed in the words of Edward Carpenter who also advocated the return to nature. He said:

In such new human life then -- its fields, its farms, its worships, its cities ? always the work of man perfecting and beautifying the lands, aiding the efforts of the sun and soil, giving voice to the desire of the mute earth -- in such new communal life near to nature, so far from any asceticism or inhospitality, we see far more humanity and sociability than ever before; an infinite helpfulness and sympathy as between the children of a common mother.18

Swaraj and Sarvodaya

Swaraj also means sarvodaya: the welfare of all. Gandhi's social theory envisages well-being for all, well-being that is oriented to self-realization of one and all. In this new society economic relations are not controlled by market-forces, but by social affections.19 Political economy gives way to `affective economy'; a mother, though hungry, may go starving in order to feed her son. Accordingly, Gandhi argued that affective resources could enter into all economic equations, and produce the maximum. If the spirit of the worker is brought to its greatest strength by the motivating forces of affection, it can produce more.20 Labor, with stable wages and constancy of numbers in employment, functions in terms of service, not in terms of profit, the wages being a necessary adjunct, not the object of life. But political economy is interested in production, preservation and distribution at the proper place and time of things that are useful and pleasurable, and the merchandising economy is interested in the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few, with legal claims and power over the labor of others.

Their vested interests create poverty and debt, on the one hand, and riches and power, on the other hand. Here riches or money means power over others, and this in direct proportion to the poverty of the men over whom power is exercised. The disgraceful record in human history is "Buy in the cheapest market and sell in the dearest." The chief value of money seems to be "having power over human beings". But power over human beings is available by other means than by money. In the ultimate analysis, we learn that persons are wealth, not silver and gold.21 If persons are wealth, then modern economics is the systematic disobedience of the first principles of religion. Swaraj really means self-control, and the right perception of what genuine richness is: Sarvodaya does not accept the utilitarian formula of the greatest good of the greatest number, but the greatest good of all and the readiness to die for it. It is possible on the basis of bread-labor and trusteeship whereby hoarding is avoided.

In the construction of a civil society, Gandhi introduces the quest for liberation or self-realization as the basic component. Search for liberation gives all the members a transcendent reference point and enables them to relativize everything else, and, at the same time, to be related to one another on a basis that is above themselves. By introducing a transcendent referentiality in the construction of civil society, Gandhi visualizes a civil society that is eco-friendly and theandric, not narrowly anthropocentric. It gives civil society a primordial character.

PEDAGOGY OF SWARAJ: FEARLESS ACTION AND SELFLESS SUFFERING

Swaraj is a primordial vision of a civil society. Such a social vision is realized through relentless search after Truth, through continuous action. Resisting untruth while holding on to Truth becomes imperative in the very formation of a civil society. In this engagement Gandhi's innovative reading of the Gita provides the key. The Gita in Gandhi's interpretation says: "No one has attained his goal without action. If we were to cease working, the world would perish. People need to engage in action."22 All actions do not lead to freedom. The uniqueness of the Gita consisted in providing the matchless remedy for attaining freedom -- the renunciation of fruits of action. Here renunciation means absence of hankering after the fruit. The renunciation in the Gita is the acid test of faith. Gandhi believed that he who brooded over the results was like someone given to objects of the senses, ever distracted and resorting to means fair and foul.23 When there is no desire for fruit, there is no temptation for untruth or himsa. Take any instance of untruth or violence, and it will be found that at its source was the desire to attain the cherished end.24 Such renunciation gives rise to fearlessness of action. "If we are unmanly today, we are so, not because we do not know how to strike, but because we fear to die. He is no follower of Mahavira, the apostle of Jainism, or of Buddha or of the Vedas who being afraid to die, takes flight before any danger, real or imaginary, all the while wishing that somebody else would remove the danger by destroying the person causing it."25 Alluding to Chapter XVI of the Gita, where fearlessness heads the list of the divine virtues. Gandhi said:

Fearlessness connotes freedom from all external fear, fear of disease, bodily injury and death, of dispossession, of losing one's nearest and dearest, of losing reputation or giving offence, and so on. . . . Some of us do not fear death, but flee from the minor illness of life. The seeker after Truth must conquer all these fears.26

Selfless and fearless action requires and results in suffering, Gandhi was less interested in solving philosophically the riddle of suffering than in involving himself in suffering in order to counter the manifold and engulfing violence. Differences, multiplicities and pluralists bring about violence when relationships are not for `liberation' and when actions are `result'-oriented. The single-mindedness of purpose in `liberation' and selfless action form the basis of civil society. Pain and suffering are not negative categories in the Gandhian vision, but agents in the formation of civil society.

In the context of satyagraha, Gandhi had spoken about the function of suffering in creating a moral community. Suffering is best understood in its historical and political context. However, without elaborating on the context, we shall dwell upon the function of suffering undertaken in the Gandhian vision.

(1) Suffering undertaken in the form of fast or self-discipline purifies the heart and makes one unattached: "Without inward purification, work cannot be done in a spirit of non-attachment".27

(2) In satyagraha, suffering would convince the agent of the power of injustice against which the struggle is undertaken and of the earnestness of the demand.28

(3) Suffering is the dynamics of human love. "Love does not burn others, it burns itself".29

(4) "Non-violence in its dynamic condition means conscious suffering. It does not mean meek submission to the will of the evil-doer, but it means putting one's whole soul against the will of the tyrant."30 Suffering is a program of transformation of relationship.

(5) Suffering is a more efficacious and more manly method of representation. "My faith in the efficacy of quiet but continued suffering is much greater than in negotiation and public agitation, though I am aware that both are part of the struggle, in so far as the struggle represents strong and weak parties alike."31

(6) The fearless self-suffering for a righteous cause overflows into infinite compassion (karuna) and benevolent friendship (maitri), doing good even to evil-doers and reaching out to all in love.32

(7) Fasting, as a protest against an injustice, awakens the sleeping conscience either of the loved ones, of the society or of the ruler (tapas = heat produced from single-minded devotion). Fasting is not a means to force someone into action. A genuine fast is a direct act of resistance to untruth; it is an immediate appeal to the conscience of the wrong-doer; it relies on one's inner spiritual strength. In this sense fasting epitomizes the meaning of suffering in non-violent resistance as an eminently "transformative pedagogic act."33 The therapeutic value of suffering and of bodily inscriptions of freedom is matter for a full paper which we shall not attempt here.

In the immediate context of Gandhi's struggle against colonial power, suffering was aimed at convincing the imperial power of the earnestness of the struggle and the immensity of the injustice. However, already at that time Gandhi had employed suffering in bringing about a moral community out of the society shattered by immense oppression and communal violence. As Lord Mountbatten remarked at the instance of the immense communal violence and massacre following the partition of India, Gandhi and his fast was the `one man army' between the warring communities and the nation. In the reconstruction of village communities, in the context of the many poor and the many religions, self-suffering love played the important role. For Gandhi, this suffering is not simply theoretical, but practical, and is undertaken in simple bodily actions or by undergoing physical pain. The body plays an important role in creating and forging communities. The violated bodies of satyagrahis during the salt march, or his own body during the Delhi fast played an important role increasing a moral community of the masses of India.

Moreover, in this non-violent, selfless suffering, Gandhi attributed a greater role to women in Satyagraha. Gandhi believed that women had a greater capacity for suffering and therefore a greater role to play in the forming of societies. The limits of this paper do not permit elaboration on these points. However, we need to take note of the role of suffering, of body, and of women in the composition of societies. Gandhian components of modern society are different from the philosophical categories, especially in the West. Swaraj is to be inscribed in the body, which is the primary swadesh.

In talking about freedom and selfless action and suffering, body and women as the components of a civil society specially in the context of many cultures and religions Gandhi introduced non-academic categories into academic discussion. That was Gandhi's strength and weakness: his strength because he introduced "human categories and affections" into academic discussion; his weakness because he was dismissed by the academicians as too moralistic and utopian. However, more and more anthropological studies on modern societies affirm the role and function of suffering and pain in forging communities. I shall briefly refer to one such study undertaken by Veena Das on the "Critical Events in India Society" and to the excellent concluding chapter entitled "The Anthropology of Pain".

Anthropology of Pain in Constructing a Pluralist Society

In her study of the critical events in recent Indian history, Veena Das holds that the voice of the victims is not heard through the language of the professional and of the state. They do not have the conceptual structures to hear the voice of the victims.34 In the memory of an event, as it is organized and consecrated by the State, only the voice of the expert is embodied. From her analysis, Veena Das draws two important conclusions: pain often destroys the capacity to communicate, and pain creates a moral community out of those who suffer.35 What is interesting for our purpose is the way in which anthropologists are bringing the categories of pain and suffering into their discourse. From a sociological point of view, it has been stated that pain is the medium through which society establishes its ownership over individuals, and pain is the medium available to an individual through which historical wrong done to a person can be represented either by describing individual symptoms or in the form of a memory inscribed on the body. Initiation rituals of various communities represent the former, while inflicted pain during a riot or suffering self-undertaken in a struggle exemplify the latter.

What is further interesting is the point that pain is experienced in and carried by the body. In the initiation rituals, through inflicting pain, the society integrates its members into a single moral community. It tests the capacity of the members to resist, and thus the quality of the members is reassured. The body becomes the memory of initiation. The societal law is written on the body. Pain inscribed in the body is the medium by which the individual is linked with society. Pain, as in the case of the totem, is the price for belonging. Pain in other cases can be the somatized form of social criticism.36 It is the condensed expression of the trauma of the individual and is read as a "bodily criticism" of injustice. Somatic signs are signs of historical wrongs. Through these, the individual resists total incorporation into an "unjust" society.

In the case of the partition riots, names of the new nations were tattooed on the secrets of women -- where women's bodies were considered another territory. The Hindus for polluting the purity of Islam; Muslims for introducing foreign elements into the Bharat; each punishes the other by inflicting pain on women, so that the memory of the indignities would haunt the future as well. Torture claims their most precious possession, i.e., violent dialogue is conducted through the bodies of women.37 Bodies of women marked by rape, or victims of industrial disaster -- all are evidence that the "body is the surface on which the political program of both the state and industrial capital are described."38

According to Veena Das, the partition discourse in the Constituent Assembly did not create public space (neither real nor theatrical) where victims could narrate the experience; acknowledge their suffering, or hear exemplary instances of altruism with redemptive possibilities. No therapeutic space was created to let the private experiences of pain move out into the realm of publicly articulated experiences of pain.39

Durkheim spoke of creating a moral community through the sharing of pain, where the individual pain is collectively experienced. Pain and suffering have the sociological function of inscribing memories in the body, of sharing the pain and forming a moral community. Pain can be communicated, and one can locate pain outside one?s body.40 Wittgenstein's analysis of `pain discourse' contends that by relating pain to others, we create relationships with people, giving birth to moral communities. Through the sharing of pain, they create one body. When another consents to form one body, even if it is with an ill body, this exerts a healing force. The experience of suffering (if not done to consolidate authority or discipline) can be the occasion for forming one body and voice. Construing memory through the common sharing of pain can be healing and integrating.41

Pain and suffering, as experienced and communicated by the victims, contribute towards creating and healing communities. At the deconstructive phase of Gandhian struggle, this was evident. Besides, Gandhi in his body `symbolized' the suffering of the colonized people and carved a `moral force' out of the unorganized and dispersed millions of people of India. What is significant for us is to reflect upon the role and function of pain and suffering in the construction of civil communities. In Gandhian social theory, suffering and pain are agents in constructing civil society. Suffering is not a negative category nor is it glorified in an unhealthy way. It is seen as an anthropological phenomenon in the relentless process of engagement with a life of action that is oriented towards liberation.

In short, proceeding from a sociological starting point, we argued that in its search for identities in the wake of the emergence of a powerful and homogenizing nation-state, people are looking for `primordial identities' where there is space for their transcendental aspirations and living pluralities. The Gandhian model was one such primordial vision. Its basic components were a search for total liberation and selfless action, leading to self-suffering love. Gandhi brings two non-academic categories into the discussion of the formation of pluralist societies.

NOTES

1. I. Dumont, Homo Hierarchicus: The Caste System, and Its Implications (London: George Weidenfeld and Nicholson. 1971).

2. Veena Das, Critical Events: An Anthropological Perspective on Contemporary India (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1995), pp. 35-36.

3. Ibid., p. 43.

4. For the extended analysis of Indian Nation-State and its over-powering role, see Ashis Nady, Traditions, Tyranny and Utopias: Essays in Politics of Awareness (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1987).

5. Critical Events, p. 50.

6. Cf. p. 46 of Critical Events; also Romila Thapar, "Imagined Religious Communities? Ancient History and the Modern Search for a Hindu Identity," in Modern Asian Studies. (May, 1989), pp. 209-231. 7. Critical Events, p. 46.

8. Sudhir Kakar, "Reflections on Religious Group Identity," in Seminar (Feb., 1993), pp. 50f; Ashis Nandy. "Terrorism -- Indian Style," in Seminar (Jan., 1993), p. 38.

9. Traditions, Tyranny and Utopias, p. 139.

10. George Pattery, Gandhi: The Believer (Delhi: ISPCK, 1998), pp. 151-159.

11. Christophe Jaffrelot, "Hindu-Nationalism: Strategic Syncretism in Ideology Building," in Economic and Political Weekly (March 20, 1993), pp. 517-519.

12. Mahadev Desai, in his preface to the new edition of Swaraj (Ahmedabad: Navajivan, 1939), p. 14.

13. Cf. Young India (1 Jan., 1921) The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, in 92 vols. (New Delhi: The Publications Division of Government of India, 1958-), XIX, pp. 177-179. Henceforth cited as CW. Cf. also The introduction to Hindu Swaraj, Revised Edition (1939), p. 18.

14. Young India (1 Nov., 1928); `Notes' in CW, XXXVIII, p. 1. Young India is one of the papers regularly edited by Gandhi.

15. Hanrijan, `Independence' (28 July, 1948). CW, LXXXV, p. 32. Harijan is one of the papers edited by Gandhi.

16. Indian Opinion, `New Year' (2 Jan., 1909); CW, IX. p.118. Indian Opinion is one of the papers edited by Gandhi in South Africa.

17. Young India (21 May, 1919). As quoted in Raghavan lyer, The Moral and Political Writings of Mahatma Gandhi, 1-Ill (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987). (Henceforth cited as MPW), III, pp. 326-327.

18. Edward Carpenter, Civilization: Its Cause and Cure and Other Essays (London: Swan Sonnenschein & Ca, 1889), p. 41.

19. M.K. Gandhi, Unto This Last : A Paraphrase of Ruskin (Navajivanz: Ahmedabad, 1951), p. 1.

20. Unto This Last, p. 8.

21. Ibid., p. 41-42.

22. "Anasaktayoga: The Message of the Gita," in The Gospel of Selfless Action or the Gita according to Gandhi, by Mahadev Desai (Ahmedabad: Navajivan, 1984), p. 131.

23. Ibid., p. 122.

24. Ibid.

25. CW, XIII, p. 298.

26. CW, XLIV, p. 114.

27. Mahadevbhaini Diary, I, p. 378. As quoted in MPW, II, p. 109.

28. CW, IX. p. 520.

29. CW, XLII. p. 491; CW, XLIII, p. 380.

30. Young India (11 Aug., 1920); CW, XLIV, p. 58.

31. CW, IX, p. 400.

32. Young India (25, Aug., 1925).

33. Cf. James W. Douglas, The Non-Violent Cross (New York: The McMillan Company, 1970), pp. 48-76.

34. Critical Events, p. 175.

35. Ibid., p. 176.

36. Ibid., p. 178.

37. Cf. Ibid., pp. 184-186.

38. Ibid., p. 190.

39. Ibid., p. 191-192.

40. Ibid., p. 195.

41. Ibid., p. 196.