Mahatma and Mahamana: Agreement within Differences

Introduction

Mahatma Gandhi (1869–1948) and Mahamana Malaviya (1861–1946), separated in age by 8 years, were towering figures of the Indian national movement. By the time Gandhi arrived on the Indian political scene, Malaviya had already carved a niche for himself in Indian public life. Having attended and spoken at the Congress sessions since 1886, he had steadily grown in stature, being bestowed with the honour of its presidentship at the Lahore session in 1909. In the political spectrum of the early nationalists, he represented largely its ‘Moderate’ opinion. His passionate selfless mission resulted in the founding of the Hindu University. In contrast, Gandhi had earned his reputation as a crusader against racial discrimination and inequality, through the innovative method of Satyagraha. Hind Swaraj (1909) reflected his broad impressions about the strength and weaknesses of the anti-imperialist struggle in India. His homecoming in January 1915 was the beginning of a life-long camaraderie between the two. Notwithstanding marked differences of opinion on significant political questions, especially during the Non-Cooperation movement, their relationship thrived on deep trust and reverence for selfless commitment of the other.

Malaviya served as a member of the United Provinces legislature (1902–1910), the Imperial Legislative Council, and later of the Central Legislative Assembly. He was the President of the Congress in 1909, 1918, and twice during its banned sessions in 1932 and 1933. He also steered and presided over the Hindu Mahasabha sessions during its formative phase. An unflinching supporter and leader of the anti-British struggle, he participated in the anti-Rowlatt Satyagraha, mobilised parties and groups for the Simon-boycott and the Civil Disobedience movement. He worked closely with Gandhi during the Second Round Table Conference. He was also instrumental in bringing about the Poona Pact and was a signatory to it. However, he was opposed to the principle of separate electorate and to the integration of Khilafat question with the Non-Cooperation movement. He disagreed with the idea of boycott of educational institutions, disliked the Swarajist policy of entering the legislatures and then creating obstructions, and stood up against the Communal Award as also the Congress’s attitude of indecisiveness on it.

Notwithstanding their occasional differences, Gandhi and Malaviya remained life-long associates fondly addressing each other as brothers. Gandhi even considered Malaviya as his conscience keeper, referring to him as Dharmatma [righteous soul]. Both were outstanding social and political leaders, and their life and discourse defied the conventional logic (or rather definition) of modernity. Both charted, in one way or the other, independent paths in their life. Malaviya, though being a leader of the Congress and the Hindu Mahasabha, would tow an independent line if he was not convinced of the party-line on important questions affecting the progress of the nation. Similarly, Gandhi would bring un-conventional methods in the anti-imperialist struggle. Both called themselves Sanatani Hindus. But while Malaviya practised the strict shastric [based on precepts or rules] prescriptions in his daily life and the broader Hindu moral order in public life, Gandhi had internalised the same moral order in his daily as well as public life. Both were strong advocates of reforms in the Hindu society and opposed the practice of untouchability. Equally important, both opposed the methods of violence even when adopted to achieve patriotic goals.

Impressions of Each Other

On the issue of removal of untouchability, fighting the indentured labour system, promoting cow protection, popularising Hindi, upholding Swadeshi, showing faith in Sanatanism and imbibing simplicity in personal lives, Gandhi and Malaviya were on the same page. While Gandhi was focussed on politics as a leader of the Congress and engaged in social and constructive works through his unique ways, Malaviya would, apart from leading the Congress, also work in the Hindu Mahasabha, Sanatanist organisations such as the Bharat Dharma Mahamandal and the Sanatan Dharma Mahasabha, and advocate Hindu sangathan [organic unity]. Gandhi was enamoured by Malaviya’s single-handed effort to found the Hindu university; the latter was highly impressed with Gandhi’s ascetic lifestyle and his unending crusade against discrimination and inequality. Writing on Malaviya’s seventieth birth anniversary, Gandhi fondly called himself a ‘worshipper’ of Malaviya:

Like in his dress and similarly in his thoughts, there has been a remarkable oneness, and I have found sweetness and bhakti in this oneness. Today, who can rival Malaviyaji in patriotism? From his youth till today, the spirit of his patriotism has flowed unabated. ¹

He also referred to Malaviya as ‘pratah smaraniyah’—a sage whose name, if taken in the morning, would lift one out of the mire of one’s sordid self. ²

Addressing the Hindu University students in November 1920, he remarked: ‘No doubt the University is Panditji’s very life, but it seems to me truer that India is his life. He is an optimist’. ³ Gandhi especially underlined qualities of compassion and patriotism in Malaviya, whose name, he concluded, was ‘magical for the people’. Specifying their love for each other as ‘more than real brothers’, he stressed that he did not consider anyone a greater patriot than Malaviya and there was no one, among the leaders present then, who served the country better than him. ⁴

Gandhi and Malaviya stayed together while in Amritsar during the Congress session in December 1919. Gandhi was impressed with Malaviya’s ascetically simple lifestyle. He very fondly recalled how being in the same room he could observe Malaviya’s daily routine in the closest detail. He was filled with ‘joyful surprise’ as the room appeared like ‘a free inn for all the poor’, accessible to everyone at all odd hours. ⁵ Addressing students at the silver jubilee convocation of the Hindu University in 1942, Gandhi highlighted Malaviya’s simple lifestyle and noble thinking and advised students to emulate him: ‘Look at the little house in which Panditji lives in utter simplicity and without the least splendour. You enter his room. There is no decoration and barest furniture.… May you be all models of plain and simple living and high thinking like Malaviyaji’. ⁶

Gandhi was also impressed by Malaviya’s skill in mobilising huge donations for the cause linked to the progress of the society. In January 1927, when Gandhi gave the message of khaddar [homespun cotton cloth] to nearly two thousand students of the Hindu University, he also admired how Malaviya had collected and was still collecting lakhs of rupees for them from the princes:

Panditji has cultivated the art of beggary. I have learnt it from him. If he specializes in laying the princes under tribute, I have learnt to be equally shameless in emptying the pockets of the poor, for the benefit of those who are poorer than they. ⁷

Then again in his address in the university in 1942, he complemented Malaviya for being the greatest ‘beggar’, underlining his ‘insatiable appetite’ to seek donations for public cause: ‘Even at this moment, Malaviyaji whispered into my ears that he had a good donation from the Maharaja of Darbhanga, our chairman’. ⁸

As the President of the Congress at its Lahore session in 1909, Malaviya appreciated the work being undertaken by Gandhi in South Africa. He drew attention to the deep feelings of indignation and grief throughout India due to the ‘the unjust, the cruel, the disgraceful treatment’ to which the Indians living in Transvaal had been subjected. He admired the ‘unflinching courage’ and ‘unbending determination’ with which Gandhi had been ‘fighting for the honour of the Indian name’ and appealed to the government of India to ‘actively resent and to retaliate the treatment’ accorded to the Indian fellow-subjects: ‘And the least that they ought to do is to withdraw all facilities for enlisting indentured labour for South Africa, until the white colonists there agree to recognize Indians as their equal fellow-subjects’. ⁹ Preceding this session, Gandhi had sent a telegram to Gokhale, following which Gokhale wrote a letter to the Times of India, which afforded a fitting opportunity for a review of the Indian situation in the Transvaal. ¹⁰ A resolution to this effect was moved by Gokhale at the Lahore session, appreciating the work of Gandhi in Transvaal, the first time that Gandhi’s name was mentioned in an official resolution of the Congress:

After the immortal part which Mr. Gandhi has played in the South African affair I must say it will not be possible for any Indian, at any time, here or in any other assembly of Indians, to mention his name without deep emotion or pride…He is a man, who may be well described as a man among men, a hero among heroes, a patriot amongst patriots, and we may well say that in him Indian humanity at the present time has really readied its high watermark. ¹¹

Funds were collected on the spot (₹18,000) for helping the work of Satyagraha being led by Gandhi. Women tore off their rings and bangles to collect funds. Malaviya cabled Gandhi: ‘Congress deeply appreciates and admires the heroic struggle of the brethren, urges continuance and promises the utmost support’. ¹² On 22 December 1916, Malaviya presided over a meeting of the Muir Central College Economic Society, Allahabad, where Gandhi delivered a lecture on economic progress versus real progress. In introducing Gandhi, Malaviya highlighted how his name was honoured throughout India and wherever Indians lived, and that he had also been appreciated by a large number of Europeans who understood his character. Malaviya felt it was always an instruction to him to read of the work Gandhi had done and of the life he had led. ¹³

Very early on, Malaviya and Gandhi had started posing deep trust in each other. During Gandhi’s struggle in Champaran in 1917, Malaviya wrote to him assuring of his services whenever required and at a very short notice. When Malaviya became the Congress President in 1918, he sought Gandhi’s suggestion for a young man to act as his personal assistant. Gandhi suggested the name of J.B. Kripalani who had worked very closely with him during the Champaran struggle. After this work was over, Kripalani joined the Hindu University as professor of political science. ¹⁴ On few occasions, Malaviya also discussed with Gandhi about prospective faculty members for the Hindu University. As an illustration, it was Gandhi who in 1919 persuaded Professor Dhruva, a noted scholar of Sanskrit, to join the university as the Principal of the Central Hindu College. Malaviya profusely thanked Gandhi for this gesture and also for recommending the name of N.P. Gandhi for organising the technological institute in the university. ¹⁵

Hindu University Foundation Ceremony, February 1916

Gandhi visited Hindu University on several occasions and addressed students. On all such occasions, he found Malaviya and the entire university fraternity to be receptive to what he said. After his arrival in India, Gandhi had not spoken his mind publicly on the issue of India’s problems and struggles under the British rule. He saw this opportunity during the foundation ceremony of the Hindu University in early February 1916. He and Annie Besant were the only prominent nationalist leaders on the occasion which included young students, select Indian princes and many high British officials. The Foundation ceremony (opening on 4 February 1916 and continuing until 8 February, i.e., the Vasant Panchami day) was also graced by Hardinge, the viceroy. Large number of provincial governors and senior government officials accompanied him. The select group of princes, around fourteen in number, were in their traditional royal dresses and consequently the ambience resembled a durbar. The city witnessed unprecedented security arrangements owing mainly to the presence of the viceroy.

Gandhi spoke on the third day, that is, 6 February 1916. Introducing him, the chairman, the Maharaja of Darbhanga, lauded that there could not be a better example to the young India than him who had given up on a life of luxury and comfort. Gandhi then made a long and powerful speech targeting several issues, for example, use of English as medium of instruction, dirt surrounding the sacred temple of Kashi Vishwanath, pompous display of wealth, excessive use of security for the viceroy reflecting lack of trust between the ruler and the governed, abhorrence of anarchism and violence. In his autobiography, Gandhi recalled the revulsion he felt at the pompous display of wealth by princes, extreme security arrangements in the city—all necessitated by the presence of the viceroy.

He detested the atmosphere of sycophancy which, he felt, was partially responsible for turning many civil servants ‘overbearing’, ‘tyrannical’, and at times ‘thoughtless’. ¹⁷ Compelled to ‘think audibly’ that evening, he warned many when he clarified that ‘no amount of speeches’ and nor any ‘paper contribution’ would bring self-government:

It is only our conduct that will fit us for it … If we are to receive self-government, we shall have to take it. We shall never be granted self-government. Look at the history of the British Empire and the British nation; freedom-loving as it is, it will not be a party to give freedom to a people who will not take it themselves. ¹⁸

However, it was the later part of his unfinished speech, related to unprecedented security and mutual suspicion, and his suggestions that it was better to be shot than to rule over such a country that created quite an unsavoury situation. Although he uttered those words with best of intentions, also criticising violent methods at the same time, it was enough to make the princes uncomfortable:

All of us have had many anxious moments while the Viceroy was going through the streets of Benares. There were detectives stationed in many places. We were horrified. We asked ourselves: ‘Why this distrust? Is it not better that even Lord Hardinge should die than live a living death?’ … But why was it necessary to impose these detectives on us? We may foam, we may fret, we may resent but let us not forget that India of today in her impatience has produced an army of anarchists. I myself am an anarchist, but of another type. But there is a class of anarchists amongst us, and if I was able to reach this class, I would say to them that their anarchism has no room in India if India is to conquer the conqueror.… But even so, I simply say this that I want to purge India of the atmosphere of suspicion on either side; if we are to reach our goal, we should have an empire which is to be based upon mutual love and mutual trust. ¹⁹

He was interrupted by Annie Besant in between (when speaking about anarchism). However, the Maharaja of Darbhanga had allowed him to continue but asked him to explain his objective. But Gandhi could see Besant whispering to princes, and thereafter the princes left one after another, and the chairman also left. At this moment, he stopped his speech. ²⁰ Sri Prakasa, a lecturer at the university at this time, recalled that Gandhi’s comment that it was better that the viceroy was shot rather than the town should be put in this stage of siege and people harassed to this extent triggered a commotion and made the princes restive. The big men who surrounded the dais started fluttering and after few interruptions, princes left and the whole meeting ended in confusion. ²¹

At this point, Malaviya came out openly in Gandhi’s defence. He told the gathering that Gandhi had spoken on his special invitation and that his sole intention had been to show how suicidal were the methods of violence. ²² He prevailed upon the local officials to desist from Gandhi’s externment. He underlined that Gandhi’s speech had been misunderstood as clarified that he (Gandhi) had merely said that because of the misguided action of few youth everybody had been put to shame. Government was unhappy with the Maharaja of Darbhanga for not keeping Gandhi’s speech under limit and with Malaviya for not repudiating what Gandhi had spoken. ²³ In a letter to the Maharaja of Darbhanga, a day later, Gandhi explained that his sole object was to air his strong views against all acts of violence and anarchy:

In common with most of us, I felt deeply humiliated that extraordinary precautions should have been rendered necessary for the protection of the person of one of the noblest of Viceroys when he was, in a special sense, our honoured guest in this sacred city. My mission in life is to preach and assist in securing the utmost freedom for my country but never by violence to the person of any human being, even under the greatest provocation. My speech was conceived to instil this lesson into the hearts of young men. ²⁴

Both—inviting Gandhi to the ceremony and requesting him to address the gathering, and then standing out to defend him against miscommunication—are a testimony of the deep reverence in which Malaviya held him. While Gandhi found the occasion appropriate to air his deeply held anti-imperialist sentiments, besides his abhorrence for violence and mistrust, Malaviya understood the spirit behind his utterances and quickly came to his defence. This incident brought them closer than ever before, a proximity that lasted their lifetime.

Together in Politics

Gandhi had been fighting the vagaries of indentured labour while in South Africa and had raised the issue at several forums. In 1916, this problem hogged the limelight of the nationalist opinion all over again. Malaviya led the agitation inside the central legislature and at public forums. This was one issue which brought Gandhi and Malaviya closer during the early years of their bonding. On 20 March 1916, Malaviya moved a resolution for the abolition of the system in the Imperial Legislative Council. In his speech, he talked about serious abuses that had cropped up under the system in different colonies and also drew attention to the establishment of recruiting depots at various places in India from where complaints of kidnapping and other objectionable practices had been received. While highlighting the intensity of indignation among Indians against mistreatment of their brothers in British colonies, Malaviya credited Gandhi for bringing the abuses to the public knowledge:

The Indian public was in a state of ignorance about the conditions to which Indians under indenture were subjected until the nineties, when Mr. Gandhi began to expose its evils. But both the public and the Government realised the seriousness of the problem when the subject was forced upon their attention by the anti-Indian policy of the Transvaal Government. Since then the condition of Indians in all parts of the world has been a matter for anxious consideration, and it would be no exaggeration to say that, since it was brought to the force, no question has exercised the public mind more or given rise to greater bitterness of feeling than the ill-treatment of Indians outside their country. ²⁵

He described it as an unmitigated evil that had worked enough moral havoc during the preceding eight decades. And it was only with ‘intense pain and humiliation’ that they could think ‘of the blasted lives of its victims, of the anguish of soul’ to which they had been subjected by the system. ²⁶ He referred to Gokhale’s resolution in 1910 on the prohibition of indentured labour to Natal, a recommendation which the government had accepted. And then 2 years later in 1912, Gokhale had brought another resolution calling for total abolition of the indentured labour which he had described as ‘a monstrous system, iniquitous in itself, based on fraud and maintained by force, a system so wholly opposed to modern sentiments of justice and humanity as to be a grave blot on the civilization of any country that tolerates it’. ²⁷ However, the most baffling part was that though every Indian member had supported Gokhale’s bill, the government had refused to accept it, promising only further inquiry. ²⁸

Calling the indentured labour system ‘a remnant of slavery’, Gandhi hoped if Malaviya’s resolution was accepted, it would enable Hardinge ‘fittingly to close his most eventful viceroyalty removing this long-standing and acknowledged grievance’. ²⁹ In accepting the motion of Malaviya, Lord Hardinge announced that he had ‘obtained from His Majesty’s Government the promise of the abolition of the system in due course’. Gandhi felt that a vague assurance against such a long-standing grievance was highly unsatisfactory. In the meantime, the viceroy had explained that ‘essential abolition’ meant abolition ‘within such reasonable time as will allow alternative arrangement being introduced’. ³⁰ Malaviya was convinced that it was the official majority in the council that was the real stumbling block. ‘If the representatives of the people had real and effective voice’ in the country’s administration, he believed, the ‘abominable system of indentured labour would have been put an end to many-many years ago’. ³¹ Lord Chelmsford, who succeeded Hardinge, was not allowing even a vague assurance. Therefore, in February 1917, when Malaviya asked for leave to introduce the bill, he refused it. Gandhi thought it was time to tour the country to organise an all-India agitation. ³² Malaviya’s bill—‘Abolition of Indentured Labour Act’—sought to prohibit departure of natives of India out of British India ‘under or with a view to entering into an agreement to labour for hire in any country beyond the sea other than the island of Ceylon or the Straits Settlements’. ³³ Gandhi valued Malaviya’s intervention highly in getting the system abolished. Speaking on Fiji affairs in Bombay on 13 July 1920, he advised those who wished to study the indenture question to go through the speeches of Gokhale and Malaviya in the Imperial Council. ³⁴

Both Gandhi and Malaviya had kept aloof from the Home Rule League movement. Malaviya was of the opinion that all movements seeking constitutional changes should be channelised through the Congress and, therefore, there was no need for any other organisation for this purpose. But when the government started targeting the movement in general and Annie Besant in particular, he frantically opposed such moves. In this endeavour, Gandhi and Malaviya again worked together. On 21 February 1917, when a resolution on the Defence of India Act was being discussed in the Imperial Council, Malaviya underlined that these special enactments had placed arbitrary power in the hands of executive officers. As an illustration, he pointed out to the clear misuse of certain provisions under this Act to restrain persons like Besant and Tilak from entering any area on ‘the mere suspicion that they were about to act in a manner prejudicial to the public safety’. ³⁵ In March, he led a delegation to the viceroy to protest against the government’s effort to stifle the Home Rule Movement.

In June 1917, Malaviya wrote to the editor of the Leader that although he had sharp differences with Annie Besant in the past, he admired her sacrifices for the cause of Indian progress and reform:

I hope she will be allowed to go on with her work. If she is exposed to suffering in that cause, thousands of Indians who have not been able to see eye to eye with her in all things, will think it their duty to stand by her and to follow her. ³⁶

Very soon, on 16 June, the governor of Madras ordered Besant’s internment. Both Gandhi and Malaviya, along with other leaders, vehemently criticised the step. Gandhi visited Allahabad to discuss the matter with Malaviya. On 10 July, in a public meeting in Bombay, Malaviya asked for resolute action. ³⁷ He also moved a resolution in the Imperial Legislative Council asking for her early release. In August, Montagu, the secretary of state, made an announcement in the British Parliament about the advancement towards responsible government and his intention to visit India shortly. Due to his intervention, Besant was released in September 1917.

In 1918, as the Montford Reforms were announced, Malaviya published a long critique of the report, pointing to ‘grave deficiencies which must be made up before the reforms can become adequate to the requirements of the country’. ³⁸ He demanded clear cut statutory provision that full self-government would be conferred on India within 20 years and that there should be no reserved subjects and no grand committees. ³⁹ A few months later, presiding at the Delhi session of the Congress in December 1918, he made a strong demand for self-government:

A Nation is entitled to administer its own affairs, and it follows that the people belonging to a Nation should manage those affairs. I ask you to determine that hereafter you will resent and resent the more strongly any effort to treat you as inferior people. I ask you to determine that henceforth you will claim with all the strength you can command that in your own country you shall have opportunities to grow as freely as Englishmen grow in the United Kingdom. ⁴⁰

Speaking passionately on the Rowlatt Bill in the Imperial Legislative Council on 6 February 1919, he painted it as ‘retrograde and repressive’ and also ‘subversive of so many ideas of justice for the protection of the liberty of individuals’. ⁴¹ Speaking in the Council again on 12 March 1919, Malaviya drew government’s attention to the tremendous opposition ever since the bill was introduced. He then advised the government not to ignore the opposition, more so when it was being led by Gandhi: ‘When a saintly man like Mr. Gandhi was taking the lead in the passive resistance movement, that was a matter for government to ponder’. ⁴² Very soon, he resigned from the Council in March 1919 as a mark of protest against the forced passage of the Rowlatt bills.

All through, he showed deep faith in the Gandhian method of Satyagraha. So, when Gandhi gave a call for Satyagraha against this black law, Malaviya wholeheartedly supported his lead. He refused to sign the Moderate leaders’ statement denouncing Gandhiji’s proposed Satyagraha movement against the Rowlatt bills. ⁴³ In a public meeting in Allahabad on 11 March, Gandhi emphasised that in Satyagraha there was ‘no looking back’, and therefore there was no conception of defeat in it: ‘A Satyagrahi fights even unto death. It is thus not an easy thing for everybody to enter upon it’. ⁴⁴ Chairing the Satyagraha day mass meeting at Allahabad on 6 April, Malaviya enunciated the principles of the Satyagraha movement started by Gandhi and saw hope: ‘God often came of evil and through the Rowlatt Bills they had achieved that wonderful unity’. ⁴⁵

On 3 May, as All India Congress Committee (AICC) President, Malaviya sent a long telegram to the British premier and the secretary of state against the atrocities committed on Indians in certain regions. The forced passage of the Rowlatt Bills, he wrote, had led to popular peaceful demonstrations throughout the country, but the subsequent excesses by people were a direct result of the ‘needless unjustifiable action’ of the government against ‘so revered a personality as that of Mr. Gandhi’. He said that by not allowing Gandhi to travel to Delhi and the Punjab, the government had disallowed peace a chance. Tranquillity was rapidly restored in Ahmedabad by Gandhi’s presence whereas Punjab continued to witness horrible methods of repression under the martial law like ‘public flogging of citizens in the streets, dropping of bombs from aeroplanes, the wholesale firing on the people assembled in the streets’. ⁴⁶

Malaviya and Gandhi worked in close coordination during the developments after the Jallianwala Bagh tragedy and the martial law regime in the Punjab. The AICC meeting on 8 June appointed a nine-member inquiry committee under Malaviya’s chairmanship. The committee included Rash Behari Ghosh, Motilal Nehru, Hasan Imam, B. Chakravarti, C. R. Das, Kasturi Ranga Iyengar, Umar Sobhani and Gokaran Nath Misra. Malaviya, along with Motilal, took charge of the inquiry. ⁴⁷ After the announcement of the Hunter Committee to enquire into the Punjab disturbances was made by the viceroy in early September, Gandhi felt the important task was now to ensure that people in the Punjab were given a free atmosphere to work, and then there was ‘comfort in the thought that the ever vigilant and ubiquitous Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviyaji is there, assisted by Sanyasi Swami Shri Shraddhanandji and the indomitable Pandit Motilal Nehru. We need not fear the consequences’. ⁴⁸ Malaviya stayed on in the Punjab for several months, working with victims of the martial law. Gandhi was co-opted later and joined in October. On the question of boycott of the Hunter Committee, Gandhi, Malaviya, Motilal, Andrews and others had long discussions. While the members took into account the fact that enthusiasm was generally short-lived, Malaviya also reminded them of weakness during such struggles. ⁴⁹ Subsequently, during Amritsar Congress in December 1919, Gandhi and Malaviya stayed and deliberated together. Speaking at Nasik a year later, Gandhi announced that the efforts of Malaviya and Motilal had ‘saved the lives of thousands of innocent Hindus and Muslims in Punjab’. ⁵⁰

Stand-Off on the Non-Cooperation and Boycott

Gandhi was keen to launch a programme of non-cooperation over the issue of Punjab wrongs and Khilafat. At a joint Hindu–Muslim conference in Delhi in March 1920, a discussion on the issue was commenced, led by leaders such as Gandhi, Malaviya, Lajpat Rai, Tilak, Ansari, Azad, Shaukat Ali, Ajmal Khan. The inconclusive discussions were resumed at the AICC meeting on 28–30 May 1920. As consensus on strategy continued to be elusive, the final decision was left for a special meeting of the Congress to be held in Calcutta in September 1920. Gandhi, however, started making his preparations. Under the Swadeshi programme, Gandhi placed the main stress on khaddar. Referring to Malaviya’s resolve of promoting the cause of Swadeshi and installing of looms, Gandhi asked: Why did Malaviya say so?

Then, in one of his lyrical notes in Young India on 21 July 1920, lauding the efforts of Malaviya, he concluded that ‘slowly but surely’, the music of most ancient machine of India was once more ‘permeating society’:

Pandit Malaviyaji has stated that he is not going to be satisfied until the ranis and the maharanis of India spin yarn for the nation, and the ranas and the maharanas sit behind the handlooms and weave cloth for the nation.… Well may Panditji hope to persuade the royalty of India to return to the ancient calling of this sacred land of ours. ⁵²

However, on the question of starting non-cooperation movement, Malaviya raised a general apprehension. He was sympathetic to the cause of Khilafat. He joined the deputation that waited on Chelmsford in January 1920, and also attended the Khilafat conferences. However, he was not in the favour of launching a mass movement for the Khilafat under the circumstances as existed then. He was especially unhappy about the boycott of educational institutions: ‘I do not agree with Mahatmaji on the subject, but I do not wish to say anything publicly as I do not want the Government to feel that we are divided amongst ourselves’. ⁵³ Many leaders such as Besant, Malaviya, Motilal, Sapru and Jinnah did not think that non-cooperation was either necessary or practical. This made Gandhi apprehensive of their support. He, therefore, announced launching the movement on 1 August 1920. Malaviya appealed to Gandhi to postpone it until the special session of Calcutta. Gandhi was, however, not convinced as he thought that if one had an unshakable faith in a policy, then it would be folly to wait for the Congress pronouncement:

The Hon’ble Pundit Malaviyaji, for whom I entertain the highest regard and whom I have so often described as dharmatma, has appealed to me both publicly and privately to suspend non-cooperation till the Congress has pronounced upon it…. I would do much and give much to please Punditji. I am anxious to receive his approbation and blessing for all my actions. But a higher duty requires me not to turn from the course mapped out by the Non-cooperation Committee. There are moments in your life when you must act, even though you cannot carry your best friends with you. The “still small voice” within you must always be the final arbiter when there is a conflict of duty. ⁵⁴

During the special session of the Congress at Calcutta in September 1920, the non-cooperation resolution moved by Gandhi was debated in the Subjects Committee for three days and then got its way with 144 in favour and 132 against. Lajpat Rai, C.R. Das and Malaviya were in opposition. Motilal, who had opposed non-cooperation earlier, now extended his support to the resolution. Muslims had attended this session in large numbers. Lajpat Rai, delivering the presidential speech, felt sorry that Gandhi had considered it necessary and proper to tack the Congress to the Khilafat Committee. ⁵⁵ In his concluding speech at this session on 8 September, Gandhi made mention of his special relationship with Malaviya and begged to differ:

I owe a great deal to Pandit Malaviya. The relations that subsist between him and me the country does not know. I would give life to placate him, to please him and follow him, at a respectful distance. But when it becomes a matter of sacred duty and conviction I hold that I am absolved from any obligation to follow him. I know that he absolves me from any such obligation of following him and if I, who venerate him, adopt a course different from his, you will understand that I am absolutely serious and sincere when I ask everyone in this pandal to use his own individual judgment and not to be carried away in the slightest degree by my personality. ⁵⁶

In bringing the meeting to a close on 9 September 1920, Malaviya said that although he had the greatest regard and affection for Gandhi, it was his most painful duty to differ from him entirely in regard to the resolution of the Congress on non-cooperation. He was, therefore, determined to pursue a course of action different from that adopted by the Congress, to remain in the Congress and at the same time seek election to the Legislative Council. ⁵⁷ He re-visited his decision to enter the Council though. In October 1920, after a stormy session of the UP Provincial Political Conference, which decided in favour of non-cooperation, Malaviya declared his intention not to contest election to the legislature due in November 1920.

It was the boycott of the educational institutions that Malaviya opposed most fiercely. He was not convinced by the logic of boycotting or closing all educational institutions either controlled or financed by the government directly or indirectly. Neither was he convinced by Gandhi’s argument that if non-co-operators stuck to his programme, then Swaraj could be achieved within a year. To a question why he had not strengthened Gandhi’s hands by joining him, Malaviya replied: ‘Gandhi is after all a man and I think he is mistaken’. ⁵⁸ Gandhi felt that these educational institutions, established through a charter of the government, and receiving even a small grant, ought to be boycotted. Referring to the Punjab and the Khilafat wrongs, he blamed the government for robbing India of its self-respect: ‘Were a robber to rob us of our belongings and then come and ask us to attend a school founded with money from out of what he has seized from us’. And then referring to the opposition of Malaviya and Srinivasa Sastri, he said that these great men had failed ‘to recognize the poison which has infected the education provided by the Government’. ⁵⁹

Writing in Young India on 29 September 1920, Gandhi said that much was being written against the proposed boycott of the government-controlled schools and colleges. The proposal had been described as ‘mischievous’, ‘harmful’, ‘opposed to the best interest of the country’ and so on, and that Pandit Malaviyaji was among its most uncompromising opponents. ⁶⁰ On the same day, in a meeting of teachers in Ahmedabad, Gandhi refused to concede any ground: ‘Even Pandit Malaviya, founder of an institution like the Hindu University, is of the opinion that I am leading the public on the wrong path. Those who belong to the nationalist camp also have their doubts. Even so I believe I am right’. ⁶¹ Again, in an address to students in Surat on 6 October 1920, Gandhi pointed out:

Madan Mohan Malaviya, whom I have always revered, also believes that I have lost my head and that I am misleading the people. He thinks that it is dharma to enter councils and to attend schools. To my mind, it is a sin to enter councils and attend courts and an altogether heinous sin to attend schools. ⁶²

In a speech at UP Conference at Moradabad on 11 October 1920, Gandhi expressed ‘the extreme pain he felt at having to differ from his brother Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya’. However, he asked them to consider Malaviya’s views with great respect since he had an unbroken record of service in the country’s cause. ⁶³

But even these sharp differences on the issue of boycott did not bring any bitterness in their personal relationship. Gandhi visited Benaras in November on Malaviya’s invitation and stayed with him for 3 days. Accompanied by Kasturba Gandhi, Maulana Azad and other leaders, and with Malaviya in chair, he addressed students of the Hindu University on 27 November 1920:

My heart weeps also when I see you and behold these huge buildings. Today, in fact, it weeps the more because the life and soul of this University is my revered brother, Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya. I do nothing with which he is not associated. Ever since I returned to India I have been wishing that I may spend all my life with him.… I want to tell you that there is a sharp difference of opinion between me and my revered brother, and yet this has not diminished even in the least the reverence I have for him. I earnestly entreat you that even if you accept my views you should not let it affect the respect you have for Malaviyaji.… A difference of opinion cannot take away from the affection we have for each other. Our friendship cannot weaken and I am sure that your respect for him will not diminish either … If you decide to leave this place, do so after obtaining Malaviyaji’s blessings.… If your conscience does not give you a clear direction please follow Malaviyaji’s advice. ⁶⁴

Malaviya on his part defended his position, but allowed freedom to the students to join the movement if they felt convinced about it:

I do not believe in keeping birds in a cage. Those whose minds have turned away from studies and those who have resolved to leave should surely do. I have no feeling of hostility. Those who wish to stay should study diligently and regard it as service to the country … For you it is yet time for study. Let not the fate of immature Sanyasi befall you. It is our duty (meaning his generation) to establish self-government; it is your duty as students to devote yourselves to study. ⁶⁵

Gyanchand, professor of Economics at the Hindu University, recalled that Gandhi was received with great courtesy and respect and it was ‘the personal relationship of Pandit Malaviya with Mahatma Gandhi’ that acted as ‘a very important factor in making this confrontation between the two free from personal bitterness’. ⁶⁶ The number of students who left the university at this time was not more than one-tenth of the total and the number of teachers (with Kripalani being the most outstanding) who left was around ten out of two hundred. ⁶⁷

During 1921, after Reading had joined as the new viceroy, Malaviya played a significant role in bringing Gandhi and the viceroy on a common table. During May-June 1921, there were six meetings between the two. On the decision of boycotting the visit of the Prince of Wales, Malaviya prevailed upon the AICC in its meeting in July 1921 to tone down its call of boycott, arguing it to be against the Indian tradition of hospitality. Immediately after this meeting, Gandhi issued a statement that the prince’s arrival was not to be marked by strikes, but only by abstention from official celebrations. The prince was welcomed in the Hindu University where he had been invited beforehand, but the boycott of the prince was almost complete. Gandhi continued to be popular among the university fraternity. Years later, the news of Gandhi’s release from jail in 1924 sent the students of the campus into ‘ecstasies of joy’. The day Gandhi was released was celebrated by illuminating the buildings and holding meetings everywhere. ⁶⁸

In the 1923 elections to the Central Assembly, Malaviya contested as an independent candidate. Inside the Assembly, he helped form an Independent party/group consisting of non-party candidates. This group coordinated with the Swarajist candidates to form a group called the Nationalist Party to form a broad nationalist opposition in the central legislature. However, during 1925–1926, there was a schism within the Swaraj Party when a group led by Moonje, Jayakar, Kelkar and Aney styled itself as Responsive Co-operators. Malaviya tried hard to reconcile this group with Motilal’s faction by seeking a change in the strategy of the Swaraj Party inside the legislature and on the issue of acceptance of office. When his efforts failed, and with elections fast approaching, he formed in September 1926 the Independent Congress Party with Lajpat Rai as president and himself as secretary. ⁶⁹ During the end of 1926, election propaganda stooped very low with Swarajists’ incessant attacks on Malaviya. For the Banaras–Gorakhpur constituency of the Central Assembly, there was a clash between Motilal’s Sri Prakasa and Malaviya’s G.D. Birla, the latter winning the seat. When Birla sought Gandhi’s blessings for the contest, he was visibly annoyed: ‘What can I write about your entry into the Council? I have a fundamental difference of opinion with Malaviyaji on the subject. Decide from the point of view of service to the people’. ⁷⁰

Common faith in Sanatanism and Opposition to Untouchability

Malaviya remained a devout Hindu throughout his life. Brought up in a highly traditional and orthodox milieu in which shastric prescriptions were strictly followed, and having mastered Sanskrit at a very early age, he internalised the rigour associated with it. A moral and liberal streak of this tradition though kept on illuminating his outer word and impacting his worldview. A close associate, B.R. Rao, recalled that orthodoxy in Malaviyaji was nothing more than ‘righteous self-discipline prescribed by ancient texts’: ‘There was not the slightest trace of bigotry, fanaticism and intolerance in him’. ⁷¹ Explaining the profound impact of Malaviya’s knowledge and oratory of Hindu scriptures, Gandhi wrote in his autobiography:

Today I see that the Bhagavat is a book which can evoke religious fervour. I have read it in Gujarati with intense interest. But when I heard portions of the original read by Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya during my twenty-one days’ fast, I wished I had heard it in my childhood from such a devotee as he is, so that I could have formed a liking for it at an early age. ⁷²

During the introduction of the Hindu University Bill in the Legislative Council in 1915, Malaviya defended the provision for religious education: ‘I believe that where the true religious spirit is inculcated there must be elevating feeling of humility. And where there is love of God there will be greater love and less hatred of man’. ⁷³

As leader of the Hindu Mahasabha and Sanatan Dharma organisations, Malaviya impinged on the need to remove untouchability at an early date. As a committed proponent of Hindu sangathan and as a leader of the national movement, he felt this step to be indispensable for the progress of the community and that of the nation. Inside the Hindu University, he was keen to bring in students belonging to the depressed classes and provide them all the facilities. ⁷⁴ As a leader of the Hindu Mahasabha and Sanatan Dharma organisations, he actively preached the cause of providing equal rights to people belonging to the so-called untouchable castes. Under his leadership, the Hindu Mahasabha at its Gaya (1922), Benaras (1923) and Belgaum (1924) sessions put some step forward in this direction. At Belgaum, he urged Brahmins and non-Brahmins to remove misunderstandings and unite as part of the Hindu community and common inheritors of a great culture. ⁷⁵ Going beyond these organisations, he also argued with and convinced the pundits of the Oriental Faculty of the Hindu University about the need for providing equal status to these groups. Thereafter, he started the practice of shuddhi [initiation or reclamation] on the Dashashwamedh ghat [wharf] of Benaras.

Gandhi was very supportive of such initiatives. They together walked in procession to Dashashwamedh ghat on the occasion of the Shraddhanand day on 9 January 1927. Gandhi then spoke of the significance of Shraddhanand’s martyrdom—purification of self and of religion, and ceaseless striving after self-control. ⁷⁶ Malaviya continued to strive for Harijan upliftment. In April 1928, he again gave mantra-deeksha [initiation through sacred words] in Benaras. During the Congress week in Calcutta in December 1928, and in spite of strong opposition by some orthodox groups, he gave mantra-deeksha on the banks of Hooghly River. ⁷⁷ He continued with these efforts in subsequent years too. John Mott, an evangelist, had talks with Gandhi at Sabarmati in 1929. When Mott asked Gandhi about the ‘most hopeful sign’ which indicated that the practice of untouchability was ‘on its last legs’, Gandhi especially talked of Malaviya who took ‘pride in administering the mantra of purification to the untouchables by the bank of the Ganges, sometimes even incurring the wrath of the unreasoning orthodoxy’. ⁷⁸

Malaviya played a significant role during the crisis triggered by Gandhi’s decision to undertake an indefinite fast against the provision of separate electorates for depressed classes. No sooner had Gandhi announced his decision on 13 September 1932 to undertake indefinite fast from 20 September than Malaviya issued a statement calling for observance of 18 September (Sunday) as a day of penance, fast and prayer when all Hindus including the depressed classes should have a bath in any river or other public place and jointly offer prayers for the health and long life of Gandhi. ⁷⁹ All temples in his native town of Allahabad, including two belonging to his own family, were thrown open to Harijans on 14 September 1932. ⁸⁰ He called for a conference of Hindu leaders on 17 September at Delhi. The meeting was then actually held in Bombay on 19 September, attended by Sapru, Jayakar, Rajaji, Rajendra Prasad, Kaka Kalelkar, Ambedkar, Srinivasan and M.C. Rajah. A manifesto was drafted on 20 September at the instance of M.C. Rajah to be signed by all present, pledging to fight untouchability till it was completely eradicated. The conference then moved to Poona to help it to get the viewpoint of Gandhi more clearly, and finally an agreement was reached. Malaviya was a signatory to it. Malaviya then mobilised these Hindu leaders to assemble in Bombay on 25 September where under his chairmanship a carefully drafted resolution, pledging the Hindu community to the total eradication of the scourge of untouchability, was passed. ⁸¹

Together in Politics Again

During late 1927, Malaviya played a crucial role in mobilising the Hindu Mahasabha in supporting the Congress resolution for the boycott of the Simon Commission. Along with Moonje, Jayakar and Lajpat Rai, Malaviya prevailed upon the Mahasabha to fall in line with the boycott of the Simon Commission and a resolution to this effect was passed during the Madras special session of the Mahasabha on 29 December 1927. ⁸² Similarly, he was critical in soliciting the Mahasabha’s support in favour of the report of the Nehru Committee.

In the Calcutta session of the Congress in December 1928, Gandhi was forced to withdraw his original resolution and substitute it with a compromise resolution giving the British Parliament 1 year (instead of 2 years in the original resolution) to accept the constitution recommended by the Motilal Nehru committee failing which the Congress would revive non-cooperation. But when withdrawing his original resolution on which he had put so much force, Gandhi remarked: ‘Often the struggle between our own ranks is more prolonged, more exacting and even more bitter than the struggle against Government which is outside ourselves’. Malaviya felt disturbed: ‘The very considerations which have led Mahatma Gandhi to decide upon the withdrawal, constrained me to tender my opposition to that motion’. He drew attention to the fact that the original resolution itself was a compromise which had been drafted by Gandhi after discussions in which Motilal, Sengupta, Jawaharlal and Srinivasa Iyengar had also participated. ⁸³

During this time, and afterwards, until at least mid-1934, Gandhi and Malaviya appear to have shared common opinion on many issues of national importance. Prominent leaders of the Mahasabha, in opposition to the Congress decision, supported the Round Table Conference. However, once the euphoria created by Gandhi’s Dandi Satyagraha set in, some of these leaders like Malaviya, Aney and Kelkar declared their intention to lead the Civil Disobedience movement. ⁸⁴ Malaviya sailed along with Gandhi, Sarojini Naidu and G.D. Birla to attend the second Round Table Conference in London in 1931. During the conference, Gandhi protested against the attitude of treating the Congress as one of the parties, while he contended that it was the only all-India-wide national organisation bereft of any communal basis, and that it represented all minorities which had lodged a claim in the conference. Addressing the prime minister, Gandhi said:

I ask you not to try the patience of a people known to be proverbially patient. We speak of the mild Hindu, and the Mussalman also by contact, good or evil, with the Hindu, has himself become mild…. Were Hindus and Mussalmans and Sikhs always at war with one another when there was no British rule, when there was no English face seen there? We have chapter and verse given to us by Hindu historians and by Mussalman historians to say that we were living in comparative peace even then. And Hindus and Mussalmans in the villages are not even today quarrelling. In those days they were not known to quarrel at all. ⁸⁵

Malaviya, who spoke immediately after Gandhi, referred to the noble methods adopted by the Mahatma and appealed to the prime minister to grant freedom on an early date:

Mr. Gandhi exercises a most tremendous influence on the people of India, but I regret to say that even his influence will not be sufficient to satisfy the cravings of the people for freedom.… I have mentioned the case of Ireland. It may be said that in that case there was a war, and that an agreement was arrived at the end of a war. I hope, Mr. Prime Minister, you at least will not say so, because I am certain the method of war cannot compare with the method of non-violent civil disobedience or passive resistance which Mr. Gandhi has inculcated on the people to suffer wrong, to suffer injustice, to suffer pain and to suffer loss. But that method does not involve less heavy sacrifice than the method of violence and war, and I submit we should begin a new era in the history of mankind. ⁸⁶

Communal Award, Malaviya’s Stand, and Together Again

The AICC in its meeting in Patna on 18–19 May 1934, with Malaviya presiding, appointed the Congress Parliamentary Board (with not more than 25 members) to run and control elections of members to the legislatures on behalf of the Congress. Malaviya and Ansari were among the prominent members. It would select only such Congressmen as candidates who would be pledged to carry out in the legislatures the Congress policy as it would be determined from time to time. ⁸⁷ However, the party’s refusal to adopt an unequivocal position against the Communal Award and the White Paper disturbed Malaviya. Unable to get his voice across, he, along with Aney, resigned from the Board and formed the Congress Nationalist Party to ‘organise a campaign throughout the country against the Communal Award as well as the White Paper’. ⁸⁸ The new outfit played down its difference with the Congress, saying that while the candidates of both the parties, that is, the Congress (or the Congress Parliamentary Board) and the Congress Nationalist Party, will fight for ‘the same political programme’, the former will remain neutral on Communal Award and the latter will ‘oppose it tooth and nail’. ⁸⁹ It clarified that the voters, in effect, would only have to decide whether they would vote for the programme of the Congress Party plus neutrality towards the Communal Award or for the same programme plus opposition to the Award. ⁹⁰

Gandhi told Malaviya that it was quite possible to avoid ‘conflict and bitterness’ by jointly examining the position in each constituency on its merits, and ‘demonstrably weaker party retiring from competition’, and in any case leaving Aney and Malaviya’s constituency alone. And then posing his faith in Malaviya, Gandhi concluded: ‘I have known you in vain all these many years if I do not know that you will not do anything undignified. You have always distinguished between measures and men, and while attacking the former spared the latter’. ⁹¹ The Congress Working Committee met at Wardha on 9 and 11 September 1934 and discussed Gandhi’s proposal to Malaviya on the question of avoiding conflict between the two parties during elections. While there could be no agreement on the proposal for making the weaker candidate retire in each constituency, it decided not to contest seats where Malaviya and Aney were candidates as well as those in Sind and in the city of Calcutta. ⁹²

On 28 December 1935, Malaviya unveiled the golden jubilee commemoration plaque of the Congress at the Gokuldas Tejpal Sanskrit College, Bombay, the scene of the party’s founding session in 1885. ⁹³ By the end of 1936, when the Congress had repudiated the Communal Award, and as the Congress decided to contest elections under the provincial autonomy, the gulf between Malaviya and the Congress that had erupted during 1934 was almost bridged. The Congress working committee on 29 June–1 July 1936 hoped to find ‘ways and means to ensure cooperation’ with Malaviya. Its election manifesto, issued slightly later, stated categorically that its rejection of the Government of India Act, 1935 involved rejection of the Communal Award which was ‘wholly unacceptable being inconsistent with independence and the principles of democracy’. ⁹⁴

In October 1936, Gandhi visited Benaras to perform the opening ceremony of the Bharat Mata Mandir constructed by Shiv Prasad Gupta. The temple bore the image of the country in the form of a relief map. Malaviya, who also participated in the function, had a long discussion with Gandhi. ⁹⁵ When in December 1936, Malaviya attended the Congress session at Faizpur in spite of his ill-health, Gandhi was prompted to comment that Malaviya would go on like that until his very end. ⁹⁶ In March 1937, after the Congress had won a landslide victory in many provinces, Gandhi underlined that the powers bestowed to provincial governors under special responsibilities would hinder the idea of responsibility which the constitution professed to establish in the provinces. Zetland, the secretary of state, reacted strongly accusing Gandhi of not having read the Act and stating that a majority of Indian people would believe everything Gandhi said as ‘necessarily correct’. Malaviya came down on Zetland, condemned his statement and dubbed as futile the trotting out of outmoded arguments. ⁹⁷

During and after 1938, as Malaviya’s health deteriorated, his physical movement got severely restricted. But he continued to express opinion on the issues of national significance and provide guidance to the leaders and public alike. At the Haripura Congress in February 1938, he sent a message asking people to rally under the banner of the Congress since it was the common platform for all anti-imperialist organisations striving for country’s emancipation. ⁹⁸ A day before the launch of the Quit India movement in August 1942, he wired Gandhi appreciating his ‘noble endeavour to serve motherland and mankind’. ⁹⁹ The movement witnessed the most intense involvement of the Hindu University students. He vehemently opposed the entry of police in the university campus. He was, however, fiercely opposed acts of violence and appealed to students and public not to resort to anything which was against Gandhi’s principles. He also declared if Gandhi were to be removed from their midst, then the country would perish. ¹⁰⁰ When Gandhi was arrested, he asked the British authorities to release him immediately. Pattabhi Sitaramayya put it beautifully:

Then came the Grand Old Man of India, Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya, ripe in years as he was rich in wisdom to demand the release of Gandhi and his colleagues. He staked his demand upon a reply reported to have been sent by Gandhi to the charge-sheet furnished to him by Government. ¹⁰¹

In April 1946, in spite of his bad health, Malaviya travelled all the way to Delhi to meet the Cabinet Mission and to advise the Congress leaders and Gandhi not to agree to the country’s partition for the sake of its independence. This was the last time that the two giants met. On Malaviya’s death, Gandhi, who had been nursing the wounds of communal riots in the distant Noakhali, drafted a moving tribute:

Malaviya is immortal. Like the King of England whose death is proclaimed by the formula, “The King is dead; Long Live the King”, it may be said of Malaviyaji whom death had kindly delivered from physical pain, “Malaviya the adored of Bharatavarsha is dead, long live Malaviyaji.… His internal life exemplified purity; his life was as clean as it was simple. He was a repository of kindness and gentleness.… A spirit of accommodation was part of his nature.… His multifarious activities were a necessary result of his being singled out for selfless service. ¹⁰²

Concluding Remarks

Inviting Gandhi to address students at the silver jubilee convocation of the Hindu University in 1942, Radhakrishnan, the vice-chancellor, felt Gandhi’s presence and address on the occasion would be ‘a fitting crown to the magnificent achievement of Pandit Malaviyaji’ and expected Gandhi not to refuse on account of his ‘love for Malaviyaji Maharaj, and this institution’. Gandhi replied: ‘You do make yourself irresistible’. ¹⁰³ On 2 October 1944, on the occasion of his seventy-fifth birthday, when a correspondent sought a message from Gandhi, he replied: ‘I am not accustomed to giving messages on such occasions’. And then amidst laughter, he remarked: ‘I want to live for 125 years. But Malaviyaji cut it down by twenty-five years, when he wired to me that I must live for a hundred years’. ¹⁰⁴

Gandhi and Malaviya represented a rare camaraderie in Indian politics in the early twentieth century. Sharing many ideas in common, they had their sharp differences too, but always agreed to sail together. They understood and appreciated each other’s mind. It was a relationship born out of undying trust of each other and of a conviction and optimism about India’s progress and future. Among the various shades of leadership in the national movement, theirs was a relationship based on a natural affinity. In spite of marked differences of opinion during some crucial periods of history, they did not allow any misunderstanding to creep in. Their Sanatanist outlook, deep appreciation of India’s sacred literature, faith in God and dharma, selflessness of the highest order, and an unflinching faith in non-violence created a deep bonding. With this edifice strong, the rest followed naturally.