Abstract
As indicated in the title, this book can be viewed as a file containing materials pertaining to issues related to the assassination of M.K. Gandhi. More specifically, the dossier is a handy compilation of already published pieces of writing that interrogate and negate certain claims related to Gandhi’s assassination advanced by proponents of the Hindutva ideology; the collection is preceded by an introduction authored by Teesta Setalvad. The book includes a first English translation of Jagan Phadnis’s book Mahatmyache Akher (End of the Sage). Much of the material in Beyond Doubt rebuts the framework that wants to link Gandhi’s assassination to the partition of the subcontinent, and the issue of the payment of rupees fifty five crores by India to Pakistan. The main aim of the collection is to question and refute the bid by Hindutva ideologues to ‘alter the understanding of the circumstances of Gandhi’s killing in the public mind’ (p. 11). By doing so, the book also reflects an aspiration to clarify what Gandhi stands for, and this is important given the way different constituencies in present-day India are seeking to appropriate Gandhi for their particular political visions.
Most of the compilation is placed in a section called ‘Rebuttal of the RSS Story’ (pp. 59–64). The lengthiest inclusion there is Jagan Phadnis’s aforementioned book, which seems to exemplify the thrust of the dossier. Phadnis is concerned with the provision of painstaking detail to clarify historical facts related to the partition of the subcontinent and the issue of the handing over of rupees fifty five crores by India to Pakistan. By doing so he, along with other figures whose work is included in this compilation, wants to redirect public attention to what they consider to be at the core of Gandhi’s assassination. To get a sense of that core, it is worth quoting Phadnis:
So long as the influence of Gandhiji’s ideology existed, the Hindutva ideology could not have spread. It was for this reason that Gandhiji was murdered, and attempts were made to murder him even before the issue of partition and 55 crore rupees arose. This is the actual reason why Gandhiji was killed by Hindutva forces. If they tell this truth to the people, then the people will hate them. Hence they conceal the true reason and put forth the reasons of partition and 55 crore rupees in order to gain the sympathy of the people. The Hindutva forces are well versed in the art of blaming Gandhiji, even to the extent of saying that he was blood-thirsty and a traitor to the country. (Phadnis, p. 141)
But what is it about Gandhi’s ideology that thwarted the spread of Hindutva ideology? One answer advanced by the different pieces in the collection relates to Gandhi’s vision of ‘communal amity’ (pp. 3, 63, 129) or Hindu–Muslim unity (pp. 142–43) and how that functioned as an eyesore for advocates of Hindutva and other communally inclined forces. Such an answer pits Gandhi squarely on the side of secular and inclusive nationalist ideologies that were aligned to the ‘notion of composite Indian nationhood’ (pp. 3, 129).
However, be that as it may, the pieces in the book that want to rebut the charges pinned by Hindutva forces tend to align Gandhi with secularism and inclusive democracy without adequately identifying the distinctiveness of the Gandhian vision of political community. While that vision is grounded in equal respect for all religions, it differs from the frameworks of politics associated with nationally oriented orders, whether liberal-democratic or exclusionary-religion-based ones. Admittedly, the dossier seeks to expose how Hindutva forces have misrepresented the discourse around the assassination of Gandhi. In addition, a lot of the materials supplied to facilitate this aim extol, though much too descriptively, the role of Gandhi in enabling non-sectarian anti-colonial mobilisation of the masses. What’s missing, however, is an analytically forceful account of the politics that Gandhi stood for. For example, even as Gandhi believed in equal respect for all religions, his vision of associational activity did not hinge on the eschewal of religious convictions in public. Nor did it permit anyone to impose the obligations of their faith upon others, least of all by law. Gandhi’s politics were firmly grounded in the domain of persuasion. To be fair, the compilation is announced as a dossier, and it may be too much to expect stringent analysis of the Gandhian vision in the file. But perhaps the introduction could have engaged the different materials in the compilation in a more analytical manner. In addition, appropriate explanations could have been provided for terms, such as ‘proto-fascist’ (p. 13), ‘fascist’ (p. 62), and ‘neo-fascist’ (p. 66). Perhaps, the introduction to the proposed second volume of this dossier, which will bring to readers the Report of the Justice Kapur Commission, will address concerns such as the ones listed above.
Returning to the contents of the collection, Phadnis provides an interesting, though not fully developed, commentary on the way the ascendance of Gandhi in the anti-colonial movement dealt a blow to the hegemonic aspirations of caste-minded Hindu nationalists who drew on particular strands of Bal Gangadhar Tilak’s political mobilisations (pp. 104–15). R.K. Anand’s open letter to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) (August 2004), Sardar Patel’s letter to Golwalkar (dated 11 November 1948), excerpts from the tract Khaki Shorts and Saffron Flags (Tapan Basu et al.) and Arvind Rajagopal’s interview with Gopal Godse (first published in Frontline, 28 January 1994) all bring into sharp relief the chief tenets of the ideologies endorsed by organisations, such as the Hindu Mahasabha and the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh, and the challenges these ideological orientations can pose to the values of equal citizenship, freedom of (and from) religion—challenges that no democratic polity can afford to underestimate. The piece by Chunibhai Vaidya raises the issue of the way different kinds of speech relate to the freedom of expression. An early section of the collection records recent efforts to ascertain the status of files pertaining to Gandhi’s assassination.
A quick discursive glance at the terms of exchange around Gandhi’s assassination reveals recurring mention of the partition of the subcontinent, a desire to affix responsibility for it and interest in the stance adopted at particular moments by figures like Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhai Patel or M.S. Golwalkar. In short, there is quite a bit of interest in history. One hopes that some of this history is presented in properly analysed and discussed form in school textbooks, in keeping with the aims of democratic education. Still, associational activity will remain an important space to continue analysis and discussion of these issues, and Teesta Setalvad’s compilation will certainly assist in that task when it comes to enabling robust engagements about the discourse around Gandhi’s assassination in both formal and informal political forums.