How natural it is that when Gandhiji called Abdul Rashid ‘bhai’ (brother) and infuriated the whole Hindu world, he spoke in his defense! Every actor has to act in such a way to give the best justice to his role. We all know that the whole world is a stage and we all are the actors. As Gandhiji is playing the role of a Mahatma (a noble soul) it is but natural that his dialogues should be such as to lend colour to that role and not like a petty mortal like Samartha Ramdas who says, “To be proud of what is just is not to be proud at all. Because justice and injustice can never be equal.” and defends the caste into which he is born.
Also Read : Which is the Religion of Peace?
We all Hindus sincerely believe that even the worst criminal must get someone to defend his case. So, what is wrong if Gandhiji goes to the rescue of Abdul Rashid? Perhaps none other that Gandhiji would have been better suited to back him!
But look at these credulous Hindus! When Gandhiji volunteered to defend ‘Bhai’ Abdul Rashid, they asked, “If Abdul Rashid is ‘bhai’, why didn’t Gandhiji also call Gopinath Saha a ‘Bhai’?” If defending Abdul Rashid’s case is just and consistent with his position as a Mahatma, how come he didn’t choke with emotion and come forward with the same spontaneity to support Gopinath Saha’s case? Not only that, why did he spew fire against Deshbandhu Chittaranjan Das when the latter was a bit lenient to Gopinath?”
You naïve Hindus! Don’t you know why? Because Gopinath Saha was a Hindu ! Would it become a Mahatma if he took the side of a Hindu like Gopinath and called him a ‘Bhai’ with tears in the eyes? Similarly, it was
but natural that Gandhiji would take Das to task when Deshbandhu Chittaranjan Das and his All Bengal Provincial Council dared support a murderer and a Hindu at that. What right did Das have to defend a Hindu
murderer? Nobody else but a Mahatma can have the right to defend a murderer!
Perhaps, in spite of Gopinath Saha’s crime of being a Hindu, Mahatmaji would have uttered a few soft word for him. He would have prayed to God for the peace of Gopinath’s soul the way he did for Abdul Rashid’s. But had
Gopinath murdered a Hindu monk? He had murdered an innocent gentleman. Let alone a Deshbandhu, not even a Mahatma has the right to take sides with one killing an English gentleman and to call him a ‘Bhai’
with tearful eyes. All holy codes, from Indian Penal Code to Special Ordinance Act, agree on this. But these poor naïve Hindu’s will never grasp these subtle nuances!
Speaking in the same context, Gandhiji said, “I am a friend of the Muslims. I have a blood relationship with them. They are my brothers.” Now what is wrong with this? The Muslims are truly our blood brothers. A
majority of them were forcibly converted to Islam; hence Hindu blood still runs through their blood vessels. On a still higher level, Muslims too are humans, therefore, so by virtue of being human we share the same blood.
So didn’t Mahatmaji tell the truth when se called the Muslims his bloodbrothers?
But these naïve Hindus! They immediately point out – Last year, when a revolutionary had said that the blood of Pratap and Shivaji courses through our veins, Gandhiji had responded with righteous indignation, “No! Our
veins can’t have blood of Shivaji or Pratap! Hindus have different castes; therefore you can’t say that a Brahmin or a Bania has the blood of a Maratha or a Rajput.”
And don’t you see, wherein lies the magnanimity in one Hindu admitting that he has the blood of a Shivaji, Pratap or Govindsingh; that they are his brothers? A common man may honestly say this. But to say that Muslims are one’s friends, that they are one’s blood brothers; and that too on the very day when the Hindu blood of Shraddhananda was shed by the Muslim blood, adds to the glory of a Mahatma.
Now, if you can’t say that you have the blood of Shivaji, Vasishtha or Shraddhananda because the castes prevent Hindus from intermarriages, then to say that the blood of a Muslim, who was forcibly converted from one of these castes, courses through your veins appears inconsistent. To the naïve Hindus this will appear as inconsistent. But they should know that such logical rules are not binding on the Mahatmas. Otherwise, how could the Mahatmaji, who firmly held that it is wrong to wield a weapon against a rascal raping your very sister as it amounts to violence, take sides with the British and obstinately go about till he was ill asking Indian youth to join british army in order to massacre the Germans?
10 – 2 – 1927
The Gandhian Confusion