Thread by @UnofficialBapu

#MythBuster: Was Gandhi silent on Moplah? NO

Gandhi was NOT silent on the Moplah rebellion. He spoke a lot. Let's debunk this highly exaggerated myth.

[THREAD🧵]

A lot is being said on the Moplah rebellion that Gandhi was responsible for this and that. It has become a fashion to make Gandhi guilty of everything - for the problems of his age and also for the problems of the current age. Let's check the reality. ↓

(Note: I'll be directly quoting from Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi which is published by Publication Division of Ministry of I&B ministry, Government of India. Thus its authenticity is unquestionable. It contains all the speeches, letters, telegrams of Mahatma Gandhi.)

Gandhi was NOT silent on the Moplah rebellion. He spoke a lot. He also wanted to go to the root-affected area but he was denied entry as martial law was applied there.

(From: Gandhi The Years That Changed the World by Ram Guha, PG 155)

→ This is what he said in his speech on 19 Sep 1921 at Trichinopoly, Madras:

“My heart bleeds to think that our Moplah brethren have gone mad. I'm grieved to find that they have killed officers. I'm grieved to think that they have looted Hindu houses...”

(CWMG, V. 24, PG 274)

→ He in the same speech criticised the Government heavily by saying:

“Where was the Government & its police when the first Moplah ran amok? What is the use of a Government that knows only how to exact reprisals, but does not know how to protect life in its initial stages? ...+

+.... Of what use is a Government which, having known the temperament of the Moplahs for years and years, failed to bring the lesson of peace to them. *Lastly, what is the use of a Government that left those Hindus absolutely unarmed for self-defence.*”

(CWMG, Vol 24, PG 275)

→ Gandhi at another instance said,

“Whilst on the one hand they have failed to discipline Moplah valour and harness it for purposes of peace and God, they have taken no care to train the Hindus for self-protection from their lawless countrymen.”

(CWMG, Vol 24, PG 294)

→ He again wrote on 8 September 1921 in his journal 'Young India' that:

“We must not betray any mental or secret approval of the Moplahs. We must see clearly, that it would be dishonourable for us to show any approval of the violence...+

+...We must search for no extenuating circumstance. … The misguided Moplahs have therefore rendered a distinct disservice to the sacred cause of Islam and Swaraj.” (CWMG, Vol 24, PG 189)

→ He again said in a speech at Madras on 15 September 1921 that,

“My heart goes out to those men who have been so much afflicted in Malabar. I am aware that our Moplah brethren, un-disciplined as they have been all these long long years, have gone mad....+

+... I am aware that they have committed a sin against the Khilafat and against their own country.”

(CWMG, Vol 24, PG 240)

→ He also gave advice to outside non-Mophla Muslims, he said,

“The Mussulmans must naturally feel the shame and humiliation of the Moplah conduct about forcible conversions and looting, ...+

+... and they must work away so silently and effectively that such things might become impossible even on the part of the most fanatical among them.”

(CWMG, Vol 24, PG 448)

→ He gave another advice to learn self-defence which also tells that his non-violence was of the brave not of the meek,

“Let me not be misunderstood. I want both the Hindus and Mussulmans to cultivate the cool courage to die without killing...+

+...But if one has not that courage, I want him to cultivate the art of killing and being killed, rather than in a cowardly manner flee from danger.” (Each individual must be taught the art of self-defence.)

(CWMG,Vol 24, PG 448)

Here if anyone don't know, Gandhi ji supported the use of violence only in self-defence if non-violent means are lacking.

Once he advised Noakhali Hindus (Harijan,3/1940): “...Self-defence can be violent or non-violent. I have always advised & insisted on non-violent defence...+

+... But I recognise that it has to be learnt like violent defence. It requires a different training from that which is required for violent defence. Therefore, if the capacity for non-violent self-defence is lacking, there need be no hesitation in using violent means.”

For further read on this topic:

1. Between Cowardice and Violence: mkgandhi.org/nonviolence/ph…

2. Why non-violent Mahatma Gandhi preferred violence to cowardice: indiatoday.in/featured/story…

Now let's come to our main topic again →

→ His one statement is propagated out of context hugely to spread propaganda. The 'God-fearing’ and ‘brave' Moplahs one. It makes a lot of sense if read it in full context.

Here you go:

“The Moplahs are among the bravest in the land. They are God-fearing (cont) ...+

+ ...Their bravery must be transformed into purest gold. I feel sure, that once they realize the necessity of non-violence for the defence of the faith for which they have hitherto taken life, they will follow it without flinching.” ↓

(CWMG, Vol 24, PG 190)

– So here also he was trying to convince them and turn them towards non-violence and thus utilise their bravery on the right path. He praised just one thing while condemning their all heinous crimes.

→ One thing is also propagated highly that why didn't he take his khilafat and Hindu-Muslim unity movement back after the Moplah rebellion?

He didn't take it back for the simple reason, he said in his own words in an interview in “MADRAS MAIL” on September 15, 1921:

“I don’t despair for the simple reason that no sane Muslim approves of what a few Moplahs have done. It is too much to expect when you have to deal with masses of mankind that there will be no wrong done by any single individual.”

(CWMG, Vol 24, PG 238)

→ He further said on the same issue in Navjivan on 25 Sep 1921 that:

“Some Moplahs losing their heads does not prove that all Muslims are bad. Three years ago, Hindus had done the same thing at Shahabad. That did not prove all Hindus bad...+

+... Unity between two parties means that, even when there is a difference between them, they do not act as enemies but settle the dispute peacefully.”

(CWMG, Vol 24, PG 321)

→ He on same Navjivan article further said,

“Hindu-Muslim unity would indeed have been endangered if Muslim leaders or the leaders of Moplahs had praised the latter’s madness instead of condemning it....+

+... I do not, however, think that there is any Muslim who approves of the Moplahs’ lunacy. I have not come across such a Muslim.”

(CWMG, Vol 24, PG 321)

→ At another instance he asked them for apology:

“I should also add that every Muslim who heard the stories of Moplah atrocities was pained by them, and also that, if our people were allowed to go there at this time, the Moplahs themselves would apologize for their deeds...+

+... I am sure that they will positively apologize when we have swaraj.”

(CWMG, Vol 24, PG 326)

What about Dr Ambedkar's commentry?

• Now many people quote Dr Ambedkar here to prove that he was silent etc. Here, I must say that anything doesn't become true just because Ambedkar said it. Ambedkar's words aren't the ultimate supreme truth.

• Secondly, he was not a historian or a researcher. He was a contemporary and politician. Both Gandhi and Ambedkar were political rivals. Will Rahul Gandhi's opinion be valid while we will be judging Modi after a century? NO

No. The same thing applies here. People must not misunderstand that I'm comparing them.

• They were his opinions, not facts. Opinion is not FACT. His opinion was published in his book ‘Pakistan or the partition of India’ published in 1945. What's the proof that Ambedkar had all the evidence? He didn't have those 100 volumes of Collected works that we have today.