At Benares Hindu University (Benares, February 1916) MOHANDAS KARAMCHAND GANDHI (1869–1948)

At Benares Hindu University (Benares, February 1916)
MOHANDAS KARAMCHAND GANDHI (1869–1948)

Mahatma Gandhi was invited to speak at the opening of the Benares

Hindu University in February 1916. It was around the same time that his

vow not to express views on the Indian political situation came to an end.

He arrived in Benares to find that the place was under siege. Lord

Hardinge, the Viceroy, was in the city to lay the foundation stone of the

university, and every house on his route was guarded. At the function, on

the dais many eminent personalities were seated including Annie Besant

and a galaxy of princes dressed in their finery. Gandhi, in contrast, was clad

in a short coarse dhoti, a Kathiawadi cloak and turban. Gandhi’s words,

directed to the youth in the audience, shocked many and he was repeatedly

interrupted by persons sitting on the dais (Annie Besant’s interruptions are

noted in the text). e clamour on the dais was so great that the president

left, and Gandhi was unable to finish his speech. He later wrote to a friend,

‘I have seen audiences going away from boredom; I have seen speakers

made to sit down; but I have never seen the president himself abandon the

meeting.’ Among the many who were struck by the speech, two individuals

deserve special mention because of their lifelong devotion to Gandhi—

G.D. Birla, then a young businessman, and Vinoba Bhave, a twenty-oneyear-

old student, later to become an eminent Gandhian. It was Gandhi’s

forthrightness that affected his listeners so greatly; very rarely had anyone

spoken with his directness and simplicity in Indian public life. Nehru

described his effect aptly when he wrote, ‘and then Gandhi came…like a

powerful current of fresh air…like a whirlwind that upset many things but

most of all the working of people’s minds.’

main speech starts from here

 

I wish to tender my humble apology for the long delay that took place

before I was able to reach this place. And you will readily accept the apology

when I tell you that I am not responsible for the delay nor is any human

agency responsible for it. e fact is that I am like an animal on show, and

my keepers in their over kindness always manage to neglect a necessary

chapter in this life, and, that is, pure accident. In this case, they did not

provide for the series of accidents that happened to us—to me, keepers, and

my carriers. Hence this delay.

Friends, under the influence of the matchless eloquence of Mrs Besant who

has just sat down, pray, do not believe that our University has become a

finished product, and that all the young men who are to come to the

University, that has yet to rise and come into existence, have also come and

returned from it finished citizens of a great empire. Do not go away with

any such impression, and if you, the student world to which my remarks are

supposed to be addressed this evening, consider for one moment that the

spiritual life, for which this country is noted and for which this country has

no rival, can be transmitted through the lip, pray, believe me, you are wrong.

You will never be able merely through the lip, to give the message that

India, I hope, will one day deliver to the world. I myself have been fed up

with speeches and lectures. I accept the lectures that have been delivered

here during the last two days from this category, because they are necessary.

But I do venture to suggest to you that we have now reached almost the end

of our resources in speech-making; it is not enough that our ears are feasted,

that our eyes are feasted, but it is necessary that our hearts have got to be

touched and that our hands and feet have got to be moved.

We have been told during the last two days how necessary it is, if we are to

retain our hold upon the simplicity of Indian character, that our hands and

feet should move in unison with our hearts. But this is only by way of

preface. I wanted to say it is a matter of deep humiliation and shame for us

that I am compelled this evening under the shadow of this great college, in

this sacred city, to address my countrymen in a language that is foreign to

me. I know that if I was appointed an examiner, to examine all those who

have been attending during these two days this series of lectures, most of

those who might be examined upon these lectures would fail. And why?

Because they have not been touched.

I h f h C h h f

I was present at the sessions of the great Congress in the month of

December. ere was a much vaster audience, and will you believe me when

I tell you that the only speeches that touched the huge audience in Bombay

were the speeches that were delivered in Hindustani? In Bombay, mind you,

not in Benaras where everybody speaks Hindi. But between the vernaculars

of the Bombay Presidency on the one hand and Hindi on the other, no such

great dividing line exists as there does between English and the sister

language of India; and the Congress audience was better able to follow the

speakers in Hindi. I am hoping that this University will see to it that the

youths who come to it will receive their instruction through the medium of

their vernaculars. Our languages are the reflection of ourselves, and if you

tell me that our languages are too poor to express the best thought, then say

that the sooner we are wiped out of existence the better for us. Is there a

man who dreams that English can ever become the national language of

India? Why this handicap on the nation? Just consider for one moment

what an equal race our lads have to run with every English lad.

I had the privilege of a close conversation with some Poona professors. ey

assured me that every Indian youth, because he reached his knowledge

through the English language, lost at least six precious years of life.

Multiply that by the numbers of students turned out by our schools and

colleges, and find out for yourselves how many thousand years have been

lost to the nation. e charge against us is that we have no initiative. How

can we have any, if we are to devote the precious years of our life to the

mastery of a foreign tongue? We fail in this attempt also. Was it possible for

any speaker yesterday and today to impress his audience as was possible for

Mr Higginbotham? It was not the fault of the previous speakers that they

could not engage the audience. ey had more than substance enough for

us in their addresses. But their addresses could not go home to us. I have

heard it said that after all it is English educated India which is leading and

which is doing all the things for the nation. It would be monstrous if it were

otherwise. e only education we receive is English education. Surely we

must show something for it. But suppose that we had been receiving during

the past fifty years’ education through our vernaculars, what should we have

today? We should have today a free India, we should have our educated

men, not as if they were foreigners in their own land but speaking to the

heart of the nation; they would be working amongst the poorest of the poor,

and whatever they would have gained during these fifty years would be a

h f h T d h h b

heritage for the nation. Today even our wives are not the sharers in our best

thought. Look at Professor Bose and Professor Ray and their brilliant

researches. Is it not a shame that their researches are not the common

property of the masses?

Let us now turn to another subject.

e Congress has passed a resolution about self-government, and I have no

doubt that the All-India Congress Committee and the Muslim League will

do their duty and come forward with some tangible suggestions. But I, for

one, must frankly confess that I am not so much interested in what they will

be able to produce as I am interested in anything that the student world is

going to produce or the masses are going to produce. No paper contribution

will ever give us self-government. No amount of speeches will ever make us

fit for self-government. It is only our conduct that will make us fit for it.

And how are we trying to govern ourselves?

I want to think audibly this evening. I do not want to make a speech and if

you find me this evening speaking without reserve, pray, consider that you

are only sharing the thoughts of a man who allows himself to think audibly,

and if you think that I seem to transgress the limits that courtesy imposes

upon me, pardon me for the liberty I may be taking. I visited the

Vishwanath temple last evening, and as I was walking through those lanes,

these were the thoughts that touched me. If a stranger dropped from above

on to this great temple, and he had to consider what we as Hindus were,

would he not be justified in condemning us? Is not this great temple a

reflection of our own character? I speak feelingly, as a Hindu. Is it right that

the lanes of our sacred temple should be as dirty as they are? e houses

round about are built anyhow. e lanes are tortuous and narrow. If even

our temples are not models of roominess and cleanliness, what can our selfgovernment

be? Shall our temples be abodes of holiness, cleanliness and

peace as soon as the English have retired from India, either of their own

pleasure or by compulsion, bag and baggage?

I entirely agree with the President of the Congress that before we think of

self-government, we shall have to do the necessary plodding. In every city

there are two divisions, the cantonment and the city proper. e city mostly

is a stinking den. But we are a people unused to city life. But if we want city

life, we cannot reproduce the easy-going hamlet life. It is not comforting to

think that people walk about the streets of Indian Bombay under the

l f f d ll h d b ld h I d

perpetual fear of dwellers in the storeyed building spitting upon them. I do

a great deal of railway travelling. I observe the difficulty of third-class

passengers. But the railway administration is by no means to blame for all

their hard lot.

We do not know the elementary laws of cleanliness. We spit anywhere on

the carriage floor, irrespective of the thoughts that it is often used as

sleeping space. We do not trouble ourselves as to how we use it; the result is

indescribable filth in the compartment. e so-called better class passengers

overawe their less fortunate brethren. Among them I have seen the student

world also; sometimes they behave no better. ey can speak English and

they have worn Norfolk jackets and, therefore, claim the right to force their

way in and command seating accommodation.

I have turned the searchlight all over, and as you have given me the privilege

of speaking to you, I am laying my heart bare. Surely we must set these

things right in our progress towards self-government. I now introduce you

to another scene. His Highness the Maharaja who presided yesterday over

our deliberations spoke about the poverty of India. Other speakers laid great

stress upon it. But what did we witness in the great pandal in which the

foundation ceremony was performed by the Viceroy? Certainly a most

gorgeous show, an exhibition of jewellery, which made a splendid feast for

the eyes of the greatest jeweler who chose to come from Paris. I compare

with the richly bedecked noble men the millions of the poor. And I feel like

saying to these noble men, ‘ere is no salvation for India unless you strip

yourselves of this jewellery and hold it in trust for your countrymen in

India.’ I am sure it is not the desire of the King-Emperor or Lord Hardinge

that in order to show the truest loyalty to our King-Emperor, it is necessary

for us to ransack our jewellery boxes and to appear bedecked from top to

toe. I would undertake, at the peril of my life, to bring to you a message

from King George himself that he accepts nothing of the kind.

Sir, whenever I hear of a great palace rising in any great city of India, be it

in British India or be it in India which is ruled by our great chiefs, I become

jealous at once, and say, ‘Oh, it is the money that has come from the

agriculturists.’ Over seventy-five percent of the population are agriculturists

and Mr Higginbotham told us last night in his own felicitous language, that

they are the men who grow two blades of grass in the place of one. But

there cannot be much spirit of self-government about us, if we take away or

ll h k f h l h h l f h l f h

allow others to take away from them almost the whole of the results of their

labour. Our salvation can only come through the farmer. Neither the

lawyers, nor the doctors, nor the rich landlords are going to secure it.

Now, last but not the least, it is my bounden duty to refer to what agitated

our minds during these two or three days. All of us have had many anxious

moments while the Viceroy was going through the streets of Benares. ere

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 a representative of a mighty

sovereign may not. He might find 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. It is a sign of fear. If we trust and fear God, we shall have to fear

no one, not the maharajas, not the viceroys, not the detectives, not even

King George.

I honour the anarchist for his love of the country. I honour him for his

bravery in being willing to die for his country; but I ask him—is killing

honourable? Is the dagger of an assassin a fit precursor of an honourable

death? I deny it. ere is no warrant for such methods in any scriptures. If I

found it necessary for the salvation of India that the English should retire

that they should be driven out, I would not hesitate to declare that they

would have to go, and I hope I would be prepared to die in defense of that

belief. at would, in my opinion, be an honourable death. e bombthrower

creates secret plots, is afraid to come out into the open, and when

caught pays the penalty of misdirected zeal.

I have been told, ‘Had we not done this, had some people not thrown

bombs, we should never have gained what we have got with reference to the

partition movement.’ (Mrs Besant: ‘Please stop it.’) is was what I said in

Bengal when Mr Lyon presided at the meeting. I think what I am saying is

necessary. If I am told to stop I shall obey. (Turning to the Chairman) I

await your orders. If you consider that by my speaking as I am, I am not

serving the country and the empire I shall certainly stop. (Cries of ‘Go on.’)

(e Chairman: ‘Please, explain your object.’) I am simply… (another

) M f d l d h If M

interruption). My friends, please do not resent this interruption. If Mrs

Besant this evening suggests that I should stop, she does so because she

loves India so well, and she considers that I am erring in thinking audibly

before you young men. But even so, I simply say this, that I want to purge

India of this 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. Is it not better that we talk under the shadow of this college

than that we should be talking irresponsibly in our homes? I consider that it

is much better that we talk these things openly. I have done so with

excellent results before now. I know that there is nothing that the students

do not know. I am, therefore, turning the searchlight towards ourselves. I

hold the name of my country so dear to me that I exchange these thoughts

with you, and submit to you that there is no room for anarchism in India.

Let us frankly and openly say whatever we want to say our rulers, and face

the consequences if what we have to say does not please them. But let us

not abuse.

I was talking the other day to a member of the much-abused Civil Service. I

have not very much in common with the members of that Service, but I

could not help admiring the manner in which he was speaking to me. He

said: ‘Mr Gandhi, do you for one moment suppose that all we, Civil

Servants, are a bad lot, that we want to oppress the people whom we have

come to govern?’ ‘No,’ I said. ‘en if you get an opportunity put in a word

for the much-abused Civil Service.’ And I am here to put in that word. Yes,

many members of the Indian Civil Service are most decidedly overbearing;

they are tyrannical, at times thoughtless. Many other adjectives may be

used. I grant all these things and I grant also that after having lived in India

for a certain number of years some of them become somewhat degraded.

But what does that signify? ey were gentlemen before they came here,

and if they have lost some of the moral fibre, it is a reflection upon

ourselves.

Just think out for yourselves, if a man who was good yesterday has become

bad after having come in contact with me, is he responsible that he has

deteriorated or am I? e atmosphere of sycophancy and falsity that

surrounds them on their coming to India demoralizes them, as it would

many of us. It is well to take the blame sometimes. If we are to receive selfgovernment,

we shall have to take it. We shall never be granted selfgovernment.

Look at the history of the British Empire and the British

f d l ll b f d

nation; freedom loving as it is, it will not be a party to give freedom to a

people who will not take it themselves. Learn your lesson if you wish to

from the Boer War. ose who were enemies of that empire only a few

years ago have now become friends…

(At this point there was an interruption and a movement on the platform to

leave. e speech, therefore, ended here abruptly).