Page:Gandhi and Saklatvala - Is India different.pdf/9

 against the use of violence, against drink and other vices. He is against class conflict and class organisation.

In all this he represents the outlook of the mass of small property-owning peasants and the rest of the petty bourgeoisie. He obtained his influence and importance as a leader, how ever, not on account of his religious philosophy, but because he came forward to lead the masses of poor peasants and exploited workers who were rising in revolt in the period after the war. He promised them success if they followed his precept of peaceful non-co-operation or passive resistance. In this way he tried to use them for the movement of the Indian middle class against foreign domination. When, however, the actual moment of struggle of the masses against class exploitation came, Gandhi had to decide on which side he stood ; and then the whole edifice of his religious philosophy collapsed and he came out openly as the defender of proper tied interests.

In practice Gandhi's teaching has shown itself more and more clearly as socially reactionary, and Gandhi himself is seen to be the ally of class exploitation. This is what was hidden under the web of religious doctrine, but is now becoming understood in India and is so clearly revealed by Saklatvala in his attack. The class struggle exists in India and is intensifying, and there are thousands who feel instinctively that Gandhi's policy will not help the masses of workers and peasants ; but these dare not express themselves openly be cause they are not sure of themselves, and because of the traditional worship of Gandhi as a "Mahatma" or saint. Saklatvala has led the way for them ; he has put their feelings into words and has compelled Gandhi to come into the open and say where he stands.

In particular, Gandhi's declarations on the question of labour organisation are a complete exposure of his class standpoint. He declares himself in favour of labour organisa tion, but only on what he considers his own special lines. These lines exhibit four chief characteristics. Firstly, there must be class harmony and no strikes or hostility to capital ism. Secondly, the object of the organisation is primarily to force the worker from his vices and to make him a better workman. Thirdly, his trade unions must be kept from contact with the independent labour and trade union move ment, national or international. Finally, his unions must steer clear of politics.

It is immediately noticeable, that so far from these char acteristics being special and peculiar to his philosophy, they