Talk:Mahatma Gandhi/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

F&f's sources: Gandhi's last fast & cash assets owed to Pakistan

The citations below support the disputed sentences, which are in green and have been deleted:

In the months following, he undertook several hunger strikes to stop the religious violence. The last of these, begun in Delhi on 12 January 1948 when he was 78, also had the goal of pressuring India to pay out some cash assets owed to Pakistan, which the Indian government had resisted. Although the Government of India soon relented, as did the religious rioters, the belief that Gandhi had been too resolute in his defence of both Pakistan and Indian Muslims spread among some Hindus in India.

Note

If you don't like "undertook several hunger strikes," and I have to say, I'm not entirely comfortable with that construction, we could change it to: "he went on hunger strikes several times to stop ...."

Note 2

Although, Gandhi made a distinction between a hunger strike and a "fast to the death," or "unto death," the “fast,” being a religious experience of self-transformation and an exemplary act ... (See Banu Bargu Gandhi's fasts), in an encyclopedia, "hunger strike" is probably more widely understood. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

30 sources on Gandhi's last fast

Please note: WP:SOURCETYPES: When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. and WP:TERTIARY: "Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources. Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. WP:SCHOLARSHIP: Citation counts – One may be able to confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking what scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes or lists such as DOAJ. Works published in journals not included in appropriate databases, especially in fields well covered by them, might be isolated from mainstream academic discourse, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context. WP:HSC: Historical scholarship is a group process by a community of experts on a specialized topic of historiography, who read and critique each other's work. Material submitted for scholarly publication is vetted by editors and outside advisers. ... Scholarly books are reviewed in the history journals, with the goal of evaluating the originality and contribution, and pointing out misinterpretations or mistakes. ... Historical scholarship may include: University level textbooks that summarize the scholarly literature. Introductory undergraduate or graduate textbooks written by scholars Spear, Percival (1990) [1978], A History of India, Volume II: From the sixteenth to the twentieth century, New Delhi: Penguin Books India, ISBN 978-0-140138-36-8, ... in January 1948 the inner voice spoke again. This time the issues were twofold, the payment to Pakistan of her agreed assets which had been withheld owing to the Kashmir dispute and the restoration of peace in the capital. Only when the money had been paid and a peace pact, including the evacuation of the mosques, had been signed, did he give up his fast, on 18th January. Google Scholar Citation Index 613 McDermott, Rachel Fell; Gordon, Leonard A.; Embree, Ainslie T.; Pritchett, Frances W.; Dalton, Dennis, eds. (2014), "Chapter 6: Mahatma Gandhi and his responses", Sources of the Indian Traditions: Modern India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, vol. 2 (3rd ed.), New York: Columbia University Press, p. 344, ISBN 978-0-231-13830-7, In January 1948 he fasted successfully again in Delhi to stop Hindu attacks on Muslims and to coerce his own Indian government into payment of large sums of money that were due to Pakistan. He prevailed, extracting both government payment and pledges of peace by leaders of all groups. This enabled him to end his fast; but on January 30, as he was en route to his regular evening prayer meetins, he was shot by Nathuram Godse, a Hindu extremist who believe him too lenient toward India's Muslims and Pakistan. Google Scholar citation index (volume 2) 33Google Scholar Citation Index (volume 1) 252 Stein, Burton (2010), Arnold, David (ed.), A History of India, The Blackwell History of the World series (2nd ed.), Wiley Blackwell, ISBN 978-1-4051-9509-6, He undertook a fast not only to restrain those bent on communal reprisal but also to influence the powerful Home Minister, Sardar Patel, who was refusing to share out the assets of the former imperial treasury with Pakistan, as had been agreed. Gandhi's insistence on justice for Pakistan now that the partition was a fact, ... had prompted Godse's fanatical action. Google Scholar citation index 560 Lloyd I. Rudolph and Susanne Hoeber Rudolph, In Pursuit of Lakshmi: The Political Economy of the Indian State, University of Chicago Press, [Google Scholar citation index 1,470, who say, "Patel was not a committed or convinced secularist. His call for Muslims to pledge their loyalty to India as a condition of citizenship after partition, his one-sided defense of Hindus during the communal rioting and carnage that accompanied partition, and his refusal to honor India's commitment to turn over to Pakistan the assets due it were the occasion of Gandhi's last fast in January 1948. The riots in Delhi abated; Patel, after being told by Gandhi on the verge of death, "you are not the Sardar I knew," turned over the assets and deferred to Gandhi's call for brotherhood and forgiveness. Barbara D. Metcalf (past president of the American Historical Association) and Thomas R. Metcalf, authors of A Concise History of Modern India, Cambridge, 2012, Google Scholar citation index 965, say, "Just before his death, Gandhi made one last decisive intervention in the Indian political process. By a combination of prayer and fasting, he forced a contrite ministry to hand over to Pakistan its share of the cash assets of undivided India, some 40 million pounds sterling, which had so far been retained in defiance of the partition agreements. Sumit Sarkar, author of Modern India, 1885–1947, Macmillan, Google Scholar citation index 1,579, who says, "This last fast seems to have been directed in part also against Patel’s increasingly communal attitudes (the Home Minister had started thinking in terms of a total transfer of population in the Punjab, and was refusing to honour a prior agreement by which India was obliged to give 55 crores of pre-Partition Government of India financial assets to Pakistan). ‘You are not the Sardar I once knew,’ Gandhi is said to have remarked during the fast." Ian Talbot, author of A History of South Asia, Yale University Press, 2016, Gooogle Scholar citation index 42, says: "Disputes over Kashmir and the division of assets and water in the aftermath of Partition increased Pakistan’s anxieties regarding its much larger neighbor. Kashmir’s significance for Pakistan far exceeded its strategic value; its “illegal” accession to India challenged the state’s ideological foundations and pointed to a lack of sovereign fulfillment. The “K” in Pakistan’s name stood for Kashmir. Of less symbolic significance was the division of post-Partition assets. Not until December 1947 was an agreement reached on Pakistan’s share of the sterling assets held by the undivided Government of India at the time of independence. The bulk of these (550 million rupees) was held back by New Delhi because of the Kashmir conflict and paid only following Gandhi’s intervention and fasting. India delivered Pakistan’s military equipment even more tardily, and less than a sixth of the 160,000 tons of ordnance allotted to Pakistan by the Joint Defence Council was actually delivered. Ian Copland, India 1885-1947: The Unmaking of an Empire, Routledge, 2001, [ Google Scholar Citation Index 53], says, "Gandhi was adamant that the debt to Pakistan had to be paid, and in January 1948 he announced that he planned to embark on another indefinite fast to ensure that the Indian government fulfilled its legal and moral obligations. The Mahasabha and the RSS denounced this plan as tantamount to treason. In the early evening of 30 January, as he addressed a prayer meeting at Birla House, New Delhi, India’s prince of peace was shot and killed by a member of an RSS splinter-group, Nathuram Godse. Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund, in History of India, Routledge, Google Scholar citation index 938, say, "While Jinnah departed with such good advice Gandhi was trying hard to stop the carnage which broke out after partition and to work for good relations between India and Pakistan. When the violence in the Panjab spilled over into India he rushed to Delhi from Bengal, where he had been at the time of partition. With a great fast he attempted to bring his countrymen to their senses. Then the Kashmir conflict led to an undeclared war between India and Pakistan and at this very point it was debated how and why the funds of the Indian treasury should be divided between India and Pakistan. Many Hindus felt that Pakistan had forfeited its claim to a share of these funds by attacking India in Kashmir, and that it would be the height of folly to hand over such funds to finance an aggressor’s war effort. Gandhi, however, pleaded for evenhanded justice. The Congress had approved of partition and was in honour bound to divide the assets equitably. To radical Hindus, this advice amounted to high treason, and one of them, a young Brahmin named Nathuram Godse, shot Gandhi on 30 January 1948. Rhode, Deborah L. (2019), Character: What it Means and Why it Matters, New York: Oxford University Press, p. 173, ISBN 9780190919870, LCCN 2018058188, The violence, however, persisted, and in 1948, Gandhi began what was to be his final fast. He demanded that Hindus and Muslims agree to live in peace, and that India, despite its financially precarious circumstances, make the restitution payments it had promised to Pakistan for lost territories. As he approached death, India announced that it would make the payments. A vast procession of Hindus and Muslims marched toward his house, and 130 leaders met to discuss reconciliation. Gandhi ended his fast. Monographs, book chapters, or journal articles written by scholars Rothermund, Dietmar (2015) [2010], Paine, S.C.M. (ed.), Nation building, state building, and economic development: case studies and comparisons, London and New York: Routledge, ISBN 9780765622440, In 1948 Mahatma Gandhi became the most prominent victim of the partition. He did not grasp the full meaning of partition immediately: When he was told that it would also mean the division of the British Indian Army, he could not believe it. But when he saw that it would be the logical consequence of the territorial partition, he predicted that the two armies would fight each other—which they soon did. The the problem of dividing the financial assets of British India also came up. Being at war with Pakistan, the independent Government of India was reluctant to transfer to Pakistan 550 million rupees, which would fill the enemy's war chest. Gandhi pleaded for fairness and started his last fast in order to persuade the Indian government to part with this money. Hindu nationalists regarded this as high treason and one of them assassinated him on 31 (sic) January 1948 Dennis Dalton in Mahatma Gandhi: Non-violent power in action, Columbia University Press, Google Scholar citation index 439, quotes A. C. B. Symon, the British High Commissioner to India, whose office was across the street from Birla House, where Gandhi lived during the last five months of his life, and who observed Gandhi closely, "It would be a mistaken impression, however, to suppose that Gandhi devoted these last months of his life exclusively to social and humanitarian tasks. Through this constant stream of visitors he was able to keep in remarkably close touch with Indian opinion and continued to play a most important role as the principal adviser of the Indian government on all major political issues. Scarcely any important decision was taken without his prior advice, whether the subject was the movement and rehabilitation of refugees, Congress policy or the Kashmir issue. And when he disagreed with any decision taken it was not long, as in the recent case of the non-implementation of the Indo-Pakistan financial agreement, before he took determined and successful steps to have it revoked.... Gandhi entered upon what proved to be the last of his many fasts. His actions immediately evoked expressions of goodwill from all over the world including Pakistan and on the third day of the fast the Indian Government as a gesture to him announced their willingness, in flat contradiction to their determination of a few days previously, to implement the recently concluded Indo-Pakistan financial agreements. Gandhi, Rajmohan (2002), "Religion, the Gujarat Killings, and Gandhi", India International Centre Quarterly, 29 (2): 1–10, On January 13, 1948, he announced a fast that would end only if certain conditions were met. Muslims, Gandhiji said, should be allowed to hold their annual fair at the ancient mausoleum of Khwaja Qutbuddin. Also, mosques converted into temples and gurdwaras should be returned. Muslims should be ensured safety in their homes and on trains. The economic boycott imposed against Muslims in some Muslim localities should be lifted. He also asked for Pakistan's share of the cash assets of undivided India. By agreement between India, Pakistan and Britain, this share was fixed at Rs 55 crores. Citing the Kashmir conflict, which started in October 1947, the Indian government had announced that it would withhold the payment. Gandhi asked that Pakistan's share should be handed over. After six days of fasting, during which lakhs of Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims urged Gandhiji to break his fast and offered to meet his conditions, the fast ended. The government of India said that the Rs 55 crores would be made available to Pakistan. The RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha of Delhi agreed with the others in the capital that the boycott of Muslims would end, and that mosques and tombs would be returned. Lal, Vinay (Fall 2022), "Gandhi, the Last Fast, and the Call of the Conscience" (PDF), APA Studies on Asian and Asian American Philosophers and Philosophies, 22 (1), American Philosophy Association: 53–57, There was yet another delicate matter, one that a legion of commentators has described as the catalyst that finally moved Gandhi to take up a fast. In consequence of the war that had broken out between the two countries, India decided to withhold the amount of Rs 55 crores, amounting to about $200 million of the gold reserve, that was Pakistan's share of the assets of undivided India. The members of Nehru's cabinet were strongly in agreement that to hand over the money to Pakistan at this juncture would be imprudent in the extreme, as these assets would be used by Pakistan to advance its interests in Kashmir and wage war against India, and that no financial settlement was possible until an agreement had been reached on Kashmir. "A state freezes the credit of the other party in such circumstances," Nehru told the press on January 2, 1948, while denying that the Indian government had done any such thing: "All that we have said was that we accept the agreement, but there must be an overall settlement [including Kashmir] and we shall honour it completely." From Gandhi's standpoint, this attitude was more than unstatesmanlike and unwise: forsaking a purely legal view, he was inclined to see the action not only as something that would provoke Pakistan to further fury and poison future relations between the two countries but also as unprincipled and unethical conduct on the part of India ...To a Sikh friend who had written to him asking him to explain his conduct, Gandhi replied: "My fast is against no one party or group exclusively, and yet it excludes nobody. It is addressed to the conscience of all, even the majority community in the other dominion."11 But conscience is a prickly thing. Gandhi would not have been unaware that at least some members of the cabinet who acceded to his view that withholding from Pakistan its share of the assets of undivided India was morally unjustified did so because in all likelihood they did not want to have Gandhi's death on their conscience. Noting: the title has "the call of the conscience" (rather than the more common "the call of conscience") Gandhi, Rajmohan (2008), Gandhi: The Man, His People, and the Empire, Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press, ISBN 978-0-520-25570-8, (page 639) Another disturbance was caused by a Cabinet decision to withhold the transfer of Pakistan's share (55 crore rupees) of the 'sterling balance' that undivided India held at independence. The conflict in Kashmir was cited as the reason: Patel said (either on 3 or 4 January) that India could not give money to Pakistan 'for making bullets to be shot at us'.! But Gandhi was not convinced that a violent dispute entitled India to keep Pakistan's money. ... 12 Jan. 1948: Though the voice within has been beckoning for a long time, I have been shutting my ears to it lest it might be the voice of Satan ... I never like to feel resourceless; a satyagrahi never should. Fasting is his last resort in the place of the sword ... I ask you all to bless the effort and to pray for me and with me. ... (page 640) In another tactical move, Gandhi went to Mountbatten immediately after the prayer- meeting and asked for the Governor-General's support for his step. Accepting Gandhi's decision, Mountbatten said that if things in India were rectified as a result of the fast, improvement in Pakistan would inevitably follow. He added that he agreed with Gandhi's view on the 55 crore. ... (p. 641) On 13 January a 'very much upset'" Vallabhbhai repeated his offer to resign and thought that his departure might end the fast, but by now Gandhi had returned to the view that Patel and Nehru had to stay together. However, Gandhi raised the question of the 55 crore rupees with Patel. On the afternoon of 14 January the Cabinet met and decided to release the money, but not before Patel broke down and wept. ... (p. 644) For all his grievance about the fast and the reversal of the 55-crore decision, Patel said on 15 January: 'Let it not be said that we did not deserve the leadership of the greatest man in the world.' The next day, in a public talk in Bombay, Patel remarked, "We take a short-range view while he takes a long-range one.'" Google Scholar citation index 161 Sharma, Arvind (2013), Gandhi: A Spiritual Biography, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, ISBN 978-0-300-18596-6, Years later, Gandhi lost his life for insisting that the Indian government honor a promise to the Pakistani government. The Indian National Congress and the Muslim League had accepted, in the summer of 1947, what is known as the Mountbatten Plan (named after the viceroy who promoted it). According to the plan, British India was to be divided into the two independent dominions of Pakistan and India on August 14 and 15, respectively, in 1947. The partition naturally involved a division of assets. India's payment to Pakistan would be made in three installments, two of which had been already paid when the war broke out over Kashmir, after its ruler officially acceded the province to India, on October 29, 1947. The Indian government held up the release of the third installment of the payment. The two nations were at war now; paying it would amount to funding an active enemy. Gandhi, however, insisted that the promise be kept and went on a fast to the death to make the point. The Indian cabinet met again three days later, changed its decision, and released the amount. On the very day Gandhi went on a fast to ensure this outcome, the man who would assassinate Gandhi began making his plans. Gandhi began his fast on January 13, 1948. He had many reasons for undertaking it, but the one that rankled most in the mind of his assassin-to-be, Nathuram Godse, was Gandhi's insistence that the government of India should stop withholding payment of 550 million rupees to Pakistan. Google Scholar citation index 35 Arnold, David (2001), Gandhi, Edinburgh and London: Longman/Pearson Education Limited, p. 224, ISBN 0-582-31978-1, Nine months later, on 11 January 1948, he appealed in vain for the Congress to give up power and dissolve itself rather than continue as it had now become, fall of 'decay and decline', a place of 'corruption' overrun by 'power polities'. Reiterating his longstanding belief in the importance of social action, he called for a new 'Lok Sevak Sangh' (a People's Service Society) to replace the Congress, which had 'out- lived its use'. This was to be made up of dedicated self-sacrificing workers who would help to bring genuine swaraj, 'social, moral and economic independence' to India's villages.' Again on 27 January 1948 Gandhi observed that the Congress had 'won political freedom' but had yet to win 'economic freedom, social and moral freedom'. These freedoms were harder to attain than political freedom 'because they are constructive, less exciting and not spectacular'. Gandhi was dismayed at the policies followed by Nehru but even more by India's Home Minister, his old associate, Vallabhbhai Patel, who now appeared to be drifting close to right-wing Hindu communalism and insensitive to the needs of the large number of Muslim refugees in Delhi and elsewhere. Gandhi undertook a new fast, this time to protest against anti-Muslim violence in Delhi from 13 to 18 January, but it was also by implication a fast against Patel's apparent indifference to Muslim suffering and the Government of India's unwillingness to pay the Rs 550 million (equivalent to £40 million) promised to Pakistan under the Partition agreement. In a bitter conversation shortly before his death Gandhi remarked to Patel, 'You are not the Sardar I once knew.' Google Scholar citation index 43 Ceplair, Larry (2020), Revolutionary Pairs: Marx and Engels, Lenin and Trotsky, Gandhi and Nehru, Mao and Zhou, and Castro and Guevara, Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, p. 134, ISBN 9780813179193, Gandhi undertook his last fast, in January 1948, to protest the Indian government's decision to withhold a large settlement payment due to Pakistan until the Kashmir problem was solved. Blinkenberg, Lars (2022) [1972], India-Pakistan: The History of Unsolved Conflicts: Volume I, Lindhardt og Ringhof, ISBN 9788726894707, OCLC 620393, Sardar Patel decided, in the middle of December 1947, that the recent financial agreements with Pakistan should not be followed, unless Pakistan ceased to support the raiders. Sardar Patel underlined that the all-round agreement had included an undertaking by Pakistan to withdraw the raiders from Kashmir, and since that had not happened, India was entitled not to carry through the agreement. Gandhi was not convinced and he felt—like Mountbatten and Nehru—that the agreed transfer to Pakistan of a cash amount of Rs. 550 million should be implemented despite the Kashmir crisis. Gandhi started a fast unto death, which was officially done to stop communal trouble, especially in Delhi, but 'word went round that it was directed against Sardar Patel's decision to withhold the cash balances', adds Durga Das.<Footnote 350: Durga Das, op. cit., page 276, i.e. Durga Das, From Curzon to Nehru & Afterwards, London: Collins, 1969. See below.> Only because of Gandhi's interference, which was soon to cause his death, Sardar Patel gave in and the money was handed over to Pakistan. Das, Durga (1969), India from Curzon to Nehru & After, Foreward by Zakir Hussain, President of India, St James Place, London: Collins, pp. 275–276, ISBN 9780002113519, OCLC 58936, A crisis occurred around New Year. The Partition Council had arrived at several decisions regarding the division of assets. A financial agreement between India and Pakistan had also been reached and it had been further decided that all the outstanding disputes which eluded settlement be referred to an arbitration tribunal. Accord was subsequently reached on all points, including the withdrawal of Pakistani raiders from Kashmir, and Patel made a statement in Parliament that the agreement would have to be implemented fully. The Pakistani leaders changed their mind on Kashmir, insisting at the same time that India honour the financial clauses of the agreement, which included the payment of cash balances amounting to Rs. 550 million to Pakistan. Patel took a firm stand against turning over this sum to Pakistan until the other provisions of the pact were honoured and the Finance Minister, Shammukham Chetty, strongly backed him. When Pakistan's Prime Minister said this was an attempt to "strangulate" his country, C. D. Deshmukh, the Governor of the Reserve Bank of India and Pakistan, saw Gandhi and pointed out that Pakistan had been provided with the required ways and means. Liaquat Ali's charge, he added, was a political stunt. But Gandhi, who had made the restoration of peace and harmony in Delhi an issue on which he staked his life, announced an indefinite fast at this stage. Word went round that the fast was directed against Patel's decision to withhold the cash balances. Mountbatten and Nehru were, in fact, known to have told Gandhi that India was morally bound to transfer the balances to Pakistan and that, as both Patel and Chetty had adopted an unbending position on the issue, he alone could save the situation. Patel finally yielded and Gandhi broke his fast at the behest of leaders of all communities. Das, Durga (1973), "Introduction to Volume VI", in Das, Dugra (ed.), Sardar Patel's Correspondence, 1945–50: Patel-Nehru Differences—Assassinaton of Gandhi—Services Reorganised—Refugee Rehabilitation, vol. VI, Primary authors: Sardar Patel and his respondents, Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House, p. liv, This rift, by a strange combination of circumstances, coincided with the period when Gandhi was undergoing agony over Hindu-Muslim riots precipitated by the country's partition, and the mounting tension between Pakistan and India over Pakistan's behaviour regarding Kashmir and India's stand on the cash balances to be shared between India and Pakistan. Gandhi undertook an indefinite fast on 13 January 1948, which it was believed was partly in protest against the technically correct stand that Sardar Patel and Finance Minister Shanmukham Chetty had taken in holding back the cash balances to make Pakistan honour its pledges. As the fast advanced, the cash balances were paid. Gandhi's fast ended on 18 January. Twelve days later, an assassin's bullet laid low the Father of the Nation. Gandhi's martyrdom had an electrifying effect on the nation and, in particular, on his chief lieutenants. Sarwar, Firoj High (2021), "Gandhi and Fasting: An Analytic Review", IASI Quarterly: Contributions to Indian Social Sciences, 40 (2), The ultimate fast of Gandhiji's life was against the Communal conflict in Independent India which began on 13 January 1948. He demanded the resolution of the communal issue in Delhi (the after-partition genocide of Muslims) and the protection of the Muslim community in India. He also appealed to grant Pakistan's share of the cash assets of undivided India. But Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, then the Home Minister of India, ignored the demands of Gandhi. So, Gandhi said that he had now no option but to use his last weapon, fast until the situation changed. He further stated that "I must however expiate through my own suffering and I hope that my fast will open their eyes to real facts"(Azad. 2009: 235). The moment it was known that he had started his fast, not only the city of Delhi but the whole nation, was deeply stirred. In Delhi, the effect of his fast was something like an electric shock. His fast had changed the hearts of thousands and brought back to them a sense of justice and humanity. Thousands now pledged that they would regard the maintenance of good relations among the communities as among their fast task (Azad. 2009: 236-239). Gandhi made it clear that the object of his fast was nothing less than the self-purification of all the communities in the sub-continent (Bandyopadhyaya, 1969: 289). Wolpert, Stanley (2006), Shameful Flight: The Last Years of the British Empire in India, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 189–191, ISBN 978-0-19-539394-1, (Gandhi) tried to end that political power game by earlier advising the Congress to 'disband' its party entirely, but neither Nehru nor Patel, and certainly no other members of Congress's Working Committee, liked that idea. Gandhi then tried to convince them to stop fighting in Kashmir, but that too evoked no positive response. He understood that Nehru and Patel hoped to bankrupt Pakistan by escalating the Kashmir war and by continuing to withhold overdue payments of a substantial sum of money India owed to Karachi's treasury, Pakistan's share of British India's cash assets, all kept in Delhi's Central Bank. He urged his friends as earnestly as he could to remit those funds, since it was not 'honorable' to withhold promised payments. Gandhi had always been as scrupulous about paying his debts as he was about keeping vows. By mid-December (1947) Gandhi was convinced that by airlifting "everything to support the war" in Kashmir, India was recklessley throwing away its fortune while ignoring the needs of its 'starving millions.' ... On January 12, 1948, Mahatma Gandhi launched his last fast, the 'finery' ultimate weapon of his passionate nature, which he used to delver his message of love to ears deaf to any verbal appeal. 'I yearn for heart friendship between Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims," Gandhi told his friends. ... 'This time my fast is not only against Hindus and Muslims but also against the Judases who put on false appearances and betray themselves, myself and society.' He was thus fasting for much more than the simple payment to Pakistan of the 550 million rupees of British India's cash balance debt, long since promised by Nehru and Patel. Many Hindus believed, however, that his desire to pay Pakistan was Gandhi's sole reason for launching, this final 'blackmail' fast, and cried alout that he should 'fast unto death,' not simply to 'capacity,' as he had initially announced he would. Three days after he stopped taking food, India's cabinet announced its agreement to transfer the funds to Pakistan, and on the fourth day Gandhi thanked the cabinet, hoping this would lead to 'an honourable settlement not only of the Kashmir question, but of all the differences between the two Dominions. Friendship should replace the present enmity.' He was too weak to stand but soon recovered enough strength to walk to his evening prayer meetings. Then on Friday, January 30, 1948, hate-crazed Hindu Brahman Nathuram Godse fired three bullets at close range into Mahatma Gandhi's chest. Google Scholar citation index 228 Kapoor, Rita (2022), Making Refugees in India, Oxford Historical Monograph Series, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 114–115, ISBN 978-0-19-285545-9, The Hindu nationalists' censure of the state's handling of the Hindu refugees is perhaps most evident in the courtroom statement of Nathuram Godse. On trial for the assassination of Gandhi, Godse would devote a considerable portion of his testimony to discussng the removal of Hindu refugees from the mosques in which they had taken up residence. Godse deplored that Gandhi and the government made no demands of Pakistan to improve the treatment of those Hindus and Sikhs who were now a minority there, nor did they ask for temples and gurudwaras to be emptied of Muslim refugees as Gandhi demanded of Hindu refugees in mosques as part of his fast unto death. ... Noted Gandhian and Congress activist J.B. Kriplani was also critical of Gandhi's fast and the motives behind it, through equally disparaging of the 'fanaticism' that motivated Godse's assassination of Gandhi. Besides the evacuation of mosques, he was also critical of Gandhi's demand that a payment of Rs. 55 crores be made to Pakistan by India, despite Pakstan's continued failures to take care of its minorities. Trade books written by scholars Elkins, Caroline (2022), Violence: A History of the British Empire, New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, ISBN 9780307272423, LCCN 2021018550, A few months later, with war-fueled tensions over Kashmir mounting and India refusing to pay Pakistan 550 million rupees, Pakistan's share of Britain's outstanding war debt, Gandhi began to fast. "This time my fast is not only against Hindus and Muslims," the Mahatma said, "but also against the Judases who put on false appearances and betray themselves, myself and society." The elderly and frail man who was India's symbolic political and spiritual leader went three days without food before India's cabinet agreed to pay Pakistan, something Nehru had long promised Jinnah he would do. Google Scholar citation index 65 Trade books written by others (journalists, etc.) Walsh, Declan (2020), The Nine Lives of Pakistan: Dispatches from a Precarious State, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, ISBN 9780393249910, Godse, who belonged to a neo-fascist Hindu group called the R.S.S., was furious at Gandhi for his conciliatory attitude towards Muslims, and for his insistence that Pakistan should receive its fair share of the assets of the former colonial state. Hajari, Nisid (2015), Midnight's Furies, Boston and New York: Houghton Miffline Harcourt, p. 224, ISBN 978-0-547-66921-2, Gandhi could look on passively no longer. He had decided to fast until "heart friendship" returned to Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs in Delhi, or until his own heart gave out. Although he had seen both Nehru and Patel that afternoon, he had given them no hint of his plans lest they try to stop him. The news angered the Sardar, who understandably believed that the fast was directed at him. The next day, he was "very bitter and resentful," Mountbatten recorded, and felt Gandhi was "putting him in an impossible position. Gandhi himself denied any such intention. But, encouraged by Mountbatten, the Mahatma did press Patel and the Indian Cabinet to stop blocking the funds owed to Pakistan. On the morning of 14 January, rapidly weakening, Gandhi summoned Nehru and Patel to his bedside. Tears ran down the Mahatma's face as he pleaded with them. For India to try and starve her sister dominion into submission was, Gandhi declared, using a word Mountbatten had chosen to prick his conscience, "dishonourable." The money should be paid immediately. Patel responded with "extremely bitter words," he later admitted. At a cabinet meeting later that day, he, too, shed tears as the others decided to heed Gandhi's request. "This is my last [cabinet] meeting,' Patel vowed,' The next day, he left for a tour of the Kathiawar states in his native Gujarat. Google Scholar citation index 110 Tidrick, Kathryn (2013) [2006], Gandhi: A Political and Spiritual Life, London and New York: Verso, ISBN 978-1-78168-239-5, Gandhi began his last fast on 13 January 1948. Its aims were peace in Delhi, peace in India and peace in the world. "I flatter myself,' he said, 'with the belief that the loss of her soul by India will mean the loss of the 'hope of the aching, storm-tossed and hungry world.' The 'reward' of the fast would be 'the regaining of India's dwindling prestige and her fast-fading sovereignty over the heart of Asia and throughout the world.' Its targets were the malefactors of all communities, but especially Hindus and Sikhs in Delhi, the government of Pakistan which was denying equality to Sikhs and non-Muslims, the United Nations which was about to begin its debate on the crisis in Kashmir, and implicitly it appears the Indian government for its decision to withhold from Pakistan, pending resolution of the crisis, its remaining share of the cash balances of undivided India. Pyarelal suggests that it was the question of the cash balances which tipped Gandhi towards fasting rather than waiting for the assassin's knife.<Footnote 132: Pyarelal, Mahatma Gandhi – The Last Phase, Vol. 2, 700–701. (See below)> ... When the Indian government decided to stop payment of the 550 million rupees owed to Pakistan he asked Mountbatten for his opinion. Mountbatten's reply was that it would be the 'first dishonourable act' of the Indian government. This set Gandhi 'furiously thinking', in Pyarelal's words, and he realized that he must do something to retrieve India's honour. The final push towards fasting came. The final push towards fasting came when a delegation of Delhi Muslims came to Birla House and castigated him for not being able to guarantee their safety. Once the fast had started, it became apparent that there was no obvious way to end it. The government announced on the third day that the cash balance would be paid. But Gandhi's other concerns were so large and the criteria for assuaging them so vague that he could, had he chosen, have gone on until he died. He may have wished to reserve the possibility. After the government's announcement, he said he would end his fast only when 'the Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs of Delhi bring about a union, which not even a conflagration around them in all the other parts of India or Pakistan will be strong enough to break.' Nayyar, Pyarelal (1958), Mahatma Gandhi: The Last Phase, vol. II, Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House, pp. 699–706, To the numerous causes of mounting tension between India and Pakistan was now added another—the issue of Pakistan's share of the cash balances of undivided India. Under the decision of the Partition Council, out of a total cash balance of rupees 375 crores, 20 crores were paid to Pakistan on the day of the transfer of power. The allocation was provisional and subject to readjustment that would have to be made when the balance to be paid to Pakistan was finally determined. This amount was subsequently fixed at rupees 55 crores after a series of conferences between the representatives of the two Dominions in the last week of November. ... The Government of India, in the course of negotiations, made it clear that it would not regard the settlement as final until agreement had been reached on all outstanding issues, and that no payment would be made until the question of Kashmir was also settled. ... On the 6th January, 1948, Gandhiji discussed the question with Lord Mountbatten and asked for his frank and candid opinion on the Government of India's decision. Mountbatten said, it would be the "first dishonourable act" by the Indian Union Government if the payment of the cash balance claimed by Pakistan was withheld. It set Gandhiji furiously thinking. He did not question the legality of the Indian Union's decision. Nor could he insist on the Union Government going beyond what the strict letter of the law required and permitted them. And yet he felt it would be a tragedy if in a world dominated by the cult of expediency and force, the India that had made history by winning her independence by predominantly nonviolent, i.e. moral means, failed in that crisis to live up to her highest ancient tradition that would serve as a shining beacon light to others. For that, he would have to transform the overall situation and to create a new moral climate which would make it possible for the Indian Government to go beyond the strict letter of the law. ... On the 12th January in the afternoon, Gandhiji was as usual sitting out on the sun-drenched spacious Birla House lawn. As it was Monday, his day of weekly silence, he was writing out his prayer address. As my sister looked through sheet after sheet that she was to translate and read out to the prayer congregation in the evening, she was dumb-founded. She came running to me with the news—Gandhiji had decided to launch on a fast unto death unless the madness in Delhi ceased. From the time that he had returned to Delhi, after his Calcutta fast, Gandhiji had never ceased asking himself where his duty lay in the face of what was happening. ... Out of the depth of his anguish came the decision to fast. It left no room for argument. Sardar Patel and Pandit Nehru had been with him only a couple of hours before. He had given them no inkling of what was brewing within him. The written address containing the decision was read out at the evening prayer meeting. The fast would begin on the next day after the mid-day meal. There would be no time limit. During the fast, he would take only water with or without salt and the juice of sour limes. The fast would be terminated only when and if he was satisfied that there was "a reunion of hearts of all communities brought about without outside pressure but from an awakened sense of duty." ... He asked all to bless his effort and to pray for him and with him. The issue was nothing less than "the regaining of India's dwindling prestige and her fast fading sovereignty over the heart of Asia and therethrough the world." ... The fast commenced at 11:55 a.m. on the 13 January with the singing of Gandhiji's favourite hymn Vaishnava Jana To, and "When I Survey the Wondrous Cross" sung by Sushila, followed by Ramadhun. Only a few intimate friends and members of the household were present. The company was impromptu. ... Neither Sardar Patel nor Pandit Nehru tried to strive with him though the Sardar was very much upset. A believer in deeds more than words, he simply sent word that he would do anything that Gandhiji might wish. In reply, Gandhiji suggested that the first priority should be given to the question of Pakistan's share of the cash assets. Guha, Ramchandra (2017) [2007], India after Gandhi: The History of the World's Largest Democracy (10th Anniversay ed.), New Delhi: Pan Macmillan India, ISBN 978-15098-8328-8, With attacks on Muslims continuing, Gandhi chose to resort to another fast. This began on 13 January, and was addressed to three different constituencies. The first were the people of India. To them he simply pointed out that if they did not believe in the two-nation theory, they would have to show in their chosen capital, the 'Eternal City' of Delhi, that Hindus and Muslims could live in peace and brotherhood. The second constituency was the government of Pakistan. 'How long', he asked them, 'can I bank upon the patience of the Hindus and the Sikhs, in spite of my fast? Pakistan has to put a stop to this state of affairs' (that is, the driving out of minorities from their territory). Gandhi's fast was addressed, finally, to the government of India. They had withheld Pakistan's share of the 'sterling balance' which the British owed jointly to the two dominions, a debt incurred on account of Indian contributions during the Second World War. This amounted to Rs 550 million, a fair sum. New Delhi would not release the money as it was angry with Pakistan for having recently attempted to seize the state of Kashmir. Gandhi saw this as unnecessarily spiteful, and so he made the ending of his fast conditional on the transfer to Pakistan of the money owed to it. Raghavan, T. C. A. (2019), The People Next Door: The Curious History of India's Relations with Pakistan, London/New York: Hurst & Co./Oxford University Press, pp. 7–8, ISBN 9781787380196, The communal situation, Partition massacres and refugee movements combined with the Junagadh events and the Kashmir war tended to vitiate every aspect of the India-Pakistan interface at this stage. The war in Kashmir was, however, an undeclared war. The newly established diplomatic relations between the two nascent governments continued, the high commissioners remained in place as indeed did intergovernmental discussions and even cooperation on resolving the administrative debris of Partition—the division of assets, deciding on a framework for trade, separation of currencies, etc. But in the vitiated atmosphere of two armies fighting it out, an obvious issue arose over the partitioning of military assets—spares, armaments, ammunition, etc. Then cash balances of the Reserve Band had to be divided between the two countries and Pakistan's share of Rupees 750 million released to it. The details of the divisions had been finalized earlier and the first tranche of Rupees 200 million paid on 14 August 1947. The balance Rupees 550 million remained. By the end of 1947 and early 1948 the question before the new Government of India was a difficult one. Given the ongoing war against Pakistani troops and proxies in Kashmir, was it correct to release Pakistan's balance share of Rupees 550 million? Release of the finances would straightaway have an impact on the military operations in Kashmir. Most in India at that time saw this as a no-brainer and the cabinet also agreed. Where was the question of releasing funds when it was evident that they would be used by Pakistan for the purchase of arms for the Kashmir war where Indians were being killed? At this point, Mahatma Gandhi, already distressed by the mayhem in Punjab and the killngs still taking place in Delhi, decided to take matters in his hands. To him, withholding of Pakistan's share was an act of bad faith regardless of the Kashmir situation. He went on a fast—for communal amity, to cleanse a vitiated atmosphere and to persuade the Government of India to release the funds due to Pakistan. Mahatma Gandhi had no doubt that the military action being taken by the Government of India on the ongoing Pakistan invasion in Kashmir was the right and merited one. But withholding of th efunds was a different matter. Mountbatten's comment to him that this was 'the first dishonourable act' of the Government of India, also appears to have made a deep impression. His fast begain on 13 January 1948, and it lasted five days; the Cabinet backed down and the funds were released.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• Please do not add your own sources here. You may in the discussion section below.

Discussion

First source (Rajmohan Gandhi) is not providing any evidence but only attached the misinformation like few of your earlier sources.

Second source (Vinay lal) is showing that the author of the book is making a connection based on his own opinion.

Third source (Rajmohan Gandhi) says "Venkatappayya referred to the moral degradation of Congress legislators who made money by protecting criminals. His last sentence was: 'The people have begun to say that the British government was much better.' Gandhi found the letter 'too shocking for words'. He had to do, or give, more. But what, and how? On the morning of 12 January he found complete peace. Every unease, sense of shame, and feeling of inadequacy left Gandhi as the 'conclusion flashed upon him' that he must fast and not resume eating until and unless firm steps are taken." This means that Pakistani payment did not caused him to protest but a number of various issues. Still, no evidence.

Fourth source (Sarwar) has the same issue as the first one.

So the 2 requirements are still not met. 1) Evidence that Gandhi demanded 55 crore to be handed to Pakistan, 2) The source is addressing the debunking of the said misleading claim. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Abhishek0831996: May I ask, what debunking? I haven't read the whole previous discussion yet but did check all the sources mentioned in your initial post and there is nothing worthwhile there (I can expand on the reasoning later if anyone wishes). Are there any better sources "debunking" the claim that the RS 55 crore transfer was one of Gandhi's (at least implicit) goals/motivation for the fast? Abecedare (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I have added one more—Arvind Sharma's spiritual biography of Gandhi, Yale, 2013. Sharma is quite explicit. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Jawaharlal Nehru said on 15 January regarding this connection between the fast and 55 crore transfer: "That fast, of course, had nothing to do with this particular matter, and we have thought of it because of our desire to help in every way in easing the present tension."[1]

Raghuvendra Tanwar notes that "Looked at carefully each of the seven main issues was only an attempt by Gandhi to restore the confidence of the Muslims who had been traumatized. None of the points even remotely referred to the transfer of the cash balance to Pakistan." He added: "Prime Minister Nehru was naturally the first to state that even though Gandhi had been consulted on the issue, the decision to transfer the cash balance to Pakistan had nothing to do with his fast. The Prime Minister also said: 'we have come to this decision in the hope that the gesture in accord with India's high ideals and Gandhiji's noble standards will convince the world of our earnest desire for peace'."[2]

I am sure this is more than enough to put the issue at rest. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 11:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. The Nehru statement is a primary source whose veracity and politics is for historians, and not us, to judge and so wouldn't play any direct role in the discussion here. I will look up the Tanwar source though and add any comments later (busy IRL so may be later today or even the weekend). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@Abhishek0831996: I was able to read up several reviews of the Tanwar book (which are mixed, [3], [4], [5]) but unfortunately I don't have immediate access to the book itself. Could you email me the relevant pages where Tanwar discusses Gandhi's final fast so that I can view the quotes you provided in context? Let me know if that would be possible and I'll share my email id with you.

PS: There may be an expectation that one, two or a few sources will settle the issue by proving/debunking the link between the fast and the transfer of funds. Given the amount of scholarship on the subject, that is almost surely unreasonable. As I see it, the question is more about how the various views should be weighed and how the language in the lede and article body crafted to best summarize the scholarly corpus. Abecedare (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Emailed. Here is another reliable source which also rejects the claim about asset transfer to Pakistan: India-Pakistan: An analysis of some structural factors, Lars Blinkenberg, Odense University Press, p. 144.

It notes that: Mountbatten found some mystery in Gandhi's last fast, and Kripalani thought that Gandhi was under great mental strain and in poor health, but he underlines that the fast was not directed against Patel. He confirms that Gandhi personally denied this to his secretary, Pyarelal. Maulana Azad, on the other hand, just like Durga Das, confirms "that, in a sense, the fast was directed against the attitude of Sardar Patel, he ( Patel ) knew it". Azad also explains that Gandhi put forward the exact conditions he wanted fulfilled in order to terminate his fast (the list specifying these conditions did not mention the transfer of money to Pakistan). He received the undertaking from representatives of the Hindu and Muslim communities, that they would assure that further communal disturbances would not take place, in Delhi.[6]

It is true that while Maulana Azad wrote the fast "in a sense" was directed against the attitude of Patel, but the reason was: "Patel had not only failed to give protection to Muslims, but he lightheartedly dismissed any complaint made on this account."[7] It was not related to the payment to Pakistan. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Also see Recording the Progress of Indian History: Symposia Papers of the Indian History Congress, 1992-2010, p. 254, Saiyid Zaheer Husain Jafri, Primus Books, "Only a tiny section of Maharashtrians brought up in a particular school of thought were vehement critics of Gandhi; they accused him of showing partially to Muslims, and of favouring Pakistan by his fast coercing the Nehru Government to transfer Rs. 55 crore to Pakistan, and finally killed him. In reality, according to C.D. Deshmukh the then Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, has recorded that the amount transferred was legitimately due to Pakistan."[8]

Jafri cited C. D. Deshmukh, Governor of the Reserve Bank of India. Deshmukh in his book says Gandhi's "advice was not accepted". He writes: "My view was that a promise made by Government in mis respect must be redeemed; as the ordinary ways and means requirements of Pakistan were around four to six crores rupees per month, it was also proper that, after having agreed to have a common central tank, the Reserve Bank should grant some accommodation to Pakistan until the establishment of a separate central bank for Pakistan, due to take place on April 1, 1948. I put this point of view before Government when I was called to Delhi for consultations but the suggestion was turned down. Early in January, Mr. ZafErullah Khan, the Pakistan Foreign Minister, complained about this blocking and the whole matter, by the sinister amalgam of accusation and abuse, received a most unholy publicity. Gandhiji naturally took the view that it would be wrong for India to go back on her word. Even his advice was not accepted; then came his last fast and the decision — announced by Shri Nehru — that the Financial Agreement would be implemented forthwith. I still feel that the emergence and aggravation of this unfortunate dispute was the result of a major mistake on our part; it led to the focusing of virulent communal feeling against Gandhiji. Whether a different attitude shown by Government at this critical time could have prevented the assassination of Mahatmaji is another imponderable in our history."[9] Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Abhishek0831996 for emailing me the extract from the Tanwar book. I would like to read the whole chapter at some point but from the part I have seen it is clear that Tanwar regards Nehru's statement to be closer to the truth than the contemporaneous reporting by Pioneer, Tribune etc and concludes that the fast was unconnected to the money transfer. Till date this is the best source for this viewpoint and it can be weighed against other sources that reach a different conclusion when crafting the final language.

I don't think the Naik article in the IHC symposia or the Deshmukh statements add anything relevant to the claim about Ganhi's motivation for the fast (I can spell out the reasons if needed; trying to be succinct since the discussion is pretty long already). Is there any other source I should take a look at? Abecedare (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Abhishek0831996: Please see Lars Blinkenberg (2022), currently number 9 in Talk:Mahatma_Gandhi#Monographs,_book_chapters,_or_journal_articles_written_by_scholars.

Blinkenberg, Lars (2022), India-Pakistan: The History of Unsolved Conflicts: Volume I, Lindhardt og Ringhof, ISBN 9788726894707, Sardar Patel decided, in the middle of December 1947, that the recent financial agreements with Pakistan should not be followed, unless Pakistan ceased to support the raiders. ... Gandhi was not convinced and he felt—like Mountbatten and Nehru—that the agreed transfer to Pakistan of a cash amount of Rs. 550 million should be implemented despite the Kashmir crisis. Gandhi started a fast unto death, which was officially done to stop communal trouble, especially in Delhi, but "word went round that it was directed against Sardar Patel's decision to withhold the cash balances"... Only because of Gandhi's interference, which was soon to cause his death, Sardar Patel gave in and the money was handed over to Pakistan. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

BTW, @Abhishek0831996: There are sources, scholarly ones, more reliable than the ones you've produced, which also don't see the payment to Pakistan as a sine qua non of Gandhi's last fast. I will soon add them, but in their totality they constitute a minority viewpoint. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The 2022 link you are providing is just a reprint of the 1988 publication cited by Abhishek0831996. If you properly checked the source then you would know that the book cited by Abhishek0831996 already includes the quotes, that you are providing, at page 91.[10] This quote only confirms that the fast caused Patel to release the payment but that fast did not concern the payment. This is not supportive of your position. On p.144 (as cited by Abhishek0831996), Lars Blinkenberg has described that Gandhi was not fasting to release payment to Pakistan and that Gandhi denied fast as being against Patel. Capitals00 (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Mine is an ebook reprint of the original 1972 edition of Volume 1. The quote I have copied above from that limited-page-view link makes a distinction between what was "official" and what happened behind the scenes. The proper link for it in Abhishek0831996's snippet view link (which is of the 1998 Volume 2) is not the one you have provided, but this. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@Capitals00: I have now added the full quote from Blinkenberg's book (see Talk:Mahatma_Gandhi#Monographs,_book_chapters,_or_journal_articles_written_by_scholars. The quote footnotes Durga Das's 1969 book, India from Curzon to Nehru & Afterwards, London: Collins. I have also cited that book with a fuller quote, and also DD's introduction to Volume 6 of the Selected Correspondence of Sardar Patel, Ahmedabad: Navajivan. In each, what was implicit—what occurred behind the scenes—is described. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

No hurry, Abecedare, but I've added Nisid Hajari's prize-winning Midnight's Furies, which describes a tearful Gandhi applying very direct pressure on Nehru and Patel about Pakistan's 55 crores on the morning of the third day of the fast, Patel responding with bitter words then, but he too shedding tears that afternoon as the rest of the cabinet voted to heed Gandhi's request. In his entreaty to Nehru and Patel that morning, Gandhi had used Mountbatten's words, especially "dishonorable." Mountbatten had described the holding of the cash assets as, "Independent India's first dishonorable act." Enjoy the weekend. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Earlier, on 12 January 1948—a Monday and Gandhi's day of silence—after the prayer meeting at which an associate had read out Gandhi's decision to fast, the Mountbattens had visited Gandhi as a gesture of concord and support. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Note I am still moving the references around to organize them better, so please refer to them by author and title, not "first ---," "second ---," etc. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@Abecedare, RegentsPark, Abhishek0831996, Randy Kryn, CapnJackSp, Iskandar323, Capitals00, and TrangaBellam: I have completed my list of sources above. It includes the books of Durga Das, a journalist close to Patel and the editor of his selected correspondence and Pyarelal Nayyar, Gandhi's personal secretary. Nothing had given me a feel for the exceptional times during which Gandhi made his decision to fast than these books, especially Pyarelal's. I have no doubt now that although the reasons to fast Gandhi had aplenty, both said and unsaid, the withholding of Pakistan's cash assets by the Indian government was what tipped the balance—of his hesitations—into action. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

PS I forgot those who had edited the page, but not the talk page: @Johnbod, Aman.kumar.goel, Fylindfotberserk, Ayubist, and Ingenuity: Apologies, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes I took a whole day to read all of your sources and I still don't see any of them addressing the valid dispute regarding Gandhi having fasted over the payment to Pakistan. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I took a few days off from looking at this page and, coming back, find what seems to be a stalemate between editors who have competing sources. My suggestion of July 26 still seems the best and fairest solution: "The last of these, begun in Delhi on 12 January 1948 when Gandhi was 78, indirectly resulted in the Government of India paying cash assets owed to Pakistan from the former imperial treasury." Followed by a paragraph break in the lead for wall of text.

It seems obvious that Gandhi and his associates, intelligent people, would have known that his fast would likely result in the asset transfer. But his determination to fast to help create some kind of peace in the nations seems his intention, and not the other. He issued seven reasons why he was fasting, and the asset question is not among them if I'm remembering correctly (I haven't memorized his points). Was he surprised when the asset transfer took place? Of course not, he knew human and political nature. But when fasting for specific publicly announced reasons Gandhi was not the politician, he was the nonviolent Mahatma (a title he rejected but knew he was saddled with). This gets too long, will just say that the wording I've suggested was endorsed by one participant in the overall discussion, has not been commented on by any other, and I can only offer it as possibly the fairest resolution to an extremely long and educational discussion. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

• .TrangaBellam (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Father of the Nation?

Who exactly has conferred this title to Gandhi? He was too meek a guy to ever deserve a title of such grandiose. Most of the work for India's independence was done by the Germans who severely weakened English power and the British left sensing a repeat of the 1857 rebellion. Meowkiti (talk) 05:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by জয় হিন্দ জয় বাংলা (talk • contribs)

C. R. Attlee, broadcast to the British nation, 30 January 1948:

Everyone will have learnt with profound horror of the brutal murder of Mr. Gandhi, and I know that I am expressing the views of the British people in offering to his fellow countrymen our deep sympathy in the loss of their greatest citizen. Mahatma Gandhi, as he was known in India, was one of the outstanding figures in the world today, but he seemed to belong to a different period of history. Living a life of extreme asceticism, he was revered as a divinely inspired saint by millions of his fellow countrymen. His influence extended beyond the range of his co-religionists and, in a country deeply riven by communal dissension, he had an appeal for all Indians. For a quarter of a century this one man has been the major factor in every consideration of the Indian problem. He had become the expression of the aspirations of the Indian people for independence, but he was not just a nationalist. He represented---it is true---the opposition of the Indian to be ruled by another race, but he also expressed a revulsion of the East against the West. He himself was in revolt against Western materialism and sought a return to a simpler state of society. But his most distinctive doctrine was that of non-violence. He believed in a method of passive resistance to those forces which he considered wrong. He opposed those who sought to achieve their ends by violence and when, as too often happened, his campaigns for Indian freedom resulted in loss of life owing to the undisciplined action of those who professed to follow him, he was deeply grieved. The sincerity and devotion with which he pursued his objectives are beyond all doubt. In the latter months of his life, when communal strife was marring the freedom which India had attained, his threat to fast to the death resulted in the cessation of violence in Bengal, and again recently his fast in Delhi brought about a change in the atmosphere. He had, besides, a hatred of injustice and strove earnestly on behalf of the poor, especially of the depressed classes of India. The hand of a murderer has struck him down and a voice which pleaded for peace and brotherhood has been silenced, but I am certain his spirit will continue to animate his fellow countrymen and will plead for peace and concord.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

It was Netaji:

https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/when-netaji-gave-gandhi-the-title-of-father-of-the-nation-8399485/ Withmoralcare (talk) 09:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Bias

"Immediately upon arriving in South Africa, Gandhi faced discrimination because of his skin colour and heritage, like all people of colour."

I'm not sure how the bolded section adds to the value of the piece. The author's opinion surely should be kept to the author? 24.255.22.250 (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

((Comment by user:Iskandar323 now removed)) Explanation by Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

>>> “????ish racist South Africa” Really, you can say See You Next Tuesday on Wikipedia unbowdlerized about a regime that was once led by Jan Smuts who had a reasonable relationship with Gandhi and wrote on of the most eloquent messages of condolence at his assassination. Or are we attempting to sound hip as some prima donnas were at FAC until I began to nip the heels of their unreliably sourced edits. Probably better if you take out that allusion to feminine body parts with the meaning of something despicable. It doesn’t help a talk page discussion one whit. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

((Reply by user:Iskandar323 also now removed)) Added by Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Please take out that expression in its entirety. We are not permitted to use expressions of common abuse which may have transferred usage among our circle of friends either on Wikipedia proper or in articles’ talk page discussions. The IP had a point and I’ve removed the words from the MG page, for among other things, the use of that comparison “like all people of color.” implies that Gandhi’s experience of racism in SA was remotely comparable to Black South African’s. I don’t think you understand Iskandar. I haven’t taken any one to ANI in 15 years, maybe more, but if you continue to sound irresponsibly facetious, my next post will be on the user talk pages of some administrators. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure you are aware that one is not supposed to edit comments that have been responded to, but if you wish to doctor the above further, you may do so. Or feel free to delete it all if you like, since you are the only respondent. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

You can certainly scratch offensive comments. It is not my task. If you don’t do that before you make an edit on any other page or a different edit here I will be posting on the user talk pages of some administrators. Please don’t play slippery in defending offensive language. I have already warned you twice. Final warning: scratch the whole expression out. Again it is not my task. It is yours. Best regards Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: pinging as well so you’ve seen my comments. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I have complied and am complying with every one of your requests. I have now deleted the comments. Let me know if that is satisfactory, or if you had something else in mind. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• General comment: The Smuts-Gandhi Agreement of 1914 is very briefly mentioned on page 301 of the first edition of Gandhi’s ‘’Autobiography’’. The exchange of letters that sealed it is here. By the standards of today it wasn’t much, but it was still something.

Among half a dozen original editions of newspapers dated 31 January 1948 that were gifted to me is one from the Times of India. The front page has a blurb from Smuts:

“Prince Among Men”: Gen. Smut’s Tribute. Cape Town, January 30: When he received news of the death of Mahatma Gandhi, Field Marshal Smuts, the South African Premier, said, “I have heard of the assassination of Gandhi with the deepest grief, which I’m sure will be shared all over the world. Gandhi was one of the great men of our time and my acquaintance with him for a period of more than 30 years has only deepened my high respect for him, however much we differed in our views and methods. A prince among men has passed away and we grieve with India in her irreparable loss. (Reuter.)

The quote used to be in the article until last month when some editors removed it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2023

add Mahatma Gandhi's native name in Gujarati to the page: "મહાત્મા ગાંધી" Wikibaric (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Sorry, can't add in the lead or infobox per WP:NOINDICSCRIPT policy. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

My edits

Here, I tried to describe that Khilafat movement gradually ended after non-cooperation movement was over in 1922. Caliphate removal happened 2 years later. Congress still retained some Muslim support because Mukhtar Ahmed Ansari, Maulana Azad, Hakim Ajmal Khan and others continued to remain Congress members.

Here I tried to improve chronology. Gandhi's comments on Sitaramayya's defeat came before Bose resigned from Congress. Editorkamran (talk) 11:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2023

"Please add Gandhi's alternative name 'Bapu' in brackets in the title of the article" 2A02:C7C:5ABD:5600:3548:D2F7:4288:44C0 (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Gandhi's dark side

I feel that Gandhi's racist and sexist views aren't represented enough. 97.120.9.89 (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

So find relevant WP:Reliable sources that discuss them, and add proportionate, cited text based on them to the article. Be sure that you are not interpreting the routine societal attitudes of his historical milieu in the anachronistic light of modern attitudes in yours, which would be valueless. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.245.32 (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2023

I think Practices and beliefs of Mahatma Gandhi could be added to the "See also" section of the page. It'd make the page easier to find. HypnoticOcelot (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Already linked as main article in https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi#Principles,_practices,_and_beliefs Leoneix _(talk) 07:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

People did not riot in Jallianwala Bagh

This is included in the article:

16:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)16:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC) ...Communities across India announced plans to gather in greater numbers to protest. Government warned him to not enter Delhi. Gandhi defied the order. On 9 April, Gandhi was arrested.

People rioted. On 13 April 1919, people including women with children gathered in an Amritsar park, and British Indian Army officer Reginald Dyer surrounded them and ordered troops under his command to fire on them. The resulting Jallianwala Bagh massacre (or Amritsar massacre) of hundreds of Sikh and Hindu civilians enraged the subcontinent, but was supported by some Britons and parts of the British media as a necessary response. Gandhi in Ahmedabad, on the day after the massacre in Amritsar, did not criticise the British and instead criticised his fellow countrymen for not exclusively using 'love' to deal with the 'hate' of the British government. Gandhi demanded that the Indian people stop all violence, stop all property destruction, and went on fast-to-death to pressure Indians to stop their rioting... 16:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Spasht (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, the beginning of the second paragraph implies that people rioted at Jallianwala Bagh, especially when complemented by Gandhi's response towards the end of the second paragraph, which criticizes people for supposedly using violence. However, people had gathered at Jallianwala Bagh to peacefully assemble for a celebration in defiance of an order by Dyer that demanded people stay inside lest they be shot by British soldiers. I mean, this is a peaceful defiance. Even when the many thousands of people had gathered in spite of Dyer's orders, they remained peaceful, and then the British troops surrounded and massacred the crowd at his orders regardless.

What exactly was Gandhi criticising here? Just a nagging thought. Spasht (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I removed the people rioted part. The rest ... you're welcome to edit (with reliable sources). --RegentsPark (comment) 20:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2023

Request to add to Scholarly Articles section: Gandhi, Schiller and King: The Power of Truth-Force and Sublime Compassion https://schillerinstitut.dk/si/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Gandhi-Schiller-King-english.pdf Mich.ras (talk) 10:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The "General and cited references" section holds works that were consulted during the creation of the article but are not linked to any specific piece of text. Did you or another editor consult this source when contributing to the article? Additionally, as noted in WP:GENREF, general references lose text-source integrity, so it is best to cite the work directly inline. Liu1126 (talk) 11:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2024

V. Mishra'IND (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Mahatma Gandhi is not father of nation, Mahatma Gandhi Was Never Declared ‘Father Of Nation. The home ministry says Article 18 (1) of the Constitution does not permit any titles except education and military ones.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Revert of ip, no explanation

Hi @Capitals00:. I was wondering why did you revert the ip's post? I don't see the need to revert and much less revert without an edit summary. Sincerely, --Thinker78 (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

That message was nothing more than blatant trolling and I obviously reverted it per WP:DNFT. Capitals00 (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I see it more as a content dispute between you and the ip. What they pointed out can be found in criticism against Gandhi elsewhere, in the very easy google search I did. Please restore and use the consensus process. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It is not a content dispute but blatant trolling. You really need find something productive instead of feeding the troll. Capitals00 (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Info about criticism against Gandhi

There has been criticism against Gandhi, including claims that he was a British agent, his practices of sleeping with naked women, bias and rivalry with Nehru. The revert of the ip post was undue and failed to assume good faith. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Your third source is not supportive of your claim. In fact it is simply the opposite.

As for the rest, so what do you want us to do? Add this all into the article? There are those who claim Holocaust was a hoax, COVID is fake, vaccines cause deaths and more and they do get coverage but when they raise those issues here we simply revert them away.

You are just wasting time over a troll IP and you need to stop it. Capitals00 (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Capitals00 I request that you follow the consensus policy and the dispute resolution policy. Anonymous ips also have the right according to the Wikipedia's Five Pillars to present legitimate points in the talk page. I do not appreciate at all that you are telling me that I need to stop simply because it is an ip and you were in the wrong reverting without a proper edit summary and calling it trolling when it was not trolling, failing to assume good faith.

Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute.

Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

"As for the rest, so what do you want us to do?" I simply presented the information backed by sources. It is up to a consensus whether to include it or not. You are pointing out to other things but even for those things there is a policy called WP:FRINGE, which I don't know if it is the case with the information presented by the ip. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 03:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

References

April 2024

Change every mention of "convicted for" to "convicted of." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pplantier (talk • contribs) 15:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Bapu doesnt means Father

Bapu is gujarati word usually used to address elderly wise men. Its being misinterpreted with hindi word baap. It gujarat anyone above 50 and mostly belonging to saurashtra region are addressed in respect as bapu, similarly in north india people address elderly as babuji.

I am sorry as i cannot produce citation for same, but being a gujarati i can explain the difference. Unvindia (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2024

he was a sigma 165.0.10.6 (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 08:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2024

Respected editors I request you to kindly make an omission in The title of the page and make it form "Mahtma Gandhi"to "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi" as acording to article 18 of our Indian constitution the abolition of title acct which states that :

Abolition of titles (1) No title, not being a military or academic distinction, shall be conferred by the State.

(2) No citizen of India shall accept any title from any foreign State.

(3) No person who is not a citizen of India shall, while he holds any office of profit or trust under the State, accept without the consent of the President any title from any foreign State.

(4) No person holding any office of profit or trust under the State shall, without the consent of the President, accept any present, emolument, or office of any kind from or under any foreign State. Thus I request you aagain to remove mahatma form mahatma gandhi as it is a violation of our Indian constituion Ananye Sharma17 (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: See WP:COMMONNAME, which uses this article as an example. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Gandhi (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Article full protected for 10 days

I really don't understand why edit warring is running parallel to a discussion. In any case, I have reverted everything back to 10 August without regard to the content of all the intervening edits, because that date appears to precede the recent disruptive activity. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Anachronist: You are welcome to lock down the article, but the disruption began in the summer of 2013. The sentence about Gandhi's purpose in his last hunger strike had been in the article for 11 years. You yourself edited the article during those 11 years as did a dozen other administrators. That doesn't mean that you supported the edit, but that had been an issue, you would have locked down the article much earlier. I had been away for the majority of the time since last summer. It was never resolved. Admin user:Abecedare tried to help, but the sources of these editors are so outlandish, and their responses so tone deaf (meant only figuratively) to Abecedare's gentle questioning, that all progress ground to a halt. See my statement: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Fowler&fowler_reported_by_User:Capitals00_(Result:_) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not involved in the content here, or in any content dispute. I think I've averaged one action per year on the article, and they have been maintenance edits and protection actions. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)