(Ed. Note--The Crimson does not necessarily endorse opinions expressed in printed communications. No attention will be paid to anonymous letters and only under special conditions, at the request of the writer, will names be withheld.)
To The Editor of The CRIMSON:
When a participant in a serious controversy resorts to cheap clap-trap for arguments and indulges in provocative diatribes, it is about time to wind it up. After the following brief comment I withdraw from the field, leaving it entirely to my opponent, if he chooses to further acquaint the readers of CRIMSON with the latest communistic anti-Gandhi invectives.
It is pertinent to refer back to the original thesis to evaluate the relative merit of the subsequent remarks. It was not the desirability of communism for India, that I contested Nor did I offer a brief for jingo nationalism. My opponent's vexation, therefore, at my inability to understand communism "in spite of his efforts," is unwarranted. I contended that imminent triumph of communism in India as envisaged by him was not likely, that the abandonment of Gandhi's methods and introduction of communism "at this juncture" may mean a serious calamity for India. I search in vain in his latest letter for either a substantiation of his original proposition or a reasoned refutation of my rejoinder. Instead he has fully utilized the column to indulge in unrestrained vituperations against Gandhi and his methods, the true spirit of a new convert to a creed.
To my assertion, of an unassailable fact, that none since Buddha has been revered more by multitudes than Gandhi, none followed more than him, the irrelevant reply is made, that Gandhi is counter-revolutionary while Buddha a true revolutionary. The protest of a Labor Union against Gandhi's participation in the Round Table Conference at London is offered as a proof of Labor distrust in Gandhi. This completely ignores the fact that a number of other "bourgeoisie groups" in India were equally opposed to this move on the ground that it may be a subtle British maneuver to side-track the movement. The subsequent events have in a degree justified such apprehensions. The indubitable fact remains that for over a decade Gandhi has been the undisputed leader of the largest political group in India, and so he is today. His movement and his technique are far from being "impotent." The British realize their strength better than Gandhi's latest critic. The entire state machinery has been mobilized to crush and exterminate this movement. His following comprises within its ranks multitudes of those who by the strictest Marxian canons can be classified as proletarians. Whether Gandhi survives his present self-imposed ordeal or not he will never be an extinct volcano in Indian public life.
If the definition of Gandhism as "goats milk, loin cloth, etc." is offered as a comic caricature, one can appreciate the writer's sense of humor. But if that is all he sincerely discovers in Gandhism, his state of mind is to be pitied. Gandhi would not resent being dubbed as a "renegade, philistine, etc," by his critie, for he would find himself in a distinguished company of many of the foremost communist leaders of yesterday, that may be joined by many more of today.
Gandhi's critie rejoices at Bernard Shaw's remark that the success of the Bolsheviks is due to their grasp of communism and capitalism. Perhaps the communists know it all. I would advise my opponent, however, not to take Mr. Shaw too seriously, for the same gentleman is reported to have said recently that not unless all living communists are killed can communism become a reality. Auup S. Dhillon