Introduction

Readers will recall that on December 3, The Times of India, carried an item about (BJP General Secretary) K.L. Sharma's letter to the Prime Minister in which he had talked of Gandhi's views on the Ayodhya dispute, and urged the Prime Minister to solve the dispute along those lines. The letter contained two paragraphs from an article allegedly written by Gandhi. According to Sharma he himself had seen a copy of the Hindi weekly Harijan Sewak of July 27, 1937, where the said article was published.

On December 4, The Times of India Research Bureau came out with the definitive information that Gandhi had written no such article at any time.

According to The Times of India: "Despite repeated requests from The Times of India Research Bureau, the BJP central office was unable to produce a copy of the original Harijan Sewak or Navjivan which, according to them, carried the dubious article."

This supposed article by Gandhi is thus a blatant lie concocted to gain credibility and acquiescence for the BJP-VHP line of demolition of about 3,000 mosques all over the country, and construction of temples on their sites. It is also a glaring example of what lowly depths the communal organisations can descend, to press their claims.

As far back as 1950 Jivanji Desai, of the Navjivan Trust, the publishers of Gandhian literature, had to debunk the same claim made by one Ramgopal Pandey 'Sharad' of Ayodhya. The only difference is that Pandey claimed to have quoted the same so-called Gandhi article from Navjivan of July 27, 1937, while Sharma, had changed the journal to Harijan Sewak, while retaining the same date. According to The Times of India, however, there was no issue of Harijan Sewak dated July 27, 1937, either, the closest issues being dated July 24 and July 31, 1937.

We are giving below a translation of a translation of Jivanji Desai's article entitled "Concocted Letter and Article" that was published in the Harijan Sewak, July 13, 1950.

Text of the Article

Shriram Janmabhoomi Virodhivonke Kale Karnamey (Black Deeds of the Ram Janmabhoomi Opponents) this is the title of a book by Shri Ramgopal Pandey 'Sharad' (Sahitya Ratna) and published by Shriram Janmabhoomi Sewa Samiti, Ayodhya. Between p.3 and p.6 of the book, the author says: "We had written a letter to the Mahatma ji on May 15, 1937, add regarding the Shriram Janmabhoomi, and its translation is being given below."

The writer has, in the letter, mentioned the Shriram Janmabhoomi versus Babari Masjid dispute and solicited Pujya Gandhi's opinion. Then the author says:

"I received the following letter in reply: Wardha Dated 20.5.37

Dear Shri Sharadji

Received your letter dated 15.5.37 addressed to Pujya Shri Bapuji. In this regard, Bapu will express his opinion in the Hindi Navjivan or Harijan. Blessings from Bapu

Yours Mahadev Desai (Private Secretary, Pujya Shri Mahatma Gandhi)

"The following article from Bapu was published in Navjivan of 27.7.37. We are giving below its full text:

"A friend from Ayodhya has written a letter to enquire about the Shriram Janmabhoomi of Ayodhya. In this regard, I am putting my views below."

"It is a very heinous sin to forcibly take over any place of religious worship. During the Mughal times, many places of worship, which were sacred to the Hindus, were forcibly taken over, and many of them were looted and destroyed. Many of them were converted into masjids. Although both mandirs and masjids are places of worship of God, and there is no difference between the two, yet the way of prayers and traditions of both Hindu and Muslim in worship are quite different.

"From the religious viewpoint, a Muslim will never tolerate a Hindu placing an idol in a masjid where he had been praying for long. Similarly, a Hindu will never be able to bear that a mandir where he had all along been worshipping Ram, Krishna, Shankar, Vishnu and Devi, is converted into a masjid. As a matter of fact, such events, wherever they occur, are a symbol of religious slavery. Both Hindus and Muslims should try to settle such disputes among themselves. Places of Muslim worship which are under the control of the Hindus should be returned to the Muslims. Similarly, Hindu religious places taken over by the Muslims, must be voluntarily handed over to the Muslims. This will end the differences and strengthen Hindu-Muslim unity which will prove a boon for a religio-centered country like India.

M.K. Gandhi”

About the Author's Own Letter : If a man says that on such and such a date he had written a letter to Gandhi, even Gandhi cannot say that he may not have written it. At the most, he (Gandhi) can say that he has not received such a letter. For those after him; it is impossible to say anything with certainty. But whatever the author has written later indicates that his letter's contention is only a concoction. For it is undoubted that both Mahadev Bhai’s letter dated 20.5.37 and the quotation from the Navjivan article said to be written by Gandhiji, are forged.

In this respect, it will be worthwhile to remind the readers that the Young India and both the Gujarati and Hindi editions of Navjivan were closed sometime in 1932. The English Harijan started in 1933 and its Hindi edition since then has been known as Harijan Sewak.

Then, how could Mahadev Bhai write that "Bapu will express his opinion in Hindi Navjivan or Harijan?" As far as we know, Mahadev Bhai was not in the habit of introducing himself as "Private Secretary, Pujya Shri Mahatma Gandhi", below his signature. And around the date 20.5.37, Gandhi, Mahadevbhai, etc., were not at all in Wardha, but were living in the Tithal Kshetra of Gujarat. Therefore, the said letter is completely concocted and false.

There being no paper run by Gandhi called Hindi-Navjivan as on 27.7.37, the article taken from it is equally concocted and false. To be sure as to whether the author had mistakenly mentioned the Hindi Navjivan, we went through the files of Harijan Sewak and the English Harijan also and came to know that all this is really concocted. The Sahitya Ratna author tried to give currency to a falsehood, but if only had he studied Gandhi's style a bit, he would have known that Gandhiji never signed himself in Hindi as "M.K. Gandhi". That the article's language is not Gandhi's can be gathered from a little familiarity (with it). This is an example of how a liar gets himself trapped. No reader must believe this falsehood in the name of Gandhiji.

Jivanji Desai

(Courtesy: (English Translation) People's Democracy, 9 December 1990)