On 15th January, 1934, a massive earthquake hit the northern parts of India with the epicenter located near Bihar-Nepal border. The earthquake was disastrous with magnitude of 8.3 on the Richter scale. It took thousands of lives, mainly in Bihar and some part of Nepal. Gandhiji was touring south India for his movement against untouchability when he came to know about the devastating earthquake. Since he was so much into his fight against the untouchability, he spontaneously correlated it with the earthquake and reportedly called it to be ‘a divine chastisement for the great sin we have committed and are still committing against those whom we describe as untouchables’.
This correlation of a natural disaster with human behavior was quite awful and irrational. It obviously invited some sharp criticisms. Interestingly the criticisms began by the two of his strongest supporters in his movements. Jawaharlal Nehru, who strongly advocated scientific temper, came to know about Gandhiji’s statement probably when he was on visit to the earthquake affected area (or just before he left for the visit). It was absolutely shocking for Nehru, as he has described in his autobiography, to read Gandhiji's statement to the effect that the earthquake had been a punishment for the sin of untouchability. He put up some rhetoric questions to indicate that Gandhiji’s correlation didn't make any sense. He wrote: "if the earthquake was a divine punishment for sin, how are we to discover for which sin we are being punished? for, alas! We have many sins to atone for. Each person can have his pet explanation; we may have been punished for submitting to alien domination, or for putting up with an unjust social system. The Maharaja of Durbhanga, the owner of enormous estates, was, financially, one of the major sufferers from the earthquake. We might as well say that this was a judgment on the zamindari system. Or the British Government might call the calamity a divine punishment for civil disobedience, for, as a matter of fact, north Behar, which suffered most from the earthquake, took a leading part in the freedom movement.”
This criticism of Gandhiji from Nehru came despite of the fact that Nehru himself was fighting for the same cause with Gandhiji and was in fact very instrumental in the movement against untouchability. Nehru’s open criticism of Gandhiji reveals that there was quite a good amount of independent thinking and ideological confrontation allowed and respected among the team members, who were leading the freedom movement in those days.
Apart from Nehru, another great personality supporting Gandhiji in his fight against untouchability was Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore. It was Tagore who gave the title of 'Mahatma' to Gandhiji. He had already expressed his support to Gandhiji’s movement against untouchability and had been regularly writing on the issue. However, he, too, reacted to Gandhiji's remark almost the same way as Nehru did. Obviously, being a rational thinker and a strong promoter of science, he suspended Gandhiji’s statement as illogical. He didn’t believe in the moral connection to the physical phenomena. However, instead of giving a public statement, he directly wrote a letter to Gandhiji expressing his disagreement and disappointment with his statement on earthquake. He also wrote an article “The Bihar Earthquake”, denouncing Gandhiji’s statement as irrational, unscientific and unfortunate and further put up the rationalist’s viewpoint on the natural catastrophes. Tagore wrote: “If we associate ethical principles with cosmic phenomena, we shall have to admit that human nature is superior to Providence that preaches its lessons in good in orgies of the worst behaviour possible". He was more concerned and pained especially because such opinion came from Gandhiji, whose popularity could take it down to the large section of society very quickly. Maintaining Gandhiji’s dignity and respect, he further wrote, "We, who are immensely grateful to Mahatmaji for inducing, by his wonderworking inspiration, freedom from fear and feebleness in the minds of his countrymen, feel profoundly hurt when any words from his mouth may emphasize the elements of unreason in those very minds - unreason which is a source of all blind powers that drive us against freedom and self-respect”. He sent the article to Gandhiji with a request to publish it in his journal ‘Harijan’.
Gandhiji, being Gandhiji, published the article that was an open criticism of himself, however, with a rejoinder maintaining his stand on the matter. Gandhiji wrote that he couldn’t somehow see the natural disasters in isolation from the man’s ethical behavior. He said that the mechanisms behind physical phenomena, even if natural, were not known completely to the mankind and he had faith that the mechanisms must somehow include the moral values in them. Tagore didn't respond to it further and the debate ended there leaving behind some points to ponder for us.
There are two major points that I want to make.
1. This debate took place in 1930s, when majority of Indian population was poor and suffering from various social problems. The literacy rate of the country was probably less than one third of what it is now. Still the national leaders gave lots of importance to cultivation of rational thinking and scientific approach among the population. They confronted the apex leader of their own movement, that too, knowing the tremendous popularity he was enjoying in those days, just to ensure that the leaders should not pass on the message which is scientifically or rationally unjustifiable. On the other hand, today in 21st century when the world is climbing new heights of science and technology every day, our leaders (political leaders in particular) are busy talking about religions, casts, communities and other nonsense. The science has got very less, if not the least, priority in policy making and, I am afraid, it will hurt the nation really badly in long run.
2. In addition to surprisingly high significance given to the scientific temper, the debate also emphasizes striking presence of internal democracy within the party (team). The party members could easily take on the top leader without inviting any internal clash. The freedom of independent thinking and sharing the thoughts depicted by this instance is unimaginable in present scenario. The high-command culture has ruined the process of independent thinking or exchange of thoughts. The democracy is just for the namesake and there is no room for dissent. A large number of original ideas are curtailed down at this stage itself and the nation suffers eventually. This is true across the political parties, irrespective of whether it’s ruling or in opposition.
Both these situations are frustrating. They pose strong barriers in the development of nation. If we want to progress with the rate the rest of the world is progressing, we must overcome these barriers sooner than later and train ourselves to foster scientific temper. And we have our own history to learn and past leaders to get inspired from. For example, the concept of scientific temper is brilliantly explained by Nehru in his famous book 'Discovery of India', which was written during imprisonment in '40s. He elaborated his idea of scientific temper as follow: "The applications of science are inevitable and unavoidable for all countries and peoples today. But something more than its application is necessary. It is the scientific approach, the adventurous and yet critical temper of science, the search for truth and new knowledge, the refusal to accept anything without testing and trial, the capacity to change previous conclusions in the face of new evidence, the reliance on observed fact and not on pre-conceived theory, the hard discipline of the mind—all this is necessary, not merely for the application of science but for life itself and the solution of its many problems. Too many scientists to-day, who swear by science, forget all about it outside their particular spheres. The scientific approach and temper are, or should be, a way of life, a process of thinking, a method of acting and associating with our fellowmen." I personally feel that this paragraph explains everything we need as a society to progress. He also managed to get the concept of scientific temper documented in the constitution after independence and India is probably the only country whose constitution demands its citizen to think scientifically. I hope the next generation will look to the life through spectacles of science. Meanwhile, it's the responsibility of universities, schools, teachers, thinkers, and writers to spread and nurture the scientific temper among people. विज्ञानं सारथि: न: स्यात॥ Let the Science lead us. That's the only way to create foundation on which a stronger, happier and healthier civilization can be built.
~ Vipul Kheraj
