had been shown to have its limitations. The ‘masses’ were not altogether
amenable to the control of their social superiors, and not all their social
superiors agreed as to whether, or to what extent, they ought to be
controlled, and to what ends – although very few at the time were willing
to let them set their own agenda.
Gandhi, who had done so much to turn the Congress into a mass
party, had at a vital juncture retreated into the background to think,
pray and meditate. Many who had supported him on the grounds that his
effectiveness as a mass mobiliser should override their own misgivings
about the style and content of his politics – he was somewhat mystical,
in the style of the Hindu holy man, an ascetic – were slightly wary of him
and his leadership thereafter. Nevertheless, his tremendous personal
conviction could at least for a time rub off onto people around him.
Gandhi himself had gained much respect from his colleagues and even
if they disagreed with him, few could bring themselves to doubt his
sincerity.
This was not the case with all of Gandhi’s followers. It was not just
the ‘masses’ that he had brought into nationalist politics. A number of
Indian businessmen were increasingly keen to participate in nationalist
activity. They were a curious conglomeration of people, with trade and
business often organised on the basis of clan and ethnic networks – notably
the Marwaris, moneylenders and traders from Rajasthan with links across
India, and now making their mark in emerging industry. In Gandhism
they found a space: suffering from discriminatory legislation and busi-
ness practices that favoured their British competitors, they welcomed
nationalist pressure on the government, as long as it did not go so far as
to empower their employees or disrupt commerce. And Gandhi, with his
claim that the wealthy held their wealth in trust for the ‘nation’, could
legitimate their position in the eyes of a wider public, accustomed to
thinking of them as grasping moneylenders or devious capitalists. Other
business groups were more circumspect: relying on good relations and
possibly contracts with the government to operate, they could not afford
to identify themselves with people and movements the government was
still describing as ‘Bolshevik’. The difference between Gandhism and
‘Bolshevism’ was soon to become clearer.
Between 1922 and 1926, another division became evident: there was
a sharp distance between different generations of nationalists. Younger
nationalists like Jawaharlal were beginning to think beyond purely
THE YOUNG GANDHIAN 55