mahatma gandhi and the jewish national home 35then prime minister of the princely state of Bikaner (currently in the
western state of Rajasthan) and later India’s fi rst ambassador to the Peo-
ple’s Republic of China. In 1947, he advised the Jewish delegation for the
Asian Relations Conference that the Zionist “eff orts should be concen-
trated not on top leaders like Nehru, Gandhi, [Sardar Vallabhbhai] Patel
etc., but on leaders of the second rank, who are free to form, and even to
voice, their own unbiased opinion.”^43
On the whole, if Gandhi’s 1937 private statement to Kallenbach failed
to satisfy the Zionists, the November 1938 Harijan article proved to be
a disaster and led to widespread disappointment, outrage, and doubts
about cultivating Gandhi.^44 The Zionists in India used the pages of The
Jewish Advocate to rebuke and repudiate his views.^45 In Jerusalem, Eliahu
Epstein (later Eliahu Elath), who subsequently became Israel’s fi rst
ambassador in Washington, was alarmed over the prospect of the
Mahatma’s views being widely disseminated in the Arab world. He was
anxious “to avoid entering into polemic with Ghandi [sic] in order not to
give unnecessary publicity to his views.”^46 Epstein enquired of a Jewish
Agency offi cial in London: “Was this article reprinted in the En glish
press and how wide was its circulation?”^47
Contrary to Olsvanger’s assessment, Gandhi was far from a spent
force. Recognizing his continued infl uence over the Indian masses, only
months after the Harijan article Shohet was pleading with the Jewish
Agency offi cials in Jerusalem: “However cranky his views may appear to
the outside world, we should not lose the opportunity of a real and seri-
ous attempt to try and convince him.”^48 Shohet, who wrote highly critical
editorials on the Mahatma following the November 1938 remarks, felt it
necessary to accompany Joseph Nevidi, a Zionist emissary from Pales-
tine, in trying to persuade Gandhi.^49 For all practical purposes, however,
formal Zionist approaches to Mahatma Gandhi came to a clear halt after
the Harijan article. Shimoni presents a sober picture when he observed,
“if account is taken of his private statements to Kallenbach, his hesi-
tancy to speak out, the double standard by which he judged Jewish self-
determination and Moslem self- determination, as well Jewish behavior
and Arab behavior, and above all, the realities of the Indian po liti cal con-
text in which Gandhi functioned, a more complex pattern of thought
suggests itself.”^50
If one examines Gandhi’s views on Palestine and Jewish national aspi-
rations, a certain broad— but at times blurred— picture emerges.