referred to as ‘Gandhi notes’. The Congress and Gandhi were shocked
at the lack of authorial control over their utterances, disturbed at the
appropriations of a movement designed by them, by signs of autonomy on
the part of the ‘ignorant’ peasantry. Their issues were not necessarily
relevant to the peasants. It was found that in some areas, ‘Khilafat’ was
interpreted as originating from the Urdu word khilaf– ‘to go against’,
rather than from Khalifa, which in addition to not being relevant to
non-Muslims was not necessarily relevant even to Muslims, not all of
whom were religiously inclined, or at least inclined to defer to a supreme
spiritual leader. Gandhi’s style also lent itself to his being interpreted
within the parameters of popular Hinduism, with the ‘darshan’ or sighting
of a holy man as auspicious. Gandhi’s use of rhetoric and imagery from
Tulsidas’s Hindustani version of the Ramayana, well-known in oral form
to his North Indian audience, and the theatrics of his style of dress, all
added to this tendency.
It is possible to say, therefore, that the success of Non-Cooperation
had little to do with its proclaimed goals, and more to do with the (sincere
or strategic) appropriation of Gandhi for different agendas. Gandhi
became a polyvalent symbol available for multiple causes: people could
make of him or his message what they would. The need among the
peasantry for a popular, possibly even quasi-mythological figure to rally
round has been commented upon at some length; counter-arguments have
pointed out that this view could make the mistake of attributing passivity
to the peasants, lumped together as a sack of potatoes devoid of political
consciousness and of agency. Empirically, however, it can be shown that
the implied solidarity of a wide movement, together with the millenarian
hopes of a peasantry, or more generally an oppressed group, can be a
powerful impetus to action – even if that action bears no resemblance to
the proclaimed aims of the movement that sparks off the action. So
perhaps it was not illogical that the widespread dissatisfaction among the
peasantry in India, largely against their immediate oppressors, the land-
lords, was given an impetus by Gandhi’s call to action. Gandhi could,
as it were, replace ‘Kaiser baba’ as a resource of hope and support, with
victories being attributed to him even when they were achieved by
peasants themselves or their local leadership.
Urban labour unrest, by contrast, was not associated with the Non-
Cooperation-Khilafat Movement, neither appropriating nor being
appropriated by Gandhi. From 1919 to early 1920, there had been a wave46 THE YOUNG GANDHIAN