The Jewish Question
by Gandhi
from Harijan, May 22, 1939
The Managing Editor of Jewish Frontier, published at 275 Seventh Avenue, NewYork City, was good enough to send me a copy of the March number of the magazinewith the request that I should deal with its reply to my article on the Jews inGermany and Palestine. The reply is very ably written. I wish I had space forreproducing the whole of it. The reader will, however, find the main argumentreproduced in this issue of Harijan.
Let me say that I did not write the article as a critic. I wrote it at thepressing request of Jewish friends and correspondents. As I decided to write, Icould not do so in any other manner.
But I did not entertain the hope when I wrote it that the Jews would be at onceconverted to my view. I should have been satisfied if even one Jew had beenfully convinced and converted.
Nor did I write the article only for today. I flatter myself with the beliefthat some of my writings will survive me and will be of service to the causesfor which they have been written. I have no sense of disappointment that mywriting had not to my knowledge converted a single Jew.
Having read the reply more than once, I must say that I see no reason to changethe opinion I expressed in my article. It is highly probable that, as the writersays, "a Jewish Gandhi in Germany, should one arise, could function forabout five minutes and would be promptly taken to the guillotine". But thatwill not disprove my case or shake my belief in the efficacy of ahimsa. I canconceive the necessity of the immolation of hundreds, if not thousands, toappease the hunger of dictators who have no belief in ahimsa. Indeed the maximis that ahimsa is the most efficacious in front of the great himsa. Its qualityis really tested only in such cases. Sufferers need not see the result duringtheir lifetime. They must have faith that if their cult survives, the result isa certainty. The method of violence gives no greater guarantee than that ofnon-violence. It gives infinitely less. For the faith of the votary of ahimsa islacking.
The writer contends that I approached the Jewish problem "without thatfundamental earnestness and passionate search for truth which are socharacteristic of his usual treatment of problems". All I can say is thatto my knowledge there was lack neither of earnestness nor of passion for truthwhen I wrote the article. The second charge of the writer is more serious. Hethinks that my zeal for Hindu-Muslim unity made me partial to the Arabpresentation of the case, especially as that side was naturally emphasised inIndia. I have often said that I would not sell truth for the sake of India`sdeliverance. Much less would I do so for winning Muslim friendship. The writerthinks that I am wrong on the Jewish question as I was wrong on the Khilafatquestion. Even at this distance of time I have no regret whatsoever for havingtaken up the Khilafat cause. I know that my persistence does not prove thecorrectness of my attitude. Only it is necessary for everyone concerned to knowwhere I stand today about my action in 1919-20.
I am painfully conscious of the fact that this writing of mine will give nosatisfaction either to the Editor of Jewish Frontier or to my many Jewishfriends. Nevertheless, I wish with all my heart that somehow or other thepersecution of the Jews in Germany will end and that the question in Palestinewill be settled to the satisfaction of all the parties concerned.
Rajkot, May 22, 1939