The Patna Surrender, which took place from 1922-1924, was Gandhi\u2019s response to a split in the Congress Party based on whether or not to take part in local councils set up by the British. On one side was Jawaharlal Nehru and his supporters, convinced that Indians should participate in the councils even though they were largely symbolic and wielded very little concrete power. On the other side was Gandhi, who believed that for Indians to join ineffective councils was to take part in a political lie, ultimately at their own expense.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Gandhi finally gave up and yielded to Nehru. What made him cave in and surrender his position?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If we stop and look at this question, we can see that the language used is not neutral. Certain terms connote weakness:\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“Give up”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“Yield”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“Cave in”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“Surrender”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What happens when we look at these words afresh? Can we break free of our habitual understanding and, in so doing, reconceive Gandhi\u2019s decision? Gandhi himself saw the Patna Surrender as a victory, an expression of strength. How could this be?<\/p>\n\n\n\n