Gandhi and the Contemporary World

Sanjeev Kumar

• Publisher: Routledge India
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781000751284
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This book develops a critical understanding of Mahatma Gandhi's philosophy and practice in the context of contemporary challenges and engages with some of his key work and ideas. It highlights the relevance of Gandhi's legacy in the quest towards peace-building, equity and global justice.

The volume examines diverse facets of Gandhi's holistic view of human life – social, economic and political – for the creation of a just society. Bringing together expert analyses and reflections, the chapters here emphasise the philosophical and practical urgency of Gandhi's thought and action. They explore the significance of his concepts of truth and nonviolence to address moral, spiritual and ethical issues, growing intolerance, conflict and violence, poverty and hunger, and environmental crisis for the present world.

The volume serves as a platform for constructive dialogue for academics, researchers, policymakers and students to re-imagine Gandhi and his moral and political principles. It will be of great interest to those in philosophy, political studies, Gandhi studies, history, cultural studies, peace studies and sociology.

1
Introduction

Understanding Gandhi – Why Gandhi matters today

Sanjeev Kumar

“If my faith burns bright, as I hope it will even if I stand alone, I shall be alive in the grave, and what is more, speaking from it.”

– M.K. Gandhi

The understanding of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869–1948) is complex. There exist not just one Gandhi, but hundreds of Gandhi’s variously understood and interpreted.¹ Despite a rich source² available for venturing into his life, philosophy and praxis, it is difficult to describe Gandhi with any degree of precision. In their varied accounts the scholarship on Gandhi tends to situate him in extreme contrasts from an ascetic puritan, mass revolutionary nationalist leader to a pacifist conservative, shrewd, tactical leader. ‘Who is Gandhi?’ therefore has no easy answer, leading to myriad readings of Mahatma often resulting in an inadequate, distorted and compartmentalised view of the man and his work. Very few works of Gandhi³ have, as Bhikhu Parekh observes, ‘been able to capture and illuminate the complexity, tensions, and apparent contradictions of his personality, or to elucidate the sources of his powerful emotional hold over so many of his associates as well as his countrymen in general’ (Parekh 1997, 2005: 131).

The seeming incongruence in Gandhi’s own works furthers the ambiguity in the understanding of Gandhi. The confusion gathers momentum as Gandhi has not come up with any systematised blueprint, either of his theory or of an ideal social order. Bondurant admits Gandhi’s political philosophy is elusive. She writes: ‘To the scholar who seeks internally consistent, systematised bodies of thought, the study of Gandhi is unrewarding’. She attributes this to the ‘result of his thinking in public’ (Bondurant 1958: 147). To best understand Gandhi’s vision Judith Brown argues: ‘it is important to go back to our own understanding of himself and his life and to his fundamental goals’ (Brown 2011: 54–55).

Venturing into Gandhi necessitates a comprehensive reading of distinct yet intertwined phases of Gandhi’s journey in search for ‘Truth’. Broadly, in Gandhi’s metamorphosis from a ‘Young Mohandas’ to the ‘Mature Mahatma’ four distinct historical phases can be discerned:

• The Early Gandhi (1869–1893) which brings the journey of young Mohandas from Porbandar to his stints in Britain as student of law and his early ventures into politics, ethics and religion.
• Making of the ‘Mahatma’ (1893–1914) commencing with the eviction of Gandhi from Pietermaritzburg station to his final vow for Brahmacharya and the start of the Satyagraha struggle in 1906 in South Africa.
• Consolidation and crystallisation of the Mahatma (1915–1934) with Gandhi’s return to India and his entry into Indian politics for political swaraj.
• The Later (Mature) Gandhi (1934–1948) and his exit from active politics to pursue constructive goals of Swaraj.

The historical evolution of the Mahatma clearly shows his ideas and action never remained static. They evolved with time and gained a more mature meaning during the later phase of Gandhi’s life. To those antagonists who often questioned Gandhi on his “inconsistencies”, he pointed out in Harijan in 1939: ‘When anybody finds any inconsistency between any two writings of mine, if he has still faith in my sanity, he would do well to choose the later of the two on the same subject. But before making the choice, they should try to see if there is not an underlying and abiding consistency between the two seeming inconsistencies’ (Harijan, 30-9-39: 288). Sadly, the attempts to comprehend Gandhi have come from different standpoints often following him for what he said or did at some point of time in his life without having a complete picture of the person and the underlining unity of his thoughts and action.

Gandhi’s ethics

Gandhi had spent a lifetime struggling with certain fundamental moral precepts. Truth (Satya) and Non-Violence (ahimsa)⁴ arguably constitute the central pillars of Gandhi’s moral universe (See chapters 7 & 8, Iyer 1973). A better appraisal of Gandhi requires grasping these two intriguing ideas. The greater part of the book is devoted to unpacking these core principles of Gandhi. However, some preliminary thoughts on this topic have been laid out in the introduction.

‘Truth for Gandhi was a sovereign principle’. According to Gandhi, human destiny was a continuous search for Truth.⁵ “Truth” for Gandhi was not a purely transcendental principal, unrelated to life (Nadkarni 2011: 37). Thomas Weber points out that “Gandhi firmly believed that life could not be compartmentalised, that actions, and the reasons on which actions are based, whether they be political, economic or social, are interrelated, and that these actions have a direct bearing upon the achievement of the ultimate aim of life. Gandhi declared this aim as ‘Truth’ or Moksha, which in a Western perspective can be translated as self-realisation or the “manifestation of one’s potential to the greatest possible degree, and claimed that his life including his “ventures in the political field are directed to this same end” (Weber 1991: 134). Politics therefore for Gandhi was intrinsically a realm of truth-seeking. Politics is to be guided by the ethical quest for Truth.

For Gandhi the quest for ‘Truth’ largely depended upon the truth about the self. When Gandhi claimed that an individual’s “highest duty in life is to serve mankind and take his share in bettering its condition”, he added that this could not be done unless one understands and respects the self. True morality, that is, life based on following ethical rules, then, for Gandhi consists not in conformity but in discovering the subjectively true path and in fearlessly following it: ‘It is noble voluntarily to do what is good and right. The true sign of man’s nobility is the fact that, instead of being driven about like a cloud before the wind, he stands firm and can do, and in fact does, what he deems proper’ (Gandhi 1968: 16).

Gandhi’s ethics, therefore, stems not from the intellectually deductive formula, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” (or its variant, “Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you”), but on the statement of faith that “what in fact you do to others, you also do to yourself”. This belief in the possibility of changing and perfecting the self, a possibility open equally to all, means that for him the choice of an individual is choice for mankind because the self and mankind are ultimately one (Weber 1991: 138). The ideal of conscientious action which is conducive to the attainment of this aim must, in Gandhi’s moral philosophy, continually be borne in mind. According to him [Gandhi] there is no scope for vanity in it and the only means for reaching it is through ahimsa (CWMG 82: 39).

Ahimsa for Gandhi unlike the orthodox Indian concept is not a negatively defined idea of non-injury or avoidance of physical violence. Gandhi conceived it in positive terms. ‘Ahimsa’ for Gandhi denotes the supreme moral principle within which all other virtues are contained. Gandhi’s ahimsa implies soul-force (atmabal) consisted of love-force (prembal), truth-force (satyabal), compassion-force (dayabal), suffering-force (tapbal) and justice-force (nitibal). Thus, Gandhi’s ahimsa was rooted in altruism and compassion towards fellow humans. Love, self-sacrifice and service were quintessential to the practice of ahimsa. The general thrust of Gandhi’s injunction was that ahimsa involved qualities of respect and sympathy for the opponent, freedom from hate and a desire for peace. He seeks to convert the opponent through sympathy, patience and truthfulness. In his seminal work ‘Hind Swaraj’, the idea of non-violence is clearly elucidated wherein Gandhi emphasized the relative moral superiority of non-violence over violence.

Truth led him [Gandhi] to ahimsa at its practical or applied principle, not just because truth led to action and action had to be non-violent, but also because truth means ahimsa. At times, he said that Satya is basic and ahima followed from it, but he often felt that ahimsa was the means to attain satya (Weber 2011: 39). By combining nonviolence with truth Gandhi crafted a unique method of social change, the Satyagraha, which became the greatest force at the disposal of mankind in its struggle for human dignity and justice. This proved formidable for crusade both against social discrimination in South Africa and then against colonialism in India.

Debating Gandhi: revisiting the legacy

In the 21st century Gandhi has emerged as a powerful transformative political and spiritual leader. Many revere him as a great soul, a messiah and saint who led an ascetic, moral life and guided India to attain freedom through non-violence. But it does not mean that Gandhi and his legacy have received universal acceptance. His ideas and methods have also been deeply contested. Many view Gandhi as a shrewd tactician, inconsistent philosopher, pro-bourgeois, puritanical, pacifist leader. Dalit and Maoist ideologues debase Gandhi, sometimes in extreme ways. Recently, Arundhati Roy the Indian activist and novelist, has brandished Gandhi as being a reactionary who bolstered the caste system. It has been alleged that during his early struggle in South Africa, Gandhi held derogatory views towards native communities in South Africa. Accusing Gandhi of racism, a large group of Academics and students at the University of Ghana began the ‘Gandhi Must Fall’ movement, which resulted in the removal of a Gandhi statue from the main campus in December 2018.

Questions on Gandhi have not been anything new. His ideas and methods even when he was alive were continuously brought under the scanner. B.R. Nanda notes: ‘several of Gandhi’s ideas such as rejection of colonialism, militarism and materialism, when they were first propounded in the early years of the 20th century, were described at best as utopian and at worst as pre-modern, obscurantist and impracticable’ (Nanda 1995: XIV). Gandhi was unable to convince even his own political friends in the congress as to the soundness of his programmes. During the 1920s and 1930s Young radicals like Jawaharlal Nehru, Subhas Bose and Jayaprakesh Narayan fretted at the patient and peaceful methods of the Mahatma (Nanda 1997: X). Even Gokhale [Gandhi’s] political mentor laughed at some of the opinions expressed in the Hind Swaraj (1909), considered as the seminal manifesto of Gandhi and told him: ‘After you have stayed in India, your views will correct themselves’ (cited in Nanda 1995: 10–11). M.N. Roy and Jinnah were constantly at loggerheads with Gandhi. Rabindranath Tagore too disagreed and questioned him [Gandhi] for his understanding on modernity, non-cooperation and swadeshi. Babasaheb Ambedkar vehemently opposed him on the dalit question. The Indian communists dubbed him a charismatic but calculating leader who knew how to arouse the masses but deliberately contained and diverted their revolutionary ardour so as not to hurt the interests of British imperialists and Indian capitalists (Nanda 1997: 8 emphasis added). To Sardar Patel he appeared to be too pro-Muslim to be uncritically acceptable and the communal forces whether of Muslim League Variety or RSS and Hindu Mahasabha openly detested him and even hated him. A Hindu fanatic Nathuram Godse ultimately shot him dead.

Ambivalence about Gandhi looms large when we consider Gandhi’s approach towards certain aspects of caste, gender, economy or even health, diet and food habits.⁶ Critics have often questioned Gandhi’s unflinching commitment to Hindu Sanatan Dharma and the social order in the form of Varna.⁷ His minimalist approach to diet (consisting of nuts, fruits, jaggery and boiled vegetables, exclusion of cow milk, spices, and raw onions (Gandhi 2006: 193) and sex (he imposed a strict celibacy on himself and his followers) can hardly find favour in the context of the present. Not only did he reject birth control and recommend abstinence as a means of limiting population, but sex for him was needed only for procreation. Gandhi said: ‘A man, whose activities are wholly consecrated to the realization of Truth, which requires utter selflessness, can have no time for the selfish purpose of begetting children and running a household’ (Gandhi 1995: 219–220). Gandhi’s experiments in communal living at the Phoenix Settlement and at Tolstoy Farm raised further issues. He imposed strict injunctions regarding celibacy on the ashramites. Gandhi believed the young should conserve sex energy and use it for service of others. Both men and women in the ashram were segregated. Gandhi’s advice was that ‘husbands should not be alone with their wives, and when they felt passion, should take a cold bath’. In the Tolstoy Farm Gandhi had even forced the girls to tonsure their heads (cited in Rajmohan Gandhi 2006: 161). During the mid 1940s Mahatma’s experiment in testing his own self-control by sleeping naked with a few of his young consenting women ashramites shocked many of his followers. In the winter of 1946–47 the news that Gandhi was sleeping with his 19-year-old grand-niece Manu in the midst of mass killing in Noakhali incited huge public outcry. Gandhi’s stenographer and his Bengali translator eventually quit their job in protest but Gandhi remained relentless, believing he was performing yajna (supreme sacrifice) through his act of intensified Brahmacharya to contain violence that had engulfed India after partition (see Kulkarni 2012: 338–340).

The reading of Autobiography and his own admissions makes clear that Gandhi behaved in an inconsiderate way to his wife and children on several occasions. Gandhi acted as a self-indulgent husband and father, placing undue expectations on them as he did to himself. The autobiography reveals facts of Gandhi being a possessive husband in his early married life. On many instances Kasturba had to struggle to contain his [Gandhi’s] desire to dominate her. At such moments, Rajmohan Gandhi recounts in his book, ‘Gandhi was a master, teacher, husband and she a servant, pupil, wife, indeed a piece of property’ (1995: 92). Gandhi narrates in his autobiography an incident when ‘he treated Ba with indignity and was ready to expel her from the ashram when she refused to clean up the chamber pot used by an untouchable guest. ‘She had to shame him in taking her back’ (Gandhi 2006: 255). In 1906 when Gandhi finally resolved to take a vow of Brahmacharya (to control his sexual urges and gain moral strength needed to serve the humanity), he did not bother to consult Kasturba. Though Gandhi stated in his autobiography that Ba ‘raised no objection’ on his avowed wish, but the wife Kasturba was informed of Gandhi’s decision only after he had made up his mind after years of contemplation (2006: 191). Both henceforth adopted self-restraint as a rule of life and ceased to live as a conventional married couple. The incident such as this raises doubts if Gandhi was sensitive to Kasturba’s emotional life⁸ and cared much of her privacy while deciding upon to extend his services to the wider human fraternity. We have no sense of how Kasturba felt at having to share her home and husband, says Rajmohan Gandhi and learnt to ‘tolerate other women sharing the space and chores around Gandhi, and grew close her to some of them’⁹ (2006: 434).

Gandhi also had a condescending attitude towards his children. David Hardiman observes: ‘It was hard for him to accept when a “daughter” or “son” real or adopted sought to assert their independence; there were acrimonious quarrels, leading in some cases to sharp and bitter breaks’ (Hardiman 2003: 94). Having himself been a beneficiary of Western education, Gandhi refused to offer colonial (English) education to his sons, ordered them as young men...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Notes on contributors
• Foreword
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Introduction: understanding Gandhi – Why Gandhi matters today
• Part I Gandhian philosophy
• Part II Gandhi and Swaraj
• Part III Gandhi and social justice
• Part IV Post-Gandhian legacy: issues and challenges
• Index