Mohandas Gandhi: A true ‘Hindu Sanatani’ or a True Post-Modernist?
I thought to write this post before long back (may be more than eight months); but not in this approach. Earlier, I had an idea to write an extended book review that discusses Gandhi’s political contributions. Then I changed my mindset and thought to write about Gandhi’s religion and how he used it as a successful political tool in a coherent manner. I have already read some books on Gandhi and books by Gandhi. I felt that it is insufficient to discuss on this topic. Recently, I read some more books, and some interesting articles and these books kindled me to write this post.
Here I must mention about my limited readings and understandings on Gandhi. I must say that I started reading about him and his writings with much negative criticisms and rejection. Negative criticisms on Gandhi only kindled me to know more about him. And it is not quite surprising fact! If we don’t know about something and if it is quite difficult to construe, we naturally tend to reject and hate it. Also, in these days, it is quite fashionable to make baseless slanders against our nationalist icons Gandhi and Nehru after reading some bit articles/listening some youtube videos by India’s most famous intellectual lier, Arundhati Roy. We have the absolute right to critique Gandhi, his thoughts, and his lifelong political and social struggles; and critiquing is our basic right! But before that, we should develop a basic capacity and knowledge to critique him. Reading at least some parts of ‘Indian Critiques of Gandhi’ by Harold Coward will give us a basic capacity to critique him. I will try to write about this in some other post!
Works of Ramachandra Guha and Ashis Nandy on Gandhi opened a new gate to know more about Gandhi. After that, I started reading books on Gandhi and two books by Gandhi constructively. Some interesting articles by well-known and reputed authors helped to write this post.
Some people consider themselves as more intellectual and diligent than Louis Fischer, Lloyd Rudolph, Susanne Hoeber Rudolph, Anthony Parel, Ashis Nandy, William Shirer, Martin Green, Makarand Paranjape, Judith Brown and Bhikhu Parekh and so they have extra knowledge, moral indignation and criticisms against Gandhi that the above-mentioned intellectuals failed to found and mentioned in their works! This post is not meant for them! I wish to write about this topic in two parts. Here is the first part. Here I intend to discuss how to approach Gandhi and how and why Gandhi should be viewed as True ‘Hindu Sanatani.’ Understanding Gandhi in the framework of ‘Hindu Sanatani’ will resurrect Gandhi and his ‘Sanatanic’ thoughts. Makaranad Paranjape has already elaborately discussed the decline of Gandhian institutions and Gandhian thoughts. He argues that understanding Gandhi in the framework of ‘Hindu Sanatani’ is the only way to resurrect him and his thoughts. I will put his thoughts in brief and attempt to discuss the inadequacy of viewing Gandhi as Sanatani. The next part will discuss the modernity and the postmodernity features of Gandhi and his thoughts on the political and social and spiritual life. Here I am mentioning the references for this post.
Books:
Hind Swaraj (M K Gandhi)
What is Hinduism (M K Gandhi)
Makers of modern India: Ramachandra Guha (only one chapter discusses M K Gandhi),
India after Gandhi: Ramachandra Guha (Basically the book discusses the political history of modern India. In this book, Guha discussed Gandhi in a very small part. But the name ‘Gandhi’ reflects its symbolic value),
The flaming feet and other essays: D R Nagaraj (Interesting and excellent book. I will try to write another post about this book),
The Cambridge companion to Gandhi: Judith Brown and Anthony Parel (eds) (One chapter: Gandhi's religion and its relation to his politics: Akeel Bilgrami has been referred)
The Virtue of Nonviolence- From Gautama to Gandhi: Nicholas F. Gier (One chaperon Gandhi as a Postmodern Thinker has been referred)
(Gandhi today) Indraiya Gandhi: B.Jeyamohan (Tamil book: a perfect book to understand Gandhi to mainstream readers),
(Gandhism beyond Gandhi: Post-modern readings) Gandhiyai thaandiya Gandhiyam: Prem (Tamil Book: Thoughtful one. But this book is specially meant for higher academic discussions; not meant for mainstream readers),
Gandhi-A Political and Spiritual Life: Kathryn Tidrick
Gandhi and Tamil reactionaries (Gandhi yum Tamil Sanaathani kalum: Marx Anthonisamy (Tamil book: I have read this book before five years. Moreover, at present, don’t have the copy of this book. So here I have reflected very less from this book!)
Articles:
Ashis Nandy’s and Ramachandra Guha's articles on Gandhi.
Makarand Paranjape, 2008. The "Sanatani" Mahatma: Rereading Gandhi Post-Hindutva' in the book ‘The Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi for the Twenty-First Century.’
Upasana Pandey, 2007. Problem with Postmodern Gandhi.
Many other articles in Tamil and as well as in English. As I read these articles before long back, I fear I forget to remember the exact tiles and the names of the authors. But the articles and the authors shaped my thoughts to understand about Gandhi.
 |
| (Some of the books that I have read and referred for this post) |
It is not a proper way to mention the references at the beginning of an article. But here I am doing deliberately to show my limited readings on Gandhi because attempting to write about Gandhi is a huge task. Gandhi was an avid reader and a monstrous writer! Also, he was a ceaseless conversationalist. He discussed and analyzed everything! Yes. Everything! For 45 years, he made endless conversations and debates with his disciples, colleagues about the concepts of nation, nationalism, languages, people, culture, education (indigenous education, professional education, spiritual education) civil society, panchayat raj, rural government, Hindu philosophy, caste, varnashrama, Zionism, Jain and Buddhist traditions, war, peace, nuclear power……what not? He discussed ‘everything’ with the then nation’s greatest minds like Tagore, and Nehru and he had been writing letters to regional leaders, disciples and people in the hook and corners of the nation continuously. Throughout his political life, he remained as an excellent journalist and tireless writer.
The collections of his articles and speeches filled more than 80,000 pages, and the collection exceeds more than a whopping 97 volumes. Books on Gandhi and Gandhism are also innumerable. A whole life is not enough to read about Gandhi and criticisms against Gandhi. So I don’t have any shame to confess that I have read only limited works; in fact, my thoughts and interpretations on Gandhi and his thoughts are not static. I have developed my thoughts and understandings by reading the above books and articles, and so this post will only revolve around the works! Hence I think mentioning the references at the beginning of this post is an honest way to convey my thoughts.
How to understand Gandhi?
This part is attempting to discuss two simple questions. How to approach Gandhi? How to understand Gandhi? The letters and debates between Gandhi and Tagore in between 1915 and 1941 were compiled and edited by Sabyasachi Bhattacharya, and now it is available as a book. The intellectual exchanges between Gandhi and Tagore had happened in both philosophical and political platforms, and all of them have historical and national importance. Both contradicted each other, and both learned from each other.
Gandhi became Mahatma in 1920s itself. After 1925s to till the end of his death, he remained as the most influential person in Asia. His dramatic, epic death also one of the main reasons that made the world community think Gandhi as the greatest men of the millennium. But Mohandas Gandhi has always been a disturbing phenomenon to both political right and the left, Dalits, Hindu and Muslim fundamentalists, Christian missionaries, separatists and also modern-liberals! In the last 100 years, Gandhi has always been ridiculed, misunderstood, misrepresented, hated, disparaged, vilified, belittled, denigrated, deconstructed, and destroyed by all the above. The approach and their level to destroy the image of Gandhi might differ; but they have had an ultimate, single, and simple goal: to destroy and wipe the moral image of Gandhi!
The collections of his articles and speeches filled more than 80,000 pages, and the collection exceeds more than a whopping 97 volumes. Books on Gandhi and Gandhism are also innumerable. A whole life is not enough to read about Gandhi and criticisms against Gandhi. So I don’t have any shame to confess that I have read only limited works; in fact, my thoughts and interpretations on Gandhi and his thoughts are not static. I have developed my thoughts and understandings by reading the above books and articles, and so this post will only revolve around the works! Hence I think mentioning the references at the beginning of this post is an honest way to convey my thoughts.
How to understand Gandhi?
This part is attempting to discuss two simple questions. How to approach Gandhi? How to understand Gandhi? The letters and debates between Gandhi and Tagore in between 1915 and 1941 were compiled and edited by Sabyasachi Bhattacharya, and now it is available as a book. The intellectual exchanges between Gandhi and Tagore had happened in both philosophical and political platforms, and all of them have historical and national importance. Both contradicted each other, and both learned from each other.
Gandhi became Mahatma in 1920s itself. After 1925s to till the end of his death, he remained as the most influential person in Asia. His dramatic, epic death also one of the main reasons that made the world community think Gandhi as the greatest men of the millennium. But Mohandas Gandhi has always been a disturbing phenomenon to both political right and the left, Dalits, Hindu and Muslim fundamentalists, Christian missionaries, separatists and also modern-liberals! In the last 100 years, Gandhi has always been ridiculed, misunderstood, misrepresented, hated, disparaged, vilified, belittled, denigrated, deconstructed, and destroyed by all the above. The approach and their level to destroy the image of Gandhi might differ; but they have had an ultimate, single, and simple goal: to destroy and wipe the moral image of Gandhi!
In such a context, how to understand Gandhi? As far as I know, every young reader feels difficult to understand Gandhi as the school textbooks have already deified him. I would say that it is the wrong to approach to know about Gandhi from his autobiographical book, ‘my experiments with truth.’ Though he registered his life events and his political struggles coherently and honestly, I feel that book should not be recommended a beginner and young readers. That book is surely not meant for young readers; in fact, ‘My experiments with truth’ is intended for the readers who have already got a good understanding of Gandhi and his political contributions. That book is only intended for advanced readers who have the maturity to understand the ‘symbolic orientations’ behind his social, political, and spiritual experiments. So it is always good to begin to read books on Gandhi!
Inconsistencies of Gandhi:
It must be noted that Gandhi was always open to learning from others. Gandhi’s thoughts had never been static. He consistently changed his thoughts and opinions from one platform to another. He developed his thoughts and opinions on caste, varnashrama, inter-caste marriage steadily. What he wrote on caste and varnashrama in the 1920s were entirely different and contradicted to what he wrote and spoke after 1940. It must be noted that Gandhi gave much emphasis to his inner voices and intuition. Many of his struggles, symbols, and ‘language’ were derived from his intuitions. Also much has already been discussed about the inconsistency of Gandhi’s thoughts. He clarified why he was so inconsistent and why he often changed his thoughts. He wrote in his journals Young India and Harijan,
Inconsistencies of Gandhi:
It must be noted that Gandhi was always open to learning from others. Gandhi’s thoughts had never been static. He consistently changed his thoughts and opinions from one platform to another. He developed his thoughts and opinions on caste, varnashrama, inter-caste marriage steadily. What he wrote on caste and varnashrama in the 1920s were entirely different and contradicted to what he wrote and spoke after 1940. It must be noted that Gandhi gave much emphasis to his inner voices and intuition. Many of his struggles, symbols, and ‘language’ were derived from his intuitions. Also much has already been discussed about the inconsistency of Gandhi’s thoughts. He clarified why he was so inconsistent and why he often changed his thoughts. He wrote in his journals Young India and Harijan,
I must admit my many inconsistencies.
But since I am called 'Mahatma', I might well endorse Emerson's saying that
'Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.' There is, I fancy, a
method in my inconsistencies. In my opinion, there is a consistency running
through my seeming inconsistencies, as in Nature there is unity running through
seeming diversity. (Young India, 1930)
‘I am not at all concerned with
appearing to be consistent. In my pursuit after Truth I have discarded many
ideas and learnt many new things. Old as I am in age, I have no feeling that I
have ceased to grow inwardly or that my growth will stop with the dissolution
of the flesh. What I am concerned with is my readiness to obey the call of
Truth, my God, from moment to moment’. (Harijan, 1933).
It is quite interesting to compare the thoughts of Gandhi on caste, varnashrama, untouchability, and inter-caste marriage in the 1920s with his thoughts after 1945. After 1935, he realized the evils of caste structures in Indian society and also the discussions with Nehru and Ambedkar made him reconsider these thoughts much. After 1945, he radically changed his thoughts about inter-caste marriage, and he insisted on the marriage of upper caste women with erstwhile lower caste men.
Why has Gandhi been hated this much?
I came to know about Gandhi in two ways. 1) Like we all, through school text books. Gandhi has been completely deified in school text books; there is nothing to get about Gandhi from our academic school text books apart from information about Gandhi’s contributions to the freedom struggles. It is completely prosaic. Our school text books made Gandhi as a boring personality. It certainly makes us think Gandhi and his thoughts are no longer relevant in modern-liberal society. 2) Gandhi: one of India’s greatest evil. So the youths of India have to choose only one of the options from these two extreme polarizations. Either they have to accept Gandhi as 'God,' 'boring old man who no more relevant to 'modern society' Or 'the greatest evil and wily phenomenon.' From the two options, young minds naturally choose as the 'evil phenomenon' seems more attractive as human minds easily tend to believe conspiracy theories!
Understanding Gandhi requires much time, patience, consistency to read and act, and a basic belief in morality. That’s why Gandhi is often misunderstood and wrongly represented! The hatred against Gandhi has a long history. Gandhi returned to Indian politics from South Africa in the year 1915. It has been more than 100 years! From 1915 to 2016, the hatred against Gandhi has been continuously increasing! From 1910s Tilak’s supporters to 2010s ‘modern’ liberal separatists, Gandhi has been hated, slandered, and projected as the greatest evil phenomenon throughout India. After the 1980s, the emergence of Dalit consciousness and the intellectual backing moved ‘hatred’ against Gandhi into 'rejection' in many subtle ways. Here the hatred against Gandhi has happened in more subtle and advance level. But the paradox is most of the best works and researches of Gandhi and Gandhism were done by western Institutions and Christian authors who believe in Catholicism and Protestantism!
Here Gandhi has been represented as a ‘Hindu reactionary’ (not Sanatani!) who wilily defeated all the efforts of Dr.Ambedkar through his fraudulent Satyagraha, fasting and ‘fake’ ahimsa! The hatred spread-over against Gandhi in India’s prominent educational institutions are very subtle and nuance. Here Gandhi has not been hated but rejected based on his ‘reactionary’ thoughts (They consider ‘Santani’ as ‘reactionary’!). Hence Gandhi has been abhorred and rejected subtly in the intellectual domain of India both by the political right and the political left.
First, let us take a look at the historical background of creating Gandhi as the greatest evil phenomenon. The ‘greatest evil’ & ‘greatest wily’ image of Gandhi has been deliberately, systematically, structurally and subtly created by our-own half-baked academic Marxists, Hindutva ideologues (including extreme right-wings), Islamic fundamentalists, ethnic separatists, Christian missionaries (it is difficult to make direct allegations against Christian missionaries as their backing to destroy the image of Gandhi is heavily indirect, subtle but very strong) for the past 60 years. We like it not, in future, the rejection of Gandhi will be more and rampant in the academic domain.
Here I have not included our modern, Western-educated Indian intellectuals and western academicians who have been projecting as ‘Gandhi: the greatest wily’ through Dalit perspectives. Dalit questions on Gandhi have always been a big debate. It is well known that Dalit movements have been structurally rejecting and hating Gandhi based on his thoughts on ‘caste’ and ‘varnashrama.’ Dalit questions on Gandhi and rejection of Gandhi by Dalits and Dalit movements have had its 85-year historical roots, and it is well known; also, it has moral grounds. It is difficult to discuss with the people who believe in conspiracy theory!
Gandhi’s stance on caste had always been inconsistent, open, honest. Gandhi was the first ‘people leader’ in India who spoke and act for the removal of untouchability and the emancipation of erstwhile lower castes. Though his approaches and thoughts had been conflicting and controversial, projecting, and insinuating Gandhi as the greatest evil phenomenon in the academic and intellectual domain has its own sinister and dangerous motives. I am reiterating this, and I am not a believer of conspiracy theory against Gandhi and his approaches to the removal of caste and untouchability. I am honest in confessing about my bias on Gandhi, and this entire post will revolve around my bias!!
How has Gandhi been viewed by Brahmins and other upper castes in the political right and the political left?
Then the interesting question is how Brahmins and other Upper castes view Gandhi. Much has already been written about 'how' and 'should' Dalits view Gandhi. We often forget and often deliberately avoid to discuss how Brahmins in both the political left and political right view, Gandhi. If we delve the question further, we can find the reasons for the roots of hatred against Gandhi. Throughout the past 90 years’ history, well-educated Brahmins in both political right and the political left rejected Gandhi on various grounds; in fact, they were the forerunners of Dalits in the context of rejecting Gandhi. They created conspiracy theories against Gandhi, and they were the ones who wrote numerous books which completely contain baseless slanders and hatred against Gandhi.
Gandhi has always been a disturbing image to the dream of creating ‘Hindu Rashtra’ of Brahmins in the Hindu rightwing. Hindu rightwing movements in India have always been the control of Brahmins. Here it must be noted that we should not ‘singularize’ the wide spectrum of ‘Brahmins’; many well-educated Brahmins gave full support to Gandhi in his movements, and in fact, many of the influential disciples of Gandhi were Brahmins. But still, the rejection of Gandhi by orthodox Brahmins in the political right and revolutionary Brahmins in the political left were very common. Some of the well-known reasons are
1) Though Gandhi proclaimed himself as a true Hindu Sanatani, he acted as a reformer, and he insisted the Brahmins and upper castes give up their casteist thoughts to serve the erstwhile untouchables. He started temple-entry campaign in the year 1932 and made massive travels throughout the country (especially in Madras state, he made travels to many villages) and campaigned the cause; he also urged the upper castes for ‘inner purification’ for the sins that they had committed to erstwhile untouchables and appealed for ‘inner change’.
2) He was the one and only people leader who had massive support in the hook and corners of the country. Gandhi widely used symbols (especially religious symbols) as a political tool to garner support from the common people for his struggles. Many of the activities of Gandhi gave the image that Mohandas Gandhi was the only true authority of Hindu religion. It irked the orthodox Brahmin community as they considered themselves as the guardians of Hindu religion.
3) One of the greatest victories of Gandhi was he conquered the domination of casteist Brahmins in Congress party within just five years of his entry, and he made them accept him as a leader! But still, he faced bitterness and oppositions from orthodox upper caste leaders in Congress party till the end of his life.
4) Though Gandhi called himself as a Hindu Sanatani and the man who wished to see ‘Ramarajya’ in the nation, he never went to any Hindu temples as a devotee and never met any ‘Sankaracharyas’ to get their ‘blessings’! Gandhi used the word ‘Ramarajya’ NOT to denote ‘Hindu Rajya’; instead, he used the word to mean the ‘kingdom of God’
5) It is well-known about the bias of Gandhi towards Jainism. He comes from a family of Baniya that followed Vaishnavism. Gandhi’s community is a merchant community. His family belonged to ‘Modh Vanik’ community. This community has had rich affinity and bias towards Jainism. Gandhi was greatly influenced by one of his best friends, Jain philosopher Rajchandra; Gandhi made deep philosophical and intellectual conversations with Rajchandra to understand religion, truth, soul, Vedas…! In his autobiography, he admits that Rajchandra deeply influenced him. The other two great thinkers who made deep impacts on his thoughts were Ruskin and Leo Tolstoy. Gandhi had letter communications with Leo Tolstoy!
Gandhi was very much influenced by famous Jain principles, anekantavada (Multi-facets of truth/multiplicity of viewpoints) and syadvada (Truth/reality is complex, and no single proposition can explain the reality). Jain metaphysics deal these two principles in detail. Since my intention about this post is different, I have deliberately avoided mentioning many details about that. Here I have given a simple and rough explanation of the principles which lack deep understanding! Interested readers may read about that!
Gandhi derived the ‘symbols’ for his struggles, and he constructed the political and social struggles from Jainism. He did not invent anything new. The pathways and the thoughts created by Gandhi were mostly derived from Jain principles and the preaches of ‘tirthanakaras.’ He admitted these in various instances! Hence Gandhi rediscovered our 2500-year-old traditions and resurrected them by using his social and political struggles. This was also one of the ‘possible’ reasons that irked the ‘orthodox’ Brahmin community in the political right!
6) To understand the political strategies of Gandhi, we should delve more the influence of Jainism on him. The impact of Jainism and its traditional ‘Sanatana Dharma’ offered a different pathway to Gandhi to conduct all his political and social struggles rather than the pathways of Brahmanism and Sathriyas. Throughout his political and social struggles, he used ‘ahimsa’ and ‘truth’ as tools to gather and control the collective conscience of people.
For him, ahimsa and truth are completely based on morality. Instead, ‘Sathriya dharma’ preaches courage and justifies violence to conquer and destroy the enemies. Gandhi’s ‘Sanatana Dharma’ is entirely different from the ‘Brahmin-Sathriya Dharma.’ Gandhi’s Sanatana dharma has universal valid and it does not have any nationalistic identity. The base of Gandhi’s Sanatana dharma is ‘ahimsa’ and ‘truth’ but not ‘violence’ and ‘courage.’ It fundamentally differed and made an open challenge to the domination of ‘Brahmin-Sathriya dharma.’
7) By following Vaishnavism which has a deep influence on Jainism, Gandhi projected and made his strategies to construct a ‘feminine’ nation which was fundamentally opposed to the Brahmins-Sathriyas ideas of constructing the ‘masculine’ nation. Gandhi constructed his struggles and symbols through his 2500-years-traditions as he had a deep understanding of the inner psyche of Indians. Mohandas Gandhi was the only people-leader who understood the psyche of crores of marginal and common people of India. He constructed the struggles and symbols to induce and attract the mindsets of mass people of this nation.
On the contrary, orthodox and revolutionary Brahmin leaders in both political right and the left did not have any understandings about the inner psyche of Indians. They foolishly thought that some small violence-based struggles and bomb blasts would fear the British government and they dreamt of creating Hindu Rashtra after upturning the British government. They did not have any concern or worries about the existing deep-rooted social inequalities of Indian society. Gandhi was the first leader in understanding the inner motivations of the political right wing, and he made strategies to defeat them constructively.
8) Here we must note about Gandhi’s understandings on caste and varnashrama. Gandhi entered into Indian politics after his 20 years of stay in South Africa. In the 1920s, Congress was entirely dominated by orthodox Marathi Brahmins and Bengali Brahmins. Apart from them, many western-educated upper caste Indians occupied the critical posts in Congress. Gandhi realized the abysmally low participation of common men and women and farmers, and so he made strategies to construct the Congress party as people’s party. To achieve that, he created strategies that include and involve the common men. One of the most celebrated and as well as controversial plans of Mohandas Gandhi is to use religious ‘symbols’ for his political and social struggles. In many aspects, the common men identified with the religious symbols, and they involved themselves with the freedom struggles.
'Why' and 'how' political right in modern India rejects Gandhi?
Gandhi never comprised with ‘ahimsa’ and ‘truth’ throughout his political and social struggles till the end of his life. It is understood that ideologically Gandhi’s Sanatana dharma with deep impacts of Jainism had much different than Brahmin-Sathriya Dharma. Hence, it is no surprise that orthodox Brahmins and Sathriyas in the political right hated and rejected Gandhi. It has been more than 68 years since Gandhi had passed away. But still, the rejection and hatred against Gandhi are very common and prevalent among the orthodox Brahmins and Sathriyas in the political rightwing. But now the rejection and hatred against Gandhi have moved into the next and advanced level. Rejection happens in subtle and nuance way.
One of the most famous allegations against Gandhi by the political right wing is Gandhi was partial towards Muslims and his autocratic activities and fasting compelled the Indian government to release Rs.55 crore to the newly formed Islamic state, Pakistan. The other one is he backed Khilafat movement in 1920 and this movement throw seeds to the raise of the separate Islamic state from mainland India.
The first allegation is nothing but baseless slander against Mohandas Gandhi by Hindu rightwing forces. Gandhi was always open to persuasion and compromises. Gandhi was always against the formation of a new state, which is entirely based on religion. He was the first soothsayer who predicted and feared the forthcoming apocalypse due to the destruction of Hindu-Muslim unity and the formation of the new Islamic state, Pakistan. He was completely right! Gandhi realized the formation of Pakistan was an inevitable reality, and in the final stage, he was cornered to accept the truth though he was entirely against the partition.
The second allegation against Gandhi has some valid presumptions. Gandhi supported Khilafat movement despite its nature of pan-Islamic as he wished to integrate Muslims and Muslim leaders into mainstream politics, and he wished to amalgamate them into mainstream politics. He did that due to his good-will and his intention to build unity among the Hindu-Muslims. But some unexpected things happened in due course of history. Gandhi was not the one and only leader who was culpable for this mistake. No one could predict what was going to happen in due course of history. Gandhi played a godfather role in the freedom struggle, and in that role, he made some decisions which in turn change the fate of the nation in some unexpected direction.
He insisted Hindu-Muslim unity throughout his political life, but the destiny made the dereliction of Hindu-Muslim unity over time, which resulted from the blood river at the time of partition. In such context, it is completely wrong and misleading to judge that Gandhi’s support to Khilafat movement had diluted the secular credentials of Congress; but, despite the long term negative impacts that created by Khilafat movement, it created unprecedented fraternization among the Hindus and Muslims.
Gandhi 'rejection' by the extreme political left
Here I am deliberately avoiding to write why extreme political left rejected Gandhi. The reasons are
1) The extreme political left in India has always been the notorious, foolish but violence-based gang lead by upper caste, Western-educated intellectuals.
2) They never gained a small influence and respect among the ordinary people of this nation. Most of the extreme political left gang had roots in Bengal, and in Gandhi period, they involved in some small violence activities, and they dreamt of defeating the mighty British government.
3) Perhaps, if these notorious extreme left-wing movement had gained some support among the ordinary people, it would have been a disaster. It would have been an end to this country. The nation had to give a massive prize for that. But that did not happen as Gandhi defeated their development through his political strategies. Hence the leaders of the extreme political left wing had life-long bitterness against Gandhi. They were the ones who fabricated and thrown mud against Gandhi on various baseless grounds.
Even after 80 years, the roots of their hatred continues both in the political left and the extreme political left movements. Much has already been written to torn the perfidious masks and foolish activities of extremist political left-wing movements at the time of Gandhi period.
Ramachandra Guha explained Gandhian principles had been reprobated by the extreme left and right ideologists. Not only extreme left and right ideologists but also extreme Dravidian and separatist ideologists reprobated Gandhi and his principles in all possible ways. These kinds of rejection of Gandhian principles are happening in intellectual domains. But, it is highly visible in social networking sites (As we all know, Social Networking Sites are not the place to make any useful discussions! But still, it is just a reflection of the perception of the public domain at certain extent!). If we observe meticulously, we can find the rejection of Gandhi and his principles are very rampant among the youths who know the history and political science well. So, finally, we can come into the conclusion that the rejection of Gandhian principles is also happening in the intellectual domain because of the contradictions in ideologies. This is very small compared to the youths who are rejecting Gandhi and his principles without having any understanding and knowledge
Some other controversies and its historical background
Apart from this, we all might have heard many controversies about Gandhi through various channels and at various circumstances. Most of them are nothing but slander, and already more than 100 books were written to answers such slanders. Westerners and English academicians wrote the best books that answered all the criticisms and slanders against Gandhi's political and personal life!
Gandhi was the best documented political figure in the period where no modern technologies were invented. Academicians and historians extensively researched his personal life and his public life. Of course! English authors wrote most of the best books about his personal life. Numerous books and articles on Gandhi and his personal life were researched and well documented than all his contemporary political figures. Still, the baseless allegations and hatred slanders against him remain!
The most controversial and delicate allegation against Gandhi, his relationships and experiments with women in his ashram. Through my very limited readings, I have got to know that Gandhi’s relationships with women were an extremely complex phenomenon. Gandhi had deep consciousness towards the body, and he firmly believed that controlling the body and its desires are must for all those who wish to involve themselves in public life. The experiments made by Gandhi with his ashram women will surely make the young readers feel scorn and disgusted. I too felt unhappy to know about that. But that was not the entire part of Gandhi. We have to consider his whole life and his contributions to evaluate him. Also, only the matured and advanced readers can only understand the inner psyche of Gandhi that kindles him to conduct these types of experiments. In one word, I would say, it is an extremely complex thing. My intention is not to discuss this. Hence I am selectively avoiding this topic.
‘My life is my message’:
I see Gandhi as a master political philosopher. Throughout his life, he wrote and spoke continuously about his political philosophy, and he experimented that as much as he could. He had the guts to put his whole life in the scrutiny of the world. He had the guts to say ‘my life is my message.’ No political leader in the past 1000 years and the history of the modern world had the guts to say this quote. The evidence of most of the allegations and controversies against Gandhi was taken from his autobiography! It is often wrong and misleading that we are giving too much emphasis to his contributions to the political freedom of India from the Britishers.
But this question makes the readers feel confused! What did he want to say through this quote? Did he wish to evaluate him only through his ‘life’ and ‘activities’ but not through his ‘books’ and ‘speeches’? Kathyryn Didrick asked that how it is ‘okay’ and easy to evaluate him only based on his life because he was the man who talked and wrote so much that no one in the history of modern India could and never compete!
The deep impacts of religions (Hinduism, Jainism &Christianity) on Gandhi
Kathryn Tidrick in her famous work on Gandhi and his religious life gave a remarkable beginning: India’s greatest Godmen, Mohandas Gandhi!! Though the word ‘godmen’ makes us feel delicate, it is also an apt word to describe Gandhi.; because Gandhi’s aim was not just to get political freedom from Britishers. It was only a part of his objective. His whole aim was to make this world as the ‘kingdom of God’ (not just India). He had got deep influence with Christianity and its puritanical thoughts while he was in South Africa. Also, he made ceaseless debates to understand veganism, Zionism with his colleagues and spiritual leaders.
Meanwhile, he had letter communication with his friend as well as the famous Jain philosopher, Rajchandra. He discussed everything about God, Universe, Mokhsa, Shamanic traditions…with him. Gandhi once admitted that he used India and its political struggles to make experiments about spiritual ideas that he had got in South Africa! Hence it is extremely complex to separate Gandhi from his religious influences.
To understand the spiritual and social life of struggle, we have to understand the frequent wars made by Gandhi on his own body. Anyone can get the complex image of Gandhi if we happen to read his autobiography. Gandhi’s understanding, relationship, experiments, and control over his own body was extremely complex; but, he derived most of his struggles from the experiments that he made in his own body. Much has already been researched and written about the spiritual politics of Gandhi and how he interconnected his spiritual thoughts on his social struggles. But his ‘body politics’ not often well researched and discussed. Many of his experiments and thoughts over his body to attain the spiritual development may make us feel disgusted, but still, we should accept the fact that he derived symbols for his political and social struggles by making incessant war with his body!
‘Gandhi- A true Hindu Sanatani’
In
1927, Gandhi wrote about his relationship with Hindu religion
Being
born in a Hindu family, I have remained a Hindu. I should reject it, if I found
it inconsistent with my moral sense or my spiritual growth. On examination I
have found it to be the most tolerant of all religions known to me. Its freedom
from dogma makes a forcible appeal to me inasmuch as it gives the votary the
largest scope for self-expression. (Young India, 1927)
 |
| Gandhi in his young age |
Gandhi
called himself as a ‘Hindu Sanatani’; in his letter to Patwari in 1915, he
writes,
‘I am ready to sacrifice my life to
safeguard Santana Dharma’ (it must be noted that his
understandings about ‘Sanatana Dharma’
is mostly different from how generally perceived).
Throughout
his life, he remained as a ‘Santana Hindu’ and he was proud of it. In fact, he
was a master in using religion as a political tool to build trust and make
unity among the people. The best translation of ‘Sanatani’ to English is ‘reactionary’ in which the English word
‘reactionary’ gives an entire different and opposite meaning than what he
considered about ‘Sanatani’; the word
‘reactionary’ distorts and misrepresent how Gandhi viewed ‘Sanatani’. Hence I prefer to use the word ‘sanatani’ as it is!
Gandhi
wrote about what does it mean by ‘Sanatani Hindu’
‘I call myself a Sanatani
Hindu, because,
1. I believe in the
Vedas, the Upanishads, the Puranas and all that goes by the name of Hindu
scriptures, and therefore in avatar as and rebirth;
2. I believe in the
varnashrama dharma in a sense, in my opinion, strictly Vedic but not in its
present popular and crude sense;
3. I believe in the
protection of the cow in its much larger sense than the popular;
4. I do not believe in
idol-worship’. (Young India, 1921)
Then
he further added
‘The reader will note
that I have purposely refrained from using the word divine origin in reference
to the Vedas or any other scriptures. For I do not believe in the exclusive
divinity of the Vedas. I believe the Bible,the Quran, and the Zend Avesta to be
as much divinely inspired as the Vedas. My belief in the Hindu scriptures does
not require me to accept every word and every verse as divinely inspired. Nor
do I claim to have any firsthand knowledge of these wonderful books. But I do
claim to know and feel the truths of the essential teaching of the scriptures.
I decline to be bound by any interpretation, however learned it may be, if it
is repugnant to reason or moral sense. I do most emphatically repudiate the
claim (if they advance any such) of the present Shankaracharyas and shastris to
give a correct interpretation of the Hindu scriptures. On the contrary I
believe that our present knowledge of these books is in a most chaotic state’.
(Young India, 1921).
Though
Gandhi called himself as a ‘Sanatani’, he acted as a perfect and shrewd reformist.
He had achieved massive success in reforming the Hindu religion in all aspects.
He was the first ‘people’ political leader who raised a voice for the
reformation of Hindu religion against untouchability, superstitious beliefs and
rituals. He was a first ‘people’ leader in modern India who brought women in
politics and the leader who dreamt and acted for Hindu-Muslim unity. But still,
there are many allegations and controversies against his approaches to bring
the reformations both in the political left and right wing.
I happened to read
three contradicting opinions on how should we see Gandhi: As a true ‘sanatani’
or a true ‘post-modernist’? Maharand Parajabe argues that Gandhi should be
viewed as true Sanatani and the western tools and methods to understand Gandhi
completely distort the values that he believed’ also India should not compare
herself with western nations. It does not mean that Indian culture and ethos
have innate contradictions with western culture. On the contrary, the schools
and the pathways between us and the Western nations are completely different.
Further he goes on and argues that Nationalistic theories and the sense of
nationalism are not as menace as the theories that suggest trans-nationalism. Trans-nationalism
sometimes horrific and it has its own aggressive greedy strategies to yield the
nations. Hence it must be opposed. Understanding Gandhi through western scales
and tools will make us to misunderstand him. So viewing him as a true ‘Sanatani’
and understanding why his version of ‘sanatana dharma’ is the true solution of
all contemporary issues will make us to understand the dynamics of the issues
and it will make us to resolve them.
Though
the thoughts and activities of Gandhi appeared to be modernist, he was deeply
influenced by ‘Hindu Sanatana Dharma’. It must be noted that Gandhi’s religion
was eclectic and it was a kind of syncretism. Gandhi’s ‘Sanatana Dharma’ accepts all the religions and it has pluralistic
orientation. We can’t see the innate ‘pluralistic orientation’ in other
Abrahmic religions. It does not mean that ‘Sanatana Dharma’ is superior over
Abrahamic religions; instead, it has got that innate ability through 2500-year
tradition.
Understanding
Gandhi as true Sanatani has its own innate philosophical and moral issues. Though
we see him as a true believer of Hindu religion, he was against many of its
fundamental principles. He argued against idol worship and in fact his
understanding about Hindu religion is complicated and mostly different from the
beliefs of ‘Sanatanis’. Though he proclaimed himself as a true ‘sanatani’, he
has strong bias towards Jainism. And he was much influenced by Christian
theology and first testament when he was in South Africa for 20 years.
Much of
his thoughts and experiments of politics, religion and body were abundantly
shaped by Christian theology and its puritanical thoughts. It must be noted
that Gandhi considered himself as a true advaiti also! Gandhi’s belief on
religion seemed complex and mostly consistent. Basically he considered truth,
ahimsa and compassion are the pillars of religion (Hindu religion). Throughout
his life, he remained as a consistent searcher for truth and he made
experiments on it.
Gandhi: A true Advaita Vedanti?
Gandhi’s
thought on ‘self’ and the universal ‘self’ totally resembles that he is
advaiti. He himself considered as a believer of ‘advaita vedanta’. Gandhi
defined his belief of ‘self’ and he asserted that the inner spiritual
attainment of one ‘self’ should make impacts on others and it should make their
‘self’ to get spiritual attainment as he gets. He believed in the concept of
Advaita (non-duality). Non-duality always promotes universal unity of man. ‘I
believe that if one man gains spiritually, the whole world gains with him and,
if one man falls, the whole world falls to that extent’, Gandhi added. Pandey
in her article discussed that since postmodernism generally lack the concepts
of universal unity and spiritual oneness, it has always been difficult to categorize
Gandhi’s thoughts in the wide spectra of postmodernism.
Gandhi’s
relationship with Adviata Vedanta was also complex! He defined Advaita Vedanta
in his own version! Also we should think about Gandhi's much emphasis on
individual integrity. Gandhi firmly believed the integrity and goodwill of
‘individual self’ and he repeatedly insisted that individual self should attain
spiritual advancement through service to the society. Nicholas F. Gier asserts
that Gandhi’s firm belief on individuation and the reality of individual make
him to consider as a true advaita vedanti.
(P:S) I have used some Sanskrit words as it is without translating into English because I feel that Direct-English-translated words are
not perfectly suitable to describe those Sanskrit words that Mohandas Gandhi what actually intended to mean. (Some Sanskrit words: Sanatani, Sanatana Hindu, Sanatana
Dharma). The meanings of these three words are inter-related to each other. To
understand the meanings of these words that Gandhi intended to mean, the
readers have to understand what Gandhi said about Hinduism and what he believed
about Sanatana Dharama. In these days, the word ‘Sanatani’ sometimes
misunderstood as the person who follows orthodox/traditional Hinduism. But
Gandhi was entirely opposite to ‘reactionary’
& ‘singularistic’ Hinduism.
Gandhi had certain firm beliefs and understandings about Hinduism and he wrote
about that in Young India (Journal) in the years 1921, 1924, 1925 and 1927.
These are compiled and now it is available as a book (What is Hinduism?- M K
Gandhi). I have read his understandings on Hinduism and here I am making an
attempt to summarize that.
First of all, we should
understand that Gandhi had deep understandings in all religions. While he was
in South Africa, he made extensive debates, conversations,
letter-communications with his colleagues and his spiritual gurus about
religions, God, Universe, Veganism, Moksha etc., Apart from Hinduism and
Jainism, he had deep knowledge in Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity
and Islam). Especially he had deep ‘understanding’ and attachment towards
Christianity. So he registered his thoughts on Hinduism only after made
extensive religions on all religions.
Some strong views of Gandhi on Hinduism:
In April, 1924, he asserted
strongly that Hinduism is the most tolerant of all religions. It is tolerant because
it embraces all religions.
Gandhi considered Hinduism has
innate pluralistic tendency compared to all other religions and it is the most fortunate
aspect in that.
Also he was very sure about the
non-violence aspect of Hinduism. ‘Though
all religions preach non-violence and it is common to all faiths, the
applicability and the expression is most in Hinduism’. While saying this,
he considered Jainism and Buddhism is also the part of Hinduism!
Though Gandhi believed in Vedas and its authority on Hinduism, he
was not in favor of exclusive authority and divinity of Vedas. Sometimes, he himself gave different interpretation about Vedas. Gandhi used two exclusive strong
tools ‘Ahimsa’ and ‘Truth’ and on the basis of these two
tools, he tried to understand about Vedas. He did not endorse the acceptance of
each and every word of Vedas and the superiority
of ‘Sankaracharyas’ and ‘Shastris’ to get a correct interpretation
of Hindu scriptures. On the contrary, he recommended the two tools ‘Ahimsa’ and ‘Truth’ to the people to interpret the Hindu scriptures.
While coming to the question of
untouchability in Hinduism and Vedas, he rejected that ‘untouchability’ is an ‘extrapolation’
in the Vedas and Hinduism. He regarded it as the ‘excrescence’ and he considered ‘untouchability’ is an evil that
happened because of the fault in our system and the society
References:
Have
already mentioned above!
For more readings (Books)
Indian
Critiques of Gandhi: Harold Coward
Postmodern
Gandhi and Other Essays: Lloyd Rudolph and Susanne Hoeber Rudolph
Gandhi-His
Life and Message for the World: Louis Fischer
Flaming
feet and other essays: D R Nagaraj
Mahatma
and the poet: Sabyasachi Bhattacharya
(To be continued)
