B.A.

(Programme) Semester-V Political Science

GENERIC ELECTIVE (GE)

Understanding Gandhi
Study Material : Lesson 1-10

SCHOOL OF OPEN LEARNING

University of Delhi

Department of Political Science

Editor : Dr. Mangal Deo
Dr. Shakti Pradayani Rout
 Graduate Course
GENERIC ELECTIVE (GE)
UNDERSTANDING GANDHI

CONTENT

1. Swaraj Manish Kumar

2. Satyagraha Rimpreet Kaur Sandhu

3. Trusteeship Dr Santosh Kumar Singh
4. Swadeshi Dr. Abhishek Pratap Singh
5. Religion and Politics Prashant Barthwal
Dr. Shashikant
6. Gandhi’s Critique of Modern Civilisation Nilesh Anand
7. Nationalism Amaresh Ganguli
8. Communal Unity Prashant Barthwal
Dr. Shashikant
9. Women Question Amaresh Ganguli
10. Untouchability Amaresh Ganguli

Editor :
Dr. Mangal Deo
Dr. Shakti Pradayani Rout

SCHOOL OF OPEN LEARNING

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
5, Cavalry Lane, Delhi
Delhi-110007
 1. SWARAJ

Manish Kumar

1.1 INTRODUCTION

In the modern Indian political discourse, the sharp contrast between the urbanised west
and the poverty-stricken villages of India had been a constant reminder that both western
imperialism and its exploitative nature has kept multitudes of Indian people living in the
Indian villages in total servitude and destitution. The Indian situation is comparable to the
miserable conditions of the peasantry under the Czarist regime and with Gandhi’s
intimate knowledge of Tolstoy’s concerns and writings he was well acquainted with the
pathetic conditions of the peasantry of Czarist Russia. In the early twentieth century, in
the background of the rise of Japan and its psychological impact on a section of the
Indian intelligentsia and its nationalist leaders, Gandhi, in the Hind Swaraj (1909)
categorically rules out the applicability of that model in the Indian condition.
Famine was a regular feature during the British colonial rule and in this situation
the utmost necessity of rural reconstruction became an important component of the
nationalist discourse in the wake of the swadeshi movement in Bengal at the time of the
Partition of Bengal. Rabindranath Tagore wrote an important essay entitled Swadeshi
Samaj(1904) in which there was an appeal for self-help in reconstructing the villages and
solve the acute water shortage from which it suffers perennially. At this time there were
lot of projections of parallel nationalist self-supportive, educational, industrial and
cooperative enterprises to alleviate the miseries of the rural poor. However, none of these
attempts had a comprehensive plan of an alternative development strategy for rural
reconstruction and to reduce the gulf between the cities and the villages. Gandhi provided
a philosophy of a village centred life which he described as the gram swaraj.

1.2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

After reading this chapter, we will be able to understand:

 Gandhi’s concept of Swaraj

 Gandhi’s critique of industrialisation
 Gandhi’s criticism of Machinery

1.3 CITY AND VILLAGE

Within the larger framework of Gandhi’s concern for majority alleviation he put the idea
of the gram swaraj at the very centre of his social, political and economic philosophy.
Since the overwhelming majority of Indians live in villages, Gandhi’s primary concern is
to concentrate on this important segment and provide a blueprint by which the face of
rural India would drastically change for the better. The cities, remarks Gandhi, do not
represent India. They are alien to it. He considers the cities as artificial, facilitating the
exploitation by the imperialist powers; of sharing the plunder of the villages with the
imperialist powers. “I regard the growth of cities as an evil thing. Unfortunate for
mankind and the world, unfortunate for England and unfortunate for India. The British

1
have exploited India through its cities. The latter have exploited the villages. The blood of
the villages is the cement with which the edifice of the cities is built.”
Writing in 1921, he points out that the cities are “brokers and commission agents
for the big houses of Europe, America and Japan. The cities have cooperated with the
latter in the bleeding process that has gone on for 200 years.”
Little do town-dwellers know how the semi-starved masses of India are slowly
sinking to lifelessness. Little do they know that their miserable comfort represents the
brokerage they get for the work they do for the foreign exploiter, that the profits and the
brokerage are sucked from the masses. Little do they realise that the government
established by law in British India is carried on for this exploitation of the masses…. I
have no doubt whatsoever that both England and town-dwellers in India will have to
answer, if there is a God above for this crime against humanity which is perhaps
unequalled in history.
Gandhi provides an alternative of total rural reconstruction and rebuilding in the
process of which the entire Indian situation would change. He identifies the survival of
the Indian nation with that of the meaningful survival of the villages reviving the
traditional ways and means of the rural life which have degenerated because of the
superstitious beliefs and neglect of this aspect by western imperialism. He is conscious of
the enormous gap that exists between the villages and the cities in education, culture,
medicine, recreation and employment opportunities. The gulf increases and Gandhi wants
to stop this process and allow the village to grow and prosper. Even though he is very
critical of the cities, he never wants to eliminate them. He wants to reform them and place
them in a natural setting. Furthermore, though Gandhi does not provide for concrete
picture of the city’s structure, he makes three general suggestions:
(1) “the blood that is inflating the arteries of the cities run once again the blood vessels
of the villages”.
(2) The cities did not need to send its people back to the village, rather “they should re-
adjust their lives so as to cease to sponge upon the poor village folk and make to the
latter what reparation is possible, even at this late hour, by helping to resuscitate
their ruined economy” and
(3) “in my picture of the rural economy the cities would take their natural place and do
not appear as unnatural, congested sports or boils on the body politics, as they are
today”.
Understanding the importance of the dynamics of power, Gandhi begins his
argument pleading for the empowerment of the small village communities which would
derive sustenance with cottage industries that would provide the economic bases of the
rural society. Emphasising the darker side of industrialisation which devastates the rural
life and uproots thousands of people from their natural habitat, the cottage industries
would provide the economic basis of a small community which is in a position to manage
and to enhance the quality of life and happiness as Gandhi is convinced that the

2
fulfilment and happiness of people is manifested when they live in small communities
rather than in larger urbanised rootless communities.
Gandhi wants the development of a new partnership between the villages and the
cities, a vision that Marx and Engels too had. He does not want prosperity in the cities at
the expense of the village, where the majority of the Indian population live. The villages
are as important as the cities, if not more. His views on industrialisation and modern
technology might help us to understand his extraordinary emphasis on the need for
regenerating village life.

1.4 GRAM SWARAJ

Gandhi is a virulent critic of all models of western industrialisation as though they

produce material goods but are alien to our moral values. The village panchayat system
and the village republic could create both a participatory model of democracy and would
also allow an escape route to avoid the perils of western industrialisation. Gram Swaraj
will be the essential framework of this alternative model with the promotion of self-
sufficiency in providing the material conditions essential for fulfilling the needs of the
individual and enhance the elements of self-respect and pride in oneself. Gandhi is
conscious that the present-day conditions of the villages are far from the ideal that he
desires and it is because of this consciousness that he argues for a reformed rural setting
where truth and nonviolence would co-exist in a situation of harmony and promotion and
practice of rural virtues of cooperation and performance of duties. His close associate, J.
C. Kumarappa coins the term ‘villagism’, which Gandhi gladly accepts as an essential
framework of realising rural swaraj. Gandhi desires a complete economic revival of India
with satya and ahimsa as its foundation and the credit for preparing a blueprint along
these lines goes to Kumarappa.
The framework for the village swaraj is provided in two books of Kumarappa:
Why the village movement: A plea for village centred economic order and Capitalism,
socialism and villagism. The first book is considered as the first normative statement of
Gandhian economics and could be regarded as the manifesto of Gandhi’s economic
vision. Kumarappa is of the view that as economic autonomy for the individual is
essential for freedom and that as majority of Indians live in rural areas, the village
economy has to be the basis of India’ssocial well-being. In the rapid process of
industrialisation and urbanisation it is thecountrysidethat suffers the most. He observes
that “there can be no industrialisation without predation” and that agriculture was and is
the greatest among all the occupations. Writing about the impact of industry and
agriculture on the natural world, Kumarappa states:
In case of agricultural civilisation, the system ordained by nature is not interfered
with to any great extent. If there is a variation at all, it follows a natural mutation. The
agriculturalist only aids nature or intensifies in a short time what takes places in nature in
a long period, Under the economic system of the industrial society we find variations
from nature are very violent in that a large supply of goods is produced irrespective of
demand, and then the demand is artificially created for goods by means of clever
advertisements.

3
 Kumarappa is against use of chemical fertilizers and desires the use of organic
manure as a way of ‘Economy of Permanence’ as against the man-made ‘Economy of
Transience’. He strongly favours the use of night soil as manure thereby converting
human waste into wealth and in overcoming the prejudices of caste. He criticises the
British for their poor maintenance of irrigation tanks and urges the conservation of
ground water. He also favours small industry as a means of resource preservation. He
argues that we should make Mother Nature our great teacher and never do anything that
is contrary to her ways, for if we do that we will be annihilated sooner or later. “Water
from the sea rises as vapour and falls on land in refreshing showers and returns back to
the sea again ... A nation that forgets or ignores this fundamental process in forming its
institutions will disintegrate”. Kumarappa recognises the decay and regeneration in the
‘cycle of life’ as a fundamental process in which all creatures cooperate. Violence results
if “this cycle is broken at any stage, at any time, consciously or unconsciously”. He
supports an economy that is close to the natural order as that is deeply moral with well-
defined rights and ethical obligations on every participant and contributes to the welfare
of all. Crucial to Kumarappa’s conception of an ideal society is the understanding that the
economic freedom holds the key to individual’s autonomy and that economic freedom
forms the basis for political and social freedom. A non-violent social organisation is
predicated on providing complete autonomy for every individual. The key to individual
autonomy lies in the nature and purpose of work; if work unleashes the creative energies
in the human being it would lead to happiness. He also realised centralisation as the
primary road block to individual autonomy and freedom.
Gandhi clarifies that swaraj is self-rule and self-restraint grounded in the moral
autonomy of the individual. He sees an intimate link between swaraj and swadeshi or
self-reliance. “Swaraj for me means freedom for the meanest of my countrymen. I am not
interested in freeing India merely from the English yoke. I am bent upon freeing India
from any yoke whatsoever. I have no desire to exchange ‘king log’ for ‘king stork’…
there is no freedom for India so long as one man, no matter how highly placed he may be,
holds in the hollow of his hands the life, property and honour of millions of human
beings. It is an artificial, unnatural and uncivilized institution. The end of it is an essential
preliminary of Swaraj”.

1.5 CRITIQUE OF INDUSTRIALISATION

In the Hind Swaraj, Gandhi severely criticises modern technology and the ill-effects of
modern industrialisation so much that he does not compromise with any of its forms. The
basic cause of human misery and the ‘sin’ of modern civilisation is the advent of
technology and industrialisation. This view apparently takes shape during his formative
years with his direct contact with the English process of modern industrialisation and his
experiences in South Africa. Charles Dickens, Karl Marx, Thomas Hill Green and the
Fabian socialists describe the horrors of the English capitalist industrial society. Towards
the end of the 19th century, while Gandhi was still in England, factory legislations and
enlargement of franchise ameliorated many of the evils of industrialisation. But they only
diminished and did not eliminate the major effects of industrialisation. Gandhi could
easily grasp the dark side of industrialisation. In the early 20th century, many thinkers
started to emphasise that modern industrial civilisation was not an unmixed blessing. The

4
expressionist movement in philosophy and art were clamouring against the miseries of
the emerging industrial giants. Philosophers like Bertrand Russell shared this anxiety.
Eliot expressed it best in the following lines:
We are the hollow men,
We are the hollow women;
Leaning together,
Headpiece filled with straw, Alas!
This revolt against the industrial revolution is represented in India by Tagore’s
conception of freedom and Gandhi’s denunciation of the West. Gandhi does not deny the
immense rise in productivity and the consequent rise in the standard of living in the West.
Hedoes, however, deny the claim that industrialisation, in its current form, advanced
human civilisation by promoting happiness and well-being among common people. He
concedes that, because of industrialisation, in certain spheres like housing, the people
have begun to live better as compared to earlier times. These advances are hailed as an
advancement of civilisation, promoting ‘bodily happiness’. Earlier, people wore skins and
used spears as weapons. But, now, they wore a wide range of clothing and used firearms.
If people in other parts of the world accepted the modern European practices, “they
should have achieved civilisation. Furthermore, technology had enormously enhanced
man’s productive power and his capacity to accumulate wealth. These are also signs of
civilisation; but, there was also another side to the picture now, self-destruction”.
Gandhi’s indignation at the consequences of industrialisation is apparent. With are
markable affinity to Marx’s criticism of Adam Smith, Gandhi rejects the claims of the
advancement as the present economic order is based on inequality. Gandhi, like Marx,
also points out to the relative fall under the present industrial system. In spite of improved
productive capacity, inequality persists and the workers live on subsistence wages. The
prescription for eradicating inequality is the abolition of industrial civilisation. He found
human salvation in are turn to nature. The hidden meaning of the Hind Swaraj is the need
for the freedom of the working class and the common people. This becomes evident from
the Italian example. Gandhi clearly states that Mazzini’s Italy is still in slavery, for it does
not cater to the needs and aspirations of the ordinary people. Political independence by
itself is irrelevant unless there is improvement and elevation in the lives of the ordinary
people the poor, the underprivileged and the toiling masses. Dalton states that:
The substance of the view of civilisation advanced in Hind Swaraj remained intact
throughout Gandhi’s life and deeply affected his conception of the nature of the good
society. At its worst, this view manifests itself in a negative suspicion of the West and a
highly provincial world outlook. At its best, it moulded a theory of the good society
suited to the Indian situation; a theory of social order of small communities, each seeking
attainment of individual freedom and social equality through mutual cooperation and
respect. This was his vision of Sarvodaya, the ‘Welfare of All’: the pattern of an Indian
society that had indeed achieved Swaraj.

5
 Gandhi’s economic point of view, as Gyan Chand points out, like his political and
social view points, “was and is an integral part of Gandhi’s whole philosophy of life; and
it can be fully understood and duly appreciated only if this basic fact is borne in mind”.
This perspective broadens the whole concept of economic life and includes:
(1) The primary importance of man in production, distribution and exchange. In other
words, the primary purpose of the economy is the well-being, growth and
development of man.
(2) Specially, this principle applies to the use of machinery in the production process.
“Machinery for man and not man for machinery has to be the cardinal principle
mechanised production”.
(3) From the preceding point of view, industrialisation involving mass production,
centralisation of initiative, power, authority and policy formulation is undesirable
and is to be reduced to the barest minimum.
(4) A logical consequence of this is that decentralisation of production is to be carried
tothe maximum possible extent.
(5) “Small communities of producers means economic and social democracy, reduction
of inequalities within a very limited range and decentralized initiative”.
(6) These changes have far reaching implications and can only be brought about with
radical changes in society.
The radical changes need a social transformation that would be non-violent through mass
awakening, widely diffused social awareness and the use of the people’s power for
fundamental social transformation. This awakening and awareness would be based on a
vision of a society based on justice, equality and freedom. The goal of economic equality
is what unites Gandhi with the socialists but where they depart is with regard to the
means of reaching that goal. For the socialists, the basis of economic equality is the
abolition of private property and the social ownership of the means of production. Gandhi
desires economic equality but without wanting to abolish private property. He expects the
rich to act as trustees of the entire society. Since they would act neither for private gain
nor for profit, there would be differences in the amount of wealth, but there would be no
differences in services and lifestyles. Private ownership would continue for Gandhi,
except in large-scale industries, it would be imbued with public purpose. The
development of social spirit and socialist consciousness are the two cardinal principles of
Gandhi’s concept of trusteeship. The deeper meaning of his concept of trusteeship is akin
to the Weberian notion of puritan ethics, which does not decry the increase in production
but prohibited conscious consumption. It has a Calvinistic overtone and is beneficial to
societies like ours where wide disparities are an eyesore and exist without any effective
social sanction and control.
Gandhi acknowledges the existence of social conflict and different conflicting
class interests but he believes that such conflicts would be resolved by non-violent mass
action. He all used to the existence of conflict in three sectors:

6
(1) conflict of labour and capital in industry;
(2) conflict of tenant and landlord in agriculture and
(3) conflict of village and city. He is confident that these conflicts could be resolved
through trusteeship and passive resistance with help of non-violence without class
war. Gandhi rejects the idea of revolutionary seizure of state power and stresses on
the transformation of relationship through peaceful transfer of power. While Marx
rejects capitalism but not industrialisation, Gandhi wants to restrict industrialisation.

1.6 CRITIQUE OF MACHINERY

Gandhi is keen to limit and not eradicate machinery. His views on machinery and modern
industry are derived from the influence that John Ruskin (1819-1900)1 had on him. He
supports mechanisation, which would help the individual and not encroach upon
individuality. He clarifies about the misconceptions to his opposition to machines.
“How can I be when I know that even this body is a most delicate piece of
machinery? The spinning wheel is a machine; a little toothpick is a machine. What I
object to is the craze for machinery, not machinery as such. The craze is for what they
call labour-saving machinery. Men go on ‘saving labour’ till thousands are without work
and thrown on the open streets to die of starvation. I want to save time and labour, not for
fraction of mankind but for all. I want concentration of wealth, not in the hands of a few,
but in the hands of all. Today, machinery merely helps a few to ride on the backs of
millions. The impetus behind it all is not the philanthropy to save labour, but greed. It is
against this constitution of things that I am fighting with all my might….The supreme
consideration is man. The machine should not tend to atrophy the limits of man. The
machine should not tend to atrophy the limbs of man. For instance, I would make
intelligent exceptions. Take the case of the singer’s sewing machinery. It is one of the
few useful things ever invented, and there is a romance about the device itself”.
Gandhi supports those machines that are necessary to satisfy the basic human
needs. He also feels that industries should be socially owned by which he means welfare
of society. He wants limited industrialisation to satisfy limited wants such as food
production, shelter, health care and basic education. He also points out the impersonal
and monotonous life that industrialisation entails. But he is ready to accept it if it helps
satisfy the basic human requirements and if it is socially controlled. He is aware of the
enormous differences among countries and points out that the choice of technique
depends on circumstances. Countries like India with abundant labour and large-scale
unemployment and underemployment should restrict the use of machinery.
Gandhi’s antagonism to the use of machinery and industrialisation set him apart
not only from earlier Indian thinkers like Ranade and Gokhale but also among some of
his contemporaries like Jawaharlal Nehru. Gandhi rejects mechanised industrialisation on
moral and economic grounds. He considers machines as sins of modern civilisation. He
dislikes the migration of people from villages to cities in search of jobs, low wages and
poor working conditions of workers and unemployment. He laments about the under-
utilisation of available labour in view of the seasonal nature of agriculture which depends

7
heavily on monsoons. He points out that machines displace human or animal labour,
instead of merely supplementing it or increasing its efficiency. Unlike human labour there
are no physical limits to the growth and expansion of machines. Gandhi’s case against
machines is “because they deprive men of their employment and render them jobless. I
oppose them not because they are machines but because they create unemployment. If
one machine does the work of a hundred men, then where are we to employ those
hundred men”?
Gandhi points out that the aggregate demand for labour is given and that as a
result of specialisation in the production process, workers have highly specific skills and
cannot be employed elsewhere in the economy even if there arises an opportunity for
employment. In general, he rejects machines because it displaces human labour and is
disturbed by the fact that with the proliferation of highly mechanised capital intensive
industries in a country like India with high population, it would lead to large scale
unemployment with damaging social effects. Large scale mechanisation also leads to
concentration of production and distribution in few hands and that would result in
concentration of economic power.
Gandhi stressed on self-reliance through labour for all citizens of future India and
he is categorical that winning and maintenance of freedom is impossible without such
work discipline. It is for this reason that the spinning-wheel takes pride of place in this
campaign, as he believes that it provides the best means through which the poor could
earn a supplementary income or save money by producing their own cloth. Spinning-
wheel, for Gandhi, epitomises the spirit of self-reliance.
According to Gandhi, the cause of poverty is the covetousness of the rich and the
exploitation of the needy by the greedy. Incomes would have to be redistributed for
raising the output and fulfilment of the basic needs of the masses; this would depend a lot
on limiting the wants of the rich. If the masses are prepared to reject the evils of capital
accumulation, “they would strive to attain a more just distribution of the products of
labour. Under the new outlook multiplicity of material wants will not be the aim of the
life, the aim will be rather their restriction consistently with comfort. We shall cease to
think of getting what we can, but we shall decline to receive what all cannot get”. To get
rid of poverty there is a need for a revolutionary change in prevailing attitudes to
consumption and to wealth in affluent societies as well as in the poorer countries which
are caught up in the ‘revolution of rising expectations.’
Gandhi’s Swaraj is far removed from the Marxist ideal of a socialist stateless,
classless utopia. Like the Marxists and the socialists, he desires an egalitarian society but
opposes their deterministic view of history and human nature, and their espousal of
violent revolutionary changes. Like Marx, he accepts social conflict but does not think
that violence is adequate to resolve it. He admits that violence has helped in bringing
about political liberty in certain cases but it “has always brought the form and not the
substance of freedom” for “the results of violent revolution are always liable to be lost by
violent counter revolution”. For Gandhi, commitment to non-violence is total but it is the
non-violence of the brave. A non-violent revolutionary does not advocate a revolutionary
seizure of state power but a transformation of relationships culminating in a peaceful
transfer of power.

8
 Gandhi, like Marx, accepts that contemporary situation is full of conflict but
differs from Marx in focusing on the conflict between the city and the village. Marx’s
philosophy is essentially urban-oriented as he dismisses village culture as an ‘idiocy’.
Gandhi contends that India lives in its villages and that city culture is not only
exploitative but also unequal. Gandhi, unlike Marx, rejects the notion of class struggle,
class polarisation and antagonisms. He admits his attraction to the Marxist ideal but
expressed doubts about the means to achieve it. He also, unlike Marx, rejects large-scale
industrialisation and common ownership of property. Gandhi accepts, like Aristotle, that
property is necessary and acknowledges the talent in those individuals who have the
ability to create wealth but insists that this wealth be used for common good. Gandhi
proposes the Trusteeship system to ensure harmony between the property owners and the
non-propertied. Like Marx, he is conscious of the notion of relative fall. Under the
present industrial system, despite enormous and improved productive capacity, inequality
not only persists but has also increased. In this sense, he accepts Marx’s criticism of
Adam Smith for ignoring social nature of our needs. However, while Marx only rejects
industrial capitalism, Gandhi rejects Western civilisation along with its attendant features
like mechanisation and industrialisation as it is based on extreme inequality and it
dehumanises the human being. Like the Marxists and the socialists, Gandhi desires an
egalitarian, just and non-exploitative society.
If we differentiate between the transient and the permanent, the local and the
perennial, the essential Gandhi emerges in a different perspective bringing out the
similarities between Gandhi and Marx. There is an agreement on basic issues though their
methods of reaching the ideal differ. Both accept the imperfection of the modern society
since it is based on conflict and inequality. Both dislike mechanical interpretation and
emphasise the dynamic role of the human being in bringing about the necessary
transformation in society. Both are
confident of human capacity to transcend the present stage of irrational existence and
reach a higher stage based on harmony and fulfilment of individual needs. The only
Western parallel to Gandhi is Rousseau, for like Rousseau, he too idealises a glorious past
but realises that since there is no going back, salvation lies in small, independent, self-
governing and self-sufficient communities. Gandhi’s ideal is an “anarchist society where
each individual is a law to himself, living peacefully and with goodwill towards all,
controlling all his passions and living by his own labour”. The Indian Marxists underrated
Gandhi’s social criticisms and his resolve to bring about a better and equitable social
order.

1.7 CONCLUSION

Gandhi is a severe critic of contemporary society and is conscious of its divisions,

structural fallacies and many inadequacies. He emphasises the human factor in any kind
of revolutionary transformation as he desires the elimination of misery and conflict. He
provides a framework for resolving conflicts and for building a social, political and
economic order based on consensus. Both his commitment to non-violence and his own
initiatives in resolving conflicts between the different segments were with the aim of
establishing a non-exploitative, equal and just order. He sought to transform by relying on

9
moral persuasion and pressure on the propertied and the advantaged. The idea of moral
coercion lay at the heart of non-violent satyagraha. Rabindranath Tagore, like Gandhi, is
conscious of the acute differences and conflicts in the Indian society but believes that it is
society and not politics that has to be the primary focus.
The distinctiveness of Gandhi’s outlook is that he points to the gap that exists
between the village and the city and that the gulf would increase in the coming future. His
desire is to narrow the gap and create a framework for the village to grow and prosper
without destroying the city. He desires their reform so that a new partnership could
evolve between the village and the city. He also points out to the differences among
countries. Countries like India with abundant labour and, unemployment and
underemployment ought to restrict the use of machinery. On both these scores, the
Gandhi’s blueprint is of immense importance to us. The prosperity of the village is the
key to create a new balanced India, for checking the uncontrollable migration to cities
that are bursting in its seams and not in a position to offer the means for decent and
dignified life and also ensuring a balance between agriculture and industry.

1.8 BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Bandyopadhyaya, J., Social and Political Thought of Gandhi, Bombay, Allied

Publishers,1969.
 Bhattacharya, B., Evolution of the Political Philosophy of Gandhi, Calcutta,
Calcutta BookHouse, 1969.
 Bondurant, J. V., Conquest of Violence: The Gandhian Philosophy of Conflict,
Berkeley, University of California Press, 1967.
 Dalton, D., India’s Idea of Freedom, Gurgaon, Academic Press, 1982.
 Dasgupta, A.K., Gandhi’s Economic Thought, London and New York, Routledge,
1996.
 Hardiman, D., Gandhi: In His Time and Ours, Delhi, Permanent Press, 2003.
 Iyer, R. N., The Moral and Political Thought of Gandhi, Bombay, Oxford
University Press,1973.
 Mukherjee, S., Gandhian Thought: Marxist Interpretation, Delhi, Deep and Deep
Publications,1991.
 Pantham, T, and Deutsch, K., (ed), Political Thought in Modern India, New
Delhi, Sage,1986.
 Parekh, B., Gandhi’s Political Philosophy, Notre Dame, Notre Dame University
Press,1989.
 Woodcock, G., Mohandas Gandhi, New York, Fontana, 1971.

Important Questions
1. Define Swaraj? Discuss the different dimensions of Swaraj.
2. What is the concept of Gram Swaraj?
3. Critically Examine Gandhi's concept of Swaraj?

10
 2. SATYAGRAHA

Rimpreet Kaur Sandhu

STRUCTURE

2.1 Introduction
2.2 Satyagraha: Meaning, Nature and Definition
2.3 Truth and non-violence
2.4 Self Suffering (Tapasya)
2.5 Personality of Satyagrahi
2.6 Use of Satyagraha by Gandhiji
2.6.1ChamparanSatyagraha
2.6.2 Kheda Satyagraha
2.6.3 Ahmedabad Satyagraha
2.6.4 Rowlatt Satyagraha
2.7 Fundamental Rules of Satyagraha
2.8 Code of discipline to be followed by Satyagraha
2.9 Limits of Satyagraha
2.10 Methods/ Dimensions of Satyagraha
2.10.1 Non violent Non- Cooperation
2.10.2 Civil Disobedience
2.10.3 Winning the opponent by self-suffering
2.10.4 Hunger strike
2.10.5 Strike
2.10.6 Compromise
2.10.7 Fasting
2.10.8 Boycott
2.10.9 Hijrat
2.11 Gandhi’s Satyagraha in 21st century
2.12 Criticism of Satyagraha
2.13 Conclusion
2.14 References

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Mahatma Gandhi (1869 1948) was the architect and builder of modern India. He played
an important role to free India from the slavery and provided a new direction for the new
construction of independent India, so we call him the Father of the Nation or Bapu.
Originally Gandhiji was a spiritual saint and his spiritual and truth power inspired him to
serve the country by bringing him into politics. His faith was in the ultimate development
of man's self-power. To oppose exploitation, injustice, oppression, tyranny and
imperialist policies in a peaceful manner, he gave unfailing weapons like Satyagraha,
civil disobedience and boycott to mankind, which we will describe in detail later.

11
According to Gandhiji, Satyagraha is the force generated by insisting on anything by
considering the truth as the incorporation of peace. That is, the name of the force arising
from the supreme quality of truth and peace is Satyagraha. In which the qualities of truth,
morality, truth, spiritual unity, non-violence, ability to bear pain etc. are included.
However, in the popular sense, Satyagraha is taken to mean non-violent resistance. But
Satyagraha is not limited to the various forms of non-violent protest, non-cooperation,
civil disobedience, fasting, etc., but its meaning is very wide. Gandhiji writes that
Satyagraha is synonymous with spiritual, self-power and love-power. Thus, Satyagraha in
the broadest sense is an infallible tool to oppose all forms of violence, injustice, use of
force, oppression, tyranny and exploitation, as well as to improve all kinds of social,
political, religious and constitutional virtues. Therefore, for Gandhiji, Satyagraha
becomes a constitutional political right of the citizens. Hence, this theory has become a
basic concept of political thought. The main question in front of Gandhiji was that which
law, rule and order should be disobeyed and obeyed?
Therefore, while answering this question, he writes that if the government does not
represent the people and supports dishonesty and terrorism, then it becomes necessary to
disobey it. But one who wants to protect his rights, he should have the capacity to bear all
kinds of sufferings. Wherever there is truth, exploitation, injustice, oppression and
tyranny, Satyagraha should be used. It is non-violent in every situation and only pure self-
force is used in it.” Gandhiji did not agree with Machiavelli's statement that the ends are
the justification of the means. Because Gandhiji had seen many oppressive violence,
exploitation, war etc. in his own time due to which there was extensive loss of life and
property and this made him a very sad and distressed. Gandhiji initially termed
Satyagraha as ‘Passive Resistance’ and ‘Active Resistance’ and after a few years by
changing the views of the readers of his paper called 'Indian Opinion', he called it
Satyagraha. Satyagraha is a combination of two Sanskrit words 'Sat’ and ‘Agraha’, which
literally means to insist on the truth and to stick to the truth or to follow the truth. In
positive form, Satyagraha means to fight for truth and justice.

2.2 SATYAGRAHA- MEANING, NATURE, DEFINITION

If we go to the semantics of the word Satyagraha, it means insistence or firmness towards

truth. According to Gandhi, Satyagraha is “a spiritual and moral struggle to achieve the
truth in every way possible." (Young India,19.2.1925). It takes place in the socio-political
field, so which mediums should be used for good, it also depends on the relationship
between the ends and means of Satyagraha. Therefore, it is a powerful weapon of the
heroes. Gandhiji believed that in the Satyagraha movement Success is possible only when
the satyagrahi can establish his control over the people and this control will be done by
ruling over the hearts of the people and this is possible only when he establishes a living
relationship with them and shows his love for them. Satyagraha is the exercise of spiritual
force against all kinds of injustice, violence, insult, and exploitation. If the government
does not represent the people and supports dishonesty and terrorism, then it is necessary
to compensate those who want to protect their rights, they should be ready to bear all

12
kinds of hardships. Wherever riots, injustice, exploitation, and untruth are seen, there
should not be any hesitation in making effective use of Satyagraha.
Gandhiji used to say that the alphabet of non-violence is learned in the family first and
then it can be used at the level of the country and abroad also.” Satyagraha is the only
weapon through which resistance to evil and injustice is possible. Satyagraha in social life
also has the same significant role as it is in personal life. Satyagraha is the most effective
weapon in the solution of social evils and evils. Satyagraha is a spiritual method in which
without any hatred against one’s atrocities, a person follows the voice of one’s conscience
and under no circumstances should the truth be abandoned, no matter what the
circumstances are one should not be negative? Richard Greg writes that Satyagraha is
such a tripartite mirror, in which a Satyagrahi can see himself from the point of view of
the opposition, he can show his opponent in his true form and the public can show their
opinion and support by seeing both the forms. “Gandhiji's Satyagraha is such a positive
principle and constructive program, which any person can adopt in any situation. This can
be used by a Satyagrahi not only towards his opponent, but also towards his nearest and
dearest. Although Gandhiji first used Satyagraha in South Africa, which had a wide
impact, only after that he used it as an important weapon in the Indian national
independence movement.

2.3 TRUTH AND NON-VIOLENCE

Gandhiji writes that truth is derived from the word "Sat". Sat means "to be true being"
and there is no existence of anything other than truth. That is why the true name of the
Supreme Lord is ‘Sat’ meaning ‘Truth’. Therefore, it is more appropriate to say that the
"truth is God" than to say that "God is the truth". (Tue morning 1 Yerawada Jail 22.7.30)
The same non-violence is impossible without the search for truth. Non-violence and truth
are two sides of the same coin. The means of non-violence and the means to achieve the
truth are in our hands, so non-violence was considered to be the ultimate religion. If you
keep worrying about the means, then you will see the end someday. No matter how much
trouble comes in our path, no matter how much we may be defeated from the outer point
of view, even then we should chant only one mantra without giving up faith, only truth is
God. The same path of his truth, the same the means is non-violence. Gandhiji does not
keep truth and morality separate from the political, but connects them together. He
believed that the aim of politics should be to establish truth, because politics is a means to
do good. Therefore, its means must be proper. He says, “My faith in truth alone can
establish a non-violent society. Thus, Gandhiji used to say that my love for non-violence
is greater than all mundane or supernatural things. It can only be equated with my love
for truth. Which in my view is synonymous with non-violence, only through non-violence
can I see and reach the truth.” (Yug India, p. 61, 20.2.1930). That is why they say that
Satyagraha is an experiment to introduce truth and non-violence into political practice.
According to Gandhi, though truth is absolute, but our knowledge and experience about it
is relative and partial. What we believe to be true may be false to another. In fact,

13
Satyagra his assume that their opponents or exploiters are also going to follow the path of
truth. That is why non-violence is the means of discovery of truth.

2.4 SELF-SUFFERING (TAPASYA)

Gandhi’s concept of ahimsa goes far beyond “renunciation of the will to kill or
damage”; Ahimsa, to Gandhi, is love also. Gandhi relates love and self-suffering
(tapasya) as follows: “Love never claims, it ever gives. Love ever suffers, never
resents, never revenges itself… The test of love is tapasya and tapasya means self
suffering.” (Bondurant, p. 26) In satyagraha, self-suffering is accepted by the
Satyagrahiupon himself in order to morally persuade the enemy. Self-suffering is neither
an inability nor a submission against his enemy. It is a fight against an evil system
and a tyrant with one’s soul force. In other words, self-suffering is the way of the
strong. Gandhi says, “Ahimsa cannot be taught to a person who fears to die and has no
power of resistance.” (Gandhi, 1935).Critics who said Satyagraha is the way of the
cowards, to them Gandhi replied, “I do believe that where there is only a choice between
cowardice and violence, I would advise violence.” (Gandhi, 1920) Self-suffering is
clearly different from cowardice as well as violence against the opponent. Self-suffering,
in Satyagraha, is directed to resisting humiliation as well. Gandhi gave supreme value
to the dignity of a person. Gandhiji believed that submitting to humiliation should be
resisted even at the cost of self-suffering of the body, even unto death. It is dehumanizing
when one is forced to act against one’s own conscience. Therefore, Gandhi insisted that
every Satyagrahi “…must refuse to do that which his conscience forbids him to do and
must preserve the dignity of the individual though it means loss of property or even life.”
(Gandhi, 1944, p. 360) Self-suffering is integral to non-violence as it is a means in
satyagraha to overcome fear. Gandhi says, “One must learn the art of dying in the
training for non-violence… The votary of non-violence has to cultivate the capacity
for sacrifice of the highest type in order to be free from fear… He who has not
overcome all fear cannot practice ahimsa to perfection.” (Gandhi, 1940) Although
the satyagrahi does not inflict direct violence to the opponent in practicing self-
suffering, it has been severely criticized for inflicting violence upon the satyagrahi
himself.

2.5 PERSONALITY OF A SATYAGRAHI

Gandhiji writes in the Navjivan of February 23, 1930 that the Satyagrahi does not
discriminate between relatives, children, old people, men and women. Not only the use of
physical force against anyone, but also stays away from any kind of, hatred, high and low
or anything negative. He has the power to accept death with ease and joy.” He cannot
seek any kind of harm by mind, word and deed, even while opposing his opponent. He
can tolerate anger, attachment, anger of the opponent. He will try to stay away from
ability, anger, humiliation, self-respect, shame, fear, etc. Even if the government puts him
in jail, Satyagrahi will follow all those rules in jail which are not against self-respect and
will behave properly with the officers. In an article by the Harijan Bandhu dated March
26, 1939, further mentioning the personality of the Satyagrahi, Gandhi wrote that he

14
should have complete faith in God, because that is the only unbreakable basis. He should
be revering Truth and Non-violence with righteousness. He should lead a pure life and
should always be ready to sacrifice his life and property for his goal. He should be a
habitual Khadi holder and he should keep away from all kinds of intoxicants, so that his
intellect is always pure and his mind is calm. Thus, Gandhiji believed that the personality
of a Satyagrahi is to oppose all kinds of tyranny, injustice, exploitation, untruth, violence
and everything that your heart does not testify to believe in him.

2.6 USE OF SATYAGRAHA BY GANDHIJI

2.6.1 Champaran Satyagraha (1917)- Champaran is a district of Bihar wherein indigo

planters had to face exploitation at the hands of Britishers. Peasants had to abide
by the Tinkathia System under which peasants had to cultivate Indigo in 3/20th
part of their land. It was mandatory to grow Indigo in the given area. It was an
oppressive system.
A person named Raj Kumar Shukla persuaded Gandhiji to visit and see the plight
of peasants. On Gandhiji's insistence an Inquiry Commission was appointed by
the Government while making Gandhiji as one of its members. It found the British
Planters guilty of exploitation. Under a compromise, Planters were ordered to
refund 25% of the amount they had illegally taken from peasants.
Despite the brutal suppression by the British Government the Non- violent
Satyagraha was a success. The Commission also stated that peasants cannot be
forced to grow Indigo. Ultimately, by the late 1860, planters shut their factories
and left Bengal ending the oppression faced by peasants.
2.6.2. Kheda Satyagraha (1918) - Kheda, a district in Gujrat, had a poor crop output
due to drought in the region. Although farmers were provided remission if their
output was less than a quarter of the normal output but the government refused to
give any remission from paying land revenue. Due to this reason Gandhiji along
with Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel came upfront to help peasants. Well-off farmers
were asked by Gandhiji to help poor farmers by not paying revenue. He urged
farmers to fight against Britishers and not lose hope. Later the Britishers brought a
policy wherein rich farmers were supposed to pay their dues. It was voluntary in
nature. However, no rich farmers were willing to pay the revenue.
2.6.3. Ahmedabad Satyagraha (1918) -Ahmedabad, another district of Gujarat, saw a
consistent decrease in the pay of Mill workers to as low as 20%. Earlier, due to
the spread of playing disease, the mill owners hiked the pay of workers to 75% in
order to bait workers. But when the situation got normal the male owners reduce
their pay to 20%. The workers protested and demanded 50% of the pay. They
gave the excuse of increased prices due to the ongoing World War I. Gandhiji
wanted to support both the classes, that is, the Mill owners and workers. He tried
hard to persuade the mill owners through his friend Ambalal Sarabhai, but he

15
 failed. He suggested workers to strike and he also fasted along with them. In the
end, the male owners agreed on 35% increment to the workers.
2.6.4. Rowlatt Satyagraha (1919) - Britishers introduced a bill that critically curtailed
the freedom of the Indians in the name of curbing terrorist violence. It included
provisions for detention and arrest without warrant for as long as two years. This
angered Gandhiji and he called for a nationwide strike along with fasting and
praying. However, it failed to achieve its goal and incited violence across the
country and this fear the Britishers. In the end, Rowlett satyagraha was taken back
due to the Jallianwala Bagh incident. Which happened on 13 April 1919 and
Rowlett satyagraha was withdrawn on 18 April 1919.

2.7 FUNDAMENTAL RULES OF SATYAGRAHA

(1) Self reliance is necessary and outside aid should not be looked out for.
(2) Initiative should be always taken by Satyagrahis through positive resistance,
adjustments and persuasion must push it forward.
(3) Propagation of the objectives, strategy and tactics of the campaign. Propaganda
must be made an integral part of the movement. By Education of the opponent,
the public, and participants must continue apace.
(4) Reduction of demands to a minimum consistent with truth. Continuing reassessment
of the situation and the objectives with a view to possible adjustment of demands is
essential.
(5) Progressive advancement of the movement through various steps and stages
determined to be appropriate within the given situation. Direct action is to be
launched only after all other efforts to achieve an honourable settlement have been
exhausted.
(6) Examination of weakness within the Satyagraha group. The morale and discipline
of the Satyagra his must be maintained through active awareness.
(7) Cooperation with others.

2.8 CODES OF DISCIPLINE TO BE FOLLOWED BY SATYAGRA HIS

As per 1930 movement, Gandhi laid down the following points as a code for
volunteers :
(1) He should not be angry on the opponent and should not hold the tit-for-tat
behaviour. He should be caring towards others.
(2) Do not submit to any order given in anger, even though severe punishment is there
for disobeying.
(3) A Satyagrahi should abstain from swearing and insulting others. He should keep his
calm while respecting others feelings and emotions.

16
 (4) He should protect others life even if it is done at the cost of his own life.
(5) Do not resist arrest nor the attachment of property, unless holding property as a
trustee.
(6) Refuse to surrender any property held in trust at the risk of life.
(7) One should behave in an a respectful manner even if he is taken as a prisoner.
(8) As a member of a Satyagraha unit, A person should abide by the leaders of
Satyagraha unit, and can also resign from the unit in the event of serious
disagreement.

2.9 LIMITS OF SATYAGRAHA

Pointing out the limitations of Gandhi's Satyagraha, Bhikhu Parekh (2001: 73-74) says
that-
1. Gandhiji's belief that suffering one's own suffering melts the heart of others is not
necessarily true in all situations. Seeing the suffering of others, the change of heart
depends on whether the other person accepts that suffering as right or not. The
victorious soldiers in the war are never affected by the suffering of the defeated
soldiers, and neither are the people of the nation they represent. The majority of
Germans in Nazi Germany were not impressed by the suffering caused to the Jews,
because they were so imbued that the Jews were the main cause of Germany's
downfall."
2. Gandhiji said that Satyagraha never fails, it is idealistic but does not prove to be true
in practice. To die while doing satyagraha and unwilling to follow any other path
can be a moral principle but not a political principle. In a certain context, satyagraha
is more politically successful than many other technical forms, but it is not
necessarily successful in every situation. No satyagraha was started even after
human bodies were found in a Nazi camp." As the famous Jewish thinker Martin
Buber wrote to Gandhi, unless there were witnesses, no martyr is a martyr, and
without martyrdom, Satyagraha is deprived of moral energy. (Bhikhu Parekh (2001:
73-74) AVM Grimark, editor of the general Javis Funtier, who was a fan of
Gandhiji, wrote to Gandhi that a Jew in Nazi Germany could only work for five
minutes and after that he would have been caught and hanged. Gandhi replied that
Hitler was also a human, so those Jews who were about to die should embrace their
own death while maintaining human dignity so that the common man of Germany
would be impressed by it.
3. Gandhiji has considered only non-violence as the solution to all problems, but in
practice it appears that even a little violence in the circumstances is necessarily part
of it and which cannot be neglected.

17
2.10 DIFFERENT METHODS / DIMENSIONS OF SATYAGRAHA

According to Gandhiji, different dimensions of Satyagraha should be used according to

different time and circumstances, as Gandhiji had also told by experiment, which requires
a brief description, which is as follows:
2.10.1 Non-violent Non-Cooperation-Another way that Gandhi has suggested to win
over the adversary is non-cooperation. Gandhiji says that it is an expression of
victimized love. He considers non-violent non-cooperation satyagraha as a means
of obtaining cooperation of the opponent for truth and justice. The basic concept
of non-cooperation is that the unjust can be successful in their exploitation work
only if they get the cooperation of the exploited. If the exploited stop cooperating
with the unjust, come to non-cooperation with him, then the steps of the exploiter
will falter. According to Gandhiji, the handful British could maintain their hold on
India because they had the support of the Indians. Therefore, Gandhi's first major
non-violent mass movement against the British was the non-cooperation
movement.
2.10.2 Civil Disobedience- According to Gandhiji, it is the duty of citizens under normal
circumstances to obey the orders of the government. At the same time, it is also
the duty of the government to respect the public feelings. But if the government
ignores the sentiments of the people and uses unfair and immoral means to
suppress public opinion, then it becomes a duty of the citizens to non-cooperate
with such a government. 'Civil Disobedience 'Satyagraha isNon-cooperation's last
resort when all other methods of Satyagraha in usefails. Gandhiji made this
method a powerful revolution which is an effective and bloodless substitute. This
is the most effective form of non-cooperation for civil disobedience. That's why
he believed that civil disobedience should be used by selected specific individuals
instead of common people. It was used by Gandhijiin 1931.
2.10.3 Winning the opponent by self-suffering- as much as Gandhiji describes
Satyagraha as the 'law of self-suffering' or the means of attaining the truth. They
used to say that this would change the mind of the respondent and make him
regret about his mistake and, admit that mistake, would try not to repeat it further.
Gandhiji says that those who do Satyagraha should have great restraint on
themselves and should not get agitated on anything of the opponent.
2.10.4 Hunger Strike- Another type of Satyagraha is fasting. Gandhiji considered it a
very extreme weapon, and suggests to use it very sparingly. Meaning of
Satyagraha is that the purpose of public condemnation against whom Satyagraha
is carried out is to speak out and demand justice. Staging a dharna in front of
foreign clothes and liquor shops, telling the defects of these goods and advising to
close or boycott them also comes under fasting.
2.10.5 Strike-Another method of Satyagraha is strike. According to him there should be
a strike to protest. Strike means to stop the work completely. The strike should be

18
 aimed towards attracting the attention of the citizens and the rulers towards their
just demands. But Gandhiji says that strike should not be used every now and then
otherwise it will have no effect on citizens and rulers. Second strike should be
completely optional. Civilians and forest workers should not be forced to stop
their work.
2.10.6 Compromise- Gandhiji has expressed another doubt that the leagues indulge in
Satyagraha to fulfil their demands as soon as possible and adopt the most extreme
form of Satyagraha such as ‘Dharna’ or non-payment of tax. There is also a sense
of violence in the Dharna. In this way, before going on a dharna, the officers
should be urged to get their demands accepted. Full opportunity should be given
for compromise.
2.10.7 Fasting- Fasting is also an important type of Satyagraha for Gandhiji. Fasting
works in two ways, one is self-purification and the other puts moral pressure on
the exploiter so that he can leave the injustice.
2.10.8 Boycott- It is not to accept or to give up something. Boycott can happen both
collectively and individually. Many people boycotted English clothes under the
leadership of Gandhiji. Apart from this, English offices and courts were also
boycotted.
2.10.9 Hijrat- Another medium of Satyagraha dedicated by Gandhiji was 'Hijrat'. The
meaning of Hijrat is that a person should leave his permanent place of residence
on his own will. Gandhiji suggested the use of Hijrat for those who felt that they
were being crushed and suppressed and could not defend their self-respect at that
place, because they lack strength.
It is important to clarify here that not only in the internal sphere, but also in the
event of invasion by other countries, Satyagraha can be used by Gandhiji. Thus,
different scholars have different views regarding Satyagraha.

2.11 GANDHI’S SATYAGRAHA IN 21STCENTURY

The 21stcentury is a place full of violence, impatience, lies and selfish interest. Everyone
nowadays wants the best of the world. Life has become fast-paced and nobody has time
for the betterment of society, morality and ethical behaviour. So,the importance of
Satyagraha has become more relevant than ever before. Satyagraha is a solution to all the
problems dealing with non violence. We have seen the implementation of various types
of Satyagraha such as strike, hunger strike and so on in the Indian sphere and world
arena. If Satyagraha is implemented in its pure form that the world can come out of the
clutches of non violence where there will less hate, more cooperation among people and
more patience and tolerance towards each other.

19
2.12 CRITICISM OF SATYAGRAHA

Scholars have also strongly criticized Gandhi's principles of Satyagraha. The thinkers are
of the opinion that non-violence and self-destruction against violent oppression are
unnatural, inhuman and impractical. Like Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak said that "what
Gandhiji says about connecting politics with morality does not match worldly concerns."
It is true that there is a role of self-pity. The use of second Satyagraha is not possible in
all the time-circumstances, because Satyagraha cannot be easily used in dictatorship and
totalitarian system of government. It is often felt that the ruler himself crushes Satyagraha
by force. Satyagraha cannot be useful in times of foreign invasion or war. How can any
country keep its nation safe only through non-violence. Critics also say that in the name
of Satyagraha, a person can also do negative experiments to achieve self-interest. Along
with this, some thinkers say that it is more challenging task to make social, political, and
economic changes in the society in a non-violent way.
Marxists often argue that Gandhi was a reactionary who prevented a real revolution, that
could have made a difference to the poor, from taking place. His limiting of violence
prevented justice, it ensured that structures of violence stayed in place. Further they argue
that Gandhi was a reactionary who prevented real revolution. Song critics says that it is
due to Britishers’ leniency and fairness that caused Gandhi to practice Satyagraha.
Furthermore, some feminists take strong issue with Gandhi’s belief that principled self-
suffering would bring about a conversion on the part of an opponent.
The practitioners of nonviolence like gene sharp criticize Gandhi’s idea of principled
approach as less productive and confusing. The argue that non violence and its use can be
made more pragmatic some event criticize that Gandhiji employed non violence because
he was short of any other protective weapons that can be used.
Alinsky, another critic tells that the important question is not whether the end justifies the
means but always has been “Does this particular end justify this particular means?” In
other words, nonviolence does not work against violent opponents, Gandhi would have
used violence if it was available to him because it works better, nonviolence is the second
best weapon of the weak when no other weapons are available, and the ends and means
debate is irrelevant in the abstract – each case must be looked at individually and
regardless of what passive non-doers (as Alinsky seems to categorise Gandhi) may say, if
violence helps you to win then it is justified. His aim was to bring about a peaceful and a
just society and to make a new However the Gandhian answer to the ends/means debate
is best formulated by Aldous Huxley when he noted that “Good ends ... can only be
achieved by the employment of appropriate means”. Thus, Gandhiji emphasize on the
means rather than the end goal because if means are good then the ends or the outcome
will also be automatically good for the simplest reason that the ends are the basis of the
means.

20
2.13 CONCLUSION

Thus, we can say that Gandhiji has suggested to use different means in different
situations in protest against injustice and exploitation. By inventing and successfully
using the weapon of Satyagraha, he showed to the world that the country's independence
could be achieved without being armed and without bloodshed. If the people and
governments adopt this non-violent path of Gandhiji, then one can imagine an ideal
peace-loving society, which will be the creation of a new era, in which people can live
their life with peace, happiness and freedom. Which is the dream of the entire world
today. However, the success of Satyagraha will depend on the context, time and
circumstance as well as how it is used and by what type of persons. When used by high-
ranking persons with non-violent, moral, spiritual bases, it will certainly be effective and
infallible, but Satyagraha done for greed, attachment, ego, and personal selfishness will
result in terrible negative effects. Although, these demerits are not of Satyagraha but of
Satyagrahi. In this subject, the rules of Satyagraha and the virtues of Satyagrahi have
been mentioned extensively by Gandhiji above and if they are followed, Satyagraha is a
superior, moral, non-violent, and highly effective infallible weapon for humankind.
Which will not only pave the way for human welfare, but will be a major step towards
realizing Gandhiji's dream of Ram Rajya.

2.14 REFERENCES
 Mohandas K. Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Publications Division, New
Delhi
 Hardiman, David, Gandhi in His Time, and Hours: The Global Legacy of His
Ideas, 2003, Hearst and Company, London
 Mehta, VR Foundation of Indian Political Thought: An Interpretation, 1992,
Manohar, New Delhi.
 Parekh, Bhikhu, Gandhi Political Philosophy, 1989, Macmillan, London,
 Parel, Anthony J. (ed), Gandhi, Freedom and Self Rule, 2002, Vistar Publications,
New Delhi.
 Bondurant, Joan V. Satyagraha Vs Duragraha, Gandhi Marg, 1964.
 Nanda, BR, Mahatma Gandhi: A Life, 1986, Sasta Sahitya Mandal Publications,
New Delhi.
 Gandhi, M.K. History of the Satyagraha of South Africa, 2011, Navajivan
Prakashan Mandir, Ahmedabad.
 Gandhi, MK Hind Swaraj, 2012, Navjeevan Prakashan Mandir, Ahmedabad
 Gandhian Non-violence and Its Critics, The Transnational Foundation for Peace
and Future Research.
 The Myth and Meaning of the Gandhian Concept of Satyagraha-Thomas Varkey.
Important Questions
1. What is Satyagraha? And what is the relation of truth and non-violence with
Satyagraha?

21
2. Discussing the nature of Satyagraha, review the personality of the Satyagrahi.
3. What are the different dimensions of Satyagraha? And what is the extent of
Satyagraha? Critically evaluate.

22
 3. TRUSTEESHIP
Dr Santosh Kumar Singh
STRUCTURE
3.1 Introduction
3.2 What is Trusteeship
3.3 Origin of Trusteeship
3.4 Features of Trusteeship
3.5 Philosophy of Trusteeship
3.6 Evaluation
3.7 Conclusion
3.8 References
“Enjoy the wealth by renouncing it.”
“Excel in your work, produce wealth, take the minimum which you need, leave the rest to
the welfare of the community”
Gandhi
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Mahatma Gandhi is known for his social, political, and economic philosophy. He has
expressed his thoughts on various significant political, economic, social, cultural and
religious matters from time to time. With the help of his ideas, views and philosophy he
was trying to solve the issues of society and individual. His whole life was an unending
experiment. Most of his philosophy discussed in his autobiography as ‘my experiment
with truth’. He was very much influenced by various things. In which the most prominent
one is the Bhagavad Gita—that has moulded his thought in which it has been mentioned
that ‘enjoy thy wealth by renouncing it’ (Gandhi, 1960). Along with this, the Jain monk
Beacharji Swami, he was the person, who helped him to proceed towards United
Kingdom for the higher education. Before Gandhiji’s left London the monk administered
him, and both took three vows. These were not to touch the wine, woman, and meat. It
can be said that Gandhi was very much influenced by the Buddhism so in his philosophy.
It is also reflecting that he has tried to use the peace, corporation, sacrifice and self-
punishment. These components have also reflected in his theory of trusteeship.
Gandhi’s ideas were not based on theoretical but based on the practical aspect. He was
always trying to solve the various social, political and economic issues on the basis of his
experience and ideas. During his time, he had witnessed persisting social and economic
inequality in India. Thus, he was trying to solve the problem of social inequality between
rich and poor, haves and have-not. This method is known as trusteeship principle.
However, Gandhi’s has never followed the ideology of socialism and the communism to
solve the issue of inequality. It doesn't mean that he was not supporter of equality anti
establish the egalitarian society. According to him, the problem lies in the method and the
means adopted by the socialism and communism. Along with this, it has also neglected
the moral dimension of human life. So, the theory of trust is it trying to solve the problem
of social and the economic inequality along with the following the method of peace, non-
violence, truth and self-sacrifice.

23
3.2 WHAT IS TRUSTEESHIP
For the first time, Gandhi has used the term ‘trusteeship’ in his book Hind Swaraj or
Indian Home Rule (1909). Most of hispolitical philosophy can be found in large number
of written documents like books and articles written by him especially in the journals and
magazines like Young ndia and the Harijan. Some of his work can also be traced from his
speeches delivered at different places. Most of his philosophy was based on Karma—
practical ideas which she experienced in his life with truth and non-violence. He has laid
stress on individual. he has taken individuals as starting point for the social, economic
and political progress. According to him, the progress of the society is depending on each
individual that's why he has given the preference to the individuals.
Gandhi supported the view of every person should possess private property if that is
achieved by truthful and non-violence method. So long as the property possessed by the
individual may not be the beyond off their immediate needs. Furthermore, Gandhi has
said each person should act to their property as a trustee of the property rather than the
proprietors off the property. He said that the property should be used for the benefit of
community and the society.
Gandhi was an egalitarian. He believed in the principle of the gap between rich and poor
people can be as small as possible. He has witnessed the huge gap division of people
between social and economic inequality in society with special reference to rich and
poor—capitalist and labour. He wanted to bring the social and economic equality. Gandhi
wanted to establish complete equality in terms to provide the basic facilities to the people
including animals. His equality was based on the provision of ethical and moral
independencefor the development of spirit and the soul. Gandhi was against them method
adopted by the socialist philosophy bring the change in the society with the model of
revolution and violence.
Gandhi wanted to solve the problem of inequality—to remove the issue of inequality. He
had never supported the Marxist principle of class struggle or the revolution where the
violence has been used to remove the inequality in society and the economy. Marks and
Angels have written the Communist Manifesto in 1848 marks put forward a unique
method of class analysis of history. In which there is conflict between classes—the
bourgeoisie and proletariat. According to them, due to the exploitative nature of system
between the feudal lords and the serves will lead to the revolution. It will lead to the
working class as a ruler and establish the community. In this whole process of revolution
Marx’s has not talked about what kind of method used by the proletariat class to bring the
revolution. Gandhi has found through the Russian Revolution and other revolutions have
always witnessed to the use of violence. Gandhi was always against the use of violence.
He has found that the violent society will corrupt the soul and the spirit of individual.
Gandhi has also found that the capitalist is the problem of all the issues—such as
unemployment, family structure, crime and violence. He had witnessed all these things in
Britain, France and other European countries. Thus, he suggested that the property
owners and capitalist class should work as trustee. Along with this, the capitalist class is
responsible for the welfare work of society. He has said that it is due to the society the
capitalist class has generated the capital. Thus, it is their responsibility to contribute
towards the society.

24
In this regard, he has propounded the philosophy of trusteeship. in this philosophy of
trusteeship. He has discussed the three important components these are trust, trustees,
and trusteeship. According to him, in society trust is very important, it represents faith,
belief and support of one person by another person. Gandhi has said in the society trust is
very important in the society. The term Trust can be defined as with the element of, the
preparedness of one party or person(trustor) actions towards another party. To whom
Gandhi as called as trustee. It also includes the expectation and the confidence of the
trustor towards the trustee. Trustee is a person who manages the trust assets. The trustee
is bound by the trust document or the contract. The person has the duty to protect trust
assets for the beneficiaries. Gandhi has mentioned that the independent trustee manages
and holds the legal title to go to trust assets and exercise independent control. the trustee
can be any person like lawyer, accountant, friend or anyone on whom the individual has
trust. Trustee is not based on the blood or marriage relationship but on the basis of
relationship. Regarding the trustees, Gandhi has said that it will be in the hands of those
individuals who can be either appointed or elected to serve the long-term welfare of the
institution. It also tries to help to resolve the current issues and conflicts. Gandhi has
talked about the typical types of the trustees’ organisations includes civil society
organisations, non- governmental organisations, hospitals and other education
institutions.
3.3 ORIGIN OF TRUSTEESHIP
Gandhi's ideas focusedon the concept of Dharma. He has tried to perform the duty
towards the society. According to him, everything comes from God, and everything
belongs to God. Therefore, as a people when all people or individual have more than its
own proportion that thing belongs to the God. Furthermore. While the time of elaborating
the Upanishadic mantra ‘Tena Twaktena Bhunjitha (Sharma, 2010)’ he said,
“Earn your crores by all means. But understand that your wealth is not
yours, it belongs to the people. Take what you require for your legitimate
needs and use the remainder for Society”.
He believes in the equal distribution of wealth among the people. in this regard, he has
given the theory of trusteeship. His philosophy of trusteeship was influenced from
Raskin’s work Until The Last and Bhagvad Gita, which he read in the 1889. Gandhi
become Karmyogi yogi as a result ofreading the Gita. Gandhi mentioned that by nature
all human beings are equal and there are no forms of inequality present among them.
The philosophy of trusteeship originated because of the socio-economic crisis. Gandhi
has found that people are running out of patients and looking for a system alternative for
socialism and the capitalism. The Socialism assumes that assume social unit no
individuality of individual they are assured to bread at the cost of freedom on the other
hand capitalism recognises the individuality of man but it is unable to provide track to all
thus there is necessity to a new system which provides both freedom and wisdom to all
the person the concept of trusteeship can only provide a such system the concept of
successive drive by Mahatma Gandhiji after the jurisprudence Snells Principles of Equity
and Gita.
Trusteeship means that all property in terms belongs to the society. Those who possesses
the property are only the trustee of the society whose task is to increase the earning and

25
value of the trust property. The theory of trusteeship has not recognised inherent private
property. Apart from this, the concept of trusteeship does not recognised property earned
from the parents. The idea of trusteeship is based on the constructing the consensus to
implement the social good. Trustees may get the remuneration for the work done through
common consent of workers.
Gandhiji in his own lifetime witnessed that capitalist class has gathered the material for
their comfort, that has caused to accumulate wealth of the society disproportion to their
needs and at the cost of the majority who are ignorant. Gandhi has opposed to
competitive model of economy. According to him, in the long run it will ruin the nation,
because “competition only enables the purchaser to obtain his labour unjustly cheap,
with the result that the rich grow richer and the poor poorer (Gandhi, 1960).”In this
background, Gandhiji has formulated theory of trusteeship. It could help to establish the
equal distribution of accumulated wealth for societal happiness It will also work as a
means of transform the present rich and poor based society into the egalitarian society.
According to this concept, the owner of capital does not abuse his own power to increase
or assault the property by exploiting other classes. Moreover, the owner would actas a
trustee of the social interest then all classes can live in harmony and work for each other’s
prosperity. The idea of trusteeship has been inspired by the concept of non-possession of
capital. It does not support and recognise the right to private property and any individual
based property. The concept of private property is accepted only in terms of the social
welfare—benefit for the society not for the individual. Apart from this, it has also
included any individual will not be free to hold or uses wealth for selfish satisfaction or in
disregard of the interests of the society. Gandhi wanted that the rich should become the
trustee of the society by sharing surplus wealth with the poor. In another words, it can be
said that all money and property originally belong to society and those who possess it are
only the trustees of the society, whose duty is to increase the earning and value of the
trust property. Furthermore, he has said that if any person or individual will establish and
earn the property more than the need it will be considered as the social breach of trust. It
will be treated as crime and is punishable offence under the law.
Features of Trusteeship
Gandhi’s theory of trusteeship can identify with several features. In which some
important are:
No recognition to private ownership of property: Gandhi has not given any recognition to
the right of private ownership of property except if it is permitted by the society for it's on
welfare. Gandhi has seen the private property as a means to divide the society between
rich and poor class. he has also seen that it is private property which corrupts human
mind and their soul. Thus, he was against the private property and the capitalist system.
Under the state regulated trusteeship an individual will not be free to hold or use his
wealth for selfish satisfaction or disregard of the interests of society.It does not exclude
bless lative regulation of the ownership.
Fixing minimum wages: In the theory of trusteeship, Gandhi has proposed the model to
fix a minimum wage, even so a limit should be fixed for the maximum income that
should be allowed to any person in society. the difference between such minimum and

26
maximum income should be responsible and equitable and variable from time to time so
much so that the tendency would be towards obliteration of itself.
Social and legal pressure: Gandhi has realised the limitations of the concept of voluntary
assumption of trusteeship by the capitalist, index list and a rich class. Therefore, he has
suggested that if it is required to exit the pressure on the rich and capitalist class the
significant necessary measures need to be taken. Gandhi has suggested that if legislation
required to adopt the idea about trusteeship it can also be made. But Gandhi's idea was
not to impose the thing from above, but it should evolve from within.
Quality of Trustee: A trustee is one who self-consciously assumes responsibility for
upholding protecting and putting to good use whatever he possesses or acquires. Gandhi
has mentioned that the trustee must be a person of self -governing, morally sensitive,
always knows the unmet needs of others and always trying to become self-regulating,
reliance and sacrificial. Along with he has also said that the trustee never exhibits selfish
indifferences. A trustee should be a man of high character complete honesty. Apart from
this, the trustee should never use the trust money and property for his own personal work.
Transform the capitalist and rich class: With the help of trusteeship, Gandhi has tried to
give the opportunity to the capitalist and the privileged class to reform themselves. He
was aware about the fact that it’s not easy to get the response from the rich, capitalist,
landlords to respond it. He has said “A violent and bloody revolution is a certainty one
day unless there is a voluntary abdication of riches, and the power that riches give, and
sharing them for the common good" (Gandhi, 1948).
Check and balance in the organisation: In his theory of trusteeship, Gandhi has tried to
establish the system which is based on the model of ‘check and balance’. with this model
Gandhi has tried to establish a system in which any individual cannot accumulate the
property in its own hand or in the name of self. Gandhi has agreed on the principle that it
is not easy to convince the rich people to be the part of trusteeship. he has suggested the
social pressure and the legal pressure through which any individual can be pressurised to
adopt or follow the idea of trusteeship.
Responsibilities of trusteeship: Gandhi has tried to provide the responsibility of the
trusteeship is to provide a legal foundation provide a legal foundation. for its existence
apart from this Gandhi has also mentioned that under the model of trusteeship it is
required to do the counselling of institutions top administrator's. further work he has also
suggested that the organization should make long term plans, making activities which
may help to achieve the long-range requirement.
Key aspect of Philanthropy: With the help of the idea of trusteeship, Gandhi has tried to
establish a governing body through which every individual will be given a opportunity to
serve both to very person and the community. Everyone will do all the important
financial contribution as well as spread the good will in the community. Furthermore,
with the help of trusteeship citizens will learn to sacrifice the self-interest and work
towards community interest. Trusteeship is very different from the model of socialism. It
has tried to establish the institution which is based on both individual and institution. He
has rejected the concept of industrial democracy. According to him it is protecting and
promoting the interest of certain groups and class.

27
Philosophy of Trusteeship
Gandhi was philosophical anarchist. he has criticised the role of state on the ethical
historical and economic grounds. As Gandhi has mentioned that “the state represents
violence in a concentrated and organised form. the individual has a soul but as the state is
a soulless machine it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very
existence” The idea of the Gandhi was to establish the stateless system where the social
life will be self-regulated. The ideal system would be the federation of satyagrahi’s
village communities. As he has mentioned “Society based on non-violence can only be a
group settled in villages in which voluntary corporation is the condition of dignified and
the peaceful existence”
Gandhi was against the large state. He has justified this view on the ground of historical,
moral and economic grounds. According to him the state uses force, and its existence
cannot be justified on moral grounds. He found state uses force and its existence cannot
be justified on moral grounds. According to him, the individual has a soul, but state is a
soulless machine. Along with this, Gandhi was against the highly centralised system of
production, and he supported for decentralised production. One of the major reasons
behind to support the decentralisation was to prevent centralisation of power in the hands
of few people.
The major features of Gandhian economy were based on small scale industry, like the
cottage industry. He had mentioned
“Economic quality must never be supposed to mean possession of an equal
amount of worldly goods by everyone fully stop it does mean, however, that
everyone will have a proper house to live in, sufficient and balanced food to
eat, and sufficient khadi with which to cover himself. it also means that cruel
inequality that obtains today will be move removed by purely non-violent
means (RaghavanIyer, 1986)”
Furthermore, Gandhi supported the private ownership but not like the capitalist and rich
class. Gandhi is against the use of property as an instrument of exploitation. He said
capitalism and exploitation should be removed through non-violence. Those who have
property must regard it as trust and not as an instrument of exploitation. He said all
property is held in trust, no matter who owns it, and what its nature or quantity is. He said
property is not to be a source of profit but a source of the people’s welfare. Gandhi has
said “No one should have property more than what one needs”.
Gandhi has said that if capitalist will be failed to act as a trustee, their industries will be
taken over by the government. Those industries should work not for the profit motive but
for the objective of humanity and the welfare of the society. In this process, the workers
will also get the share in management. Along with this the large-scale production will be
considered as an enemy. if a choice was to be made between individual violence and the
state violence, Gandhi was in the favour of individual violence. he has said that “if the
state suppresses capitalism by violence, it would be caught in the coils by violence
itself…. and failed to develop non-violence at any time. the state represents violence in a
concentrated and organized form. the individual has soul, but the state is a soulless
machine… means I prefer doctrine of trusteeship”

28
His idea of trusteeship based on six-principles.
1. The idea of Trusteeship will provide a method to transform the contemporary
capitalist-based society into the egalitarian society. Under this transformation, he
has not given any quarter of space to the capitalism, but he has given the space to
the owners to do reform according to their choice (Mishra, 2012).
2. His theory of trusteeship doesn’t accept any form of private property right. It has
permitted private property which is working for the welfare of the society.
3. Gandhi has suggested the legislation can be made to establish the trusteeship.
4. In the trusteeship, people are not free to use their wealth and property for self-
interest and satisfaction purpose. Its basic objective is to protect and promote the
interest of society.
5. It has also suggested to fix the basic minimum wage, so that the maximum amount
can be identified to too for the any individual to keep the income.
6. Under the idea of trusteeship, Gandhi has also suggested to decide the economic
order which is the necessity and the requirement of society rather than based on
individual’s personal interest.
On the basis of these above points, it can be said that Gandhi’s philosophically of
trusteeship can be said as each individual in society is performing the economic activity
not on the basis of self-interest basis but on the agenda of interests of society and the
others (Sethi, 1986).
3.4 AN ANALYSIS
Gandhi was pre-eminent leader. His philosophy was not theory was not theoretical but
based on practical thoughts. He knew that both physical and intellectual ability differs
from man to man. He said that some persons are mentally stronger than the physically
stronger and other are vis-à-vis.Gandhi's theory of trusteeship can be is elevated as:
Establish Egalitarian Society: The theory of trusteeship has tried to solve the social and
economic inequality in the society. He was influenced by Ruskin 'unto the last'. Ruskin
has talked about the equal distribution of national wealth. With the help of trusteeship
Gandhi's has tried to transform the capitalist order (rich versus poor) in the society. He
was trying to establish the egalitarian society. Under the model of trusteeship, he has not
given any space to the capitalism system. However, he has given the space to the owners
of means of productions class to reform themselves. Gandhi has also mentioned that the
equitable distribution will ensure human dignity and not charity.
Related to social responsibility principle: the Gandhi's idea of trusteeship has very close
relation with the social responsibility of capitalist and the business class. as Gandhi has
mentioned that the profit earned by the capitalist, or the business class have also the
contribution by the society. Thus, Gandhi has suggested that it is also the responsibility of
capitalist class to contribute towards the society. Apart from this he has also said that it is
required that the Indus list class should change their attitude towards society. he has said
that the capitalist class have no moral right to accumulate the property while other
persons are living in a poverty and miserable life. In the contemporary era, most of the
countries have adopted the system of corporate social responsibility. in India on the

29
model of Gandhi's idea about the trusteeship the government has also adopted the let's
listen off corporate social responsibility.
Channel to bridge the gap between rich and poor: With the help of theory of trusteeship,
Gandhi has tried to create a channel through which he has tried to bring together, both,
the rich and the poor people of India in the national movement for freedom. during the
independence struggle of India, Gandhi has witnessed the division of individuals between
rich (Zamindars) and the poor (Labours& farmers). Thus, he wanted to bridge the gap
between bridge the gap between rich and poor class. He has mentioned
“Supposing I have come by a fair amount of wealth – either by way of legacy, or
by means of trade and industry – I must know that all that wealth does not belong
to me; what belongs to me is the right to an honourable livelihood, no better than
that enjoyed by millions of others. The rest of my wealth belongs to the
community and must be used for the welfare of the community (Gandhi, 1960)”
Based on idealistic principles: Gandhi's idea off the trusteeship was based on the
idealistic thought. The liberal thinkers have said that the Gandhi's idea of trusteeship is
far away from the realistic view of individual. the liberal thinker has said that all the
individuals have always been driven by self-interest. in the theory of trusteeship Gandhi
has not identified the propelling force to the individual for which thecapitalist,
industrialist, and rich class Can see their interest in terms of sharing the property of above
requirement. Namboodiripad has criticised the Gandhi's theory of trusteeship on the
ground of that it has helped the capitalist class. He said that the trusteeship will give
space to the rich class to capture political and economic power.
It has been said that the concept is not relevant in today's competitive business world
because all the businessperson want to earn profits and accumulate the wealth. It also
considered that it demotivates the hardworking businessmen. The businessmen will lose
their creativity, and they will become lazy.
Overall, it can be said that the theory of trusteeship looks like utopian in nature. It can be
said that every new and innovative idea at early stage looks like idealist, but it transforms
later on in terms of reality.
3.5 CONCLUSION
Gandhi’s work belongs to entire mankind. He has done the study to Indian society as well
as global economy so closely that he identified the major problem of the world in terms
of economic and social equality. He has not only found the major problem of the world,
which is still present in the globalised world, but he has tried to provide the solution too
in the form of theory of trusteeship. His theory of trusteeship is a noble contribution in
the field of philosophy. With the help of the theory of trusteeship Gandhi has tried to
establish the egalitarian society. In his opinion, true economics cannot be separated from
social justice. It is social justice which promotes good of all, equally, including the
weakest, and is indispensable for a decent life. At present there are institutions that is
function around the idea of trusteeship like Tata Group, SEWA etc.
Gandhi felt that every solution can be possible when it is based on every individual and to
save the mankind. He was aware about the fact that the non-violence, self-sacrifice, truth
will bind whole humanity into one thread. At the end it can be said that the Gandhi's

30
trusteeship theory is an ethical principle. It is trying to redefine the relationship between
the wealthy and poor. With the help if trusteeship he was trying to provide a meaningful
deviceto maintain economic and social equality in the society.
3.6 IMPORTANT QUESTIONS
1. Examine the major reasons behind the idea of trusteeship?
2. What id trusteeship? Examine the Gandhi’s theory of trusteeship.
3. Do you think that the Gandhi’s philosophy of trusteeship is relevant? Discuss.
4. Gandhi’s theory of trusteeship is applied by most of the countries in the model of
‘Corporate Social Responsibility’.
5. ‘With the model of trusteeship Gandhi wanted to establish the egalitarian society’
discuss this statement.
6. How Mahatma Gandhi’s idea of the rich as trustees drives wealthy to be agents of
change?
7. Briefly describe Gandhi’s idea of trusteeship.
3.7 MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS
1. Gandhi was inspired by the book “Unto This Last”. At such extent he has translated
to the book in Gujarati language. Who is the author of that book?
a) Bal Gangadhar Tilak b) Leo Tolstoy
c) John Ruskin d) Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru

2. Gandhi’s trusteeship objective included

a) Selfish b) Private Property
c) Economic and Social equality d) State

3. Who gave the title “Mahatma” to Gandhi and referred to him as “Maharaj”?
a) Bala Gangadhar Tilak b) Jawaharlal Nehru
c) Rabindranath Tagore d) Subash Chandra Bose

4. Through which principal Gandhi has tried to remove the social and economic
inequality?
a) A.Satyagraha b) Gram Panchayat
c) Swaraj d) Trusteeship

5. Gandhi’s trusteeship not included

a) Market centric b) Equality
c) Social Justice d) Harmony

3.8 REFERENCES
 Chakrabarty, Bidyut (2017), Gandhi’s Doctrine of Trusteeship: Spiritualizing
Interpersonal Relationship, NCDS Working Paper No.67. accessed from
http://ncds.nic.in/sites/default/files/WorkingandOccasionalPapers/WP67NCDS.pd
f on 12th June 2021
 Dasgupta, Ajit K (1966), Gandhi’s Economic Thought, Routledge, London,

31
 Gandhi, M. K. (1948). Constructive Programme, Navajivan Publishing House:
Ahmedabad, pp. 20-21
 Gandhi, M. K. (2009), India of My Dreams, Rajpal & Sons: Delhi.
 Gandhi, M.K. (1968), ‘Village Panchayat’, Harijan, 28 July 1948. The Selected
Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol. VI, Navajivan Publication: New Delhi
 Gandhi, MK (1960), Trusteeship, Navjivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, 1960,
p. 23.
 Ganguli, B. N.(1973), Gandhi’s Social Philosophy; Perspective and Relevance,
Vikas Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.: Delhi
 Mathur, BP (2011), ‘Gandhian alternative to economic development: relevant for
India today’, Mainstream, 1 October, 2011, p. 8.
 Mishra, Anil (2012), Reading Gandhi, Pearson Publication: Delhi, pp. 143.
 RaghavanIyer (1986), ‘Gandhian trusteeship in theory and practice’ in JD Sethi
(ed.), Trusteeship: The Gandhian alternative, Gandhi Peace Foundation: New
Delhi.
 Rajni Bakshi. (2013), The relevance of Gandhi in the capitalism debate. The
Guardian. accessed from https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-
business/blog/relevance-gandhi-capitalism-debate-rajni-bakshi, on 12th
September 12, 2021.
 Rao, VKRV (1986), ‘trusteeship as Gandhian instrument for socialist change’ in
JD Sethi (ed), Trusteeship: The Gandhian alternative, Gandhi Peace Foundation:
New Delhi
 Schumacher, E. F (1973), Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered,
Harper and Row: New York,
 Sen, Amartya (2006), Human Rights and Capabilities. Journal of Human
Development. 6(2).
 Sethi, JD (1986), 'Trusteeship and the Crisis in Economic Theory’ in JD Sethi
(ed.), Trusteeship: The Gandhian alternative, Gandhi Peace Foundation, New
Delhi, pp. 93
 Sharma, J K &Dugar, B R (2010), Relative Economics, Deep & Deep Publication:
New Delhi, pp. 79
 Surineni, Indira (1991), Gandhian Doctrine of Trusteeship, Discovery Publication:
New Delhi

32
 4. SWADESHI
Dr. Abhishek Pratap Singh
In the national freedom struggle of India, the people of India undertook many political
movements, which played a key role in resisting the colonial rulers and opposing the
British political establishment. Amongst the list of freedom movements, the Swadeshi
movement was one of the earliest socio-economic movements, which formed the great
stride towards nationalism and Swaraj in the annals of modern Indian history. The call for
Swadeshi was a holistic expression of veritable soul of Indian-ness or Bhartiyata. This
was in contrary to the earlier version of the Moderate Indian nationalists, many of whom
were sympathetic with western culture and education, given the way they interpreted
west.
4.1 OBJECTIVES OF STUDY
1. Identifying historical factors behind Bengal partition and rationale for Swadeshi.
2. Understanding how Swadeshi was a strong nationalist reaction to British.
3. Tracing the cultural roots of Swadeshi as an ideology and its cultural roots.
4. Swadeshi movement and the immediate political trends.
5. Conclusion based on the impact this historic phenomenon.
4.2 BENGAL DIVISION AND BEGINNING OF SWADESHI
The year 1905 is a watershed in the modern Indian history, more precisely a major
breakthrough in our national freedom struggle. If we look back to the major historical
factors, which shaped the Swadeshi movement and the immediate political scenario of the
country, one would come to realize that it was the Partition of Bengal that set out the
launch of Swadeshi movement. It was a one of the clever policy decisions by the British
rulers to divide Bengal province in the Eastern India, based on divisive religious lines in
order to contain the revolutionary forces raising voices against the colonial rules. The
idea was so divisive and defeatist that it was the Bengal division, which rolled out the
future political partition of Bharat into two independent territories like as India and
Pakistan. Swadeshi movement started in 1905 as an agitation against the decision by the
British colonial rulers to partition or divide Province of Bengal. The Bengal province was
one of the most populous regions in British India. The geographical limits of the
presidency were not just limited to Bengal rather it included regions in the western and
eastern parts of India. This includes areas from Bihar, Assam and some parts of Orissa in
the erstwhile British India.
There are two things, which need to be understood before we make any attempt to
understand the Bengal division and Swadeshi. Firstly, given the limits of geographical
area involved the decision was bound to have implications for the large number of local
inhabitants. It certainly has socio-economic and political implications for the Indian
people and for the ruling British Empire. Secondly, the Bengal division was put forward
in the name of promoting administrative convenience but the deep analysis of the
decision proves that it was purely a deliberate policy decision by the colonial
establishment, well thought off and executed to create and provoke discrimination
between Hindus and Muslims on religious lines. It was one of the earliest colonial

33
decisions to fully establish and propagate the ‘Divide and rule policy’ which later on
became the seeding ground for the rise of Islamic extremism and separatism in India. The
logical outcome of which was the partition of India.
If we make an analysis of Bengal presidency on demographic lines then it becomes clear
that the population of the state was predominantly Muslim dominated in the eastern part
of Bengal, and was dominated by the Hindus in the western part of the Bengal
presidency. In the central part of Bengal presidency both the Hindus and Muslims
communities were balancing each other simultaneously. While the colonial argument that
the Bengal presidency is too huge and large as an administrative unit to be ruled by any
singular state power remained there, the administration was aiming to reorganize the
state. This issue of reorganization came for discussions before the British officials in
India.
However, things began to change in the later years of Vice-Roy Lord Curzon’s rule in
British India. In the initial plans, he proposed for some transfer of divisions and districts
like Chittagong and Dacca to Assam. Also additions of some district from Orissa like
Sambalpur to Bengal. This also included giving away Chota Nagpur to the Central
Provinces in within British India. However, the final scheme of the partition of Bengal
Presidency was brought in public domain on 19 July 1905. The final scheme with some
modifications laid out a clear-cut plan of division of Bengal presidency, bringing in place
two new provinces of Assam and Eastern Bengal. These new provinces were organized
from some districts being taken together like as previous plan.
Once the plan was out in public the true agenda of the British rulers were much clear and
out in public. In any case, it was not meant for any kind of administrative convenience
rather was designed on purely political reasons and objectives to secure British rule. Even
the partition was not fully acceptable to any kind of linguistic considerations, nor was
administratively executable. The decision was purely intended to weaken the unity and
strength of our national movement and had nothing little to show anything except that it
was a step to divide and rule the Indian society. The freedom movement, which was now
becoming popular and united, was to face another critical challenge in the form of Bengal
division.
Cultural roots of Swadeshi
Swadeshi referred to a politics of building national self-reliance and self esteem through
series of constructive work, activism and engagements. This was seen as a necessary pre-
condition to build national strength and gather domestic support to challenge the British
rule. This was the first great people's movement in modern Indian history. It was being
led by our great nationalists and freedom fighters of the day and was being fully
supported by people of India. The movement has ideological concerns and was shaped by
the evolving political context under the British raj. The movement does not had only
political implications but it was shaped by ‘deep cultural values and ethos’ present in
Indian society. Possibly, this was the reason that movement was able to draw much
support and enthusiasm from the general population. All these ideas, which shaped the
Swadeshi movement, evoke a sincere introspection at academic level, which too could
have implications for the contemporary politics in India.

34
Every history in the world has witnessed the upsurge of many political and social reform
movements. And most of these movements owes to some kind of ideological context and
historical roots. This may be in the form of some belief in value system, principles and
ideas, which form the ideological basis, or to say intellectual foundation of any
movement. This was also valid in case of Swadeshi, and the idea was derived from great
glory of Indian past based on thriving economy and just social order. In case of
Swadeshi, it was the cumulative effect of an accumulation of native Indian philosophy
and thought, which has came into existence after the tireless pursuit for knowledge by our
great saints, philosophers and scholars. It was neither irrelevant to the present nor lost in
the past rather based on continuous dialogue with the changing socio-economic dynamics
of the Bhartiya samaj or Indian civil society.
The upsurge of 1905 was not the outcome of any single day politics or movement. It was
the fallout of series of political steps that were being undertaken by the British Rajagainst
the interests of Indian people. It was well thought of process, which was cropping up
since the year 1875 when the Arya Samaj, led by Swami Dayanand Saraswati made its
headway in the national movement. He gave the call for ‘Back to Vedas’ that was deeply
rooted in the cultural heritage of India. This was aimed to arouse the consciousness
among the Indian that you are the successor of great Indian civilization, which is Bharat.
This call was directed to awake the national sentiment and consciousness amongst Indian
to stand up and fight collectively for the national cause.
Moreover, there were many other social and political organizations, which were directing
their works and movement towards the same objective like as Hindu Mela of Nabagopal
Mitra and Raj Narain Bose and Prarthana Sabha of Atmaram Pandurang, Arya Mahila
Samaj of Pandit Rambai. They were working for the cause in different areas of the
country but were united in their purpose, action and objectives.
In addition to this Miitra Mela (later Abhinav Bharat) of Savarkar brothers at Nasik in
1899, Vivekananda's Chicago address to the World Religious Conference 1893, and the
publication of ‘Anand Math’ a popular novel by Bankim Chandra's in 1883 were also
major developments which set the right path for cultural and political awakening of
Bharat. The organization of Ganapati Festival and Shivaji Mahotsav by Tilak, and
Aurobindo's celebration of Kali Puja in 1904 was basically addressing the Indian people
to never forget and identifying themselves with the great glory of our ancient Hindu
heritage, which was the source of cultural foundation and social fabric of Indian society.
They knew that the leaders couldn’t lead any political movement alone until it has the
popular support from the people. To garner the popular support, they derive ideas, made
appeals and speeches, and organized activities around the cultural beliefs and value
system of our country so that the people must be made to realize that they belong to the
great civilization heritage which has given many things to the world and need not to
remain in subjugation of colonial powers for long. By arousing the national
consciousness they wanted to build a national sentiment and against the British raj which
was gradually making inroads in our minds and socio-cultural space. If we make a fair
evaluation of these events, we can come to realize that cultural roots of Swadeshi was
well cultivated and established in the past glory of Bhartiya civilization.

35
4.3 TILAK AND SWADESHI MOVEMENT
The tyrannical and oppressive nature of the British rule led to huge unrest in India in
early twenty century. The Indian national movement could be broadly divided into two
phases. The moderate phase, which did peaceful protests, prayers and petitions against
the British rule and the immediate establishment. But these methods were not effective
and the Indian’s continued to get frustrated. Tilak’s contribution to the Indian national
movement is well known. He was a lawyer, educationist, and social reformer, great
organizer, leader and public intellectual. He is remembered in the history of the Indian
national movement for his revolutionary ideas of Swaraj and Swadeshi in the aftermath of
the partition of Bengal.
Bal Gangadhar Tilak was part of the extremist phase of the Indian national movement
who believed in ‘complete independence’ from the British rule. He joined the INC in
1890 but he strongly opposed the moderates’ constitutional methods of winning over the
British government. He did not believe in the British government’s fair play and justice.
In his opinion, they would never peacefully agree to give independence to India. All the
extremist leaders including Tilak put great emphasis on Swaraj or self-rule. In fact, the
very popular quote of Tilak “Swarajya is my birth right and I shall have it”, clearly
indicates that he was fierce critic of the British rule and this also inspired several
revolutionaries for a long time. He has been called the “father of Indian unrest” by one of
British raj historian who found the works and contribution of Tilak as most formidable
and appealing during the Swadeshi movement.
Tilak understood that one of the main purposes of the British rule was economic
exploitation of our country. This line of argument was well established in the intellectual
discourse after the publication of ‘Poverty and Un-British Rule in India’ by another
Indian great freedom fighter Sir Dadabha Naoroji. Tilak knew well economic roots of
Britisn rule in India, and was well convinced like other leaders that for the well being and
prosperity of India and Indian, our motherland must be made completely free from the
colonial rule. He knew well that British were exploiting the Indians at the two levels,
firstly by taking raw materials from India for their colonial industries in Britain and then
by turning and dumping British manufactured goods back in our country. This had
resulted in the complete decline of the Indian local and indigenous industries. He realized
that this dual exploitation had to stop and he started encouraging swadeshi and boycott of
foreign goods. He realised that swadeshi and boycott together would be effective
solution to this problem.
Swadeshi was both an economic, political and nationalist tool for the freedom movement
of India. Boston Tea Party (1773) movement in the United States (US) influenced him,
which was happened against the British by the local population to shell out their anger
against the establishment. Tilak knew and understood that we need to devise and execute
some kind of that strategy to arouse the collective consciousness of Indian against the
colonial rule. He wanted Swadeshi movement to be the trigger point of that national
awakening in Indian against the British rule.
Tilak wanted this movement and the idea of Swadeshi to be taken in every corner of the
country to build a collective national public pressure on the political establishment of the
British. For this, he led the Swadeshi movement in western India and played an important

36
role in popularising the idea. He started organizing people to burn foreign clothes in
Poona, Nagpur and other major cites in the Western regions. He also appealed to the local
feudals to join hands with the forces of our freedom struggle. He believed that this
boycott would create a demand for Indian goods and this would help in promoting
indigenous entrepreneurship. This was necessary given the miserable condition of local
Indian arts man and handicrafts. The core emphasis was on promoting the sense of Atma
Shakti or self-reliance. During the same time many domestic industries and related
ventures were started like as Swadeshi store of Bengal Chemicals in Kolkata, Lakshmi
Cotton Mills and Mohini Mills were started.
Under his leadership a swadeshi weaving company was set up in Poona. He used various
radical methods to attract the public including mass protests, strikes, and calling for
public meetings. He also started the Bombay Swadeshi Cooperative stores company to
promote indigenous products of India. He also organized exhibitions to promote
Swadeshi products. Several other Congress leaders like Bipin Chandra Pal and Lala
Lajpat Rai also followed him in promoting Swadeshi movement and boycotting foreign
goods. Swadeshi was hence seen as a movement to show love for one’s country. The tool
of boycott served several of Tilak’s purposes. Firstly, it went hand-in-hand with the
national movement. Secondly, it helped in uniting the masses against the oppressive
British laws with a sense of collectivism.
Other national leaders like Ranade also focused on creating public awareness about the
idea of Swadeshi. This was mainly done through his lectures at Poona. In these lectures,
he popularized and emphaised on the notion that-
‘the idea of Swadeshi and preferring the goods produced in one’s own
country even though they may prove to be dearer or less satisfactory
than finer foreign product’.
Moreover, leaders like Ganesh Vasudev Joshi also known as Sarvajanik Kaka with their
brilliant humour and sense of public outreach popularized the idea of Swadeshi among
their followers. His interest in public activities given his training as social activist in Pune
played a key role in spreading and the acceptance of the call for Swadeshi among the
locals. Moreover, he took a vow to use only Khadi spun and the cloth woven by him as a
‘Khadi pledge’ in support of the movement.
Another method by Tilak was by starting to use religious festivals to arouse political
consciousness among Indians and uniting them against the British rule. Religion or
Dharmawas a powerful tool to make an appeal to the public irrespective of caste and
creed. In 1894, he started celebrating Ganesh festivals and Shivaji festivals in
Maharashtra to organize the masses for the Indian national movement. He wanted to
imbibe the feeling of nationalism among the masses. He believed that Shivaji represented
the idea of strength and courage. Indians would remember the contribution of Shivaji and
would be encouraged as well to against the tyrannical British rule with more fervour.
Under his leadership, the popularity of the Swadeshi movement in Maharashtra came
second to that of Bengal. These religious festivals celebrations were pushed in order to
draw greater public support for the freedom movement. Tilak understood the cultural
sentiment of the Indian society and wanted to strike a chord between religious
celebrations and goals of freedom movement.

37
Another significant feature of the Swadeshi movement was popularising the idea of
‘National Education’. The western education that was introduced by the British created a
class who became loyal to the British rule. He was against this education system and
believed that education should ingrain the Indians a “respect for their own culture,
religion and heritage”. Hence, the idea of national education was promoted wherein the
Indians were remind of the glorious past. This would help them to realize the crucial role
that they can play in the Indian national movement. Indians set up several schools and
colleges where apart from the normal curriculum, there was an equal focus on the India’s
rich cultural diversity and heritage.
He outlined a strategy for the development of national education. Firstly, Dharmic
education is a necessity to inculcate the values of morality, ethics and character building.
Apart from this, political and industrial education should be imparted to create awareness
among the masses about their rights and sense of empowerment. He also emphasised on
the English language, as the Indians would be able to read about huge literature that was
there on the ideas of democracy, rights, equality and justice in the west. But insisted that
this learning of English language must not be allowed to dominate our cultural space and
mindset in the long run. He wanted National Education to strengthen process of nation
building in modern India. The nationalist leaders wanted to combine the modern
education along with traditional knowledge.
Tilak wanted that education should reach to all classes of the society and he established
the New English school in Pune in 1880, followed by Deccan education Society. In 1906,
Tilak not only helped in establishing the Maharashtra Vidya Prasark Mandal, but also
financially supported it when it ran into trouble. Apart from reaching out to the youth, he
wanted to pull the elderly people to the national movement as well. He came out with
two newspaper-Kesari and Marathi in order to openly criticise the British government
policies. Through these he used to publish articles about those Indians who used to
oppose the tyrannical policies of the government. He wanted to publicize the events that
were happening during that time. He wanted the youth not to blindly follow the western
ways of living.
He started educating the farmers about the modern ways of farming techniques, which
would benefit the Indian economy. He also wrote extensively about the Indian farmers to
create awareness about their condition. Tilak’s methods were effective in shaking the
foundation of the British rule in India. His appeal to resist British rule became hugely
popular among the Indians.
4.4 SWADESHI AS A NATIONAL MOVEMENT
The early beginning of Swadeshi movement started in Bengal. But later on the movement
spread was being supported across the country. By 1909 it became a national movement
with pan Indian participation from every regions. The movement, which began as a anti-
partition movement in the early phase soon transformed itself into a anti-colonial
movement with popular support drawing against British Raj. The movement also
reflected a character of unity in diversity of India. In many regions, it began and
developed with different name and slogans. These movements were part of and within the
national call for Swadeshi but to garner local regional popular support from every
sections of the society, they attributed a local character in their activism, sloganeering and

38
popular appeals. For example it began as a Vande Mataram movement in coaster Andhra
region of Southern India.
The moderate version of Indian nationalism was no longer a popular practice. The
Swadeshi movement witnessed a strong support and acceptance of radical national
leaders, which more critical and questioning about the ruling credential and mis-
governance of the British rule over India. The main leaders of Swadeshi movement were
Lokmanya Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal, Lala Lajapat Rai, Aurobindo Ghosh, Chidambaram
Pillai and Babu Genu. Much contribution came to Swadeshi movement from the works
and writings of Rabindranath Tagore, Rajanikanta Sen, Dwijendralal Roy. There were
efforts by the Girishchandra Ghosh, and Amritalal Bose in the form of play writing and
their performance on public places to arouse the national awareness for the movement.
The Swadeshi movement led to the emergence of multiple socio-cultural activities and
local movements across India to draw public participation in the form of religious revival
gatherings and activities, politics of social reformism. Many activities started in many
places like as constructive social initiatives and formation of educational institutions.
These were mostly aimed to impart education and expand the basis of vernacular
language in India. The major activities, which became the foundational basis of Swadeshi
movement, are as follows-
 Spreading spirit of Swadeshi and use of indigenous resources
 Reducing dependence and Boycott of foreign goods and products
 Building scheme for National Education
 Promoting Literary, Technical and Scientific learning.
 Promoting learning in Vernacular Language
 Demands for Self-rule, Fight for Swaraj.
 Celebrating Indian festivals, enhancing spirit of collectivism.
The Swadeshi witnessed a paradigm shift in the nature Indian national movement. Unlike
the earlier moderate version of Indian nationalism, the new radicals leaders gave the
unified call and put forth a demand for Swaraj. They were also attempting to find the new
ways and means towards this objective. They believed that the call for the boycott of
British should be escalated from British goods and products to other areas in order to
shake the foundation of the British rule. They called for the British educational
institutions, general administration, judiciary and the other rules as established by the
colonial law to challenge the system from the support of Indian people. The design was to
make the British administration and governance completely vulnerable by building
collective resistance from the Indian people.
The editorial in popular national weekly newspaper Bande Mataram (1907)published
from Calcutta, has more clearly and broadly underlined the basic tenets of Swadeshi. To
quote, it was fundamentally building…
..strength in the village and township, developing our resources, our social,
economic, religious life, regardless of the intrusive alien; it thought of
inaugurating a new revolution such as the world had never yet seen, a moral,
peaceful revolution, actively developing ourselves but only passively
resisting the adversary”

39
About the second way:
“... the conviction that subjection was the one curse which withered and
blighted all our national activities... The resolve was to rise and fight and fall
and again rise and fight and fall waging the battle for ever until this once
great and free nation should again be great and free.”
(Bande Mataram, 22 June 1907)
The earlier policy of ‘passive resistance’ by national leaders came under severe criticism
during Swadeshi movement and the new call for strong and united ‘active resistance’ was
given during the movement. The Swadeshi movement was important for not being just an
anti-imperialist agitation, but also a call for the national rejuvenation and awakening by
the freedom fighters. The Hindu religion revivalism became a new focus point during the
Swadeshi movement, and scheme for national schools and establishment of indigenous
industries was considerably being promoted with along term goal of nation building. The
major trend of Swadeshi movement can be identified as follows –
1. Moderate national leaders were losing on the popularity and new set of radical
Indian nationalism was gaining more acceptances among the people.
2. The effort was to revive and build national strength based on indigenous
education vernacular model and with the promotion of domestic local industries.
The focus was on domestic revivalism and import substitution in the long run at
all three socio, economic and political levels.
3. Social reform programs were given new push aiming for constructive engagement
between different social forces within country.
4. National goal of Swaraj building on the collective strength of anti-mass
movement with the participation from all classes in Indian society.
Given its intensity and influence on the Indian people, it had to bear continuously the
repressive measures from the British rule. There were prohibitionson the shouting of the
slogan ‘Vande Mataram’ in public places. Many people were disqualified from the
government services and employment, if they were found supporting the agitation in any
form.The British administration was determined to suppress the Swadeshi, movement.
The Barisal conference (1906) showed the coercive techniques in the utter ruthlessness by
the colonial rulers against non-violent Indian protestors. Many young students had to face
the expulsion from the College and educational institutions, for participation in the
movement. The banning of public meetings and processions, and various arrests were
made by the British in order to crush the Swadeshi movement. The movement at its peak,
assumed the character of a mass upheaval in India against the British.
The most positive aspect of Swadeshi economic model was that it was the regeneration of
indigenous goods and products. The burning and boycott of foreign goods coming from
Britain led to the new increase in demand for indigenous goods. This was more
happening in textiles like in cloth and garments, which fell short of supply during the
peak of movement. At this time, some mill owners of Bombay and Ahmadabad were able
to fill the gap in demand-supply channel. Moreover, in Bengal the ‘Boycott movement’
supplied a momentum and driving force to the establishment of various cotton mills in
India. This was the timely opportunity for the development of domestic industrial base in

40
India. Much contemporary industrial development in India has their roots of
establishment during the Swadeshi movement.
4.5 CONCLUSION
It needs to be understood that the notion of Swadeshi in our national freedom struggle
was both set out in an ideological and political context, at the same time with deep rooted
beliefs in the common composite cultural heritage of Indian or Bhartiya civilization. The
growth of ‘revolutionary nationalism’ in the post Swadeshi movement was another major
development in Indian freedom struggle. The youth which found lack of strength and
courage in moderate politics of Congress, found a new sense of belief and conviction
with the power of struggle and resistance against the British for the country. This led to
serious challenge to the British from revolutionary movement of Indian nationalists youth
from different parts of the country. Not just they were challenging the authority of British
rule but were able to draw large number of youth mobilization and participation in post
Swadeshi national freedom struggle. Thus was great achievement of Swadeshi movement
as it invoked a new sense of enthusiasm among youth to fight for the freedom of our
country. These youth remained highly critical of moderate Congress politics and were
inspired by the new vigour and self confidence given to them drawing lessons from the
struggle and lives of Swadeshi warriors and leaders like Tilak, Lajpat rai and Bipin
Chandra Pal. This showed the ever-expanding mass mobilization amongst new Indian
middle class and youth against the British rule.
Despite some limitations, the Swadeshi movement was able to achieve compelling
success at many levels like as ideology formulation, organization building and resistance
techniques for the political struggle amongst Indian people. The movement also saw
some experimentation with innovative ideas, which remained critical for our freedom
movement and post independent politics.
The design and objectives of Swadeshi movement were a genuine expression and
establishment of Indian variant of nationalism. It just not ended up with the movement
but had huge socio-economic and political implications for the future generations to come
in India. Many of the ideas and objectives of Swadeshi still resonate with our
contemporary politics and economy. Given the challenges and inherent weakness of
present market economy model and the sustaining character of capitalism across the
globe, the idea of ‘Third Way’ as propagated by Sh. Dattopant Tengdi Ji, embarked upon
great value systems and ideological foundations rooted in Swadeshi. The after years of
new economic reform era in India, which began gradually since 1991 has to face its own
set of challenges and the way ahead of this socio-economic complexity certainly lies
within Swadeshi, if we are truly able to understand and execute this holistic idea. This
will set the growth and development direction of this nation in right direction with right
perspective. And this model would be a holistic, inclusive, equity centric and self-
empowering for every one not just in our country but also if propagated properly at the
global level. The true spirit of ‘Vasudhaiv Kutumbkam’ exhibits the tendencies of
universal brotherhood and global citizenry, towards which the idea of Swadeshi is a
necessary way ahead.

41
4.6 PRACTISE QUESTION/EXERCISES
1. What led to the Swadeshi movement (1905) in India?
2. Critically analyze the methods of agitation during Swadeshi movement.
3. How could Swadeshi movement become a mass anti-British struggle?
4. What were the achievements of the Swadeshi movement?
5. Discuss the cultural roots of Swadeshi movement.
4.7 BIBLIOGRAPHY/ READINGS
 Chakrabarty, Dipesh. (2010), The Home and the World,In Sumit Sarkar ed. The
Swadeshi Movement in Bengal., Delhi: Permanent Black.
 Ray, Bharati. (1987), Calcutta Women in the Swadeshi Movement (1903-1910):
The Nature and Implications of Participation. In P. Sinha ed. The Urban
Experience, Calcutta: Essays in Honour of Professor Nishith R.
Ray.Calcutta:South Asia Books.
 McLane, J. R. (1964), The Decision to Partition Bengal in 1905. Indian Economic
Social History Review 2: 221-237.
 Lewy, Guenter, Religion and Revolution, New York Oxford University Press,
1974.
 Sen, Keshab Chandra, "Lectures in India", New York, 1958
 Tara Chand, History of Freedom Movement in India, Vol.2, New Delhi,
Publication Division, Government of India, 1969.
 Gordon, Leonard, Bengal: The Nationalist Movement, Delhi, Manohar Book
Service, 1974.
 Chattopadhyay, Dilip Kumar, Bipin Chandra Pal and Indian National Movement,
Calcutta, (pub.) Chatterjee, Arati, 1986.
 Karunakaran, K.P., Indian Politics from Dadabhai Narojee to Gandhi, New
Delhi, Gitanjali Prakashan, 1975.
 Meston, Lord, Nationhood for India, London, Oxford University Press, 1931.
 Dattopant Thengadi, Third Way, Sahitya Sindhu Prakashan, 1988.

42
 5. RELIGION & POLITICS
Prashant Barthwal1
Dr. Shashikant2
5.1 INTRODUCTION
According to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869-1948), generally known as “the
Mahatma”), “a man without religion is life without principles, and life without principles,
is like a ship without a rudder”. He gave it his all, therefore he said, "I believe in the
underlying Truth of all great religions of the world". Believe that if only we could, all of
us, read the texts of the many faiths from the followers' perspectives, we'd discover that
they were all one and were all mutually beneficial. Bombay Sarvodaya Mandal & Gandhi
Research Foundation discussed “Gandhi's ideas about peace, nonviolence, world peace,
self-sufficiency, and social reform; the paper is backed by religious institutions from all
over the world. It talks about Satyagraha (the idea of nonviolent resistance), Ahimsa
(nonviolence), Sarvodaya (world solidarity), Swadeshi (self-sufficiency), Swaraj (self-
rule), and Civil Disobedience and Non- cooperation”. His book “The Story of My
Experiments with Truth” is a great essence of his life being guided by “Truth and that he
came at the Truth through numerous religions of the world, not ably by the philosophy of
the Bhagavad Gītā, the core component of Hinduism”.
Gandhi's idea of religion holds a significant place in socio-political philosophy and
current Indian philosophy. His religion promotes sameness and equality. Gandhi believes
that “religion and morality are linked. Religion that fails to resolve man's problems
cannot be termed a religion. His dream is to coexist peacefully with his competition and
opponent. Ahimsa is the ultimate free will and calm achievement of man. Even he
compares politics to Dharma”. His innate drive is to prevail against evil in order to find
God. Religion teaches men the Truth path. Realization of God is conceivable. When we
follow the path of love to discover God, we are accurate.
For Gandhi, faith in religion was crucial to life. Education that does not include a study of
religions is incomplete according to Gandhi. Religion, in all of its various manifestations,
is an important part of human culture and civilization. For Gandhi, studying religions was
more than an academic pursuit; it was a question of life and death. To him, religion and
faith meant religion and faith. In modern times, it is needed more than ever before. He
was saddened that he could not learn about faiths in his youth. He admitted, "I believe in
the essential Truth of all great religions of the world". I believe, if we could all read
scriptures from the view points of their followers, we would find that all religions are
united at the bottom, and they are all mutually beneficial to one another. Religion
originates from two words, ‘re' and ‘ligare': namely, joining together the finite with the
infinite, which is man with God. The standard definition of ‘God' involves all the
standard metaphysical traits like omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, benevolence,
Absolute, Eternal, Infinite, and only one personality. Gandhi's understanding of God and
religion was oriental.

1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Political Science, Sri Aurobindo College (M), University of Delhi.
2
He is an Independent Researcher (Delhi Based). Kantshashi076@gmail.com

43
Ritual distinctions are inconsequential, but the variations of stories are crucial because
these stories are directly connected to their traditions. In times of need, people tend to
look to the stories in their life as a solution to their issues. It is now up to Gandhi at this
point. There are numerous versions of stories and complex ceremonies that go along with
them. For instance: “Ibrahim's heroic faith is tested when he is ordered by Allah to
sacrifice his son. When he is about to sacrifice his son, Allah turns him into a goat. Bakr-
id is celebrated by sacrificing a goat for the occasion. This event of Islam will not sit well
with Jainism and Buddhism, as the two atheistic religions have no concept of God as
Creator-God. Divinity is believed in everyone. The only religion is silent"8. A weak man
uses language that he can effectively use, and it is easily understood by his peers. Hence,
tolerance is necessary since without it, there can be no genuine trust in one's ownreligion.
5.2 GANDHI, RELIGION AND CONCEPT OF MORALITY
Economics, politics, and social issues were all features of Gandhi's character, but there
was also this holy zeal in it. His thirst for truth caused this. His autobiography, "The
Stories of My Experiments with Truth," also includes Gandhi's pursuit for Truth. For him,
“the truth” is nothing more than “God.” This is how he understands “Ahimsa” – “non-
violence”. He adopted this view due to his extraordinary life and cause. “For Socrates,
‘Virtue is Knowledge'; for Gandhi, ‘Virtue is Ahimsa (Non-violence)”. His conclusion
was reached by dialectics and reason. That which was beyond of his purview was
omitted. He was heavily impacted by the Sermon on the Mount and the Jain philosophy
of nonviolence; but the most, he could not bring himself to adopt Hinduism. Gandhi's
essential politico-social-economic ideologies, the first and foremost, are the ideas of
Satyagraha (nonviolent resistance, fighting for truth with peace and insistence on truth),
his concept of Civil Disobedience and Non-co-operation, his “ideal State concept,
Rāmarājya (the State governed by the rules of Lord Rāma, who placed duties and
priorities on duties, and was also a king, son, husband, father, and etc.), and Home Rule.
All of these principles stem from religion, especially Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, and
Christianity. His vision of the Sri Bhagavad Gita notion of Nishkāmakarma
(responsibility for duty's sake, renunciation in action), Jainism's emphasis on non-
violence, and Buddhism's essential ideology of non-violence and compassion deeply
influenced him”. These tenets provided all of his political, social, and economic changes.
Gandhi introduced concepts of trusteeship based on Judo-Christian and Islamic
philosophy. As a study on Gandhi's beliefs on “Satyagraha and Non-violence being
associated with Hinduism, we might quote the following from M. V. Nadkarni: However,
for him, seeking truth was almost religious. Hinduism was a quest for truth for him. Since
it was outside of his religion, he didn't object to people practicing religious ceremonies
provided they were peaceful”. Nonviolence was an integral part of truth- seeking. It didn't
need any ceremony. In the process of finding truth, a bhakti-based hymn, such as a
bhajan, may or may not be sung without bias.
Politics was not only about politics, but all aspects of human life. He claims there are
different religions, but he calls them ‘religion' because “one unifying religion ties them
all. This foundational religion unites all historical religions to bring about love and peace.
He proclaimed himself a Hindu, but he had transcended the restrictive orthodoxies and
combined the finest from all religions. He meant this was the common ground of all of
the world's religions. And there was no confrontation or collision between different

44
religions. every individual, from oriental religions' perspective, has a spiritual objective
and that is spiritual enlightenment leading to salvation (Moksha)”. According to Gandhi,
two influences are at work, one - the invisible force, and another – the human endeavor
(renunciation in action).
In Gandhi's estimation, “religion's central tenet is belief in one God. This does not mean,
however, that religions in the world are equal. Despite the many disparities across
religions, there is a basic oneness among all religions, and this has to be discovered. A
master key is required for this. The master key is just Truth and nonviolence. Truth is
God, and ahimsa is the path to discovering it. The goal of his life is to discover this Truth,
which is salvation”. Everything is connected. Division into parts like social, political, and
religious is not possible. The spiritual rule is reflected in day-to-day activities. So, serving
man is serving God. To him, “religion is life and God is living strength. A faith-based
morality supports all our operations. His objective was to humanize and moralize dharma.
Dharma and morality are inseparable. Separating them is impossible. Thus, Gandhi
denies any religious teaching that isn't linked to morality. God is Truth, love, ethics, and
morality. If one's heart is polluted, then one cannot realize God. No one can avoid
practicing ethical life. Morality is required for spiritual purification. Gandhi’s view of
religion has no bearing on morality”. Gandhi's nuclear notion was his belief in God. God
gives us logic. The concept of good and bad is something we comprehend using our
reasoning capabilities. Moral conduct comes from reasoning, which is divinely-given. In
this case, if a tradition contradicts morals, it should be rejected. This is why Gandhi will
be hailed as a saint and a religious reformer. Gandhi included 'prayer meetings' into his
religion to assimilate diversity, particularly in terms of diverse religions. Gandhi never
looked down on any faith. At the same time, Gandhi never promoted any one religion
above another.
5.3 UNIVERSAL NOTION OF RELIGION- GANDHIAN ‘SANATANA DHARMA’
Gandhi held that there is only one God. Faith in a single God is the topic of all faiths. We
cannot say when there will be only one religion on Earth. Even if this is true, there is only
one God. In reality, there can be one religion without a second. In practice, though, it is
different from one person to another. Now the question is, how? At this point, we may
conclude that God may be known in different religions in diverse ways. The tree has a
single trunk and a myriad of branches and leaves. Religion is the belief in and worship of
gods and goddesses. The only real religion is transcendent and human beings apply
concepts and narratives differently. Gandhi attempts to look for “a common trait in
religion. therefore, he conceived of Sarva-Dharma-Samabhava. His definition of Sarva-
Dharma-Samabhava is almost the same as Swami Vivekananda's religion and Tagore's.
Gandhi's devotion to Hinduism is rather extraordinary. Nonetheless, he regarded himself
as a Hindu, a Sanatana Hindu. He has a distinctive affinity for Hinduism. Somehow, I just
can't quite put into words the way I feel about Hinduism, yet there is an indissoluble tie
between myself and it. I am a total reformer. He declares, “Hinduism is the Ganges, pure
and undefiled”. The Hindu way of thought is what has influenced Gandhi and has leads
him to treat other religions with respect and dignity. It is Hindu tradition that has
produced a flexible belief in the existence of only one supreme being. Hinduism
supported Gandhi's strong moral and spiritual foundation and ample openness and
rational world view.

45
Gandhi used the term religion and dharma in the same context. Dharma is derived from
the Sanskrit word “dhri”, which meaning tie together. Dharma is, therefore, the “all-
encompassing power which keeps the universe together. Gandhi argues that religion is a
principle of brotherhood. In Gandhi’s conception religion is also the law, the dharma
which maintains the universe. However, he was vehemently opposed to an unsupported
faith. Respect and reverence are encouraged, as all religions have a part of Truth.
Gandhi's colleagues were united by many religions and beliefs”. In India, Gandhi
committed his entire life to Hindu-Muslim unity. Religion, for Gandhi, is indifferent to
human activities. He knows something heavenly is nearby. God is similar to a mountain.
We must go to the mountain, no matter which path we take. What it reflects is that the
God of Christianity, Hindus, and Islam is the same entity. God has many names. Despite
this, there are different terms to refer to the Absolute's power. instead, they are hinged
qualities Humanity explains God by providing qualities. God has no limitations. Religion
is a faith in God. Gandhi shares faith generously. For Gandhi, believing in an everlasting
God implies loving every religion. The only way to truly realize truth is via
loveorAhimsa.Loveholdsmanyaspectsinharmony.Gandhihonoredallreligionsequally, and
he emphasized the importance of building Sarva-Dharma-Samabhavain national life in
order to achieve Secular Democracy in India. Secularism represents an attitude of
accepting all religions instead than opposing them. Other notable proponents of this
perspective are Radhakrishnan and Gandhi, all of whom exemplify unity in variety by
possessing creativity. In the context of religious pluralism, “secularism is a means of
creating a national political community, and also helps to generate new common social
goals. Gandhi's movement for independence was non-religious. To sum it up, the
Gandhian concept of a "Republic of Religions" is just that: Within the Kingdom of God,
only the Republic of Religion is acceptable. Gandhian secularism revolves around this
idea”. Only man-made differences exist. Those who hear the voice of God in their
conscience are duty bound to combat them. It is a fight for the truth because of love
ornonviolence.
Indifferent Nature of Gandhi’s religion.
Gandhiji had a spiritual soul, and he was remembered as such. His philosophical
reasoning is primarily founded on religious principles. It is the mission of the Gandhian
religion to provide a comprehensive understanding of Gandhiji's ethico-religious thinking
and actions. It is his belief that religion should include not only ethical and spiritual
qualities, but should also include an endeavor to bring out metaphysical conceptions. A
vivid image of Gandhiji's notion of religion is provided by his description of the moral,
humanistic, and socialistic nature of religion, which is written in an appealing manner.
In this way, Gandhiji's conception of religion was not restricted to a specific sector. In the
course of human history, his religious ideas have permeated every aspect of human
activity. According to Gandhiji, "Dharma is a concept that encompasses both religion and
morality in Indian thought." It is possible to explain this from a theological perspective by
saying that "when morality manifests itself in a living man, it becomes religion." As a
result, Gandhiji saw morality as the most significant characteristic of religious life at the
time of his birth; nevertheless, over time, he grew to see it as the most important factor of
religion. As a result, morality is viewed as the eternal law that governs the entire
universe, according to Gandhiji's philosophy. In practical religion, it is the foundation of

46
belief. As A. N. Whitehead puts it, "human worth and character should flow from
religion," according to Whitehead." Morality is the only religion that has the potential to
add something worthwhile to a person's life. So Gandhiji's religious beliefs unite people
around the values of goodness and justice. As Benoy Gopal Ray put it in this context,
"Morality and religion are complementary to one another." One, he believes, is necessary
for the other's fulfilment."
Gandhiji has emphasized the importance of religion and morality in the context of human
life. All of the pleasant things that happen in a person's life are manifestations of moral
law. Religious activities are provided by the morality of the people. As Gandhiji put it,
"As soon as we lose the moral basis for our beliefs, we cease to be religious." The
principles of morality are the factors of authentic religion, and the behaviour of a
religious life is governed by these laws of ethics. From Gandhiji's perspective, it is
possible to state that "true religion is built on eternal ideals of truth, justice, and
righteousness." "It provides a moral foundation for all actions, including politics," says
the author. Humanity was acknowledged as a moral being whose goal was to seek truth
through love and peace, according to Gandhiji's religious philosophy.
Gandhiji drew moral principles from a variety of religious traditions. Gandhiji was a
vibrant religious thinker who recognized truth and ahimsa as moral acts from the
philosophy of the Vedas, Upanishads, and Gita as the moral deeds of humanity. Truth
was the most crucial consideration in all of his moral decisions, and he was dedicated to
it. In the words of Gandhiji, "Truth is the substance of morality." "From a moral point of
view, Gandhiji placed greater emphasis on truth, which is the core value of Gandhian
thought," says the author. "It is the highest manifestation of reality." It is true that the
principles of truth should guide one's conduct in life in accordance with moral ideals. The
moral existence is built on the foundation of truth. To put it another way, Gandhiji's idea
of truth is just the human will to do what is right.
Gandhiji's religious life has been touched by the enchantment of his conception of truth in
a variety of ways. In reality, from a moral standpoint, it would be most vital for Gandhiji
to state that "Truth is God." It represents the spiritual concept that guides his existence.
Gandhiji's religious philosophy emphasizes the fact: Satya is an abbreviation for Truth,
and it stems from the word 'sat', which literally translates as "to be." God is also
represented by the letter 'Sat'. As a result, God is that which already exists. He alone is,
according to Gandhiji, since 'nothing else I see just through the senses can or will
continue,' and therefore nothing else exists. Everything else is a deluding delusion. God is
the only source of truth.” Gandhiji's greatness is based on the brilliance of his moral
character. Ananda, Sat, and Cit were the terms used by Gandhiji to refer to Truth in his
moral teachings. Truth, according to Gandhiji, is the only thing that exists. He opted to
state that Truth is the fundamental principle of all existence instead. It is the ultimate
conclusion to one's existence.
The Gandhian notion of religion includes the concept of "Ahimsa, as an attribute of the
soul," which is defined as "nonviolence." According to Gandhiji, "In my experiments,
everything connected to the soul has been a question of morality; religion is morality."
Morality is religion as viewed from the perspective of the soul." As a result, non-violence
serves as a moral code for the pursuit of truth, which is the highest religious goal of
mankind. The ultimate goal of a spiritual life is to reach the truth. As a result, it is

47
possible to state that "Ahimsa is the means, and Truth is the end." There is no other way
to accomplish the highest spiritual objective or perfection than via the practise of
nonviolence. It is a proven fact that ahimsa and truth are intrinsically linked. Truth and
Ahimsa are indistinguishable from one another. According to Gandhiji's religious beliefs,
Truth or God can be realised via the application of another moral virtue, love. Gandhiji's
religious philosophy is comprised of moral acts of compassion toward all of humanity.
Love, according to Gandhiji, is one of the services provided to mankind. God can be
realised via the efforts of the entire human race. The loving service is the moral act that
one must perform in order to achieve self-realization or to recognize the presence of God
within oneself. "To view the universal and all-pervading spirit of truth face to face, one
must be able to love the most insignificant of creation as oneself," Gandhiji was
persuaded.
Both religion and politics are intertwined in Gandhiji's thought, according to which. The
following is Gandhiji's statement in this context: "At the back of every word that I have
uttered since I first learned what public life is, and at the back of every act that I have
done, there has been a religious consciousness and a straightforward religious motive."
The most effective means of practicing morality is through participation in social
activities. Politics and social activity are inextricably linked. He confesses, and he says,
"After discovering that I couldn't do even social work without involving myself in
politics, I felt driven to enter the political field. Clearly, it can be seen from this point that
"According to Gandhiji, politics that is severed from religion would be brought to its
ultimate demise. In many ways, his political ideology is a logical extension of his
religious beliefs. Being religious equates to being moral. The state's or the government's
goal is to ensure that all of its citizens have equal access to rights and justice under the
law. It is the responsibility of the state to ensure the well-being of all citizens. The state is
a social organisation that is governed by political institutions.
Humanistic nature of Gandhian Religion
Gandhiji was a renowned humanist who lived in the 20th century. From a religious
standpoint, he is certain that finding God without the help of humans is not feasible. In
one of his speeches, he stated, "Service to people is service to God." During his lifetime,
Gandhiji wished to achieve self-realization through service to the human race. Because of
his humanistic temperament, he was able to speak for his religious ideology. He
attempted to close the gap between the rich and the poor using this strategy. He favored
the establishment of a democratic government. He was a genuine democrat in every sense
of the word. He thought that democracy should give the circumstances for the full
development of all persons, regardless of their background. According to him, there
should be no distinction made between people based on their caste or gender identities.
People's development is fueled by liberty and justice, which are available to everyone in a
democratic country. During this discussion, he stated that "my conception of democracy"
is that "under it, the weakest should be given the same opportunity."
The spiritual legacy of Mahatma Gandhi has adopted a constructive programme, through
which he hoped to improve the living conditions of the people living in the rural areas of
India. For the purpose of meeting the fundamental requirements of the villagers, he
implemented a number of small-scale industrial development plans. He was an outspoken
opponent of modern industrialization. Gandhiji viewed western technology as a tool for

48
the concentration of economic power, which he said was the root cause of exploitation in
the world. Agricultural small-scale industries, in his opinion, are the source of economic
development for the people of rural areas. It is the process of economic decentralization
that is taking place.
Gandhiji's ambition was a liberated India, which he understood to mean a reformed India.
In order to accomplish this, he desired to abolish the notion of untouchability from
society. Untouchability has been described as cruel and inhumane by others. It insults the
dignity of human beings and is a mockery of the traditional Indian belief in the oneness of
all life on earth. Untouchability is incompatible with democratic principles. Gandhiji
believed that it was imperative to eliminate untouchability and attain the highest level of
social justice. Untouchability in society is widely recognised as a significant impediment
to the advancement of social justice. Gandhiji argued that untouchability is a major social
problem in Indian civilization, as it creates a division between upper and lower castes,
and that it should be abolished. From this point on, it is demonstrated that
"untouchability" refers to contamination caused by the touch of some individuals as a
result of their birth in a particular state or family. It always gets in the way of religion,
even when it is dressed up as religion, and it corrupts religion.
Apart from that, Gandhiji believed that the Hindu religion does not permit the practise of
untouchability to take place. However, as a Great Disease, it has caused harm to the
Hindu religion. "Untouchability is not a sanction of religion; it is a ploy of Satan,"
Gandhiji remarked. He stated once more that he considered untouchability to be the
"worst stain on the face of Hinduism." It is Gandhiji's religious viewpoint on
untouchability that is a major impediment to the advancement of the Indian society. As a
result of this huge social evil, human progress is ruled out. "It is in violation of the
shastras," Gandhiji declares. It is against the fundamental principles of humanity, and it is
against the dictates of reason, that a man should be forever considered as an untouchable,
even unapproachable, and untenable creature just because of his birth... The tragedy is
that millions of Hindus place their faith in this institution since it was prescribed by their
religious beliefs." It can be argued from this point that Gandhiji believed the concept of
untouchability to be a transgression against the true essence of Hinduism, and hence
condemned it. A vow was made in Gandhiji's religious philosophy for the removal of
untouchability at all levels of society, which was later fulfilled. As a result, Gandhiji
declared, "Not only should there be no untouchability between Hindus and Hindus, but
there should be no untouchability at all amongst Hindus, Christians, Mussalmans, Parsis,
and the rest." Gandhiji's religious philosophy called for the anti-untouchability movement
in order to create a healthy and balanced society.
“I believe in the philosophy of equality as taught by Lord Krishna in the Gita,” Gandhiji
stated. The Gita teaches that members of all four castes should be treated on an equal
footing with one another. In contrast to the Bhangi, Brahmins are not required to follow
the same dharma as they are. This means that the latter, with all of his higher learning,
will be entitled to the same level of attention and esteem as he is with all of his inferior
learning. Because of this, it is our responsibility to ensure that the untouchables do not
feel reviled or looked down upon." Gandhiji was an outspoken opponent of the practice
of untouchability. Moreover, he claims that by practicing untouchability, human beings
are doing God a disservice, because God created the universe and human beings, and His

49
conception of equality was that all men are made equal. No one is superior to anyone
else, and no one is inferior to anyone else. In today's world, there should be no sense of
inferiority complex. As a result, persons who place a high value on untouchability are
considered to be committing a sin against God. Gandhiji said that “God did not create
men with the badge of superiority or inferiority, and no scripture that designates a human
being as inferior or untouchable because of his or her birth can command our devotion; it
is a denial of God and Truth, which is God.”
Gandhiji's religious philosophy has as its goal the abolition of injustice in all aspects of
life as well as the establishment of a state of social perfection. Gandhiji was adamant in
his refusal to accept the untouchables as a separate social class in Hindu culture. A
particular incident occurred while he was imprisoned in 1932 that is relevant to this. He
was made aware of the British government's determination to allow separate elections for
'untouchables' in a new constitutional proposal as a result of a recent constitutional
review. Gandhiji attempted to mount a vigorous fight against this societal ill known as
untouchability. Before Gandhiji, holy figures such as Guru Nanak, Buddha, Kabir, and
others toiled tirelessly to eradicate the ideology of untouchability from society, but they
were met with opposition. Gandhiji believes that untouchability is not a distinct issue, but
rather is a part and parcel of his compassion for humanity and hence cannot be separated
from it. Because of his affection for others, the issue of untouchability came up early in
his life. Unlike other revolutionaries, he was not motivated solely by sentiment or
political considerations in his quest to end the problem of untouchability. As a result, he
raised his voice in opposition to the social ill that is untouchability. 'His rage against
untouchability was so intense that he wished to be reborn as an untouchable so that he
might participate in their misery, suffering, and affronts, and so that he could work to
rescue himself and them from their plight.'
During his lifetime, Gandhiji dedicated himself to the eradication of untouchability from
society. This pledge represents the eradication of all disparities and social unfairness, as
well as the creation of a healthy environment among people of different religions, castes,
and other backgrounds. He pleaded with Hindus to enable the Harijans to enter Hindu
temples without restriction. Vinoba Bhave believes that those Harijans should be treated
on an equal basis with men of other faiths, and that this should be the case. Human beings
who have a deep belief in Sarvodaya have banded together to work towards the
elimination of the concept of untouchability from the society. As a result, Gandhiji's
contribution to the eradication of this sense of untouchability is of much greater
significance for the entire human race. The fact that Mahatma Gandhi's spiritual
philosophy has embraced a constructive agenda for the development of the people
demonstrates that he was on the right track at this moment. Its ultimate goal is the
upliftment of the entire society. Untouchability has been eliminated as a result of this
initiative, and as a result, the Harijans are in a better position to go about their everyday
lives in peace.
5.4 GANDHI’S RELIGION INTERLINKED WITH THE FEMININE VALUES
Gandhiji's religious philosophy was not restricted to a certain domain of activity. He has
placed a high value on the injustice that women experience in all aspects of their lives.
Gandhiji stated that women should be treated on an equal footing with men, citing the

50
principles of justice and equality. He believed that women are not inherently inferior to
men. Gandhiji believes this once more "Women are the companions of men who are
endowed with equal mental faculties. She has the same right to a supreme position in her
own domain of activity as a man has to a supreme position in his. This ought to be the
normal state of affairs, rather than the outcome of a person's having learned to read and
write very recently. Even the most uneducated and worthless males have been able to
enjoy a superiority over women that they do not deserve and that they should not have
because of the sheer weight of a terrible tradition.
In social situations, women are regarded as more important than men. The woman's
personality is viewed as more spiritual than that of the guy. She is not violent, yet it is
true that a woman might be subjected to a variety of hardships. As a result, Gandhiji has
persuaded them that "Ahimsa is represented by the female form. Ahimsa is defined as
unlimited love, which, in turn, means that it has an infinite capacity for suffering. Who
else, but woman, the mother of man, demonstrates this ability in the greatest degree?"
Gandhiji's point of view on this is as follows: "Woman is unquestionably superior to man
when it comes to the courage of self-sacrifice, just as I believe man is superior to woman
when it comes to the courage of the brute. Calling woman, the lesser sex is defamatory; it
is a form of injustice committed by men against women. According to this definition,
woman is indeed less brutish than man, if by strength is understood brute strength. If by
strength one means moral power, then women are enormously superior to males in this
regard.
The religious concept of Gandhiji placed a greater emphasis on the existence of women
and the role they play in society than previous religious ideas. He has criticized the Hindu
tradition, which he believes places an inordinate emphasis on the wife's obedience to her
husband. It is as a result of this those women are seen to be the weaker sex in society.
Gandhiji was of the opinion that "When it comes to the atrocities for which man has
taken responsibility, none is more demeaning or startling or savage than the mistreatment
of what I consider to be the better half of humanity, the female sex, not the weaker sex,
by the male sex. It is the more noble of the two, because it continues to be the
embodiment of sacrifice, silent suffering, humility, faith, and knowledge even in our
modern times. Woman must stop considering herself to be the target of other people's
lust. The solution is more in her hands than in the hands of men." Gandhiji believed that
the development of the woman was the foundation for the advancement of mankind as a
whole. As a result, Gandhiji has made significant attempts to eradicate societal ills such
as illiteracy, child marriage, and widowhood from society at large. His concept is related
with the advancement of women's education. In our country, it is an undeniable fact that
women's education has been systematically neglected. It is impossible to separate the
nature of education from a woman's intellectual and social status. The position of the
educated woman is becoming increasingly important in social reconstruction. A well-
educated woman is essential to a successful family since, as a mother, she is responsible
for a variety of crucial responsibilities. When a woman receives an education, the entire
family benefits.
In Hindu tradition, child marriage and widowhood are considered social ills. Gandhiji
held the following beliefs: "Forcing tiny girls to become widows is a heinous act for
which we Hindus pay a heavy price on a regular basis. If our consciences were genuinely

51
awakened, there would be no marriage before the age of fifteen, let alone widowhood,
and we would say that these young women were never religiously married in the first
place. According to the Shastras, there is no legal basis for such widowhood. Choosing to
live as a widow, intentionally chosen by a woman who has felt the devotion of a partner,
enhances the dignity and grace of life, sanctifies the home, and raises the status of
religion itself. According to Gandhiji, "I have venerated woman as the living embodiment
of the spirit of service and sacrifice. " Man will never be able to compete with you in the
attitude of unselfish service that nature has bestowed upon you. On the basis of this, it
may be stated that Gandhiji has devoted his entire life to the cause of human suffering
and the abolition of pain.
In spite of the fact that Gandhiji's thoughts about education are related with the nature of
religion, Gandhiji's ideas about education are more essential in today's society. He has
taken a look at, "I have donated a large number of items to India. But this system of
education, together with its technique, is, in my opinion, the finest of the best; I do not
believe I will be able to provide the country with anything better." Gandhiji stressed the
importance of religious education in the development of character and the pursuit of a
moral life as the first and most important goal. The moral life of an individual is guided
by moral principles, which are defined as follows: Morality can be defined as the correct
or good behaviour of men in their interactions with one another. As Tilak pointed out in
this context, religious education is essential in the development of morals "Only a secular
education will not suffice to create a person's character. Because the study of great ideals
keeps us away from harmful pursuits, religious education is essential for all people.
Religion reveals to us the physical manifestation of the Almighty. According to our
religion, a man can become even more powerful than a god via his actions. When we can
become Gods, if not Gods themselves, as a result of our actions, why shouldn't we also
become knowledgeable and active, like the Europeans did, as a result of our actions?
Some believe that religion is a source of conflict.
Furthermore, according to the Report of the Shri Prakash Committee on Religious and
Moral Instruction (1960), "the many ills that our world of education and our society as a
whole are suffering today are primarily due to the gradual disappearance of the hold that
the basic principles of religion have on the hearts of the people." The old links that held
them together are rapidly eroding, and the different new ideas that are being introduced
into our society are only serving to exacerbate the situation. Physical labour has been
incorporated into Gandhian education as part of Gandhiji's spiritual education, with the
goal of spiritual growth for the pupils. Gandhiji saw handicraft as a significant form of
recreation. It was he who observed, "Eventually, fundamental education is reinterpreted
as "education by craft." To a certain extent, this is correct, but it is not the complete truth.
The origins of NaiTalim are far deeper. It is founded on the principles of truth and
nonviolence in both individual and social life. Education is the only thing that can truly
liberate a person. In education, untruth and violence can lead to bondage and have no
place in the classroom." When it comes to religious education, Gandhiji believed that
productive manual labour was the best kind of instruction.
Gandhiji held the following beliefs: "It is imperative that you read the Bible with the eyes
of a Christian, just as it is imperative that you read the Gita with the eyes of a Hindu. The
religious tree is the same, despite the fact that the branches do not have the same physical

52
equality in size. Those who belong to the expanding branch must refrain from gloating
about their position and proclaiming, "Mine is the superior one."" None of them is greater
to the other, and none of them is inferior to the other." The realisation of God is the
ultimate objective of all religions, regardless of their origin or affiliation. God is on the
side of the oppressed. Towards this end, Gandhiji writes: "For me, all of the major
religions are equal in the sense that they are all truthful." In this way, they are filling a
perceived need in the spiritual advancement of humanity.” Gandhiji puts it yet again:
"When one considers their own religion to be superior and others to be lower, this is a
parody of true religion. All faiths call for the worship of a single God, who is all-
pervasive and transcendent.
The Gandhian notion of religion is founded on the principle of religious equality for all
people of all faiths. The main concept, according to Gandhiji, is communal peace or
religious unity, which he believes is essential for the development of a country's
infrastructure. Indian culture emphasises that all religions are equal in importance and
should be treated as such. Gandhiji remarked, "All those who reside here, whatever of
religious affiliation, have equal shares in their common home and its tremendous legacy,
and they have equal rights and responsibility." In light of this, it may be stated that
Gandhian religious philosophy is far from conservative in its outlook. He once stated,
"We must assist a Hindu in becoming a better Hindu, a Muslim in becoming a better
Muslim, and a Christian in becoming a better Christian, among other things. This
concealed pride in believing that our religion is truer than another's must be eradicated
from our midst as soon as possible." Gandhiji has come to the conclusion that all
religions are true on the basis of his religious philosophy. In another statement, he stated
that faiths are not intended to separate human beings from one another, but rather to unite
them with one another, to put all religions on an equal footing, and to promote harmony
amongst different religious traditions. According to Gandhiji, "I do not anticipate India of
my dreams to establish a single religion, i.e., to be completely Hindu, or wholly Christian,
or wholly Muslim, but I do want it to be wholly tolerant, with all of its religions
coexisting peacefully."
The pillars of Gandhian notion of Religion
For Gandhiji, the study of religion is an extraordinary feature of humanity that deserves
to be explored further. A person who does not comprehend the various components of
religion is unable to analyse human existence, society, and history properly. Religious
belief and practice so assume central importance in one's life and are essential
components of human culture and civilization. Gandhiji shown equal appreciation for the
great religions of the world, regardless of their origin. Different religious influences
played a major role in Gandhiji's life, and his life was greatly influenced by them.
Affecting Gandhiji was the issue of religious variety, as well as his concern for bringing
harmony among different religious adherents through inter-religious understanding.
“Following his own research into the basics of other religions, Gandhiji was able to better
understand his fellow-humans and women, as well as to build a universal and integrated
understanding of religion, as well as its significance in the history of humanity. Truth is
the fundamental pillar of his religious philosophy, and it has had a significant impact on
the formation of his religious notion. He has also associated the term ‘religion,' which
includes, among other things, the concept of God. Similarly, love is regarded as the

53
second pillar of religion, with a special emphasis placed on it. In this passage, he has also
associated the term "religion" with the emotion of love. The third pillar, which is the most
significant milestone in the development of his religious philosophy, is the concept of
'responsibility,' which is commonly referred to as 'Duty is God.' Gandhiji considered
nonviolence to be the fourth pillar of his philosophy. As a result, truth, love, duty, and
non-violence, according to Gandhiji, are the fundamental principles of religious
philosophy.
Throughout Gandhiji's traditional ethico-religious worldview, the concept of truth is
central. Gandhiji was a firm believer in the existence of God. “As a zealous propagator of
religion, Gandhiji defends truth as the fundamental aesthetic notion of religion,”
according to popular belief. Truth is the foundation of all existence and, in the end, it is
the ultimate aim of human existence. It is the ultimate reality, the Supreme Spirit, that we
are talking about. Truth is acknowledged as a religious ideal and as a fundamental
component of an individual's life. It is the discipline of purification of one's own soul. As
a result, "Truth, according to Gandhiji, is more than just a concept. This Reality is more
accurately described as "an ideal to be pursued and achieved"; it is also referred to as "the
sovereign principle" of life and conduct." A sacred vow of the monastic life, truth is the
governing principle that governs all of the acts of spiritual thought. “Truth is what man
is,” Gandhiji believes from this vantage point. It transcends within him, and the sole
grows not only today, but for the rest of his life. The truth is that man will continue to
grow indefinitely. It is, and should continue to be, his religious belief system." “The
pursuit of truth is a whole commitment that incorporates not only one's entire being, but
every minute of one's existence,” Gandhiji emphasizes once more." The principles of
truth should be followed in order to ensure that one lives a moral life. The moral
existence is built on the foundation of truth. As a result, Gandhiji believes that "Devotion
to truth is the only thing that justifies our existence on this planet. Gandhiji's religious
philosophy acknowledges the many different interpretations of truth. The truth, according
to Gandhiji, "is truth in thinking, word, and deed." Gandhiji, in his pursuit for the
meaning of truth, discovers the definition of God, which serves as the foundation of his
religion's philosophy. Truth is at the heart of all that exists. It represents the pinnacle of
achievement. Theists refer to it as "God" or "the Supreme Being."
In Mahatma Gandhi's religious philosophy, the notion of Love serves as the foundation.
Gandhiji's spiritual personality is guided by a certain system of life philosophy, which he
called the Gandhian way of life. The law of love, according to Gandhiji, is the most
crucial and fundamental principle on which he places the greatest emphasis. The religious
ideal of non-violence has made significant contributions to the Gandhian religious
thought process. Gandhiji was consumed by an insatiable desire for human beings. As a
result, love, according to Gandhiji, is the most fundamental component that controls our
lives. While still alive, love is a human behaviour that improves the character of the
individual, elevates him, and elevates and sublimates him even while he is alive. It is the
inner nature of the living beings that is responsible for the ongoing rise of their souls.
According to Gandhiji, love occupies the most important position in all of human society.
It has evolved into a theological principle as well as a way of life in its broadest meaning.
According to Gandhiji, as a result of his efforts, "It is the supreme law of our being,
according to the Buddhist tradition.

54
The Gandhian notion of love is not a negative ideology, but rather a positive one that
promotes peace and harmony. This is love in action, and it involves the well-being of the
entire human race. This suggests a sense of compassion for all people. The goals of
perpetual peace and universal brotherhood are the basic foundations of love, according to
the Bible. The power of love extends throughout one's entire life, not only to one's own,
but to the entire world of sentient beings. Love is the only moral weapon capable of
unifying all living beings as a moral weapon. Gandhiji's method of love is a tremendous
spiritual force in human life and history, and it continues to be so now. It is the result of
the development of human culture. It has been throughout history that the concept of love
has evolved within the human civilization. "Throughout history, love has been a driving
force in the formation of culture on both the ideological and behavioural levels, and it has
been a central topic in the by-products of practically every form of human activity,
including religious rituals and artistic creations. It is probably safe to claim that the
concept of love has had a greater and more permanent impact on the evolution of human
culture in all of its manifestations than any other single concept in human history.
Gandhiji's life is dominated by the religion of duty, which he practices to the letter of the
law. In addition, he interprets this subject from a unique point of view and elevates it to a
wonderful new height. Gandhiji's teachings are based on the concept of duty as their
central philosophy. The most significant emphasis has been placed on Gandhiji's core
principle of religious life, which is duty. Gandhiji's concept of duty has had an impact on
his religious thought as an ethical principle. As a result, Gandhiji has placed a greater
emphasis on obligations than on rights. The source of a human being's rights is his or her
obligation. As a result, obligation has taken precedence over rights. Every individual is
responsible for prioritizing his or her responsibilities. He claims that, according to "The
right to carry out one's responsibilities is the only right for which it is worthwhile to live.
It is the most excellent religion." Gandhiji expresses it yet again: "Due rights are obtained
in an automated process through the performance of duties. There is no question of rights
if there are no obligations. If somebody claims rights without first fulfilling their
responsibilities, this is beyond conception, illegal, and futile. As a result, obligation is the
fundamental source of all rights." After declaring that "the individual is the one supreme
consideration," Gandhiji went on to say that the expansion of governmental power "does
the greatest disservice to mankind by destroying individuality, which is the source of all
progress." In spite of the fact that Gandhiji was allegedly fighting for rights at various
levels - national, societal, and individual - he placed the emphasis on the idea of duty as
the most important. It is true that no philosopher has ever emphasized the importance of
Right over the importance of Duty, or vice versa.
Gandhiji's religious ideology has related his sense of duty with the term 'Dharma,' which
means 'obligation.' Dharma is also referred to as 'Swadharma' in some circles. The term
'Swadharma' refers to one's own dharma, which is defined as the fulfilment of one's
obligations. There are four types of people in our society: the upper, middle, and lower
classes. They are divided into four groups: Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Sudras.
The Gandhian notion of dharma establishes obligations for people of all social classes.
The vocations of people belonging to different castes are equal and respectable in their
respective fields.

55
The practice of nonviolence was Mahatma Gandhi's first and most significant
contribution to the world, and it continues to be so today. The nonviolent weapon of
Gandhian inspiration is the central concept of his religion, and it serves as its guiding
principle. The concept of Ahimsa, which can be translated into English as "non-
violence," is a relatively new concept in Indian civilization. This principle has been
emphasized by the various religious traditions of the various communities. Gandhiji's
Nonviolent Resistance is universally recognized by all religions. Religions and cultures
all around the world have defined the concept of non-violence and its legitimacy in a
variety of ways. It is true that Gandhiji's religious ideology of Ahimsa, which is based on
nonviolence, has drawn its core substance, in large part, from religious texts. Gandhiji
drew inspiration for his notion of nonviolence from Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and
Christianity, among other sources. Hinduism serves as his primary source of inspiration.
The most famous modern proponents of this philosophy are Jesus Christ and Leo Tolstoy.
Gandhiji has clearly stated that non-violence and democracy are inextricably linked to
one another. They are able to function effectively in society. With meticulous attention to
detail, he has dissected all of the religions represented in society, and his understanding of
nonviolence is more extensive and positive than that of any other thinker.

5.5 CONCLUDING OBSERVATION

Gandhiji came to the conclusion that the basic notion or goal of the trusteeship is of a
religious nature as a result of this. The religious nature of trusteeship serves as the
foundation for Gandhian principles of equality and justice. The Gandhian system of
trusteeship is based on the principle of economic equality. Alternatively, it might be
interpreted as the approach of a new economic order, through which Gandhiji was
primarily concerned with eliminating the conflict between capitalists and labour groups.
He wished to eliminate the class divisions from society as much as possible. In reality, he
was more concerned with the establishment of a classless society. So Gandhiji worked
toward what he called "coordination between labour and capital," not under capitalism
but under trusteeship. Gandhiji knew that altering ownership was not the best approach to
address society's fundamental problems. However, he was strongly tempted to reduce the
financial imbalance between individuals and groups in society. Despite his insistence on
the equitable distribution of money, he did not consider the Gandhian idea of trusteeship
to be either private or public ownership.
The notion of trusteeship, as articulated by Gandhiji, will give a new set of guidelines and
a new vista for the people of the globe if it is applied in society in its genuine sense. It is
anticipated that the society will develop at a rapid pace, with no gap between the rich and
the poor. Gandhiji delivered his enormous message to the entire universe by developing
his little notion of trusteeship, which stands for "even distribution of wealth in society."
Gandhiji's vast message was that there should be equal distribution of money in society.
As a result, Gandhiji's religious character was illuminated by his nature of ethical,
humanistic, and socialistic behaviour. It is his ideology, which is derived from the
humanistic and socialistic approaches, that will serve as a model for people all across the
universe for many days to come. These were the spiritual traits that enabled Gandhiji to
live his life as a whole man and for which he was revered by the people of India as well
as the rest of the world for the rest of his life.

56
5.6 REFERENCES
 Rao., K. L. Seshagiri., Mahatma Gandhi and Comparative Religion., 1999.
 Chakrabarty., Mohit., Gandhian Aesthetics., Atalantic Publishers., New Delhi.,
1992.
 Khanna., Suman., Gandhi and The Good Life., p. 23.
 Dutta., D. K., Social moral and Religious Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi., Op.
Cit., P. 120.
 Chacko., K.C., The Metaphysical Implications of Gandhian Thought; P. 51.
 Hingorani; Anand T. and Hingorani; Ganga A., The Encyclopedia of Gandhian
Thought, P. 351.
 Narayan; Shriman (9); The Selected Works of Mahatma Gandhi; Navajivan
Publishing House; Ahmedabed; 1968; Vol.4; P. 213.
 Basa„ N..K.„ Selections From Gandhi., Op. Cit., PP. 3-4.
 Ray., B. C., Gandhian Ethics., Op. Cit., P. 21.
 Pradhan; Benudhar; The Socialist Thought of Mahatma Gandhi; op. cit; P.316
 Radhakrishna., S.,(Ed.)., Mahatma Gandhi : Essays and Reflections., George
Allen and Unwin Ltd., London., 1949., P. 27.
 Nayar., Pyareial., In a Story Related to Gandhiji in an Interview on 9th Nov. 1971,
New Delhi.
 Prabhu, R.K. and Rao, U, R,, The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi, Op. Cit., P. 167.
 Gandhi., M. K., Satyagraha in South Africa., Navjivan Publishing House.,
Ahmedabad., 1951., P. 177.
 Michael., W. Sonnleitner., Gandhian Non-violence : Levels of Satyagraha.,
Abhinava Publications., 1985., P. 24.
 Gandhi., M. K., Speeches and Writings of Gandhi., Madras., Natesan Company.,
P. 501
 Iyer, Raghavan, The Moral and Political Writings of Mahatma Gandhi., Vol-ll,
Oxford University, New York, 1986, p. 292
 Patil, V.T., Studies on Gandhi, Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 1983,
P.37.
 Nanda, Basudev, Indian Political Tradition, Himalaya Publishing House,
Bombay, 1994, P.97
Important Questions
1. Define religion? How is the concept of religion different from the Western
Concept, according to Gandhi?
2. What is the difference between religion and Dharma? Explain it in the context of
Gandhi.
3. What is humanistic nature of Gandhian Religion?

57
 6. GANDHI’S CRITIQUE OF MODERN CIVILISATION
Nilesh Anand
STRUCTURE
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Aims and Objective
6.3 Idea of Civilisation by Mahatma Gandhi
6.4 India’s Sovereignty loss due to European Civilisation
6.5 Inseparable Aspects of Modern Civilisation: Curse for India
6.6 Khadi as a symbol of Indian tradition & critique of Modern Civilisation
6.7 Gandhi’s Critique of Western Education
6.8 Gandhi’s Swaraj and Nation State
6.9 Summary
6.10 Subjective Questions
6.11 Objective Questions
6.12 Suggested Readings.
6.1 INTRODUCTION
As we all know, as seen Gandhi, in pictures, we can say what he wears and how he looks,
we can say he belongs to ascetic Indian traditions. As a mass leader, he fought against
English Imperialism iron heartedly, he chose his image consciously. If we see his
philosophy, words or symbols we can see it as Eastern in general and Hindu religion in
particular. He uses his ideas, his words as weapons not just against British Imperial forces
but also against the modern civilization and modernity. Khadi which we will discuss
further in this chapter is also a weapon for Gandhi along with Ram Rajya, Sanatan
Dharma, Satyagraha, Swaraj in his long list. If we see the symbols, ideas, words,
philosophy used by Gandhi in his philosophy, at one hand there are symbols or
representation of Indian civilisation but on the other hand they are harsh critique of
modern Western civilisation. All these words, symbols and philosophy have several
meanings and messages but their primary work is to critique modern Western civilisation.
Gandhi used all this Indian words and symbols to primarily criticize and counter three
important concepts which are nationalism, industrialism and western education which are
the core concept for modernity in India. All these shows that Gandhi has refused to accept
modern civilisation which is basically Western civilisation and thus we can see his
philosophy, his life style, his eating habits are basically Indian in nature.
6.2 LEARNING AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
After studying this unit, we will be able to know and understand about:
 Gandhi’s idea and viewpoint on modern, western and Indian civilisation.
 His insight on modern civilisation which he believes as a crush to India.
 How he uses Khadi or other Indian ideas as a symbol against modern civilization.

58
  And his ideas on education which is best suited for India.
6.3 IDEA OF CIVILISATION BY MAHATMA GANDHI
Gandhi has discussed his ideas and philosophy about civilisation in details, apart from
that he also talks about the positive and negative features of western civilisation. He
further analyses both Indian and modern (Western) civilisations in his many addresses
and his books or letters especially in Hind Swaraj which he wrote in Gujarati during his
return journey to South from London.Indian Opinion, the weekly printed by Gandhi in
South Africa was used to publish Hind Swaraj in two instalments in same year. It was
issued in the form of booklet in Gujarati in 1909 but it was banned by British Authorities,
on the charge of seditious content. Without the fear of British Authorities’ move, Gandhi
later develops his idea which he wrote in Hind Swaraj and went on to boost them in his
later contribution throughout his life. We have to take a word if we need to understand
approximately Gandhi’s attitude on European civilisation in the context of his work on
his overall philosophy. His philosophy or perspectives generally rise from his response
towards events and his desire to give lead to many social and political activities. We can
study his thoughts uniformly despite coming from different sources as it is easy to
connect, understand and study. We can observe this uniformity because of the presence of
moral thoughts in his philosophy and his desire to set an example for his countrymen, not
just by writing or saying but by implementing and practicing his values in his own life.
Gandhi in Hind Swaraj has cleared that violence is not a part of Indian civilisation and
Indian civilisation has nothing to do with violence. Gandhi tries to fasten the Indian
national movement through Hind Swaraj. Gandhi thus mentioned that Hind Swaraj is
written in such a way that it will led people and militant nationalists to leave the path of
violence which is suicidal in nature and come back to values of Indian glorious
civilization. He believes that English will adopt our civilization and will leave.
Further, Gandhi in Hind Swaraj compares Indian civilisation and European civilisation.
He refers Indian civilisation as morally and spiritually superior and European as violent
and politically corrupt. He also criticizes the brute force of western power. He also
distances himself from the extreme nationalist leaders because he believes that the path
chosen by them is suicidal and can provoke the imperialist power to used total violence to
end our movement of national independence.
Gandhi talked in details about Western civilisation in Hind Swaraj. He believes that
Western civilisation is materialistic in nature. He believes that Western civilisation is
known for its negative features such as luxury, inequality, greediness, aggression,
imperialism, war, poverty, immorality, alienation, valueless and so on. Gandhi throughout
his life has criticised all these values. But before studying all these in details and their
impact on our social, political and spiritual aspects of human life we need to understand
what Gandhi meant by civilisation.
Gandhi believes that civilisation is a mode of conduct that points out the path of duty to
men. For him, observance of morality and performance of duty are convertible terms. For
him, to attain mastery over mind and our passions, one has to obtain morality. Basically
doing what we know ourselves.

59
Gandhi is his book Hind Swaraj has discussed about civilisation in chapter titled
‘Civilisation’ where he explains in details about modern Western civilisation.
Let us think, what state of things explains the word civilisation. In comparison to 100
years before, people nowadays lives in better houses. They consider this as a civilisation
which encourages bodily happiness. Earlier they used to wear skins and used spears as
ammunition. But today they were trousers and so many different types of clothes and
spears have been replaced by revolvers. Earlier people plagued their field through manual
labour but now they can plague a big field very easily through stem engines. Sign of
civilisation is known by this. Earlier very few people used to write books but today
anyone can write and they write anything and fill people’s brain with poisonous content.
Earlier people used to travel in wagon but now they can fly, use trains to travel a very
long distance at short time.Height of civilisation for Europeans is considered by these. In
future people do not have to use their hands or feet, machines will do everything for
them. Today it is possible that a man standing behind a gun can possibly kill 1000
peoples but before people used to compare their bodies before any fight. These are
considered as civilisation by them. Earlier people used to work in open fields according
to their wish. But now 1000 of workers comes together to work for the welfare of factory.
Their conditions are worse. They are forced to work for millionaire in a dangerous
environment, risking their life. Earlier people are enslaved forcefully but today the greed
of money and the luxury bought by money are making them enslaved. Today there are
diseases which are hard to imagine earlier, doctors are busy making medicine, number of
hospitals have increased. These are a civilisation’s true test. Earlier to send a letter we
need to hire special messengers, but today anyone can write a letter at the cost of a penny
and can abuse anyone. We can also thank someone at same cost. Earlier people used to
cook in their home and have proper two to three times meal at their houses but now they
need something to eat in every two hours.
According to Gandhi, this civilisation is neither moral nor religious. Rather this
civilisation stands for increasing our bodily comforts which also it failed to do so. This
civilisation is irreligious and people who are attached to this civilisation, they seem half
mad. Gandhi believes that we have to be patient as this civilisation will be self-destroyed.
According to Mohammad’s teachings, this is a satanic civilisation. And Hinduism calls it
Black Age.
Gandhi further provides reasons why the western writers were not critical of the
civilisation where they live.
We see very rarely people arguing against themselves. People, who are intoxicated by
modern civilisation, will never speak against it, rather their purpose is to provide facts
and arguments in support of it and they do it unconsciously because they believe it to be
true. When people dreams they think it as real. They only got to know about reality when
they are awakened. People who are living here or working is basically like a dreaming
man. What we study is basically the work of defenders of the civilisation who claims
among their followers to be brilliant and there are few who are brilliant. There writings
fascinate us and one by one we are drawn towards them.
Now, we need to know the opinion of Gandhi on Indian civilisation.

60
He believes that no civilisation in world can defeat or stand side by side to Indian
civilisation. No other civilisation can equal the sacrifice and seeds shown by our
ancestors. Rome falls, Greece met the same fate. The great Pharaohs’ power has ended,
Japan has become westernized, we cannot say anything about China, but Indian
civilisation has always stood on her foundation. The people of Europe learn from the
writings of Rome or Greece writers, which do not exist formerly. In midst of all this
Indian civilisation stands and this is her glory. They write that it is not possible for Indian
people to adapt to western civilisation as they are uncivilised and ignorant. But Gandhi
believes that these charges are against our merit. He believes that the test and experiment
which we have done has stopped us to adapt their culture. Many give their advice to India
but we stand steadily. This is her grace.
Gandhi further says that we live in the cottage which we live hundred years before. Our
indigenous education still remains same as before. We never have competition of life
taking. Everyone do their own work in exchange of regulated wage. It’s not like that we
cannot make machines but our forefathers know that if we goes behind machine, we will
become slaves and loose our morality. That’s why after thinking, they decided that we
will do work which need manual labour and we will use hand and feet for our bread.
They saw that our happiness and health remains if we use our hand and feet for work.
They saw that our sword of ethics are superior to kings or his swords and that’s why they
believes that sovereign of earth is inferior to saints or fakirs. A nation with such a
constitution is fitter to teach others rather than being learnt from others.
While admiring Indian civilisation, Gandhi was not unknown about the dark reality of
India. He knows very well about the darker side like child marriage, child widows,
teenaged mothers and housewives, and existence of prostitution on the name of religion,
killing of goats and sheep in the name of religion. He immediately termed all these as
defects. But he recognised all the attempts made in past to remove them and believes that
attempts will be done in future to remove them.
Gandhi recognised that all men are not perfect in whole world or in any civilisation but
Indian civilisation has the tendency to evaluate morality whereas the western civilisation
propagates immorality. Western civilisation is godless whereas the base of Indian
civilisation stands on the belief of god. If ones understand and start believing in Indian
civilisation, they will move towards it as a child moves towards mother’s breast.
Gandhi believes that India is unique and her powers are immeasurable. He furthers said
that when the other civilisation of world were falling, Indian civilisation stands on her
foundation after so many shocks.
6.4 INDIA’S SOVEREIGNTY LOSS DUE TO EUROPEAN CIVILIZATION
It is possible that people will think that being a superior civilisation than European
civilisation, then what happens that we become their colonies or loss our freedom to
them. Gandhi says in absolute terms that English has not taken India, we have given
them. He says that Company has not taken India by their force rather we have given
them. Gandhi says on the issue of India losing her freedom to English that.

61
They (English) have originally come to India for trade. He recalls the English. They have
no intention of establishing their kingdom here. Who have assisted the Company’s
officer? Who was tempted by their silver? History testifies what we have done; to become
rich we welcomed the Company’s officer with open handed. We assisted them. If
someone has the habit of drinking bhang and someone sell them, and then who is the one
to blame here? By blaming seller, can we avoid our habit of drinking bhang? If we
remove a particular retailer from a place then, will not someone replace him?
English merchant were able to settle in India because we encourage them. Whilstour
prince has been combating among each other, they took the help of Britishers. Then this
cooperation was practiced in war and commerce. We kill the morality inherited by our
civilisation. Their main objective was to increase their commerce and earn more money.
They accepted our assistance and increased their warehouse and later to protect their
warehouse they employed their army, whose assistance we also took.
In Gandhi opinion, those Indians who are taking themselves away from Indian
civilisation which is spiritual in nature and instead going towards material richness which
is the base of western civilisation, is the inner and foremost cause of losing India’s
freedom to English. Gandhi condemns Indian prince for their attitudes which gives
Company the opportunity to establish their military here. He further points out the hatred
between Hindu and Muslim as another reason to provide potential opportunity to East
India Company for controlling India. And Gandhi concludes that India was not lost rather
we gifted India to the English.
For Gandhi, Indian civilisation has been unquestionably the best civilisation but for him
every civilisation had been on their trail and this time its Indian civilisation turns during
British period. During this time, it was due to requirements of Indian sons, our
civilisation become vulnerable. Gandhi was very positive, when he recognizes that whole
India was not touched by slavery rather those who are affected by modern civilisation are
enslaved.
Gandhi begins telling his own plan about how to free India by saying that to remove a
disease completely we need to remove the cause of disease. Similarly, he believes that if
we remove the cause of slavery, we will be free. He puts an interesting point that whole
India is not enslaved rather only those who are affected by modern civilisation are
enslaved. And those who have been in these conditions think the whole universe is in
these conditions. But this is not the reality, yet we assigned our slavery to whole India.
By seeing this type of pictures of India, he says that if we all think about above facts, then
we will see that we will become free and so will India become free.
Gandhi defines Indian freedom movement as “India’s contribution to peace.” He defines
his version of nationalism as Swadeshi or Swaraj. He declares his Swaraj as keeping
intact the genes of Indian civilisation.
6.5 INSEPARABLE ASPECTS OF MODERN CIVILISATION: CURSE FOR
INDIA
Gandhi blames some of the inseparable aspects of modern civilisation like railways,
doctors and lawyers for poor condition of India. He warns that if we do not wake up in

62
time, we will destroy India and her civilisation. It seems to us that Gandhi unjustly attack
these institutions which provides a comfortable life to us. However Gandhi justified his
argument confidentially. He starts his argument on modern civilisation by saying it is
difficult to understand the evil of any civilisation. He further says that doctors’ gives
medicine to a dying man, it does not hurt apparently but it produces a seductive colour
about patient’s face, so we can believe in it. Civilisation is a curse and we need to careful
about it.
Regarding railways, he says that without railways English cannot make a hold on India as
they have now. He blames railways as a carrier to travel at any point in India and blames
it for spreading epidemics like Bubonic Plague and has caused untold problems for Indian
masses. He says Bubonic Plague was spread by railways. Without railways masses cannot
move from one place to another place, working as a carrier of plague germs. Formerly,
we are naturally separated. Gandhi believes railways as the cause of famines in India and
says that due to railways, the frequency of famines increases because due to facility of
locomotion, people sells their goods in dearest market and become careless, which
increases the chance of famine. He also says that railways have looted the holiness of our
hoy place because evil men fulfil their evil wishes speedily. Holy places in India have
become unholy. Earlier, people go there with lots of difficulty. Generally, only real
devotees would go there. But now bad man very easily reaches there for their evil’s
practices. He concludes that railways can become a distributing agent only for evil man.
Gandhi does not believe that railways are the cause of rise in the spirit of nationalism. He
argues that we are a nation much before the railways come, even before the Britishers
presence in India. He says that Britishers has taught us that we are not a nation and it will
take centuries to become a nation. Gandhi believes that there is no foundation to
Britishers’ claims. We are a nation much before they came to India. We (whole India) are
inspired by one thought. Our way of living was same. They were successful is
establishing a kingdom because we were a nation. But they divided us and broke us.
While further explaining his argument, Gandhi says that he never wanted to say that there
is no difference among us, just because we are a nation but the leading man of the family
travels throughout India either on feet or in bullock carts. They learn each other
languages and there were no differences between them. He questions his readers, what
would be intention of our foreseeing ancestors to establish Setubandha (Rameshwar) in
south, Jagannath in east and Haridwar in north as places of pilgrimage. Gandhi says that
our ancestors were not fool to do so. He recognises their action in below words.
They knew that worship of gods can be done at home also. They believed that whose
heart is pure and holy, Ganges is in their house.But they saw that India is by nature an
undivided land, that why they argued that India should be a nation. Arguing thus, they
establish holy places in different parts of India and later sent their followers to different
parts of India with the idea of nationality which is unknown to rest of world. Gandhi
believes that Indians are one as no two English men are. Only those people, who believe
them as civilised and superior, do not think us a nation. After railways, we started
believing in distinctions.

63
6.6 KHADI AS A SYMBOL OF INDIAN TRADITION & CRITIQUE OF MODERN
CIVILISATION

‘There is no beauty in the finance, cloth; if it makes hunger and unhappiness’ - Gandhi
Gandhi chooses his symbols very carefully so as to attract and engage with the symbols
originated in India one of the symbols Gandhi chose was khadi. It is probably that Gandhi
wanted to convey many messages like critique of modernity or critique of western
civilisation.
Khadi is of Indian origin and Indians have exported it since long also, Britishers imported
clothes from India before they started bringing their own machinemade textiles which
were both cheap and durable and thus hoped for expanding the market in the colonised
country. Khadi was first used by Gandhi in non-cooperation movement on large scale as a
symbol of protest and self-reliance.
Although around 1918 Gandhi began his movement for khadi. It was a programme for the
people of India especially for poor and masses living in India’s village. Khadi, Charkha
andspinning were used as ideology for self-reliance and sufficiency.
In their famous book ‘The Maternity of tradition: political development in India’ 1967;
Rudolph and Rudolph showed how Gandhi used vernacular language to convey his ideas,
for example Swaraj and Ram Rajya. Accordingly, Gandhi used Indian symbols and styles
like Charkha and khadi. They showed how Gandhi used India’s traditionalism to achieve
modernity.
Gandhi believes that Indians should plant, harvest its own raw material, spin and weave
for themselves. This was to decrease the dependence on machinemade textile, for moral
boost and as a sign of protest and non-cooperation against Britishers. Gandhi also
believed that since Indians did not see manual labour as a respected job, he could maybe
bring men, women, rich, poor, Hindu, Muslims etc. together.
Khadi as a symbol was related to Indians but not specifically to Hindu or Muslims or for
that matter of fact to any other sect. Gandhi wanted to ignite the feeling of unity among
Indians and for this; he uses the symbol of Charkha and khadi.
Gandhi wanted to remind Indians of their glorious past.
Gandhi tried to turn this nationalistic symbol into cult to engage past, present and future
together.
6.7 GANDHI’S CRITIQUE OF WESTERN EDUCATION
‘My life is my message.” – Mahatma Gandhi
Gandhi advocated the idea of Ram Rajya. He was inspired by Leo Tolstoy‘s kingdom of
God. Through Ram Rajya, he advocated a society based on truth and non-violence. For
these we believe human are most important. According to Gandhi, “the individual is the
one supreme consideration”. For this education is important. He advocated an education
system based on needs of Indians which propagated an element of goodness and for this
an education system is needed which is based on the lines of goodness.

64
Although, Gandhi was not in favour of Western education as it did not cater the needs of
indigenous people and he believes that the medium of language is foreign and thus
unsuitable for Indians. He believes that the Western education system would eventually
deprive the Indians of originality and won’t be able to propagate and pass down its rich
cultural knowledge. Gandhi believes that education system of west is not suitable for
India and has dried up the originality of Indian cultures. He further says that western
education system has made the vulnerable class more vulnerable.
The western education system has created a big gap between the masses and the educated
Indians. Gandhi categories educated Indian elites as traitors of motherland as they have
been willingly victims of western education system. At the same time we can see there
are so many nationalist leaders who have rejected British rule but has accepted western
education system, since they believe the western education system will make India a
materially advanced nation. We can see Gandhi’s view is different from others from very
start of his political career.
Gandhi also alleged that the Western education system neglected agricultural training,
weaving, Indian art and culture etc. In the early 1900s especially during the Champaran
Satyagraha, he opened its first school in Barharwa.
Through the education system based on the needs of India, he tries to propagate the idea
of society based on truth and non-violence, for which education is the key element.
6.8 GANDHI’S SWARAJ AND NATION-STATE
Two of the ideas accepted by most as brought by Britishers namely the concept of nation
state and that of western civilisation were both criticised by Gandhi. For Gandhi the idea
of nation state was different from that of the West.He believes “a nation does not belong
to any particular religion or sect it should be absolutely independent of either.”
Gandhi does not agree with the notion that India becomes a nation under Britishers. For
this he believes that the rich ancient culture history and civilisation continued
accommodating diversity in India. Although pre-dominantly India was of Hindu in
character but it was open to non-Hindus and their ideas, beliefs, values and way of life.
For several centuries India has shown the world for what it is known as unity in diversity.
Indian civilisation sheltered and cherished new ideas, values and beliefs with that of the
native.
Secondly, he believes that pilgrimage places were made with an objective to harvest the
evolution of consciousness of Indian. He believed and to quote pilgrim centre were made
“to create and sustain a sense of common identity among Indians scattered over an
immense territory.”
Even with new ideas and belief system, new religion, new way of life and all the factual
differences present within it were not significant enough to prevent the idea of a common
notion, as Gandhi believes that religion can never be a basis of nationality for India unlike
the western idea of nation state which advocated commonality and not essentially unity.

65
He rejects Lord Macaulay’s believes that English has united Indians and Gandhi focuses
more on provincial language. In Hind Swaraj Gandhi writes “the foundation that
Macaulay laid of education has enslaved us.”
This is the primary reason that even in his concept of education he believes that medium
of instruction should be mother tongue and not English as advocated by many and
propagated by Britishers. He believes that education propagated in mother tongue is
important to ethical education. Gandhi believes that foreign language creates a divide
between the English speaking elite and mother tongue speaking masses.
Gandhi selected Hindi written in Devanagari script as the “lingua franca of India.”
Additionally, he emphasised that every Indian should know other languages like Arabic,
Tamil, Persian and Sanskrit apart from Hindi.
For Gandhi, a nation should be based on Swaraj, truth, non-violence and not on boundary
or religion. The nationalism prevalent and needed in India is very different from the
ideology of nationalism advocated by the west and thus Gandhi criticised it.
6.9 SUMMARY
It will not be correct to conclude that Gandhi was totally against modern civilisation and
he wants to go back to the past of India. He has always criticized the ill characters of
modern civilisation. Gandhi was a social and religious reformer. He fought against all the
ill elements of Indian civilisation such as hereditary priest-hood, untouchability of lower
caste, not allowing entry of lower caste in temples etc. He started many campaign with
scientific spirit and socio equality for social reforms. Many of those socio-economic
changes going at the time of Gandhi or later in India, has led to emergence to new social
class, which was possible due to Gandhi’s idea and his efforts for socio-economic
changes. Gandhi was way ahead of his time, his ideas of non-violence has led him with
the title of “Prophet of the Atomic Era.”
Gandhi was critical of materialism, he opposes machines and centralisation of products
and he favoured life of labour in the society in his concept of ‘bread-labour.’ He supports
the idea of economic self-sufficiency of villages. He describes his ideas as an ideal socio-
economic order in which independence should start from downwards which will led a
village became republic and full power in the hand of panchayat. He was not fully against
the modern civilisation but he has the fear of materialistic progress in west and their
concept of modernity.
It will be totally wrong to say that Gandhi had totally rejected the ideas of west and was
not influenced by them. Gandhi learns new things from his experiments and views his life
as ‘experiment of truth.’ Of course he was very selective and innovative when it comes to
borrow from west. He was aware of some of the elements of modern civilisation which
was good for India and hence he adopted the democratic political process from them. In
the preface of Hind Swaraj, he has argued his fellow countrymen to adopt good aspects
from modern civilisation.

66
6.10 SUBJECTIVE QUESTIONS
1. Critically examine Gandhi’s writing against modern civilisation.
2. “They (Britishers) are not in India because of their strength but because we keep
them.” Explain the quote by Gandhi.
3. Examine Gandhi’s use of Khadi and other symbols to counter modern civilisation.
4. Do you agree that basic education of west was arguably the most important arena
for the introduction of modernity in India? Explain.
5. Examine Gandhi’s concept of Nation-sate in comparison to west.
6. Do you agree Gandhi’s description of modern civilisation as a curse for India?
Explain.
6.11 OBJECTIVE QUESTIONS
1. The language used by Gandhi to write Hind Swaraj:
a) Hindi
b) English
c) Sanskrit
d) Gujarati

1. What does Gandhi mean by civilisation?

a) path of duty to men
b) big buildings
c) war
d) industrialization

2. What was the main purpose of Britishers when they first came to India?
a) colonization
b) To take loan
c) To buy spices
d) For trading
6.12 SUGGESTED READING
 Gandhi, M. K., Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule, Navajivan Publishing House,
Ahmedabad, 1938 edn
 Gandhi, M.K., India of My Dreams, Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad,
1947
 Rudolph and Rudolph, sussane and Lloyd, The modernity of tradition, midway
reprint, 1984.
 Vettickal, Thomas., Gandhian Sarvodaya: Realizing a Realistic Utopia, National
Gandhi Museum and Gyan Publishing House, New Delhi, 2002
 Gandhi, M.K., Khadi-Why and How?, (ed by B.C.Kumarappa), Navajivan
Publishing House, Ahmedabad, 1955
 Gandhi, M.K., Towards New Education, Navajivan Publishing House, 1953, (ed
by Bharatan Kumarappa)

67
 Bandyopadhyaya, J., Social and Political Thought of Gandhi, Bombay, Allied
Publishers, 1969.
 Chatterjee, M., Gandhi’s Religious Thought, London, Macmillan, 1983.
 Pillai, Mohanan, B., Gandhi’s Legacy and New Human Civilisation, Gyan
Publishing House, New Delhi, 1999

68
 7. NATIONALISM

Amaresh Ganguli

7.1 OBJECTIVES

After reading this article you will be familiar with:

 Gandhi’s idea of the Indian National Identity
 The Gandhian imperatives for fostering a strong nationalist identity and spirit in
the context of the freedom struggle against the British
 The main elements of his nationalist program
7.2 INTRODUCTION
We take for granted our nationalist identity as Indians. We know we have a
government and a state and an army to protect us from external aggression. We cheer our
cricket team and feel proud at the achievements of fellow Indians in various fields. Today
the nationalist identity and feeling among the people is well established and has taken
deep roots.
But this was not always so. Like other social phenomenon nationalism also evolved
historically. Along with the emergence of social and historical conditions communities
came up in various parts of the world. They often came up through tribal, slave and
feudal phases of social existence. At a certain stage of social, economic and cultural
development nations came into being. It was distinguished by certain specific
characteristics such as
(a) an organic whole of the members of the nation living in a distinct territory
(b) a single economy
(c) a consciousness of a common economic existence
(d) a common language and
(e) naturally a common culture which evolved.
And this process developed from sixteenth century onwards as a part of the development
of human history. Generally speaking development of nationalism in various counties
was a prolonged historical process. It is in the development of historical conditions that
nation states developed. And development of nationalism in different countries was
determined by its social ad cultural history - its political, economic and social structures.
And the character of its various classes, which played the role of vanguard of struggle for
a national social existence. Therefore every nation was born and forged in unique way.
The history of seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth century India is primarily the
history of formation of a nation and the struggle against internal and external obstacles in
that process.
Indian nationalism is a modern phenomenon. It came into being during the British
period as a result of various subjective and objective factors and forces, which developed
within the Indian society under the conditions of British rule and the impact of world
forces.

69
 Pre- British India was unique. It sharply differed from the pre-capitalist medieval
societies of Europe. It was a vast country inhabited by huge population speaking many
languages with different religions. Socially it was dominated by a population which was
Hindu in character, but there was no homogeneity. This extreme social, religious division
of the Hindus in particular and the Indian sin general presents a peculiar background to
the growth of Indian nationalism. It was under the conditions of political subjection that
the British introduced for its own purposes certain changes which introduced new social
forces which radically changed the economic structure of the Indian society. It
established
(a) centralised state (modern civil service, centralised administration, judiciary, new
land ownership laws, zamindari system etc)
(b) introduced modern education (establishment of universities and colleges)
(c) modern means of transport and communication (postal system, railways, roads
etc)
(d) modern press
(e) slow development of industries (introduction of just, tea etc)
and it is the combination of these very social forces along with its character of
exploitation which emerged under the part of the British rule and became the basis of the
rise and development of Indian nationalism. It is the British colonial rule under East
Indian Company and subsequently under the British government from 1858 that the
Indian people entered into a period of severe repression and exploitation. It is in this
background that we see a number of peasant rebellions, which was prominent in the
history of eighteen-century India including a large number of famines for example.
Prof. Irfan Habib has succinctly commented:
‘The unification of the country on an economic plane by the construction of
railways and the introduction of the telegraph in the latter half of the nineteenth century,
undertaken for its own benefit by the colonial regime, and the centralisation of the
administration which the new modes of communications and transport made possible,
played their part in making Indians view India as a prospective single political entity.
Modern education (undertaken in a large part by indigenous effort) and the rise of the
press disseminated the ideas of India’s nationhood and the need for constitutional reform.
A substantive basis for India’s nationhood was laid when nationalists like Dadabhoy
Naoroji (Poverty and UnBritish Rule in India, 1901) and R.C. Dutt (Economic History of
India, 2 vols., 1901 and 1903) raised the issues of poverty of the Indian people and the
burden of colonial exploitation, which was felt in equal measure throughout India.
We see, then, that three complex processes enmeshed to bring about the
emergence of India as a nation: the preceding notion of India as a country, the influx of
modern political ideas, and the struggle against colonialism. The last was decisive: the
creation of the Indian nation can well be said to be one major achievement of the national
movement.’ (Source: Irfan Habib, ‘The nation that is India’, The Little Magazine, Vol III
: issue 2)
When Gandhiji emerged in the national movement after his South African
experience in the post first world period with the non-cooperation movement. India by

70
this time had seen through the peasant struggles of the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries including the revolt of 1857. The social reform movements - the Brahmo Samaj,
Dayanand Saraswati’s Arya Samaj Movements etc passed into liberal phases
subsequently with the formation of the Indian National Congress in 1885 and leaders like
Gokhale, Ranade, Dadabhai Naoroji, W.C. Banerjee etc. The whole movement was
socially forward but politically backward. It was the militant nationalism of the famous
Lal-Bal-Pal with their slogan of ‘Swaraj is my birth right’ to a revolutionary terrorism
with bombs, pistols, individual killings as a method with individual martyrs like Surya
Sen and Bhagat Singh which formed the background to Gandhi’s emergence.
It was only after this that the age of Gandhi began and his continued dominance
and leadership of the national movement as the pre-dominant leader of the Indian
National Congress till the achievement of independence. Therefore it was a challenge for
the Indian nationalist leadership to develop a national identity, a method of struggle and
transform the movement into a mass movement of the Indian people.
Mohandas Karam Chand Gandhi is significant because he could understand and
bring the Indian masses – men and women – urban and rural – into the national
movement. It was a radical break from the earlier methods of struggle.
7.3 DISCUSSION
Before we start discussing Gandhi’s views on nation, nationhood, or nationalism
it is necessary to have a brief overview of the whole period of the freedom movement
when Gandhi occupied the centre stage. It is true that Gandhi could evolve a program of
struggle which could recognise the role of the masses and the mass actions which
involved every section of the society and for the first time it was under his leadership that
Indian national movement became a multi-class nationalist movement and it was under
his leadership that masses came out to court arrest, jails and cold face police firing and
created an undying hatred against the British rule and a thrust for swaraj or freedom. It
should also be remembered that Gandhi provided a program of action for each sections of
the society. For peasantry, non-payment of land tax, for students, boycott of educational
institutions, for lawyers, desertion of the courts, for women – picketing the liquor shops,
foreign cloth shops and he asked the people as a whole to violate ‘lawless laws’ and it is
under his call that millions of Indians joined the demonstrations and marched into jails
using methods of satyagraha, non-cooperation, and civil disobedience. His use of hunger
strikes, mass demonstrations, deliberate courting of jails were the principal weapons
which he added to the nationalist struggle. The period between 1919 to independence is
marked by three important struggles - Non-cooperation movement of 1919, Civil
Disobedience movement of 1930, with its call of complete independence and the famous
Quit Indian Movement of 1942.
It is in this background we must try to understand Gandhi and his role in terms of
Indian nationalism.
Therefore Gandhi, his technique of struggle, his concept of national identity was
radically different as Professor Bhikhu Parekh has commented:
‘He more or less completely bypassed the dominant nationalist vocabulary and
showed that it was possible to articulate and defend the case for independence in a very
different language. He showed that not every movement for independence is national, not

71
every national struggle is nationalist and that not every nationalist movement need
articulate itself in the language of European rather than home-grown theories of
nationalism’. (Source: Bhikhu Parekh, Gandhi’s Political Philosophy, p. 3)
Many of the other leaders who came before Gandhi were western trained lawyers
or intellectuals and saw many positives to the Western British way of life and were
demanding from the British the same liberal system and parliamentary democracy on the
basis of self-determination that the British had in their own homeland and also hoped to
stop the economic exploitation of colonial rule. But Gandhi focussed on the way of life of
the Indian village and its thousands of years old substantially self-contained and self-
sufficient system to argue for a different kind of national life where that way of life would
be valued and protected and it’s strengths fully taken advantage of in the interest of the
nation. He also argued the basic purpose of life in the Indian national understanding was
spiritual growth (or attaining moksha) and one of the best facilitators of this moral
cultivation was the simple and sustainable way of life of the Indian village.
Prof. Bhikhu Parekh has commented:
‘For Gandhi British imperialism dominated India at three related but different
levels. At the political level the arrogant colonial government oppressed the Indian people
and denied their right to run their affairs themselves. At the economic level it exploited
and impoverished them, destroyed their indigenous industries and subordinated their
interests to those of the British economy. In Gandhi’s view this was far more disturbing
than political oppression and could continue even if India became independent. At the
most disturbing moral and cultural level, British imperialism destroyed the identity and
integrity of Indian civilisation and turned the Indians into brown Englishmen. Gandhi was
convinced that the rule of British civilisation could continue even if the British
government were to stop ruling over India and British capital to cease exploiting it.
British imperialism was unacceptable not only because of its political and even economic
but moral and cultural consequences. The struggle against it had therefore to be mounted
and independence obtained at all three levels, especially the last. At the cultural level the
anti-imperialist struggle had to be fought on two fronts simultaneously. First, British
civilisation, which so infatuated and blinded the Indians to the moral enormity of foreign
rule and legitimised their economic and political domination must be subjected to a
thorough-going critique. Second, the basic structure of Indian civilisation, which they
largely saw through the biased British perspective, must be sensitively teased out and
defended.
In interpreting British imperialism in this way, Gandhi integrated and went
beyond the three different types of critique advanced by his predecessors. Broadly
speaking DadabhaiNaoroji, Surendra Nath Banerjee, Gokhale and the so-called liberals
had welcomed the political and cultural advantages of British rule but attacked it on the
grounds that it had drained India’s wealth, ruined its industries, imposed unfair trading
arrangements and subordinated its economic development to British colonial interests.
Although mindful of its economic and cultural consequences, the leaders of the terrorist
movements in Bengal and Maharashtra attacked it on political grounds and were the first
to develop a distinctive theory of political as distinct from cultural nationalism. They
argued that the Indians have as much right to run their affairs as the British had to run
theirs, that colonialism was a form of slavery and outrage to Indian dignity and self-

72
respect, and that the ‘honour’ of ‘mother India’ demanded that she should be freed of the
‘foreign yoke’. In a culture which conceptualises energy in feminine terms and associates
activity and restlessness with woman and passivity and detachment with ma, it was not at
all surprising that the votaries of violence should have idealised ‘mother’ India and drawn
inspiration from the Godess Kali. Finally Vivekananda, B.C. Pal, Tilak and the so-called
conservative leaders concentrated on the need to preserve the integrity of traditional ways
of life and thought. They introduced the concept of Indian civilisation to match the one
championed by the British, sharply distinguished the two and attacked foreign rule not so
much because it involved economic exploitation and violated Indian pride as because it
imposed an alien materialist civilisation on India’s essentially spiritual one.
Gandhi’s critique of British rule encompassed all three.………….He was even
more sensitive to the integrity of Indian civilisation than were the conservative leaders.
Indeed he argued that most of them were even more interested in the ‘synthesis’ of the
two civilisations than in the integrity of their own, had unwittingly reinterpreted and
anglicised it far more than they realised or cared to admit, and that their critique of British
imperialism was half-hearted and lacked moral depth. Gandhi’s critique not only included
but also related and integrated the three earlier critiques into a comprehensive theoretical
framework. He argued that political independence was important not only as an
expression of India’s pride and a necessary means to stop its economic exploitation but
also to preserve its civilisation, without which political independence remained fragile.
The economic exploitation had to be ended not only to sustain Indian independence and
improve the living conditions of its people but also to preserve the social and economic
basis of its civilisation.’ (Source: Bhikhu Parekh, Gandhi’s Political Philosophy, pp.
19-20)
In fact Gandhi saw India as a battleground between the immoral western
civilisation of which the British were an excellent example (and which he was convinced
would ultimately not last because it was based on immoral values like greed which led to
violence) and the sustainable moral civilisation of India where the focus was on helping
each soul find his spiritual salvation or God. In fact even in his own life that was his
priority.
He wrote once: ‘I count no sacrifice too great for the sake of seeing God face to
face. The whole of my activity, whether it may be called social, political, humanitarian or
ethical, is directed to that end. And as I know that God is found more often in the lowliest
of His creatures than in the high and mighty, I am struggling to reach the status of these. I
cannot do so without their service. Hence my passion for the service of the suppressed
classes. And as I cannot render this service without entering politics, I find myself in
them.’ (Source: Young India, 1924)
His chosen way of reaching God was thus service of the poor and the oppressed
but in a non-violent manner because violence would be sinful, non-spiritual, and non-
religious. Thus he could not agree with Communists for instance who suggested that the
rich and powerful will not give their relationship of dominance and exploitation of the
poor and the weak without coercion or force because it was not to their advantage. But
Gandhi’s approach was to strive for a change of heart and shun violence strictly and
under all provocations and circumstances.
He once told the wife of his British surgeon in 1924: ‘My own motive is to put

73
forth all my energy in an attempt to save Indian, that is, ancient culture, from impending
destruction by modern, that is, Western culture being imposed upon India. The essence of
ancient culture is based upon the practice of the utmost non-violence. Its motto is the
good of all including every living thing, whereas Western culture is frankly based upon
violence.’ (Source: Gandhi to Mrs. Maddock, Collected Works of MK Gandhi, Vol. 23,
p. 243)
While Gandhi was critical of the modern western civilisation and saw it as a
danger he was not a nationalist in the narrow extreme sense, who hated other countries
and wanted domination over them to spread his own version of what is superior
civilisation. He was open to eventually spreading the message of his understanding of
what should be a superior and sustainable civilisation to the whole world eventually but
only after first establishing it well in the country of it’s origin. In fact he was not averse to
using the term Ram Raj even to refer to the India of his dreams even though the term is
obviously open to communally sensitive interpretations.
But he had clarified that by ‘..RamrajI do not mean Hindu Raj. I mean by
RamrajDivine Raj, The Kingdom of God’. (Source: Young India, Sept. 19, 1929) Further
clarity on his conception of Ram Raj can be obtained from his other comments like:
‘The Ramraj of my dream ensures the rights alike of prince and pauper.’ (Source: Anand
Bazar Patrika, Aug. 2, 1934)
‘There can be no Ramraj in the present state of iniquitous inequalities, in which a
few roll in riches and the masses do not get even enough to eat.’ (Source: Harijan, June
1, 1947)
‘The ancient ideal of Ramraj is undoubtedly one of true democracy, in which the meanest
citizen could be sure of swift justice without an elaborate and costly procedure.’ (Source:
Young India, Sept. 19, 1929)
As is clear from the above, to understand Gandhian nationalism it is important to
understand his critique of modern western civilisation. Gandhi wanted Indian nationalism
to be about rejecting the British and western model of modern civilisation and a return to
the basics of what he saw as India’s ancient genius. He was deeply aware that most
people arguing for freedom were not appreciative quite so much of the glory of that
civilisation and merely wanted a change of political rulers.
He once commented: ‘[You] want English rule without the Englishman. You want
the tiger’s nature, not the tiger; that is to say, you would make India English. And when it
becomes English, it will be called not Hindustan but Englistan. That is not the Swaraj I
want.’ (Source: Hind Swaraj, p. 15)
Prof. Bhikhu Parekh has succinctly explained Gandhi’s understanding of modern
civilisation as follows:
‘For Gandhi modern civilisation was propelled by the two inter-related principles
of greed and want. It was controlled by ‘a few capitalist owners’ who had only one aim,
to make profit, and only one means to do so, to produce goods that satisfied people’s
wants. They had a vital vested interest in constantly whetting jaded appetites, planting
new wants and creating a moral climate in which not to want the goods daily pumped into
the market and to keep pace with the latest fashions was to be abnormal and archaic.

74
Indeed, since self-discipline or restriction of desires, the very emblem of human dignity,
threatened to cause mass unemployment, throw the economic system out of gear and
cause human suffering, it was seen as anti-social and immoral. Not surprisingly men saw
themselves not as self-determining moral subjects but as consumers or vehicles for the
satisfaction of externally-induced wants.
The capitalist search for profits led to mechanisation and ‘industrialism’. For
Gandhi machines relieved drudgery, created leisure, increased efficiency and were
indispensable when there was a shortage of labour. Their use must therefore be guided by
a well-considered moral theory indicating how men should live, spend their free time and
relate to one another. Since the modern economy lacked such a theory and was only
propelled by the search for profit, it mechanised production without any regard for its
wider moral, cultural and other consequences. Machines were introduced even when
there was no obvious need for them and were in fact likely to throw thousands out of
work. This was justified either in the name of increased leisure without anyone asking
why it was important and what to do with it, or of cheaper goods, as if man was only a
passive consumer and not an active moral being for whose sanity, self-respect and dignity
the right to work was far more important than the febrile gratification of trivial wants.
Treated with the veneration and awe accorded to Gods in primitive societies, machines
had come to cast a magic spell on modern man and followed their own will. For Gandhi
the mechanisation or fetishism of technology was closely tied up with the larger
phenomenon of industrialism, another apparently self-propelling and endless process of
creating larger and larger industries with no other purpose than to produce cheap
consumer goods and maximise profit. He argued that since modern economic life
followed an inexorable momentum of its own, it reduced men to its helpless and passive
victims and represented a new form of slavery, more comfortable and invidious and
hence more dangerous than the earlier ones.
Based on the belief that life was continuous motion and movement, that unless one
was constantly on the move one was not alive and that the faster the tempo of life the
more alive one was, modern civilisation was inherently restless and intolerant of stability.
It aimed to conquer time and space and developed increasingly speedier modes of
transport and communication. Cars were replaced by trains and the later by planes, but no
one asked why one needed to travel so fast and what one intended to do with the time
saved. Thanks to its restless and ‘mindless activism’ incorrectly equated with dynamism
and energy, modern civilisation undermined man’s unity with his environment and fellow
men and destroyed stable and long-established communities. In the absence of natural
and social roots and stable and enduring landmarks which alone gave man a sense of
identity and continuity, modern man had become abstract, indeterminate and empty. He
was not internally or organically related to others and his relations with them were not
grounded in the sentiments of fellow feeling and good will. Everyone was a stranger to
everyone else and no one cared for or knew how to behave towards others………….
In Gandhi’s view the exploitation of one’s fellow men was built into the very structure of
modern civilisation. Consumers were constantly manipulated into desiring things they did
not need and which were not in their long-term interest. Workers were made to do boring
jobs at subsistence wages under inhuman conditions and given little opportunity or
encouragement to develop their intellectual and moral potential. The poor were treated

75
with contempt and held responsible for their own misfortunes. The weaker races were
treated as if they were animals and bought and sold and brutally exploited. The weaker
nations were conquered, mercilessly oppressed and used as dumping grounds for surplus
goods and as sources of cheap raw materials. For Gandhi imperialism was only an acute
manifestation of the aggressive and exploiting impulse lying at the very heart of modern
civilisation and at work in all areas of human relationships.’ (Source: Bhikhu Parekh,
Gandhi’s Political Philosophy, pp. 22-23)
Gandhi was troubled by the fact that modern civilisation entailed a certain
surrender of the individual to the institutionalised modern state which undermined the
individual’s cultivation of his human powers of self-determination, autonomy, self-
knowledge (in the spiritual sense), self-discipline and social cooperation. Gandhi was
naturally therefore not very impressed by modern institutions and systems of education,
law, medicine, media etc and even the system of a modern democratic state led by the
functioning of a parliament at the top. Gandhi was deeply disturbed by the education
system that the modern British western state had imposed on India as can be judged from
his following comment in a letter to an associate:
‘the system of education at present in vogue is wholly unsuited to India’s needs, is a bad
copy of the Western model and it has by reason of the medium of instruction being a
foreign language sapped the energy of youths who have passed through our schools and
colleges and has produced an army of clerks and office-seekers. It has dried up all
originality, impoverished the vernaculars and has deprived the masses of the benefit of
higher knowledge which would otherwise have percolated to them through the
intercourse of the educated classes with them. The system has resulted in creating a gulf
between educated India and the masses. It has stimulated the brain but starved the spirit
for want of a religious basis for education and emaciated the body for want of training in
handicrafts. It has criminally neglected the greatest need of India in that there is no
agricultural training worth the name……’ (Source: Collected Works of MK Gandhi, Vol.
14) Gandhi was deeply disturbed by the fact that modern western English education was
creating a divide in Indian society between those who were English educated and those
who were not. Professor Judith Brown in her biography of Gandhi has explained how this
led to Gandhi’s search for a common national language – probably one of the first people
to carry out this task. She has commented:
‘His increasing emphasis on the divisiveness of contemporary Indian education
showed his growing identification with the poor in his homeland rather than with the
educated with whom he would naturally have fitted by virtue of his own education and
professional training. His concern for what education was doing to India and Indians also
led him into deeper consideration of the problem of finding a genuinely national language
rather than English, with all its drawbacks of social exclusiveness and association with
the political and cultural rejection of the nation’s own rich heritage. As early as
December 1916 he presided at a conference on this issue; in October 1917 he was
president of a Gujarat educational conference at which he dealt with the question of a
national language as well as wider educational issues. His preference was for Hindi as
spoken by north Indians, Muslim and Hindu, which could be written in either Devanagri
or Persian scripts. This was to be a significant aspect of his work for a new national
identity and true swaraj until the end of his life’. (Source: Judith M. Brown, Gandhi –

76
Prisoner of Hope, p. 107, Oxford University Press)
Gandhi was against the whole attitude and approach of modern western allopathic
medical science. In fact in his own personal life he experimented with Indian healing
methods whenever possible in his ashrams and elsewhere and would be much disturbed if
he had to see a doctor either for himself or any of his family members.
Gandhi was also deeply distressed with the British system of law even though he
was a London trained lawyer himself professionally. Bhikhu Parekh has brought out
Gandhi’s objections to the British system of legal dispute resolution rather well: ‘Gandhi
thought that … dehumanising phenomenon … was evident in the field of law. Men were
intelligent and moral beings capable of resolving their differences by discussing them in
the spirit of charity and good will or by seeking the arbitration of widely respected men
and women in their community. Instead, every time he failed to get what he thought was
his due, modern man rushed to the court of law where trained experts in the esoteric body
of legal knowledge conducted expensive and incomprehensible debates about him
without his participation. …the legal establishment reduced him to a case to be discussed
as if he were a child to be tutored into what to say about his own actions and incapable of
participating in their evaluation. … the legal system did little to develop and mobilise
man’s moral impulses and capacities for reflection and introspection. Instead it required
him to alienate them to a central agency telling him how to run his life and conduct his
relations with others, including his own neighbours, wife, ex-wife and children. Gandhi
found it strange that modern man who talked so much about his self-respect and dignity,
did not find all this deeply humiliating.’ (Source: Bhikhu Parekh, Gandhi’s Political
Philosophy, p. 27)
In fact Gandhi was not convinced even by the western model of the state itself.
He once commented: ‘The state represents violence in a concentrated and
organised form. The individual has a soul but the state is a soul-less machine, it can never
be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence.’ (Source: The Modern
Review, Oct.1935)
Prof. Bhikhu Parekh has explained well the reason why Gandhi saw the modern
state as violent: ‘Gandhi argued that the highly centralised and bureaucratic modern state
enjoying and jealously guarding its monopoly of political power was a necessary product
of modern civilisation. Competitive and aggressive men ruthlessly pursuing their own
interests could only be held together by a well-armed state. Since they were all strangers
to one another and lacked the bond of good will and mutual concern, their relations could
only be regulated by impersonal rules imposed and enforced by such a powerful external
agency as the state. The centralisation of production in the modern economy created
social and economic problems of national and international magnitude, and again
required a centralised political agency to deal with them. Unemployment, poverty and the
social and economic inequalities created by the modern economy led to acute and
legitimate discontent and required a well armed state to deter its desperate citizens from
resorting to violence. ‘Shorn of all the camouflage the exploitation of the masses of
Europe is sustained by violence’, Gandhi argued. The centralised modern state was also
necessary to protect international markets ad overseas investments…………..Even as the
state monopolised all political power, it tended to monopolise all morality. Since its
atomic and morally depleted citizens lacked organic bonds and the capacity to organise

77
and run their social relations themselves, the state was the sole source of moral order. It
alone guaranteed civilised existence and saved society from social disintegration. As such
it came to be seen as the highest moral institution, whose preservation was a supreme
moral value. ……..
Gandhi argued that, although the state claimed to be a moral institution
transcending narrow group interests and pursuing the well being of the whole community,
it was in fact little more than an arena of conflict between organised interests manipulated
and controlled by the more powerful among them. Since men of independent spirit and
honour generally avoided it, it was largely in the care of men and women forging
convenient alliances with powerful interest groups and using it to serve their interests.
Gandhi thought that in these respects the democratic governments were no better than the
undemocratic and belonged to the ‘same species’. They were just as vulnerable to the
pressures of the dominant class and just as ‘ruthless’ and ready to use violence in the
pursuit of its interests. In its actual practice a democracy was basically a form of
government in which a ‘few men capture power in the name of the people and abuse it’, a
‘game of chess’ between rival parties with the people as ‘pawns’. Although the fact that
democratic government was periodically elected by and accountable to ordinary people
made a difference, it also served as a ‘camouflage’ hiding the basic fact that the masses
were often ‘exploited by the ruling class….under the sacred name of democracy’.
Democracy thus veiled and conferred moral legitimacy on the reality of exploitation, and
had only a marginal moral edge over fascism.’ (Source: ibid., pp. 28-29)
Gandhi believed that parliament is basically a ‘talking shop’ where the political
parties manipulate public opinion to maintain their positions of power and sub-serve the
interests of powerful people and who followed the party line without referring issues to
the test of their consciences. Gandhi also felt in a electoral democracy the voters are
susceptible to thinking along the lines of short term interests and were influenced by the
media. He saw the media functioning of modern civilisation with deep suspicion. He once
commented on the newspapers (there was no broadcast media or television at that time
and newspapers were the main media outlets) in Britain:
‘To the English voters their newspapers is their Bible. They take their cue from their
newspapers which are often dishonest. The same fact is differently interpreted by
different newspapers, according to the party in whose interests they are edited.’ (Hind
Swaraj, p. 33)
Gandhi believed in a modern capitalist system independence of the press is a mere
slogan and media independence is impossible because the press was owned by the
capitalist class for manufacturing public opinion. They were not concerned with truth but
propaganda of what served the interests of the owners and their friends and did not serve
the purpose of educating public opinion.
Therefore for Gandhi the task was to build a new nation which will preserve its
own civilisation. This strength according to Gandhi was to be found mainly in the way of
life and civilisation of India’s villages. Bikhu Parekh comments: ‘In Gandhi’s view every
civilisation had its own distinctive natural and social basis. Modern civilisation was born
and could only survive in the cities, and was naturally carried all over the world by the
commercial classes. Indian civilisation had, by contrast, been cradled and nurtured in the
villages, and only the rural masses were its natural custodians. So long as their way of life

78
was intact, its integrity and survival was guaranteed. If the villages were to disappear and
their traditional moral and social structure was to be shattered, it would lose its socio-
economic basis and its fate would be sealed forever. Since the civilisations that had so far
come to India were all rural and thus posed no threat to it, it was easily able to
accommodate and enter into a dialogue with them. Modern urban civilisation presented a
deadly and unprecedented challenge and required a most discriminating and cautious
response.’ (Source: Bhikhu Parekh, Gandhi’s Political Philosophy, p. 43)
Gandhi was convinced the British could conquer India mainly due to the
selfishness and lack of unity of Indians and a degeneration in the national character. He
thus saw it as a priority to rebuild the national character. Here his views are almost
identical to what Swami Vivekananda had preached decades before. Gandhi came on the
scene but could never gather much of a national audience for it outside the educated
classes. Gandhi like Swami Vivekananda was particularly exercised about the
degeneration of the Hindu character. He believed Indians (and Hindus in particular) had
lost courage, physical, intellectual and moral. They could not take the moral decisions to
decide what is right and wrong and then whatever the consequences stand up for it. Thus
Indians ended up compromising in all kinds of indignities and humiliations and violations
of the self-respect and personal dignity.
Gandhi thought Indians had lost the national character and ‘would not fearlessly
walk to the gallows or stand a shower of bullets and yet say “we will not work for you”’.
(Source: Collected Works, Vol 14, p. 510) Gandhi further analysed it was the lack of
courage in the national character that bred suspicion, distrust and jealousy and said ‘What
I would rid ourselves of is distrust of one another and imputation of motives. Our sin is
not our differences but our littleness.... It is not our differences that really matter. It is the
meanness behind it that is undoubtedly ugly’. (Source: Young India, 16 Feb, 1934) Again
that it was because of the jealousy and mutual distrust that Indians were most
‘uncharitable to one another’ and blaming others rather than themselves for their mistakes
had ‘become a second nature with them’. (Source: Raghavan Iyer, The Moral and
Political Writings of Mahatma Gandhi, Oxford: Claredon Press, 1987, vol. II, p. 539)
Gandhi was convinced the British East Indian Company could not have established their
presence in India leading to the eventual enslavement of India if different groups of
selfish Indians had not done private deals with them and instead stood up as one in
refusing to cooperate with the British empire. Bhikhu Parekh comments on how Gandhi
also saw this as an explanation for the steady erosion of the ranks of the Hindus also. He
says Gandhi felt:
‘Thanks to their preoccupation with narrow personal interests and mutual distrust,
the Indians lacked the capacity to pursue a common cause. Everyone went his own way
and resisted the discipline of a common organisation. They were ‘like children in political
matters….[who] do not understand the principle that the public good is also one’s own
good’. They did not take a long term view of their interests and appreciate that these were
best secured within a larger organisational framework whose preservation benefited them
all. In Gandhi’s view they only acted in a concerted manner when inspired and organised
by great leaders and broke up into loose atoms once the later disappeared.
Gandhi also pointed to the absence of a social conscience among his countrymen.
They were ‘callous’ about the conditions of the poor and underprivileged. Their doctrine

79
of the unity of man had remained merely ‘philosophical’ and was rarely practiced, which
is why a large umber of lower caste Hindus had embraced such egalitarian religions as
Islam and Christianity.’ (Source: Bhikhu Parekh, Gandhi’s Political Philosophy, pp. 47-
48)
Gandhi’s strong feelings about the inadequacy of the national character can be
gauged from the following words of his:
‘What are our failings, then, because of which we are helpless and cannot stop the
profuse flow of wealth from our country, and in virtue of which our children get no milk,
three crores of our people get only one meal a day, raids occur in broad daylight in Kheda
district, and epidemics like plague and cholera cannot be eradicated in our country while
they can in others? How is it that the haughty Sir Michael O’Dwyer and the insolent
General Dyer can crush us like so many bugs and the priest in Shimla can write unworthy
things about us; how is it that an intolerable injustice has been done to us in the Punjab?.
The reason is our inveterate selfishness, our inability to make sacrifices for our
country, our dishonesty, our timidity, our hypocrisy and our ignorance. Everybody is
selfish, more or less, but we seem to be more selfish than others. We make some self-
sacrifice in family matters, but very little of it for national work. Just look at our streets,
our cities and our trains. In all these, we can see the condition of the country. How little
attention is paid to the condition of others in streets, in the town as a whole and in trains?.
We do not hesitate to throw refuse out of our courtyard on to the street; standing in the
balcony, we throw out refuse or spit, without pausing to consider whether we are not
inconveniencing the passers-by. When we are building a house, we take little thought of
the inconvenience that may be caused to our neighbours. In cities, we keep the tap open,
and thinking that it is not our water which flows away, we allow it to run waste. The same
thing is seen in the trains. We secure a seat for ourselves by hook or crook and, if
possible, prevent others from getting in. No matter if others are inconvenienced, we start
smoking. We do not hesitate to throw banana skins and sugar-cane peelings right in front
of our neighbours. When we go to draw from a tap, we take little thought for others.
Many such instances of our selfishness can be listed.
Where so much selfishness exists, how can one expect self-sacrifice? Does the
businessman cleanse his business of dishonesty for the sake of his country? Does he forgo
his profit? Does he stop speculation in cotton for his country’s sake? Is any effort made to
keep down milk prices by giving up the profit from its export? How many give up a job
when necessary, for the sake of the country? .
Where are the men who will reduce their luxuries and adopt simplicity and use the
money so saved for the country? If it is necessary for the country’s sake to go to jail, how
many will come forward? .
Our dishonesty is there for all to see. We believe that business can never be
carried on honestly. Those who have the chance never refuse a bribe…
Our hypocrisy is only a little less than that of the British. We have experience of this
every moment. In our meeting and in all other activities of our lives, we try to show
ourselves other than what we are.
We have made cowardice especially our own. Nobody wants bloodshed in
connection with non-co-operation, and yet it is out of this fear of bloodshed that we do

80
not want to do anything. We are possessed by the fear of the Government’s armed might
that we dare not take any step. And so we submit to force in every matter and allow
dacoits to plunder us in broad daylight.
What shall I say about our hypocrisy? It has increased in every field. Weakness is
always accompanied by hypocrisy. Moreover, where the people want to be upright but
can not be so, hypocrisy will naturally increase; for, if we are not upright, we are anxious
to seem so and thus we add another moral weakness to the one which we already possess.
Hypocrisy had entered our religion as well, and that so fully that the marks which we put
on our forehead, the rosary and things of that kind have ceased to be tokens of piety and
become signs of impiety.’ (Source: Raghavan Iyer, The Moral and Political Writings of
Mahatma Gandhi, Oxford: Claredon Press, 1987, vol. I, pp.307f)
Gandhi was determined that the most important task in the task of building a
strong national identity and a nationalist character – a process he referred to as national
regeneration, was to reform the character of Indians. And in this he saw no use in a blind
adoption of western modern civilisation. He was of the conviction that while western
civilisation may not all be totally bad (even though he did think it was inferior to India’s
naturally spiritual minded civilisation) Indians had to adopt what suited Indians and was
good for India. He was of the view the Indian civilisation had been evolved by the Indian
people and reflected their unique and historically emerged swabhava.
Interestingly Gandhi was also not exactly in favour of going back to the exact
situation of ancient Vedic times as he believed every age had its own yug-dharma and the
task of Indians was only to take inspiration and guidance from the past but device a new
yug-dharma for the modern times.
He admitted that Indian civilisation had turned static, asleep and inert and the
arrival of the west had awakened us and we got access to the western scientific spirit of
inquiry but once that had happened he wanted Indians to then turn inwards and find out
what the central principles of India’s ancient and powerful self-sustaining civilisation was
and in the light of that looking at the circumstances and needs of modern times draw up a
well thought out plan of national regeneration. Gandhi believed India’s self-regeneration
was the most vital task because otherwise even if India gained political independence
from the British, it would not last and would be very fragile because we would be beset
by internal unrest and dissensions and external manipulations and aggressions. In fact he
believed Indians should not attain independence till the task of national regeneration was
substantially completed.
The Gandhian programme for national regeneration according to Bhikhu Parekh
was ‘highly complex and involved a cluster of inter-related strategies of which cultivating
the swadeshi spirit, satyagraha and the Constructive Programme were the most
important.’ Swadeshi was at the heart of Gandhian nationalism and it is important to
understand his understanding of it because even though its origins predated Gandhi’s
entry in the freedom struggle he had a greater impact in making it widely respected and
followed and of course he also redefined it. Bikhu Parekh explains Gandhi’s wide
meaning of swadeshi beautifully as follows and deserves to be quoted in full:
‘For Gandhi every man was born and grew up in a specific community with its
own distinct ways of life and thought evolved over a long period of time. The community

81
was not a mere collection of institutions and practices but an ordered and well knit whole
informed by a specific spirit and ethos. It provided its members with an organised
environment vital for their orderly growth, a ready network of supportive relationships, a
body of institutions and practices essential for structuring their otherwise chaotic selves, a
foci for sentiments and loyalties without which no moral life was possible and a rich
culture. In these and other ways it profoundly shaped their personalities, modes of
thought and feeling, deepest instincts and aspirations and their innermost being. Every
community in turn was inextricably bound up with a specific natural environment within
which it had grown up, which had cradled and nursed it and in the course of interacting
with which it had developed its distinctive customs, habits and ways of life and thought.
The natural environment was not external to it but integrated into its history and culture
and suffused with its collective memories, images, hopes and aspirations. As Gandhi put
it, a community’s culture or way of life constituted its soul or spirit and its natural habitat
its body. The two formed an indissoluble unity and inescapable basis of human existence.
…Gandhi used the term Swadesh to refer to this unity, swa meaning one’s own
and desh the total cultural and natural environment of which one was an inseparable part.
Desh was both a cultural and ecological unit and signified the traditional way of life
obtaining within a specific territorial unit. The territorial reference was as important as
the cultural. Desh did not mean a state or a polity for a way of life might not be organised
in such a manner; nor a mere piece of territory unless it was inhabited and culturally
appropriated by a community of men sharing a common way of life; nor a cultural group
unless it occupied a specific territorial unit and its cultural boundaries coincided with the
territorial. The castes, religious and cultures constituting the Indian mosaic were not
deshas; India, a civilisational cum territorial unit, uniting them all in terms of a common
way of life was. In classical Indian political thought every territorial unit distinguished by
a distinct way of life was called a desh and India was a desh composed of smaller deshas,
each a distinct cultural and ecological unit but united with the others by a shared
civilisation. Gandhi agreed except that he thought of the constituent units as pradeshas or
subordinate or quasi-deshas.
The swadeshi spirit which Gandhi variously translated as the community, national
or patriotic spirit or the sprit of nationality and sharply distinguished from nationalism,
basically referred to the way an individual related and responded to his desh. Since he
was profoundly shaped by and unintelligible outside it, he should accept the inescapable
fact that it was the necessary basis and context of his existence and that he owed his
humanity to it. He should show a basic existential loyalty and gratitude to it and accept
his share of the responsibility to preserve its integrity. He should recognise himself as an
heir to the countless generations of men and women whose efforts and sacrifices made it
what it is and cherish his heritage.’ (Source: Bhikhu Parekh, Gandhi’s Political
Philosophy, pp.56-57)
Prof. Judith Brown has commented that swadeshi was an essential part of
Gandhi’s spiritual philosophy of simplicity in material living, which in turn would make
it possible for Indians to rely on their essential strength. She comments: ‘An integral part
of Gandhi’s thinking on simplicity of living was the idea of swadeshi, literally meaning
‘belonging to one’s own country’. It was a politico-economic strategy which had been
employed against the British in India while Gandhi was in South Africa. But to him it had

82
a far deeper meaning than the mere boycott of British goods in as attempt to erode the
financial aspects of British interests in India. For Gandhi it was inextricably tied to the
values of simplicity and self-reliance, of limiting one’s wants, and of the worth of manual
labour.’ (Source: Judith M. Brown, Gandhi – Prisoner of Hope, pp.90-91, Oxford
University Press)
Writing in 1909 Gandhi wrote: ‘Swadeshi carries a great and profound meaning.
It does not mean merely the use of what is produced in one’s country….there is another
meaning implicit in it which is far greater and much more important. Swadeshi means
reliance on our own strength.’ (Source: Indian Opinion, 1909)
Satyagraha was an important part of Gandhi’s national regeneration campaign
and his main tool for political struggle – a method that he devised because he found it
most in tune with the Indian’s character but which has now indeed become internationally
famous and even in this country has undergone a strange sort of distorted revival at least
in popular art because of the popularising of what has come to be known as ‘Gandhigiri’
after the success of a Bollywood film where this term was first used. Gandhiji had
decided that from the spiritual point of view non-violence is sin and unacceptable but one
nevertheless had to find a way for standing up to the truth of exploitation whenever it
happened and struggle to stop it. What was his answer – his answer was what he called
satyagraha. He saw in the strategy of satyagraha many advantages but none of the
disadvantages of military training. It was free from blame of violence but required
courage all the same. It could be carried out at different levels (from simple protest
meetings to even sacrifice of life) and by different sections of the population (from
children to women even). Most importantly it relied for its success on the strength of
numbers, which India could provide in plenty owing to its huge population. Also it could
be withdrawn easily and rapidly once started and did not necessarily escalate into a
anything bloody involving death. It required a strange kind of courage based on the quite
obstinacy and tenacity of purpose, which Gandhi probably saw, as one of the main
characteristics of Indians, specially the rural masses. The satyagraha strategy had the
further advantage that it never need be declared to have failed once started. One could
always withdraw claiming partial success. As it did not involve a direct forceful challenge
to the government, it denied the latter the excuse to use indiscriminate and massive
violence that could frighten and prematurely kill a movement. Also if the government did
become violent, it lost good will and political mileage. On the other hand if it agreed to
the demands it meant the agitating masses gained a sense of success and power. Gandhi
called satyagraha the ‘trump-card’ and regarded it as particularly suited to India. Gandhi
himself had said that he never told the people involved that they were about to stage a
satyagraha, he simply led the protest and later told them later that they in fact had already
launched a satyagraha. Satyagraha was a fascinating example of the swadeshi spirit
because instead of condemning the lack of courage and some abstractly desirable
qualities of character in the Indian people, it accepted and built on those that they had in
plenty.
Another important element in Gandhi’s national regeneration idea was to carry
out what he called his Constructive Programme. He believed India needed to be built up
from the very bottom and only that would create the social, economic and ultimately
moral and spiritual revolution that in his idea of Indian nationhood has to be the priority

83
in contrast with other nations. He believed other nations may focus on other things but in
India the task was to preserve and manifest our spiritual genius. Gandhi identified
eighteen essential areas: Hindu-Muslim unity, removal of untouchability, a ban on
alcohol or prohibition, the promotion and use of khadi, development of village industries
and craft based education, equality for women, health education for promoting Indian
systems of medicine and the Indian way of healthy living, use of indigenous languages or
vernaculars, the adoption of a common national language for which his preference was
hindi, the promotion of what he called economic trusteeship, building up peasants and
workers organisations, integration of the tribal people into mainstream political and
economic life, a detailed code of conduct for students, helping lepers and beggars and
promoting respect for animals. In this entire list and how Gandhi proposed to go about
them the one major point to remember is that Gandhi would only accept and approve of
non-violent methods even if they weren’t practical or productive of concrete results in the
short term or a reasonable period of time. For instance, Gandhi was convinced
untouchability could be abolished by personal example and active promotion of the
cause. He was convinced a change of heart was all that was needed and a non-violent
persuasion without the least coercion, legal or otherwise, was only morally acceptable
and enough to get rid of even such horrible evils. Similarly with the problem of the rich-
poor divide and poverty and the continued economic exploitation by the upper classes
Gandhi was for promoting what he called ‘trusteeship’ or the notion among the rich that
they hold the wealth on behalf of the entire people and it was their duty to personally use
only the least bit of it and do the utmost for the poor. He was not convinced that they may
not want to give up their position of enjoyment of wealth for the public good just by
moral sermons and that there may be needed laws and a state directed, at least partial re-
distribution of property to eradicate poverty and the class system that perpetuated the
riches of some and the poverty of many. And the reason is all coercion, legal or
otherwise, was violent to him and not in tune with his principle of ahimsa. In fact that
was the stated reason of his for rejecting socialism and communism. He bluntly said:
‘What does communism mean in the last analysis? It means a classless society – an ideal
that is worth striving for. Only I part company with it when force is called to aid for
achieving it.’ (Source: Harijan, March 13, 1937) Again: ‘Our Socialism or Communism,
should be based on non-violence and on harmonious co-operation of labour and capital,
landlord and tenant.’ (Source: Amrita Bazar Patrika, August 3, 1934) Or: ‘Communism
of the Russian type, that is communism which is imposed on a people, would be
repugnant to India. If communism came without any violence, it would be welcome. For,
then, no property would be held by anybody except on behalf the people and for the
people. A millionaire may have his millions, but he will hold them for the people.’
(Source: Harijan, March 13, 1941) So Gandhi was ready to take the risk of having a
millionaire class many of whose members were financiers of the Congress and Gandhi’s
ashrams and hope that they will stop acting in their own self-interest and instead act in the
interests of the poor. Some Marxist commentators have suggested that for Gandhi the
priority was a controlled mass movement so that the ruling upper classes and their
advantageous positions were not threatened and the fact that he never suggested anything
very radical was the secret of success of the Gandhian Congress. Historian Sumit Sarkar
for instance has commented: ‘As a politician and not just a saint, Gandhi in practice
sometimes settled for less than complete non-violence (as when he campaigned for

84
military recruitment in 1918 in the hope of winning post-war political concessions), and
his repeated insistence that even violence was preferable to cowardly surrender to
injustice sometimes created delicate problems of interpretation. But historically much
more significant than his personal philosophy (full accepted only by a relatively small
group of disciples) was the way in which the resultant perspective of controlled mass
participation objectively fitted in with the interests and sentiments of socially-decisive
sections of the Indian people. Indian politicians before Gandhi, as we have seen, had
tended to oscillate between Moderate ‘mendicancy’ and individual terrorism basically
because of their social inhibitions about uncontrolled mass movements. The Gandhian
model would prove acceptable also to business, as well as to relatively better off or
locally dominant sections of the peasantry, all of whom stood to lose something if
political struggle turned into uninhibited and violent social revolution. In more general
terms, as we shall see, the doctrine of ahimsa lay at the heart of the essentially unifying,
‘umbrella-type’ role assumed by Gandhi and the Gandhian Congress, mediating internal
social conflicts, contributing greatly to joint national struggle against foreign rule, but
also leading to periodic retreats and some major reverses.’ (Source: Sumit Sarkar,
Modern India 1885-1947, pp.179-80) Bhikhu Parekh has disagreed with Marxist
commentators that Gandhi was a mascot or spokesman of the capitalist class and has
commented Gandhi did agree eventually to use state power, on a suggestion from a group
of socialists led by Prof. Dantwala, in a manner that he would have generally regarded as
immoral and violent in what must be seen as an evolution of his thoughts. He has pointed
out how Gandhi eventually agreed to impose if necessary trusteeship by law, a very high
level of taxation to what was prevailing in his time and even a nationalising of vital
industries. (Source: Bhikhu Parekh, Gandhi’s Political Philosophy, p. 140) In general on
the nationalist relevance of the Constructive Program he has rightly commented:
‘Although several items in the Constructive Program had only a limited practical impact,
its symbolic and pedagogical value was considerable. First, for the first time during the
struggle for independence, Indians were provided with a clear, albeit limited, statement of
social and economic objectives. Second, they were specific and within the range of every
one of them. In a country long accustomed to finding plausible alibis for inaction,
Gandhi’s highly practical programme had the great merit of ruling out all excuses. Third,
his constant emphasis on it reminded the country that political independence had no
meaning without comprehensive national regeneration, and that all political power was
ultimately derived from a united and disciplined people. Finally, the Constructive
Programme enabled Gandhi to build up a dedicated group of grass roots workers capable
of mobilising the masses…As Gandhi understood them satyagraha was primarily
concerned with the moral and political, and the Constructive Programme with the social
and economic regeneration of India, and the swadeshi spirit was the overarching principle
inspiring and guiding them.’ (Source: Bhikhu Parekh, Gandhi’s Political Philosophy, p.
63)
Swami Vivekananda had coined a term Seva Yoga to suggest that for the times
that they lived in a state of degeneration and imperialist enslavement, apart from the other
four paths of spiritual practice for attaining enlightenment or moksha, that is the paths of
Bhaki, Raja and Gyana Yoga, the most relevant path was national service of the people of
India. Gandhi seems to have developed a similar mindset and philosophy. He observed
for instance:

85
‘Yajna, dana, tapas are obligatory duties, but that does not mean that the manner of
performing them in this age should be the same as in ancient times. Yajna, dana etc are
permanent principles. The social practices and the concrete forms through which they are
put into practice may change from age to age and country to country. The right gift which
a seeker of moksha in this country and this age may make is to dedicate his all, body,
intellect and possessions, to the service of the country. And, likewise, the right tapas for
this country and this age consists in burning with agony at the suffering of countless
untouchables and others who are starving for want of food or because of famines. Anyone
who performs these three important duties certainly becomes purified and he may even
have a vision of God’s cosmic form which Arjun had.’ (Source: Raghavan Iyer, The
Moral and Political Writings of Mahatma Gandhi, Oxford: Claredon Press, 1987, vol.I ,
p.88)
Further that:
‘Every age is known to have its predominant mode of spiritual effort best suited
for the attainment of moksha. Whenever the religious spirit is on the decline, it is revived
through such an effort in tune with the times. In this age our degradation reveals itself
through our political condition….Gokhale not only perceived this right at the beginning
of his public life but also followed the principle in action. Everyone had realised that
popular awakening could be brought about only through political activity. If such activity
was spiritualised, it could show the path of moksha.
In this age, only political sannyasis can fulfil and adorn the ideal of sannyasa;
others will more likely than not disgrace the sanyasi’s saffron garb. No Indian who
aspires to follow the way of true religion can afford to remain aloof from politics. In other
words, one who aspires to a truly religious life cannot fail to undertake public service as
his mission, and we are today so much caught up in the political machine that service of
the people is impossible without taking part in politics. In olden days, our peasants,
though ignorant of who ruled them, led their simple lives free from fear; they can no
longer afford to be so unconcerned. In the circumstances that obtain today, in following
the path of religion they must take into account the political conditions. If our sadhus,
rishis, munis, maulvis and priests realised the truth of this, we would have a Servants of
India Society in every village, the spirit of religion would come to prevail all over India,
the political system which has become odious would reform itself.’ (Source: Ibid.,
vol.II,p p.137f) He had therefore remarked it seems: ‘That is why my devotion to truth
has drawn me into the field of politics; and I can say without the slightest hesitation, and
yet in all humility, that those who say that religion has nothing to do with politics do not
know what religion means.’ (Gandhi, An Autobiography, p. 420)
Gandhi did more than anybody else to create and make popular the idea of an
Indian nation. Unlike western notions of nation that is a homogenous and self-conscious
ethnic and cultural or ethno-cultural unit, Gandhi fashioned an idea of a nation that was a
synthesis of many cultures and religious faiths based on an appeal to the need for
preserving the integrity of the way of life and culture of the Indian village. He argued the
Indian village was very flexible in understanding and adopting influences from other
cultures and had done so for thousands of years and had a traditional and sustainable way
of life close to nature that they must hold on to at all cost. The genius of Gandhi was that
he managed to convey in his own way this understanding of the Indian nation and his

86
passionate nationalism to the poor and illiterate masses even. Prof. Judith Brown has
concluded well when she writes:
‘Gandhi was an ingenious and sensitive artist in symbols. In his own person as a
self-denying holy man, by his speeches full of pictorial images and references to the great
Hindu myths, by his emphasis on the charkha and on the wearing of khadi as a uniform to
obliterate distinctions of region and caste, he portrayed and publicized in a world with
few mass communications and low literacy, an ideal of an Indian nation which was
accessible even to the poor ad un-politicised. For many, at least for a time, the ideal of the
nation and a sense of national identity were lifted out of the rough and often sordid world
of politics, although the inevitable struggles and intrigues accompanying any shifts of
power in a complex polity jostled uneasily with the vision of nationhood and often
threatened to engulf it. A new nation had to be fashioned out of the numerous loyalties
and contests for dominance, which were the stuff of Indian politics. Gandhi knew this full
well as he agonized over political strategies, as he attempted to minimize conflict among
Indians and generate a moral community which encompassed and purified old loyalties.’
(Source: Judith M. Brown, Gandhi – Prisoner of Hope, p. 386, Oxford University Press)
7.4 EXERCISE
1. Explain the Gandhian idea of the Indian nation?

87
 8. COMMUNAL UNITY
Prashant Barthwal1
Dr. Shashikant2
8.1 INTRODUCTION
Gandhi is unquestionably one of the most important personalities and public characters in
the history of Modern Indian Political Thought, and he deserves to be recognised as such.
Notably, the Gandhian era is a historical occurrence. “The history of modern India cannot
be understood without his public career,” as stated. Following World WarI, he emerged
as a major political figure in India. Gandhi was a complex and multi-faceted personality.
He was able to integrate not just the dual roles of saint and active politician, but also the
role of social reformer, all in one person. As a saint, he wished to bring about "moral
regeneration," notably in India and the rest of the world at large. Using his political
acumen, he led "the newest force of India's millions" toward the goal of India's
independence from British rule, which was achieved in 1947. He was deeply concerned
about the emancipation of the country from the myriad socio-economic ills that afflicted
Indian society and corrupted its very life and soul, and he worked tirelessly toward that
end.
With his leadership, the movement for India's independence from the British yoke took
on a new direction and became invincible by incorporating the Indian masses at large,
who had previously stayed detached from the cause. Among his many accomplishments
is his presentation to the people of India of "a novel technique of revolution with which to
weaken the power of the British Raj." Gandhi, who was born on the 2nd October 1869, is
descended from the Baniya family. Originally grocers, the Gandhi family had served in
the administrative services of several Kathiawad states in Gujarat for three consecutive
generations until 1907. He fought the battle with constitutional means, but was ultimately
defeated. As a result, he turned to passive opposition to achieve his objectives in the
following years. Gandhi was successful in arousing animosity among South African
Indians and igniting international outrage by employing the tactic of passive resistance. In
the end, he was successful in convincing the African government to accept their terms. As
a result, Gandhi's ascension to the top of Indian politics signalled the beginning of a new
era in the country's independence struggle.
Gandhi, in contrast to earlier Indian political leaders, did not mature through experience
of public life in his home country, but rather in a distant land, where he created the
spiritual and political foundations of his public career”. In Gandhi's estimation, “religion's
central tenet is belief in one God. This does not mean, however, that religions in the
world are equal. Despite the many disparities across religions, there is a basic oneness
among all religions, and this has to be discovered. A master key is required for this. The
spiritual rule is reflected in day-to-day activities. So, serving man is serving God. To him,
“religion is life and God is living strength. A faith-based morality supports all our
operations. His objective was to humanise and moralise dharma. Dharma and morality are
inseparable. Separating them is impossible. Thus, Gandhi denies any religious teaching

1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Political Science, Sri Aurobindo College (M), University of Delhi.
2
He is an Independent Researcher (Delhi Based). Kantshashi076@gmail.com

88
that isn't linked to morality. God is Truth, love, ethics, and morality. If one's heart is
polluted, then one cannot realise God. No one can avoid practising ethical life. Morality
is required for spiritual purification. Gandhi’s view of religion has no bearing on
morality”1.
Gandhi, while staunchly Hindu, remained open-minded. He just strengthened his views,
and enabled him to be a better Hindu. Sentiments towards other religions confirm this
(other than Hinduism). He never resisted “to condemn any religion, whether it be
Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, or Judaism. He believed that “untouchability” was a
scourge on humanity. He went as far as dubbing the untouchables (dalits) as “Harijans” –
“Men of God”. He removed his sacred thread since it meant nothing to him if it was not
allowed to Harijans. ‘Jihad' in Islam, he did not see of it as a ‘physical' holy war but a
spiritual factor like his constant belief in ‘Satyagraha', a non-violent struggle and a war
within himself where good must be triumphant over evil”2. However, in the quest for
universality, he asserted that all religions had the common platform, which is God. He
went all the way to saying that the religions with a divine origin like the Vedas, the
Quran, the Ten Commandments, or the Bible all state the truth. No doubt, though, the
medium through which they are revealed (i.e., human beings) are questionable, because
humans are finite and cannot present us with everything”3. No religion can be considered
Universal. A dialectic may find the best in all religions and be accepted.
8.2 GANDHI’S VISION ON ‘COMMUNAL UNITY’
Almost all the key political actors of the Indian Independence movement were profoundly
worried over the subject of the communal harmony, i.e., Hindu-Muslim unity. But in the
history of Modern India, Gandhi was the greatest defender of Communal peace, as he not
only worked throughout his life for the re-establishment of communal harmony but also
devoted his life in its pursuit. He championed the Hindu-Muslim cause even before he
joined the Indian National Congress. He, ever since his youth, had a wish to see the
disparities between the Hindus and the Muslim eliminated. The sense of social harmony
is an essential component of my existence. It was so when Khadi and all village
enterprises were not even conceptualised; at the same time, the communal unity was
owned by him”. However, he never had an opportunity to preach the gospel of Hindu-
Muslim harmony prior to his arrival in public life in Africa.
The rise of Gandhi on the Indian political scene ushered in a new era in the history of the
problem of communal unity. With his universalist religious ideology, he refused to
recognise that the religious distinctions of the Hindus and the Muslims rendered them two
separate nations which could not be united on issues fundamental to their socio-political
life in India. He believed that harmony between the Hindus and the Muslims was
necessary not only from the religious point of view. Gandhi looked at the communal
problem in the capacity of a socio-religious reformer as well as a clever politician. That is
why he underlined or possibly the importance of the Hindu-Muslim union on religious as
well as political grounds.

1
Ibid.
2
Ibid.
3
S. S. Gupta and Neeta Sengupta, A Man Called Bapu, Pratham Prakashan, 2007, p. 156.

89
For Gandhi, faith in religion was crucial to life. Education that does not include a study of
religions is incomplete according to Gandhi. Religion, in all of its various manifestations,
is an important part of human culture and civilisation. For Gandhi, studying religions was
more than an academic pursuit; it was a question of life and death. To him, religion and
faith meant religion and faith. In modern times, it is needed more than ever before. He
was saddened that he could not learn about faiths in his youth. The standard definition of
‘God' involves all the standard metaphysical traits like omnipotence, omnipresence,
omniscience, benevolence, Absolute, Eternal, Infinite, and only one personality. Gandhi's
understanding of God and religion was oriental. Religion's root is unchanging, yet the
religious construction of individuals fluctuates. Various practises sustain this
superstructure. In Gandhi's opinion, the many rites are unimportant. For him, “God” is the
unifying belief shared by religions from all throughout the world. His understanding of
religion (‘dharma' in Sanskrit) is made up mostly of materialistic practises. Gandhi never
admitted any one religion, but “one God” paved the way for the worldwide acceptance of
religion”1.
Ritual distinctions are inconsequential, but the variations of stories are crucial because
these stories are directly connected to their traditions. In times of need, people tend to
look to the stories in their life as a solution to their issues. It is now up to Gandhi at this
point. There are numerous versions of stories and complex ceremonies that go along with
them. For instance: “Ibrahim's heroic faith is tested when he is ordered by Allah to
sacrifice his son. When he is about to sacrifice his son, Allah turns him into a goat. Bakr-
id is celebrated by sacrificing a goat for the occasion. This event of Islam will not sit well
with Jainism and Buddhism, as the two atheistic religions have no concept of God as
Creator-God. Divinity is believed in everyone. The only religion is silent"2. A weak man
uses language that he can effectively use, and it is easily understood by his peers. Hence,
tolerance is necessary since without it, there can be no genuine trust in one's own religion.
Economics, politics, and social issues were all features of Gandhi's character, but there
was also this holy zeal in it. His thirst for truth caused this. His autobiography, "The
Stories of My Experiments with Truth," also includes Gandhi's pursuit for Truth. For him,
“the truth” is nothing more than “God.” This is how he understands “Ahimsa” – “non-
violence”3. He adopted this view due to his extraordinary life and cause. Gandhi's
essential politico-social-economic ideologies, the first and foremost, are the ideas of
Satyagraha (nonviolent resistance, fighting for truth with peace and insistence on truth),
his concept of Civil Disobedience and Non-co-operation, his “ideal State concept,
Rāmarājya (the State governed by the rules of Lord Rāma, who placed duties and
priorities on duties, and was also a king, son, husband, father, and etc.), and Home Rule.
All of these principles stem from religion, especially Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, and
Christianity. His vision of the Bhagavad Gita notion of Nishkāmakarma (responsibility
for duty's sake, renunciation in action), Jainism's emphasis on non-violence, and
Buddhism's essential ideology of non-violence and compassion deeply influenced him”4.
These tenets provided all of his political, social, and economic changes. Gandhi

1
M V Nadkarni, Hinduism – A Gandhian Perspective, 2006, p. XVI
2
Ibid.
3
M K Gandhi, My Experiments with the Truth, Navjivan Trust, 1927 (reprint 2005), Introduction.
4
M K Gandhi, In the search of the Supreme, Vol. III, Bombay, 1968, p. XVII

90
introduced concepts of trusteeship based on Judo-Christian and Islamic philosophy. As a
study on Gandhi's beliefs on “Satyagraha and Non-violence being associated with
Hinduism, we might quote the following from M. V. Nadkarni: However, for him,
seeking truth was almost religious. Hinduism was a quest for truth for him. Since it was
outside of his religion, he didn't object to people practising religious ceremonies provided
they were peaceful”1. Nonviolence was an integral part of truth-seeking. It didn't need
any ceremony. In the process of finding truth, a bhakti-based hymn, such as a bhajan,
may or may not be sung without bias.
According to Gandhi, two influences are at work, one - the invisible force, and another –
the human endeavour (renunciation in action). Gandhi stated of the Gītā's influence on his
life: “The Gītā has helped me far more than the Sermon on the Mount. I return to the
Bhagavad Gita whenever I feel disappointment staring me in the face and all alone. I
always begin to smile whenever I find a verse in the Bhagavad Gita. The Bhagavad Gita
is a discourse between Shri Krishna and his disciple and close friend Arjuna, while
Arjuna is sad in the battlefield of Kurukshetra, because he cannot fight his own people
and is against shedding any blood. Then, Shri Krishna reminds him of his obligations as a
warrior. Gita holds that all three routes are equally significant in life — karma-yoga (the
road of action), Jñāna Yoga (the path of knowledge) and Bhakti yoga (the path of
devotion)”2. Approach matters in multiple ways. All three pathways have been
synthesised and reconciled. Similarly, Gandhi does not segregate many aspects of human
life, such religion, politics, economics, and society. They stay separate roads of
spirituality. Gandhi believed in a spiritual continuum throughout all aspects of human
life.
Gandhi argued that the tree has a single trunk and a myriad of branches and leaves.
Religion is the belief in and worship of gods and goddesses. The only real religion is
transcendent and human beings apply concepts and narratives differently. Gandhi
attempts to look for “a common trait in religion. therefore, he conceived of Sarva-
Dharma-Samabhava. His definition of Sarva-Dharma-Samabhava is almost the same as
Swami Vivekananda's religion and Tagore's. Gandhi's devotion to Hinduism is rather
extraordinary. Nonetheless, he regarded himself as a Hindu, a Sanatana Hindu. He has a
distinctive affinity for Hinduism. Somehow, I just can't quite put into words the way I
feel about Hinduism, yet there is an indissoluble tie between myself and it. I am a total
reformer. He declares, “Hinduism is the Ganges, pure and undefiled”3. The Hindu way of
thought is what has influenced Gandhi and has leads him to treat other religions with
respect and dignity. It is Hindu tradition that has produced a flexible belief in the
existence of only one supreme being. Hinduism supported Gandhi's strong moral and
spiritual foundation and ample openness and rational worldview.
Religion for Gandhi is factual. Spiritual realisation, social growth, and freedom are the
three aspects of religion. Morality is the tool. For Gandhi, “means and ends are equivalent
terms. Men can control the means, but not the outcome. A polluted finish produces
polluted results. Gandhi's concept of karma was one of equal results arising from equal

1
Ibid., p. 13.
2
Ibid., p. 202.
3
Unto Tahtinen, The Core of Gandhian Philosophy, Abhinav Prakashan, 1980, p. 202.

91
causes"1. If you provide the means, the goal will take care of itself." Ahimsa is the
highest virtue. Truth is attained via nonviolence.
Gandhi used the term religion and dharma in the same context. Dharma is derived from
the Sanskrit word “dhri”, which meaning tie together. Dharma is, therefore, the “all-
encompassing power which keeps the universe together. Gandhi argues that religion is a
principle of brotherhood. In Gandhi’s conception religion is also the law, the dharma
which maintains the universe. However, he was vehemently opposed to an unsupported
faith. Respect and reverence are encouraged, as all religions have a part of Truth.
Gandhi's colleagues were united by many religions and beliefs”2. In India, Gandhi
committed his entire life to Hindu-Muslim unity. Religion, for Gandhi, is indifferent to
human activities. He knows something heavenly is nearby. God is similar to a mountain.
We must go to the mountain, no matter which path we take. What it reflects is that the
God of Christianity, Hindus, and Islam is the same entity. God has many names. Despite
this, there are different terms to refer to the Absolute's power. instead, they are hinged
qualities Humanity explains God by providing qualities. God has no limitations. In the
context of religious pluralism, “secularism is a means of creating a national political
community, and also helps to generate new common social goals. Gandhi's movement for
independence was non-religious.
Lord Bhikhu Parekh considers three current issues in society: “religious conversation,
interreligious dialogue, and discussion on conflicts between religious groups with
complicated roots, for example, political or commercial interests. This needs to be
addressed. Very few have sought to address these issues because it will have disastrous
effects. Gandhi was only one of those individuals who tried, began a discourse, and
settled complex issues. Gandhi based his judgments on reasoning and experience, as
Bhikhu Parekh has stated. Some types of experiences, such as those which are
unreproducible and untestable, are out of reach for some people”3. Gandhi holds that we
have no other alternative but to make a leap of faith in these instances. Faith easily opens
the door to doubtful belief; thus, it is rational, not blind. Faith, unlike science, does not
contradict or go against reason and experience. It is “allowed” or “permitted” by them,
and continues to be governed by them. According to Gandhi, people also have faith in
God. This resembles Kierkegaard's ‘leap of faith'; and Gandhi is making an attempt for
possible conversation and inter-religious tolerance. It's problematic when one sets their
own religious worldview. Many contemporary problems could be solved by a paradigm
shift from religion to God. Gandhi's religious philosophy works to shift the focus from
conflict to possible dialogue. So, Gandhi was a “religious reformer”4. He strives to
cleanse religion of anti-rational and unethical aspects. He thinks religion is focused on
directing people toward the spiritual path and morality. As a result, he hoped “to produce
a religion that didn't be purged of ideas, but one that was cleansed of orthodoxies and
drawn from around the world. This could end the current crisis. Gandhi believed it is as
vital to tolerate a religion as it is to respect other religions”5. I've concluded over time that
all religions are true, but all contain error and, while I hold to my own, I love everyone as
1
Ibid.
2
Ibid.
3
Bhikhu Parekh, Gandhi and Inter-Religious Dialogue, in Douglas Allen (ed.), Op. Cit., p. 44.
4
Ibid.
5
Ibid.,

92
much as I love Hinduism, not that a Christian should convert to Hinduism. But our
deepest desire should be to be a better Hindu, a better Muslim, or a better Christian.
Gandhi, as we know, himself, was a very religious man; but he did not feel that the God
of the Muslims is different from the God of the Hindus. According to him, “man’s
ultimate objective is the realisation of God and all his activities, social, political, religious
have to be led by the ultimate aim of the vision of the God”. Thus, for Gandhi, there is
only one God who may be called by different names by individuals belonging to different
religion. He felt that faiths are different roads that all lead to the same destination, which
is the realisation of God's presence. “It makes no difference if people take various roads
to go to the same destination,” says the author. Because of this, it is pointless to argue
about theological differences among human beings in order to resolve them. The concept
that God is perfect oneness inspired Gandhi to advocate for the fellowship of faiths and
universal fraternity. He also believed that religious distinction should not stand in the way
of their shared identity.
8.3 RELATION OF COMMUNALISM & INDIAN POLITICS- A GANDHIAN APPROACH
The nature of the traditional concept of communalism and the nature of the modern
community problems are diametrically opposed. Previously, collective consciousness and
staying away from other people's religions were considered to be communalism.
However, the communalism that prevails in today's society is not of that passive
character, and it possesses a significant degree of animosity toward the other members of
the community. Mahatma Gandhi was acutely aware of the danger he was in. In his
words, "virulent communalism of the most extreme kind is a relatively new
development."1 The lawlessness is a monster with many different personalities. At the
end of the day, it damages everyone, including those who are principally responsible.
Mahatma Gandhi was well aware of the importance of bringing together religious groups
that were at odds with one another. With the rise of religious hatred between Hinduism
and Islam in a multireligious country like India, the threat to national unity has grown at
the expense of national unity. In Gandhi's opinion, divisive thoughts are pointless and
silly since they serve no purpose. “The Hindu believes that by quarrelling with the
Mussalman, he is advancing Hinduism, and the Mussalman believes that by fighting a
Hindu, he is advancing Islam. Each, on the other hand, is destroying his faith.2” He put up
a great deal of effort to inform the public about this reality because he was convinced that
once people saw the futility of fighting in the name of religion, communal violence would
be eliminated.
Gandhi said that true religion should be practised in order to keep oneself away from the
filth of communalism. Religion does neither instil hatred or encourage the retention of ill
will. All of the world's religions embrace the concept of love and peace as their central
message. When it comes to authentic religious doctrine, it boils down to this: one should
serve and befriend everyone. “It is simple to be nice to one's friends. True religion, on the
other hand, consists in becoming friends with someone who considers himself to be your
adversary. The other is only a matter of business.3” Gandhi saw the significance of

1
Gandhi, My experiments with the Truth, p. 341
2
Ibid.
3
U R Rao, The Way to Communal Harmony, 1994, p. 12.

93
community peace in India not just from a religious standpoint, but he was also convinced
of the necessity of communal harmony in the socio-political domain. According to
Gandhi, the need for solidarity among individuals of different religious beliefs was an
unavoidable aspect in the process of national unification. He believed that the mutual
distrust between Hindus and Mussalmans would only serve to benefit the British. He
believed that unless the two communities come together, no struggle against British
authority in India would be successful. Gandhi is of the opinion that the British
exacerbated communal strife in India in order to maintain their control over the country
during the British colonial period. The British were convinced that the unity among
Hindus and Muslims would make it difficult for them to sustain rule in their colonies and
colonies. “The only way they can maintain control over India is through a policy of
divide and rule. The existence of a living unity between Hindus and Muslims poses a
serious threat to their control. It would effectively put a stop to it.1”
To bring the two communities together, Gandhi made it his life's purpose to do so. He
expresses himself succinctly, stating, "There are two things to which I am committing my
life–permanent unification between Hindus and Muhammadans, and the practise of
satyagraha. Gandhi's statements serve to further solidify his resolute decision. He was
willing to lay down his life in the pursuit of bringing Hindus and Muslims together. I am
attempting to become the best cement between the two groups; my ambition is to use my
blood to cement the two together. Gandhi had clear remedies for every problem that
existed in the community”2. He observed many similarities between Hindus and
Mussalmans and concluded that there was nothing to be gained by living in hatred
between them. It was the advocate of communal unity, who had committed his life to it,
who had a solution for any question thrown to him concerning communal peace.
In India, conflicts between people should be viewed as conflicts between citizens of the
country. If two parties, one Hindu and the other Muslim, are at odds over a particular
subject, they should be regarded as two Indians at odds with each other. Attempting to
elevate such disagreements to the level of a religious matter is incompatible with the
spirit of social harmony. “When a Hindu or a Mussalman commits evil, it is evil
committed by an Indian against an Indian, and each of us must personally share the blame
and work to put an end to the evil. There is no other way to understand the concept of
togetherness... And in this sense, we are first and foremost Indians, followed by Hindus,
Muslims, Parsis, and Christians.3” Gandhi elevated the principle of national unity above
all other differences in the country. He considered “nationalism to be far more important
than sectarianism. It would be possible to create an atmosphere of communal
togetherness by upholding the Nationalist spirit and rejecting divisive notions. The
intrinsic essence of communalism is the prioritisation of religious identity over all other
identities, as well as the recognition of religion as the primary element in determining
social interactions. In light of the fact that communal forces use religion as a catalyst to
promote communal antagonism, it is vital to have a clear and distinct vision of religion in
order to comprehend the Gandhian ideals of communal harmony”4.

1
M K Gandhi, The Harijan, Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, 1942, p. 234.
2
Ibid.
3
Bhikhu Parekh, Op. Cit., p. 48.
4
R. Duncan, Op. Cit., p. 134.

94
8.4 MAHATMA GANDHI- THE ‘POLITICAL’ SAINT
A politician among saints, Gandhi was referred to be a "saint among politicians" and "a
politician among saints.1" He distinguished himself from other political leaders of the day
by upholding moral principles and introducing religious beliefs into the political arena.
Recognizing the ineffectiveness of violent measures un the struggle for independence, he
called for the people to behave non-violently in order to resist oppression and exploitation
in their daily lives. When Gandhi arrived in India, the political and social milieu had
become somewhat split on the basis of religion, owing to his two decades of social
activity in his native South Africa. Rather than attempting to eradicate religions from the
political arena in order to bring about a resolution to the community problem, he
attempted to spiritualize politics and, as a result, purify the political landscape. He was
unsuccessful. Gandhi's approach to the problem of communalism in India was based on
the notion that it was a relatively recent phenomenon. He was not a believer in the
premise that the communities in India had been fighting one other since the beginning of
Islam's conquests of the country. Tradition had claimed that there was no hostility
existing between the two groups. Gandhi was adamant in his opposition to the idea of
inborn animosity between the two communities. While acknowledging the fighting that
has occurred in the past and the strained relations that exist for the time being, both
communities have stopped fighting and have lived in peace for a long period of time.
“The Hindus prospered under Muslim sovereigns, and the Muslims prospered under
Muslim sovereigns. Each party realised that fighting with one another was suicidal.... As
a result, both parties have agreed to coexist peacefully. Conflicts re-emerged after the
arrival of the English.2” The British doctrine of divide and rule was successfully
implemented in Indian society through cunning means. According to him, there is nothing
in either Hinduism or Islam that separates the two religions from one another. On the
basis of his observations, he correctly identified the motivations of the British and some
political aspirants behind the conflict between the two religions. Gandhi was adamant
about the significance of unity between Hindus and Muslims, and he advocated for it
vigorously. Instead than urging people to separate their religious views from their
political ideas, he preached the principles of many religious systems in order to educate
them about the folly of maintaining religious animosity. He was certain on the fact that
"religion is not for alienating men from one another; rather, religion is supposed to unite
them.3" It is a tragedy that they have grown perverted to the point where they are a
powerful source of conflict and mutual slaughter.4”
For the purpose of distancing the general public from the continued practise of communal
politics, Gandhi called for the spiritualization of political discourse and action. The
shadow of political communalism must be cast aside in order for there to be a living unity
among the religions. The strategy called for the integration of religious ideals into the
area of politics as well as the purification of individuals via the actual practise of religion.
As a result of his convictions concerning religious malpractices that contribute to the
emergence of communal difficulties, he insisted on conducting political work in

1
Ibid., p. 211.
2
U R Rao, Op. Cit., p. 212.
3
V T Patel, New Dimensions and Perspective in Gandhism, p. 172.
4
Ibid.

95
accordance with religious ethics. “Politics that is devoid of religious values is pure filth
that should be avoided at all costs,1” he declared. Politics is concerned with nations, and
anything which is concerned with the welfare of nations must be one of the most
important concerns, second only to God and truth.2” Religion and politics are inextricably
linked and cannot be separated. Every activity taken by an individual should be guided by
religious principles. A man cannot be religious in his personal life while also being
irreligious in politics and social activity, because this is impossible. Gandhi emphasised
the concept, saying, "I do not consider religion to be one of the countless activities
undertaken by men... Because of this, I am unable to separate myself from politics and
religious beliefs. What I regard to be my religion governs every aspect of my life,
including my activities. Gandhi, in response to a question about the significance of
spiritualizing political life, stated unequivocally that political life must be an echo of
private life and that there can be no separation between the two3”. According to some,
Gandhi's religion might be described as ethical spiritualism.
According to him, any religion that did not have a moral base was no longer a religion.
Moral laws, in his opinion, should regulate the actions of all men in all situations.
Religion, according to Gandhi, "is a conviction in the existence of an ordered moral
government of the universe.4" It was as though religion and morality were two different
sides of the same coin. Gandhi believed that spiritualization of politics was vital for the
preservation of morality in politics and the promotion of fair play in politics. He hoped to
eradicate the dirt and purify the wide expanse of politics through this process, and he
hoped to do so in order to prevent the communalization of politics from taking place.
Gandhi combined politics with religion in a way that was both balanced and effective.
After rejecting all of the previous religious dogmas and demonstrating nonviolent love
and tolerance as the actual religion of nonviolence, Gandhi was able to create a new
culture of political work. “Politics cannot exist without religion, and I do not mean the
religion of the superstitious and the blind, nor the religion of hatred and combat, but the
world religion of tolerance. Politics without morals is a dangerous thing to engage in.5” If
a person's political life is out of balance with his or her religious values, it cannot be
described as a pure life lived in the service of the public. A true religious guy is unable to
keep religion separate from politics. Because being religious means being bound to God,
which means that God regulates your every breath, every activity of a man of religion
must be derived from his faith.
8.5 DEMYSTIFYING THE NOTION OF MODERN RELIGION- GANDHIAN
APPROACH
Gandhi wished to demonstrate to the world that religion is not a distinct entity from any
other aspect of one's life. It should permeate all aspects of one's life. There were no
exceptions in the world of politics. His explanation of the concept of religion expands the
concept even further: "You must observe my life, how I eat, sit, chat, and behave in

1
U. R. Rao, Op. Cit., p. 190.
2
Ibid.
3
V. T. Patel, Op. Cit., p. 90.
4
M K Gandhi, Harijan, p. 123, & Young India, p. 89.
5
Narain Desai, My Gandhi, 1999, p. 15.

96
general to understand it." All of these things combined make up my religion.1”. Gandhi
has been hailed as the world's greatest proponent of religious tolerance. He came to
believe in the equality of all religions far earlier in his life than most others. Starting from
a young age, Gandhi made an attempt to discover the true meaning of all religions around
the world. There are problems in society when people believe in the superiority of their
own faith while believing in the inferiority of others. Gandhi was well aware of this fact,
and he devoted his life to spreading the principle of religious equality among all people.
The possibility of communal animosity diminishing in a nation where all members of the
community have equal freedom and tolerance towards one another is a possibility. Rather
than expecting India of my dreams to establish a single religion, such as being completely
Hindu or wholly Christian or wholly Muslim, I want it to be wholly accepting of all
religions, with all religions coexisting peacefully beside one another.2” He believed the
adoption of this mindset to be a crucial need for the character of "Swaraj." The presence
of communal enmity or any other form of divisiveness in the country posed a barrier to
Swaraj's success. The attitude of distrust toward each other's faith is the root cause of the
communal discord, according to the researchers. The equality of faith, he explained to the
people in his speech "Hind Swaraj," saying that religions are diverse paths that all go to
the same place. So what if we travel down various paths to get to the same destination?
We should not let our reverence for other faiths obscure our ability to see their flaws. We
must be acutely aware of the flaws in our own faith as well, but we must not abandon it
because of these flaws; rather, we must strive to overcome them. In the face of a
blindfolded examination of all religions on an equal basis, not only would we be hesitant
but we would believe it was our responsibility to incorporate into our faith every
acceptable element of other faiths.3”
The Gandhian principle of tolerance towards religions is a dynamic bondage of faiths,
rather than a passive condition of not damaging the other faith, as is commonly
understood. Every religion should be recognised for its flaws, but it should also be
remembered that each individual believes that their faith is sufficient for their purposes.
“There is no such thing as a perfect faith. All religions hold the same value in the eyes of
their adherents in equal measure. Rather than a confrontation between the adherents of
the world's great religions in a pointless attempt by each community to demonstrate the
superiority of its faith over the others, what is desired is a living, pleasant communication
between them.4”
Throughout his life, Gandhi felt that all religions contain the essence of truth, and that
comprehending the essence of every religion gives substance to the term "toleration."
Gandhi made it clear that he did not agree with the term "toleration" when it was used in
connection with the treatment of people of other religions. To put it another way,
“tolerance may mean a gratuitous assumption of the inferiority of other beliefs to one's
own, but Ahimsa teaches us to entertain the same regard for the religious faiths of others
as we do for our own, thereby acknowledging that the latter is imperfect.5” Every religion
presented the same truth, albeit through a different medium than the other religions.
1
Ibid, p. 40.
2
Ibid.
3
Anil Dutta Mishra, Op. Cit., p. 250.
4
Ibid.
5
Raghavan Iyer, The Essential Writings of Mahatma Gandhi, 1991, p. 159.

97
Irrespective of the media used, it is believed that the realisation of the truth is essential.
When we talk about tolerance, we don't just mean tolerating the neighbouring religious
faith; rather, we mean tolerating different religious beliefs with reverence and respect for
their moral precepts, which makes tolerance a beneficial thing. Religious enmity is fueled
by a misunderstanding of others' beliefs and a perception of them as inferior to their own.
"All of the major religions are equal in my opinion in the sense that they are all truthful,1"
Gandhi writes. These individuals are filling a perceived need in the spiritual advancement
of humanity.
According to Gandhi, the notion of sarvadharmasamabhava refers to a good condition of
toleration for other religions, which is akin to loving and respecting them on some levels.
Religion as understood by men is also a flawed concept since men are flawed beings with
flaws. Thus, any attempt to draw comparisons between the religions should be avoided at
all costs. As long as everyone considers his or her own religion to be more important to
him or her than one's own country, there is nothing wrong with considering one's own
religion to be good. It's the same as if one were to consider his mother, who he adores.
This act of adoring one's mother does not imply that one should despise the mother of
another. Meanwhile, refusing to acknowledge the importance of another's mother and
treating her with disrespect does not elevate the status of one's own mother. Equal respect
for all religions creates a state of communal harmony, and it is considered the
responsibility of every religious man to uphold this principle. “True understanding of
religions helps to break down the barriers that exist between people of different faiths. It
is through the cultivation of tolerance for other faiths that we will gain a meaningful
understanding of our own.2” Gandhi emphasised the importance of spreading the spirit of
sarvadharmasamabhava across the world. If the positive and creative side of Gandhi's
notion of toleration, sarvadharmasamabhava, is understood and accepted by the Indian
people in its exact meaning, it has the potential to become the only solution to the
country's communal problems. ‘Samabhavana' is a Sanskrit term that denotes equal view.
However, in Gujarati, the word "samabhava" implies "sympathy." Gandhi appears to be
using the term in the latter sense, albeit the earlier definition is not precluded from the
discussion.” He merely used a simile to communicate the concept to the general public. In
the same way that a tree has a single trunk but many branches and leaves, there is a single
true and perfect religion that multiplies as it passes through the human medium. The one
religion is incomprehensible in any language. Irreparably flawed men translate it into
whatever language they command, and their words are perceived by men who are also
irreparably flawed. As a result, tolerance is required, which does not imply disagreement
with one's own religious beliefs, but rather a more intelligent and pure love for them.3”
Gandhi was adamant about declaring all religions to be equal in terms of rights and
obligations. His writings, talks, and conversation all conveyed the message of religious
equality to the public. According to Gandhi, atrocities committed in the name of religion
were the result of an ignorant man defining religious principles: "For me, the different
religions are beautiful flowers from the same garden or the branches of the same tree."
Developing conscious reverence for one's own religion and those of others is not possible
unless one understands one's own religion at its highest and deepest level, and tries to
1
Ibid.
2
Ibid., p. 45.
3
Ibid.

98
understand other religions, according to Gandhi As a result of this process, we have
gained an understanding of the fundamental equality of all religions. After a real
endeavour to understand the heart of another's religion is undertaken, misperceptions are
no longer valid. When members of all faiths see the unity of all religious teachings, there
will be no fertile ground for communalism to flourish. Gandhi has repeatedly advised
people of the foolishness of comparing one religion to another and declaring one to be
superior.
8.6 CONCLUDING OBSERVATION
When the subject of cow slaughter comes up, the communal harmony between Muslims
and Hindus is frequently put in jeopardy, according to experts. The Hindus' devotion for
the cow, as well as the Muslims' claim to the slaughter of cows, has always been a source
of contention between the two communities. According to many academics, this
difficulty arises as a result of the conflicting theological views and is hence considered to
be intractable. Gandhi, on the other hand, attacked the situation head-on and proposed a
peaceful solution to the dilemma. Rather than resorting to force, he urged both the Hindus
and the Mussalmans to resolve the conflict through mutual trust and understanding
instead of violence. In addition to Hinduism's commitment to cow protection, Gandhi
took up the problem of cow protection, but he denounced any use of violence to preserve
the cow as being incompatible with the spirit of Hinduism. Gandhi, like any other Hindu,
recognised the need of cow protection in his own life. According to him, "cow protection
is the most prized treasure of the Hindu heart." It is the only tangible belief held by all
Hindus, and it is based on empirical evidence. No Hindu can possible be someone who
does not believe in the preservation of cows.... Cow worship, in my opinion, is the
worship of innocence. Cow protection entails the protection of the weak and the
vulnerable... cow protection entails the establishment of a bond of brotherhood between
man and beast.
Gandhi believed that “cow protection is a gift from Hinduism to the world, and it is the
responsibility of every Hindu to protect the cow because it means protection of the weak,
the helpless, the dump, and the deaf.”Cows have been a part of Indian civilization since
the beginning of time, according to Gandhi. Cows were essential for the survival of the
human race. Furthermore, the regard for Hindu holy scriptures is sanctioned by the
scriptures themselves. In practically every corner of the country, the cow is revered as a
sacred animal. Attempts by Muslims to slaughter the cow as part of their religious
observances are viewed as an attack on Hindu beliefs, and confrontations between the
two communities result. The violent actions of Hindus in order to prevent a cow from
being slaughtered by Muslims are still cited as a source of communal animosity today.
Gandhi, appreciating the importance of cow protection and the necessity to avoid
violence in the so-called attempt, appealed to Hindus to maintain their calm. He was
opposed to any and all forms of violence and coercion used to ensure cow protection.
There have been instances where a Mussalman has been caught with a cow or goat in his
possession, and the animals have been taken away from him by force. He warned the
Hindus that expecting our aggression to ever convince Mohammadens to desist from
cow-killing was a foolish expectation. Such acts of violence to safeguard the cow
frequently result in conflicts between Hindus and Muslims. He claimed that those Hindus
who turn to violence as a result of their beliefs are enemies of the cow and Hinduism. To

99
seek cow protection through violence is to degrade Hinduism to Satanism and prostitute
to a base purpose, the noble importance of cow protection. Gandhi undoubtedly stated
that it is not Hinduism to kill fellow men, even if it is necessary to save the cattle. Gandhi
did not want the right of Hindus to defend their cows to be turned into a source of
religious enmity, as was suggested by some.
The communalists had long attempted to divide the majority and minority communities,
i.e., Hindus and Muslims, into two separate camps. In order for the communalists' hidden
and vested interests to grow, it is necessary and sufficient to deepen the divide even
further. In order to accomplish this, they draw attention to the contrasts between two
societies and attempt to demonstrate that the two cannot coexist. A danger to the political
goals of the respected elites was the tolerance and tranquilly that existed between Hindus
and Muslim communities. Religious competition is maintained in momentum by
deceiving the illiterate masses and indoctrinating them with twisted and misconstrued
beliefs. The scriptures of both communities were examined incorrectly, and erroneous
interpretations were transmitted throughout the world. Gandhi correctly identified these
misunderstandings as the root reason of the expulsion of two groups. Having studied
religious philosophy and been a diligent student of Hindu and Muslim texts and religious
writings, Gandhi himself saw the importance of removing these misunderstandings
between the two great faiths he represented. The question of who was a believer and who
was a 'Kafir' was a common one raised against Islam. Hindus have been indoctrinated
with the myth that Islam does not tolerate a 'kafir,' or non-believer, in its midst. It was a
widely held belief among Hindus that Islam sanctioned the killing of non-believers
(kafirs). Gandhi attempted to dispel this notion through his lectures and writings.
According to Gandhi, the term "kafir" in the Koran refers to a person who does not
believe, therefore Hindus are not considered kafirs since they fundamentally believe in
the existence of God.
Gandhi was able to prescribe a long-term solution to the communal problem because of
his comprehensive understanding of the communal condition and the relationship
between Hindus and Muslims. Neither his attitudes toward quelling community tensions
nor the laws in effect at the time were based on those in effect at the time. A more active
approach was promoted by him: self-suffering in exchange for voluntary surrender,
mutual trust, and cooperation. Ignoring religious misunderstandings and absorbing the
goodwill of all religions allows for the identification of particular reasons of communal
confrontations, which has assisted Gandhi in formulating solutions for the cure of
communal enmity. During his focused and arduous struggle for the attainment of swaraj,
the great visionary saw the importance of unity between the various communities. His
responses to communal questions are perfectly appropriate for Indian conditions in which
religion is being utilised for selfish political objectives, with thousands of innocent people
being slaughtered in the process.
Important Questions
1. What is the Gandhi's vision on Communal Unity?
2. Explain Gandhi's view of Communalism in Indian Politics?
3. "Mahatma Gandhi was Political Saint". Do you agree?

100
 9. WOMEN QUESTION
Amaresh Ganguli
9.1 OBJECTIVES
After reading this article you will be familiar with:
 Gandhi’s thoughts on the role of women and women’s emancipation
 His strategy and efforts for raising the status of women in Indian society
9.2 INTRODUCTION
Gandhi had identified eighteen essential areas where he thought there needed to be
special efforts by the people of India for what he called national regeneration and for
reforming and making strong the character of Indians. One of the three areas along with
untouchability eradication for instance or promotion of hand spinning or khadi was
‘equality for women’. Gandhi brought women into the national movement as a political
stratagem but also thereby hoped to emancipate women. He had strong views on many
social evils that women were victims of like dowry etc and he made energetic efforts to
change the societal attitudes.
9.3 DISCUSSION
It is important to understand that Gandhi’s himself evolved as a man during his
lifetime and his own ideas and attitudes evolved and changed. To begin with he was quite
as much a man of his time as one might expect – paternalistic, feudal and traditional in
the basic attitude towards women seeing women’s role as one of lifetime obedient service
to man. In fact he himself admitted this once in a letter to Rajkumari Amrit Kaur while
referring to his wife Kasturba (or Ba as he called her). He had written to her:
‘If you women would only realise your dignity and privilege, and make full use of it for
mankind, you will make it much better than it is. But man has delighted in enslaving you
and you have proved willing slaves till the slaves and the slave-holders have become one
in the crime of degrading humanity. My special function from childhood has been to
make women realize her dignity. I was once slave-holder myself, but Ba proved an
unwilling slave and thus opened my eyes to my mission.’ (Source: Letters to Raj Kumari
Amrit Kaur, p. 100)
Before we proceed further let us examine what sort of a conservative mindset he
may have had to begin with. Gandhi has himself admitted in his autobiography for
instance, that in South Africa early in his life as a young man when he once had a fierce
argument with his wife Kasturba when she refused to do some cleaning job that he had
assigned her he threatened to push her out of his house. This is exactly the traditional
unequal relationship that women in this country have been suffering and possibly still do
when they are threatened with being sent back to their maiden homes or kicked out of in-
law’s houses by husbands and which is a cause of women’s lack of sufficient
empowerment. (Source: See Gandhi, An Autobiography, p. 232)

101
 While one may be disappointed reading the above, scholars have pointed out we
have to remember Gandhi was at least to begin with a man of his times. Prof. Judith
Brown for instance has commented:
‘Indeed, modern feminists accuse Gandhi of confirming women’s dependent
position by his use of traditional Hindu models of feminity, by his appeals to women to
play a public and private role distinct from men and not in competition with them, and by
his rejection of modern forms of birth control. Further, his reliance on women devotees
also confirmed the subservience of women in the context of nationalist politics. Such
criticism from the perspective of the late twentieth century is misplaced. Gandhi was a
man of his own time, indeed a Victorian by birth, and many of his ideas about women
were genuinely reformist if not radical in that context.’ (Source: Judith M. Brown,
Gandhi, 391)
By far the most ‘radical’ of the ideas he had it has to be argued was asking women
to come out of their homes and out of purdahs to participate in the satyagraha agitations
against the British which could entail women being jailed and thus staying away from
their families. For those times, this was clearly a major step as there were deep seated
traditional notions of women’s purity and its link to family honour and how that might be
endangered if a woman stayed a night away from home on her own or in the custody of
men (even the authorities), other than of those from her own family.
Gandhi also had a political calculation behind the idea of getting women involved
which he first developed in South Africa in 1913 when he realised women participating
would arouse the moral sense of Indians and even those who were otherwise indifferent.
The very sight of even women taking part in a struggle would inspire many people to join
who otherwise may have remained indifferent. Also Gandhi had found out women made
very good loyal, committed and unquestioning political workers and so would be great as
volunteers and participants in the satyagraha agitations etc. Particularly during the Civil
Disobedience Movement of 1930, Gandhi’s call to women worked and women’s
participation reached never before levels. Prof. Mridula Mukherjee has commented:
‘Before his arrest, Gandhiji had already called for a vigorous boycott of foreign cloth and
liquor shops, and had especially asked the women to play a leading role in this
movement. ‘To call women the weaker sex is a libel: it is man’s injustice to women’, he
had said; and the women of India certainly demonstrated in 1930 that they were second to
none in strength and tenacity of purpose. Women who had never stepped unescorted out
of their homes, women who had stayed in purdah, young mothers and widows and
unmarried girls, became a familiar sight as they stood from morning to night outside
liquor shops and opium dens and stores selling foreign cloth, quietly but firmly
persuading the customers and shopkeepers to change their ways.’ (Source: Mridula
Mukherjee, in India’s Struggle for Independence by Bipan Chandra and others, p. 276)
Also Gandhi had led the program of promoting khadi, which was most dear to
him, and rejection of foreign cloth. He would have realised such a program could only be
made successful by women not just because women wear saris which consumes the
maximum amount of cloth but also because women would be ideal for starting the sort of

102
home spinning movement that Gandhi was promoting. So even from the point of view of
shrewd political calculations Gandhi saw the use of changing women’s role, which,
obviously in the context of the times would have meant de facto emancipation, however
little, especially judging from our own vantage point in this day and age.
Apart from the reasons of national political mobilisation Gandhi also did his bit
for the social causes relating to women’s emancipation that many other social reformers
had also worked on even before him - chiefly of eradicating female infanticide and the
dowry system which he understood were linked as was the desire for male children.
It is important not to underestimate the depth of difficult conditions for women
prevailing then. Prof Judith Brown has summed up the environment well:
‘The other great social issue with which Gandhi felt bound to grapple in his grass-
roots work for swaraj was the place and treatment of women in Indian society. Here he
faced a complex problem, where tradition was reinforced by economic constraints on
women. Whatever the high value placed on womanhood in Hindu scripture, and the
possible equality of women and men at the earliest stages of Hindu civilisation, in
practice by the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries Hindu women were treated as
adjuncts of the males in a family, and primarily as bearers and rearers of children. A
woman’s spiritual identity was achieved through marriage and motherhood, and widows
were not permitted to remarry. Further, the control of women through arranged marriages
was a powerful buttress of the caste system. Women were so poorly educated that they
had little chance of individual development or achievement and were often seen as
economic burden on their families, except in their capacity for domestic and agricultural
labour. In poor rural households they were often staggeringly overworked in the house
and the fields, over and above their frequent pregnancies; while in rich households they
all too easily became ideal gossip and display stands for lavish jewellery, which reflected
the family’s status. A host of inter-related social problems therefore faced the would be
reformer: most families’ initial preference for baby boys rather than girls, knowing the
eventual financial burden of a marriage and a dowry; arranged marriages between child
brides and much older men to conform to caste restrictions on choice; the plight of child
widows unable to remarry; the harsh conditions often suffered by older widows; and
women’s general seclusion and lack of participation in public life, to name only the most
pressing.’ (Source: Judith M. Brown, Gandhi, 208)
What was Gandhi’s response to these problems: he did not ask women to walk out
of their homes and launch agitations, personal or public, against their plight or a
satyagraha within their exploitative domestic environments or outside nor to seek the
help of the British legal system or anything remotely very radical. As with most problems
his approach was to work with the status quo in Indian society slowly, avoiding directly
threatening any class of the Indian people, even those who may be committing evil and
injustice. Whether this was with a concern for maintaining national unity or because of a
commitment to non-violence (or non-coercion) of even the most remote kind or a certain
traditional mindset that he may himself have had at least at the beginning of his life or
anything else or a combination of reasons is hard to say with certainty. What is certain is

103
that whatever the reasons for his approach, his approach was, like with many other issues,
to work using Indian Hindu value systems or their purified reformed versions (often
crafted by he himself) which were also often the lines of least resistance. To get an idea
of his approach this is what he said in a speech to women in 1921:
‘It is not in the hands of the Brahmins, or of men, to preserve dharma. It is
entirely in the hands of women to do so. The foundation on which society rests is the
home and dharma is to be cultivated in the home. The fragrance in the home will spread
all over society. A city may have flourishing trade and a big population but, if the homes
there were not well-kept, I would unhesitatingly say that that city was not good. Women
are the presiding deities of the home. If they do not follow dharma, the people would be
totally destroyed.’ (Source: Collected Works of M.K. Gandhi, p. 63)
But Gandhi was also clear that dharma does not mean a brutish behaviour from
men treating women as chattel which he saw as a cause of the weakness of character of
Indian society:
‘Man has converted woman into a domestic drudge and an instrument of his pleasure,
instead of regarding her as his helpmate and better half. The result is semi-paralysis of
our society.’ (Source: Harijan, 12 Feb, 1939)
‘To me, this domestic slavery of woman is a symbol of our barbarism. In my
opinion the slavery of the kitchen is a remnant of barbarism mainly. It is high time that
our womankind was freed from this incubus. Domestic work ought not to take the whole
of a woman’s time.’ (Source: Harijan, 08 June, 1940)
Generally he never lost an opportunity to use his position to change the basic
respect that society had for women and to raise the estimation of her capabilities and
potentials:
‘To call women the weaker sex is a libel; it is a man’s injustice to women. If by strength
is meant brute strength, then indeed woman is less brute than man. If by strength is meant
moral power, then woman is immeasurably man’s superior. Has she not greater intuition,
is she not more self-sacrificing, has she not greater powers of endurance, has she not
greater courage? . Without her, man could not be. If non-violence is the law of our being,
the future is with women. (Source: Young India, Apr 10, 1930)
‘Women is the companion of man, gifted with equal mental capacities. She has
the right to participate in very minutest detail in the activities of man, and she has an
equal right of freedom and liberty with him.’ (Source: Speeches and Writings of
Mahatma Gandhi, p. 423)
‘Woman in our country is brought up to think that she is well only with her husband or on
the funeral pyre. I would far rather see India’s women trained to wield arms than that they
should feel helpless’. (Source: Harijan, 27 Oct, 1946)
To women themselves his advice was suffused with a call to them to act from the
spiritual and religious depths of purity etc of Hindu ideals as can be confirmed from the
following:

104
‘Women may not look for protection to men. They must rely on their own strength and
purity of character and on God, as did Draupadi of old.’ (Source: Gandhi, The Role of
Women, p. 111)
‘Why should Indian women feel so helpless? Is bravery the monopoly of men
only? Women, of course, do not generally carry swords, though the Rani of Jhansi did
and outdid all her contemporaries in the valour of the sword. Still, all cannot become
Ranis of Jhanis. But all women can emulate the example of Sita, who even the mighty
Ravana dared not touch. Ranis of Jhansi could be subdued.’ (Source: Harijan, 27 June,
1946)
‘Women is the incarnation of Ahimsa. Ahimsa means infinite love, which again
means infinite capacity for suffering. Who but women, the mother of man, shows this
capacity in the largest measure? Let her forget that she ever was or can be the object of
man’s lust. And she will occupy her proud position by the side of man as his mother,
maker and silent leader.’ (Source: Young India, Oct 17, 1929)
‘Women is nothing if she is not self-sacrifice and purity personified’. (Source:
Young India, Nov 19, 1925)
‘Women must cease to consider herself the object of man’s lust. The remedy is
more in her hands than man’s. She must refuse to adorn herself for men, including her
husband, if she will be an equal partner with man. I cannot imagine Sita ever wasting a
single moment on pleasing Rama by physical charms’. (Source: Young India, July 21,
1921)
Gandhi was particularly concerned that Indian women should maintain their
attitude of maintaining purity:
‘If you (women) want to play your part in the worlds affairs, you must refuse to
deck yourselves for pleasing man. If I was born a woman, I would rise in rebellion
against any pretension on the part of man that woman is born to be his plaything’.
(Source: Young India, Feb 20, 1920)
‘Refuse to decorate yourselves, don’t go in for scents and lavender waters; if you
want to give out the proper scent, it must come out of your heart, and then you will
captivate not man, but humanity. It is your birthright. Man is born of woman, he is flesh
and bone of her bone. Come to your own and deliver your message again.’ (Source:
ibid.)
‘It is my firm conviction that a fearless woman, who knows that her purity is her
best shield, can never be dishonoured. However, beastly the man, he will bow in shame
before the flame of her dazzling purity.’ (Source: Harijan, March 1, 1942)
‘When a pure woman adds bravery and motherliness to her purity, she becomes at
once a magnet in a way no man can…For woman is sacrifice personified. When she does
a thing in the right spirit, she moves mountains.’ (Source: Young India, Dec 22, 1921)

105
 Also as far as roles of men and women were considered Gandhi’s views were
what would be regarded as very traditional and patriarchal by the standards of modern
feminists:
‘I do believe that women will not make her contribution to the world by
mimicking or running a race with man. She can run the race, but she will not rise to the
great heights she is capable of by mimicking man. She has to be the complement of man.’
(Source: Harijan, Feb, 1937)
‘Whilst both are fundamentally one, it is also equally true that in the form there is
a vital difference between the two. Hence, the vocations of the two must also be different.
Her duty of motherhood….requires qualities which man need not possess. She is passive,
he is active. She is essentially mistress of the house. He is the bread winner, she is the
keeper and the distributor of the bread. She is the caretaker in every sense of the term.
The art of bringing up the infants of the race is her special and sole prerogative. Without
her care, the race must become extinct.’ (Source: Harijan, Feb 24, 1940)
‘In my opinion it is degrading both for man and woman, that woman should be
called upon or induced to forsake the hearth and shoulder the rifle for the protection of
that hearth…There is as much bravery in keeping one’s home in good order and
condition, as there is in defending it against attack from without.’ (Source: ibid.)
Or that:
‘The husband’s earnings are the joint property of husband and wife, as he makes
money by her assistance if only as a cook.’ (Source: The Diary of Mahadev Desai, p.
189)
‘I admit no distinction between man and woman except as has been made by
Nature and can be seen with human eyes.’ (Source: ibid.)
‘My ideal of a wife is Sita and of a husband Rama. But Sita was no slave of
Rama. Or, each was slave of the other.’ (Source: Young India, Oct 21, 1926)
From the above it should be very obvious why Judith Brown has commented as follows
to sum up Gandhi’s views on women:
‘However, his female ideal was not the ‘modern woman’, liberated from
traditional social, economic and physical restraints by birth control, the right to divorce
and a new economic independence. He would have seen no moral good in claims by later
twentieth century feminists for ‘freedom’ to rule their own lives and to compete with
men. Indeed he stated specifically that there was much in tradition which should be
retained and cherished: ‘we should not give up the ideal of woman’s duty while
espousing the cause of her rights’. The symbol of his ideal woman was drawn from Hindu
epic tradition – Sita, the wife of King Rama, who was cruelly rejected by him,
nonetheless maintained a brave constancy and purity, courageously bearing her ordeal
until they were reunited. So within the symbolism of tradition Gandhi preached female
virtues of bravery and independence, and a capacity to bear suffering; the model he

106
offered to Indian women was the virtuous and faithful wife.’ (Source: Judith M. Brown,
Gandhi, 209-10)
Gandhi, apart from bringing women into the struggle for swaraj, which he must
have realised would also mean that children, the future of the country, would get trained
in that idea as well, was very vehement and fairly relentless in coming down on various
social ills effecting women like child marriage, the dowry system and female infanticide
or the treatment of widows. While commenting on child marriage for instance he had
once said: ‘The custom of child marriage is both a moral as well as a physical evil. For it
undermines our morals and induces physical degeneration. By countenancing such
customs, we recede from God as well as Swaraj.’ (Source: Young India, August 26, 1926)
On the evil of the dowry system he was very severe on men who would agree to
the custom:
‘Any young man who makes dowry a condition for marriage, discredits his education and
his country and dishonours womanhood.’ (Source: Young India, August 26, 1926)
‘A strong public opinion should be created in condemnation of the degrading
practice of dowry, and young men, who soil their fingers with such ill-gotten gold, should
be excommunicated from society’. (Source: Young India, June 21, 1928)
His advice to parents was to educate girls against the evil:
‘The parents should so educate their daughters that they would refuse to marry a young
man who wanted a price for marrying, and would rather remain spinsters than be party to
the degrading terms. The only honourable terms in marriage are mutual love and mutual
consent.’ (Source: Young India, January 15, 1927)
As might be expected he saw the preference for a male child reprehensible and
evil:
‘Women is described as man’s better half. As long as she not has the same rights in law
as man, as long as the birth of a girl does not receive the same welcome as that of a boy,
so long we should know that India is suffering from partial paralysis. Suppression of
women is a denial of Ahimsa.’ (Source: Harijan, August 18, 1940)
‘Hankering for male offspring is almost universally present in Hindu society. In
this present age of sex-equality, this sort of invidious discrimination against the female
sex is an anachronism. I fail to see any reason for jubilation over the birth of a son and for
mourning over that of a daughter. Both are God’s gifts. They have an equal right to live,
and are equally necessary to keep the world going.’ (Source: Harijan, May 28, 1938)
The main contribution of Gandhi as far as women are concerned was firstly that
he saw the lack of a public presence of women as a real problem and told the nation as
such encouraging the participation of women in the national struggle and secondly that he
devised and advocated ways that took into account the social realities and on the face of it
his proposals and exhortations did not upset the social structure too much as to be totally
unacceptable. Thus to a large extent he was effective and successful in his reforms.

107
Judith Brown has summarised well the Gandhian approach as follows:
‘As in the matter of caste, he consciously and selectively used elements of
tradition to enable a new response to a changing situation. He was convinced that Indian
women must draw on the deep resources available within themselves as women and
within their religious inheritance to participate in public life, and in particular to play the
vital role he saw for them in the struggle for swaraj. Unless they did so and unless society
tackled the evils in contemporary treatment of women, he argued that there could be no
real swaraj When the question of the priority of political or social reform was raised he
refused to distinguish between them or place one before the other: social, economic, and
political reform must proceed simultaneously. ‘The sooner it is recognised that many of
our social evils impede our march towards swaraj, the greater will be our progress
towards our cherished goal. To postpone social reform till after the attainment of swaraj
is not to know the meaning of swaraj.’ All through the 1920s he hammered home that
purdah, enforced seclusion of women, practised among some Hindu castes as well as
Muslims, was inhumane, immoral, and deprived the emerging nation of the work for
swaraj which its women could perform. Indian women must become conscious of their
potential, must exercise their right and duty to serve outside as well as inside the home,
and must participate on equal terms with men in the work for swaraj. He realised that this
changing role would need readjustments by men unused to working with women, and by
women who would have to learn how to work in formal organisations and not bring to
that work bitchiness, suspicion and intrigues; indeed he noted wryly that even Indian men
found selfless and open-handed organisation of public work difficult.
It was not just that the seclusion of women in private domain prevented half of
India from working for swaraj. Gandhi believed profoundly that there were certain
particularly female qualities and capacities which were much needed in the radical labour
for a new society and polity. He often spoke of women having a special capacity for self-
sacrfice, learned early in the cause of the family, which must now be put to use of the
emerging nation. It was little wonder that the apostle of satyagraha, of self-imposed
suffering in the cause of truth, should see women as his natural allies. Moreover he felt
women so socially situated that they were particularly fitted to work at the three central
elements of his national programme: reviving the art of spinning and making honourable
the weaving of khadi, treating untouchables as fellow humans, and extending hands of
simple friendship across communal boundaries, where men’s work in public meetings
and speeches had failed. Increasingly in the 1920s Gandhi became aware of his need for
more women workers, and it was partly because of this that he cared so deeply about the
attitudes of women in the ashram, and exposed them to the new experiences of equality
with men, communal living and fraternity across traditional social boundaries.
As Gandhi toured India, often speaking at women’s meetings and encouraging
women to break out of some traditional social moulds and follow him into public work,
he became more deeply aware of the attitudes and suffocating practices which restricted
women and reduced their self-esteem in their own eyes as well as those of men.
Inevitably too his public position meant that he was asked very specific questions about

108
the treatment of women. He was not slow in response, and as on the question of
untouchability he argued that there was no religious warrant for many of the practices he
condemned, and that their abolition would purify and strengthen Hindu society. Of course
he was not alone in arguing for change: there was a tradition of social reformers and their
organisations stretching well back into the nineteenth century. But Gandhi argued so
strongly in the context of Indian and Hindu values that he could never be accused of
‘Westernising’ or undermining traditional values with foreign influences; and he placed
social reform squarely in the centre of the work to achieve swaraj, whereas earlier social
reform movements had been kept apart from the political work for fear of alienating the
orthodox.’ (Source: Judith M. Brown, Gandhi, pp. 210-11)
Some scholars like Bhikhu Parekh has critically commented on the Gandhian
approach as one that reinforced stereotypes (while largely agreeing that his efforts for
Indian women and his public positions contributed a lot without doubt in the journey of
Indian women towards emancipation):
‘…………he saw and honoured women largely as mothers, never as wives or
lovers. When he said that he wanted to become a woman, he had in mind nothing more
than nursing the sick and raising children. He did bring women into public life in a way
no one had before, but largely to play motherly roles; even in satyagrahas they fought
and suffered as mothers and sisters fiercely defending their children and brothers, but not
as wives and sweethearts defending their husbands and lovers. While improving the
condition of women, Gandhi also reinforced the traditional sexual stereotypes and roles.’
(Source: Bhikhu Parekh, Gandhi’s Political Philosophy, p. 210)
9.4 EXERCISE
1. Discuss Gandhi’s view on the role of women and the ways and means he thought
of including women in the freedom struggle?

109
 10. UNTOUCHABILITY
Amaresh Ganguli
10.1 OBJECTIVES
After reading this article you will be familiar with:
 Gandhiji’s thoughts on the evil of untouchability
 The urgency for elimination of this social evil in the Gandhian plan for national
reconstruction and forging national unity
 The Gandhian strategy for dealing with the problem
10.2 INTRODUCTION
Of all the social evils that beset India of his times perhaps none moved Gandhi
quite as much as untouchability. He saw it as one of the principal obstructions in
reforming and uniting Hindus and by extension the whole of the Indian nation. He
realised the whole moral basis for asking for freedom from the colonial masters would be
rendered void and hollow if Indians continued to condone and acquiesce in the practice of
untouchability. Hence Gandhi focussed on removal of untouchability with an energy and
zeal that was unprecedented in the history of Indian social and political movements.
10.3 DISCUSSION
Before understanding the Gandhian approach to untouchability and how he
proposed to deal with it is necessary to understand Gandhi’s understanding and
estimation of the Hindu caste system or varnashram. It is instructive perhaps to begin by
studying some of his utterances on the issue remembering the fact of course that he was a
declared follower of the Hindu Sanatan Dharma. As such he would have perhaps
approached the caste division idea with a positive frame of mind at least at the beginning
to try and understand its benefits. It is also of course true that like all human beings
Gandhi evolved in his thoughts over the period of his life.
Writing in 1920 he somewhat defensively wrote:
‘Man, being a social being, has to devise some method of social organisation. We in India
have evolved caste; they in Europe have organised class. Neither has the solidarity and
naturalness of a family, which, perhaps, is a God-ordained institution. If caste has
produced certain evils, class has not been productive of anything less.’ (Source: Young
India, December 29, 1920)
But then he was also quick to argue: ‘The beauty of the caste system is that it does not
base itself upon distinctions of wealth possessions……..Caste is but an extension of the
principle of the family. Both are governed by blood and heredity’. (Source: Young
India, December 29, 1920) Also:
‘The spirit behind caste is not one of arrogant superiority; it is the classification of
different systems of self-culture. It is the best possible adjustment of social stability and
progress.’

110
‘Caste does not connote superiority or inferiority. It simply recognises different outlooks
and corresponding modes of life. But it is no use denying the fact that a sort of hierarchy
has been evolved in the caste system.’ (Source: Young India, December 29, 1920)
Gandhi was indeed quite open in seeing positive aspects in the caste system. For instance
he regarded it as scientifically organised. He commented: ‘Caste system has, in my
opinion, a scientific basis. Reason does not revolt against it. If it has disadvantages, it also
has its advantages. It does not prevent a Brahmin from serving his Shudra brother. Caste
creates a social and moral restraint. The doctrine of caste cannot be extended. I would
restrict it to four divisions. Any multiplication would be an evil.’ (Source: Young India,
march 12, 1925)
Or that: ‘From the economic point of view, its value was once very great. It ensured
hereditary skill; it limited competition. It was the best remedy against pauperism. And it
had all the advantages of trade guilds. Although it did not foster adventure or invention
there, it is not known to have come in the way either.’ (Source: Young India, January 5,
1921)
Indeed Gandhi looked forward to offer the caste system for emulation by the rest
of the world as he said: ‘Historically speaking, caste may be regarded as man’s
experiment or social adjustment in the laboratory of Indian society. If we can prove it to
be a success, it can be offered to the world as a heaven and as the best remedy against
heartless competition and social disintegration born of avarice and greed’. (Source:
Young India, January 5, 1921)
The reader of the above utterances sitting in this day and age may be surprised
and even shocked but let us remember at the time Gandhi expressed the above views,
caste system was the reality of the Indian social order. Indeed unlike now when it may be
totally politically incorrect and a taboo even among educated circles to refer to caste in
positive terms, it was the opposite then and anybody suggesting anything critical of the
caste system was seen as breaking the well established social conventions and uttering
very threatening anti-social and possibly anti-religious statements. Indeed Gandhi was
attacked when he later got somewhat fed up with the rigidities of the caste system and its
fall out of the evil of untouchability and if today we live in a society that is relatively free
from these evils we have only Gandhi and the leadership and the social reformers of that
era to thank. Gandhi in contrast to what one might conclude from the views given above
attempted later to redefine in a social, political and spiritual sense the Indian Hindu caste
system and eventually did more than any other leader in Indian history perhaps to
publicly attack and fight the evil of untouchability at the level of social reforms without
the aid of legal fiat.
Gandhi clearly as will be clear from the following quotes never accepted as a
valid Hindu practice in a religious and spiritual sense the caste system as practiced in his
time (and indeed to a large extent as it continues to be practiced to this day) and thus even
his positive views on aspects of the caste system are open to interpretations that may not
be obvious on the face of it, for most of the above quotations, from the early 1920s. He
commented for instance in 1931: ‘I do not believe in caste in the modern sense. It is an
excrescence and a handicap on progress.’ (Source: Young India, June 4, 1931)

111
Then again: ‘Caste in so far at it connotes distinctions in status, is an evil.’ (Source:
Young India, June 4, 1931)
He denied caste system had a religious basis: ‘Caste has nothing to do with
religion. It is a custom whose origin I do not know, and do not need to know. But I do
know that it is harmful, both to spiritual and national growth.’ (Source: Harijan, July 18,
1936)
With time he turned more and more scathing (and presumably could take the risk
of taking positions that would have been risky given the conservative society before). He
commented in 1946 ‘Soil erosion eats up good soil. It is bad enough. Caste erosion is
worse; it eats up men and divides men from men.’ (Source: Harijan, May 5, 1946)
Gandhi realised that for the cause of forging a national identity and a national
spirit the leadership will have to eliminate or dilute social divisions. And one of the worst
divisions unique to India was the caste divide with untouchability as its ugliest
manifestation. Thus as a matter of political strategy for the cause of the freedom struggle
it was an urgency to fight the caste divide and eliminate untouchability. Also as a social
reformer who believed the key to national regeneration was a rebuilding of the national
character, particularly the Hindu character, he saw it as a vital imperative to eliminate the
evils of caste and untouchability. Also as somebody who had it as one of his goals the
spiritual revival of the Hindu religion, he came to see it vital and most urgent that
untouchability be eliminated and the caste rigidities diluted. But as has been explained
above, as a follower of the Hindu sanatan dharma he never for one moment would have
thought that some kind of caste system or varnashram can not exist or that can not be
devised that would be good and for the benefit of society. He also probably in all
likelihood thought it’s true meaning may have been lost by Hindus over thousands of
years of abuse and social degradation. He attempted to draw the contours of what would
be an acceptable system to him. He commented in 1926 for instance: ‘I do not believe in
caste as it is at present constituted, but I do believe in the four fundamental divisions
regulated according to the four principal occupations. The existing innumerable divisions,
with the attendant artificial restrictions and elaborate ceremonial, are harmful to the
growth of a religious spirit, as also to the social well-being of the Hindus and, therefore,
also their neighbours.’ (Source: Young India, Feb 25, 1926)
It was Gandhi’s case that the caste system had to be purified and corrected from
the abusive and distorted form it had taken. This was his position both because he wished
to reform and save Hinduism from its degraded state and raise the character of the Hindu
for the sake of both Hindus and the Indian national cause but also because he realised the
first step in fighting the British must be removing the blockages in the unity of the nation
and one of the major divisions was caste. Of course he was not suggesting abolishing of
the caste system and was only pleading for a mitigation of its worst aspects. One of the
aspects that disturbed him most was the tendency of Indians to keep increasing the
number of caste divisions. He made his impatience clear with the practice of sub-dividing
the four castes again and again. His attempt at giving a new meaning to caste or
varnaashrama can be judged from the following comments of his as illustration:
‘The divisions or classes are four and no more, and these classes are known all the
world over. One is the repository of knowledge, the other is that of power, the third is that
of wealth and the fourth is that of service. All these four labours are regarded as duties to

112
be discharged by everyone of them for the protection and advancement of Dharma; and
everyone who performs his duty to the best of his knowledge and ability, gains equal
merit with the rest, if the latter, too, do likewise. The merit, therefore, consists, not in
being one or the other, but in the performance of the duty assigned to it. Here, there is no
untouchability. There is no superiority. And this is the essence of Varna Dharma.’
(Source: Harijan ,March 4, 1933)
‘According to my conception of Varna, all inequality is ruled out of life.
Inequality of intellect or in material possessions ought not to mean inequality of social
status. I do most emphatically maintain that man is not made to choose his occupation for
‘rising in the social scale’. He is made to serve his fellow-man and earn his daily bread by
the sweat of his brow. And since the primary wants of all are the same, all labour should
carry the same value.’ (Source: Harijan, March 11, 1933)
‘Life is a duty, not a bundle of rights and privileges. That religion is doomed to
destruction which bases itself upon a system of gradations, high and low. Such is not the
meaning for me of Varnashrama.’ (Source: Young India, November 5, 1925)
‘The divisions define duties, they confer no privileges. It is, I hold, against the
genius of Hinduism to arrogate to oneself a higher status or assign to another a lower. All
are born to serve God’s creation. – a Brahmin with his knowledge, a Kshatriya with his
power of protection, a Vaishya with his commercial ability and a Shudra with bodily
labour.’ (Source: Young India, October 6, 1921)
‘Varnashrama is not a vertical line, but that it is a horizontal plane on which all
the children of God occupy absolutely the same status, though they may be engaged in
different pursuits of life and though they may have different qualities and different
tastes.’ (Source: Harijan, Feb 18, 1933)
But Gandhi was very vehement in opposing the practice of varnashrama as it then was in
his time:
‘Varnashrama seems to me to be an ideal system conceived for the highest good
of society. What we see to day is a travesty and a mockery of the original. And if
Varnashram is to abide, Hindus must sweep away the mockery and restore Varnashrama
to its pristine dignity.’ (Source: Young India, November 5, 1925)
Or that: ‘Varna has nothing to do with caste. Caste is an excrescence, just like
untouchability, upon Hinduism.’ (Source: Wit and Wisdom of Mahatma Gandhi, p. 142)
While arguing for a reform of the caste system Gandhi was careful to explain he
was not asking that they start eating together and inter-marrying. Perhaps he knew it
would be realistically in a social and political sense too much to expect or perhaps he
only wished to remove the really ugly edges of the system and had no real repulsion for a
substantial portion of it, if it was suitably reformed. The answers to these question will
remain open to interpretation and research but what is certain he had absolutely not the
slightest hesitation and doubt in calling for the total abolition of untouchability which he
saw as completely immoral, inhuman, repugnant to Hindu basics, a great barrier in
national unity, a sin and without reason. He also believed we as a people could not ask for
freedom from the British on the basis of equality of all men when we ourselves were
ready to treat a substantial part of our own people as unequal.

113
 Gandhi’s attack on the worst aspects of the caste system and untouchability had
mainly two sides to it. He argued on the one hand that it was not in conformity with the
basics of Hindu advaita principles and on the other that socially and politically it would
be indefensible if we are to ask for freedom from the British when almost one fifth of our
own people we were not ready to see as free people.
To argue the case from the point of Hinduism’s basics he relied on Advaita
Vedantic principles exactly as Swami Vivekananda had done before him. He pointed out
that as per advaita all men were equal and the same because they were part of the same
cosmic unity or divine:
‘I believe in advaita, I believe in the essential unity of man and for that matter of all that
lives. Therefore, 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.’ (Source: Young India,
December 4, 1924)
Bhikhu Parekh has commented on how Gandhi’s attempt to reorient the practice of
Hinduism as follows:
‘In these and other ways Gandhi profoundly redefined Hinduism and gave it a
radically novel orientation. Not God, not Man, but men were made its centre, and self-
purification and their active service in the spirit of love constituted its content. Gandhi
thus rationalised Hinduism and reduced it to a set of such basic moral principles as love,
truth, ahimsa, and social service. He marginalised the sastras and deprived them of their
religious and moral authority. He rarely referred to them to support his views, poured
contempt on the endless debates about the meanings of their isolated passages and
interpreted them as he thought proper. He thereby undermined the traditional religious
basis of Brahmanic authority and liberated Hinduism from their stranglehold. The
Brahmins had stressed the authority of the sastras; Gandhi argued that they, including
even the Vedas, were subject to the test of reason and conscience. They had insisted on
the eternal validity of the revealed knowledge; Gandhi contended that every yuga had is
own unique dharma and periodically needed to reinterpret the eternal moral principles.
They had concentrated on the ritual and ceremonial aspect of religion; Gandhi made
social service its basis. The Brahmins glorified the intellectual and spiritual and
condemned manual activities; Gandhi insisted that the latter were an integral part of the
cosmic yajna and that whoever avoided them was a ‘thief’ and a ‘parasite’. They
regarded certain activities and the people engaged in them as polluted; Gandhi rejoined
that only those engaged in the ‘lowly’ activities truly served their fellow men and made
the untouchables, not the Brahmins, the privileged ‘children of God’. Gandhi turned
Hinduism upside down in a way no-one had done before, and did it with such
consummate skill and authority that the Brahmins were thoroughly outsmarted.’ (Source:
Bhikhu Parekh, Gandhi’s PoliticalPhilosophy)
But it is interesting to note he was always careful to not suggest anything that
would be too much disruptive of the social reality. For instance once addressing his own
Vaishnav community in Gujrat in 1921 he said:
‘Some Vaishnavs believe that I am destroying varnashram. On the contrary, I
believe that I am trying to cleanse it of impurities and so reveal its true form. I am
certainly not advocating abolition of restrictions on eating and drinking in company with

114
anyone and everyone or on inter-marrying among communities. I merely say that the idea
that physical contact with some person is a sin is itself sinful.’
So he was quite blunt however when it came to condemning untouchability. He went on:
‘… If anyone avoided contact with an Antyaj who had been engaged in sanitary
work and had not bathed or otherwise cleansed himself after the work, or, in case he had
contact with such an Antyaj, went and had a bath, I can understand the idea. But my
conscience can never accept the idea that dharma requires us to keep away scrupulously
from everyone born an Antyaj.
The inspiration of the Vaishnav way is compassion. I do not see a trace of this in
our treatment of the Antyaj. Many among us never address an Antyaj except with a word
of contempt. If an Antyaj is ever found sitting in the same compartment with other
Hindus, there will be a rain of abuse on him. We offer hem food left over on our plates, as
we do to cattle. If an Antyaj has fever or is bitten by a serpent, our vaids and doctors will
refuse to go to his place and treat him. If anyone should get ready to go, we would do
everything in our power to stop him. For their residence, the Antyajas get the worst
localities, with no amenities like light and public streets. They are provided with no wells
for their use. They cannot use public wells and dharamshalas and cannot attend schools.
We expect from them the most difficult of services and pay them the least. The sky above
and the earth below is all that they have by way of cruelty ?. The British Government,
against which you have launched non-cooperation, does not treat us with such contempt.
We actually cherish our Dyerism towards Antyajas as dharma.
Speaking for myself, I believe we are reaping as we sowed. Treating the Antyajas
with contempt, we have become objects of the entire world’s contempt.
The ides of untouchability is unacceptable to reason. It is contrary to truth and
non-violence and, therefore, is certainly not dharma. The very idea of our being high and
others low is base. He is no true Brahmin who lacks the quality of the Sudra; readiness
for service. He alone is a Brahmin who possesses the quality of all others, the Kshatriya,
the Vaishya and the Sudra and, in addition, has knowledge. A Sudra is not altogether
devoid of knowledge. Readiness for service is predominant in him over his other
qualities. The varnashrama-dharma has no room for distinctions of high and low. The
Vaishnava tradition knows of Bhangis and Chandals who attained deliverance. How can
a dharma which holds that the entire universe is permeated by Vishnu believe that He is
not present in the Antyaj ?.
I have no desire, however, to interpret the sastras to you. I do not claim to be a
man of learning. Every shastri is welcome to have the better of me in interpreting the
Shastras. I know with confidence that I have had some experience of what the way of
compassion means. This way can have simply no room in it for an attitude of contempt
for Antyajas.’ (Source: A report in Gujrati newspaper Navajivan dt. 03-07-1921 from the
Collected Works of MK Gandhi, Vol. 20, p. 319-20)
In fact Gandhi believed if untouchability was not dealt with it could lead to the
destruction of Hinduism itself and when Rajagopalachariar, a close associate advised him
to slow down his work for harijans and against untouchability he replied: ‘but how can I
rest? How can one have rest with a raging fire within? How can any Hindu, knowing that
Hinduism is on the brink of an active volcano, afford to have a moment’s rest?’. (Source:

115
Speech, 2 January 1935, Collected Works of MK Gandhi, Vol. 60, pp. 46-7) He wrote in
1936: ‘Untouchablity is a blot upon Hinduism and must be removed at any cost.
Untouchability is a poison which, if we do not get rid of it in time, will destroy
Hinduism.’ (Source: Harijan, June 20, 1936)
Gandhi turned himself into a full-fledged program for the uplift of Harijans. He
not only led by personal example embracing the people from the lower untouchable
castes in his ashrams but he also invariably set up the ashrams in harijan dominated
villages where it was his endeavour to improve the quality of village life. It was his firm
belief that the key to his goal was to alleviate the poverty and degradation of harijan
villages for them to come up. He also started opening temples for harijans but believed it
would be even better if upper caste hindus could permit harijans to visit their own
temples. In fact he was desperate to reform Hindu society and was sure harijans would
leave the fold of Hinduism if they were not embraced back. When Ambedkar, the great
leader of the dalits and untouchables who publicly disagreed with Gandhi, and called his
efforts cosmetic charity rather then real radical reform, advised his fellow harijans to
move to other faiths like Buddhism he opposed and argued against conversion warning it
could not be genuine. He said for instance:
‘But religion is not like a house or a cloak which can be changed at will. It is more
an integral part of one’s self than of one’s body. Religion is the tie that binds one to one’s
Creator and whilst the body perishes…..religion persists even after death.’ (Source:
Gandhi to E. Menon, 5 January 1935, Collected Works of MK Gandhi, Vol. 60, p.57)
In fact he felt it was untouchability in particular that put Hinduism at a huge
disadvantage vis-à-vis other faiths that were on an evangelical preaching mission. He had
written:
‘And why do I say that untouchability is a curse, a blot and a powerful poison that will
destroy Hinduism? It is repugnant to our sense of humanity to consider a single human
being as untouchable by birth. If you were to examine the scriptures of the world and the
conduct of people other than Hindu, you do not find any parallel to
untouchability.’(Source: Harijan, June 20, 1936)
Even though Gandhi in public as has been mentioned above never promoted too
radical measures like marriage between castes etc, later in his life to his most close
associates he had even moved beyond that and suggested the possibility of considering
arranged inter-marriages. For instance he once said regarding the arranging of marriages
for young people by his close associates: ‘The barriers ought to be broken. When the
whole country is ours, why should we keep ourselves confined to one community or
region.’ (Source: Gandhi to Gangabehn Vaidya, 3 August 1937, Collected Works of MK
Gandhi, Vol. 66, p. 9)
Gandhi was convinced untouchability was an aberration that had happened much
later and was not a part of the original practice of sanatandharma. He had strongly
opined: ‘There is an ineffaceable blot that Hinduism today carries with it. I have declined
to believe that it has been handed down to us from immemorial times. I think that this
miserable, wretched, enslaving spirit of untouchability must have come to us when we
were in the cycle of our lives at our lowest ebb…. That any person should be considered

116
untouchable in this sacred land, passes one’s comprehension.’ (Source: Speeches and
Writings of Mahatma Gandhi, p. 387)
Gandhi was clear that he wanted Hindus to see untouchability as a sin in the
religious Hindu sense and his powerful spiritual appeal on the issue can be gauged from
the following:
‘They are not untouchables, we are untouchables. They eat and drink and think and feel
even as we do. If a sum total of their virtues and vices and the privileges they are denied
were to be made and compared with our virtues and vices and the privileges we enjoy and
deny to them, I am sure in God’s books we should find our debit side far heavier than
theirs.’ (Source: Young India, May 13, 1926)
‘It is a sin to believe that anyone else is inferior or superior to ourselves. We are
all equal. It is the touch of sin that pollutes us, and never that of a human being. None are
high and none are low for one who would devote his life to service. The distinction
between High and low is a blot on Hinduism, which we must obliterate.’ (Source: The
Diary of Mahadev Desai, p. 286)
‘I do want moksha. I do not want to be reborn. But if I have to be reborn, I should
be born as an untouchable, so that I may share their sorrows, sufferings, and the affronts
levelled at them, in order that I may endeavour to free myself and them from that
miserable condition….If I should die with any of my desires unfulfilled, with my service
of the untouchables unfinished, with my Hinduism unfulfilled, I may be born again
amongst the untouchables to bring my Hinduism to fulfilment.’ (Source: Harijan, Sept
12, 1936)
Gandhi in his national propaganda against untouchability had carried out three
fasts or hunger strikes to highlight the issue out of his total seventeen fasts for various
causes. Sometimes he had to deal with the most interesting questions and objections. For
instance he would be asked if untouchables are treated differently who will do the
sanitary work. He had replied once to such a question: ‘When untouchability has
disappeared altogether, it is not feared that Bhangis will refuse to do sanitary work, if
they are properly paid and well treated. Sanitary work is done well enough, if not better,
in other parts of the world. But assuming that the Bhangis, on the bar sinister being
removed, refuse to do or scavenging, we must be prepared to do it ourselves. The removal
of untouchability implies that there is no sin or shame in cleaning for other people, even
as it is no sin for a mother to clean her baby or for a paid nurse to clean her or his
patient.’ (Source: Collected Works of MK Gandhi, Vol. 20, pp.261-62) Similarly he was
asked in response to his suggestion of education for untouchables, ‘who will then do their
work?’. His angry but patient and careful response was: ‘This question itself shows the
frightfulness of untouchability as we understand it today. There is nothing but scorn of
untouchables in our everyday behaviour towards them. I think the very notion that
education would make them give up being sweepers is wrong. The reason for it, however,
lies in ourselves. We look down on the profession of a Bhangi, but, in fact, it is sacred
work as it is concerned with cleanliness. A mother is regarded with all the greater feeling
of sanctity because she removes the faeces of the child. We respect a woman who nurses
the sick and is engaged in removing things which smell most offensively. Should we not
worship the person who always cleans our lavatories and thereby helps us to remain free
from disease?. By treating such persons as low, we have sunk low ourselves. Anyone

117
pushing another into a well himself falls into it along with others We have no right, thus,
to look down on the Bhangis and others like them as belonging to low castes.
Even though BhojaBhagat was a was Mochi, we sing his devotional songs with
love and revere him. Which reader of the Ramayana does not worship the hunter for his
devotion to Rama?. Moreover, if Bhangis and others give up their profession, we need
not oppose them or get alarmed. We shall not be fit for swaraj so long as we seek to force
any work on people. We should learn to keep our lavatories clean. They will be as clean
as our reading room when we feel ashamed of keeping them dirty. The filth in our
lavatories, the foul odour and the gases which are generated in consequence works as a
blot on our culture and bespeak our ignorance of the laws of hygiene. The condition of
our lavatories is a proof of our unworthy attitude to the Antyajas and the cause of many of
the diseases from which we suffer. The idea that contact with members of other
communities will make us lose our caste or defile us betrays our weakness. Contact is
unavoidable so long as we are in the world, and the test of the reality of dharma for us lies
in our remaining pure in spite of it. The way of compassion requires that we educate the
Bhangis and other communities like them to be clean, that we work for their advancement
and treat them with respect. To do this, it is not necessary to sit down to meals with any
member of such communities; what is required is a change of heart.’ (Source: Collected
Works of MK Gandhi, Vol. 20, pp.391-92)
Gandhi was eventually convinced removal of untouchability was one of the three
most important goals that had to be pursued to create a strong national character and
pursue swaraj. After a period in Yeravada Jail when he is thought to have pondered and
reflected deeply on the priorities of the national struggle he said in 1925 in a speech: ‘the
purpose is that I should…..put before you the fruit of profound meditation in prison,
namely, the key to swaraj lies in fulfilling three conditions alone – in the spinning wheel,
Hindu-Muslim unity, and in the removal of untouchability.’ (Source: Collected Works
of MK Gandhi, Vol. 25, p. 536)
It is interesting that while Gandhi was strenuously attempting a change of heart to
deal with untouchability he was not at first for legal force by way of reservations etc or a
role for the state but later he agreed probably realising the enormity of the problem. For
instance he had once said: ‘I am not prepared for any concessions like reservations etc, to
the untouchables because I believe that it would be perpetuating untouchability. Let the
future legislatures of Free India be filled with untouchables alone, but let them come in as
equals. Unless we raise them to our level, our freedom will be futile.’ (Source: Speeches
and Writings of Mahatma Gandhi, p.905) But later he accepted that there may be a role of
the state and the law. He went on a fast at his ashram in the early 30s to protest separate
electorates for harijans and their own representatives or candidates, a plan of the British.
His fast was called a political stunt by Ambedkar. But later Gandhi agreed to a proposal
which formed the basis for what is known as the ‘Poona Pact’ between the Congress and
Ambedkar. He accepted a system where there would be reserved seats for Harijans but
not separate electorates. In fact even though Ambedkar drove a hard bargain and
managed to extract for the dalits double the number of reserved seats than had been
originally planned, it was Gandhi’s persuasion of the Congress that clichéd the deal. In
fact under his advise and guidance the Congress ratified the pact and passed a resolution
drafted by Gandhi himself that said, no Hindu should be regarded as untouchable because

118
of his birth, and that all those who had once been untouchables would now have equal
access with other Hindus to all public institutions, including wells, roads and schools.
This was clearly a major revolutionary step. Later at the Round Table Conference in 1931
Gandhi clearly was asking and anticipating state and legal provisions for untouchables
when he said:
‘I am afraid that for years to come India would be engaged in passing legislation
in order to raise the downtrodden, and the fallen, from the mire into which they have been
sunk………Look at the condition, if you will, of the untouchables, if the law comes to
their assistance and sets apart miles of territory. At the present moment they hold no land;
they are absolutely living at the mercy of the so called higher castes, and also, let me say,
at the mercy of the state. They can be removed from one quarter to another without
complaint and without being able to seek the assistance of law. Well, the first act of the
Legislature will then be to see that in order somewhat to equalise conditions, these people
are given grants freely.’ (Source: Collected Works of MK Gandhi, Vol. 32, p. 150)
From the political point of view Gandhi’s most powerful argument that he rightly
argued with the people of the nation was that we were asking for freedom from the
British on the basis of the doctrine of equality but we were not ready to apply it ourselves
to a large portion of our population. He argued just as the British assume they were born
to rule because Indians were less civilised don’t we have that same attitude towards the
harijans. Then how can we without being guilty of hypocrisy lecture the British when we
ourselves are doing exactly the same. He also argued we had no right to ask the aid of
God when we ourselves were denying the existence of a large number of her children. He
had said for instance:
‘Swaraj is a meaningless term if we desire to keep a fifth of India under perpetual
subjugation, and deliberately deny to the most deserving among His creatures the rights
of humanity. Inhuman ourselves, we may not plead before the (British) Throne for
deliverance from the inhumanity of others.’ (Source: Young India, May 25, 1921,
Collected Works of MK Gandhi, Vol. 20, p. 136) He also genuinely believed something
would definitely go wrong in the nationalist build up if our national unity had terrible
fault lines and fissures in it like untouchability. He had commented: ‘It is easy to decide
whether or not a particular issue should be taken up in the national struggle. There is no
choice but to solve a problem which, if left unsolved, would block our progress. I am
positively of the view that, had I not taken up the problem of untouchability, our struggle
would have made no headway. We simply could not mount the heaven-bound plane,
leaving behind those six crores of people whom, in our profound ignorance, we regard as
untouchables and exploit to the utmost. They would cling to the plane and, as they are
buried in the ground, it could not take off at all. I would not have taken up this question
(of untouchability) had I felt that they could have been carried along somehow, hanging
on to the plane.’ (Source: Collected Works of MK Gandhi, Vol. 20, p. 507-8)
Professor Judith Brown has summed up well the Gandhian involvement with the
problem of untouchability:
‘His primary social concern…was the problem of untouchability, the rejection of
a whole group of the poorest and the most menial in society as a result of Hindu ideas of
hierarchy, and purity and pollution. Now, as he travelled widely, he saw in harsh practice
the power of this social division, and the poverty and degradation it caused, though he

119
had rejected the whole idea far earlier and inveighed and worked against it even in South
Africa. Once home in India, having tested the temper of public opinion, he was aware of
the strength of Hindu orthodoxy and he took care not to equate his campaign against
untouchability with the question of caste as a whole for fear of holding back the work on
what he saw as the most vital and urgent reform. Rather, he argued, his was a campaign
to purify and strengthen caste by abolishing this pernicious custom. For Gandhi
untouchability was primarily a religious problem. He believed that there was no warrant
for it in the scriptures: it was a late and evil accretion which actually harmed and
threatened the Hindu tradition he so treasured, and its observance was positively sinful. If
it continued he feared that Hinduism would not survive. However, he was also clear that
its observance impeded India’s journey to swaraj at an obvious level, for such a profound
fissure in Hindu society might well generate violent rebellion among untouchables
against the higher castes, and would give leverage to any imperial authority wishing to
maintain Indian divisions in order to rule’.
Bhikhu Parekh has critically commented on the Gandhian program on
untouchability and has pointed out one basic and very surprising aspect to it – that the
movement wasn’t really organised along the lines of non-violent protest or satyagraha
that Gandhi taught India and the world. Why? . Was he concerned about maintaining
national unity and what he stressed on again and again – ‘harmony’ ?.
Bhikhu Parekh has commented:
‘Gandhi’s reform of untouchability suffered from a similar limitation. He did
more than any other Indian to undermine it, yet his attack had a profound weakness. He
saw it as a blot on the Hindu religion and made it the sole responsibility of the high caste
Hindus to fight against it. The untouchables themselves, reduced to passive and pathetic
symbols of high caste Hindu tyranny, were not involved in the struggle for their
emancipation, a strange attitude in a man who everywhere else wanted the victims to
fight for themselves. As a result they had no opportunity to work and fight alongside the
Hindus, and they neither occupied important positions in the Harijan Sevak Sangh and
the Congress nor set up an independent and effective organisation of their own. Not
surprisingly they hardly grew under Gandhi’s shadow, and a man who created so many
great leaders was unable to create a single Harijan leader of equal stature. Ambedkar, one
of the few exceptions, was not his favourite Harijan and grew in opposition to him.’
(Source: Bhikhu Parekh, Gandhi’s Political Philosophy p. 210-11)
10.4 EXERCISES
1. What were the main arguments against untouchability that Gandhi placed before the
nation and what were the main methods that he used to eradicate it.

120