Dasgupta GandhisFailure 2017

Gandhi’s Failure
Author(s): Sandipto Dasgupta

Source: Perspectives on Politics , September 2017, Vol. 15, No. 3 (September 2017), pp. 647-
662
Published by: American Political Science Association
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26615138
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
American Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Perspectives on Politics
This content downloaded from

202.41.10.107 on Thu, 21 Dec 2023 14:07:53 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Articles
Gandhi’s Failure: Anticolonial Movements

and Postcolonial Futures
Sandipto Dasgupta
M.K. Gandhi was the undisputed leader of India’s struggle for independence. Yet his vision for postcolonial India was completely
marginalized at the moment of decolonization. The article takes this seemingly paradoxical juncture as the vantage point from
which to offer a critique of Gandhi’s political thought and more broadly an analysis of the shift from anticolonial movements to
postcolonial rule. Through the voices of Gandhi’s two most significant contemporary critics—B.R. Ambedkar and Jawaharlal
Nehru—the article shows how his ideas failed to either inspire the struggle of the ruled (Ambedkar), or address the anxieties of the
would-be rulers (Nehru). Gandhi’s vision for a postcolonial India persisted within the conceptual constellation of negating colonial
modernity, rather than the historical possibilities of postcolonial futures. These predicaments provide an opportunity to analyze the
persistence of modern western political imaginaries in the decolonized world. Not through mere assertions of continuity or
mimicry, but rather through the concrete struggles, aspirations, and anxieties that constituted the strands of those transitional
moments.
T
he image is both poignant and dramatic. On centralized political power. The moment of his triumph
August 15, 1947, as India finally gained its —the birth of a new nation through the struggle of which
independence from colonial rule, M.K. Gandhi he was the unquestioned leader—was also a moment of
—the most important leader for the movement that won his most decisive defeat. Success, in Gandhi’s case, was
that independence and who was duly christened the indelibly marked with failure.
“father” of the nascent nation—was far away from the This rather remarkable conjunction of success (as
triumphant celebrations in the capital Delhi. In the city a leader of anti-colonial movement) and failure (in
of Calcutta, ravaged by religious riots sparked by the influencing the institutional design of the following
partition of the country, he spent the day in an postcolonial regime) poses an interesting paradox. I
abandoned house in a Muslim majority part of the city, take this paradox as the lens through which to critically
fasting. This distance was not merely symbolic. Any examine Gandhi’s ideas and, more broadly, the predic-
discussion of Gandhi with respect to the making of aments of the transition from an anticolonial to a post-
postcolonial India is suffused with an air of abandonment colonial political moment. In recent years, there has
and tragedy. His was the story of a path not taken, of been renewed scholarly interest in Gandhi as a political
a “Father of the Nation” whose filial creation chose not to thinker and practitioner.1 What many of these works
make itself in his image. The massive apparatus of the seek to recover is the robust critique of modern political
postcolonial developmental state ran contrary to his and social forms and a distinct alternative to them that
lifelong and consistent critique of the modern state and he advanced—for both its critical and constructive
potentials. Precisely because the primary referent point
for much of this scholarship has been (justifiably)
Gandhi’s prominence as an anti-colonial leader and
Sandipto Dasgupta is Assistant Professor of Political Science at thinker, my focus on the paradox of postcolonial failure
Ashoka University, New Delhi (sandipto.dasgupta@gmail.com). provides a complementary critical rejoinder. By looking
He would like to thank the following individuals for back at Gandhi’s thought from the historical standpoint
their comments on this article at various stages of its life: of his paradoxical marginalization, I would argue for
Partha Chatterjee, Jean Cohen, Alex Gourevitch, Carlo a deflationary reading of Gandhi’s ideas—as a thinker of
Invernizzi, Sudipta Kaviraj, Uday Singh Mehta, Andrew the non-colonial rather than the post-colonial. This
Poe, Corey Robin, and Ian Zuckerman. He would also like to suggests that while Gandhi remains an original and
thank the four anonymous reviewers for their comments, and productive critic of colonial condition, one cannot
Jeffrey Isaac for his invaluable advice during the process of unproblematically reconstruct an alternative vision to
revision. Western modernity or search for the constitutive
doi:10.1017/S1537592717000883
© American Political Science Association 2017 September 2017 | Vol. 15/No. 3 647

202.41.10.107 on Thu, 21 Dec 2023 14:07:53 +00:00
Articles | Gandhi’s Failure
principles for postcolonial futures from his repertoire of would voluntarily come forward to lessen the worst
ideas. consequences of these embedded power relations. The
My goal is not to marshal evidence of an irrefutable reformist commands of state institutions on the other
“judgment of history” against Gandhi’s ideas, putting the hand were coercive, prone to create a cycle of violence
burden of his success or his failure on his ideas alone. I and resentment, and hence to be avoided.
analyze the formation, contestation, and marginalization As independence became imminent, the question of
of Gandhi’s ideas as situated within their particular how to order a new society and the contrasting role of the
historical conjecture. In the prevalent political or schol- “constructive programme” versus the modern state as-
arly conversation, Gandhi is viewed as the proponent of sumed centrality. The process of constitution-making
non-violent actions or as a theorist for a politics inflected provided the setting for that debate to play out. At the
with morality. Yet he was not a detached theorist of Constituent Assembly, Gandhi’s vision of a polity consti-
politics or of alternatives to Western modernity. His tuted around decentralized village republics and construc-
ideas were generated in the process of leading a mass tive programme was comprehensively rejected. The second
movement against colonial rule and were shaped by the part of the paper reconstructs the main critiques of
socio-political constellation of that particular endeavor. Gandhi’s ideas and offers a stylized version of the debate
Tied as they were to concrete political struggles, his through Ambedkar and Nehru, the two most significant
thought needs to be historicized within the landscape contemporary opponents of Gandhi’s vision as well as the
that those struggles generated. The conjecture of the architects of the Constitution.
paradox provides us with a significant—though by no Ambedkar was one of Gandhi’s most important
means exclusive—historical standpoint from which to antagonists amongst his compatriots (second perhaps
analyze his ideas as inflected by such struggles and only to Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Paki-
contestations. The critique of his ideas, therefore, is stan).2 He sought to speak for those exploited by the
not presented here from an Archimedian standpoint but Indian caste hierarchy, and felt that Gandhi and the
through the two most significant contemporary voices Congress perpetuated the continuing dominance of the
that argued forcefully for the marginalization of his ideas upper castes in society. Nehru, on the other hand was
for a postcolonial future—B.R. Ambedkar and Jawahar- the chosen successor of Gandhi’s to the position of the
lal Nehru. primary leader of the Congress (subsequently India’s
The eve of the postcolonial transition asked of the first Prime Minister), and he represented the postcolo-
Indian political actors two questions: what and how. nial ruling elite. The justification for restaging the
What should be the principles on which a new post- contemporary critique of Gandhi’s vision through
colonial Indian polity is to be established? And how to Ambedkar and Nehru goes beyond their position as
bring about the transition from a colonial to a post- the two most prominent figures of the constitution
colonial condition to realize that vision? The first part making process. More significant are the contrasting
of this paper investigates how Gandhi sought to answer locations from which they offered their critique. For the
those questions. To provide a brief roadmap, let us sake of clarity, we could call Ambedkar’s critique as the
consider each of the what and the how questions in one of the outsider, made from the margins of both
turn. Gandhi’s critique of colonialism was not limited social and political spheres of power. Nehru’s, on the
to its specific wrongs, but encompassed the modern other hand, was the critique of an insider—made by the
logic of politics itself, whereby political institutions foremost member of the political elite, and representing
constituted a plane where the diverse interests and the anxieties of the soon-to-be governors of the post-
conflicts of social life can be mediated and overcome. colonial regime. Taken together, they provide us with
He felt that political institutions actually impeded the the most influential versions of the challenges to
development of moral and affective resources whereby Gandhi’s ideas from the standpoint of both the rulers
the calculus of interests can be overcome at the level of and the ruled.
embedded social life itself. This was his answer to the Beyond a critique of Gandhi in particular, this debate
what question. The answer to the how question—one speaks to the differing conceptions of independence that
that Gandhi called his “constructive programme”— were central to the political discourse around postcolonial
shared the same basic principles. Gandhi wrote and transitions of the mid-twentieth century. Gandhi imag-
spoke extensively about social problems like untouch- ined independence as a rejection of a Western model of
ability or poverty, and the consequent need for social politics, and hence through a binary framework of
reform. However, legal or institutional mechanisms led colonial versus non-colonial. The failure to do so could
by the state were not the way to achieve those reforms. be seen as a continuation of colonialism beyond colonial
The process had to be one that worked on the moral- rule—an argument that persists in a variant form today
psychological disposition of individuals and their in- through influential critiques of so-called Third World
ternalization of the principles, through which they states as continued colonization of the postcolonial world
648 Perspectives on Politics

202.41.10.107 on Thu, 21 Dec 2023 14:07:53 +00:00
by Western conceptual apparatus.3 Much of the con- Gandhi’s move was to challenge the very logic of this
temporary scholarly work on decolonization or post- narrative.
colonial studies focus their attention on the discursive Gandhi sought to invert the discursive dynamic of the
aspect of colonialism and its persistence. Ambedkar and relationship between state and society under colonial-
Nehru, from contrasting positions, viewed indepen- ism, whereby the latter ceded absolute primacy and
dence as a moment of reconfiguration rather than agency to the former. Gandhi countered this by
rejection. They sought to reclaim the colonial inheri- conceptualizing the Indian society as a potentially au-
tance of the state in aid of projects (Nehru) and struggles tonomous entity that through the associative and moral
(Ambedkar) that went beyond the demise of colonial resources inherent to it could generate its own principles
subjugation, and hence rejected the desired identity of self-organization, thereby overcoming the need for an
between postcolonial and non-colonial/non-Western. external authority.4 It was not some perceived deficiency
Such hopes of reclamation—flawed as they might have of Indian society that legitimized colonial rule, but rather
been—informed much of the political actors in the it was the imposition and intervention of the colonial
newly-decolonized countries of the twentieth century. state and its associated modern institutions that was the
The postcolonial state, in this version, rather than being main source of that society’s ills. What was required was
a simple facsimile of colonial ideology, was rather the site not to traverse the path towards a more “developed”
of the aspiration, contestations, and anxieties of post- society, but a process of moral development that could
colonial subjects. The paradox that we take as our bring forth self-rule.5
standpoint was one of the more meaningful conjectures
where these two versions of the postcolonial state— The Modern State and the Logic of Politics
which still serve as reference points for major debates on Central to this vision was Gandhi’s well-known critique of
and within postcolonial polities—engaged with each the modern state and associated logic of politics—which is
other not just on the plain of ideas but on the terrain seen as a solution to the problem of an inherent potential
of concrete historical projects. for disunity and strife in modern societies. For modern
theorists of state, the solution to the problem of dissension
inherent to the modern social sphere is sought in the
Against Colonial Modernity sphere of politics. The state is seen as necessary as it creates
Inverting the Discourse institutions and generates norms that can transcend the
Gandhi’s prominence and originality as an anticolonial divisions produced by the material reality of social life. It is
politician and thinker can be attributed to the depth of his also desirable as it creates a sphere where a re-orientation
critique of the colonial enterprise. In its simplest form, in towards unity and universality can be generated, thereby
the colonial narrative the colonized were assigned a place of overcoming the particularities of one’s social life. It is this
historical backwardness, thereby denying them the requi- move, turning towards political institutions to generate
site attributes and potential for governing themselves. The a condition for unified collective existence, that Gandhi
markers for this backwardness could be found in all the opposed.
various aspects of the colonized society: rom its underde- The demand of the state for adherence to the norms it
veloped economic organizations, to its “irrational” cultural has generated in the form of laws is absolute, secured in
practices. Given the supposed lack of inherent political the last instance through the coercive threat of punish-
potential of the Indian society, the state by necessity had to ments. The will of the state is formulated on the basis of
be something external. It had to stand above and at certain larger “ends” or telos—e.g., territorial integrity,
a distance, providing an orderly rule for a society that development, or security.6 The state subsumes the com-
could not rule itself. plex multiplicity of everyday social life and coercively
The predicament of the nationalist movement before coordinates it in ways that are amenable to this larger end.
Gandhi was that its possibilities of resistance were This determined march towards a desirable end—the
framed by the discourse produced by colonial power. public good—inscribes violence at the heart of modern
The prevalent attempt was to bridge the gap between political forms. I use the phrase modern political forms
the indigenous society and its colonial masters, which since Gandhi’s critique was directed not just at the state
would then allow the former to claim the same political but other kinds of modern political institutions—such as
freedom that was granted within the metropole. The the political party or revolutionary organizations. Hence
nationalists would argue about the causes and nature of Gandhi’s call to disband the Congress as a party
the Indian backwardness, as well as the time and the after independence was won,7 or his opposition to the
process of recovery, but the fundamental logic of spatial Bolshevik Revolution.8
ordering of history by which India had to traverse the Gandhi—as has been oft-noted—sought to foreground
path to maturity remained unchallenged. Rather than means over ends. His name for this form of non-violent
attempting to enter the debate on those terms, and means-oriented collective action was satyagraha.
September 2017 | Vol. 15/No. 3 649

202.41.10.107 on Thu, 21 Dec 2023 14:07:53 +00:00
Ajay Skaria has offered an influential reading of the practice unlikely that meaningful social change and the construc-
that was at the heart of satyagraha, which he calls “neigh- tion of a desirable social order could be achieved through
borliness.”9 Neighborliness was not a fixed set of normative those institutions.22
imperatives, but rather an ever-ongoing praxis of being vis-à-
vis another. It was based on acts of self-discipline10 and The Alternative
sacrifice that can remake both one’s own self as well as one’s The shift from institutions of the state to the interactions
adversary based on love rather than commands.11 of social life changed the scale of politics. For Gandhi,
There were significant political stakes in such a reor- modern politics sought to solve the tensions in society
ientation. Gandhi’s principal contribution to Indian through distance, from which it could subsume the
politics was to lead a popular movement against colonial multiplicity of interests in society in the name of unity
rule by forging a contingent alliance between the disparate or public good. Satyagraha on the other hand demanded
groups opposed to the colonial regime, most notably by the intimacy of proximity. There are two significant ways
mobilizing the rural peasant masses (the vast majority of in which Gandhi imagined a more proximate scale for
the population) under the banner of Indian National politics—the relational proximity of kinship and the
Congress and its predominantly urban elite leadership.12 spatial proximity of the village. This rescaling was the
As Karuna Mantena has argued, contrary to its apparent focus of the eventual rift between Gandhi and the post-
idealism, Gandhian politics of non-violence could be colonial nation-builders, and hence each of those themes
understood as a realist reaction to the inherent potential require some elaboration.
for conflict in politics, which was exacerbated in moments
of mobilization at such a massive level.13 Gandhi’s political Kinship
thought was marked by a “contextual, consequentialist, Kinship and the family provided the necessary models of
and moral-psychological analysis of a political world un- affection and cooperation that were required to reconfig-
derstood to be marked by inherent tendencies toward ure relations of conflict. Amongst “members of a family,”
conflict.”14 Approaching politics from the certitude of Gandhi wrote, “there is no feeling of mine or thine. That is
desirable ends necessarily led to violence and coercion. It why they are called co-operators. Similarly when we take
had the possible effect of creating resentment amongst a society, a nation or the entire mankind as a family all men
one’s opponents and further entrenching divisions become co-operators.”23 Satyagraha therefore had to be
and self-interests, thereby ultimately proving to be self- “the extension of domestic law on the political field.”24
defeating.15 Even the act of persuasion by the force of The allusion to affective bonds of the family was a recurrent
reason was not sufficient to overcome these issues. Not just theme in Gandhi’s writings and speeches. These were
an “appeal to intelligence,” but “piercing the heart” was placed in contraposition to the institutions of the colonial
the object of satyagraha.16 To create a collectivity one had state. In Hind Swaraj he takes the example of a “quarrel”
to do no less than convert one’s opponents. being litigated at the court.25 An “ordinary man” would
Gandhi imagined a community where recognition and have tried to settle their quarrel through conversation, like
respect would be embodied and authentic, not mediated a good neighbor would. The lawyer on the other hand is
through the state and the law. In such a community, a “stranger” to his client, who is further estranged by the
a practice of self-governance through reflexive self- abstract language of law. The quarrel, disfigured by
regulation would be possible. Hence, there would be the language of a legal dispute can now only be settled
no place for the police, lawyers, or the parliament17—no with the might of the state backing one or the other parties.
representative bodies,18 no modern state institutions as we Hence law “makes brothers enemies.”26 Law takes simple
know them.19 While Gandhi himself referred to this “quarrels”—a disagreement between two individuals fa-
political vision as one of “enlightened anarchy,”20 it would miliar to each other—and subjects them to a verdict based
be a stretch to call him an anarchist sensu stricto. Gandhi on an abstract set of rules. The distance of the judge from
did not seek to provide comprehensive justifications as to the particular life of the dispute robs any possibility of
why the authority of the state should not be obeyed. overcoming through mutual understanding and affection.
Rather, within the concrete political context of India, he The rule of the stranger who promises justice by virtue of
sought to counter the claim that the modern centralized being distant from society was the essence of India’s
state is either inevitable or desirable as an institution that subjugation. 27
can guarantee a just social order. More narrowly, he sought Instead of the estrangement of legal rules, the ideal
to counter the idea that a modern centralized state had to form of reconciliatory justice should be modeled on the
be the primary instrument through which the necessary affectionate wisdom of the father. Discussing his notion
and desirable change in the Indian social order can be of Ramrajya, an idealized polity based on the widely
effected. Hence, while at times he was willing to counte- popular mythology of king Rama, Gandhi states that the
nance both the existence and the limited usefulness of relationship between the ruler and the ruled should be “as
modern state institutions,21 he was very clear that it was good as that between a father and a son.”28 Such form of

202.41.10.107 on Thu, 21 Dec 2023 14:07:53 +00:00
wisdom could be found in the council of elders known as “real plague spots” in colonial India were urban centers like
the panch—from which comes the notion of the pan- Calcutta and Bombay, corrupted by modern economic
chayat, the central institution of the village republics he relations and the individuation that it engendered.41
went on to propose. Resolving disputes through traditional Instead, the true soul of India was to be found in its
arbitration by the panch “presumes a distinctive horizon of villages—their lack of development a mark of resistance to
reconciliation and resolution; one where unity is produced the corrupting effects of modern civilization. The village,
by deference to the wisdom and knowledge of the in its ideal Gandhian form, was to be self-sufficient
father.”29 economically, producing almost all of what it needs and
Kinship models also supplied one of the most signif- thereby giving it autonomy from the outside world.42 The
icant proposals in Gandhi’s program for social change— political decentralization and economic self-sufficiency
trusteeship. Late colonial India was marked by increasing would provide the necessary conditions for the develop-
peasant mobilization against the exploitation of the semi- ment of individual self-governance.43
feudal landholding system known as zamindari. Faced Gandhi’s social imaginary of the village was formulated
with the growing specter of conflict between landlords and as a negative (and a negation) of colonial modernity. The
peasants, and between the rich and the poor in general, village came to stand for an idealized social setting that
Gandhi—influenced by John Ruskin—proposed and could provide a reverse image of the individuated modern
propagated the concept of trusteeship.30 He suggested social life. This idealization of the Indian village did not
that the rich were “mere trustees” of the wealth that they originate from Gandhi. He derived it from circuits of ideas
owned, and had a moral obligation to voluntarily distrib- widely prevalent from the nineteenth century onwards.
ute the excess to the poor and the needy.31 The most prominent influence was Henry Maine’s classic
The moral obligation to act as a trustee was generated Village Communities in the East and West, which Gandhi
through bonds of kinship. Landlords and peasants radicalized towards anti-colonial ends.44 In making the
“should be members of a joint family in which the village a symbolic spatial site of anti-modernity, this
Zamindar is the head guarding their [the peasant’s] construction was part of a global anti-statist, anti-capitalist
rights.”32 Landlords “must regard themselves, . . . as discourse. The notion of the “community” was often
trustees holding their wealth for the good of their wards, invoked as a resistive resource against the emergence of
the ryots [the peasants].”33 Trusteeship, if practiced modern political and economic forms. In the colonies, as
properly could solve the antagonistic relationship over the formal domains of political and institutional powers
land holdings. “If [the landlord] has been discharging his were surrendered to the colonial masters, community and
function as a trustee honestly [the peasants] would come to village came to signify the uncorrupted inner domain of
him before long in contrition and seek his guidance and the germinal nation that could be mobilized as a counter-
help.”34 He held the same to be true regarding industrial narrative against that domination.45 Gandhi’s discourse
capitalists and factory workers, and sought to organize was an exemplary version of this move.
labor unions on the basis of trusteeship.35 In 1946 Gandhi presented the most detailed version of
Trusteeship was Gandhi’s contribution to the fierce his vision for postcolonial India in an interview. The
debate about property redistribution and land reform that basic political unit was to be the village, which was to
was taking place as independence drew near. A more become a republic: self-sufficient and autonomous.46
equitable property regime had to come about through moral Each republic would be joined together in “ever-
and voluntary action on the part of the property owners— widening, never-ascending, circles.”47 In other words, it
charity and renunciation, not land reform. “I do not want to was to be a loose and non-hierarchical federation of village
dispossess anybody,” Gandhi emphasized. “I should then be republics, in sharp contrast to the pyramidal structure of
departing from the rule of Ahimsa [nonviolence].”36 While the modern state.48 Decentralization would preserve the
on a few occasions Gandhi admitted being open to limited political autonomy of the villages, while a non-capitalist
use of state power for property acquisition,37 there is little artisanal production system would preserve its economic
doubt—from both his words38 and his actions39—that he autonomy.
felt such a scenario would be far from desirable. To Nehru’s
explicit doubts regarding the effectiveness of trusteeship to The Critiques
achieve equitable property relations, Gandhi replied that “we A few months after Gandhi gave that interview, the
do not seek to coerce any; we seek to convert them. This Constitutional Assembly was convened to formulate the
method may appear to be long, perhaps too long, but I am architecture of political power in soon-to-be-independent
convinced that it is the shortest.”40 India. The Assembly was for all practical purposes
controlled by the Congress, a party that Gandhi had
The Village Community been an undisputed leader of. Nevertheless, the Assembly
If kinship provided the relational basis, the spatial site of at no point seriously considered the Gandhian idea of
the “constructive programme” had to be the village. The a decentralized federation of village republic as a model

202.41.10.107 on Thu, 21 Dec 2023 14:07:53 +00:00
for constitutional design.49 Gandhi himself was resigned open to Government, also they are far more effective. What
to this possibility by 1946,50 though his followers contin- punishment in the penal code is comparable in its magnitude
and its severity to excommunication?53
ued to make his case within and outside the Assembly,
with not much success. We will now turn our attention to The village, which Gandhi had sought to posit as
the most significant and influential of the voices who a “direct counterpoint”54 to the modern state was the site
engaged directly with Gandhi’s vision, and articulated where the tyranny of social power was at its most rampant.
their opposition to it from contrasting standpoints: B.R. The village in reality was nothing but a “a sink of localism,
Ambedkar and Jawaharlal Nehru. a den of ignorance, narrow-mindedness and communal-
ism,”55 riven with a hierarchical social organization that
Ambedkar: Critique of the Ruled was the source of “social and moral evils.”56 For Ambed-
Gandhi symbolically exemplified the possibility of over- kar, Gandhi’s suggestion of basing the polity of an
coming social conflicts through conscientious actions in independent India around such a hierarchical structure
his own personal life. Through his model of self- was not just naive. Rather, the governing part of “self-
sufficient, ascetic living, he aimed to produce most of governing village republics” was dependent upon the
the bare necessities he required to survive thereby over- oppressive order such a hierarchical organization pro-
coming the exploitation integral to the process of produced. Gandhi’s indifference was not a mere “accident.”
duction by withdrawing from consumption, at the same He required the “class structure” of the village communi-
time providing poverty with the symbolic veneer of moral ties to function as a “living faith.”57 Hence, his apparently
virtue. His ashram, formed as a simulation of village tacit acceptance of them was in actuality his “official
communities, was similarly free from the stratification and doctrine.”58 Despite Gandhi’s denial to the effect, having
social antagonisms existing in actual villages.51 However, disavowed the necessity of state institutions and legal
most landlords or upper caste Hindus were not Gandhi, norms, he fell back upon the traditional structures in-
and hardly any village in India resembled his ashram. Even herent to Indian society to construct some kind of
Gandhi admitted, as late as 1941, that the constructive collective order, with some modification at the level of
program was far from a success and that he had “nothing customary conducts. However, as Ambedkar stressed in
much yet to show by way of demonstration [of its a response to Gandhi, “My quarrel with Hindus and
results].”52 Hinduism is not over the imperfections of their social
The problem, however, was not simply one of all men conduct. It is much more fundamental. It is over their
not being angels, as Madison would have put it. For B.R. ideals.”59 The “depressed classes,” according to Ambedkar,
Ambedkar, the problem with Gandhi’s ideas went far therefore had no good reason to accept those ideals or
beyond a case of naive optimism. Ambedkar was one of ordering principles over modern institutions.
Gandhi’s most significant contemporary antagonists. Un- Gandhi had only two meaningful experiences of per-
like Gandhi who was born into a dominant trading caste, sonally organizing a satyagraha in villages—in Champaran
Ambedkar was born a dalit, considered “untouchable” by and Kheda in 1918—which he held up as ideal models to be
the dominant castes. He experienced first-hand while followed.60 Historians have surmised that the particularities
growing up the degradation and discrimination of the of those formative cases, where the major issue was not
caste system. After academic training in the United States hostility between classes but common grievances against the
and England and establishing a legal career in Bombay, colonial state, informed his view about the possibility for
Ambedkar’s project was to organize the dalits into an non-conflictual resolutions of social antagonisms.61 Cru-
independent political group, challenging the hegemony of cially for Ambedkar’s critique, such experiences shaped
the dominant-caste-led Congress. This brought him in Gandhi’s idea of a cross-caste and class harmonious
direct conflict with Gandhi, who was keen to insist on his solidarity within the context of the rural social order.
and Congress’s role as the representative of all Indians, Furthermore, it posited an antagonistic binary between
irrespective of caste. Both his distinct social position (as the oppression of the colonial state, and resistive resources of
a dalit) and political project (organizing dalits as an the community. “The people of Bardoli could not secure
independent political force) motivated Ambedkar’s cri- justice as long as they were afraid of being punished by the
tique of Gandhi. Government . . . They freed themselves from its fear by
From this standpoint, the reality of oppression at the surrendering their hearts to their Sardar.”62 It is precisely
hands of social superiors was in no way less of a problem such a replacement of the Government with the Sardar
than the repression at the hands of the state. Ambedkar, (village notable) that Ambedkar was against, since he felt
in definite contrast to Gandhi, held that that it required the lower castes to acquiesce to their inferior
status and material condition within such an arrangement.
Most people do not realize that society can practice tyranny and
oppression against an individual in a far greater degree than Read this way, Ambedkar’s critique was not merely
a Government can. The means and scope that are open to concerned with the Gandhian model of social change on
society for oppression are more extensive than those that are the grounds of it being idealistic or ineffective. It was

202.41.10.107 on Thu, 21 Dec 2023 14:07:53 +00:00
directed at the Gandhian idea of coalition building itself, the Assembly, certain Gandhian principles were included
since at the heart of that coalition lay a dependence on in the Constitution only in the Directive Principles of
traditional social hierarchies as a mechanism to generate State Policy—an ideological portmanteau of desirable
loyalty and acquiescence. The solution was to organize the political goals without any legal enforceability.72 Outside
lower castes independently of Congress. Institutionally, it of these provisions, the rest of the Constitution erected an
meant demanding a system of separate electorates, architecture of a robust modern state, with centralized
whereby the lower castes would vote separately to choose power structures and provisions facilitating decisive social
their own political representatives.63 The distinction in interventions. Influenced by Ambedkar (and his reading of
political representation would reflect the disparity of social post-civil war reconstruction in America),73 it further
interests, and the resulting political empowerment would included rights that could be enforced horizontally—that
lead to the social emancipation of the depressed classes. is, against fellow citizens rather than the State.74 It was
Against this demand, Gandhi went on a hunger strike— a way for individuals to call upon state power to remedy
the only time he took such an action against an Indian the worst forms of domination caused by social power, in
leader. With Gandhi’s health failing and pressure mount- stark contrast of Gandhi’s worldview.
ing on him as a result, Ambedkar was forced to sign the While Ambedkar offered the most detailed and in-
“Poona Pact,” giving up the demand for separate elector- fluential version of the critique of Gandhi mentioned
ates.64 here, he was by no means the only one who advanced it.
Despite that setback which extinguished the possibility The communists, who were increasingly influential
of a separate electorate, Ambedkar was insistent that the amongst the labor unions in the cities, and Sahajanand
social emancipation of the “depressed classes” could only Saraswati, who through the Kisan Sabha had mobilized
happen through their political empowerment. How could vast numbers of peasants in North India,75 expressed their
the depressed classes ever “accept” Gandhi as their opposition on broadly similar lines. What is common
“saviour”?65 Given the admitted failures of Gandhian amongst these groups was their respective commitment
“social processes” to help the cause of the least powerful towards mobilizing the different exploited groups in
in society, how could one agree with his anathema to society (be it the dalits, the peasantry, or the workers) as
“political processes”?66 Rather than relying on “charity” and distinct political forces. Hence their resistance to Con-
“zeal”, Ambedkar argued, the “Untouchables feel that . . . gress’s attempt to claim hegemonic leadership over the
their emancipation . . . can be secured by them by political entirety of Indian society irrespective of its internal
power, and nothing else.”67 Through a constitutionalized cleavages. From their standpoint, Gandhi’s vision for
sphere of legal and democratic equality there was at least postcolonial India was at best oblivious to existing
the outline of a “common plane where the privileged and hierarchies in society, and at worst complicit and de-
subject classes could meet,” a formal equality that would be pendent on them. His principles of social change were an
non-existent in the Gandhian world of village republics.68 extension of his principles for political mobilizations—
Despite the limits of formal constitutional equality, electoral both of which sought to undermine the political
politics and legal institutions at least provided forums autonomy—and hence social emancipation—of the
through which these marginalized groups could mobilize dominated castes and classes.
and demand alterations to their condition.
Ambedkar went on to become the Chairman of the Nehru: Critique of the Rulers
Drafting Committee for the Constitution. One of his As Gandhi’s chosen successor as the leader of Congress,
major priorities in this role was countering any influence and hence the presumptive Prime Minister of India,
of Gandhian ideas in the Constitutional design, remark- Jawaharlal Nehru’s critique came from a very different
ing that “I am glad that the Draft Constitution has place. Nehru was unfailingly loyal and admiring of
discarded the village and adopted the individual as its Gandhi’s leadership of the anti-colonial movement, and
unit.”69 There were many who argued for modified shared an almost filial bond with him. Yet he consistently
versions of Gandhian principles in the Constitution: disagreed with Gandhi’s vision for a postcolonial India.
e.g., devolution of some powers to village panchayats.70 Nehru’s critique of Gandhi has primarily been understood
Ambedkar opposed this on the grounds that the more through the lens of their ideological difference on the
localized the center of political power, the higher was the question of modernity and development. As opposed to
danger of it being corrupted and captured by local power Gandhi, who sought to fundamentally question the
relations. In opposition to Gandhi’s politics of proximity, precepts of modern socio-economic systems, Nehru was
the centralization would offer the necessary distance from convinced of their desirability. The problem with India
locally entrenched hierarchies.71 The abstract neutrality of was not the disruption of traditional modes of being
law courts, however imperfect, would be preferable to through the colonial imposition of modern political and
adjudication by panchayats embedded in local networks of social forms, but rather the fact that colonialism hampered
social power. Finally, on the insistence of the Gandhians in and distorted the developmental trajectory of India’s

202.41.10.107 on Thu, 21 Dec 2023 14:07:53 +00:00
society and economy.76 The need of the hour therefore groups, he stated that “Congress is only one of the many
was industrialization, not rural artisanship. This further parties that are said to be represented here. The organic
meant that in contrast to Gandhi, Nehru was very much fact, however, is that it is the only representative body
an end-oriented politician, and hence prioritized the speaking for the vast masses in India.”80
desired end (modernization and development) over the The claim to speak for the whole—and nothing but the
means (satyagraha). These vast ideological differences whole—was crucial to Congressional control of the
between the two undoubtedly explain their deep disagree- nationalist movement. However, the success of that
ments as the moment of transition drew nearer. Yet there is representational claim was contingent upon the solidarity
another aspect to their debate that is of equal (if not enabled by the common opposition to the colonial regime.
greater) importance, since it reveals not just a personal When the focus shifted to the postcolonial regime
ideological contrast, but a larger question facing the transition and the social and political aspirations that such
postcolonial elite at the transitional moment—and which a possibility generated, the efficacy of that claim was no
Nehru as the most prominent member of that elite (along longer a given. Rather, the slippages between Gandhi’s
with most of the Congress leadership) felt Gandhi’s vision words and the aspirations of even those who claimed to
was inadequate in addressing. follow him became evident much before the transition to
Not only did Nehru think that modernization and the postcolonial regime was imminent.
economic development was necessary for India, he Shahid Amin, in his seminal work studying the
thought that they were urgent necessities. Not only would reception of the Gandhian message by the peasants of
Gandhi’s vision of social change eventually leave India Gorakhpur in 1921, found that “the popular notion of
underdeveloped and lacking in basic amenities of modern ‘Gandhiji’s Swaraj’ appears to have taken shape quite
life, the postcolonial leadership could ill afford the time independently of the district leadership of the Con-
required for the slow patient work of “constructive gress.”81 Gandhi’s visit there, rather than imparting any
programme”. The rationale for this urgency reveals the specific plan of action, triggered the political imagination
contrast between Nehru and Ambedkar’s position. If of the peasantry, making it possible to think of overturning
Ambedkar was concerned about the (potential) success relations of power and domination that had seemed
of Congress’s claim to represent the oppressed sections of inviolable.82 “Though deriving their legitimacy from the
the society, Nehru was concerned about the (potential) supposed orders of Gandhi, peasant actions in such cases
fragility of such a claim. Hence time was of the essence for were framed in terms of what was popularly regarded to be
addressing the undercurrent of social dissensus that could just, fair and possible.”83 Amin’s findings were not unique
destabilize the nascent political order. To understand this to Gorakhpur. Gandhi’s message was often creatively
concern, and why a critique of Gandhi arose out of it, we appropriated for numerous militant peasant struggles, at
need to briefly return to the anxieties of representation in times against Indian landlords, and in explicit conflict with
Gandhi’s own politics. his ideals of political action.84 Gandhi’s anxiety about the
Gandhi was ambivalent about representation as a cen- creative possibilities of popular imagination was expressed
tral tenet of modern politics. He famously described the in his reflection on the need for “disciplining” the
British Parliament as “a sterile woman and a prostitute,”77 masses.85 “Before we can make real headway,” Gandhi
and remarked that “if the money and time wasted by wrote, “we must train these masses of men . . . who want to
Parliament were entrusted to a few good men, the English be taught and led. But a few intelligent, sincere, local
nation would be occupying today a much higher plat- workers are needed, and the whole nation can be organized
form.”78 Yet as a leader of a nationalist movement Gandhi to act intelligently, and democracy can be evolved out of
could not completely avoid the problem of legitimate mobocracy.”86
representation. To successfully confront the colonial Gandhi’s acknowledgement of the need for imposed
rulers, Gandhi and the Congress had to claim that they discipline and training was an expression of his anxiety
represented—spoke for—the nation-to-be that was India. about the gap between his ideas and those of the masses—
The stakes of Congress’s claim for being a sole and unified and what they regarded as “just, fair, and possible.”87 As
representative were high leading up to the independence, the masses creatively appropriated Gandhian tropes, they
when several groups in Indian society proposed their could no longer be viewed as passive receptors of nation-
separate and distinct assertions of representation. The alist ideology. In their persistent, rebellious expression of
colonial government was only too glad to enable and their political subjectivity they simultaneously demanded
encourage such a multiplicity of representative claims. that independence should also include a plan for an end to
Faced with this potential for fracturing, Gandhi was their exploitation and threatened Congress’s ability to
forceful in asserting that the Congress had an exclusive plausibly speak for the nation—not immediately, but
claim on representing Indians.79 While attending the potentially.
Round Table Conference for political reforms in London, The divergence between Gandhi and Nehru could be
sharing the space with “representatives” of various social framed through the lens of this problem. The most direct

202.41.10.107 on Thu, 21 Dec 2023 14:07:53 +00:00
expression of their disagreement can be found in Nehru’s a contingent alliance between the masses and the elites that
reply to a letter from Gandhi in 1945, arguing for the gave the anti-colonial movement its formidable charac-
Congress to adopt the latter’s vision.88 Nehru responded ter.99 Nevertheless, as Nehru hinted, it was an alliance
that the crucial issue before the Congress was not the means “contingent” on the existence of a common enemy to
oriented question of “non-violence versus violence,” but struggle against. In the absence of that contingent condi-
rather how to “achieve” a new political and social order.89 tion, as the postcolonial transition drew near, there was no
The village could not be the basis of such an order. “A inevitable reason for the Congress to set aside their
village, normally speaking, is backward intellectually and “disagreement” with Gandhi. He represented the “un-
culturally . . . . Narrow-minded people are much more likely yielding opposition to those that sought to enslave” India,
to be untruthful and violent.”90 The vision that Gandhi had not necessarily the political and social vision of Indians
laid out in Hind Swaraj, Nehru said bluntly, was “com- who have now broken those chains.
pletely unreal.”91 Rather, the proper question in front of By the time Nehru wrote the letter in 1945, the decision
Congress was how to achieve certain “objectives” like of the “representatives of free India” was not an abstract
“sufficiency of food, clothing, housing, education, sanitation hypothetical. Since it fought and won by a landslide its first
etc.” and crucially, to find ways “to attain them speedily.”92 election in 1936, the Congress got a sense of the aspiration of
India had to become a “technically advanced country.”93 the “people” beyond the removal of colonial rule. The
These were well known ideological differences between experience of building an electoral organization, and address-
them. But Nehru then continues to present the high ing concerns in meetings and rallies, gave the congressional
stakes of these differences. Implicitly pointing out that leaders a sense of the challenges the material conditions of the
Gandhi’s ideas are far from being a consensual common country posed in creating a stable basis for popular
sense regarding a new vision of collective existence, Nehru government. An increasing majority in the Congress began
writes that taking them up at the eve of independence to acknowledge that the “people” could not be presumed to
would “create a great confusion in people’s minds resulting exist independent of their necessities, especially when those
in inability to act in the present.”94 More worryingly, it necessities were so acute. In a 1937 speech demanding the
“may also result in creating barriers between Congress and convening of a constituent assembly for Indians, Jawaharlal
others in the country,” jeopardizing its ability to speak for Nehru said that “they cry aloud for succour, these unhappy
the entire nation.95 Hence, Nehru argued, this was no millions of our countrymen . . . . We talk of swaraj and
longer just a difference of opinion between him and independence, but in human terms it means relief to the
Gandhi. “Ultimately of course this and other questions masses from their unutterable sorrow and misery.”100
will have to be decided by representatives of free India.”96 A new postcolonial polity for India, in this telling,
Nehru’s deployment of the notion of “representation” necessarily addressed the material conditions of Indian
against Gandhi was deeply significant, and reveals an society. The language of development and modernization
ambiguity about his assessment of Gandhi’s place in the was to be the nationalist language through which
anti-colonial movement. In an otherwise excessively ad- Congress could plausibly claim to speak for the people
miring account of Gandhi in his book Discovery of India, of independent India. It could promise an “ending of
there lies a crucial passage that is worth quoting at length: poverty and ignorance and disease and inequality of
opportunity,” thereby “attaining [India’s] rightful place
Congress was dominated by Gandhi, yet it was a peculiar
domination, for the Congress was an active, rebellious, many- in the world.” It was to be the basis of its postcolonial
sided organization, full of variety of opinion, and not easily legitimacy, once the fight against colonial rule was over.
led this way or that.. . . and more than one occasion there The Congress’s program in the years leading up to
came a break between him and Congress. But always he was independence included central planning, state-led indus-
the symbol of India’s independence . . . and unyielding trialization, and land reform.101
opposition to all those who sought to enslave her, and it was
as such a symbol people gathered to him and accepted his lead, even These goals required a strong and centralized state
though they disagreed with him on other matters. . . . [W]hen the machinery, especially if one had to address the problem of
struggle was inevitable that symbol became all important, and underdevelopment and inequality; one needed a state
everything else was secondary.97 powerful enough to overwhelm what Ronald Herring has
Nehru here subtly alludes to the fact that Gandhi’s called “the embedded particularities” at the local level.102
unrivalled leadership position was not necessarily due to Congress would therefore preserve much of the infrastruc-
a wide consensus on the substantive aspects of his social or ture of the immense colonial state machinery—two-thirds
political imagination, but the symbolic register of his of the Constitution was derived from the colonial 1935
politics. Gandhi’s deployment of the symbolism of com- Government of India Act. The argument contra Gandhi
munity and kinship created a “close correspondence” was that it was not the state itself that was the problem, but
between his rhetorical repertoire and the traditional by whom and for what ends its powers were used.103
“peasant-communitarian” language of resistance.98 This claim about the necessity of the modern state,
Gandhi emerged therefore as an all-important “hinge” in voiced by Nehru and various other leaders of the

202.41.10.107 on Thu, 21 Dec 2023 14:07:53 +00:00
Congress, can be divided into two related arguments. In Congress volunteers as Gandhi had envisioned, Nehru felt
the first version, elimination of poverty and economic that the task of managing the masses was better suited to
development was the major—or even the primary de- the tried and tested mechanisms of the modern state.
mand—of the Indian masses; demands that congressional Both the democratic and the managerial argument
leadership became increasingly aware of through the supplied justifications not just for the state but also for
electoral campaigns in the last decade of colonial rule. its centralization. With the former, the higher the degree of
Given the advent of universal franchise and electoral centralization of the institutions of the state, especially its
democracy after independence, the postcolonial regime deliberative and decision making aspects, the greater is the
had to be able to fulfil those demands. The consensus centripetal force it exerts on the democratic process—
amongst the Congress elites was that they could only be thereby preventing the fracturing of the diverse coalition.
met through a project of state-led investment and growth. With the latter, a centralized state is better able to
Only a strong centralized state could execute such a pro- perform both the repressive as well as technocratic-
gram. Hence, Congress would not be transformed into planning functions that are required of it to effectively
a “society to serve the people” advancing the “constructive manage dissensus.
program” at the village level, as Gandhi had wanted,104 but The democratic argument and the managerial argu-
would be a modern political party, asking for votes on ment often overlapped in their justification for the state
a platform to deliver material wellbeing.105 Building and its form (both requiring a high degree of centraliza-
a centralized state was the necessary first step towards tion). Their crucial distinction was in their starting point.
fulfilling that mandate. We can call this version the While the former was made primarily from the point of
“democratic argument” for the state. view of a political party, the latter was primarily from the
The second version was a significant variation on this standpoint of a government. In the context of the
theme. In this version, the demands for eradication of postcolonial transition, where the Congress party and
poverty and better material conditions reflected not the government was in effect one and the same—with
a realized consensus on a path of economic development, Nehru being the leader of both—it is not surprising that
but a yet inchoate dissatisfaction amongst the masses they flowed into one another. The distinction between
about the social condition. These dissatisfactions could them would become more significant in the subsequent
transform themselves into rebellious uprisings, destabiliz- years after the independence.106
ing the nascent regime. These were not idle speculations. The managerial argument also responded to an objec-
In the years leading up to independence, India witnessed tion that could have been raised against the democratic
both the biggest labor strike and the biggest peasant argument. Against the latter one could justifiably claim
rebellion in its history, not to mention the extraordinarily that there was no reason to suppose that Nehru (or other
bloody religious strife leading up to the partition of the presumptive rulers) possessed a superior knowledge vis- à
country. To the administrators—roles that Nehru and -vis Gandhi as to what the “people” really wanted, or that
Congress leaders were stepping into, leaving behind their in politics any such unambiguous and unalterable set of
role of movement builders—the cacophony of contending programmatic aspirations even exist around which to build
interests and the potential threat to regime stability was too an end-oriented project. Yet, it was precisely as a response
risky to ignore. A strong centralized state not only had the to such an uncertainty and lack of consensual aspiration
capability to deliver the change that people demanded (per that the managerial argument became necessary. While the
the “democratic argument”), but also the capacity to Gandhian model required a level of neighborly love
manage this potential for unrest. We can call this the amongst citizens, a modern state did not. What the state
“managerial argument” for the state. This line of argument offered instead was the necessary ideological and institu-
provided a justification for the repressive apparatus of the tional apparatus to address the conditions of contending
state—in part explaining why the Constituent Assembly aspirations and conflicting interests that marked the
was unwilling to repeal some of the more notorious moment of independence. The Constituent Assembly
provisions of colonial law like preventive detention and sought to create institutions that could manage the
sedition. However, its scope was considerably wider than multiplicity of social life, and provide forums for contes-
that. It also foresaw a vast regime of technocratic bodies tation and deliberation among conflictual interests. This
that could undertake precise calculations and planning for has been an enduring justification for the modern state—
necessary social reengineering, as well as a pedagogical role one that Gandhi had sought to counter, and one that
for the officers of the state, inculcating values of democracy Nehru and the Constituent Assembly reaffirmed.
and rule of law amongst the subjects newly turned citizens.
The managerial argument was a response to the anxiety Conclusion: From the Anticolonial to
about democracy and mass action that we have already the Postcolonial
noted regarding Gandhi, and which continued to haunt The Ambedkarite and Nehruvian critiques of Gandhi—
his successors to the leadership of Congress. Instead of expanded by others as well—could be viewed as sharing

202.41.10.107 on Thu, 21 Dec 2023 14:07:53 +00:00
a common starting point, though arriving at different not speak to the aspirations of a postcolonial reclamation of
conclusions. One way of reading Gandhi’s insistence on historical categories like progress or development—one that
privileging means over ends is privileging the avoidance informed not just Nehru, but a host of other Third-
of conflict over other goals that a political project might Worldist modernizers. Nor could he address the complex
espouse. What he scrupulously insisted on was that any political calculus of governance that confronted the post-
such project had to be first and foremost attendant to colonial elites. His vision remained, to misappropriate the
means that could avoid even the potential of conflict and words of Sheldon Wolin, one of (non-colonial) eternity
strife. In focusing on the phenomenon of conflict, his warning (post-colonial) time.
world view did not sufficiently engage with the possibility Taken together, these two lines of critique—Gandhi as
that conflicts are often manifestations of incipient a conservative seeking to preserve existing social hierar-
hierarchies, exploitation, and deprivation within social chies, and as an ahistorical thinker of utopias—constituted
life. the field of political criticism of Gandhi at the moment of
The Ambedkarite line of critique would have argued postcolonial transition. His vision did not appeal to the
that this failure was a deliberate choice. Gandhi was not postcolonial governance project of the elites, neither could
only blind to the exercise of social power amongst it inspire the struggles of those seeking to challenge that
Indians, he implicitly welcomed it. The decentralized project from below. To put it another way, Gandhi’s
system of obeisance and order that such a network of vision found no home in the nascent political constellation
power facilitated acted as a crucial resource for him: to being reoriented around emerging axes of rulers and ruled,
ensure the internal cohesiveness of the anti-colonial domination and emancipation, produced by the shift from
movement, and then as a way of consolidating a post- a colonial to a postcolonial world.
colonial order. Anti-colonial movements, and more All of which brings us back to the paradox we began
broadly any mass mobilizations against an external with—that of arguably one of the most influential anti-
enemy, have a tendency to destabilize internal habituated colonial leader’s marginalization in the postcolonial moment.
hierarchies and to generate conditions for long- We began by characterizing Gandhi’s vision as arguing for
suppressed internal conflicts against indigenous networks a complete break from the colonial condition—not just as
of domination. It is precisely such an effect that a political fact of subjugation, but the entire conceptual
Ambedkar and similarly minded critiques of Gandhi repertoire of Western modernity. Now however we can
wanted to invigorate, and they felt that Gandhi’s project read the Ambedkarite and Nehruvian critiques as alleging
was to neutralize that possibility. His was a technique a failure on Gandhi’s part to break from the colonial
honed through the management of the anti-colonial moment sufficiently. For the Ambedkarites, Gandhi
movement, and then sought to be extended to consolidate demanded a continuation of the marginalized’s acquies-
a postcolonial regime. What once was justified as necessary cence, justified through a common struggle against the
for a unified opposition to colonial rule could then only be colonizing outsiders, thereby obstructing the possibility
understood as a demand for the continued acquiescence of of newer struggles to emerge liberated from the logic of
the exploited to their own exploitation. This line of anti-colonial solidarity and unity of all Indians. For the
critique signified a current of postcolonial political thought Nehruvians, Gandhi’s continued insistence on equating
that sought to extend the notion of emancipation beyond historical progress and modernity with colonial domina-
the political freedom from colonial rule, and to emphasize tion impaired the ability to formulate a post-colonial path
divisions between the interests of the dominated and the of development and governance metric outside of the
dominant within the indigenous society once the divisions shadow of the colonial past. They could both be read as
between the colonizer and the colonized were consigned to saying that it was they, rather than Gandhi, who were
history. ready to make a break with the colonial past, formulating
The Nehruvian line of critique, on the other hand, saw projects for the postcolonial present—even though those
Gandhi as lacking the conceptual tools—rather than the projects might rely upon distinctly colonial inheritances,
intention—to engage with the concrete nature of the the most significant of which was the centralized modern
dissensus that produced conflicts. Gandhi, Nehru wrote, state. The key to the paradox then lies in the distinction
understood only “absolute war or absolute peace”—that is, between the terms non-colonial and post-colonial.
the presence or absence of conflict.107 “Anything in between Gandhi’s most significant discursive move was to invert
he did not understand.”108 The moral abstractions of peace/ the binaries of state/ society, progress/ stasis, and
war as the basic duality of human condition left him without modernity/ tradition that the colonial discourse had pro-
the conceptual tools to pass judgements regarding different duced as alibis to colonial domination. Yet in his inversion
forms of contestations and struggles that gave rise to Gandhi ended up reascribing those binaries, but in
conflicts. Viewing both history and politics as inescapably reverse. He held up the traditional social order as
marked by violence, he could only hope to constitute a resistive counter-point to the colonial political rule.
a collective self outside of history and politics. He could The necessary condition for the reassertion of the

202.41.10.107 on Thu, 21 Dec 2023 14:07:53 +00:00
colonized self was a rejection of modernity, both its 3 See, for example, Escobar 1995 and Scott 1998.
political institutions and social practices. It was a con- 4 Mantena 2012b.
demnation of modernity, not a critical analysis of its 5 Scholars have pointed out Gandhi’s denial of the
instantiations. Consequently, there was no project for primacy of history as a mode of self-understanding.
how modern institutions and processes—say, the state or Moral development, as opposed to historical de-
capitalism—could be restructured, rectified, or over- velopment, happens through a continuous process of
come, but an argument as to why they needed to be self-realization, a creative reinterpretation of the self
rejected.109 What would succeed that rejection was at both the individual and the collective level. This is
a social condition whose principal characteristic was its not determined by the linear narrative of history—
negation of the effects of colonial modernity. As an act of one of economic development or modernization.
negation it was bound in a constitutive relationship with Instead, it is a dialogic process constituted through
what it was negating. Hence, the historical basis of discipline and suffering. See Nandy 1983, Skaria
Gandhi’s social imagination remained the colonial con- 2016, Chatterjee 1986, and Devji 2010.
dition. His vision for a new social imaginary persisted 6 Mehta 2010, 358.
within the conceptual constellation of non-colonial, 7 Gandhi [1948], 333–335.
rather than the historical moment of the post-colonial. 8 Gandhi [1929a], 54.
The Gandhian paradox can be seen as a part of 9 Skaria 2002, 957.
a similarly puzzling global turn during the period of 10 “To conduct himself in such a way that his behavior
decolonization of mid-twentieth century. Anti-colonial will not hamper the well-being of his neighbours”;
movements in several places generated various alternative Gandhi [1939a], 134.
ideas of organizing polities—whether at a supra (i.e., 11 Terchek 2006, 202–203.
federations) as well as infra (as was the case with Gandhi) 12 “Gandhism succeeded in opening up the possibility
levels, often as an explicit reaction to the centralized by which the largest popular element of the nation—
colonial state. Yet it was the modern centralized state the peasantry—could be appropriated within the
form that prevailed in the postcolonial moment almost evolving political forms of the new Indian state;”
everywhere. Mimicry of the established Western political Chatterjee 1986, 124.
imaginary does indeed tell us something non-trivial about 13 Mantena 2012a.
this development. But a simple mapping of a continuity on 14 Ibid, 457.
that register ends up flattening the historical specificity and 15 Ibid, 458, 461.
socio-political configuration of those moments. The 16 Gandhi [1939a], 196.
centralized state triumphed not just as an unreflective 17 Gandhi [1910], 474.
acceptance of colonial inheritance, but through aspiration, 18 Gandhi [1939b], 134.
anxieties, and indeed, conflicts, that the opening up of 19 Ibid., 134.
postcolonial futures inaugurated. I obviously present only 20 Ibid.
a part of the story of one such instance. But through this 21 While Gandhi’s opposition to the modern state
relatively minor lens, I hope to suggest a way of analyzing form and its institutions is well documented—in
the postcolonial state—its emergence and subsequent his most well known work Hind Swaraj, for
problems—that goes beyond the purely ideational binary example—there have been important revisionist
of colonial/ non-colonial and onto the messy historicity of works that have challenged the prevalent view of
the postcolonial landscape. Gandhi as an uncompromising anti-statist—most
significantly by Anthony Parel (2012) and Bhiku
Notes Parekh (need date). In Parel’s reading, Gandhi was
1 Parel 2006; Mantena 2012a; Mehta 2010; Skaria the proponent of a (quasi-liberal) limited state.
2016; Bilgrami 2014; Devji 2012; Terchek 2006; While I have a very different reading than them, for
Godrej 2006, to name only a few. the purpose of this article the limited point I want to
2 This article, given its limited scope, does not deal make is that Gandhi had a strong preference for
with Jinnah, the Muslim League, or the Partition, all non-state rather than state-led actions for social
of which are significant in terms of both Gandhi’s change.
politics and the postcolonial transition. The im- 22 See n. 38.
mensity of those issues vis- à vis the limited scope of 23 Gandhi [1945], 390.
an article informed my choice. Given such limits, I 24 Gandhi [1920], 217.
chose to focus on the debates about social change and 25 Gandhi 1997, 59.
the state as it played around the Indian constitution 26 Ibid, 60.
making process—hence focusing on Ambedkar and 27 “The chief thing, however, to be remembered is that,
Nehru. without lawyers, courts could not have been

202.41.10.107 on Thu, 21 Dec 2023 14:07:53 +00:00
established or conducted, and without the latter the 51 Sarkar 2011, 175.
English could not rule”; ibid., 61. 52 Gandhi 1941, the chapter titled “Economic In-
28 Gandhi [1928a], 140. equality”.
29 Skaria 2011, 210. 53 Ambedkar 1943.
30 Chakrabarty 2015, 572–608. 54 Mantena 2012b.
31 Gandhi 1960, 4. 55 Ambedkar 1948.
32 Gandhi [1931a], 187. 56 Ambedkar 1946, 296.
33 Gandhi [1929a], 53. 57 Ibid.
34 Adding that “the proprietors of land . . . had therefore 58 Ibid.
only to adopt his ideal of trusteeship and their 59 Ambedkar 1936, Appendix II, A Reply to Gandhi.
troubles would end;” Gandhi 1946a, 185. 60 See, Gandhi 1941, “Kisans.”
35 Gandhi [1929b], 110, and Gandhi [1931d], 61 Sarkar 1983, 183–187; Henningham 1976; and
101–106. Gandhi formed a trade union in Ahmedabad Hardiman 1981. In Champaran, there was a conflu-
on the principles of trusteeship. “If I had my way,” he ence of interests amongst both the peasants and the
wrote, “I would regulate all the labour organizations money-lender/ merchants against the British planters,
of India after the Ahmedabad model”. Gandhi while in Kheda, (relatively) prosperous peasant pro-
[1941], “Labour.” prietors were demanding a decrease in their revenue.
36 Ibid., 3. 62 Gandhi [1928b], 390.
37 In at least one interview, faced with an explicit 63 Ambedkar 1979, 271.
question regarding the complete lack of willingness 64 Jaffrelot 2005, 66.
on the part of property owners to act as trustees, 65 Ambedkar 1946, 250.
Gandhi said that he can countenance the state taking 66 Ibid., 281.
over property “with the minimum exercise of vio- 67 Ibid., 281; emphasis added.
lence”; Gandhi [1934], 318. 68 Ibid., 296.
38 In the very same interview, he goes on to say that in 69 Ambedkar 1948.
his opinion “the violence of private ownership is less 70 The members of the Constituent Assembly, who at
injurious than the violence of the State,” and that different stages lamented the absence of Gandhian
while “we know of many cases where men have principles in the constitutional design, were T.
adopted trusteeship, but none where the State has Prakasam, Mahavir Tyagi, Damodar Swarup Seth,
lived for the poor”; ibid., 318–319. Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava, and H.V. Kamath.
39 Gandhi consistently opposed movements for boy- 71 Jaffrelot 2005, 109–11.
cotts, withdrawal of labor, or rent strikes by peasants 72 A member of the Constituent Assembly, T.T.
on this ground. Gandhi [1921a], 158–159. Krishnamachari remarked that “the chapter on Di-
40 Gandhi [1933], 395. rective Principles is a veritable dustbin of sentiment . . .
41 Gandhi [1915], 387. sufficiently resilient as to permit any individual of this
42 Gandhi [1946b], 325–326. house to ride his hobby horse into it.” Krishnama-
43 Gandhi did not have a corporatist vision of the village chari’s views find support in the history of how the
(i.e., village as a template for harmonious social directive principles were devised, as a repository of
order) but rather as providing an autonomous site for political aspirations of various kinds that could not be
the development of individual self-governance; incorporated into the juridical architecture of the
Mantena 2012b. Constitution.
44 For an instructive genealogy, as well as comparative 73 Ambedkar 1946, ch. III.
contextualization of Gandhi’s ideas amongst the 74 While Ambedkar wanted a wider application of
contemporary discourse surrounding the village, see horizontal rights, he only succeeded in including
ibid. a few: Articles 15(2) (access to shops, restaurants,
45 Chatterjee 1993, 237–238. etc.); 17 (prohibition of untouchability); 23 (pro-
46 Gandhi [1946b], 326. For further elaboration of this hibition of forced labor); and 25(2)(b) (access to
plan, see, Gandhi [1946c], at 371. Hindu religious institutions).
47 Gandhi [1946b]. 75 Hauser 1994, 8, 66.
48 The term ‘loosely federated village republic’ comes 76 Nehru 1946, 507.
from S.N. Agarwal, who in 1946 wrote a Gandhian 77 Gandhi 1997, 30.
Constitution for India, with Gandhi’s blessings; 78 Ibid., 31.
Agarwal 1946. 79 “The Congress was the only organization represent-
49 Austin 1972, 26–39. ing the whole of India”; Gandhi [1931c], 65.
50 Gandhi [1946b], 327. 80 Gandhi [1931b], 45.

202.41.10.107 on Thu, 21 Dec 2023 14:07:53 +00:00
81 Amin 1984, 52. dimensions—of conceiving the state as a site for

82 Ibid., 26–27; 54–55. A year after Gandhi’s speech in struggle rather than a technocratic instrument.
Gorakhpur, an attack on a police station in nearby 107 Nehru 1936, 128.
Chauri Chaura led Gandhi to call off the first Non- 108 Ibid.
Cooperation movement; see, Amin 1995. 109 Kaviraj 2010, 35.
83 Ibid., 55; emphasis added.
84 See Sarkar 1985 and Arnold 1982. References
85 “The nation must be disciplined to handle mass Agarwal, S. N. 1946. Gandhian Constitution for Free India.
movements in a sober and methodical manner.” Allahabad: Kitabistan.
“Volunteers”—Congress functionaries to specially Amin, Shahid. 1984. “Gandhi as Mahatma: Gorakhpur
“train” the masses—were to be deployed for this District, Eastern U.P., 1921–22.” In Subaltern Studies
process; Gandhi [1921b], 159. III, ed. Ranajit Guha. New Delhi: Oxford University
86 Gandhi [1920], 247. Press.
87 The seminal contribution of the historians of the . 1995. Event, Metaphor, Memory: Chauri Chaura
Subaltern Studies collective has been to highlight the 1922–1992. Berkeley: University of California Press.
existence and significance of this gap. It was, as they Ambedkar, B. R. 1943. Ranade Gandhi and Jinnah.
wrote, “the index of an important historical truth, Bombay: Thacker and Co.
that is, the failure of the Indian bourgeoisie to speak . 1946. What Congress and Gandhi Have Done to the
for the nation”; Guha 1982, 1, 4; also see, Guha Untouchables. Bombay: Thacker and Co.
1998. . 1948. “Speech at the Constituent Assembly, 4
88 Nehru 1988, 505–507. November, 1948. The Constituent Assembly Debates of
89 Ibid., 508. India. http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/
90 Ibid., 508. debates.htm; accessed April 24, 2015.
91 Ibid., 509. . 1979. Writings and Speeches, Vol. 1. Bombay:
92 Ibid., 508; emphasis added. Government of Maharashtra.
93 Ibid., 508. . 1990 [1936]. Annihilation of Caste. New Delhi:
94 Ibid., 509. Arnold Publishers.
95 Ibid. Arnold, David. 1982. “Rebellious Hillmen: The Gudem
96 Ibid. Rampa Risings 1839–1924”. In Subaltern Studies I, ed.
97 Nehru 1946, 364; emphasis added. Ranajit Guha. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
98 Chatterjee 1986, 124; also see Chatterjee 1993, Austin, Granville. 1972. The Indian Constitution: Cor-
163–167. nerstone of a Nation. New Delhi: Oxford University
99 Kaviraj 2010, 115. Press.
100 Nehru 1968, 91. Bilgrami, Akeel. 2002. “Gandhi’s Integrity: The Philosophy
101 Frankel 1978. Behind his Politics.” Post-Colonial Studies 5(1): 79–93.
102 Herring 1999, 306. . 2014. Secularism, Identity, and Enchantment.
103 Dasgupta 2014, 228–242. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
104 Gandhi [1948], 333. Chakrabarty, Bidyut. 2015. “Universal Benefit: Gandhi’s
105 Nehru 1946, 520. Doctrine of Trusteeship.” Modern Asian Studies 49(2):
106 Nehru witnessed Congress (perhaps predictably) 572–608.
transforming itself into a party of power, with local Chatterjee, Partha. 1986. Nationalist Thought and the
notables deftly translating traditional forms of Colonial World: A Derivative Discourse? New Delhi:
hierarchies and relations of dependence, into polit- Oxford University Press.
ical dominance—turning the party small-c conser- . 1993. The Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and
vative rather than transformative; Frankel 1978. Postcolonial Histories. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Uni-
Alienated from the political maneuverings of his versity Press.
colleagues, he turned his attention to the domain of Dasgupta, Sandipto. 2014. “A Language That Is Foreign
statecraft–to the planners and bureaucrats— rather to Us: Continuities and Anxieties in the Making of
than the work of launching a democratic movement the Indian Constitution.” Comparative Studies of
to challenge the conservative basis of social power South Asia, Africa, and the Middle East 34(2):
from below; Kaviraj 2010, 25; Gopal 1979, 74–75, 228–242.
and 145–149. The state became therefore a tech- Dalton, Dennis. 1993. Gandhi’s Power: Nonviolence in
nocratic rather than a popular instrument of social Action. New York: Columbia University Press.
change. As we have seen, Ambedkar recognized the Devji, Faisal. 2005. “The Practice of Prejudice: Gandhi’s
importance of focusing on the democratizing Politics of Friendship.” In Subaltern Studies XII:

202.41.10.107 on Thu, 21 Dec 2023 14:07:53 +00:00
Muslims, Dalits, and the Fabrication of History, ed. Shail . 1999 [1931c]. “Speech at Chatham House Meet-
Mayaram, M. S. S. Pandian, and Ajay Skaria. New ing.” In The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi
Delhi: Permanent Black. (Electronic Book). Vol. 54. New Delhi: Government of
. 2010. “Morality in the Shadow of Politics.” India.
Modern Intellectual History 7(2): 373–90. . 1999 [1931d]. “Interview to Charles Petrasch and
. 2012. The Impossible Indian: Gandhi and the Others.” In The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi
Temptation of Violence. Cambridge: Harvard University (Electronic Book). Vol. 54. New Delhi: Government of
Press. India.
Escobar, Arturo. 1995. Encountering Development: The . 1999 [1933]. “Letter to Jawaharlal Nehru.” In The
Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton, Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (Electronic Book).
NJ: Princeton University Press. Vol. 61. New Delhi: Government of India.
Frankel, Francine R. 1978. India’s Political Economy, . 1999 [1934]. “Interview to Nirmal Kumar Bose.”
1947–1977: The Gradual Revolution. Princeton, NJ: In The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (Electronic
Princeton University Press. Book). Vol. 65. New Delhi: Government of India .
Gandhi, M. K. 1941. Constructive Program, Its Meaning . 1999 [1939a]. “Requisite Qualifications.” In The
and Place. Ahmedabad: Navjivan. Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (Electronic Book).
. 1960. Trusteeship. Ahmedabad: Navjivan Trust. Vol. 75. New Delhi: Government of India.
. 1997. Hind Swaraj and Other Writings, ed. . 1999 [1939b]. “Enlightened Anarchy: A Political
Anthony J. Parel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Ideal.” In Gandhi’s Experiments With Truth: Essential
Press. Writings by Mahatma Gandhi, ed. Richard L. Johnson.
. 1999 [1910]. “Letter to Maganlal Gandhi.” In The New York: Lexington Books.
Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (Electronic Book). . 1999 [1945]. “Answers to Questions.” In The
Vol. 10. New Delhi: Government of India. Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (Electronic Book).
. 1999 [1915]. “Letter to Hermann Kallenbach.” In Vol. 88. New Delhi: Government of India.
The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (Electronic . 1999 [1946a]. “Speech at Congress Workers
Conference.” In The Collected Works of Mahatma
Book). Vol. 14. New Delhi: Government of India.
Gandhi (Electronic Book). Vol. 89. New Delhi: Gov-
. 1999 [1920]. “Democracy ‘versus’ Mobocracy.” In
ernment of India.
The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (Electronic
. 1999 [1946b]. “Independence.” In The Collected
Book). Vol. 21. New Delhi: Government of India.
Works of Mahatma Gandhi (Electronic Book). Vol. 91.
. 1999 [1921a]. “Zemindars and Ryats.” In The
New Delhi: Government of India .
Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (Electronic Book).
. 1999 [1946c]. “Speech at the Meeting of Deccan
Vol. 23. New Delhi: Government of India. Princes.” In The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi
. 1999 [1921b]. “Discipline.” In The Collected Works (Electronic Book). Vol. 91. New Delhi: Government of
of Mahatma Gandhi (Electronic Book). Vol. 23. New India.
Delhi: Government of India. . 1999 [1948]. “Draft Constitution for Congress.”
. 1999 [1928a]. “Speech at Morvi.” In The Collected In The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (Electronic
Works of Mahatma Gandhi (Electronic Book). Vol. 4. Book). Vol. 91. New Delhi: Government of India .
New Delhi: Government of India. Godrej, Farah. 2006. “Nonviolence and Gandhi’s Truth:
. 1999 [1928b]. “Government Power v. People’s A Method for Moral and Political Arbitration”. Review
Power.” In The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi of Politics 68(2): 287–317.
(Electronic Book). Vol. 42. New Delhi: Government of Gopal, Sarvepalli. 1979. Jawaharlal Nehru—A Biography.
India. Vol. 2. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
. 1999 [1929a]. “Zamindars and Talukdars.” In The Guha, Ranajit. 1982. “On Some Aspects of the Histori-
Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (Electronic Book). ography of Colonial India”. In Subaltern Studies I, ed.
Vol. 48. New Delhi: Government of India. Ranajit Guha. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
. 1999 [1929b]. “Duties of Capitalists.” In The . 1998. Dominance without Hegemony: History and
Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (Electronic Book). Power in Colonial India. New Delhi: Oxford University
Vol. 48. New Delhi: Government of India. Press.
. 1999 [1931a]. “To the U.P. Zamindars.” In The Hardiman, David. 1981. Peasant Nationalists of Gujarat:
Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (Electronic Book). Kheda District, 1917–1934. Oxford: Oxford University
Vol. 52. New Delhi: Government of India. Press.
. 1999 [1931b]. “Speech at Birmingham Meeting.”. Hauser, Walter., ed. 1994. Sahajanand on Agricultural
In The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (Electronic Labour and the Rural Poor. New Delhi: Manohar
Book). Vol. 54. New Delhi: Government of India. Publishers.

202.41.10.107 on Thu, 21 Dec 2023 14:07:53 +00:00
Hennigham, Stephen. 1976. “The Social Setting of the Parekh {date]–see n. 21

Champaran Satyagraha: The Challenge to an Alien Parel, Anthony. 2006. Gandhi’s Philosophy and the Quest
Elite.” Indian Economic and Social History Review 13(1): for Harmony. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
59–73. . 2011. “Gandhi and the State.” In The Cambridge
Herring, Ronald J. 1999. “Embedded Particularism: Companion to Gandhi, ed. Judith M. Brown and
India’s Failed Developmental State.” In The Develop- Anthony Parel. Cambridge: Cambridge University
mental State, ed. Meredith Woo-Cummings. Ithaca, Press.
NY: Cornell University Press. Sarkar, Sumit. 1983. Modern India: 1885–1947. Delhi:
Jaffrelot, Christophe. 2005. Dr. Ambedkar and Untouch- Macmillan.
ability. Delhi: Permanent Black. Sarkar, Tanika. 1985. “Jitu Santal’s Movement in Malda,
Kaviraj, Sudipta. 2010. The Imaginary Institution of India: 1924–1932: A Study in Tribal Protest.” In Subaltern
Politics and Ideas. New Delhi: Permanent Black. Studies IV, ed. Ranajit Guha. New Delhi: Oxford
Mantena, Karuna. 2012a. “Another Realism: The Politics University Press.
of Gandhian Non-Violence.” American Political Science . 2011. “Gandhi and Social Relations.” In The
Review 106(2): 455–70. Cambridge Companion to Gandhi, ed. Judith M. Brown
. 2012b. “On Gandhi’s Critique of the State: and Anthony Parel. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Sources, Contexts, Conjunctures.” Modern Intellectual Press.
History 9(3): 535–63. Sarkar 2016—see n.1, 5
Mehta, Uday Singh. 2010. “Gandhi on Democracy, Scott, James C. 1998. Seeing Like the State. New Haven,
Politics and Ethics of Everyday Life.”, Modern In- CT: Yale University Press.
tellectual History 7(2): 355–71. Skaria, Ajay. 2002. “Gandhi’s Politics: Liberalism and the
Nandy, Ashish. 1983. The Intimate Enemy: Loss and Question of the Ashram.” South Asian Quarterly 101(4):
Recovery of Self Under Colonialism. New York: Oxford 955–86.
University Press. . 2011. “Relinquishing Republican Democracy:
Nehru, Jawaharlal. 1936. An Autobiography. London: Gandhi’s Ramrajya.” Postcolonial Studies 14(2): 203–
Bodley Head. 29.
. 1946. The Discovery of India. New York: John Day. . 2016. Unconditional Equality: Gandhi’s Religion of
. [1937] 1968. “Speech at the National Convention Resistance. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
of Congress Legislators.” In Framing of India’s Consti- Press.
tution, ed. B. Shiva Rao ed. Vol. I. New Delhi: Indian Terchek, Ronald J. 2006. “Gandhi’s Politics.” In Gandhi’s
Institute of Public Administration. Experiments With Truth: Essential Writings by and about
. 1988. A Bunch of Old Letters. Delhi: Oxford Mahatma Gandhi, ed. Richard L. Johnson. New York:
University Press. Lexington Books.

202.41.10.107 on Thu, 21 Dec 2023 14:07:53 +00:00

Dasgupta GandhisFailure 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dasgupta GandhisFailure 2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dasgupta GandhisFailure 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gandhi’s Failure

Author(s): Sandipto Dasgupta

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26615138

This content downloaded from

Gandhi’s Failure: Anticolonial Movements

This content downloaded from

648 Perspectives on Politics

This content downloaded from

September 2017 | Vol. 15/No. 3 649

This content downloaded from

650 Perspectives on Politics

This content downloaded from

September 2017 | Vol. 15/No. 3 651

This content downloaded from

652 Perspectives on Politics

This content downloaded from

September 2017 | Vol. 15/No. 3 653

This content downloaded from

654 Perspectives on Politics

This content downloaded from

September 2017 | Vol. 15/No. 3 655

This content downloaded from

656 Perspectives on Politics

This content downloaded from

September 2017 | Vol. 15/No. 3 657

This content downloaded from

658 Perspectives on Politics

This content downloaded from

September 2017 | Vol. 15/No. 3 659

This content downloaded from

81 Amin 1984, 52. dimensions—of conceiving the state as a site for

660 Perspectives on Politics

This content downloaded from

September 2017 | Vol. 15/No. 3 661

This content downloaded from

Hennigham, Stephen. 1976. “The Social Setting of the Parekh {date]–see n. 21

662 Perspectives on Politics

This content downloaded from

You might also like