02 Philosophy of Gandhi @nadal

UNIT 1 INDIC RELIGIONS: HINDUISM, JAINISM
AND BUDDHISM
Structure
1.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
1.2 Hinduism: Sources and Basic Doctrines

1.3 Hinduism and Gandhi
1.4 Jainism: Schools, Vows and Basic Doctrines
1.5 Gandhi and Jainism
1.6 Buddhism: Four Noble Truths and The Eight Fold Path
1.7 Gandhi and Buddhism
1.8 Summary
1.9 Terminal Questions
Suggested Readings
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The religions of Indian origin have some features common to them. A broad feature is that
all the religions want to uplift the individual, and liberate him from the cycle of births and
deaths. These religions address the individual need, rather than the divine command, as
in the case of Semitic religions. Religion provides an aid to the individual, a means to
overcome the cycle of eternal rebirth, and provide means of achieving it. The cycle of
births and deaths is not caused by external factors, but by the individual action, which is
called Karma, which, when translated loosely would mean ‘deed’. The individual has to
work, through the guidance provided by the religion, to escape the cycle of births and
deaths, and attain ‘Moksha’ or ‘Nirvana,’, or ‘Kaivalya’ (liberation / Salvation), as per
his approach.
The place of worship in these religions is a shrine, where people congregate, and address
the deity on an individual capacity, not in a group. Thus, these religions differ from
Christianity and Islam, where people congregate and are addressed by speakers from the
pulpit. Many thinkers in India, like Tilak, and leaders of “Prarthana Samaj” thought that
it is a weakness of Hindu religion, and tried to make it a congregating religion, by
organising Ganesh Puja, and mass prayers. Gandhi also used to hold prayer meetings.
Also, Indic religions do not have the concept of believer and non-believer, and do not
try to attract people to their religion. They address only the individual good, and accept
all religions to be true and have different ways to achieve salvation.
Gandhi was born in a traditional Hindu family, with the society having a Jain ethos. Hence
his individual values are Hindu and Jain, predominantly. He was educated in the West,
and hence his work ethic is western. When he launched ‘Satyagraha’, it was a device
where an individual demanded the truth on an individual basis for a social purpose.
12 Philosophy of Gandhi
Aims and objectives

After reading this Unit, you would be able to understand:
 The main sources and thrust of Indic religions, Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism.
 The main precepts of these religions
 How Gandhi’s view of life was shaped by these religions
 The roots of Gandhi’s eclectic philosophy.
1.2 HINDUISM: SOURCES AND BASIC DOCTRINES

The word, ‘Hindu’ is derived from the word ‘Sindhu’, the main river in undivided India.
The inhabitants of the riverbanks were called ‘Hindus’ in Parsi language, and the religion
followed by them is known as Hinduism. Compared to Semitic religions, Hinduism is
diverse, multi-faceted religion, which can be easily described as a way of life.
Sources of Hinduism
Prasthanatrayi: Three works (in Sanskrit referred to as Prasthanatrayi) are considered to
be the authoritative works for Hinduism, like the Bible for Christianity and Qur’an for the
Muslims. They are, firstly Vedas and specially Upanishads, which come at the end of
Vedas, both literally and as essence. The authorship of Vedas is not known, and they are
considered ‘Apourusheya’, meaning that they were not composed by any man, but
inherited by a divine transmission. Vedas also contain, in addition to Upanishads, Mantras
(poetic compositions), Brahmanas (dealing with ritualistic aspects) and Aranyakas (forest
treatises).
Second authoritative work is “Brahmasutra”, which is said to have been authored by
Badarayana Vyasa. It contains aphorisms, and all the three leading philosophical schools
of Hinduism, Advaita (non-dualism), Visishtadvaita (qualified non-dualism), and Dvaita
(dualism) have learned treatises written by the leading proponents and teachers of these
schools, commenting on the aphorisms found in this text. The commentaries of these three
Acharyas (teachers) on Brahmasutra are the foundation of philosophy of these schools.
The third authoritative work is Bhagavad Gita, which is literally a part of the great epic,
Mahabharata. The Author is Badarayana Vyasa, and it is in the form of dialogue between
Krishna, whom the Indian tradition considers to be the Godhead, and Arjuna, the warrior
prince. This work, whose title means ‘song divine’ has inspired many, including Gandhi.
Smriti: Smriti (meaning memory) is a collection of works that lay down the law codes,
rules regarding social and personal behaviour, inter-relationship between man and society
etc. Well known among them is the Manu Smriti, which is often quoted and referred all
over India. Smriti literature contains Dharmashastra, as it gives the rules to follow the
Dharma.
Puranas: In addition to these three authoritative works, there are eighteen Puranas,
(ancient treatises), out of which Bhagavata Purana is famous. It contains the accounts
of the God’s ten incarnations, which includes Krishna’s incarnation.
Epics: There are two epics, Ramayana (tale of Rama), and Mahabharata. The latter
contains within it the Bhagavad Gita, one of the three authorities. The Epics are widely
read, and incidents in it are quoted as examples.
Indic Religions: Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism 13
Schools of Philosophy: There are six schools of philospophy, known as Darshanas

(Darshana means an aid to see).They are Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Sankhya, Yoga, Mimamsa,
and Vedanta. They are divided into two groups: one material, and another, theist. There
are commentaries on these Darshanas, which have been written in the form of aphorisms.
Patanjali’s Yoga Sutra is the work on one of the Darshanas, Yoga.
Varna system: Varnashrama, or the concept of stage of life depending on one’s
vocation, is also found in the dharmashastras. The concept is that each man should follow
a vocation as per his Varna (literally meaning colour), which are four in number, namely,
Brahmana, Kshatriya, Vaisya, and Shudra. Varna is supposed to be based on the kind
of work one does, and the skill (guna and Karma). Vocation, based on Varna is not
ordained by birth, as per Dharmashastras. For example, agriculture and animal husbandry
could be practised by people of all the four Varnas, without any restriction. Also, in the
time of distress, people could follow vocations outside their Varna, with some restrictions
(Apad Dharma).
Ashrama: Ashrama refers to one’s stage in life. There are four ashramas- Brahmacharya,
Grihastha, Vanaprastha and Sanyasa. First is the learning stage, second the householder’s
stage, third after the completion of householder’s duty proceeding to the forest for
tapasya (meditation) for realisation of self and the final stage is freeing oneself from all the
social bondage.
Purushartha: Purushartha concept is also in the Dharmashastras. And it means that a
man (or a woman) has to do a deed, which results in a worthy act. The four
Purusharthas are Dharma, Artha, Kama, and Moksha. Vyasa is of the opinion that both
Artha (wealth) and Kama (desire) have to be practised to achieve Dharma (righteousness
in life.). Moksha is the salvation from the cycle of births and deaths, and it is the last
Purushartha. Thus, it was ordained that a man should work to achieve these goals, all the
time.
1.3 HINDUISM AND GANDHI

Gandhi was a strong believer in Hinduism, which he called the ‘Sanatana Dharma’ (the
eternal religion). He wrote, “Hinduism of my conception is no narrow creed. It is a grand
evolutionary process as ancient as time, and embraces the teachings of Zoroaster,
Moeses, Christ, Mohammad, Nanak, and other prophets I could name.” Then, he quotes
a verse from Manusmriti, which translates as follows:
“Know that the true religion is one which the wise and the good and those who are ever
free from passion and hate follow and which appeals to heart”. (CWMG, vol.75, p.375).
Gandhi defined ‘Hindu’ in Young India of 14-10-1926. According to him, a Hindu is one
who believes in
o God
o Immortality of the soul
o Transmigration
o Law of Karma
o Moksha
And one who practises:

o Truth and Ahimsa in daily life;
o Cow -protection in its widest sense;
o Tries to act according to the laws of Varnashrama.
Gandhi had read the classics early in life, from 1907, onwards, but his intense study of
the scriptures happened when he was in the Yerawada jail, near Pune, from March, 1922
to February, 1924. His jail diary indicates that he read about 150 books, most of which
were classics, including scriptures. At that time, he was 54 years old, young enough to
exert and old enough to understand.
Gandhi’s view of scriptures may look very personal and revolutionary, but he had his own
way of interpreting the ancient texts and scriptures. To an American, who subscribed
herself as a lifelong friend of India, he wrote, “non-violence is common to all religions,
but it has found the highest expression and application in Hinduism. I do not regard
Jainism and Buddhism as separate from Hinduism” (Young India, 20-10-1927).
The influence of Bhagavad Gita on Gandhi was enormous. “I have studied Bible, Koran,
Zend Avesta, and other scriptures of the world with the same reverence that I have given
to Gita. They have illuminated many a passage in the Gita.”
‘I run to mother Gita whenever I find myself in difficulties and up to now she has never
failed to comfort me’ (Young India, 13-11-1930). He called Gita his spiritual dictionary,
for it never failed him in distress, and he found it was free from sectarianism and dogma,
and had universal appeal (Harijan, 16-2-39).
The characters in the epics did have influence on him. Harishchandra captures his heart,
for his principled effort to keep his word. Gandhi asks why not everyone should be
truthful like Harishchandra. He also quotes the examples of Rama and Pandavas, who
kept their word by undergoing all difficulties. He cites the examples of Prahlad, Sudama,
Dhruva, and Shravana, who gave up all worldly comforts for the sake of virtuous
principles.
Of Mahabharata, Gandhi says that it is like a rich diamond mine, from which the deeper
you dig the more diamonds you find. He was of the opinion that the burden of Ramayana
and Mahabharata is to teach Ahimsa (letter to P.D. Gupta, 19.11.26).He has repeatedly
said that both Ramayana and Mahabharata tell the story of the victory of the good over
evil.
In the issue of Navajivan, dated 6.2.1921, Gandhi vehemently declared that he is a
Sanatani Hindu, or a Hindu as ordained by Scriptures. At that time, a movement against
orthodox Hinduism was building up through Brahmo Samaj and Prarthana Samaj; Gandhi
had no hesitation in declaring that he is a ‘Sanatani Hindu’. He states that he possesses
in some measure the qualities described in Narsimha Mehta’s song, ‘Vaishnavajana’, and
strives to perfect and cultivate the qualities of the Vaishnava. So, he says, “I do not
therefore, hesitate to call myself with all firmness, though humbly, a strict Sanatani Hindu
and a Vaishnava.”
At the same time, Gandhi’s views were iconoclastic, and rebellious. He says that he has
understood the Shastras from the view of Dharma. He says that it is possible to attain
Moksha (salvation) without reading the Vedas. He also says that the Shastras are not
above reason and any Shastra, which reason cannot follow, can be rejected.
Gandhi has his own views on Varnashrama. He said that he believed that there are no
more than four Varnas. He believed that one acquired the caste by birth, and even though
one acquires the qualities and character of another, the body does not cease to belong
to his Varna. He expressed his desire to cleanse the Hinduism of the caste distinctions
that crept in it. He held that Hinduism has sinned by giving sanction to untouchability.
Gandhi did not formally study the Upanishads, but many Upanishads were under his
regular study and reference. In the Ashram prayers, part of Isa Upanishad, which, when
translated, reads as follows, was recited everyday.
“Enveloped by the Consciousness is everything whatever that fluctuates in the universe.
Therefore, enjoy with renunciation and do not covet what is due to others.”
The Bruhadaranyaka Upanishad gave him the concept of supremacy of Dharma over the
Khshatra, the temporal power, and even the weak can overcome the strong, with the help
of Satya, which is based on Dharma. Taittariya Aranyaka, which he refers, says that
everything is founded on Dharma, the highest good that drives away evil. And Satya and
Ahimsa are traditionally identified with Dharma, the cosmic law that governs the human
conduct. Kenopanishad also had a profound influence on him.
1.4 JAINISM: SCHOOLS, VOWS AND BASIC

DOCTRINES
Jainism, like Buddhism, started as a protestant religion against the ritualistic Hinduism. It
claims great antiquity, and it is said that Aristhtanemi, the earliest monk and a teacher,
died 84000 years before Mahaveera, the last ‘Teerthankara”, as the guru of ancient
tradition in the Jain religion is known. Mahaveera was a contemporary of Buddha, but is
not considered the founder of the religion, but the first teacher is said to be Rishabha,
and Mahaveera is said to have been preceded by Parswa, in a line of 24 Tirthankaras.
Even though Jainism did not spread outside India, as it did not have preachers who could
go overseas to spread the religion, it had a profound influence on life in India. It can be
said that vegetarianism became the most accepted way of life in India, may be due to
this religion. Also, emphasis on morals and ethics received a boost, as this religion had
ethics as its main plank, and produced vast literature in all the languages upholding the
path of morality and austerity.
Schools of Jainism
There are two schools within Jain religion, one being ‘Digambara’ (meaning space-clad,
ie,. wearing no clothes), and the other, ‘Swetambara’ (meaning white robed). There are
no major doctrinaire differences between the two cults, except for small differences like
writing down the scriptures and not writing them. Also, Digambaras, the more orthodox
of the two schools, maintain that perfect saints like Tirthankaras live without food, and
that a monk who owns any property or wears clothes cannot attain moksha, and that
women cannot attain moksha (salvation). Later, after the two sects separated, about 84
different schools of Jainism came into existence, called ‘Gachhas’. They differed from one
another only in minute details of conduct. Both the schools of Jainism have preserved their
separate line of succession of teachers from Mahavira downwards. But for this, the
relations between the two groups have been peaceful, and both have prospered due to
their faith.
Metaphysical View
The Jain view of life is unique compared to other religions, in that it categorises living
beings on the basis of senses. The plants and trees are supposed to have one sense, and
worms are supposed to have two senses. At the highest scale, man who has mind or
reason, has six senses, so do the ‘devas’(gods) and the narakas (inhabitants of hell). In
between, there are creatures having five senses, like all the animals having vertebrae. The
four sensed beings possess all but intelligence. They are bees, butterflies, etc. The three
sensed beings are ants, bugs, etc. In Jain philosophy, the four elements earth, water, fire
and wind are animated. Thus, the whole world is full of living beings, and the whole
space is packed with minute beings, called ‘nigodas’. These ‘nigodas’ replace the space
emptied by the souls that are liberated.
Further, the reality according to Jainism is of two types, jiva and ajiva. When liberated
from Karma, the jiva is a pure spiritual being. If jiva is tainted by Karma, he becomes
impure, just like the brightness of the lamp is reduced by soot. The jiva, when it comes
under the influence of the Karmic forces, is like gold covered with rust. When the person
attains the jnana (ultimate knowledge), he starts shining like gold from which rust has
been removed. By practising the ethics, the jiva can get rid of the Karma, and get back
his original purity.
The other part of reality, ajiva, consists of Dharma and Adharma, in addition to Pudgala,
which means matter, and it is called ‘astikaya’ as it occupies space, and it is made of
atoms, without size, and is eternal. The category of ‘Akasha’ is that entity which pervades
the mundane universe (loka) and the transcendent region of the liberated souls (aloka),
which allows the subsistence of all other substances like Dharma, Adharma, jiva, and
Pudgala. The meaning of Dharma in Jainism is not as commonly understood in Hinduism,
and does not have any ethical implications. Dharma means motion, and Adharma is state
of rest, which gives rise to immobility. While Dharma and Adharma have attributes of
extension, the time is infinite, just as the universe is eternal. The universe goes through a
number of cycles over the period of time. Dharma is the condition under which movement
takes place, like water, which permits the fish to swim in it. Adharma is the one, which
makes the things stable, and gives rise to immobility.
Jainism takes a realistic, practical, and pluralistic view of reality. The concept of ‘Ahimsa’,
‘Anekantavada’ and ‘Asceticism’ are central to Jain philosophy:
1. Ahimsa: The doctrine of non-violence, non-injury, non-killing, is a major concept in
the Jain philosophy. The concept is extended to such an extent that there should be
no violence even against an enemy. Of Mahavira, the Sutras say, “Always well
guarded, he bore the pains caused by grass, cold, fire, flies, and gnats. In his travel,
when the dogs bit him, when he was struck with a stick, when they cut his flesh,
he endured them all, undisturbed, proceeded on his way to Nirvana”.
Ahimsa extends to all forms of life. It is the first among the five vows taught by Mahavira.
A man should neither kill living beings, nor help others to do it. Hence as a precautionary
measure, one should meditate on five things: carefulness in speech, carefulness of mind,
in walking, in lifting and laying down things, and thoroughly seeing one’s food and drink.
Ahimsa produces the Karma that liberates one from the karmic elements, (that make one
get struck in the cycle of birth and death).
All the monks and orthodox Jains practise the principle of Ahimsa even today. They strain
the water in white muslin before drinking it. The monks clean the area where they sit and
where they walk, with a small broom, so that they do not harm the insects by stepping
on them. They do not take food after the sunset, for the fear that they may not be able
to see the food and water clearly, and by that act, they may harm the insects and lowly
creatures.
The principle of ahimsa is not just borne out of compassion for the fellow creatures, but
causes Karma that leads to the freedom from bondage.
Jainism has devised five vows and three jewels to get over the Karma that lands one
in the cycle of births and deaths. Apart from the first vow, Ahimsa (non-violence), the
second one is Satya (truthfulness), the third is Asteya (non-stealing), and fourth one is
‘brahmacharya (abandoning lust for all kinds of things). And the last is ‘aparigraha’(non-
greed, non-attachment).
The five vows are to be practised according to the status of the individual. For a monk
the vows are very strict and flexible for a householder. The strict practice is referred to
as mahavrata and a relaxed interpretation of the rule for a householder is called
anuvrata. For the householder brahmacharya means monogamy, and aparigraha means
possession of only essential commodities. But a monk cannot own anything, and if he
owns, he cannot attain salvation. He has to practise the five vows and three ‘jewels’, with
care and caution, without any concession though it is slightly relaxed in the case of a
householder. The monk has to aim at kevala, the perfect knowledge, or the knowledge
par excellence, which liberates him from the cycle of births and death. All the vows and
jewels are to be practised simultaneously, unlike in Hinduism, where one can choose one’s
own path according to his disposition.
The three jewels are samyak darshana (right faith), samyak jnana (right knowledge)
and samyak charita (right character).A monk, or a householder, has to practice all the
three jewels, and should not stray away from them, to escape from the ‘Karma’ that
leads to bondage.
2. Anekantavada: Anekantavada is the central theme of Jain philosophy. It reconciles
the stand of Vedanta philosophy that the nature of reality is unchangeable and that
of Buddhism that there is no unchanging substance and everything is changing, and
there is a universal flux (aniccha). It views reality as being pluralistic, and is
expressing itself in many forms, and no absolute statement of reality is possible.
Unlike Western dualistic approach, which states, ‘either it is so or it is not’, this Jain
epistemology emphasises seven. i.e. Sapta Bhangi that are (seven situations), as
following:
a) A thing may be
b) A thing may not be
c) A thing may be or may not be
d) May be is, but inexpressible or indescribable
e) May be is not and inexpressible
f) May be is, and not expressible
g) May be is, is not, and inexpressible.
These seven situations exhaust the possibilities of reality, and lead to the spirit of free
enquiry. This principle prevents intellectual arrogance, and gives person humility to listen
to the argument of other person and appreciate it. The example of several blind men
seeing the elephant, and each describing differently, one declaring that it is like a snake,
feeling the tail, other saying that it is like a pillar, feeling the leg is the classic example
of this perception. The complexity of the truth should make the seeker of truth humble,
and make him accept the point of view of others with respect. This philosophy of the
Jains contributed to the tolerance of different thoughts in India.
3. Asceticism: According to the Jain tenets, which are based on the ethics and jewels
given above, asceticism should be followed all through life, not just in the fourth stage of
life, as in Vedic religion. It does not mean that a person should lead a life devoid of joy
and bliss, but lead a life in right path, which produces good results and prevents the
person from indulging in bad Karma. Taking a practical view, it is advised to steer clear
of the pitfalls, fully knowing them. The vows of asceticism are very strict for the monk,
or mendicant, who cannot consider anything to belong to him, whereas a householder can
claim limited possessions for carrying on the normal life. The purpose of practising this is
to reduce the hold of Karma, and make man follow an uncluttered life voluntarily, so that
he can proceed on the way to achieve his goals. The first goal is to achieve the state
of Kevala, the state of supreme knowledge. The other one is to see his world more
clearly. The first step in understanding the life is to understand its limitations. This principle
does not mean running away from the world, or becoming passive.
The Jain emphasis on austerities is famous all over India. Fasting is an essential austerity,
which can be followed by the monks and householders in different ways. A monk cannot
claim to possess anything, and the householder has to have limited possessions. The
austerities are both mental and physical. Jainism is known for its physical austerities, which
to a layperson look extremely difficult and self-punishing. But the goal of all these,
including fasting, is self-purification, to overcome the evil effects of Karma and nothing
else.
4. Non-Theism: Jainism does not recognise God to be maintainer or creator of the
world order. One sutra (aphorism) urges the mendicant not to believe in the power of
God. The Jain view denies that the world is an effect, caused by an all powerful reality,
and asks, if a Supreme Being created the world, who created the Supreme Being. If one
has to assume that God made the universe, then the same argument should apply to the
man who digs the ground and claims that he created new space. Mahapurana, a Jain
classic, holds that no one should be attributed for creating this world. If God created the
world, where was he before the creation, the Purana asks. Jains saw that the world
operates as per the natural law, and prevented men from rationalising their deeds in terms
of God’s will. Only the man is responsible for himself, and by following a good path, he
should attain freedom from Karma, and no supernatural being will come to his help. The
views of Jainism on God or Supreme Being are same as that of the Buddhist school. The
seventh and sixth centuries before Christ saw great upheaval in the beliefs of India, and
Jainism came up to satisfy a particular need of the hour.
1.5 GANDHI AND JAINISM

Gandhi acknowledges the influence of Jainism in his upbringing, and subsequent career; his
entire outlook is moulded by Jainism. Porbandar, where he was born, and the state of
Gujarat, where he received his early education, has a significant Jain population.
The first influence on Gandhi was that of his mother, who took up fasting for self-
purification, even though they were not Jains. Fasting was a part of her life, and this
influenced the children profoundly. Even later, when he undertook fasting for self-
purification, the fasting of his mother, which was a regular affair, was at the back of his
mind. His mother would take up a kind of fasting, where she would not eat without
seeing the sun. The children would line up outside, to spot the sun on a cloudy day, and
when they spotted him, would call out the mother to see. Gandhi recalls, that ‘by the time
she came out, the sun would disappear, disappointing all the children’. Fasting, which is
essentially an all-religious practice, has acquired the flavour of Jainism in Gujarat, and it
had an influence on Gandhi. Just as the Jain tenets preach fasting for self-purification,
Gandhi would also do it for the same purpose, not to pressurise or influence others.
Gandhi also followed the asceticism, as enjoined by the Jainism, though he did not accept
people calling him an ascetic. His concept of simple living and high thinking is the one
prescribed by the religion. For the inmates of Sabarmati Ashram, he prescribed eleven
vows, out of which many are vows of the Jainism.
There were eleven vows that were prescribed to the residents of the Sabarmati Ashram.
The first five vows of truth, non–violence, non-stealing, Brahmacharya, and non-possession
were extended to suit the requirements of the Ashram. The first five are the vows of
Jainism, and he said that all of them are inter-related, and the violation of any one of
them would lead to the total violation of the entire code of conduct of the Ashram.
Ahimsa for Gandhi was not just a means or a way, but a creed and a religion, a
philosophy of life. When the civil disobedience movement turned violent, in a village called
Chauri Chaura, Gandhi withdrew the entire movement, stating that the people were not
ready for the principle of non-violence, and that the movement has to be resumed after
the country was ready for that. He writes, “non-violence is a spiritual food we have to
take continually. There is no thing as satiation” (Harijan, 2.4.1938).
Gandhi defined non-violence in different contexts and circumstances, and some of them
are inspired by the Jain thought-form:
 Non-violence is a law of suffering.
 Not a weapon of the weak.
 Soul force, an attribute of the soul.
 As long as physical existence is there, perfect non-violence cannot be practised.
 Goodwill towards all life.
 Not being violent even to snakes, scorpions and other poisonous creatures.
Gandhi and Anekantavada
If Gandhi did not take an extreme stand on any issue, we may say that it is the result
of inherent Jain tenet of Anekantavada, which does not take a rigid stand on any issue,
but aims at approaching the truth with humility, with respect to the opinion of the other
person. When someone pointed out that there was contradiction between his two
statements, he said that always, the later statement should be taken, and the earlier
statement should be ignored, as it was made under the circumstances that existed earlier.
Gandhi writes in Young India, 21.1.1926: “My Anekantawada is peculiarly my own…..I
very much like the doctrine of manyness of reality. It is this doctrine which has taught me
to judge a Mussalman from his point of view and a Christian from his. Formerly, I used
to resent the ignorance of my opponents. Today I love them because I am gifted with
the eye to see myself as others see me and vice versa. I want to take the whole world
in the embrace of my love.”
Gandhi’s theory of Karma also comes close to the Jain perception. In Jainism, Karma is
both the cause and the effect. Karma is a cause for getting the past corrected, and also
necessary for future, so that good deeds lead to good happenings in future, as per the
belief of Gandhi. Gandhi’s adherence to the tenet of Ahimsa is legendary, and his non-
violent resistance attracted the world attention, and brought in many practitioners, who by
following the principle, brought about dramatic changes in their society.
1.6 BUDDHISM: FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS AND THE

EIGHT FOLD PATH
The Life and Time of Buddha
The seventh and sixth centuries before Christ were a time of turmoil and upheaval in
Indian philosophy. There were at least three currents of thought. The first was that of
sacrificial Karma, and by the force of magical rites, one could achieve his desire. The
second was that of Upanishads, by which the self-realisation was the ultimate goal, and
everything else was unimportant. The third was the nihilist school of thought, which
propagated that there was no law, no abiding reality, and everything comes to being by
some unknown fate. At such time, Buddha was born.
Buddha was born near Kapilavastu, a small town north of Banares, in Nepal, in 563
B.C. His father, a king of Sakya tribe, named his son as Siddhartha, the wish fulfilling
one. The sages warned his father that his son would become a ruler or a mendicant; his
father surrounded him with great luxury, so that he is not affected by the day-to-day life
of the common people. One day, travelling through the city, Siddhartha first saw a man
crippled by old age. Then after that, he saw a man, rendered helpless by fever, then a
corpse being carried to the cremation ground, and finally a wandering mendicant with
calm and serene composure. Seeing all these, he was moved so much that he decided
to forsake all his luxuries and seek the truth. He returned to the palace, and had a look
at his wife and son for the last time, and set out on his ‘great renunciation’ that very
night. He entered the forest for meditation.
Hoping to get enlightenment, he spent six years in penance, but with no results. Near
Bodh Gaya, he met five ascetics. Soon, he realised that they could not help him, and set
out to attain enlightenment through meditation. For seven weeks, he sat under a papal
tree, and according to legend, evil forces tried to dissuade him from his goal. Determined,
he carried on, and at the end of seventh week, he arrived at the much-sought
enlightenment. Then he became the Buddha, the enlightened one, and the exalted one.
His enlightenment occurred around 528 B.C. His first disciples were the five ascetics.
Thus began the Sangha, the Buddhist ascetic order. For the next forty years, he travelled
and preached, gathering more and more followers. In his eightieth year, when he was
journeying to Kusinagar, with his disciples, he realised that his end was near, as he
suffered from food poisoning. All the followers gathered, and Buddha preached his last
sermon, and told them to work for their deliverance, and attain ‘nirvana’. Thereafter, he
gave up his worldly body, and remained in the world as source of enlightenment.
Early Buddhist Literature: The early Buddhist literature is in Pali language, and consists
of three different collections. The first is called the Sutta, that relates to the doctrines; the
second is Vinaya, relating to the discipline of monks; and the third is Abhidhamma, which
has the same subject as Sutta, but has dealt with it in a more theoretical and technical
manner.
Sects in Buddhism
There are two sects in Buddhism, by name, Hinayana and Mahayana. ‘Hinayana’ means
a smaller vehicle and the ‘Mahayana’ means a bigger vehicle. (Hina:small, Maha:big,
Yana:vehicle).The ultimate goal of the Hinayana adherent is to attain his own Nirvana,
whereas the ultimate goal of the Mahayana adherent is to not only seek his own salvation,
but also to seek the salvation of all beings. The Hinayana goal was lower, and hence the
instruction he received, the efforts he made to achieve salvation was lower than what a
Mahayana adherent would be expected to do. The Hinayana adherent could achieve
salvation in three lives, and the Mahayana adherent had to go on and on to achieve his
own salvation, and the salvation of all beings. Since the goals are different in matter and
substance, the sects get the names accordingly.
The Four Noble Truths
Buddha’s teaching had four noble truths. They are:
1. There is suffering (duhkkha) in the world.
2. The suffering has a cause
3. The suffering can be overcome by removing the cause of suffering
4. The eight-fold path to salvation is the means of overcoming suffering.
Firstly, suffering is universal, and no one is exempt from sorrow and disappointment. The
second principle clearly indicates that there are specific causes of suffering, and Buddha
declared that the desires are the great causes of suffering. Cravings for wealth, power,
fame, and material things, thinking that they would bring happiness, are the root cause.
Instead of bringing happiness, craving stimulates greed, jealousy, and anger that cause
violence. The only way to get away from suffering was to move away from desire.
The third truth, based on the cause and effect relation, states that suffering can be made
to cease by removing the cause of suffering. Buddha stated that there is a determinable
solution as well as the cause. Just as an effect is caused due to a prior event, it can be
overcome by a subsequent act to remove the cause. The fourth noble truth indicates that
suffering can be overcome by following the eight-fold path, which is interrelated.
The Eight Fold Path
The eight fold path is as follows:
1. Right views: Truth should be separated from the falsehood, right from the wrong,
and immortality from the death. When the right view is grasped one realises the
rightness of the four noble truths.
2. Right resolve: After knowing the truth, one should resolve to practise it. He should
move steadfastly in the direction of the truth he has discovered. Taking a step in the
right direction, he is one step nearer to the goal.
3. Right speech: The third step is Right speech. The Buddhist text, Dhammapada says
if a man speaks or acts with evil thought, evil will follow, like the wheel following
the foot of the ox that draws carriage. In his ‘Sermon on Abuse’, Buddha underlines
the importance of not slandering or vilifying another.
4. Right conduct: The fourth step is the right conduct. Thinking and talking are
incomplete without action. Right resolution and right speech should lead to the right
conduct. The five important principles for right conduct are abstaining from destroying
life, from theft, fornication, lying and drunkenness.
5. Right livelihood: The fifth step is the right livelihood, as it enjoins one to earn the
livelihood by honest means. A living can be earned without harming others. Any
livelihood, which debases and cheapens life or uses others for achieving one’s own
ends, is not right.
6. Right effort: The sixth step is the right effort. Continuous effort is needed to reach
one’s goal, and evil thoughts have to be banished and right ones have to be adopted.
7. Right mindfulness: The seventh step is the right-mindfulness. The quality of thought
determines the person’s life, and Buddha says, just as the rain breaks through an ill
thatched house, so passion will break through an unreflecting mind. Mind is the
source of bliss or corruption.
8. Right concentration: The eighth step is the right concentration, an intense form of
right-mindedness. Right concentration separates the good from the evil, and the truth
from falsehood. It perfects one’s wisdom and virtue.
The four noble truths provide both the goal and means of reaching it. The eight-fold path
was described by Buddha as the ‘middle path’, a path between indulgence and
mortification. He said that the truths are not divinely revealed, but are a product of reason
and experience. They allow one to be in line with Dhamma (righteousness), and view the
reality in terms of Karma, and based on the doctrine of ‘aniccha’ (impermanence).
1.7 GANDHI AND BUDDHISM

Gandhi considers all the great religious leaders as great teachers. He says, “Buddha, Jesus
and Muhammad- they were all warriors of peace in their own style. We have to enrich
the heritage left by these world teachers” (Harijan, 28-1-1939).
“Gautama himself, when he saw oppression, injustice, and death around him and when he
saw darkness in front of him, at the back of him and on each side of him went out in
the wilderness and remained there fasting and praying in search of light”(Speech at a
public meeting in Toungoo, Burma, 18.4.1929).
Following are the excerpts of his speech delivered as reply to the Buddhists’ Address,
Colombo, on November 15, 1927.
“It is my deliberate opinion that the essential part of the teachings of the Buddha now
forms an integral part of Hinduism. It is impossible for Hindu India today to retrace her
steps and go behind the great reformation that Gautama effected in Hinduism”.
“Gautama was himself a Hindu of Hindus. He was saturated with the best that was in
Hinduism, and he gave life to some of the teachings that were buried in Vedas, and which
were overgrown with weeds.”
“Buddha never rejected Hinduism, but he broadened its base. He gave it a new life and
a new interpretation”.
“His whole soul rose in indignation against the belief that a being called God required for
His satisfaction the living blood of animals in order that he might be pleased-animals who
were his own creation. He therefore, reinstated God in the right place and dethroned the
usurper”.
1.8 SUMMARY
Hinduism, very often has been described as a way of life, rather than as religion. It
encompasses schools from atheism to polytheism, and has six schools of philosophy.
Pluralism is an essential feature of this religion. The three authorities of Hinduism have
been commented upon, written about by all the eminent teachers and theoreticians of
various schools of Vedanta philosophy.
Gandhi was proud to be a Hindu, but questioned many a practice contained in these
codes. He felt that many laws were inserted subsequently without authority and wanted
everything to be examined in the light of social well-being. Gandhi was influenced by the
Jain concept of metaphysics, philosophy, and cosmology and its main tenet non-violence,
which had to be practised even under extreme circumstances. The principles of
‘Anekantavada’ also influenced Gandhi. In Buddhism, Gandhi was impressed by the
message of compassion given by Buddha and the four noble truths and the eight fold path
to Nirvana.
1.9 TERMINAL QUESTIONS

1. Bring out the influence of Indic religions on Gandhi’s concept of Ahimsa.
2. Explain the sources of Hinduism.
3. How did Gandhi conceptualise Hinduism?
4. Discuss the impact of Jain tradition on Gandhi.
5. Examine Eight Fold Path to Nirvana. Why did Buddha call them ‘middle path’?
6. Write short notes on the following:
a) Anekantavada
b) Jain Atheism
SUGGESTED READINGS
1. Pandurang Vaman Kane., History of Dharmashastra, Vols.1-5, Bhandarkar Oriental
Research Institute.
2. Surendranath Das Gupta., History of Indian Philosophy, vols.I-IV, reprint Motilal
Banarasidas, Varanasi, 1952.
3. Bishop Donald. H., (ed), Indian Thought: An Introduction, Wiley Eastern Ltd, New
Delhi, 1975.
4. Tatia Nathmal., Studies in Jain Philosophy, Jain Cultural Society, Banaras, 1951.
5. James Hastings., (ed), Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, vol.2, T & T. Clark
Publishers, Edinburgh, London, New York, 1930.
6. Farquhar, J.N., An Outline of Religious Literature of India, Motilal Banarasidas,
Varanasi, 1920.
7. Sital Prasad., Comparative Study of Jainism and Buddhism, Sri Satguru Publications,
Delhi, 1932.
8. Dwight Goddard.,(ed), The Buddhist Bible Revisited and Enlarged, Hay & Co.,
London, 1956.
9. Anand T.Hingorani., (ed), Pocket Gandhi Series, No.1 to 25, Bharatiya Vidya
Bhavan, Bombay.
UNIT 2 SEMITIC RELIGIONS: JUDAISM,
CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM
Structure
2.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
2.2 Judaism: History, Theology, Philosophy
2.3 Christianity: The Teachings and Basic Doctrines
2.4 Gandhi and Christianity
2.5 Islam: Spread of Islam, The Holy Quran
2.6 Gandhi and Islam
2.7 Summary
Suggested Readings
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The Semitic religions are based on monotheism, with an ethical stand. They interpret
human life in terms of concepts like God, creation, revelation, law, sin, believer and non-
believer, and Judgement. The main features of Semitic religions can be summarised as
follows, on broad terms:
There is a single divine being, personal in nature, connected to the humankind through a
prophet or a messenger. God has created the world as a reality distinct from Himself.
Religion began with a revelation from God, who gave the laws of relationship with God
and between human beings, in which the justice occupies a prominent place, and any
injustice is bound to incur the wrath of God. All men will be judged on the basis of
obedience to this Law.
Except Judaism, the other two religions have the concept of believer and the non-believer,
and it is the duty of the believer to bring the non-believer to the order of believers.
All the three religions had origin in the desert, and their founders came from among the
people who later became followers of the religion.
Gandhi was very much impressed with the Semitic religions, even though he did not have
much contact with Judaism. He says that Jesus Christ and Muhammad are world
teachers, and was highly impressed by the Sermon on the Mount, which, he says
transformed him. He included the Christian and Islamic worship in his Ashram prayers.
Aims and objectives

 The spirit of Semitic religions-Judaism, Christianity and Islam
 History of each of Semitic religions, and the circumstances in which they were born.
 How they influenced Gandhi in his outlook of life and social outlook.
 The principles of Semitic religions, necessary to understand the social and political
milieu in India.
2.2 JUDAISM: HISTORY, THEOLOGY, PHILOSOPHY

Judaism is the oldest of the three Semitic religions, which introduced the concept of
Monotheism. Its basic scripture, “Old Testament” is viewed as an exhaustive document,
indicating the God’s will for humanity. Its Hebrew scriptures were written around 450 BC,
and notable among them, is the Jewish book of divine instruction, the “Torah”. This book
contains five Books of Moses. These five books are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers, and Deuteronomy. This scripture also encompasses the Prophets: Joshua,
Judges, Samuel, and Kings, Isaih, Jeremiah, and Ezckiel, and twelve Minor Prophets. It
also contains Writings: Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Song of Songs,
Ruth, Esther, Daniel, Chronicles, and Ezra Nhemiah. The entire Jewish holy literature is
called “TaNaK”, containing the first letters of Torah, Nebium, and Ketubim, meaning Law,
Prophets, and Writings respectively.
The book of Exodus gives the account of how Moses led the people of Israel out of
their miserable condition in Egypt and led them to the wilderness of Sinai. The book says
that Moses went up the mount, and brought from the Lord, the following Ten
Commandments to the people of Israel.
1. Though shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not
hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
2. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
3. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work.
4. But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any
work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant,
nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates.
For in six days Lord made the heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is,
and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and
hallowed it.
5. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which
the Lord thy God giveth thee.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet they neighbour’s
wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing
that is thy neighbour’s.
Semitic Religions: Christianity, Islam and Judaism 27
These Ten Commandments establish the ethical monotheism in Judaism.

History
‘Torah’ and ‘Prophets’ tell the twin stories of exile from Paradise, which concerns the
entire humanity, and the second one about the people of Israel, the people of the Torah.
Judaism traces its history from Adam and Eve, and loss of Paradise, and the Garden of
Eden. The first human beings on earth lost the paradise because of their rebellion against
God, as the holy books maintain. The people had acquired the Promised Land as per
the God’s wish, revealed in Torah. However, they lost to Assyrians, the northern kingdom,
in 722 B.C. And in 586 B.C. they lost the southern kingdom to Babylonia (present day
Iraq).The Babylonians destroyed the temple of Jerusalem. In 530 B.C., the Persians
conquered the Babylonians, and called the Jews to return and rebuild their temple. This
was done, and around 450 BC with the consent of temple priests, and Torah of Moses
was declared as the law of the land.
‘Torah’ describes the exile as a consequence of rebellion, and later repentance, and
restoration of the Promised Land as reward for repentance, and adherence to Torah. The
first document relating to oral tradition, Mishnah (200 BC), and the commentaries on
Mishnah, namely, the Talmud of the land of Israel, and the Talmud of Babylonia (600
A.D) augmented the Scriptural law of Judaism. The Torah was enlarged to include
Talmud.
By 70 B.C., more Jewish population lived outside Palestine than inside. Due to upheavals
of migration, the temple system with priests lost its importance, and the Synagogue system
with Rabbis came into existence. The synagogue was a place of worship, a place to
meet, and a place to study.
Theology
The theology was written in about first six centuries of the Christian era. After the
destruction of the temple, Rabbis took over the Jewish theology, and the dialogues
between the early prophets and the masters and disciples, were handed down by oral
tradition, and laws were laid down for topics covered by scriptures, and laws were also
framed for topics not covered by the scriptures. The same Rabbis produced the
commentaries on scriptures also.
The monotheism of Judaic doctrine which is set forth in Scriptures is in strong contrast
with the polytheism prevalent at that time. There was a fear that multiple Gods would be
difficult to please or appease, and a single God, all powerful and omniscient, would be
in a better position to take care of man’s needs. Man could make an appeal to Him,
appeal to His kindness, and under all circumstances, he had to be just. He had to
maintain equity and justice to create a world order.
Four Key Beliefs in Judaism
1. God’s world order regulates both public life and private life. God’s creation is
perfect, and is in keeping with the world order. Those who possess Torah are the
followers of God, and those who go against his will, the gentiles, reject him in favour
of the idols. The present state of Israel is God’s wish to punish the Israel for its
rebellion, and he has used gentiles (among the Jews, persons not belonging to Jewish
people or faith) as the medium to punish the Israeli people.
2. The perfection of creation, which results in exact justice, ensures timelessness for
human affairs, and ensures that there is a social commonwealth, which ensures that
scarce resources, once allocated remain unchanged. The perfection also ensures
complementarities, between God and man, who was created in God’s image.
3. Israel’s condition, public and personal, is due to standing up against the will of God.
Since man defied the God, his sin that results from this defiance disrupts the world
order. As it happened to Adam and Eve, it has happened to people of Israel also.
God encourages repentance by punishing man’s arrogance. When man repents, God
forgives, and brings about an improvement in man’s condition. Repentance means
humility, and humility begets God’s favour.
4. God will restore perfection that was originally in his plan of creation. The death
which existed because of sin would die, and the dead will be raised and judged for
their deeds. And many having been justified will regain the paradise that was lost.
Just as Adam and Eve regain the paradise, the people of Israel will get back their
land of Israel, and idolaters will perish, and the remaining humanity, will know the
God, and spend the eternity in His light.
Philosophy
The theology developed by the Rabbis up to sixth century AD, was amplified by the
intellectuals and the philosophers. But the advent of Islam in the seventh century made it
mandatory for Jewish philosophers to match the rational rigour of the Muslim philosophy.
Therefore, it brought about a different kind of intellectual activity in Judaism. They had to
study the Torah through the instruments of reason and discipline of philosophy. They had
to match the general principles of Torah, and the scientific principles of Aristotle. How can
the scriptural notion that God changes his mind, be reconciled with Aristotelian principle
that change indicated imperfection? How can the principle that miracles change course of
nature can be reconciled with the principle that laws of nature are immutable? If God is
arbitrary, it goes against the nature of God himself.
The Judaic philosopher, in addition to philosophic questions, had to confront questions
from his own people. How can God’s chosen people remain homeless, and live in
ghettoes in hostile countries? How could the philosopher explain the prosperity of the
sister religions, which came later, and prospered immensely? Also, the Judaism had to
reconcile with the Greek philosophy, where the truth should stand the test of reason, and
revelations should be subjected to these tests. There was an inherent contradiction
between the reason and revelation. The Jew was hard put to reconcile between two
truths, one personal, and another based on reason. If God is all forgiving, how can he
take a decision to set aside his laws to forgive people? It was hard to reconcile faith and
reason.
Judaism and Other Monotheistic Religions: Judaism’s existence became precarious
with Christianity becoming the approved religion of the state in the fourth century of the
Christian era. Till then, Jews in Christian countries were tolerated to some extent. But as
the Christianity gained official acceptance, the states were in a dilemma: should the killers
of Christ be punished, or should they be kept alive, and ultimately converted, at the time
of second coming of Christ? The pluralistic character of some states made survival easy
for Jews, as the state did not come heavily on the Jewish minority. India’s Jews, even
though in small number, were treated well, and the synagogues in major towns bear a
testimony for that. In Christian and Muslim countries, Judaism kept a low profile, as the
Christians and Muslims defined the issues, and Judaism could not compete, and absorbed
the ideas as much as it could. However, Judaism has made valiant efforts to retain its
ethics, and try to accommodate the secular value system.
Reform, Orthodox, and Conservative Judaic Religious Systems: These three main
streams in Jewish thought took shape between 1800 and 1850.The first school, Reform
Judaism, which developed in the early nineteenth century, recognised the right to make
changes, and classified the change as reform, to give it legitimacy. Second one to develop
was Orthodox Judaism, which was a reaction to Reform Judaism. It did adopt traditional
Judaism, but selectively. But it denied the validity of change. As a reaction to both,
positive Historical Judaism came, and is known in America as Conservative Judaism. It
maintained that change is possible, as reform, only if it can stand the test of historical
validity, upholding theological principles.
Judaism and Modernity: With the American Constitution of 1787 and the French
Revolution of 1789, the Jews in these countries aspired for the rights given to the majority
population, and equality before law. The Jews tried to make out that ethnicity and
nationality are two different issues, and both can reconcile with each other. They have met
with success to some extent.
Conclusion: Judaism has been a religion of the individual and the family, and of everyday
life. But the religion has suffered all through history, and contributed concepts like the
Diaspora, exodus, holocaust, and ghettoes. All these concepts evoke a response of
sadness and suffering. In spite of that, the outlook of the religion is cheerful, and life
accepting. A poem by Prof. Albert Einstein (an eminent scientist and a Jew) given below,
is a witness to the ‘never say die’ spirit of the religion.
“That man is here for the sake of
Other men…
Above all, for those upon whose
smile and
Well-being our own happiness
depends, and also
For the countless unknown souls
with whose
fate we are connected by a band of
sympathy.
Many times a day I realize how
much my own
outer and inner life is built upon the
Labors
of my fellow men, living and
Dead, and
how earnestly I must exert myself
in order to
give in return as much as I have
received
and am still receiving.”
2.3 CHRISTIANITY: THE TEACHINGS AND BASIC

DOCTRINES
Of all the Semitic religions, Christianity is associated with economic development, much
more than other two, Judaism and Islam. It has shown a long association with the
development of temporal institutions, which aided secular development. Even in India,
when secular institutions started developing, the social leaders like Raja Ram Mohan Roy,
Swami Vivekananda, and the educated elite started showing interest in Christianity, with
the belief that there is a direct relation between traditional values and backwardness, as
opposed to adopting modern values, which they thought are embodied in Christianity.
Even though this trend was short lived, it shows the capacity of this religion, as a factor
in institution-building in secular atmosphere.
This apart, Christianity has been one of the major religions in the world, practised all over
the world, and in all the six continents. Its contribution to theology, philosophy, and other
social sciences has been significant. The architecture it inspired in building the churches
has resulted in creating monumental works.
There have been two major divisions within this religion, one being Roman Catholic and
other Protestant movement, started by Martin Luther. In addition, there have been many
denominations of each of these divisions, some region specific and some based on minor
differences. Since the religion was started with Jesus Christ, it is necessary to know the
essential teachings, and the philosophy and ideals for which he lived.
The information about the birth, parentage, life and preaching, and ultimate crucifixion of
Jesus Christ is generally known. It is important to know the factors that led to making
Christianity a universal religion and its special appeal to Gandhi, and the special qualities
that made it universally acceptable.
A very uncommon common man: Many great teachers were born in the upper strata
of the society whose parents or guardians possessed property, and could give early
education to their children. Jesus was not born to any well to do parents, did not study
under any teacher, and followed a profession demanding little skill in a small town. But
his teachings attracted many people, and his miracles established his superior abilities.
Even if one does not believe in the miracles, his gospels, full of spiritual experience and
conviction, endeared him to the masses around him.
Originality of Jesus’ teachings: Many people claim that there was nothing original in
his teachings, and the ideas were already there in Judaism and Greek-Roman tradition.
Even if it is granted that this may be so, presenting them and highlighting them to suit the
need of the time calls for a genius. If the words he had spoken and the parables he
delivered did not contain new ideas, there would have not been such a violent reaction
to what he said, leading to his crucifixion. He was a revolutionary of his time, and his
ideas took a long time for acceptance, and the society of his time was not ready to take
his sermons. He was ahead of his time.
Basic Doctrines of Christianity
The Concept of Brotherhood was given a new meaning by Christ, and it became
universal brotherhood, all being the children of one father ‘God’. Not just the brotherhood
had to be assumed, it had to be demonstrated and practised. Jesus said, “A new
commandment give I unto you, that ye love one another, even as I have loved you”. His
love extended to his enemies, his detractors, and evil doers. Anybody, who had a germ
of goodness deserved to be loved, and Jesus asked, “And who has not?”
The Concept of Divine Father: All religions have unknown elements and fear of
unknown keeps the flock on the fold. The invisible powers have to be propitiated, by
making offerings, holding ritual ceremonies, and many other ways, so that they do not
harm the survivors and the faithful. Jesus raised this unknown Supreme Being to the father
image, God as father. Unseen, but always watching his children, not only their outward
actions, but inward motives, the way in each overcomes their crises, and the good and
the bad in them. The all watchful Father was always around, beseeching his children not
to walk away from the path of righteousness.
The Future Life, its influence: All Semitic religions have the concept of future life, a
life after death. Jesus brought the concept of future judgement, by which, the temporal
inequalities would be redressed. The belief that a future judgement is to take place, in
which the conduct of men would be evaluated, according to the conduct in this life, has
had influence in determining the conduct in this life. It has elevated the moral tone, and
has brought fresh converts into the fold.
Importance of Faith: Faith is the key in Christ’s teachings. While other religions may
exhort the practitioners to believe in their doctrines, and to practice them, Jesus said that
faith would give the believer the salvation and forgiveness, and other boon if required,
could be obtained by faith. The ancient world was suffering from a consciousness of the
sin. When the world was getting weighed down by the concept of sin, Jesus said that
the faith in Him would relieve the soul of the burden of sin. When the faith has elevated
and purified the character, man can start on a higher course of life, as the faith becomes
the healer.
The Demand for Truth: It is said that nature itself establishes truth. That which pretends
will perish and men in conflict with reality cannot hold on to their positions for long. The
spirit of enquiry should ascend all the hurdles, and advance towards absolute truth in all
directions. This was emphasised by St. Paul, who said, “Prove all things”. “We can do
nothing against the truth, but for the truth”. The adherence to truth in the Christianity is
so strong that those who work for preconceived notions and interested parties can be
rated as those opposed to Christianity.
Law of Kindness: When the ancient world was holding on to the concept of “eye for
an eye, limb for the limb”, Jesus gave the call for kindness. Fellow men are to be treated
“as a loving Father would treat his loved and erring children”. He taught men to “love
their enemies, to do good to them that hate them”. This principle has enormously
influenced the thinkers like Count Leo Tolstoy, and Gandhi. Both of them made it the
guiding principle of their lives.
His relation to God the Father: Jesus said, “He who hath seen Me hath seen the
Father”. By this saying, Jesus revealed and exemplified the Divine Father in his person.
He provided the ordinary man a person in flesh and blood, with exemplary conduct to
see the Supreme Being, at least in part. He was aware that he is only a part of Holy
Father, when he said, “No man can see my face and live”.
His relation to Mankind: Jesus could relate to the entire mankind, with his unity of will
and spirit with his Supreme Father. He could be the Son of God and son of man, and
the common man could relate to him. God was not a distant all powerful force, but a
loving Father. He, the Son of God, was here, to carry out His wish and will, and he
could reveal the mind and nature of his Father to the man.
His treatment of Women and Children: When the status of women in his times was
inferior, Jesus was very kind, considerate, and concerned. When he spoke of the marriage
union, he made no distinction of subjection between the parties.
Towards Children: Jesus had a special affection, and always he spoke of them, and to
them, with special consideration. “To become as a little child”, was an aspiration, and this
has become the ideal of Christians. Since he was the “son of God”, the filial relation gets
emphasised all through his speech and conduct, and inspires love for the children.
Of Miracles: Jesus is said to have performed many miracles, which go against the
physical law. But his teachings, even without the miracles, are everlasting and beneficial
to the mankind. Maybe, miracles are required to establish some belief. Some Christians
believe that when a person has such a high spiritual and moral status, he may be aware
of the technique of establishing the supremacy of mind over matter. However, Christianity
can stand its ground even without miracles.
Liberation from Lower Nature: When Jesus would admonish people for their
shortcomings, they heard him. Even though it was not palatable, his words reached their
conscience, and made them think, for he had no selfish interest, no personal gain, but only
a desire to relieve the man of his burden.
His Mode of Teaching needs no explanation. His parables, which gave examples from
day to day life, were concrete, practical, and definite. His imagery and metaphors
transported one from the mundane to the spiritual sphere. All kinds of people in the
society figure in the parables, and every man can relate himself to one of the characters.
2.4 GANDHI AND CHRISTIANITY

Gandhi’s interaction with Christianity has been long and fruitful, though was repelled by
it when he was in the school. Even a local conversion to Christianity created a bad
impression on the young Gandhi. When he went to England, he met a Christian from
Manchester, and narrated his bitter experience. Then this man sold a copy of the Bible
to him, and Gandhi states that he started reading Old Testament.
The New Testament though impressed Gandhi. He read the “Sermon on the Mount”,
which, he says, “went straight into my heart”. He further continues: “I compared it with
the Gita. The verses-‘But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite
thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also’, and ‘If any man take away thy coat,
let him have your cloak too’ delighted me beyond measure and put me in mind of Shamal
Bhatt’s ‘For a bowl of water, give a goodly meal’ etc., My young mind tried to unify the
teachings of Gita, The Light of Asia, and the Sermon on the Mount. That renunciation
was the highest form of religion appealed to me greatly.”(Autobiography, Part I, CH XX)
Gandhi emphasised that prayer is important, but held that congregational worship is no
true worship. He quotes Jesus, “When though prayest, though shalt not be as the
hypocrites are; but enter into thine inner chamber and having shut the door, pray to the
Father, which is in secret”.
Gandhi called Jesus “one of the greatest teachers of the world”. On another occasion, he
said, “In my humble opinion, he (Jesus) was a prince among politicians.....He gave the
devil his due. He even shamed him and is reported never once to have yielded to his
inclination” (Young India , 25-8-1920). He called Jesus Christ, “A prince among passive
resisters”.
2.5 ISLAM: SPREAD OF ISLAM, THE HOLY QURAN

Islam was born in the desert of Arabia, where Bedouin tribes lived. These were tribes
of the desert, true sons of the soil. The desert had its stamp on the character of the
people. The climate was extreme and water was scarce; burning hot sun, hot sands and
storms were the realities they had to live with. In such hostile ground, the tribesmen
tended their animals for livelihood. They depended on the camel for transport, and the sun
and the moon for time and guidance. Under such circumstances, where they had little to
give, hospitality was a virtue; they were in physical danger all the time; bravery was a
virtue. Where fear could easily overtake a man, manliness was a virtue.
In such land, as if to answer the needs of men, Prophet Muhammad was born. The
tribes, which were many in number, fought amongst themselves, followed polytheism,
animism, and had strange rituals. They had to be unified, and made into nation. Hence
was the advent of Islam.
Spread of Islam: The spread of Islam in the West Asian countries was more due to
socio-economic causes prevailing at that time. It gave a relief from quarrels and strife, and
various practices like polytheism, and animistic worship. The end product was a new faith
and a new state, which suited the local population. In areas outside West Asia, various
factors like discriminatory taxes against non-Muslims, desire of the leaders of society to
become part of the body politic, the desire of the bureaucracy to preserve its privileges,
the desire of the land–owning class not to pay the tax, and the desire to become a part
of the upcoming empire, and various kinds of threats and privileges led to the spread of
Islam. In the centuries following its birth, Islam spread by conquest and occupation,
religious activism and peaceful missionary work. Gradually, it spread to North Africa,
Europe, Arabian Peninsula, Central Asia, and up to Indus River in the east. In South East
Asia, in countries like Malaya, and Sumatra, it was due to traders, who established
themselves in these countries.
Holy Scripture: The holy scripture, Qur’an, considered to be the direct and true word
of God, was transmitted by angel Gabriel to Muhammad , when the prophet was in a
state of divine inspiration akin to trance. In this state, the prophet was ordered to recite
(Iqra) the word of God, and hence Qur’an, a “recitation”.
After the death of the Prophet, the holy book could not provide specific answers to the
questions posed by the growing community in search of extra guidance, the faithful turned
to the life, habits and practices of the Prophet, and thus arose the practice of compiling,
recording, and classifying the tradition. This is known as Hadith. Out of this compilation,
grew the subsequent material, a completed product. ‘Sunnah,’ gave the customary way of
doing things, which expresses the ideal behaviour for the pious, orthodox Muslims, who
call themselves the followers of the custom (ahl al sunnah) from which the term, Sunni
was born.
The prophet’s position in Islam is venerable: Kalimah, the holy word says, “There
is no Deity but God, and Muhammad is his only apostle”. This phrase is the foundation
of Islamic faith, and it differentiates the believer from the non-believer. From this exalted
position, the prophet becomes a human being, a warm and kind person, in Hadith which
is a collection of the practices of the prophet.
The Holy Qur’an: Qur’an contains 114 chapters, which are arranged in decreasing
order of length. There is a Mecca portion, and Madina portion, and they reveal a
prophetic genius. Its essential theme is the Unity of God. The believer is exhorted to
accept the envoys of God, from Adam, continuing with Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus,
and finally Muhammad. Throughout the Holy Scripture, two veins run. One is that of
impersonal, remote, and all powerful God, who can punish the guilty and sinful, and the
other, compassionate and merciful, who gives the purest form of divine benevolence and
love.
The great achievement of Prophet Muhammad was to disentangle the earlier beliefs,
without cutting them abruptly, and retaining some elements of them, without causing a
cultural and emotional shock. This involved cutting out totally some earlier practices and
retaining some, after reinterpreting them in the monotheistic way. They were reinterpreted
to accommodate them into the broader, monotheistic values of Qur’an. Even though some
of the elements of earlier faith were retained, they were put into a new structure, which
was capable of handling them in the concept of strong monotheism, described in Arabic
as ‘Tauhid’.
Five Pillars Of The Faith: The practice of Islam involves following the five pillars of
faith, which lead to being a faithful follower of the religion.
a) Kalimah: The holy word. When translated, it reads as follows:
‘There is no deity but God. Muhammad is the apostle of God”. This sentence,
recited everyday during the prayers, establishes the principle of monotheism, and
“Tauhid”, the principle as ordained in holy Qur’an.
b) Namaz, the prayer: Each person has to pray five times a day, after following the
principle of ritual cleanliness. The prayer can be done even at home, but ritual
cleanliness is more easily achieved in the mosque. However, the Friday prayer is to
be done in the mosque.
c) Zakath, the almsgiving: Each person is ordained to give a portion of his wealth as
alms, depending on his capacity. Certain class of persons, who are not capable of
giving, are exempted from this.
d) Roza, the fasting: Each Mussalman has to fast in the month of Ramadan. In this
month, a person has to fast from sunrise to sunset, during this period should abstain
from food, drink, tobacco and sex. Those who are unable to follow, like pregnant
women, children of pre-puberty age, the aged, and the sick, are exempt from fasting.
e) Haz, the pilgrimage to Mecca: Each Mussalman has to do his pilgrimage to
Mecca, provided he has the physical ability and means to undertake the journey. This
practice has brought about a communication in the Muslim world, and has cultural
and political significance. Even if a man is unable to go, he can experience the
holiness and atmosphere of the pilgrimage in the company of the pilgrim, which is
shared by all.
Law and Jurisprudence: During the formative period of law, there was no definitive
interpretation, and it was done as per the customary tenets, by following some elements
of the Roman and pre-Islamic law. By the end of Umayyad period, about 725 and 750
A.D., the Qur’an and Sunnah became established as the principal sources of Muslim
jurisprudence, and the body of jurists grew, who could develop these sources and find
solutions to the hitherto unknown problems.
Hadith, the practices of the Prophet, was also a source of law, and to prevent different
interpretations and narratives, a method was established by which the veracity of each
recorded practice could be verified. This started after two to three hundred years after
founding the religion, and by ninth century, A.D., the study was institutionalised, and a full-
fledged scholarly tradition came into existence. The compilations of al-Bukhari (d.870) and
Muslim (d.875) enjoy universal acceptance in Islam.
The legal edifice was completed with the introduction of the principle of consensus
(Ijmah), which brought about integrity in the entire legal framework and the religious
thought. This principle of consensus has origin in prophet’s saying, “My community will
not agree in error”. Ijmah verifies the authenticity and guides correct usage of the ‘sunnah’
tradition, and reinforces the community’s sense of divine origin of laws, which lead to a
strong belief and respect for the law.
Sects within Islam: There are two major sects within Islam, and several minor sects.
The major sects are Sunni and Shia. Sunni Muslims are traditionalists, and the word,
Sunni, means “one on the path”. (Sunnah means path, the path ordained by the Prophet).
The other sect is Shia, which literally means “followers”. They are the followers of Ali,
the first cousin of Prophet, and the husband of his daughter, Fatima. The Shias maintain
that Ali was the first legitimate Khalif, or successor to the Prophet, and others are
usurpers. The Shias are in small number compared to the Sunnis, and may constitute
about 8 to 10 percent of Sunni Muslim population. Other sects are too small in number,
and are confined to specific regions. There are sub-sects which were part of the Shia
sect, like the Zaidi branch, and Ismaili branch. Ismaili branch survives mainly in India and
East Africa, and several offshoots of Ismailism like the Druze, the Nusairi and Yazidi sects
display such extreme character that it is difficult to consider them as fully Muslim.
Sufi movement was an example of synthesis between theology and mystic movement in
Islam. Sufism was a way of practising religion through the personal mystical experience.
It was not against the orthodox Islam, and in many ways complemented it. Soon the
power of popular Sufi movement began to be seen among the masses, and for the fear
of being upstaged, the orthodoxy moved away from it, even though this movement gave
strength and popular acceptance to the orthodoxy. In many countries like Iran, Sufism,
along with orthodox religion, contributed to national revival.
Islam and the State: There is a close nexus between religion and state, and state is
considered to be a device for upholding the faith. The Khalif is the chief executive of the
state, without legislative powers, as all the laws have their origin in Qur’an. This institution
was founded after the death of Prophet, and the Khalif was supposed to be the
successor to the Prophet in temporal and spiritual powers. The institution of Khalif had
a chequered history, and it was formally abolished by Turkish republic in 1924, and it
created stir in the Muslim world, and many Muslim countries held a meeting in Cairo in
1926, to revive the institution, but it was of no avail. Gandhi launched the Khilafat
movement in support of Muslims in India at the same time.
Islam and Society: Islamic states are facing many challenges in the recent times. All over
the world, the increase in oil prices has given an advantage to the Arab world, which has
become cash rich, and is promoting pan-Islamist movement all over the world. At the
same time, the international terrorism brought about negative perception to the community,
and has put the moderate, upwardly mobile, and those who want to be upwardly mobile,
into difficulty, as it has become difficult for them to shake off the label. The Orthodoxy
is not ready to give up its grip, and the emerging middle class among Muslims are in a
dilemma over demands of the modern world and orthodoxy.
2.6 GANDHI AND ISLAM

Gandhi included the “Kalimah” in the Ashram prayers. This brought out an angry reaction
from one of his Hindu friends, “You have now given the Kalimah a place in the Ashram.
What further remains to be done to kill your Hinduism”? About this, Gandhi wrote, in
Harijan, (15-2-1942):
“I am confident that my Hinduism and that of the other Ashram Hindus has grown
thereby. There should be in us an equal reverence for all religions. Badshah Khan (Khan
Abdul Gaffar Khan) whenever he comes joins in the worship here, with delight. He loves
the tune to which the Ramayana is sung, and he listens intently to the Gita. His faith in
Islam is not lessened thereby. Then, why may I not listen to the Qur’an with equal
reverence and adoration in my heart?”
Gandhi included the well known verse from Qur’an into the Ashram worship, known as
“Al Fateha”. His views on Islam have been dealt at length in the succeeding sections.
1. I take refuge in Allah, from Satan the accursed.
2. Say: He is the God the one and only
God, the Eternal absolute
He begetteth not, nor is he begotten,
And there is none like unto Him.
3. Praise be to God,
The Cherisher and Sustainer of worlds,
Most Gracious, most Merciful,
Master of the day of Judgement
Thee do we worship.
And thine aid we seek.
Show us the straight way,
The way of those on whom
Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace,
Those whose (portion) is not wrath
And who go not astray.
2.7 SUMMARY
Even though Judaism is the oldest among the Semitic religions, it did not prosper as much
as its successor religions. The Jews think that it is due to incurring the wrath of God, by
violating his commands. The Jews suffered displacement and persecution all through the
history. Still, the community has shown resilience, and many a time they have reinvented
themselves under hostile circumstances. It is essentially a religion of individual and family.
Even though the principles of Christianity look well accepted universally, Jesus Christ was
a revolutionary of his time. Even though the religion faced many hurdles in its early years,
it proceeded to become one of the major religions in the world. It brought out the
concepts of brotherhood, faith in the Lord, adherence to truth, kindness and empathy
towards women and children, and above all, the simplicity of teaching through parables
and psalms.
Islam had its origin in Arabia, among the Bedouin tribesmen. It spread all over the world
with vigorous preachers, who brought the word of God, ‘Qur’an’, which was given to
the world through Prophet Muhammad. It further had two sects within itself, without any
change in principles, but only in methods. It developed its jurisprudence, art, architecture,
philosophy, theology, epistemology, and various other disciplines. It has spread in all the
continents, and has a strong adherence by its followers.

1. Explain the key beliefs of Judaism.
2. Bring out the basic doctrines of Christianity and how they influenced Gandhi.
3. Evaluate the significance of five pillars of Islamic faith.
4. Bring out the common features found in Semitic religions.
5. Discuss how the Semitic religions have shaped Gandhi’s thinking.
SUGGESTED READINGS
1. Patrick Burke, T., The Major Religion- An Introduction With Text, Blackwell
Publishers, Cambridge, 1996.
2. Bettany,G.T., Encyclopaedia of World Religions, Victory Books International, New
Delhi, 1991.
3. James Hastings., (ed), Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. 3, T &T. Clark,
Edinburgh, New York, 1910.
4. James Hastings., (ed), Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol.7, T &T. Clark,
Edinburgh, New York, 1914.
5. Patrick Burke, T., The Major Religions, Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, 1996.
6. Lewis Browne., The Wisdom of Israel, Random House, New York, 1945.
7. Sidney Greenberg., (compiled and edited), A Modern Treasury of Jewish Thoughts,
New York, 1960.
8. Relevant portions of The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Volumes 1-96,
Publications Division, New Delhi.
9. John J. Shepard., ‘Islam’, in Encyclopaedia of Applied Ethics, Volume 2, Academic
Press, 1998.
10. Thomas Patrick Hughes., Dictionary of Islam, first published in 1885. 7th impression
by Rupa & Co., 2007, New Delhi.
11. Bertrand Russell., History of Western Phiolosophy, George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 8th
edition, 1962.
UNIT 3 WESTERN PHILOSOPHY: GREEK
TRADITION, RUSKIN, TOLSTOY AND
THOREAU
Structure
3.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
3.2 Greek History, Tradition and Philosophy
3.3 John Ruskin
3.4 Leo Tolstoy
3.5 Henry David Thoreau
3.6 Gandhi and Thoreau
3.7 Summary
Suggested Readings
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Gandhi was born in a traditional Hindu family, but went to England for education at an
early age. Coming from a small town in Gujarat must have resulted in a cultural shock,
but Gandhi tried to adjust to the new environs by wearing western clothes, adopting their
mannerisms, and understanding their culture.
In those days, all the educated Indians thought that the word, ‘British’ was synonymous
with fairness, justice, and equity. The title of Dadabhai Naoroji’s book, Poverty and
UnBritish Rule in India, is an example. The presumption was that whatever was unfair
and unjust, was ‘UnBritish’. Around this time, the attitude of the educated Indian
leadership was slowly changing, and leaders like Tilak and Gokhale were emerging
stronger in India. At this juncture, it is interesting to note that Gandhi adopted Gokhale
as his political guru. By doing so, Gandhi started on a moderate course, like all Indians
educated in the western method.
Gandhi studied the western authors of his interest, right from Socrates, and Plato. But a
few thinkers, who had compassion for the mankind, attracted his attention, and he studied
them thoroughly, and started implementing their philosophy in his day-to-day life. Socrates
appealed to him as a satyagrahi. Plato’s concept of education is seen in his approach to
education, where he stresses basic education. Tolstoy influenced him so much that he
started a settlement, Ashram, and named it Tolstoy Farm; Ruskin influenced economic
thought, and Thoreau, his idea of civil disobedience. Even though he went to the west in
an impressionable age, we see that he matured over the years, imbibing the best in
western philosophy and values.
Western Philosophy (Greek Tradition, Ruskin, Tolstoy, Thoreau) 39
Aims and objectives

After studying this Unit, you would be able to understand:
 The main currents in Greek tradition with an emphasis on the views of Socrates
 The economic views of Ruskin
 The brief history of non-resistance and the philosophy of Tolstoy
 Thoreau’s conceptualisation of civil disobedience.
3.2 GREEK TRADITION: HISTORY, TRADITION AND

PHILOSOPHY
Ancient Greece has been the cradle of western civilisation since the beginning of history.
Greek art, literature, philosophy, metaphysics, epistemology, politics and ethics, astronomy,
mathematics, logic etc., have shaped and moulded the western thought for many centuries
and the process has continued even after the dawn of Christianity. Arnold Toynbee rightly
remarked, “By seventh century after Christ, when ancient Greek civilisation may said to
have finally dissolved, our own civilisation was ready to shoot up and thrive”.
W.C.K.Guthrie, the author of A History of Greek Philosophy is of the opinion that
Greek philosophy forms the basis of western philosophy. He calls it ‘the formative period’
of western thought ‘the making of the framework...until at least the latter part of
nineteenth century’ which is indicative of the ‘dateless character’ of Greek thought.
Greece, The Land and People
Greece, or Hellas as the Greeks called it, is a peninsula extending from the mainland
Europe into the Mediterranean Sea. The land which could not support agriculture
produced seafarers. The availability of excellent marble stone brought out the creativity in
artists, sculptors and architects. Mountainous terrain where movement was difficult resulted
in the formation of small city-states. City-state, which in Greek is the polis, meaning
fortified site, contained the people, the fort, the city and the countryside. Of the city-
states, two were significant. They were Athens, a seat of democracy and Sparta,
essentially a military state. The year of first Olympiad that is 776 B.C., is marked as the
beginning of Greek history.
The spirit of enquiry made Greeks the pioneers of rational thinking in Europe. There is
hardly any area of enquiry that escaped the searching critical eye of Greeks. As Plato
rightly remarked, ‘philosophy is the child of wonder’. Religion and superstition never
appealed to them, and in their search for reality they transcended their personal
experience and became universal. Though, as Livingstone puts it, Greek thought suffered
from two major limitations of ‘difference of scale’, aimed at universality and the thought
was confined to the experiences of small city states and the ‘difference of outlook
between Greek and modern speculation’, that is, it starts from universal to particular and
the modern is vice versa. Yet their universal appeal cannot be ignored.
History of Greek Philosophy
Guthrie divides the history of Greek philosophy into two categories taking into account the
difference of outlook and interest and also the centres of influence. Nevertheless the
thread of continuity runs through, making them a continuum.
Pre-Socratic period
During the Pre-Socratic period the focus of the philosophers was on the nature of
universe and the true basis of conduct. Thales, considered as the ‘first European
philosopher’ belongs to this period. Milesian School focussed on the study of matter
as an intellectual pursuit. The nature of external world and its unity were the subjects of
discussion. This school held that world has one substance, a single principle which is
manifested differently in the beings and the change is due to its intrinsic character.
Heraclitus, considered fire or the hot and dry as the basic substance and concluded
that everything is in a state of flux, emphasising movement. His influence on the
philosophical thought of Greece was phenomenal. Democritus, an advocate of materialism,
gave the theory of atom, and the spontaneous movement of atom. His political views
about the origin of state, political obligation, good ruler influenced Socrates, Plato and
Aristotle.
As opposed to this monism, Empedocles advocated that four substances have made up
this world and they are earth, water, air and fire. Thus the focus of early Socratic
philosophers was towards understanding the nature, its components and the change.
Pythagoras focussed on the study of form with an intention to find a sound basis for
life; applied the mathematical truths to the human life and came out with the principles of
asceticism as an outcome of the principle of limit, community living and the doctrine of
three classes based on the innate quality of the soul.
Socratic period
The relative philosophy of Sophists was essentially ‘practical and political’. Sophists were
greatly responsible for the shift of focus of philosophical enquiry from nature to man.
Protagoras, ‘the most famous’ (Guthrie) philosopher gave the doctrine of ‘man the
measure’. He writes: “Man is the measure of all things, of the things that are that they
are, and of the things that are not that they are not”. This became the basis of empiricism
of Sophists.
Socrates
Socrates (470-399 B.C.), an Athenian, believed that he had a divine commission to
make others understand their mistake and improve. Aristotle was of the opinion that
Socrates brought a shift of focus in philosophy ‘from nature to practical morality and
political thought’. Later Cicero writes “Socrates called down philosophy from the skies
and implanted it in the cities and homes of men”. He “brought it into communal life,
compelling it to attend to questions of virtue and vice, good and evil”.
Socrates followed his inner conviction under all circumstances, as is evident during his
lifetime and even at his death. He never compromised with untruth and ignorance. He
stood out alone in support of what he considered to be right. His action corroborated
what he thought. There was no gap between preaching and practice. He was indifferent
to pleasure and pain; what mattered most was the good of the soul, not the body.
Karl Popper in his book Open Society and its enemies (Vol I, p.207) beautifully
summarises the mission of Socrates. He writes, “Socrates’ death is the ultimate proof of
his sincerity.....He showed that a man could die, not for fate and fame and other grand
things of this kind, but also for the freedom of critical thought, and for a self-respect
which has nothing to do with self-importance or sentimentality”.
Though Socrates did not write anything, the details about his life, trial and conversations
in the prison and drinking poison (hemlock) can be found in Platonic dialogues and
Xenophon’s writing. The great noble speech of Socrates is found in Plato’s Apology;
Plato’s Crito is devoted to Socrates’ refusal to escape punishment. The views of Socrates
can be summed up as follows:
1. Method of Socrates: He followed inductive method, where general truth is
understood through particular cases. Socrates followed question-answer method of
analysis. This served two purposes: firstly it aimed at discovering truth and secondly
it educated others to understand truth.
2. Ethics is more important than science because of its practical use: Xenophon
opined that on four grounds Socrates rejects the pursuit of science and prefers study
of ethics: Human affairs concerns us and therefore one cannot ignore the study of it;
No two scientists come to an agreement as to what is correct in science; natural
science is of no use; the secrets of nature are unfathomable.
3. Virtue is knowledge: The wrong doing is due to ignorance. Men do wrong because
they do not know what is right. Socratic analogy for virtue was art or craft, not
theoretical science. Hence knowledge is not just intellectual but practical. It is not just
the natural gifts, learning and practice but it requires disciplining of mind by practice
of dialectics and body by self-control.
4. Wrong doing is involuntary: For Socrates the most precious possession of man is
his soul. Wrong doing is harmful to the soul. Out of ignorance, unknowingly one does
wrong; therefore he needs to be persuaded and made to realise the distinction
between right and wrong.
5. An unexamined life is not worth living: The search for self-knowledge is one’s
supreme duty, without which good life is not possible. Guthrie writes “one of
Socrates’ most instant exhortations to his fellow citizens was that they should look
after – care for, tend-their souls”. Body is the tool and the soul is the workman, the
former should be under the control of the latter. In Apology, Plato writes “deck the
psyche with her proper adornments, self-control, justice, courage, freedom and
truth”.
6. Political obligation: Socrates preached and practised obedience to state laws, the
basis of obedience being the contract between the individual and state. ‘The
willingness of the individual to live in society governed by laws implies acceptance of
contract...hence to disobey the law means dishonouring one’s agreement’ (Norman
Gulley, 1968). The duty to obey laws is thus a moral duty. His refusal to escape
punishment is a proof of his respect for law.
7. Immortality of soul: He believed that soul existed before the body and therefore
death cannot destroy it. Death, for him, was ‘either nothingness or a migration of
soul from one world to another’.
Platonic utopia and Aristotle’s investigations too form significant part of Greek tradition.
Plato, in his famous work Republic, gives a picture of an ideal state, the spirit of which
is justice–individual and social. Individual justice refers to the harmony in the three
elements of human soul namely reason, spirit and appetite. Individual justice can be
attained by temperance. Corresponding to these elements there are three classes in the
community and the proper harmonious functioning of three classes results in justice in
society. Education is a device through which one can know the vocation for which he is
best suited.
Plato’s views on education were far ahead of his time in many respects. He advocated
uniform, state-controlled education for both boys and girls. He was of the opinion that a
state that was devoid of the services of half of the population will be paralysed and there
is no difference between man and woman as far as the elements of the soul are
concerned.
Plato goes to the extent of providing a detailed curriculum. No wonder Rousseau
declared that, Republic was the finest treatise on education ever written. He dwells on
subjects which are to be taught at different stages, keeping in mind the growth of mind,
body and soul. The purpose of education for Plato is turning the eye of the mind inward.
Gandhi drew support to his views from different sources, and one such support is ancient
Greek philosophy in general and Socrates in particular. Socrates, a great satyagrahi, who
was fearless even at the doorstep of death, inspired Gandhi. Gandhi had read Plato’s
dialogues. The summary of the views of Socrates in his defence were introduced to the
readers of Young India by Gandhi in his series on ‘the life of a Satyagrahi’.
3.3 JOHN RUSKIN (1819-1900)

John Ruskin, the author of Unto this Last, was an eminent critic of art and architecture,
and evolved into a critic of social and economic architecture of his time. Son of a rich
Scottish wine merchant, his mother was a devout Christian, and put her son through a
Bible course along with his schooling. In 1837, Ruskin went to Oxford, and took a
degree in 1842. He grew in eminence day by day, and became a celebrated critic of art
and architecture. He had the reputation of introducing many talented painters to the British
society, who, without his scholarly support, would have slipped into oblivion.
Gandhi held Ruskin in great esteem, for his book, ‘Unto this last’, which he read on his
train journey from Johannesburg to Durban in 1904, and that was a turning moment in
his life. Gandhi writes in his Autobiography, “I was determined to change my life in
accordance with (Ruskin’s) ideals”. Of all the books that he had read, he said, “the one
that brought about an instantaneous and practical transformation in my life was Unto this
last. I translated it later into Gujarati, entitling it ‘Sarvodaya’ (the welfare of all)”. He
summarises Ruskin’s ideas in three main lessons.
1. The good of the individual is contained in the good of all.
2. That a lawyer’s work has the same value as the barber’s, inasmuch as all have the
same right of earning their livelihood from their work.
3. That a life of labour, i.e., the life of the tiller of the soil and the handicraftsman, is
worth living.
Gandhi adapts Ruskin to the Indian context, for his anti-industrial, pro-labour, and pro-
community views, and redefines Ruskin’s values in the Indian rural context. Ruskin’s
concern is up to the last man, and Gandhi’s ‘Sarvodaya’, is the welfare of all, differing
in sequential aspect but spiritually the same.
Ruskin’s Time
The Victorian era, in which Ruskin lived, was an age of contradictions. The period
enjoyed a long phase of peace, with social turmoil caused by the industrial revolution. The
social historians observed contrasting characteristics. It was an age of ‘faith and doubt’,
‘morality and hypocrisy,’ ‘splendour and squalor’, and ‘idealism and materialism’. Ruskin
was a product of age, and drew inspiration from Plato and Bible; art and architecture.
Even though he was a great art critic, he entered the field of Economics and attacked
the well established theoreticians of his time with iconoclastic zeal.
Unto This Last
The book Unto This Last gets its title from the Bible (Mathew xx14).It is a reference
to the words of Jesus in the parable of workers in the vineyard. The book was first
published as a serial of essays in Cornhill Magazine. The initial response to the book was
hostility, derision, and opposition. Firstly, it tried to attack the Economics of Laissez Faire,
and the concept of ‘economic man’, who is solely guided by the utility, and not at all
concerned with the human values.
Secondly, it presses the need to consider human values, and ethical considerations for the
economic activity. His critique of the eminent economists of the day, like Ricardo, J.S.
Mill and Malthus created uproar, and Ruskin was criticised as lacking in logic and
systematic thinking in a science, that was not his. However, Ruskin managed to make a
dent in the conventional Economics. His kind of thinking began to be recognised.
The Roots of Honour: The first essay, named as ‘The roots of honour’ argues that the
orthodox theory of Economics is outdated, as it considers man to be an ‘economic
being’, ignores human relations, like the relationship between the employer and the
employee. The author says that human relations should be based on affection and justice,
not on hostility and competition. He gives the examples of ‘five great intellectual
professions’, in which men should be ready to die, on ‘due Occasion’, namely,
The soldier, who is ready to die on the battlefield,
The physician, who will not desert a patient in need.
The pastor, who would preach truth, in all circumstances,
The lawyer, who would not give up the path of justice for any consideration.
The merchant-what is his due occasion of death
The author says, that it is the main question for the merchant, as for all of us, and says
that a man who does not know when to die, does not know how to live. Ruskin feels
that merchant does not have the commitment to stick to principle in adverse circumstances.
Therefore, the author says that for proper employer-employee relations, wages should not
be left to the market forces, irrespective of fluctuating demand for labour. The wages
should be so determined that the worker should be ready to take responsibility for his
work; the merchant comes in bad light for the author, as he does not take responsibility
like the earlier categories. The employer-employee relations should be such that responsibility
is established, and worker should be ready to suffer for his job.
Veins of Wealth: The second chapter, called ‘Veins of Wealth’, brings out a distinction
between the ‘Mercantile Economy’ and the ‘Political economy’, where the former is
concerned with riches people accumulate at the cost of others, and the latter deals with
the economic well-being of the state, and citizenry. Unequal distribution of wealth is
harmful to the nation, and mercantile economy leads to such distribution and reduction in
the power of the state. A proper distribution of wealth should be based on moral
considerations. That gives the state power over men, and the real wealth would be happy
and contented citizens.
Just Distribution of Wealth: The third chapter, called ‘Qui Judicatis Terram’(You are
the Judges of the earth) examines how wages can be properly distributed, leading to
proper wealth distribution. The author admits that absolute justice is unattainable, and just
wages depend on promise to give a person wages equivalent to the labour he has given.
It has to be determined in terms of currency, and it is difficult to assess, but a practical,
approximate assessment is possible. Underpayment and overpayment of wages is to be
avoided, and this gives a chance for the poor to come up, and diminishes the power of
the rich to acquire luxury and exercise moral influence.
Distress of the working man is due to forces of competition and oppression, let loose by
the laissez faire economy, and government should make efforts to make these forces
ineffective by cooperation. The author says that by proper efforts, proper exercise of
judgement, this condition, conducive to working class, can be brought about.
Redefining Economic Terms: In the fourth chapter, ‘Ad Valorem’, the author tries to
define the various economic terms, like value, wealth, price, and produce, and states that
the definitions of traditional economists are inadequate. ‘Any valuable thing’ should be
available for life. He says that the gold used to decorate the coffin has no value. Price
is the exchange value and is expressed in currency. The price of a thing is the quality of
labour given by a person to acquire it. The price of labour is invariable, if it has given
quality and kind. Political economy considers production as an end in itself, but the author
says that production should end in consumption, and the end consumption is life.
Having defined the various terms, the author argues that positive labour is the real wealth
of the nation, and economics of self interest is harmful to the nation. The real wealth of
a nation is a happy and contended work force, which seeks not only food, but also
facility, for education, wisdom and salvation. Only with such a social condition, there will
be bread and peace “unto this last as unto thee”.
Ruskin and Gandhian Economic Thought
Elizabeth T. McLaughlin, in her scholarly work, ‘Ruskin and Gandhi’, says that Ruskin
can be easily called the “father of Gandhian economic thought”. When Gandhi summarised
Ruskin’s thought, (given in paragraphs above), he said that the first principle he knew, and
the second one he had dimly realised. He says, “The third never occurred to me. Unto
this last made it clear as daylight for me that the second and third were contained in
the first.” In Gandhi’s autobiography, the heading of the chapter relating to Ruskin is
“Magic spell of the book.”
McLaughlin states that Ruskin influenced Gandhi’s conception of soul-force as a substitute
for physical force; he was the chief source of Gandhian economic ideas, but above all,
“he changed Gandhi as a person”. This is far more than exerting influence. The
suddenness of the change was more akin to an instantaneous religious conversion. She
says, “Gandhi’s discovery of Ruskin’s book was as significant a contribution to his
development and as genuine as an encounter between two deeply concerned human
beings, as any actual meeting could have been”.
Gandhian economics has continued to hold sway on people’s minds, and successor to
Gandhi in his economic thought was J.C. Kumarappa, whose work, Economy of
Permanence brings out the Gandhian thought and puts it in a systematic and theoretical
format. His ideas are India specific, and Gandhi himself certified that Kumarappa was his
heir apparent in carrying forward his ideas on Economics.
Another person who significantly contributed to this branch is E.F.Schumacher, whose
work, Small is Beautiful had an impact on economic thinking all over the world. He said
that he was treating Economics “as if people mattered”. His book, “Small is Beautiful”
had Gandhi’s picture on the cover. He popularised the concept of “intermediate technology”,
which in his own words, would complement a man’s initiative, instead of killing it. He
said, “Bring machine to the man, and not man to the machine”. He has profusely quoted
J.C.Kumarappa and his work throughout his book, and has drawn inspiration from him.
Thus, the tradition of Ruskin continues, through his disciple, M.K. Gandhi. Ruskin once
told his admirer that he would not care whether one enjoyed his books or not, but the
important question was that, “have they done you any good?” His book continues to do
good to the world through his able follower and admirer.
3.4 TOLSTOY, COUNT LEO NIKOLAEVICH (1828-1910)

Born in 1828, Tolstoy was one of the greatest influences on Gandhi. He was born into
Russian aristocracy, and led a life of pleasure and indulgence. At the age of fifty, his
introspection began, and started getting tormented internally. Tolstoy confesses, “my life
was but a long indulgence of my passions: it was a thing without meaning and evil”.
Questions relating to nature and self, good and evil, purpose of life, started agitating his
mind. He studied many western philosophers like Plato, Kant, and Pascal. Schopenhauer,
who was opposed to rationalism, and based morality on feelings, sympathy, asceticism,
and saintliness, had a special appeal for him.
Dissatisfied, he turned to religion for solace, and sought answers for his questions there.
His main intention was to free himself from ‘nihilism’. His eminence as a novelist is
unsurpassed. He wrote great novels like War and Peace, and Anna Karenina. His other
works include My confessions, My faith, The Christian teaching, What are we to do,
My life, My Religion. The work which influenced Gandhi most was a long essay called,
The Kingdom of God is within You.
Influences on Tolstoy: Tolstoy belongs to a line of Christian thinkers who believed in
the non-resistance to violence, either by the individual or the state. He points out in his
long essay:
 From the very foundation of Christianity the doctrine of not resisting evil by
violence has been professed, and still is professed by the minority of men.
 There have been many Christian sects which practiced non-resistance as a
creed. The Quakers, a sect which believes in non-resistance, which, for more than
two hundred years, has been practicing the teachings of Christ, as to non-resistance
of evil by violence, and not to use weapons for self-defence.
Tolstoy is in the line of non-resistance thinkers, who include the Christian sects like
Quakers, Mennonites, Bogomiles, Paulicians, and other independent thinkers, who
were inspired by the Gospel. One of them was Lloyd Garrison, who in 1838 took
part in a discussion in a society for the Establishment of Peace among men- on

means of preventing the war. They issued a declaration signed in 1838 which was
signed by many members, to carry forward the work of peaceful and universal
reformation. The Quakers, especially with a book published in 1827, showed that
Christianity can be never reconciled with violence, far less with war. In spite of
that, they wondered, how can church preach that war and Christianity can combine,
which is continuously being preached.
Another person who influenced Tolstoy was Adin Ballou, who preached the principle
of non-resistance for fifty years. ‘Jesus Christ is my lord and master’ , declared
Ballou, and said that if there is a conflict between being a citizen under the
Constitution and being a Christian, he would prefer to be a good Christian, as ever.
He died in 1890.
Tolstoy was also influenced by Chech Chelcicky, whose work was known by the
title, ‘Net of Faith’. A Christian, according to Chelcicky, cannot be a ruler or a
soldier, nor can he take part in government, not even can be a landowner, or a
merchant, because all these activities involve violence in one kind or the other.
Hence he can only be an artisan or husbandsman.
Tolstoy was a very devout Christian, who sought intellectual, philosophical, and moral
justification for his daily life in the teachings of Gospel. He was an anarchist, who thought
that Christianity is a substitute for the state. His philosophy can be summed up as follows.
1. Human life: His philosophy of life is derived from Gospel. Though he believed that
infinite perfection that Christ delivers cannot be attained, efforts can be made in that
direction. He writes, “Striving towards full and infinite perfection will constantly
increase the good of men, so that good can be endlessly increased”. The animal life
should become divine. This can happen only when man frees himself from animal
force and subjects himself to divine force. Tolstoy considered this a true life. Tolstoy
conceptualised human life at three levels: animal, social and divine in ascending order,
the highest being divine, where the essence of soul is limitless love.
2. Social and divine conception of life: He makes a distinction between social
commandments and Christian commandments, calling the latter positive prescriptions
and the former negative sign-posts: no ill-will towards any one, perfect chastity even
in thought, not promising anything for the future, not to employ violence and to love
enemies. Tolstoy, through this view of life, tried to answer the rationalists and the
positivists who challenged it as impracticable.
The social conception of life restricts the expanse of love to oneself, family, tribe, and
clan and at the highest nation. It does not go beyond this. For Tolstoy there is a
possibility of endless extension of sphere of love. It brings man back to his
“elementary consciousness; not of himself as animal but of himself as God- the divine
spark in himself.”
3. Universal sympathy and love: Tolstoy believed that man’s animal tendency and
separateness makes him work towards the satisfaction of his own passions and
needs, taking him away from his true self. There are six enemies that hinder the
realisations of true self. They are sensuality, avarice, idleness, ambition, sexual sin etc.
In order to overcome these sins, man must free himself from intoxication of body and
mind. Since intoxication cannot be completely overcome, he thought that it can be
minimised. Hence he preferred an ascetic life to sinful life. He wrote in his article,
‘Demands of love’ (2.10.1897), wherein he asserted that “We must go forward
prepared to die. Only that life is true which knows no limit to sacrifice- even unto
death”.
4. Rejection of force and violence in all forms: According to Tolstoy, ‘men are
caught in a circle of violence’, which has four links of a chain. The first one is
intimidation, where the existing state organisation is held to be sacred and immutable,
where anybody opposing it is punished barbarously, and no attempt to alter it is
acceptable. Russia prosecuted the so-called Nihilists, America anarchists, and France
imperialists. The various devices of the state, like railways, telegraph, telephones,
photography, and perfected method of disposing them of men without killing them,
give advantage to the governments to prosecute men and intimidate them. He says
that there is no possibility of overthrowing the governments, however cruel and
insensitive they may be.
The second one is corruption. This, according to Tolstoy, is taking taxes from the
working class, and distributing it among the officials, who, for this remuneration, keep
the people enslaved. He says that these ‘bought officials’, from the highest to lowest
rank, make an unbroken chain, and the more submissive they are, greater is the
violence, and promote their own welfare by the money they get.
The third means, he says, is the hypnotisation of the people. This is adopted to
retard the spiritual development of men, and giving them a concept of life, on which
the power of the government rests. They are taught the superstition of patriotism, and
the pseudo obligation to obey the state. The fourth method is to select some men,
who have been influenced by the three methods above, and subject them to
stupefaction and brutalisation so that they become instruments of the state, to
promote its brutalities.
5. Rejection of private property: Tolstoy rejected the concept of private property.
He maintained that the private property promoted crime, and the state becomes an
instrument in preserving the private property and the consequent crime. He identified
himself with the downtrodden and toiled men, and said that the crimes committed by
such people are less harmful to the society than the crimes committed by the state.
6. Principle of non-violence: This principle, glorified in the words of Christ, had not
attracted much attention, as it was relegated to background and small creeds, which
professed non-resistance and non-violence, were not heeded, and this thought was
never allowed to come into the mainstream Christian thought form. Tolstoy began to
preach them, and more importantly began to practise them, and he began to attract
scorn and denunciation. He was excommunicated by the Most Holy Synod, and was
placed under police supervision, and many of his works were suppressed by the
censor. When Gandhi adopted the principle, he could give it a mass base, and make
it a tool of the oppressed. He compared Tolstoy to the ancient sages in India, who
gave eternal values, which were adopted and practised by generations of men.
3.5 HENRY DAVID THOREAU (1817-1862)

A philosopher, non-conformist, naturalist, individualist, and a rebel with a cause, Thoreau
is one of the notable American thinkers of the 19th century. His experiments of living with
nature, in harmony with it, which have been documented in his work, ‘Walden Pond’,
have become ideals for naturalists and conservationists. He was not a reformer, and did
not wish to be a reformer. He agreed with Socrates that each person has to scrutinise
right or wrong with his individual reasoning. He was a friend and contemporary of Ralph
Waldo Emerson, and was a supporter of John Brown, who fought for the abolition of
slavery in America.
His father was a pencil maker, and Thoreau worked in this profession in 1844. He also
worked as a schoolteacher, after his graduation from Harvard. He gave up pencil making
after sometime, and remarked that it would take ten years to stabilise in the trade, and
by that time, he would be on his way to the ‘devil’. He also worked as a surveyor, and
worked on his job in the mornings, and devoted the rest of the day for the pursuit that
was dear to his heart: upholding the individual dignity and liberty.
Thoreau is well known for his two works, the first and the foremost being his essay,
‘Duty of Civil Disobedience,’ published in 1849. This work, which upheld the individual
liberty and dignity against the machinery of the state, influenced thinkers like Tolstoy, in
19th century, and Gandhi in 20th century. Another important work is ‘The Service’, in
which he advocated the doctrine of simplicity, after he came out of his Walden Pond
experiments. His doctrine was based on his earlier experience, which led to his respecting
and revering nature, and perfect his own unique self. This idea got crystallised in his
thirties and forties, and a complete statement of this came about in his early essay, ‘The
Service’. He aimed at achieving a perfect mankind, by making each man perfect, thus
achieving universal perfection.
The duty of man, according to Thoreau, was to perfect his unique self, whatever may be
his calling. “Every stroke of the chisel must enter our own flesh and bone”, he said. What
he said in his writing, he proceeded to realise in his life. He wanted to put his spiritual
assertions into practise, so that he could test his assertions on the anvil of pragmatism.
He did not get any opportunity to do that, and realised that the market economy, which
did not allow any creativity, sucked in the man, and reduced him to a faceless worker,
“the slave of the strongest.” He said, “We do not ride on the railroad, it rides upon us”,
and said that each of the sleepers put on the railway line is a man. “The rails are laid
on them, and they are covered with sand, and the cars smoothly run over them”.
He and the fellow thinker, George Ripley, established their experimental orders on the
same principles. Neither of them provided for the employer-employee relations as that
would lead to the class conflict and economic exploitation. He spoke of a simple life,
where man would not hire another, nor would he work for another. Each man would eat
what he grew, and grow only what he ate, and avoid as much as possible, the trade and
barter. Their aim was that each man should receive the entire value for his labour, and
to eliminate the distinction between the work by hand and work by mind. By doing
so, they thought that man’s activity would lead to his perfection. Both the applications
were not practical, and remained academic curiosities. Only the spirit of their experiments,
and the goodwill both thinkers had for the mankind, remain as examples of efforts to
marry spiritualism to practical behaviour.
On Duty of Civil Disobedience
Thoreau’s essay, published in 1849, had a great influence on Gandhi. It gave moral and
ethical support to Gandhi’s movement, which he had just then launched in South Africa.
Thoreau discussed the nature of governments, and what he expects of them. He says, “it
is not enough if we have a government which governs the least, but we should have a
government which does not govern at all”. He says that government is at best, an
expedient.
He discusses the role of the government taking two issues that were current at that time.
The Mexican War and the abolition of slavery were the two burning topics of the day.
He says that when a majority government decides to go to war, it is not due to any
wisdom on its part, but it is physically strong and may not have the conscience.
He says that all voting is a sort of gaming, playing with the right and wrong, and the wise
man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance. He says that when majority votes
for the abolition of slavery, there is little slavery left to be abolished by their vote. A
man’s vote hastens the abolition when he asserts his freedom by his vote.
He says that we tacitly support the immoral activities of the government, and after the first
blush of sin, comes the indifference, and from immoral, it becomes unmoral, not necessary
at all to the life we have made. He admits that unjust laws do exist, but can one wait
until the majority is persuaded to alter them? If someone resists the law, they think, the
remedy would be worse than evil. Why not provide for the reform, and why not cherish
its wise minority? He says that it is the fault of the government that makes remedy worse
than the evil. Thoreau writes:
“If the injustice is a part of the necessary friction of the machine of the government, let
it go, let it go: perchance it will wear smooth-certainly the machine will wear out. If the
injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then
perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil, but if not
is of such a nature that it requires you to be agent of injustice, to another, then I say,
break the law. Let your life be a counter-friction to stop the machine. What I have to
do is to see at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn”.
Thoreau says that if the Constitution does not provide for a remedy to the citizen, then
the very Constitution is evil. He states with the conviction of a crusader, that if a
government imprisons unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison. He exhorts,
“cast your whole vote, not strip of paper merely, but your whole influence. A minority is
powerless while it conforms to the majority, it is not even a minority then; but it is
irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight.”
When he was jailed for not paying the taxes, he said, “I cannot help being struck with
the foolishness of the institution which treated me as if I were mere flesh and blood and
bones to be locked up. As they could not reach me, they had resolved to punish my
body, just as the boys, if they cannot come at some person against whom they have
spite, will abuse his dog. I saw that the state was half witted, that it was timid as a lone
woman with her silver spoons, and that it did not know its friends from its foes, and I
lost all my remaining respect for it, and pitied it.” He was ready to submit to the authority
of the government, “ if they know and can do better than him, and in many things, even
those who neither know nor can do so well, is still an impure one: to be strictly just, it
must have the sanction and consent of the governed.”
3.6 GANDHI AND THOREAU

The influence of Thoreau on Gandhi has been written about, widely, whenever the
freedom movement in India is discussed. While emerging as the leader of people of Indian
origin in South Africa, Gandhi was fighting the Asiatic Registration Act, which required
people of Asiatic origin, residing in Transvaal to register themselves. They had to give
fingerprints, and failure to register attracted punishment and deportation. Gandhi launched
his agitation against it, and in his article dated September, 11, 1907, in Indian Opinion,
declared the ‘advent of Satyagraha’. The article declared that Indians would not submit
to the Ordinance, and would suffer all the penalties for their disobedience. This article
quoted Thoreau, and his views on civil disobedience, and the necessity to oppose a
tyrannical rule. If Gandhi were to quote profusely from Thoreau, he must have read it by
that time. But, Gandhi in many of his letters makes it clear that he had adopted the
method of civil disobedience before he read Thoreau, but reading Thoreau underlined,
fortified, and justified his belief.
In his ‘Appeal to American Friends’ in 1942, Gandhi wrote, “You have given me a
teacher in Thoreau, who furnished me through his essay on the ‘Duty of civil Disobedience’,
scientific confirmation of what I was doing in South Africa”. Americans like to believe that
Thoreau was a decisive influence on Gandhi. But, Gandhi himself denies this, and his letter
written to P.Kodanda Rao, of the Servants of India society, states as follows:
“The statement that I derived my idea of Civil Disobedience from Thoreau is wrong.
The resistance to authority in South Africa was well advanced before I got the essay
of Thoreau on Civil Disobedience. But the movement was then known as passive
resistance. As it was incomplete, I coined the word, ‘Satyagraha’ for Gujarati
readers. When I saw the title of Thoreau’s great essay, I began to use his phrase to
explain the struggle to English readers”.
Gandhi was well advanced in his tactic of Satyagraha and civil disobedience, even before
he read Thoreau’s essay. But his essay provided the legitimacy for the western readers,
and made west understand his methods. Gandhi had named his movement as “passive
resistance”, but there was nothing passive about it, as it involved boycotting schools,
colleges, courts, and making bonfire of imported clothes, and courting arrest by violating
the prohibitory orders. The concept of Satyagraha was far wider than the ‘civil disobedience’,
which moved only after a tyrannical government moved to subjugate its citizens. Satyagraha
moved on its own, as an engine of protest, against injustice.
3.7 SUMMARY
Gandhi’s early initiation to western education, and stay in England made him come under
the influence of western thinkers. He hailed Socrates, his teachings, and called him a great
Satyagrahi. His thoughts on education were influenced by Plato. Ruskin was his inspiration
for his economic policy, and translated the former’s book, “Unto This Last” as “Sarvodaya”
in Gujarati, which amplified the ideas of Ruskin in Indian circumstances. Tolstoy was a
leading thinker of the Christian principle of non-resistance to violence. His book, “The
Kingdom of God is within you” influenced Gandhi so immensely. His admiration of him
was so immense that he started a community living farm named after Tolstoy, to follow
his principles. Thoreau gave justification to Gandhi’s struggle against the state, when it
took steps which were repressive. Gandhi was already leading the struggle against the
South African Government when he read the essay by Thoreau, ‘On Civil Disobedience’.
He was so impressed by it, that he wrote a series of articles in his magazine about it.
It not only got moral support from Thoreau, but also enabled the western world to
understand Gandhi.

1. Why did Gandhi call Socrates a great Satyagrahi? Substantiate.
2. Critically examine the principles of Ruskin’s economics. How did he differ from
classical economists?
3. Examine the influence of non-resistance thinkers on Tolstoy.
4. Examine Thoreau’s arguments in support of civil disobedience
5. Bring out the influences of western thinkers on Gandhi’s economic and political
philosophy.
SUGGESTED READINGS
1. Guthrie, W.K.C., A History of Greek Philosophy, Volumes I-IV, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
2. Livington, R.W.,(ed), The Legacy of Greece, Oxford University Press, London.
3. John Ruskin., ‘UNTO THIS LAST’
4. Gandhi., M.K., ‘SARVODAYA’,
5. Leo Tolstoy., The Kingdom of God is Within You and Peace Essays, Oxford
University Press, New Delhi, 1951.
6. Thomas Weber., Gandhi as Disciple and Mentor, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 2007.
7. Henry David Thoreau., Life Without Principles
8. Henry David Thoreau., ‘On the duty of Civil Disobedience’
9. Stroller, Leo., ‘Thoreau’s Doctrine of simplicity’, in The New England Quarterly Vol.
29. No.4 (December 1956), pp.443-461.
10. Ramana Murti, V.V., ‘Influence of Western tradition on Gandhian Doctrine’, in
Philosophy East and West, Vol.18. No.1 / 2(January-April, 1968), pp.55-65.
11. Hendrick, George., ‘The influence of Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience on Gandhi’s
Satyagraha’, in The New England Quarterly, Vol. 29, No.4, (December 1956),
pp.462-471.
UNIT 4 EASTERN PHILOSOPHY (VEDANTA,
BHAKTI MOVEMENT- KABIR,
TULASIDAS, VAISHNAVISM, ANASAKTI
YOGA)
Structure
4.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
4.2 Vedanta
4.3 Bhakti Movement and Vaishnavism
4.4 Kabir and the Sufi Sect
4.5 Tulasidas: Social Concern and Formless Rama
4.6 Vaishnavism
4.7 Anasaktiyoga
4.8 Summary
Suggested Readings
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The Hindu thought-form has maintained an unbroken link from its past to the present day.
Many ancient civilisations, with their characteristic thought, have vanished and their thought
forms remained only as a fossil, to be studied by historians. But Hindu thought lived
through the ages, and has evolved over the years. Even though a value judgement is
neither possible nor desirable, its continuity from ancient times to the present day, from
Indus valley to the independent India cannot be denied.
Gandhi was born into a traditional Hindu family in a small town. His parents were devout
Hindus who followed all the traditions of Hinduism. This had a deep impression on
Gandhi’s life, which was carried through all his life. After his early western education, as
he started facing crisis after crisis in his political life, he turned to religion for solace.
Hinduism was deeply enshrined in his mind, and with the conviction and courage
developed through it, he had no hesitation to explore the tenets of other religions, and find
for himself, that the same spirit, truth, non-violence, compassion, sense of equity, and
concern for all living creatures ran through all of them. It made his faith in Hinduism all
the more stronger. He says, “I have read Bible, Zend Avesta, Qur’an, and all the great
books of the world, and it has helped me to understand Gita”. Even with such conviction,
Gandhi could say that one should reject that part of the scripture which is not in the
broad interest of humankind. He says that it must have come to the scripture in a peculiar
circumstance, or it must have been extrapolated. A deep conviction in religion gave him
the courage to question the fundamentals of the religion.
Eastern Philosophy (Vedanta, Bhakti Movement – ( Kabir, Tulsidas), Vaishnavism, Anasakti Yoga) 53
Aims and objectives

After studying this Unit, you would be able to understand:
 The nature of Vedanta philosophy
 Bhakti movement and its effect on the people of India.
 Influence and contribution of Kabir and Tulasidas.
 Vaishnavism as the religion of love.
 Anasakti Yoga and the Gita according to Gandhi.
4.2 VEDANTA
The time of Vedic literature has always been a matter of debate between Eastern and
Western scholars. Generally it is accepted that the time may be around second millennium
B.C. This literature, consisting of four Vedas, Rig, Yajur, Sama and Atharva, deal with
hymns in praise of the Gods, the rituals that have to be followed and their methods,
musical rendition, and the material science, respectively. From this literature, grew the
various philosophical and theological speculations, which provided the material for various
thought forms that ultimately came to be known as Hinduism, or ‘Sanatana Dharma’.
The later stage of Vedic literature came to be known as ‘Upanishad’ or ‘Vedanta’, which
means ‘at the end of Vedas’, which literally and physically occurs at the end of the
Vedas. The Vedas were handed down from generation to generation by the word of the
mouth, and they are described as “Apourusheya’, meaning that they were not composed
by any person, but heard, from Divine source. Hence they are called ‘Shruti’ meaning
‘heard’ literature, as against ‘Smruti’, the ‘remembered’ literature. Therefore, Shruti’s
authenticity could not be in dispute, but can be interpreted differently, as sometimes clear
meaning could not be rendered, and remained ambiguous. Different schools interpreted the
Upanishads in their own way.
One of the six schools of philosophy is “Mimamsa”, the exegetics of Vedic literature,
which lays down the rules as to how to interpret them. This literature is divided into
‘Purva Mimamsa’, which deals with interpretation of the older Vedanta literature, and the
‘Uttara Mimamsa’ which deals with the interpretation of the ‘later’ Vedanta literature.
These two schools differ in the emphasis they place on various injunctive and ritual
aspects, as opposed to the portions that are beyond sensory organs. This has given rise
to various treatises interpreting scriptures.
Major portion of the Vedanta literature is composed of ‘Sutra’, which are aphorisms. A
‘Sutra’ is a short statement which is capable of being remembered, in the oral tradition.
The brevity of the Sutra, while making it easy to remember, provides the commentator
opportunity to comment on that and draw his own interpretation. The Sutras of Purva
Mimamsa have been composed by Jaimini, and have been commented upon by various
commentators like Shabara, Kumarila Bhatta, and Prabhakara. The commentaries are
called as “Bhashya”, and commentators ‘Bhashyakara’. Many a time, the commentator
composed his own verses, for easy memorisation, and provided his own commentary on
the verse he has composed.
Vedanta literature has three major works, which are considered to be authorities and
reference works for Vedanta literature. They are Upanishads, Brahmasutras, and Bhagavad
Gita, which is a part of the epic, Mahabharata. The author of the two works apart from
Upanishads is said to be Badarayana Vyasa, a sage whose time is unknown. The
commentators of all the three systems of Indian philosophy- Adwaita, Vishishtadwaita, and
Dwaita have commented on all the three works, which are called ‘Prasthanatrayee’
meaning the three authorities. However, some commentators have commented on works,
which may not constitute the authorities, like the Vishishtadwaita commentators have
commented on “Pancharatna” treatises.
Brahmasutra of Vyasa is one of the three authoritative works, and all the schools of
Vedanta have commentaries written on this text. The date of this work is not known;
generally it is placed one or two centuries before Christ. All the three schools claim that
the aphorisms of Brahmasutra expound their tradition, as the small aphorisms, having a
few words in each, can be interpreted to the commentators’ point of view. There are
various commentators, who are known as ‘Vrittikaras’ even before these three schools
came into existence. Shankara refers to one such commentator by name, Upavarsa.
Generally the commentators do not refer to the other commentators by name, and their
view is indicated by saying, “it is said”.
The three schools of Vedanta have contributed to the debate on the nature of ‘Brahman’,
and the ‘atman’, and have engaged themselves in endless debate. Many a time, these
debates are held only with the intention of subduing the opponent, and to score a victory
over them. Nevertheless, they have enriched the philosophical tradition in India.
Adwaita Vedanta
Over the years, the Vedanta has come to be identified with Adwaita Vedanta, even though
there are two other prominent schools of Vedanta. Also, Adwaita Vedanta is identified
with Shankara’s work. The seeds of Adwaita Vedanta are found in treatises earlier to
Shankara. The proponents of all the three schools claim that all the earlier thinkers like
Yajnavalkya, Vyasa and Uddalaka Aruni, belong to their school. Since aphorisms render
themselves to different interpretations, each of them is able to make out their case. Since
Adwaita was the earliest school, and it came in the wake of Buddhism, it occupies prime
position in Vedanta philosophy. Summary of the Adwaita philosophy is given below.
1. The purpose of philosophy is to help Jeeva (the human being) to liberate himself
(moksha) from the bondage (Samsara) of births and death.
2. The bondage is the result of ‘Avidya’, or ignorance. But the self (atman) is not
bound, and is eternally liberated.
3. Bondage is eternal, and continues as long as the ignorance persists.
4. Since bondage exists because of ignorance, the only way to overcome the bondage
is to acquire ‘vidya’, that is the knowledge.
5. The ignorance exists because it creates apparent distinctions (bheda) where none
exist.
6. Therefore, knowledge is acquired by knowing that the distinctions are false, especially
the distinction between the knower and the known.
7. The awareness, which is the real knowledge, is free from subject-object distinctions,
and is pure consciousness (chit, anubhava)
8. The true self is itself just that pure consciousness, without the distinction between the
subject and the object, and the cause and the effect.
9. The same true self, is not different from the ultimate universal principle, the Brahman.
If the ‘Brahman’ was conceived as an object of self-awareness, then it would involve
a subject-object relation, which is at the base of “avidya”, that is ignorance.
10. The real is that which is not set aside as false. The real is not affected (badha).
11. By the above criteria, “Brahman” is the only ultimate reality, since it is not affected
by ignorance, and it is one thing not sublatable, since sublation depends on
consciousness.
12. Pure consciousness is experienced during deep sleep. Since we awake refreshed, it
is inferred that the true consciousness is also ultimate bliss.
These are major Adwaita tenets. The other two schools, Vishishtadwaita, and Dwaita,
have also their own tenets on the relation between the ‘Jeevatman’ (individual self) and
‘Paramatman’ (the ultimate reality).
The Theory of Vishishtadwaita
Shankara’s theory of Adwaita has been refuted by Ramanuja, the chief proponent of the
Vishishtadwaita School. His main arguments are:
There are three sources of knowledge- Scriptures, perception and inference. All the three
sources should have character, in order to establish a proof.
1. He refutes the basic tenet of Adwaita, that Supreme reality is unqualified (Nirvisesha).
This cannot be proved, as all proofs are based on the assumption of qualified
character. Scriptures do not speak about the unqualified character of the supreme
reality.
2. The Adwaita School holds that the unqualified nature of the absolute reality can be
experienced directly. Even in direct experience, some traits of Supreme reality have
to be qualified, for experiencing.
3. Regarding perception, it is held that any perception, if it is to manifest, has to have
character (Savikalpa pratyakhya).Hence, Ramanuja holds that perception without
character is not possible.
4. Inference is based on perception and hence it has also revealed a thing with certain
characteristics. Hence, it cannot remain unqualified.
5. Shankara’s assertion is that perception relates to pure beings and pure beings alone.
If that were to be true, then characteristic differences are necessary to distinguish one
from the other, like saying, ‘this is a jug’ and ‘this is a cloth’. If all objects are
perceived to be false, there can be no differences between the objects.
6. Shankara states that the world looks like a manifold entity due to ‘dosha’, or
‘Avidya’ (defect). Ramanuja states that Avidya needs support, and cannot exist by
itself. It cannot exist in individual souls, as they themselves are results of ‘Avidya’.
7. Ramanuja holds that all knowledge is real. He gives the example of conch shell and
silver. If an illusion has to appear, it has to be like another reality. A conch shell
cannot appear like imaginary silver.
Ramanuja favours ‘Anyatha Khyati’ theory of illusion, that is, a real thing should appear
to be like the illusion of another real thing, like the conch shell appearing like silver. He
also defends the school of his seniors, ‘Yathartha Khyati’, saying that the difference
between his school and the school of his seniors is only ‘ontological’ (Ontology: The
science or study of being; that part of metaphysics which relates to the nature or essence
of being).
The Theory of Dwaita (Dualism)
Madhwa, the chief proponent of Dwaita School, also refutes the concept of ‘Maya’ or
‘Avidya’ of Shankara, but his arguments are different from those of Ramanuja. His main
arguments on tenets of dualism are:
1. As against the totally unqualified nature of Supreme reality in Adwaita, Madhwa
holds that the supreme reality, that is Brahman, is full of qualities and characteristics.
His concept of Brahman is ‘Gunapurna Brahman’.
2. His concept of the world is that it is real, not an illusion, as is found in Adwaita.
Adwaita holds that the world is “Mithya” (not real), while Dwaita holds that it is
‘Satya’ (real).
3. Dwaita holds that there is ultimate difference among the Supreme reality, souls and
matter, but Adwaita holds that there is only “Vyavaharika”, or illusory difference
between them, and does not recognise the existence of souls and matter.
4. The Dwaita philosophy is termed as ‘Tattwawada”, as is mentioned in Dwaita works,
and the Adwaita is termed as ‘Mayavada’. This indicates the basic difference
between the two Schools.
4.3 BHAKTI MOVEMENT

The Bhakti movement that started around eighth century in India, has been a religion of
love. The concept of monotheistic God, all purveying, all powerful, capable of punishing
the wicked, gradually gave way to the concept of love, both in Christianity and Islam, and
at the same time, started flourishing in India too. The Sufism, which reached its height in
tenth century A.D, preached the love of the Lord. Before that, Alwars of the Srivaishnava
School established the Bhakti movement in the eighth century. The eleventh century
belonged to Ramanuja (1016-1137) and Yamunacharya. After this, in the twelfth and
thirteenth century, Madhwacharya, and subsequently, the Goudiya Vaishnavism inspired by
him, also spread the cult of Bhakti. The movement flowered almost at the same time in
all regions of India.
Popular and in local language: The movement gave a boost to the regional languages
all over India. Earlier, the divine literature was written in Sanskrit and its sister languages.
The concepts of theology could be understood in a limited way, as the concepts and
language was a barrier. Bhakti movement simplified the concepts by explaining difficult
concepts with examples from day to day life, with parables, songs, and folk literature. For
example, Kabir and Tulasidas adopted the concept of ‘Nirgun’ (propertyless), and their
Rama was formless. The Vedanta concepts of ‘Nirgun’ and ‘Nirakar’, meaning property-
less and formless ‘Brahman’, was carried to the masses by these two stalwarts of the
Bhakti movement.
Kinds of Bhakti: Once the Bhakti movement made the Supreme Godhead near to the
devotee, various kinds of devotion came to be practised. Ramanuja said that in order to
attain Moksha, the surrender to Lord, ‘Prapatti’ is absolutely essential. Hence, there was
‘Dasya rasa’, the sentiment of servitude; ‘Madhura rasa’(relation of love), as was between
Krishna and Gopis; ’Shanta rasa’, a relation of being in absolute peace with the Lord;
’Sakhya rasa’ , the friendship with Lord, with absence of difference between the friends;
and ‘Vatsalya rasa’, the love of the parent to the offspring, are some main categories.
Bhakti Movement and Vaishnavism: Though there is a direct relation between
Vaishnavism and Bhakti movement, there are examples of Bhakti in Saivite School also.
Akka Mahadevi, the poetess and saint of Karnataka, in the middle of twelfth century,
considered Shiva in the form of ‘Channamallikarjuna’ to be her husband, even though a
prince offered to marry her. Another great saint poet, Basava, considers Shiva to be a
great trader, who does not incur a loss, nor does he incur a profit, and conducts the
world with even hand.
Vaishnava devotion is more profuse and varied. Ramanuja has awe and reverence for the
God, and threfore, it is called the ‘Aiswarya pradhana bhakti,’ and is more intellectual in
character than the Bhakti of Nimbarka School, who worship Krishna the cowherd,
accompanied by Radha. There is not much of awe and servitude, but only love for the
cowherd, and hence it is called ‘Madhurya pradhana’ (love for God). For Madhwacharya,
the bhakti was deep love of God, inspired by an adequate knowledge, with a firm and
unshakable love of God. He draws up a hierarchy of love towards Krishna. Gopis come
lowest, next come queens of Krishna, next is Yashoda, above her are Devaki, Vasudeva
and Balarama, and highest in the scale is Brahma. The Bengal school of Vaishnavism, of
Vallabha, though inspired by the Madhwa school, has difference of opinion on this
subject.
Bhakti Movement and Social Reform: The Bhakti movement also brought out many
poets, saints, composers, social reformers, and revolutionary thinkers all over India in all
the regions. It would be difficult to list all of them, but a few prominent among them are
Kulasekhara, one of the Alwars of Srivaishnava sect; Tulasidas and Kabir whose influence
on Hindi region needs no explanation; Purundara Dasa of Karnataka, considered to be
the grand patriarch of Karnataka music; and also a social reformer, Rahim, who
composed beautiful couplets praising Krishna; Guru Nanak, founder of the Sikh Panth;
Baba Sheik Farid, who brought about Hindu-Muslim unity; Narasimha Mehta of Gujarat,
whose poem, “Vaishnavajana” influenced Gandhi immensely; Jnanadeva, Tukaram and
Namdev of Maharashtra; Shankaradev and Aniruddhadev of Assam; Chaitanya and his
successors of Goudiya Vaishnavism, to name a few. Bhakti movement has thus enriched
the social and cultural life of our country.
4.4 KABIR AND THE SUFI SECT

The name Kabir evokes in the mind the meaning of the name “the great”. It is one of
the ninety nine names of Allah in Arabic theology, mentioned six times in Qur’an. Kabir
lived up to his name and his influence in Hindi speaking area is all pervasive. He is
quoted at every step, and has relentlessly campaigned against both Hindu and Muslim
orthodoxy.
His influence over his contemporaries has been important and has been written about. It
is stated that Guru Nanak, the founder of the Sikh religion came under the influence of
Kabir when he was twenty seven years old. Nanak mentions Kabir in his work, Janam
Sakhi (Evidence on the story of Birth) and states that he is a ‘Bhagat’ (devotee) equal
in merit to Nanak himself, and other Bhagats are exhorted to follow his example. On
many occasions, Nanak quotes the verses attributed to Kabir. Adi Granth, the sacred
book of the Sikh Panth, gives information regarding the life of Kabir and his teachings.
The interest that Guru Nanak took in Kabir is reflected in the works of Kabir being
included in the Adi Granth, and it is stated that both had good rapport.
Other religious teachers have also been influenced by Kabir. They are Dadu of Ahmedabad,
who founded the sect that bears his name, and Jag Iswar Das from Oundh (1760), who
is the founder of Satnami Sect and many other then contemporary religious teachers, like
Bribhan, founder of the Sadh Sect (1658), Baba Lal of Malwa and Shiva Narain of
Gazipur. Even though Kabir is not a founder of any cult, many claim that they belong to
his cult, which is called ‘Kabir Panth’ and the followers of this sect are called ‘Kabir
Panthis’. In the census of 1901, about eight lakh and forty three thousand people
registered themselves as belonging to this sect in the four states of North India. His pithy
and stark words are quoted in day to day conversation, and wandering minstrels sing his
songs, taking them to millions of people.
The information about the year of his birth and other information is scanty, and historically
not proven. According to Benares Gazetteer, Kabir was born in Belhara, a village in
Azamgad district. According to Kabir Panthis, he was born in 1398 and died in 1518.
The date of birth might be a matter of conjecture, as there was a need to make him the
contemporary of Ramanand, the founder of the Bhakti movement in North India. A
pamphlet was published by the Kabir Panthis in Mumbai in 1885. It is said to have been
produced with information from books as well as tradition. Much of the legend relating
to Kabir has been sourced from this pamphlet.
Kabir’s foster parents are said to be Niru, a Muslim weaver, and his wife, Nima. There
are two versions of his birth. A Brahmin widow was unknowingly blessed by an ascetic,
for begetting a child. Realising his mistake Ramanand tried to make amends. He said that
the child would be born out of the palm of the mother, and accordingly the child was
born. The mother kept it in a lotus flower, in the tank, and was picked up by Nima, his
foster mother. There are other interpretations but it was said that Kabir was found
somewhere by Niru and Nima, and that they are his foster parents.
Kabir followed the profession of his foster parents, and became a weaver, a “julaha” in
Hindi. Kabir was said to have become the disciple of Ramanand, and got initiation from
him to be the devotee of Rama. Adi Granth says of Kabir: “By caste weaver and of
mind, utters Kabir with natural ease the excellencies of Ram”. True to his profession,
Kabir compares the cycle of life and death to the shuttle that travels in the loom.
Kabir and the Sufi Sect
It has been a matter of debate as to whether Kabir belonged to the Sufi sect or not.
No doubt, he was vehemently against both orthodox Islam and Hinduism. For this reason,
he incurred the wrath of the orthodox sections in both the communities. Nabhaji, who has
written “Bhakta Mala” in 18th century, makes the following statement:
“Kabir refused to acknowledge caste distinctions or to recognise the authority of the
six schools of Hindu philosophy, nor did he set any store by the four divisions of
life (ashrama) prescribed by the Brahmins. He held that the religion without Bhakti
was no religion at all, and all the asceticism, fasting and almsgiving had no value
if unaccompanied by worship (bhajan and Hymn singing). By means of Ramainis, (a
short exposition of religious truth) Shabdas (a word or saying, relating to God), and
Sakhis (evidencing the Lord’s glory) he imparted religious instructions to Hindus and
Muhammadans alike. He had no preference for either religion, but gave teaching
that was appreciated by the followers of both. He spoke out his mind fearlessly and
never made it his object merely to please his hearers”.
Formless Supreme Being (Nirguna)
Kabir is also a proponent of Nirguna, the Supreme Being without form and properties.
This concept, which came into philosophy with the Advaita School, caught the imagination
of Kabir as well as Tulasidas. Kabir’s strong opposition to idolatry stems from this
philosophy. He says, “If worshipping a stone idol gets Hari then I will worship a
mountain. Better is the grinding stone, which grinds and feeds the world.”
Kabir’s works are contained in two books. One is Bijak, and another is Adi Granth.
During the lifetime of Kabir, his sayings were not documented, and the process of writing
them down started at least fifty years after his death.
Sayings and Poetry of Kabir: Kabir’s sayings are pithy, and many a time, sound like
riddles, but the meaning is conveyed clearly. To illustrate the point, a few selected
couplets of Kabir are given here.
“Fire does not burn it, the wind does not carry it away, no thief comes near it; collect
the wealth of name of Ram, that wealth is never lost”.
“What is muttering, what austerity, what vows and worship to him whose heart there is
another love?”
“Pearls are scattered on the road; the blind draw near and depart; without the light of
the Lord, the world passes them by”.
“Sandal, restrain thy fragrance; on thy account, the wood is cut down; the living slay the
living and regard only the dead”.
4.5 TULASIDAS: SOCIAL CONCERN AND FORMLESS

RAMA
No work of literature in Hindi language is more read, followed, quoted, revered, and
worshipped than Ramcharita Manas, “The Lake of Deeds of Rama”, composed by Saint
Goswami Tulasidas. Tulasidas was born in Rajpur, in Banda district of Uttar Pradesh in
the year 1589 AD. He died at the age of ninety one. Even though he was a great
Sanskrit scholar, he is known for his works in Hindi, especially Ramcharita Manas. This
work is known as the Bible of North India: many of its verses are recited everyday as
part of ritual, many sentences are used as proverbs, many incidents from the book are
used as exemplary anecdotes, and many phrases have passed into the common parlance,
even without the speakers being aware of the origin. His doctrine, even today, has a
powerful influence on the present day Hinduism. Even though he founded no cult or
school, he is universally accepted as a poet and saint, an authority to guide everyday life.
His composition, Hanuman Chalisa, a part of Ramcharita Manas, a forty stanza praise
of Lord Hanuman, is recited by all Hindi speaking people.
Sources and Manuscripts

A manuscript of the Ayodhaya Kand, said to be written in poet’s own hand, exists in
Rajpur in Banda, in his birthplace. Another manuscript, dated Samvat 1661, is in
Ayodhya, and it is said to have been corrected in poet’s own hand, nineteen years before
his death. An excellent translation into English has been made by F.S.Growse, of the
Indian Civil Service. An introduction to the grammar of Ramcharita Manas has been
written by Edwin Greaves titled Notes on the grammar of Ramayan of Tulsidas
(1895).
His magnum opus is written in a dialect of Hindi, known as ‘Awadhi’ which is spoken
around Ayodhya in UP. Even though Tulasidas uses the Valmiki Ramayana as the source
and acknowledges it, he definitely makes a departure from other poets who have narrated
the epic before him.
The narration follows the pattern given by the poet, around the mythological reservoir,
which is called ‘Manasa’(consciousness); four banks have four pairs of speaker and
listener, who are narrating the various episodes of Rama’s life. The four pairs are
1. Yajnavalkya and Bharadwaja
2. Shiva and Parvati
3. Kakabhusundi and Garuda
4. Tulsi and assembly of saints.
Tulasidas, in course of his work, writes about all sections of the society, irrespective of
caste, creed, and sect, and analyses their behaviour, emotions, and their opinions. His
narration reflected the contemporary society, and good values are juxtaposed with the bad
values. The ideal or desirable behaviour is advised and exemplified in it.
Tulasidas clearly states that his work is based on Valmiki’s Ramayana, and derives its
inspiration from Vedas and Puranas, Nigamas and Agamas. By this, he recognises the
authority of the ancient texts, which is necessary for acceptance of any classical work on
mythology.
Tulasidas has spoken about nine kinds of spirituality leading to Bhakti, the devotion to
Godhead. Rama, in the course of Discourse to Shabari, speaks of the nine kinds of
devotion (Navavidha Bhakti).
1. Cultivation of the company of Sadhus, or the people seeking devotion.
2. Deep interest in the ‘lila’ or life of the Lord.
3. Service at the feet of the guru.
4. Singing of the praise of the Lord, without any blemish.
5. Chanting the name of the Lord, with firm belief.
6. Practising self-control, self-renunciation, and craving for a virtuous life.
7. To regard the whole world as permeated by God and respecting the saint more than
God.
8. Contentment with whatever one gets, and not craving.
9. Dependence on the Lord, simplicity, freedom from wile, no elation or depression.
Bhakti can be achieved by following any one of these steps, but the most important
requirement is the company of the devotees. First, the devotee, by his constant love and
devotion, becomes dear to the Lord. When the Lord sees the devotion of the devotee,
he would take interest in him, and liberate him from the Karma, cycle of births and death.
The Bhakta or the devotee, becomes free from lust, anger, greed, pride, and achieves a
level-headed state, the Stoical state.
Another important component of Bhakti is Rama nama Japa, repetition of the name of
Rama. Tulasidas says that the name of Rama is greater than Rama himself. It is said that
Hanuman attained control over Rama by ‘Rama nama Japa’. Even Gandhi got inspired
by Tulasidas’s words, and found solace in repeating the name of Rama.
Attitude towards Knowledge
Tulasidas thinks that seeking knowledge is a fruitless exercise, and one should become a
devotee. He says, that out of millions of ‘Jnanis’ (knowledgeable person), one ‘Vijnani’
(enlightened person ) is born, but a ‘Bhakta’(a devotee) is rarer than a ‘Vijnani’. He says
that knowledge is difficult to express, difficult to understand and difficult to practise
rationally.
Social Concern
He propounded two principles which brought about immense social integration and general
acceptability of his works. The first principle was the social equality. He said that Rama
will accept only the relationship of devotion. “He accepts the bonds of devotion only”.
“A high birth without devotion is like cloud without vapours”. He said, “None will
question your caste or creed, you devote yourself to God and you belong to Him”. Thus
he attacked the root of the caste system.
The second principle was his equality between Saiva (the devotees of Shiva) and
Vaishnava (the devotees of Vishnu) cults. During that time, when the differences between
the two schools of worship were becoming sharper, Tulasidas refused to see the
difference. He showed great reverence to both Shiva and Rama. He pointed out that
service to Shiva will beget perpetual devotion to Rama. He made no distinction between
the two deities. In Ramcharita Manas, Rama says that he does not like the critics of
Shiva. Rama says, “If Shiva’s critic is called a follower of mine, to me he does not
appeal even in dream”.
Formless Rama
Tulasidas also adopted the conceptual symbol of Monoism (Adwaita) which says the
Supreme reality is formless and propertyless. He adopted the concept of Rama, without
body, as per the principle of Monoism. This concept was very dear to Gandhi. He says,
“Tulasidas too has described Rama as without a body. This one without form pervades
all forms. Him we worship. I am a worshipper of this Rama. How can I ever worship
Ravana? You may kill me, spit me in my face, but I shall go on repeating Rama Rahim,
Krishna Karim till my last breath. And even at the moment you shower blows on me I
shall not blame you. Nor shall I complain to God. I am his devotee’.
4.6 VAISHNAVISM
The earliest occurrence of the word, “Vishnu” is in Rig Veda (1.22.20). This hymn of Rig
Veda has been translated by the eminent scholar, R.G. Bhandarkar as follows: ‘The wise
see the highest place of Vishnu (Paramam padam) as it were an eye fixed in heaven’. The
hymn indicates that Vishnu had a high position in Vedic pantheon, though not the highest.
Also, the Taittiriya Samhita mentions Vishnu, by saying, “Yajna vai Vishnu” thereby
meaning, “Vishnu is sacrifice”. It is clear from the above two references that the name of
Vishnu occurs in Vedic and early literature.
“Vaishnava” means ‘that relating to Vishnu’, and it is generally used as an adjective, and
to indicate a sect, by adding ‘ism’ with it. There are four schools of Vaishnavism, whose
main principle is that Vishnu is the Supreme deity, and others are subordinate to him.
They hold that Shiva is subservient to him, and a Vaishnava himself.
Four Schools of Vaishnavism
There are four Schools of Vaishnavism. They are:
1. Vishishtadwaita (Qualified non- dualism), a school founded by Ramanuja, whose sect
is known as the Srivaishnava sect.
2. Dwaita (Dualism), a school founded by Madhwa, whose sect is known as the
Madhwa Vaishnava sect.
3. Shuddhadwaita, a school founded by Vallabha, and others.
4. Kumara Sampradaya, a school founded by Nimbarka.
1. Vishishtadwaita: The important feature of Ramanuja’s Vaishnava philosophy is
‘Sharanagati’ or ‘Prapatti’, which is surrender to the Supreme deity, Vishnu. Earlier
to Ramanuja, the Alwars, a tradition of Vaishnava saints, had composed prabandhas,
compositions in praise of Vishnu. Ramanuja in his work, Gadyatraya, declares that
Bhakti (devotion) is the surest way to salvation, but ‘Prapatti’ is the direct route to
salvation.
Two types of surrenders are illustrated in Vishishtadwaita. One is the “Marjala
Kishore Nyaya”, where the individual surrenders like a kitten to the mother cat. The
kitten makes no effort, but its complete surrender to the mother ensures its welfare.
Similarly, complete surrender by the man to God ensures his salvation.
The second one is the “Markat Kishore Nyaya”, where the relation is like between
a baby monkey and its mother. Even though the mother is making all efforts to
protect the baby, the baby also has to make efforts to cling to the mother. Similarly,
man should make some efforts to seek the God.
2. Dwaita (Dualism): This school was founded by Madhwa (1238 to1317 AD). As the
name suggests, it holds that the soul (jeeva) and Supreme soul (paramatma) are
different, and hence the duality between them, unlike in Adwaita philosophy, the God
is of full of virtues (gunapurna) and flawless (nirdosha). Brahman of Vedanta
philosophy and Vishnu of Dwaita philosophy are one and the same, and Vishnu is
the Supreme Godhead in Dwaita. Hence the Bhakti cult developed in this philosophy,
as the devotees could sing and praise the attributes of Godhead. The Vaishnavism in
Dwaita is the revival of the Pancharatra School, considered to be authoritative; the
Panacharatra literature has two branches, Brahma Sampradaya, and the Sri
Sampradaya. Sri Sampradaya has been adopted by the Vishishtadwaita, and the
Brahmasampradaya has been adopted by the Dwaita School of Vedanta. Both are
Vaishnava traditions.
3. Shuddhadwaita: Vallabha’s philosophy is known as ‘Shuddhadwaita’, or Pushti

Marga which translates as ‘the way of grace’. Bhakti of any kind depends on His
grace. Krishna is the supreme deity according to this school, and he is ‘Para
Brahman’, ‘Sachidananda’ or the Supreme Bliss. The devotion that results from
common grace is known as the ‘Maryada Bhakti’ and that which results due to His
special grace is known as Pushti Bhakti. In this kind of Bhakti, God becomes the
only object of desire, and in this state, even Moksha or the salvation becomes
secondary. Vallabha lists four kinds of Pushti Bhakti.
 Pravaha Pushti Bhakti: Here the devotee’s ego, ‘I’ and ‘mine’ are retained,
and the devotee is inclined to do the deeds that are dear to the Lord (Pravaha-
flow).
 Maryada Pushti Bhakti: All desires disappear, and the devotee is on the path
of renunciation. He wants to listen to the scriptures.
 Pushti-Pushti-Bhakti: In this state the devotee receives the special grace of the
Lord, and becomes omniscient. He possesses the knowledge about the Lord,
and his Lila (play).
 Shuddha Pushti Bhakti: This is the ultimate state of mind where the devotee
has nothing but love for the Lord. This state is supposed to be extremely rare.
4. Kumara Sampradaya or Nimbarka School of Vaishnavism: The start of the
philosophical school is claimed to have a hoary tradition. In R.G.Bhandarkar’s Report
of the Search for Sanskrit Manuscripts, 1882-83, it is stated that the first teacher of
the Nimbarka School was Hamsa, and his pupil was Kumara, of the form of ‘four
Vyuhas’. Kumara’s pupil was Narada, who preached ‘prema–bhakti’ in Treta Yuga.
It is said that Nimbarka was the pupil of Narada, and an incarnation of the
‘Sudarshana Chakra’ of Vishnu. Nimbarka’s time is said to be immediately after
Ramanuja, as he refers to Ramanuja in his works. This school specialises in the
worship of Radha and Krishna, the divine couple, and devotion towards them.
According to Nimbarka, there are three kinds of ‘Jivas’ or souls. Those that are eternally
free, others who have gained freedom from bondage, and those who are bound by the
cycles of birth and death. In the Free State, the individual soul can enjoy Brahman. The
God is the only subject of enquiry, for those who want salvation (Mumukshu).
Vaishnavism and Bhakti Movement: Vaishnavism inspired the Bhakti movement, as
Vishnu, or his incarnations, Rama and Krishna, become the personal Gods of the
devotees, due to their history and character, and endeared themselves to the worshippers.
The people could find all the qualities they sought in Gods in these two Godheads, and
they could become ideals to emulate, strong characters to seek protection, and could be
father, son, or brother, as the devotee desired. Narasimha Mehta, Gujarati poet composed
the song, ‘Vaishnavajana’, which had immense influence on Gandhi. Gandhi hoped that all
the good qualities which Narasimha Mehta expects in a Vaishnava are in him, and that
he always made efforts to fulfil Mehta’s description of a true Vaishnava. This song
became the part of Ashram prayer.
4.7 ANASAKTI YOGA

‘Anasakti Yoga’ is the name given by Gandhi to the spirit of Bhagavad Gita. The word,
‘Anasakti Yoga’ is not to be found in any ancient text on Yoga, one of the eight schools
of philosophy. Patanjali is held to be the authority of the ancient school, and he does not
use this word anywhere. Gandhi held the Gita in high esteem, and it inspired his thought
and work throughout his life. He wanted the message of the Gita to reach the common
man and resultantly he published “Anasakti Yoga”, which was mainly meant for the
Gujarati readers. Gandhi, while writing this book, deliberately kept out the complex
technical terms, and did not delve on the subjects, which would not interest the ordinary
reader. He did not mention the word, “Upanishad” anywhere, in his notes, or even in the
introduction to his work, even though the Gita is said to be the essence of Upanishads.
Gujarati Translation:
When Gandhi was imprisoned, he could read Tilak’s book on the Gita, in its Gujarati
translation. He says that this work whetted his appetite, and he began to read more
works on the Gita. His first acquaintance with this work was when he read Edwin
Arnold’s Song Celestial. Later, he read the Gujarati translation, and says that reading all
the possible works on the Gita could not get him enough courage to do his own
translation, as he felt, “My knowledge of Sanskrit is limited, and my knowledge of
Gujarati too is no way scholarly.”
The driving force behind his translation into Gujarati was to give this great work for the
benefit of the ordinary people like women, commercial class, and the downtrodden
sections of the Gujarati population. He was a staunch practitioner of this work, and says
that whatever knowledge he possessed, he wanted to pass on to the ordinary people of
Gujarat. He was assisted in this work by his fellow workers like Vinoba, Kaka Kalelkar,
Mahadev Desai, and Kishorilal Mashruwala.
English Translation:
Gandhi took Swami Anand’s suggestion to translate the Gita into English seriously. During
his prison term in Yerwada, he undertook this task and the translation appeared in the
column of Young India, on 6.8.1931.
He later entrusted the work to his trusted secretary Mahadev Desai who diligently
translated it according to Gandhi’s expectations. Mahadev Desai, gave the title to the
book, The Gospel of Selfless action, or The Gita according to Gandhi and was first
published in August, 1946. Gandhi vouched for the accuracy of the translation.
Many principles which were dear to Gandhi got corroborated, underlined, and emphasised
in the work. The concepts of Ahimsa, bread labour, and above all, selfless action are the
main principles. Gandhi makes it clear that selfless action does not mean the ‘absence of
purpose’. He said that there should be selfless purpose behind our action. To be
detached from the fruits of action is not to be ignorant of them or to disregard or disown
them. To be detached is never to abandon action, because the contemplated result may
not follow. On the contrary, he said, it is the proof of the immovable faith in the certainty
of the contemplated result following in due course (Young India, 15.3.28). Gandhi states
with emphasis, that even at the risk of repetition, he would like to point out that “the
matchless remedy is renunciation of fruits of labour”.
In his commentary, Gandhi also brings out his argument that the main message of Gita is
Ahimsa, or non-violence. He says that if one understands the central teaching of the Gita,
one is bound to follow truth and Ahimsa. When there is no desire for the fruit, there is
no temptation for the untruth or himsa (violence); untruth and violence will be found at
the back of the desire to attain the cherished end. He opined that a strong desire to
achieve the fruit in itself involves violence, and the only way to achieve non-violence is
to get into a situation where the violence is not needed, that is liberating oneself from the
desire to get the fruit of action. Gandhi’s translation is unique, as it upholds his philosophy,
and gives strength to him, and millions of other people who follow him.
4.8 SUMMARY
Post-Buddhist period in India generated a debate as to what constitutes the essence of
Vedic thinking. This led to the development of Vedanta literature, which discussed the
relation between the Supreme Reality and the individual. Three schools emerged Adwaita,
Vishishtadwaita and Dwaita that have been dealt atlength. Bhakti movement also emerged
between eighth and fifteenth century, which took the devotion to God from an intellectual
and dialectical level to a relation of love. This movement reached the common man
through the great leaders of this movement like Kabir, Tulasidas, Nanak, Alwars in Tamil
Nadu, poet saints of Maharashtra, Dasa movement in Karnataka, Chaitanya’s Goudiya
Vaishnavism and similar movements all over the country. Vaishnavism is closely related to
the Bhakti movement, as most of it came out in Vaishnava tradition, with some examples
from Saiva tradition. Anasakti Yoga is Gandhi’s work on Bhagavad Gita, which had the
greatest influence on him. Gandhi gave his own interpretation, and he held that the central
message of this work is to forego the fruits of labour or selfless action. Undoubtedly
Gandhi drew enormous strength from these philosophical sources in order to emerge as
a true Satyagrahi.

1. Examine the debate about ‘Brahman’ and ‘Atman’ in three schools of Vedanta.
2. Discuss the conceptualisation of ‘Ultimate reality’ in Vedanta.
3. Bring out the contribution of Bhakti movement.
4. What is Vaishnavism? Discuss the tenets of four schools of Vaishnavism.
5. Critically examine Gandhi’s Anasakti Yoga.
6. Discuss the efforts of Tulasidas to bring about harmony in society.
SUGGESTED READINGS
1. Sharma, B.N.K., The Philosophy of Sri Madhvacharya, Motilal Banarasidas, Delhi,
2000.
2. Westcott, G.H., Kabir and Kabir Panth, Sushil Gupta India Ltd, 1953.
3. Tulasidas, RAMCHARITAMANAS
4. Bhatt, S.R., Studies in Ramanuja Vedanta, Heritage Publishers, New Delhi, 1975.
5. Swami Sachidananda Saraswathi., Shankara’s Classification of Certain Vedantic
Concepts, Holenarasipur, 1969.
6. Sen Gupta, Anima., A Critical Study of the Philosophy Of Ramanuja, Choukhambha
Series, 1967.
7. Bhattacharya, N.N., (ed), Medieval Bhakti Movement in India, Shri Chaitanya

Quincentenary, Manoharlal Publishing House, New Delhi, 1989.
8. Ainslie T. Embrree., (ed), Sources of Indian Tradition, Volume I, Penguin Books,
1958.
9. Mahadev Desai., The Gita According to Gandhi, Navajivan Publishing House,
Ahmedabad.
10. Monier Williams., Indian Wisdom, Choukhamba Sanskrit Series, Volume xxxvi,
Varanasi, 1963.
UNIT 5 GANDHI’S VIEWS ON HUMAN NATURE
Structure
5.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
5.2 Gandhian Approach to Understanding Human Nature
5.2.1 Gandhi and Advaita School of Shankara
5.2.2 Spirit and Matter: A Critique of Marxian Approach
5.2.3 Human Nature: A Historic Perspective
5.3 Gandhi’s Concept of Man

5.3.1 Innate Goodness of Man
5.3.2 Obedience to the Call of Conscience
5.4 Man: Brutishness to Divinity

5.5 Steps for Upward Movement: Sources of Inspiration
5.6 Human Perfectibility
5.7 Conclusion
5.8 Summary
Suggested Readings
5.1 INTRODUCTION
Every thinker and leader forms and develops his own view of the world in general and
human nature in particular. For them, mankind is their source of inspiration, and the field
in which their ideas and thoughts have to be tried, tested and implemented. Their
worldview in turn indicates the personality and background of the leader. Therefore, it
becomes important to know the views of the leaders on human nature, to understand their
personality, and the way in which they guided themselves and the people in course of
their career.
The question of nature of man has engaged the attention of thinkers since the birth of
ideas. Economists thought of man as an ‘economic man’, whose ideas and way of life
was ordained by economic rationality. Political thinkers thought of man as ‘political man’,
whose behaviour was oriented towards retaining his freedom and attaining his rights for
existence. Similarly, Karl Marx thought of man as a product of class struggle. He was of
the opinion that it would not be possible to know about the basic nature of man, unless
a classless society was formed, and true nature of man is noticeable. He did not give any
definite finding relating to the nature of man.
The western philosophers had both an optimistic and pessimistic view of human nature.
Locke and Mill had an optimistic view of human nature, and the man, in course of his
activities for self preservation, would engage himself in activities which are essentially
beneficial to the society, and did not see much role for the government in manipulating
or changing the nature of man. St. Augustine and Hobbes and some other thinkers had
a pessimistic view of man. Some philosophers ascribed Godliness to man, and some
others manliness to God. When manliness to God was ascribed, it was an attempt to see
a perfect man, and see the God in him, which was well nigh impossible, but only an
aspiration for the ideal. Gandhi was well aware of the impossibility of achieving the goal
of perfection, but he was determined to travel the road against all odds, to achieve
purification of each soul, thereby of the entire society.
Aims and Objectives
After reading this Unit, you would be able to understand
 Gandhi’s thoughts about the human nature
 His belief in the goodness of man, and how man can extricate himself from the brute
in him, and achieve truth and non-violence.
 Gandhi’s quest for perfectibility.
5.2 GANDHIAN APPROACH TO UNDERSTANDING

HUMAN NATURE
Gandhi studied the philosophies of India before he formed his own view of human nature.
He had early acquaintance with Vaishnavism and Jainism. His admiration for the author of
“Vaishnava Jana”, Narasimha Mehta is well known. Many of his father’s colleagues
were Jains, Christians, Mussalmans, and Parsis. From early days, he had a curiosity about
religions and started his quest to understand them. As he reached his adulthood, he began
a systematic study and in course of time, was well acquainted with all the religions
practised in India.
5.2.1 Gandhi and Advaita School of Shankara

Gandhi’s main tenet of thinking on human nature comes from Vedanta, especially the
Advaita philosophy of Shankara. Gandhi holds Shankara in high esteem. He says that
there is hardly anything in the world’s literature to surpass Shankara’s rationalism, and
calls him a ‘prince among reasoners’. He has declared in no uncertain terms that he is
the follower of “Adwaita” school of Vedanta. He believed that each soul is a part of the
universal soul, and each person becomes a part of the universal soul by ennobling himself.
“What though we have many bodies? We have but one soul”. He always quoted the
Muslim thought: “Man is not God, but neither is he different from the light (or spark) of
God”.
This belief of Gandhi in the philosophy of Advaita, that is non-dualism, made him see the
entire humanity as a part of the universe, and each individual, as a microcosm of the
macrocosm. This is analogous to the Advaita concept of the individual soul (Jeevatma)
and the universal soul (Paramatma), and the former being an indivisible part of the latter.
According to this school, when ignorance (Avidya) goes away, the individual soul
(Jeevatma) merges with the supreme soul (Paramatma) and the individual soul will not
have a separate identity, and becomes one with the Paramatma.
An important corollary of this idea is the collective gain or loss, of the entire humanity,
due to the good or bad that happens to it. If an individual does something good, it
increases the welfare of the entire humanity, not of the individual alone. Similarly, a wrong
Gandhi’s views on Human Nature 69
done by an individual not only affects the wrongdoer, but the whole community is affected
by it. Gandhi saw the entire society, or the entire universe, as a cumulative result of the
Karma it had undergone, and the future as the cumulative Karma likely to accumulate, a
sum total of all individual “Karma”.
5.2.2 Spirit and Matter: A Critique of Marxian Approach

Gandhi believed that the spirit of man would shape the environment around him, and he
does not give so much interpretation to matter. This approach is in line with eastern
thinkers, where the discourses relating to spirit are dominant, and self-realisation and
salvation are important results to be achieved, unlike the matter based philosophers, where
the economic good is to be achieved for social well being. Marx comes under severe
criticism from Gandhi. He said, “If I have an awareness of that living principle within me,
no one can fetter mind. The body might be destroyed; the spirit will proclaim its freedom.
This to me is not a theory; it is a fact of experience”.
Gandhi emphasised the principle that “man does not live by bread alone” when he
criticised Marx for his concepts. He said that what was good about Marxism was its
concern for the poor, but the concept was not exclusive to it. He wrote:
My quarrel with the Marxists is that even if the paradise of material satisfactions,
which they envisage as their final goal, were to be realised on earth, it would not
bring mankind either contentment or peace. But I was wondering whether we
cannot take the best out of Marxism and turn it to account for the realisation of
our social aims.
He appreciated Marxism to the extent that it addressed the problems of all the working
class throughout the world, but Gandhi did not give credit to Marx for this concept, and
said that many other thinkers have also made similar approaches. Even though he gave
credit to Marx for his dynamism and empathy for the working class, he explicitly rejected
his concept. He wrote:
“I do not consider economic factors to be source of all the evil in the world. Nor
is it correct to trace the origin of all wars to economic causes. What were the
causes of the last war (1914)? Insignificances.... Was not Helen the cause of the
Trojan War, but why go so far? The Rajput wars, which belong to modern history,
had never their origin in the economic causes.”
5.2.3 Human Nature: A Historic Perspective

Gandhi did not have a pessimistic view of history. In 1922, he wrote, “History is more
a record of wonderful revolutions than of the so-called ordered progress”. Even though
his concept of history was hopeful and universal, he did not see the darker side of history
to glorify it. He firmly believed that God has a scheme for everything in this world, and
everything works according to His scheme. His concept of history was based on his belief
in the Karma theory, which states that man moves in the direction of his Karma. An old
saying in Sankrit says that Karma will determine the way in which man travels, just as
the digger of the well travels in a direction different from that of builder of a mansion.
There is a divine purpose, he thought, and everything which does not regard this divine
purpose perishes. He gave the examples of Napoleon Bonaparte, who after conquering
major wars had to spend the last days of his life as a prisoner in St. Helena. He also
cites the example of Kaiser of Prussia, who was reduced to insignificance by the end of
his career. But Gandhi believed that individuals played an important role in the making of
history. “Supposing Hitler were to die today, it would alter the whole course of current
history”, he declared in 1942. However, his optimistic view of the world led him to say,
“Human society is a ceaseless growth, an unfoldment in terms of spirituality” (Young
India, September 1926).
Gandhi rejected the unilinear view of history. For him history was neither unilinear, nor
static, but a spiral like movement, which established the supremacy of spirit over matter,
within the parameters of Karma, the law of ethical causation, according to Raghavan Iyer
(1973, p.104). Gandhi said, “life is not one straight road. There are so many complexities
in it. It is not like a train, which once started, keeps running”.
5.3 GANDHI’S CONCEPT OF MAN

Gandhi’s views on human nature started emerging from the days he started his legal
practice in London. At the foundation of his thinking is his upbringing, early influences of
his home and surroundings, schooling, and the various books and journals he read all
through his life. His reading includes the religious texts of all religions practised in India
and various thinkers like Tolstoy, Ruskin, Thoreau, and many others. Even though he read
all the ancient texts and scriptures, he had the courage not to accept many ideas which
were contrary to his conviction.
5.3.1 Innate Goodness of Man

Gandhi claimed, in 1921, to be a fairly accurate student of human nature. He claimed that
he is the “vivisector of my feelings. I have discovered that man is superior to the system
he propounds”. He said that man can reach his higher status among living beings, and
move from brutish nature to human nature only by self- restraint. He said that the most
vital point of difference between the brute and the human is the self-restraint.
Gandhi was a believer in innate goodness of man. In 1920, he said, “I refuse to suspect
human nature”. In Young India (25.12.26), he wrote: “The most practical, most dignified
way of going on in this world is to take people at their work, when you have no positive
reason to the contrary. I refuse to believe that the tendency of the human nature is always
downward”.
5.3.2 Obedience to the Call of Conscience

Gandhi believed in obedience to the call of conscience. He said that the conscience has
to be followed, even in the face of all adversities. He said, “when you have to obey a
call which is the highest of all, i.e., the voice of conscience, even though such obedience
may cost many a bitter tear, and even more, separation from friends, from family, from
the state to which you may belong.... This obedience is the law of our being.” Gandhi
referred many times to his ‘inner voice’ and the call of the ‘inner voice.’ But, ‘inner voice’
need not be equated with the conscience, as he felt that ‘inner voice’ may be message
from God or devil, for “both are wrestling in the human breast”. This line is similar to
the line of philosophers of enlightenment, who said that man is always good, but only
ignorance and error lead to passion and desire, which prevent the man from realising his
full potential. Similarly, the Adwaita philosophy, which Gandhi adopted, states that the
individual soul is prevented from becoming a part of the universal soul, due to ignorance,
and lack of proper knowledge, which is termed as ‘Avidya’. Only when the ‘Avidya’
goes away, man is freed from the bondage of ignorance, and becomes an indivisible part
of the universal soul.
Gandhi’s move towards the perfectibility of human beings has similar concept, grounded
in metaphysics. But the end product envisaged by Gandhi was a moral, truthful and ethical
man, who would be a part of the universal society, whose good deeds would contribute
to the well being of the entire human race, rather than benefit the individual. Here, his
concept is more like the precepts of the Mahayana school of Buddhism, where salvation
of the entire world is sought, instead of salvation of the individual. Gandhi was a believer
in the concept of rebirth, and thereby the theory of Karma, and its cause and effect
relation. His concept of Karma is similar to the concept in Jainism.
5.4 MAN: BRUTISHNESS TO DIVINITY

Gandhi thought that all men start as brutes, but become human and divine through
evolution. He said, “We were, perhaps, all originally brutes. I am prepared to believe that
we have become men by a slow process of evolution from the brute” (Harijan 2-4-
1938). He further wrote in Harijan (1-2-1935) that “Man must choose either of the two
courses, the upward or the downward, but as he has the brute in him, he will more easily
choose the downward course than the upward, especially when the downward course is
presented to him in a beautiful garb”.
The only factor that differentiated the brutes and our species of human beings is the
principle of violence and non-violence. The moment man realises his status, he becomes
a non-violent creature, and gives up the brute within him. The point that differentiates a
man and the beast is man’s self-restraint and renunciation. Only when the man achieves
this, he becomes different from the beast and is able to achieve truth and non-violence.
Gandhi affirms that non violence is the law of the human beings and violence is the law
of brute. The main difference between the man and the brute, he says, is the man’s
capacity to respond to the call of the spirit within him. He can rise above selfishness and
violence, which indicates brutish nature, and assert the spiritual nature of man, which is
truth and non-violence. “This is the fundamental conception of Hinduism, which has years
of penance and austerity at the back of discovery of this truth”, he stated.
Nobility of Man
Gandhi used to state again and again that he sees a divine element in man. “The divine
powers within us are infinite”; because of this divine element, he believed that man was
going higher in the scale of evolution. He believed in the “essential unity of God and man,
and for that matter all the lives”. He said, “The most practical and the most dignified way
of going in the world is to take people at their word, when you have no positive reason
to the contrary. I refuse to believe that the tendency of the human nature is always
downward”. He declared that men like him would cling to their faith in human nature, all
appearance to the contrary notwithstanding. Here, the training which Gandhi received as
a lawyer is evident. The jurisprudence declares that every person is innocent, until he is
proved a criminal, and similarly Gandhi is of the opinion that every human being is good,
unless the contrary is proved.
Gandhi always distinguished between the man and the institution to which he belonged.
Deed is different from the doer, he always maintained. He stated: “Man and his deed are
two different things. It is quite proper to resist and attack a system, but to resist and
attack its author is tantamount to resisting and attacking oneself. For, we are all tarred
with the same brush, and are children of the one and the same Creator, and as such the
divine powers within us are infinite. To slight the human being is to slight those divine
powers, and thus to harm not only that being, but with him the whole world”. Hence, he
could clearly differentiate between the Englishman and the empire he had built. He said,
“I have discovered that man is superior to the system he propounded. And so I feel that
Englishmen, as individuals, are infinitely better than the system they have evolved as a
corporation”.
5.5 STEPS FOR UPWARD MOVEMENT: SOURCES OF

INSPIRATION
In Gandhi’s belief, truth and non-violence are the basic principles which differentiate a
brute from the man, and lead the man from his ordinary human state to be a part of the
universal soul. In order to distinguish himself from the brute, man has to strive ceaselessly,
to rise, and truth and non-violence are the aids to achieve this purpose. Only then, man
can place himself on a moral plane, superior to that of the brute. He said, “Mankind is
at the cross roads. It has to make a choice between the law of the jungle and the law
of humanity”. He said the ‘inner voice’, the word which he used for man’s conscience,
would enable the man to judge what is upward or good and what is downward, or evil.
Gandhi held that man would ever remain imperfect, and it will always be his part and
endeavour to be perfect.
The concept of non-violence was strongly entrenched in Gandhi’s mind since his early
years. The Jain concept of non-violence, of not harming even the lowliest of creatures
was his basic principle and guiding star all through his life. The Jain concept of
“Anekantavada”, a principle by which all the opinions are respected and honoured as
valid opinions, also helped him to practise non-violence on a spiritual plane.
Another major source of Gandhi’s principle of non-violence has been the writings of
Count Leo Tolstoy, whose work, “The Kingdom of God is within you” had a lasting
influence on Gandhi. Tolstoy’s principle of ‘non-resistance to violence’ was adopted by
him in all aspects, and was made the watchword of the freedom movement. Tolstoy
favoured non-resistance to violence even in extreme circumstances, as a basic Christian
tenet, and earned the wrath of Church. The isolation and suffering of Tolstoy made
Gandhi a strong soldier of non-violence, and inspired him to stick to the principle even
in most adverse circumstance. Of such people, Gandhi said, “the people who voluntarily
undergo a course of suffering, raise themselves and the whole humanity but I also know
that people, who become brutalized in their desperate efforts to get victory over their
opponents, or to exploit weaker nations or weaker men...drag down themselves.”
According to Gandhi, man should make efforts to improve his morality, and he is his own
benefactor, he is his own destroyer. He should achieve morality by controlling his passions
and desires, and should achieve a moral autonomy by exercising self-control. If we yield
to our greed and desires, we cannot achieve morality. The individual morality has to be
a part of the universal morality, without which individual morality is of no significance. It
has been pointed out by Raghavan N. Iyer, that Dharma or morality cannot be divorced
from universal or cosmic order, known in Vedic terms as “rta”.
Vows of Sabarmati Ashram: An Experiment in Human Nature
When Gandhi established the Sabaramati Ashram after his return from South Africa, he
wanted the inmates of the Ashram to take and follow eleven vows. These were known
as “Ekadasha vrata” meaning eleven vows. These vows were meant for moral upliftment
and making the inmates of the Ashram fit for the service of the humanity. It was stated
in the draft Constitution for the Ashram, circulated in May 1915 that the objective of the
Ashram is to learn “how to serve the motherland one’s whole life and to serve it.” Firstly,
six vows were circulated, and the six vows were:
1. The vow of truth.
2. Vow of non-violence
3. Vow of celibacy
4. Control of palate
5. Vow of non-stealing
6. Vow of non-possession.
If one goes through these vows, Gandhi’s assessment of human nature can be understood
in a practical way. He wanted all those involved in serving the country to be fit and
eligible to do so; therefore, he wanted a high degree of morality in such person. He said
that each individual has got Rama and Ravana, God and Satan, good and bad in him,
and it is necessary to tie down Ravana and Satan in each person and this can be done
by a vow or a ‘Vrata’. Gandhi clarified to an objector that some confusion has arisen
due to equating the word, “Vrata” with the word, ‘Vow’ and that both are not the same.
After giving six vows, he later added five more. We can broadly see that the first six are
individual oriented, and the remaining five are socially oriented.
Defending the vows, Gandhi said, “The strongest men have been known at times to have
become weak. God has a way of confounding us in our strength. Hence the necessity of
vows, i.e,. invoking God’s assistance to give us strength at the crucial moment.”
The vows give a practical example of what Gandhi thought to be human nature, and how
to train it for the service of the country. To put in a few words, the first six vows try
to remove and neutralise the brute in man, so that he may make his efforts towards
perfectibility. The last five vows, which have a social purpose, rather than self-improvement,
should lead one towards his relational-self and universal-self, as to how a man should
become part of the macrocosm, and how his actions should improve the general well-
being of the country and the world.
5.6 HUMAN PERFECTIBILITY

Gautama, the Buddha, known for compassion and concern for mankind, was also a
source of inspiration for Gandhi in his quest for perfectibility of human nature. He
reiterated Buddha’s principle of “Aniccha” that everything in the world is subject to
change, and that nothing is permanent. Buddha said that nothing in the world is static, and
everything is changing. With this as the supporting principle, Gandhi said that we must
reject “the theory of permanent inelasticity of human nature”. This way, he rejects both
the optimistic and pessimistic theories about human nature, and proceeds to build his own
theory based on morals and metaphysics. He said that the man is the maker of his own
destiny, and “we can mend or mar the present and on that will depend the future”. This
is similar to the Karma theory of Buddhism, which states that what we are today is the
result of our past Karmas, and what we are going to be in future will be dependent on
what we do today.
In his quest for human perfectibility, Gandhi emerges as a great optimist. Even though he
did not expect that his ideal would be realised, he found no harm in trying to achieve
it. He thought that low aim is worse than failing, and set the humanity on a higher goal.
He said that “Human life is a series of compromises and it is not always easy to achieve
in practice what one has found to be true in theory”. In spite of such assertion, he said:
“Let us be sure of our ideal. We shall ever fail to realise it, but shall never cease to strive
for it.” Even though he was for high ideals, he believed that the ideals must work. “Ideals
must work in practice, otherwise they are not potent.”
He believed in travelling towards the ideal, however small the step may be. He was fond
of Cardinal Newman’s poem, “Lead Kindly Light”, which used to be recited in the prayer
meeting. Two lines of the poem, “I do not want to see the distant scene, one step ahead
is enough for me” always used to inspire him. Buddha’s saying, “if you want to go to
Shravasti, take a step in the direction, and you are one step nearer to Shravasti” also
illustrates his attitude. “The faith in one’s ideals alone constitutes true life, in fact it is
man’s all in all”, he said. He was aware of the ‘Samskaras’, or the acquired tendencies
that come through birth and training, were difficult to change, but he firmly rejected the
permanent inelasticity of human nature.
He, with his optimism, was always sure that however evil the man’s nature may be, it is
always possible to change it. The philosophers, who either hold that man is good or evil,
hold that the positions are unchangeable, and a cumulative process sets in and the climax
has to be an extreme, and there is no intermediate position, where reversal of the existing
tendency taking place is impossible. This is a rigid position, where it is not possible to
see anything but the pre-determined quality, and this position was totally unacceptable to
Gandhi. He was an idealist, and an optimist of human nature. He said: “The virtue of an
ideal consists in its boundlessness. But although religious ideals must from their very nature
remain unattainable by imperfect human beings, although by virtue of their boundlessness
they may seem ever to recede farther and farther away from us, the nearer we go to
them, still are closer to us than our hands and feet because we are more certain of their
reality and truth than even our own physical being.”
The religious ideals, though unattainable, have their aim as salvation, or becoming one with
God, or attaining the freedom from the cycle of births and deaths. Gandhi’s ideal for
human perfectibility was to attain a universal morality through non-violence. In his own
words: “In the application of the method of non-violence, one must believe in the
possibility of every person, however depraved, being reformed under human and skilled
treatment”.
5.7 CONCLUSION
Gandhi started his metaphysical journey, to reach his cherished goal of a society where
all individuals would contribute to the good of the society, and take the world towards
perfectibility. His immediate goal was political transformation, which was a part of
universal well-being. He held that the source of all goodness is the human being, and if
he is transformed, and morally regenerated, he would be a force to reckon with. When
such individuals form the society, the society will have high moral fibre, which can take
up any challenge, and political goal would only be a small part of the achievement. In a
society which had a racial memory of thousands of years, he was a radical reformer,
challenging the age old practices and tenets, but confronting them in his own way with
truth and non-violence. He never showed an iconoclastic zeal, but was never tired of
achieving something radical and revolutionary, through education and persuasion. He

wanted to educate the country through its traditional values. The discipline that was
required of an ascetic was transformed into the discipline of a satyagrahi; and the self-
restraint and rigour that was required of a satyagrahi was hailed as that of a modern day
ascetic. Thus, he could find equivalents in the political movement and the religious
movement, and could convince the masses that through upliftment of their souls, they
could raise the soul of the nation.
Gandhi’s assessment of humanism, which is at the base of understanding human nature,
was essentially spiritual. Since he understood the pulse of the nation, he could not base
his philosophy in anything but spiritualism, which is deeply rooted in the minds of the
people. Great reformers like Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Swami Vivekananda, Dayananda
Saraswati and many other social reformers also had to adopt the same idiom and
language for achieving their social objectives. Gandhi held that each individual is an
autonomous moral agent, subject to a universal moral law. He also believed that the best
human actions always conformed to universal values.
Raghavan N. Iyer is of the view that “Gandhi’s philosophical views come closest to that
of Godwin, except for his belief in rebirth.” But, he is one with Godwin, in thinking that
if we were to arrive at perfection on a future date that would be an end of our
improvement. Perfectibility is always a goal to be cherished, never possible to achieve, but
one does not stop striving to achieve the goal. Only by making unrelenting and untiring
efforts to achieve perfection, one would be on the path of perpetual improvement, which
is essential to achieve oneness of humanity and unity of life. However, Gandhi believed
that man proceeds towards perfectibility not on account of his natural inclination or
sympathy, but on his capacity for self-determination. His concept of human nature has
been dynamic, and it would have been a defeatist attitude for him if he were to believe
in passivity of society. He wanted only disobedience to be civil and resistance to be
passive, and for that purpose, he would require a fit, morally upright and active society.
Only when the individual, who has to be a part of such movement, aims at perfectibility,
he would find a warrior to fight his battles against the British Empire. Hence, in spite of
metaphysical moorings of Gandhi’s concept of human nature, the end product required
was in flesh and blood. He needed a society, which would achieve morality, truth and
non-violence, and political freedom would come as a by-product of the efforts to achieve
perfectibility.
5.8 SUMMARY
The study of human nature has been an evergreen subject for all the thinkers and
philosophers of the world. Plato in ancient Greece, divided men into three categories,
according to the predominant element present in them. The three elements of human soul
according to Plato are rationality, courage and appetite which corresponded to three
virtues of wisdom, spirit and self-control.
There have been optimistic and pessimistic thinkers, who could see nothing but good and
bad, respectively, in man. In the case of both, the conclusion was a foregone one, and
the reasons they gave for their conclusions were different. The philosophers of the East,
made ‘spirit’ oriented discussions, where the individual, his relation with the supernatural,
and how the soul and universal soul were related were discussed. Many philosophers like
Karl Marx and Fabians saw the human relation in terms of matter, like economic well-
being, sociological differences, etc.
Gandhi, true to his eastern thinking, thinks of human nature in terms of individual self and
universal self. His philosophy is influenced by Shankara’s Advaita, which says that the
individual soul and the universal soul are one. Gandhi holds that a man can become part
of the universal soul by getting rid of the brute in him. He opines that only man is capable
of attaining such a state, as he is capable of self-restraint and renunciation. He can also
achieve the qualities of truth and non-violence, the qualities essential for being a “universal
self”.
Gandhi held that even though perfection is difficult, one should never fail to try for it. He
said that just as we continue to strive for perfectibility for divine blessings, fully knowing
that they are not achievable; similarly we should continue to make efforts in becoming part
of the universal spirit. He does not approve of the Marxian ways, and has his own
Karma based theory of history.
He believed in the basic goodness of man. Even though the tendency is to move
downward in the scale of evolution, he was an optimist, and said that only thing that
differentiates a man and the beast is the man’s capacity to move upwards, towards truth
and non-violence. This way, he believed man to be superior to other animals. Even though
his goal was political, he wanted to achieve it through the reform of the individual, and
through him, the reform of the society. He held that each good and the bad thing
individual does, adds up to the sum total of the universal “Karma”. His starting point is
metaphysical, but the end of the journey is in universal well-being, in his analysis and
discussion of human nature.

1. Discuss Gandhian approach to conceptualising human nature.
2. Explain the influences on Gandhi in conceptualising human nature.
3. Critically examine the notion of perfectibility of man in Gandhi.
4. Examine the devices recognised by Gandhi to achieve the transformation of brute in
man.
SUGGESTED READINGS
1. Iyer, Raghavan N., The Moral and Political Thought of Mahatma Gandhi, Oxford
University Publications (1973), sixth impression, New Delhi, 2007.
2. Bhattacharya, Buddhadeva., Evolution of the Political Philosophy of Gandhi, Calcutta
Book House, Calcutta, 1969.
3. Chattopadhyay, Tapan Kumar., Man and Ecology in Marx and Gandhi, Mitram,
Kolkata, 2006.
4. Das Gupta,Surendranath., History of Indian Philosophy, Vol.I-IV, reprint Motilal
Banarasidas, Varanasi, 1952.
5. Relevant portions of THE COLLECTED WORKS OF MAHATMA GANDHI,
Volumes 1-96, Publications Division, New Delhi.
6. Hingorani, Anand T., (ed), Food For Soul, Pocket Gandhi series no. 2, Bharatiya
Vidya Bhavan, Bombay, 1970.
7. Bose, Nirmal Kumar., Selections from Gandhi, Navajivan Publishing House,
Ahmedabad, 1948.
UNIT 6 GANDHI’S VIEWS ON TRUTH
Structure
6.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
6.2 Meaning of Truth, Truth is God
6.3 The Importance of Truth in Human Life
6.4 Absolute and Relative Truth
6.5 Truth and God
6.5.1 Realisation of the Self
6.5.2 Liberation
6.6 Gandhi and the Advaita Perspective

6.7 Summary
Suggested Readings
6.1 INTRODUCTION
‘The only two eternal principles are Truth and Non-violence (Ahimsa). I would even go
further and say that the only eternal principle is Truth. For, although Truth and Non-
violence are one and the same thing, if circumstances arise in which I have to choose
between the two, I would not hesitate to throw Non-violence to winds and abide by
Truth, which is supreme in my opinion’.
(The Diary of Mahadev Desai, p.271).
‘Truth comprehends everything. It is not in Ahimsa, but Ahimsa is in it. What is perceived
by a pure heart and intellect is truth for that moment. Cling to it, and it enables one to
reach pure Truth. We have to live a life of Ahimsa in the world of himsa, and that is
possible only if we cling to Truth. That is how I deduce Ahimsa from Truth’.
(Harijan, February, 22, 1942).
Truth and Non-violence, the eternal and inseparable principles, were the most profound
and positive forces that influenced Gandhi since his childhood. They are imbibed in his
thoughts, words and deeds. Gandhi had an unqualified loyalty towards the principle of
truth. ‘He gave it his most earnest thought, and practised it with a singleness of devotion,
until he was convinced and proclaimed to the world ‘Truth is God’. Truth was ingrained
in him to such an extent that he was unwilling to negotiate or compromise it with anything,
including the freedom of his beloved country. As he said: ‘I would far rather that India
perished than that she won freedom at the sacrifice of Truth’. Gandhi’s thoughts and ideas
were deeply embedded in religion. To him, the whole Hindu tradition is a relentless pursuit
of truth (Margaret Chatterjee, p.60). Accordingly, Truth and Non-violence, considered as
allied concepts since times immemorial have had an intense impact on him. Gandhi’s
passion for truth is aptly summarised in the following words: ‘Passion for Truth was the
dominating urge in his life and it gave him immense power over the minds and hearts of
men. It was this passion that led to his insistence on purity of means and his freedom
from attachment to predetermined ends. The same passion also led him to confess
publicly his errors-Himalayan or trivial’ (U.S.Mohan Rao, The Message of Mahatma
Gandhi, p. xii). Gandhi was a worshipper of truth; his life was nothing but an experiment
with truth. He entitled his Autobiography ‘The Story of My Experiments with Truth’. His
theories emerged gradually as a result of intense search, deep meditation and active
response to the trying socio-political situations in which he found himself’ (D.Mangalath,
p. 35). This Unit traces Gandhi’s fervent adherence to truth all through his life and how
he viewed truth as the supreme force that is directly entwined with all activities of life.
Aims and Objectives
 The meaning and significance of truth in Gandhi’s life
 The importance he attached to this concept and how he practised it
 The divinity he appended to truth and
 The significance of truth as a means to self-realisation.
6.2 MEANING OF TRUTH, TRUTH IS GOD

Gandhi did not provide us with a systematic account of reality regarding truth. He was,
in that sense, not a metaphysician. Nevertheless one can find a systematic account in his
experiences and how since childhood to the adulthood, from India to South Africa and
then again to India, in the national freedom struggle and in his personal life, and in this
course of life, how he treaded the path of truth and how he remained firm in his resolve
to adhere to truth all through his life. Gandhi’s thoughts and ideas have their firm roots
in the Indian traditions and philosophical sources. Further he imbibed the finest humane
points from all the religious scriptures to accommodate in his scheme of ideas. In that
sense, ‘Gandhi’s understanding of the nature of reality, truth, God, non-violence, the world
and beauty constitutes the core of his metaphysics’ (Mangalath, p.37).
To Gandhi, truth is of its nature clear and self-evident; it is the means, instrument and the
ultimate goal, all encompassed in one. His understanding of the concept does not confine
to a mere uttering of truth; it is but reality, which has to be experienced. And in reality,
nothing exists except truth. It takes several forms and situations to understand the concept
of truth. Tahtinen explains it further thus: ‘Gandhi understood by Truth several different
things. Sometimes, he speaks of Truth as truthfulness or the attempt to achieve Truth and
in this case, it is like an ethical norm. Sometimes he means epistemological truth, that
which we can know. Sometimes he means absolute truth, God, fundamentally metaphysical
reality. Sometimes he means the final goal of life, moksha or the liberation. At other
times, he means the Natural Right, ethical justice which is of its nature generally valid and
binding on all men’ (The Core of Gandhi’s Philosophy, p.24).
Gandhi writes in his Autobiography that truth is the sovereign principle, which includes
numerous other principles (Ibid, Introduction, p.xi). He also defines the absolute and
relative truth principles which would be dealt with in the later part of this Unit. Gandhi
called himself as seeker of truth: ‘I am but a seeker of Truth. I claim to have found a
Gandhi’s views on Truth 79
way to it. I claim to be making a ceaseless effort to find it. But I admit that I have not
yet found it. To find Truth completely is to realize oneself and one’s destiny i.e to become
perfect’ (Young India, 17-11-1921).
Why did Gandhi view truth as God? It is apt to know in his own words that ‘Truth is
satya. Satya is derived from Sat, which means being or that which exists. It is the truth
that exists or pervades all. This is akin to the omnipresence of God. Truth, therefore, is
the essence of what we call God or truth is perhaps the most important name of God.
Where there is truth, there also is knowledge which is true. Where there is no truth, there
is no knowledge. The word Chit or knowledge is also associated with God. Where there
is true knowledge, there is always bliss (Ananda). Even as truth is eternal, so is the bliss
derived from it. Hence we know God as Sat-Chit-Ananda, one who combines in
Himself Truth, Knowledge and Bliss’ (From Yervada Mandir, Chapter I).
Gandhi’s perception of God through truth is unique. If we are to give a full description
of God who is formless and omnipresent, the best way is to perceive Him as truth. God
has many names and forms and yet he is nameless and formless. Therefore the best way
to realise Him is through truth. In this framework, Gandhi clarifies his statement ‘God is
Truth and Truth is God’: ‘I came to the conclusion that after a continuous and relentless
search after truth, which began nearly fifty years ago, I found that the nearest approach
to truth was through love, in the sense of ahimsa. When you want to find truth as God
the only inevitable means is love, i.e non-violence’. Further, he prescribes a strict
preliminary discipline in the spiritual realm and listening to one’s Inner voice to realise
God. Therefore one has to abide by several vows such as the vow of truth, brahmacharya,
non-violence, poverty and non-possession. One has to impose these vows upon oneself
to embark on this great journey to listen to our conscience first and proceed towards
realising the truth and with all humility and finally reduce oneself to a zero. This, as
Gandhi felt, would be ultimate way to realise God through truth (Young India, 31-12-
1931). To sum up, Gandhi uses the words ‘Truth’ and ‘God’ as synonyms and God or
truth, surpasses speech and reason; what remains is pure essence. While a non-atheist
believes in the all-pervading form of God, an atheist by living truthfully accepts everything
as one and universal without having an active faith in God. To an atheist ‘Truth is God’
makes no meaning. Either way, truth is held in esteem by all human beings.
Gandhi closely associated truth with non-violence; he attempted to realise truth by
practising non-violence. To him, ‘truth is my God. Non-violence is the means of realising
Him’. He also opined that ‘the only way to realise truth is the practice of ahimsa’. The
realisation of truth through ahimsa is nothing but realising the unity of our being. He found
it impossible to view satya and ahimsa as two distinct concepts; they were two sides of
the same coin, where it is impossible to make out the obverse and reverse. They are two
most important qualities that not only determine our conduct but also define our character.
While truth is the end goal, ahimsa denotes the means to realise it. Gandhi firmly held that
a steadfast adherence to and practice of ahimsa inexorably leads to the realisation of
truth. Gandhi advocated educating the masses about the effectiveness of ahimsa, which
would naturally follow the path of truth.
As explained by Margaret Chatterjee, in Gandhi’s ‘Truth is God’, ‘the word Truth is not
substituted for God, but serves to elucidate what ‘God’ means for Gandhi. Gandhi’s truth,
was a unique combination of a personal style of life and a technique for tackling injustices,
truth that is, no doubt, in a sense other than as philosophers commonly understand it’.
Chatterjee also refers to the importance attached to truth in the ancient sacred texts: ‘In
the Upanishads, the references to truth lie thick as leaves in the forests of Aryavarta. The
Taittiriya Upanishad says ‘Brahma is Truth eternal, intelligence immeasurable. Untruth is to
be conquered with truth, as light overcomes darkness’. That Gandhi was influenced by
these sayings is evident enough to show his reverence towards truth. One of the rules or
vows of his Ashrams was a strict adherence to truth by their inmates. His constant
reminder to them, wherever he went, was that ‘truth is a synonym for final beatitude’.
6.3 THE IMPORTANCE OF TRUTH IN HUMAN LIFE

Truth holds primary importance in human life. Human relationships are based on the
qualities of faith, tolerance, love, tenderness and humility. These qualities enhance the
character of a human being and allow one to tread the path of humility. Humility augments
the observance of truth. Gandhi explains the implications of truth as ‘Brahma satya
jaganmithya’ (Brahma is real, all else unreal). This realisation enables one to have
patience, adds to the tolerance and eliminates harshness in human beings. Since the human
nature also has an animal instinct and is bound to give in to evilness, it tends to lead to
egoism, which is a major hindrance in the path of truth and self-realisation. Further,
adherence to truth in thought, word and deed sets an exemplary life and creates harmony
among the human beings; in addition, it also helps one in living a harmonious life with all
beings on this earth, which Gandhi felt, was the ultimate unity of all existence. In other
words, Truth, the supreme Gandhian value, is the consummation of all that is spiritual in
man. The Gandhian concept of Truth is no abstract correspondence to facts, not a
photograph of facts. It is a total creative concept’ (Nagaraja Rao, Mahatma Gandhi
Centenary Lectures, p. 48).
To cultivate the divine quality of truth in man, it is necessary that man attain self-
purification against worldly pursuits and passions. While self-purification helps in realising
truth, truth helps in attaining self-purification, thus complementing each of its roles. Some
of the best examples can be drawn from Gandhi’s life, which have been mentioned in the
preceding units. It can be said that Gandhi led by setting an example to all both in private
as well as in public life-his inspiration to utter truth from the stories of King Harischandra,
his honest confessions to his father, his resolve to keep the promise to his mother while
he was overseas, his truthful approach during his struggles in South Africa and later in
India-all prove his sincerity to adhere to what he believed as the highest divine form. He
writes in his Autobiography about his ceaseless efforts to realise truth and how his life
may be perceived as a message to all those who waver in the path of truth: ‘The little
fleeting glimpses that I have been able to have of truth can hardly convey an idea of the
indescribable luster of truth, a million times more intense than that of the sun we daily see
with our eyes. A perfect vision of truth can only follow a complete realisation of ahimsa’.
Truth is also the very path to self-realisation and further, towards the attainment of
liberation. As Gandhi said, ‘The body persists because of egoism. The utter extinction of
the body or egoism is moksha (liberation). He who has achieved this will be the very
image of truth or one may call it Brahman’ (Harijan, 22-2-1942). Since truth and non-
violence are as old as the hills, it is necessary that man realise this and constantly strive
to tread the path of truth. Non-violence or ahimsa is a means in this process. Gandhi
gave preeminence to truth over non-violence as truth is the ultimate and the end goal.
Man, as Gandhi said, should therefore realise its strength and power.
6.4 ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE TRUTH

Gandhi distinguished between Absolute and Relative truths. Truth as such is a supreme
principle. It includes the Absolute and Relative dimensions. As Gandhi said, ‘truth is not
only Relative truth of our conception but the Absolute Truth, the Eternal Principle, that is
God’. Thus the Absolute truth is God and the Relative truth is something what we
perceive as truth. No proof is required to know the Absolute truth; it is eternal and
infinite. Absolute truth ‘shines with its own light and is its own proof’. Man can find it
through his ‘Inner Voice’ and ‘Conscience’. Relative truth, on the other hand, is not the
truth but one’s truth, as perceived by the individual. As Gandhi said, ‘truth is not so
simple as it appears to you. We must therefore be content with believing the truth as it
appears to us’. Gandhi further explained it thus:
‘I write the truth as I personally see it. Absolute truth alone is God. It is beyond reach.
At the most we can say it is neti neti (not this, not this). The truth that we see is
relative, many sided, plural and is the whole truth for a given time. Pure and Absolute
truth should be our ideal…and reaching it is attaining moksha’. Gandhi’s life was one
constant pursuit of truth and through it, of God. The Vedas describe Brahman as ‘not this’
but for Gandhi, it was always ‘He or It is’. As mentioned earlier, Gandhi was thoroughly
taken in by the Upanishadic tradition that describes God as Truth, knowledge and infinite.
Truth is God and therefore is nothing but an ultimate reality.
Relative truth enables man to reach his goal. Through this he can realise God. Gandhi
expressed that he experienced Absolute truth, in a fleeting glimpse. Till man realises the
Absolute truth, he should hold on to the relative truth as he perceives it. ‘But as long as
I have not realized this Absolute truth, so long must I hold by the relative truth as I have
conceived it. That relative truth must, meanwhile, be my beacon, my shield and my
buckler’. Gandhi believed that we ourselves are relative truth: ‘We are all sparks of truth.
The sum total of these sparks is indescribable, as-yet-Unknown-Truth, which is God’. By
clinging to the Relative truth, man can reach Absolute truth. As explained by Daniel
Mangalath, ‘he who knows the truth regarding the world and lives accordingly is sure to
reach the Absolute truth’ (p.65).
Due to the circumstances and various situations, man’s perception of truth gets narrowed
down, thereby failing in his attempt to realise the Absolute truth, i.e. God. His perception
suffers from ‘subjective limitations’. Gandhi’s view was that ‘we shall always see Truth in
fragments and from different angles of vision’. To quote Mangalath, Gandhi’s expression
is through the elements of ‘relativism and subjectivism’. Undue insistence on truth, as he
explains, one’s truth may lead to self-deception, fanaticism and fundamentalism of different
shades and forms with disastrous consequences’ (p.157). The Jain doctrine of syadvada
may be taken as an example of Gandhi’s concept of relative truth as he perceived it.
Syadvada is the ‘doctrine of may be’; according to this doctrine, reality can be looked
from others’ views, which is not only different but also exhaustive. In this context, it
literally means ‘the doctrine of relativism as usually expressed by adding the prefix
‘somehow’ before a statement. Further, Gandhi, who was thoroughly taken in by this
doctrine, insisted on not forcing one’s view of truth as the right one on another. ‘I have
to follow the truth as it appears to me, because I cannot live without it. The truth as it
appears to you may be truth for you, but not for others’. This subjective perception often
runs into the trap of confusion and as an answer to this, Gandhi prescribes the cultivation
of Pure conscience to reflect on the concept of truth in a more logical and meaningful
manner. ‘Each man has to order his life in the light of the inner light which shines within.
Hence relative truth is not valueless. It is the only truth that man has so long as he is
bound to the phenomenal world. Gandhi does not consider the world as a mere illusion
nor does he recommend flight from the world as the means to attain moksha, but rather
responsible involvement and participation in the worldly affairs as the sure path to moral
progress’. Gandhi leaves the wisdom of judgement in the hands of an individual, who he
feels is capable of perceiving what is right and wrong, according to one’s own norms of
objectivity.
6.5 TRUTH AND GOD

There is a mysterious, unseen and supreme power in the universe, which we consider as
God. He is the Antaryamini (the spirit immanent) and omnipresent. Gandhi, like most of
us believed in this omnipotent power and the all pervading spirit. He also firmly held that
‘there is an indefinable mysterious Power that pervades everything. I feel it, though I do
not see it. It is this unseen Power which makes itself felt and yet defies all proof, because
it is so unlike all that I perceive through my senses. It transcends the senses’ (Young
India, 11-10-1928). Gandhi, however, felt that it is possible to reason out the existence
of God only to a limited extent. Definitely, there is a living Power, as he said, that is
changeless, that holds all together, that creates, dissolves and re-creates. This, according
to him, is the spirit of God. To Gandhi, God is Truth and Love. Gandhi reaffirmed God
as an Impersonal principle, a Law or a Power or the ‘sum total of all that lives’. To him,
God, by nature, is ineffable and beyond the comprehension of human thought, reason and
speech. Further, no description of God as given by human beings satisfied Gandhi. To
him, a complete surrender to God was the ultimate self-realisation and the way to
moksha. The means to realise him is two-fold. The first step is the realisation of self and
secondly and ultimately, the liberation. Let us examine both these concepts at length.
6.5.1 Realisation of the Self

The way to the realisation of the self and to God lies in the manifold path like morality,
humility and living faith. Self-knowledge is the highest form of wisdom. This is possible
to attain with a strict disciplined life of truth and non-violence, and abstention from the
pursuit of human desires, physical desires and comforts apart from making incessant
efforts towards knowing oneself, one’s purpose in life, and one’s service to mankind,
one’s constant endeavours to follow a truthful and non-violent life. This knowledge makes
us realise the significance of truth in life because Truth is an important means to realise
God and self and the seeker of the truth should be humbler than the dust. It is humility
that plays an important role. Devoid of anger, arrogance and other vices, this provides the
seeker an insight into truth. Secondly, a living faith in God is also important because
without faith, it is difficult to sustain the longing for God. One can reach spiritual heights
only through this immanent faith in God. Gandhi believed that God becomes visible in this
pursuit ‘not as a person but in action which can only account for your deliverance in your
darkest hour’. Gandhi accorded faith a primary slot in his scheme because ‘Faith helps
us to cultivate inner knowledge, self-knowledge, and thus leads to inner purity’. It is the
faith, he believes that steers us through stormy seas, moves mountains and jumps across
the ocean. Gandhi believes it as a living, wide awake consciousness of God within. Being
human beings and an ignorant lot, men cannot realise God’s revelation as an omnipresent
power. Gandhi prescribes that all activities of man should be guided towards the
realisation of the self or God-be it social, political or religious. Further, service to mankind
becomes a necessary part of this endeavour, which is an ultimate service towards truth
and God. A life of morality, self-purification via celibacy, control of palate and senses is
a sure means to realise self and hence God.
6.5.2 Liberation
Gandhi’s persistent endeavour was to see God in all living beings and do immeasurable
service to humanity to realise Him. Through this, Gandhi wanted to attain moksha or
liberation. Writing in Young India, Gandhi expressed that, ‘I have no desire for the
perishable kingdom of earth. I am striving for the Kingdom of Heaven which is Moksha.
To attain my end it is not necessary for me to seek the shelter of a cave. For me the
road to salvation lies through incessant toil in the service of my country and therethrough
of humanity’ (Young India, 3-4-1924). Gandhi relied on non-violence and truth endlessly
to attain the moksha. They alone, he believed, can ensure a compassionate life on this
earth and moksha in the ether world. It is necessary to shed the violent instincts to attain
salvation: ‘I believe myself to be saturated with Ahimsa (non-violence). Ahimsa and Truth
are my two lungs. I cannot live without them. But I see every moment, the immense
power of Ahimsa and the littleness of man. Even the forest dweller cannot be entirely free
from violence, inspite of his limitless compassion; the body itself is a house of slaughter,
and therefore Moksha and Eternal Bliss consist in perfect deliverance from the body,
therefore, all the pleasure, save the joy of Moksha, is evanescent, imperfect’ (Young
India, 21-10-1926). Self-purification, faith in God, self-realisation and ahimsa are the only
means to realise truth and ultimately God. Gandhi firmly believed that God’s name and
grace are the main resources for those who aspire to attain moksha or liberation.
Interestingly, Gandhi was biased towards following truth and gave it precedence, relegating
the importance towards life, or even to Moksha. As he said, ‘I cannot consider anything
dearer to me than moksha. Yet even that moksha I would renounce if it were to conflict
with truth and non-violence’ (CWMG, vol.25, p.27). He writes in his Autobiography, ‘let
hundred like me perish, but let truth prevail’.
6.6 GANDHI AND THE ADVAITA PERSPECTIVE

Gandhi’s thought, writes Bhikhu Parekh, was in harmony with the classical Indian
traditions, especially, the advaita or monistic tradition. He now gave it a new twist, and
argued that, since the cosmic spirit was manifested in all living, especially human, beings,
identification with it consisted in identifying oneself with them in a spirit of universal love
and service (Parekh, Gandhi, pp.43-44). Gandhi claimed to be an Advaitist and also
supported dvaitism (dualism). Gandhi felt that a change pervades all life, making this
world an unreal place that has no permanent existence. At the same time, inspite of all
the seeming changes, something persists, which he terms as ‘real’. Accordingly, he had no
objection in being labelled as ‘Anekantavadi’ or ‘Syadvadi’. He refused to conform to
these concepts in the traditional sense, as interpreted by the learned ones. Gandhi had his
own unique interpretations of these concepts and he saw no reason in debating with the
traditionalists. Infact, he was neither a pure traditionalist nor a complete modernist. He
believed in following a positive, neutral path embedded with virtues from different faiths.
Owing to his stance, Gandhi was content to be objective in his approach and be tolerant
of others’ criticism of his views. He attributed it to different interpretations of the reality.
He quotes the example of seven blind men who gave different descriptions of the elephant
from their own view point. He attributes his ‘anekantavada’ to the doctrines of
‘satyagraha’ and ‘ahimsa’.
Gandhi’s interpretation of truth and God is based on his own observations and experiences.
For example, he believes in the concept of God and takes Him as creative as well as
non-creative. He explains this stance as ‘the result of the acceptance to the doctrine of
the mayness of reality’: ‘From the platform of the Jains I prove the non-creative aspect
of God, and from that of Ramanuja, the creative aspect. As a matter of fact we are all
thinking of the Unthinkable, describing the Indescribable, seeking to know the Unknown’
(21-1-1926). This is the reason for calling God by different names like Paramatma,
Ishwara, Shiva, Vishnu, Rama, Allah, Khuda, Dada Hormuzda, Jehova, God and an
infinite variety of names (Ibid.,).
Gandhi, in yet another explanation of the advaita and dvaita philosophy, sees God as
one and many. His words deserve to be quoted in this context: ‘He is one and yet many;
He is smaller than an atom, and bigger than the Himalayas; He is contained even in a
drop of the ocean, and yet not even the seven seas can compass Him. Reason is
powerless to know Him. He is beyond the reach or grasp of reason’. Faith is important
to realise His presence and Gandhi believed in His profound presence. He refused to turn
away from his faith even if an atheist were to debate and defeat him in an argument
regarding the presence or non-presence of God. He affirmatively asserted, ‘God is, was
and ever shall be’. He had an immense faith in God’s compassion who showers His grace
on all beings-whether believers or no-believers. God’s grace transcends all. Gandhi took
pride in being one of those millions who had an unwavering belief in the omnipresence
of God, and declared that he is ‘never tired of bowing to Him and singing His glory’.
6.7 SUMMARY
In his eternal quest for truth, Gandhi absorbed new ideas and discarded those he felt
were outdated or irrelevant. The main purpose of this progressive thinking of Gandhi was
to grasp the true form of truth and God through his incessant quest. If there was anything
he did not wish to change was his path of truth and non-violence, in which he had eternal
faith. He felt the path to be narrow and often like an edge of the sword but his constant
tread on the right path made him perhaps the greatest votary of truth and non-violence
in the history of mankind. To him, truth was God and vice versa, as he said in the later
years; through this truth he endeavoured to realise himself, God and unity with all beings
on the earth. Any reading of Gandhi would be incomplete without a mention of the twin
principles-satya and ahimsa (truth and non-violence). This proves as an example of his
profound faith in truth and his resolve to tread the path of truth under any adverse
situation. It is apt to end with the closing sentences as written in his Autobiography where
in he asks the readers to join him ‘in prayer to the God of Truth that He may grant me
the boon of Ahimsa in mind, word and deed’.

1. ‘Truth is God and God is Truth’. Examine in your own words the significance
attached to truth by Gandhi.
2. How important is truth in Human life, according to Gandhi’s views?
3. What is Absolute truth? How different is it from Relative truth?
a) Realisation of the self
b) Truth and Liberation
c) Gandhi’s Advaita Perspective
SUGGESTED READINGS
1. Gandhi, M.K., An Autobiography or The Story of my Experiments with Truth,
Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, 1927 (1993 edition)
2. Gandhi, M.K., Truth is God, Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, 1955
(compiled by R.K.Prabhu)
3. Parekh, Bhikhu., Gandhi, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1997
4. Mangalath, Daniel., A Challenge and A Promise: Mahatma Gandhi’s Philosophy of
Man and Life, MS Publications, Trivandrum, 1996
5. Nagaraja Rao, P., Mahatma Gandhi, Centenary Lectures, Punjabi University, Patiala,
1972.
6. Tahtinen, Unto., The Core of Gandhi’s Philosophy, Abhinav Publications, New Delhi,
1979.
7. Mohan Rao, U.S., The Message of Mahatma Gandhi, Publications Division, Ministry
of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, New Delhi, 1968.
8. Nanda, B.R., Mahatma Gandhi, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1958, (2004
edition referred)
9. Tyagi, Nisha Bala., Goodness: The Gandhian Way of Life, Gandhi Peace Foundation,
New Delhi, 1998.
UNIT 7 GANDHI’S VIEWS ON NON-VIOLENCE
Structure
7.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
7.2 Meaning of Non-violent Resistance
7.3 The Intellectual Context
7.4 The Historical Context
7.5 The Means-Ends Problem
7.6 The Problem of Violence in Gandhi’s Own Words
7.7 Satyagraha and Non-violence
7.8 Critiques of Gandhi’s Non-Violent Strategy of Resistance
7.9 Summary
Suggested Readings
7.1 INTRODUCTION
The career of Mohandas Gandhi (1869–1948) marked a watershed in the development
of non-violent struggle. In leading the struggle first against racial discrimination against
Indians in South Africa and then the struggle for Indian independence, Gandhi was the
first to combine a variety of tactics according to a strategic plan in a campaign of
explicitly non-violent action, and the first to conduct a series of campaigns toward long-
term goals. Deeply religious, practical, and experimental in temperament, Gandhi was a
shrewd, tireless, and efficient organiser who united cheerfulness with unshakable
determination. He was not only a political strategist but also a social visionary. Gandhi’s
non-violence had three main elements: 1) self-improvement (the effort to make oneself a
better person), 2) “constructive programme” (concrete work to create the new social
order aimed at), and 3) campaigns of resistance against evils that blocked the way
forward, such as the caste system and British colonial exploitation. Gandhi’s success in
linking mass action with non-violent discipline showed the enormous social power this
form of struggle could generate. This was based on Gandhi’s understanding of contemporary
political trends as well as everyday life.
Aims and Objectives
This unit will try to make you understand:
 Gandhi’s meaning of Ahimsa, its religious and philosophical roots in his ideology
 Its practical side and how Gandhi used it in conducting his Satyagraha and
 How he used it to fight many forms of domination, discrimination, prejudice and
subordination.
Gandhi’s views on Non-Violence 87
7.2 MEANING OF NON-VIOLENT RESISTANCE

Non-violent action is not simply any method of action which is not violent. Broadly
speaking, it means taking action that goes beyond normal institutionalised political methods
(voting, lobbying, letter writing, verbal expression) without injuring opponents. Non-violent
action, like war, is a means of waging conflict. It requires a willingness to take risks and
bear suffering without retaliation. On the most fundamental level, it is a means by which
people discover their social power. Non-violence is not the same thing as pacifism, for
which there are many words. Pacifism is a state of mind. It is passive; non-violence is
active. Pacifism is harmless and therefore easier to accept than non-violence, which is
dangerous. When Jesus said a victim should turn the other cheek, he was preaching
pacifism. But when he said an enemy should be won over through the power of love,
he was preaching non-violence. The central belief of non-violence is that forms of
persuasion that do not use physical force and do not cause suffering are more effectual.
Gandhi invented a word for it: Satyagraha, from satya, meaning truth, broadly meaning
it as “holding onto truth.”
Non-violent action takes three main forms: 1) protest and persuasion, 2) non-cooperation,
and 3) intervention.
The first category includes such activities as speech-making, picketing, petitions, vigils,
street theatre, marches, rallies, and sit-ins. When practised under conditions of governmental
tolerance, these methods can be comparatively insignificant; when the views expressed are
unpopular or controversial, or go against government policy, even the mildest of them may
require great courage and can have a powerful impact.
The second category involves active non-cooperation. In the face of institutional injustice
and discrimination, people may refuse to act in ways which are considered “normal”- to
work, buy, or obey. This largest category of non-violent action includes refusal to pay
taxes, withholding rent or utility payments, civil disobedience, draft resistance, fasting, and
more than fifty different kinds of boycotts and strikes. Non-cooperation can effectively
halt the normal functioning of society, depending on the type of action employed and how
general its use becomes.
Finally, there is non-violent intervention, which can be defined as the active inclusion and
unsettling presence of people in the natural processes of social institutions. This can
include sit-ins, occupations, obstructions of everyday business in offices, the streets, or
elsewhere, and creation of new social and economic institutions, including the establishment
of parallel governments which compete with the old order for sovereignty. These methods
tend to pose a more direct and instantaneous challenge than the other methods described
earlier and to bring either a faster success or sharper repression.
7.3 THE INTELLECTUAL CONTEXT

The ideas that shaped Gandhian non-violence were drawn both from Western and Indian
sources. The trial of Socrates as described in Plato’s Apology had a deep impact on
Gandhi. In 1908 he published a restatement of this work in English and Gujarati under
the title The Story of a Soldier of Truth. Socrates was a model for all those who would
resist non-violently the violence of the state. The moral principles of the Sermon on the
Mount, as interpreted in Leo Tolstoy’s The Kingdom of God Is within You (1893), had
a lifelong sway on him. Another of Tolstoy’s writings, Letter to a Hindu (1908), made
Gandhi rethink the role of violence in the Indian society. Tolstoy had argued that the
British were able to hold India by violence because Indians themselves believed in
violence as the basis of society. That is why they submitted themselves to their rajas and
maharajas, and treated the ‘untouchables’ with extreme brutality. Under these circumstances,
the complaints of Indians against colonial violence seemed to him to look a lot like the
complaints of alcoholics against wine merchants. The removal of colonial violence would
not solve India’s problems. They would be solved only if Indians made non-violence the
basis of a new India. Gandhi was so convinced by the Letter that he translated and
published it in both English and Gujarati. Gandhi’s study of Western jurisprudence made
him a lifelong defender of the idea of the rule of law and the legitimacy of the limited,
constitutional state. The fight against violence needed such a state as its ally. Here Gandhi
departed from Tolstoy’s radical pacifism that rejected the state as such. John Ruskin’s
Unto This Last (1860) opened Gandhi’s eyes to the veiled structures of violence in
industrial capitalism. Gandhi paraphrased and published it in English and Gujarati (1908)
under the title Sarvodaya (The welfare of all), a title that he later gave to his own
economic philosophy. Finally, there was the question of nationalism and how to free it
from ethnic or religious or terrorist violence. Here he found help in the liberal nationalism
of Giuseppe Mazzini, whose An Essay on the Duties of Man, published in 1892,
became one of the recommended readings for all those who wanted to understand
Gandhi’s own basic work, Hind Swaraj (1909).
However, it was the Indian philosophical thought that helped Gandhi to assimilate the
ideas he had absorbed from the West. Here three philosophical traditions were noteworthy.
The first was the pacifist tradition of Jainism, as interpreted by Raichand—businessman,
poet and mystic, and a personal friend of Gandhi. His advice was that a non-violent way
of life was possible only if one withdrew from politics and concentrated all of one’s
energies on achieving inner harmony. Gandhi accepted the point about inner harmony but
rejected the idea of withdrawing from politics. On the contrary, he sought to link the
mission for inner harmony with that of outer harmony in society and polity. The philosophy
of yoga as expounded in the classic text, the Yogasutra of Patanjali, had also impressed
Gandhi greatly. Like Jainism, it too believed in the inappropriateness between maintaining
inner harmony and engaging in vigorous affairs of state. However, it had recommended
five moral qualities as being compulsory for inner harmony. Non-violence was one of
them; the other four were truthfulness, abstention from theft, celibacy, and self-control in
the use of material earthly wealth. Gandhi willingly integrated non-violence into his ethical
system—with one adaptation. He tailored it from being a moral virtue into a civic virtue,
thereby making it suitable for political action. But the philosophy that influenced him most
was that of the Bhagavad Gita. He interpreted it as teaching the negative lesson of the
senselessness of war. On the affirmative side, he interpreted it as teaching that the good
life called for the disinterested service of one’s fellow human beings, sustained by a deep
love of God. Obstacles to the good life came from violence and the unmanageable state
of the passions, notably anger, hatred, greed, and lust. Self-discipline, therefore, was the
psychological solution to non-violence. The philosophical basis underlying Gandhi’s theory
of non-violence is adapted from that core underpinning the Bhagavad Gita. Humans are
composites of body and soul (atman). As such, body force and soul force were both
seen as dynamic mechanism in human affairs-the first as a fact and the second as a norm.
The body was the source of violence and the passions; the soul was the cause of
kindness and of the knowledge of good and wickedness. It was because the divine soul
was a constitutive aspect of human beings that non-violence remained the model of their
behaviour. A materialistic and acquisitive view of human life, in Gandhi’s view, could not
justify, much less uphold, a non-violent way of life. The philosophy of the Bhagavad Gita
also gave Gandhi’s non-violence its ethical pragmatism. Since humans are composite
beings, faultless non-violence was possible only in the soul’s disembodied state, not in its
personified state. In its embodied state, the will to live always brought with it the will to
use power in legitimate and genuine self-defence. In the embodied state, one must always
abstain from blameworthy violence-that is, disgusting violence used for dishonest gains.
Defensive violence used in legitimate self-defence is not judged culpable.
7.4 THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Elements of Gandhi’s philosophy were rooted in the Indian religions of Jainism and
Buddhism. Both of these advocate ahimsa (non-violence), which is “absence of the desire
to kill or harm”. The Acaranga Sutra, a Jain text, describes the fundamental need for
non-violence: “All beings are fond of life; they like pleasure and hate pain, shun
destruction and like to live, they long to live. To all, life is dear”. Ahimsa is a way of
living. For Gandhi, ahimsa was the expression of the deepest love for all humans,
including one’s opponents; this non-violence therefore included not only a lack of physical
harm to them, but also a lack of hatred or ill-will towards them. Gandhi rejected the
traditional dichotomy between one’s own side and the “enemy;” he believed in the need
to persuade opponents of their injustice and prejudice, not to punish them, and in this
way to win their friendship.
Gandhi also firmly believed that if violence was used to achieve any end – even if it was
employed in the name of justice- the result would be more violence. He, for instance,
discarded the idea of a just war. But such practicality and expediency in matters of non-
violence was irrelevant to Gandhi. Thomas Merton writes:
“In Gandhi’s mind, non-violence was not simply a political tactic which was supremely
useful and efficacious in liberating his people from foreign rule. [. . .] On the contrary,
the spirit of non-violence sprang from an inner realization of spiritual unity in himself.”
Gandhi’s main tactic in his fight against the British was what he called Satyagraha, which
means “Soul-Force” or “The power of truth”. Gandhi developed Satyagraha as the
practical extension of ahimsa and love; it meant standing firmly behind one’s ideals, but
without hatred. Satyagraha took the form of civil disobedience and non-cooperation with
evil. Civil disobedience involved breaking a specific law if it was believed to be unjust,
and then facing the consequences. The Salt March of 1930 was one of Gandhi’s greatest
successes in civil disobedience. Salt was an essential item and the British monopoly on
salt production had led to massive taxes on the vital substance.
The other element of Satyagraha, non-cooperation with evil, consisted of pulling out all
support for an unjust system, such as the British rule of India. This tactic need not break
any law, but might include boycotting British products, refusing to work for British
employers, pulling one’s children out of British schools, refusing to supply the British with
services, and not paying taxes. In 1920, after the British army massacred 400 unarmed
demonstrators, Gandhi organised a nation-wide Satyagraha which used non-cooperation
techniques such as the ones above, as well as public demonstrations, in order to
“withdraw Indian support from the vast, monstrous, machine of Empire until it ground to
a halt”. Sadly, however, at the end of British Empire, Gandhi’s dream was not rewarded.
Gandhi was horror-struck by the communal conflict in India, and by the resulting calls for
the creation of a separate Muslim state of Pakistan. Widespread distrust and hatred was
growing between Hindus and Muslims and, on the eve of India’s independence, riots
erupted all over India. The country became a bloodbath, in which it was estimated that
a million lives were lost. Many believed that Gandhi’s non-violence had failed. But had
it? In these “months of chaos and terror,” Gandhi spent his time in the most violent areas:
“Each night he preached Peace and Love and prayed,” Writes the Historian Stanley
Wolpert, “Gandhi walked from village to village through the heart of that violent madness,
preaching ahimsa. Mohandas K. Gandhi, the “Great Soul,” was anything but a failure. In
a world seemingly dominated by violence and hatred, Gandhi reincarnated the ancient idea
of Ahimsa, non-violence, as the only way of living in peace.
7.5 THE MEANS-ENDS PROBLEM

Gandhi defined Non-violence or ahimsa as any ‘action based on refusal to do harm’. It
was not simply a willingness not to kill only. Gandhi refined the meaning of the word in
the following words:
“Ahimsa is not the crude thing it has been made to appear. Not to hurt any living thing
is no doubt a part of ahimsa. But it is its least expression. The principle of himsa is hurt
by every evil thought, by undue haste, by lying, by hatred, by wishing ill to anybody.”
In this wider way, Gandhi tried to relate the concept not as a merely negative state of
harmlessness but to his notion of love, of doing good even to the evil-doer. But this did
not mean to help the evil-doer in continuing his mischief or tolerating any form of
domination or oppression passively. On the contrary, Gandhi evolved the technique to
resist the oppressors by dissociating from him. Gandhi, while identifying love and non-
violence, linked it to the problem of means and ends and to his conception of truth. The
idea of love and truth were closely related in Gandhi’s scheme of things so much so that
it was difficult to separate them. For him, ahimsa was the means and truth was the end.
Gandhi believed that means ought to be practical, within the easy reach of anyone
courageous enough to practise it. In other words, only selected few could have arms, but
non-violence could be used as a weapon by everybody. Truth, a relative truth, was the
goal or the end towards which a person must strive to reach because in Gandhian
perception absolute truth as well as absolute non-violence was difficult to achieve. Gandhi
believed that perfection was not within human capacity but if we maintain a balance
between means and ends, then it was within human reach to attain the goal. The testing
ground of truth was, however, and must be according to Gandhi, non-violence or refusal
to do harm. The use of violence, from Gandhian viewpoint, would destroy the truth, on
whichever side it lay because that was harmful to human needs. Non-violence or ahimsa
became for Gandhi, the sole criterion, the only determining yardstick by which to judge
human action. It was the supreme value that separated brute from a civilised human-being.
Gandhi’s overall approach in many things was quite flexible, but here was his supreme
dogma. Briefly stated, the only test of truth was action based on the refusal to do harm
to others. Gandhi realised that he was putting forward a means to fight injustice and any
form of domination but this was only an ideal. There were bound to be some limitations
to achieve this ideal. But Gandhi emphasised the need to sharpen this means of struggle.
How is it to be done? It meant to undergo conscious suffering in one’s cause, without
submitting to the will of offender or wrong-doer by pitting against the tyrant one’s whole
soul-force. Self-suffering in Satyagraha was neither a kind of ‘weapon of the weak’, nor
was not cowardice but an instrument of moral persuasion. The resort to self-suffering was
a kind of substitute for violence to others, one directed it inwards towards self-suffering,
injury to one’s own person rather than harming others. Refusing to indulge in violence and
inviting suffering upon oneself and yet not submitting to the humiliation and dominance was
the basic essence of Gandhi’s Non-violent approach to conflict resolution.
Gandhi opposed the utilitarian approach which subordinated means to ends. He argued
that if means are completely subordinated to ends then the ends which will be realised
would be quite different from the one the human actors initially visualised. Gandhi stressed
that as human beings, we cannot control results. Since results or the final outcome was
never sure in Gandhian scheme of things, Gandhi focussed only on the means or methods.
Emphasising the organic link between ends and means, Gandhi said: “The means may be
likened to a seed, the end to a tree; and there is just the same inviolable connection
between the means and ends as there is between the seed and the tree.” If the society
is a kind of brotherhood of its individual members, how can this brotherhood be
maintained and protected by lies and violence? In a similar way, if one paves the road
to power with both corpses (however justified that may be) and good intentions, it is
likely that with the passage of time good intentions will get diluted and corpses would be
more and more numerous. Gandhi never doubted the efficacy of non-violent methods of
struggle. Given a just cause, capacity for endless suffering and avoidance of violence,
victory is certain, such was his approach. This approach was against the non-active
pacifism. Inaction under the conditions of oppression and tyranny, according to Gandhi,
was ‘rank cowardice and unmanly’ and he said that he would rather see someone
incapable of non-violence resist violently than not to resist at all. He often argued that
violence was any day preferable to impotence.
7.6 THE PROBLEM OF VIOLENCE IN GANDHI’S

OWN WORDS
We here reproduce Gandhi’s own article written by him in his Journal Young India in
1920. It would give you an idea about the way Gandhi thought about the violence and
non-violence problem.
The Doctrine of Sword: M.K.Gandhi
In this age of the rule of brute force, it is almost impossible for anyone to believe that
anyone else could possibly reject the law of final supremacy of brute force. And so I
receive anonymous letters advising me that I must not interfere with the progress of non-
co-operation even though popular violence may break out. Others come to me and
assuming that secretly I must be plotting violence, inquire when the happy moment for
declaring open violence to arrive. They assure me that English never yield to anything but
violence secret or open. Yet others I am informed, believe that I am the most rascally
person living in India because I never give out my real intention and that they have not
a shadow of a doubt that I believe in violence just as much as most people do.
Such being the hold that the doctrine of the sword has on the majority of mankind, and
as success of non-co-operation depends principally on absence of violence during its
pendency and as my views in this matter affect the conduct of large number of people,
I am anxious to state them as clearly as possible.
I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would
advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done, had he
been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run
away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he
could and wanted to use, and defended me, I told him that it was his duty to defend
me even by using violence. Hence it was that I took part in the Boer War, the so called
Zulu rebellion and the late war. Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who
believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to
defend her honour than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a
helpless witness to her own dishonour.
But I believe that non-violence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly
than punishment, forgiveness adorns a soldier. But abstinence is forgiveness only when
there is the power to punish, it is meaningless when it pretends to proceed from a
helpless creature. A mouse hardly forgives cat when it allows itself to be torn to pieces
by her. I therefore appreciate the sentiment of those who cry out for the condign
punishment of General Dyer and his ilk. They would tear him to pieces if they could. But
I do not believe myself to be a helpless creature. Only I want to use India’s and my
strength for better purpose.
Let me not be misunderstood. Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes
from an indomitable will. An average Zulu is any way more than a match for an average
Englishman in boldly capacity. But he flees from an English boy, because he fears the
boy’s revolver or those who will use it for him. He fears death and is nerveless in spite
of his burly figure. We in India may in moment realize that one hundred thousand
Englishmen need not frighten three hundred million human beings. A definite forgiveness
would therefore mean a definite recognition of our strength. With enlightened forgiveness
must come mighty wave of strength in us, which would make it impossible for a Dyer
and a Frank Johnson to heap affront upon India’s devoted head. It matters little to me
that for the moment I do not drive my point home. We feel too downtrodden not to be
all angry and revengeful. But I must not refrain from a saying that India can gain more
by waiving the right of punishment. We have better work to do, a better mission to
deliver to the world.
I am not a visionary. I claim to be a practical idealist. The religion of non-violence is not
meant merely for the Rishis and saints. It is meant for the common people as well. Non-
violence is the law of our species as violence is the law of the brute. The spirit lies
dormant in the brute and he knows no law but that of physical might. The dignity of man
requires obedience to a higher law to the strength of the spirit.
I have therefore ventured to place before India the ancient law of self sacrifice. For
Satyagraha and its off-shoots, non-co-operation and civil resistance, are nothing but new
names for the law of suffering. The Rishis, who discovered the law of non-violence in the
midst of non-violence, were greater geniuses than Newton. They were themselves greater
warriors than Wellington. Having themselves known the use of arms, they realized their
uselessness.
Non-violence in its dynamic condition means conscious suffering. It does not mean meek
submission to the will of the evil-doer, but it means the putting of one’s whole soul against
the will of the tyrant. Working under this law of being , it is possible for a single
individual to defy the whole might of an unjust empire to save his honour, his religion, his
soul and lay the foundation for the empire’s fall or its regeneration.
And so I am not pleading for India to practice non-violence because it is weak. I want
her to practice non-violence being conscious of her strength and power. No training in
arms is required for realization of her strength. We seem to need it because we seem to
think that we are but a lump of flesh. I want India to recognize that she has a soul that
cannot perish and that can rise triumphant above every physical weakness and defy the
physical combination of a whole world. What is the meaning of Rama, a mere human
being, with his host of monkeys, pitting himself against the insolent strength of ten-headed
Ravan surrounded in supposed safety by the raging waters on all sides of Lanka? Does
it not mean the conquest of physical might by spiritual strength? However being a
practical man, I do not wait till India recognizes the practicability of the spiritual life in
the political world. India considers herself to be powerless and paralysed before the
machine guns, the tanks and the aeroplanes of the English. And she takes up non-co-
operation out of her weakness. It must still were the same purpose namely, bring her
delivery from the crushing weight of British injustice if a sufficient number of people
practice it.
I isolate this non-cooperation from Sinn Feininsm, for, it is so conceived as to be
incapable of being offered side by side with violence. But I invite even the school of
violence to give this peaceful non-co-operation a trial. It will not fail through its inherent
weakness. It may fail because of poverty of response. Then will be one time for real
danger. The high-souled men, who are unable to suffer national humiliation any longer, will
want to vent their wrath. They will take to violence. So far as I know, they must perish
without delivering themselves or their country from the wrong, If India takes up the
doctrine of the sword, she may gain momentary victory. Then India will cease to be the
pride of my heart. I am wedded to India because I owe my all to her. I believe
absolutely that she has a mission for the world. She is not to copy Europe blindly, India’s
acceptance of the doctrine of the sword will be the hour of my trial. I hope I shall not
be found wanting. My religion has no geographical limits. If I have a living faith in it, it
will transcend my love for India herself. My life is dedicated to service of India through
the religion of non-violence which I believed to be the root of Hinduism.
Meanwhile I urge those who distrust me, not to disturb the even working of the struggle
that has just commenced, by inciting to violence in the belief that I want violence. I detest
secrecy as a sin. Let them give non-violence non-co-operation a trial and they will find
that I had no mental reservation whatsoever.
Source: Young India, Ahmedabad, Wednesday, 11th August, 1920
7.7 SATYAGRAHA AND NON-VIOLENCE

Gandhi’s Practical tool in implementing his idea of Non-violence was Satyagraha. This
has been translated as passive resistance, non-violent resistance, non-violent direct action.
It literally means ‘Eagerness for Truth’ and contains Truth, Non-violence and Self-
suffering as basic elements. He had developed this technique of mass mobilisation in the
fight against racial policies pursued by the colonial rulers in South Africa with a moderate
success. Gandhi repeatedly stressed its essence that Non-Violence was the law of the
human race and was infinitely greater than and superior to brute force. He further linked
it with his spiritual/moral viewpoint and maintained that in the last resort it does not avail
to those who do not possess a living faith in the God of Love. He believed that Non-
violence affords the fullest protection to one’s self-respect and sense of honour, but not
always to possession of land or movable property, though its habitual practice does prove
a better barricade than the possession of armed men to defend them. Non-violence in the
very nature of things is of no assistance in the defence of ill-gotten gains and immoral
acts. Individuals and nations who would practise non-violence must be prepared to
sacrifice (nations to the last man) their all except honour. It was, therefore, inconsistent
with the possession of other people’s countries, i.e. modern colonialism which is frankly
based on force for its defence. It was superior to armed struggle because as Gandhi was
to demonstrate through his practical political campaigns, non-violence was a power which
could be wielded equally by all – children, young men and women or grown up people,
provided they have a living faith in the God of Love and have therefore equal love for
all mankind. When non-violence was to be accepted as the law of life it must pervade
the whole being and not be applied to isolated acts. Moreover, Gandhi’s view was based
on the assumption that if lawful activities were good enough for individuals, the collectivity
of human beings as community or nations required armed resolution of conflicts. As we
have already pointed out, Gandhi’s advocacy of non-violence was closely connected to
his attitude towards ends and means. He believed that violent methods for achieving a
desired social result would inevitably result in an escalation of violence. The end achieved
would always be contaminated by the methods used.
7.8 CRITIQUES OF GANDHI’S NON-VIOLENT

STRATEGY OF RESISTANCE
Gandhi’s views on non-violence were severely criticised by his political opponents. Many
revolutionaries argued that force and armed struggle were necessary to end any regime
of oppression. Some believed that as there was a fight back for survival in nature among
various species, so there is also a similar kind of struggle among races and nations.
Failure to recognise this, they argued, made the Gandhi’s model of conflict resolution
utopian because the real life was based on the principle of ‘survival of the fittest’. In the
Indian context, the Leftist leadership thought that Gandhi’s principle of non-violence,
whose moral force propelled several mass movements forward in their initial phases,
repeatedly held back the struggles at key moments. As a result, privileged groups in the
urban centres and countryside were able to detach the struggle for political independence
from the struggle for radical social change and thus thwarted Gandhi’s own goals of social
justice. The British were gone, but the bureaucracy and police they built up still functioned
with little change-and continued to repress workers’ and peasants’ uprisings. Gandhi’s will
had been strong, but class forces proved stronger. They further argued that Gandhi never
promoted the class forces-workers that could have helped him in his final struggle to unite
Hindus and Muslims. Only class struggle could have achieved what Gandhi’s purely moral
mission attempted. The movement did not have to turn out in such a mess. Potentially
revolutionary situations existed in the periods 1919-22 and 1946-47, but no mass party
with revolutionary goals had been forged to steer the movements to victory. In the post-
Second World War movement, the same social forces that had overthrown the Russian
Tsar in 1917 were at the centre of the upsurge-the industrial working class, along with
peasants and workers in uniform. But in India’s case, the country’s only mass party saved
the British from being overthrown by taking power “peacefully” themselves-at the price of
leaving the class rebellion to be consumed in the fires of communalism. Moreover, the
Leftist viewpoint argued that different alignments of class forces were possible, since most
classes opposed British rule. The independence movement would have produced a
different outcome if industrial workers and the agricultural proletariat had been able to
form a revolutionary socialist party-and drawn the middle class and small-holding peasants
behind their class-struggle leadership. Instead, Gandhi’s party reversed these relations, with
the bourgeoisie included in the leadership with the middle classes of village and city.
Gandhi’s life was history’s longest experiment in non-violent political action. The result of
the experiment is fairly clear: an exploitative class structure cannot be broken without
violence somewhere along the way. Property rights, defended by state violence, have
never yielded to the peaceful pressure of the exploited class. In other words, no exploiting
class has ever left the stage of history without being pushed. Revolutionaries often made
fun of Gandhi’s idea of ‘change of heart of the tyrant’ as impractical day-dreaming. But
one thing is fairly clear that even if non-violence failed to win the heart of enemies, state
repression created widespread sympathies among the fellow countrymen and community
and was a helpful instrument in mobilising public opinion both at home and abroad.
7.9 SUMMARY
Gandhi faced a problem of evolving practical and viable instruments in his fight for
powerful British Empire. The nation had been thoroughly disarmed and any attempt to
resist was met with severe repression by the colonial state. Combining contemporary
methods of legal but extra-constitutional mobilisations with innovatively used century old
notions of non-violence, he was able to ‘invent’ a unique method of Satyagraha.
Gandhi’s central dogma was Ahimsa or Non-violence and this was to be his means of
achieving the truth. The radical side of this method was that it can be used by every
single individual regardless of age, physical strength and gender if he/she possessed only
a moral courage to oppose any form of oppression or dominance. The idea of non-violent
resistance to superior force might look utopian and impractical at the surface but it proves
to be a potent weapon in Gandhi’s age as well as subsequently.

1. Describe briefly the intellectual and historical context of Gandhi’s idea of Non-
violence.
2. What is the meaning of Ahimsa? Are its critiques justified?
SUGGESTED READINGS
1. Anthony J. Parel., Gandhi’s Philosophy and the Quest for Harmony, Cambridge
University Press, New Delhi, 2006.
2. Gene Sharp., The Politics of Non-violent Action, Harvard University’s Center for
International Affairs, Boston, 1973.
3. Joan V. Bondurant., Conquest of Violence: The Gandhian Philosophy of Conflict,
Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1988.
4. M.K. Gandhi., Non-Violence: Weapon of the Brave, Orient Paperbacks, New
Delhi.
5. Raghavan N. Iyer., The Moral and Political Thought of Mahatma Gandhi,
Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2000 edition.
UNIT 8 GANDHI’S VIEWS ON RELIGION
Structure
8.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
8.2 Gandhi’s Concept and Understanding of Religion
8.3 Gandhi on Islam and Christianity
8.4 Gandhi’s Views on Hinduism
8.5 Gandhi’ Interpretation of The Gita
8.6 Inner Purification
8.7 On God and Universal Religion
8.8 Summary
Suggested Readings
8.1 INTRODUCTION
‘To understand Gandhi’s activity’, writes his biographer Romain Rolland, ‘it should be
realized that his doctrine is like a huge edifice composed of two different floors or grades.
Below is the solid ground work, the basic foundation of religion. On this vast and
unshakable foundation is based the political and social campaign.’ Before studying
Gandhi’s concept and views on religion, it is apt to know what religion is. Nesy, writing
on the subject, observes religion as a privilege of man. It is a distinctively human activity.
Man has an inherent religious element in him, he possesses a religious instinct. He has a
spiritual constitution to apprehend his natural limitations and an urge to seek something
beyond himself. Gandhi was thoroughly influenced by religion, to say all religions, but
dominantly by Hinduism. According to Gandhi, religion is a very personal matter (Harijan,
28-12-1936). Religion helps in accepting and realising God. Religion is also closely
related to morality. This unit deals with Gandhi’s concept of religion, his perception of
different religious teachings and how he linked it up with every aspect of life.
Aims and Objectives
After reading this unit, you would be able to:
 Understand the concept of religion and God as viewed by Gandhi.
 Understand the impact of different religions on Gandhi.
 Examine the role of religion in his thoughts and actions.
 Understand the deeper impact of spirituality on Gandhi.
Gandhi’s views on Religion 97
8.2 GANDHI’S CONCEPT AND UNDERSTANDING OF

RELIGION
Gandhi’s ideas, writes Unto Tahtinen, were based upon religious tradition, not political,
juridical, philosophical or economic. The origin of Gandhi’s political and economic ideas is
to be found in religious tradition. Gandhi often expressed the view, according to Saiyidain,
that whatever power he possessed for working in the public or political field, was drawn
from the depths of religious faith. Thus religion was not only a core but also an integral part
in Gandhi’s life. To begin with, Gandhi defined religion as that, which brings us face to face
with our Maker (M. K. Gandhi, My Religion, p.3). Writing in Harijan, Gandhi perceived
religion as the one that pervades all of one action. It means, he said, ‘a belief in ordered
moral government of the universe. This religion transcends Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, etc.
It does not supersede them. It harmonizes them and gives them reality’ (Harijan, 10-2-1940,
p.445). Religion, as he understands it, is a permanent element in human nature which counts
no cost too great in order to find full expression and which leaves the soul utterly restless
until it has found itself, known its Maker and appreciated the true correspondence between
the Maker and itself (Young India, 12-5-1920, p.2). Gandhi firmly opined that man cannot
live without religion. Two factors are closely interrelated with Gandhi’s concept of religion,
morality and true service of mankind. Stressing on how important morality is to religion,
Gandhi firmly rejected any religious doctrine that ‘does not appeal to reason and is in
conflict with morality’. Further, he held that ‘there is no such thing as religion overriding
morality. Man, for instance cannot be untruthful, cruel and incontinent and claim to have God
on his side’. Secondly, Gandhi’s concept of religion transcends service to humanity. After a
perusal of all religions, Gandhi carefully chose those principles that worked for the service
of the mankind, especially the downtrodden. As D. K. Dutta aptly summarises, ‘religion, for
Gandhiji, is to be searched out in the service of mankind. He dedicated and devoted his
whole life to the service of the masses, which, infact was the essence of his religion’ (D.
K. Dutta, p.137). The religious influences in Gandhi’s life were drawn from many a source.
The foremost among them stands the family that had a Vaishnava tradition. His mother’s
religious beliefs and rituals made a positive impact on Gandhi; he was later initiated into
“Ramanama” by his caretaker Rambha Tai, primarily to ward off the fear of ghosts and evil
forces. His household was a meeting ground for Jains and Muslims, friends as well as
visitors, which made Gandhi to understand the ‘supreme’ in various forms and ways. The
rendering of the Holy Scriptures like ‘Ramayana’ and various hymns instilled in him a deep
understanding of one’s dharma. This may be interpreted as the ground work on which were
based his lifelong principles of truth and non-violence. Besides Gandhi’s friends, Muslims,
Parsis, Jains and those from other faiths and their way of life made him realise the
importance of faith and treat them with respect and interest. At the time of his journey to
the foreign shores for higher studies, Gandhi knew very little of his own religion and that
of others. Nesy quotes that, ‘at the invitation of Theosophist friends to read the original
Sanskrit of Bhagavad Gita, Gandhi recollected ‘I was ashamed, as I had read the divine
poem neither in Sanskrit nor in Gujarati.’ (p.44). This marked the beginning of the unfolding
of a man who, in future, turned out to be one of the proponents of a universal religion of
love, truth and non-violence. The readings of Sir Edwin Arnold’s translation of The Gita
into ‘Song Celestial’ and ‘The Light of Asia’, ‘The New Testament’, Thomas Carlyles’ essay
on ‘The Hero as Prophet’ have all made a deep impact on his understanding of religion and
how all the religions preached one language of love, morality and truthfulness was thoroughly
understood by him. His interactions with Raychandbhai cleared many of his doubts in
moments of spiritual crisis.
The Role of Religion in our life

As had already been mentioned, Gandhi was of the firm opinion that man cannot live
without religion. Gandhi expressed the view that ‘man without religion is man without
roots. Therefore, religion is the basis on which all life structure has to be erected, if life
is to be real’. According to him, the problems from national to international, political to
moral are best solved by religion. D. K. Dutta says, ‘Gandhi was of the opinion that
religion is the root or key to all these problems. These can be solved in and through
religion. It can be stressed that he (Gandhi) breathed religion’ (p.138). Religion was the
basis, inspiration and mainspring of all his activities. Further, his belief in God may be
termed as the mainspring of his religious consciousness. Gandhi’s insistence was more on
the moralistic dimension since man, being inherently good and divine, needs to progress
towards self-realisation, which is a much higher goal than that of industrialising society or
pursuing material wealth and wants. The very existence of man is based on such ethical
values that can be strengthened by his faith in God and religion that encompasses unity
and harmony. The ethical values thus enhance the development of an individual and the
absence of the same triggers dehumanisation. With the pursuit of materialism replacing
ethical values, man stoops to much lower levels antithetic to the very purpose of his life
and existence that has a spiritual goal. Further, materialistic pursuits weaken the rationality
and wisdom in man, giving way to chaos and confusion, and finally leading to crisis and
unrest. Gandhi advocated faith in religion and God to prevent mankind to slip into the life
of misery and treachery.
Moreover, the so-called development of science and technology, which the scientists
proclaim as an essential means to progress of man have failed in their promise of greater
happiness to mankind. With the human mind becoming prey to prejudices, passions and
aggression, the virtues of love, humanity and sympathy have been relegated to the
background causing untold misery to mankind. Gandhi tried to interpret religion as the
solution to such problems. Gandhi advocated that philosophy, religion and spirituality
should go hand in hand with other aspects. Precisely, for this reason, he linked religion
with politics and other activities. As he said, ‘I must try to live in society and yet remain
untouched by its pitfalls’. Gandhi’s religion was not a formal religion, not Hindu religion;
not a mere uttering of the name of God; neither customary nor narrow and definitely not
the practice of untouchability.
Religion, as Gandhi viewed it, meant self-realisation, knowledge of self, where God rules
every breath, that which prompts us to follow the path of truth and non-violence, that
which deals with ‘the science of soul’ and that which is in consonance with the obedience
to the Law of God. This is inherent in every individual and binds him closer to God. To
him, truth and non-violence are eternal, equal to religion, equal to God. Religion, as
Gandhi felt, expresses itself with the help of these two concepts. No doubt, Gandhi
advocated strict adherence to these two virtues that are much crucial in taking man closer
to God. Religion thus holds an impermeable place in our life.
8.3 GANDHI ON ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY

Gandhi accorded equal respect for and interest in all religions. To him, all religions are
more or less true, proceed from the same God and converge to the same point. He had
some interesting interactions with people from other religions, following different faiths.
Gandhi viewed in all religions a basic unity, simplicity and humanity, an essential teaching
of all religions.
On Islam
Gandhi observed Islam ‘to be a religion of peace’, love and above all, that of
brotherhood of man. He was very much impressed with its tenets of faith in only the God
and its unqualified submission to God (K. N. Tiwari, World Religions and Gandhi, p.33).
Gandhi was firmly convinced that the taking up of sword by some of its followers had
nothing to do with, nor in accordance with the teaching of the holy book ‘Koran’. He
also decried the charges of fanaticism on Islam, as many of the passages in the Holy
Book speak of religious tolerance and peace. Gandhi remarked that, ‘my association with
the noblest of Mussalmans has taught me to see that Islam has spread not by the power
of the sword, but by the prayerful love of an unbroken line of its saints and fakirs.’
(Young India, 10-7-1924). Gandhi was drawn to some of the most tolerant and
universalistic tenets of Islam. Firstly, it speaks of the spiritual upliftment of all human
beings and secondly, by assigning the role of messenger rather than attributing divinity to
Prophet Mohammed; the religion has displayed its simplicity and purity, making it a pure
monotheistic religion. The sufferings and humiliation on The Prophet, which were endured
in graceful silence, impressed Gandhi. To him, suffering was an example of peaceful and
non-violent approach, the prominent characteristic of a Satyagrahi. Gandhi was also
attracted by the blending of politics and religion in the history of Islam, the principles he
held close to his heart. Tiwari observes that ‘Gandhi found in the history of Islam, the
blending of the political with the religious and this perhaps reassured him in his faith that
politics could not be separated from religion and that the political struggle required long
and patient suffering’ (Ibid, p.36). Islam highlighted the virtue of prayer, fasting, alms-
giving, hospitality and code of personal conduct. This had a profound impact on Gandhi
and found many of the injunctions of the discipline of Brahmacharya / Celibacy. Virtues
like obedience to parents, avoidance of adultery, cheating and lying, refraining from theft,
murder, etc. are also emphasised in Islam to which Gandhi too prescribed in the code
of ethical virtues.
On Christianity
Gandhi was much impressed and inspired by Christianity as it contained the gospel of
love and a spirit of sacrifice. His Satyagraha which was a forceful non-violent means to
conquer evil was based on some of the tenets of Christianity. The gospel of personal
suffering to win over the enemy was a lesson that was learnt by his readings of The New
Testament. He was deeply touched by the ‘Sermon on the Mount’, which he considered
‘as the gift of Christianity’ to the world. To him, it was almost akin to the reading of ‘The
Gita’. He was convinced that the ‘Christianity’s particular contribution is that of active
love. No other religion says so firmly that God is love’ (Young India, 31-12-1931).
Gandhi revered Jesus for his practice of true love and non-violence, whose life was a
living example of love and sacrifice towards all. To Gandhi, ‘Jesus on the cross chose to
meet evil unarmed and unafraid with love and good will for even those who were ready
to kill him’ (Tiwari, p.39). It is this spirit of sacrifice that had a deep impact on Gandhi’s
mind.
Gandhi, at the same time, did not like that the true principles of Christianity were not
adhered to by its followers. As he affirmed, the Western Christianity, ‘in its practical
working, was a negation of Christ’s’ Christianity. I cannot conceive Jesus, if he was living
in the flesh in our midst, approving of modern Christian Organisation, or public worship’
(Young India, 23-3-1926). He advocated the equality of all religions, tolerance and
sympathy for all.
Gandhi’s interactions with the Christian brethren during his stay in London and South
Africa brought him closer to them in his effort to imbibe the teachings. But he requested
those who were forthcoming to convert Indians to Christianity to refrain from conversion.
To him, a man of any religion, should be a better human being.
At the same time, Gandhi was pleased to see some of the Christians change their views
for the better, who made efforts to recognise the merits of other religions. Gandhi, through
his correspondence with Tolstoy, endeavoured to deepen his understanding of The New
Testament; Tolstoy’s ‘The Kingdom of God is within You’ awakened in him a passionate
spirit of love and sacrifice. Gandhi’s interactions with C. F. Andrews and H.S.Polak
further helped him in fostering a spirit of brotherhood and develop special kinship with
them. Since all religions were equal to him, he venerated them without distinction.
Jainism and Buddhism
Jainism and Buddhism, as Gandhi viewed them, were very much similar to Hinduism and
did not consider them as independent of each other. The influence of Jainism bore the
most visible impact on Gandhi. His concepts of non-violence and fasting were mostly in
consonance with its traditions. Gandhi had the fortune of being part of his father’s
interactions with Jain monks early in his life. The moral and spiritual dimension of the
religion strengthened Gandhi’s ideas of non-violence towards all beings. The other ethical
virtues related to Jainism such as purity, chastity, celibacy, non-possession, compassion,
truth, non-stealing, non-attachment have had a direct impact on Gandhi. Fasting too
constitutes an important part of the Jains’ tradition of ‘Vratas’. They also require
abstinence from any physical adornments and temptations to physical desires. Though
Gandhi acknowledged these tenets to other religions too, his basic understanding of these
concepts may be attributed to his earlier exposition to Jainism.
As regarding Buddhism, Gandhi was attracted by its ‘non-recognition of the caste
distinctions’. Gandhi was impressed with ‘the one thing that Buddha showed India was
that God was not a God who can be appeased by the sacrifice of the innocent animals’.
Those who do so, were guilty of double sin, as he viewed it. Gandhi perceived dharma
as ‘God’, who is not distinct from His own law. The law and law-maker are thus one
and the same, the laws being eternal and unalterable just as its maker (Tiwari, p.31).
Buddha preached and practised Ahimsa in true letter and spirit. Since anger begets anger
and hatred begets hate, the source of all evil, it may be countered by Ahimsa through the
right conduct as prescribed by Buddha. Buddhism also emphasises self-discipline and
moral conduct, through its eight-fold path. The universalistic and humanistic message of
Buddhism was deeply imbibed by Gandhi.
8.4 GANDHI’S VIEWS ON HINDUISM

Gandhi, writes D.M.Datta, ‘believed that every individual is born with definite hereditary
tendencies, in a cultural and physical environment and is therefore, capable of development
in a particular way. It is futile and unnecessary to ignore the religious heritage with which
an individual is born’ (D.M. Datta, pp.46-47). Inspite of his extensive reading on different
religions, his interactions with people from all faiths and his perception of the virtues
associated with different religions, Gandhi acknowledged that Hinduism would suit him the
best. Though this religion had its own crippling practices and pre-conceived notions, it is
the essential ethical virtues and principles as cited in various texts like the Upanishads,
Vedas and The Gita that pacified Gandhi the most. Datta further states that ‘the presence
of God in all beings, the love of all creatures, the ethics of self-discipline, and selfless
service, leading to liberation’ appealed to Gandhi (D. M. Datta, p.47). Gandhi considered
Hinduism as not an exclusive religion; he opined that ‘there is room for the worship of
all prophets of the world in it. It is not a missionary religion. Hinduism tells everyone to
worship God according to faith or dharma, and so lives at peace with all religions’ (Young
India, 6-10-1921). He was deeply impressed by its assimilative characteristic and its
profound stress on the unity of all beings, which is fundamentally moralistic and spiritualistic
in essence. The absolute oneness of all beings and omnipresence of God, in animate and
inanimate beings as well represents its universalistic nature. Its insistence on Ahimsa
towards respect for all living beings, including animals, made a profound impact on
Gandhi.
At the same time, Gandhi was pained at the discrimination Hinduism allows in the form
of caste system and the curse of untouchability. These not only negated its universalistic
nature but also remained as severe drawbacks of the religion. Gandhi was a religious
reformer in the context of his utter dislike for untouchability, irrational ideas and
superstitions. He felt that these features run contrary to Hinduism’s universalistic appeal
and cease to have moral basis. To him, ‘the task of religion is to guide man in his spiritual
and moral development’ (Unto Tahtinen, pp.20-21). Gandhi had his own understanding
and interpretation of religion which he consistently subscribed to. Gandhi imbibed the
positive features from other religions and combined it with Hinduism. Hinduism speaks of
attaining salvation through knowledge, action and devotion and absolves itself of any
rigidity and giving way to liberal approach. It is this aspect of Hinduism to which Gandhi
subscribed and termed it as accommodating: ‘Hinduism is a grand evolutionary process
and not a narrow creed. Hinduism is a living organism liable to growth and decay, and
subject to this law of Nature’ (Young India, 8-4-1926). According to him, ‘to be a Hindu
is to believe in God, the immortality of the soul, transmigration, the law of Karma,
Moksha etc. and to try to practice truth and ahimsa in daily life’ (Tiwari, p.15). As
against the Western concept of religion, Hinduism rules out indulgence and multiplication
of wants as these hamper one’s growth to ultimate identity with the universal self (Harijan,
26-12-1936). Gandhi believed in the purity and sanctity of Hinduism. He felt that ‘it is
not buried in its ample scriptures but is a living faith speaking like a mother to her aching
child’ (Harijan, 3-10-1936).
Gandhi as Sanatani Hindu
Gandhi called himself as a Sanatani Hindu for the reasons that are given below. It is apt
to describe it in his own words:
1. “I believe in the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Puranas and all that goes by the name
of Hindu Scriptures, and therefore in Avatars and rebirth;
2. I believe in the varnashrama dharma in a sense, in my opinion, strictly Vedic but not
in its present popular and crude sense;
3. I believe in the protection of the cow in its much larger sense than the popular;
4. I do not believe in idol-worship”.
Gandhi was assertive when he declared his non-belief in the exclusive divinity of Vedas
and to follow any Hindu Scriptures with blind faith, oblivious to its demerits. Gandhi had
firm faith only in the unchangeable and easily understood fundamental truths of Hinduism,
though he was aware of its limitations. Gandhi likens Hinduism to the river Ganga that is
pure and unsullied at its source but which takes along the impurities in its way. He
advocated the purity of the votaries if the purity of Hinduism is to be retained. The
Vedas, Shastras and Upanishads, Smritis, Puranas and Itihasas have grown at different
times and in different contexts and appear to be contradicting each other. Nevertheless,
Gandhi did not approve of any practice associated with Hinduism that instigated social
evils like animal sacrifice, meat-eating, cruelty to human beings, polyandry, child marriages
and outcastes (Young India, 8-4-1926). In his quest for self-realisation, Gandhi followed
virtuous principles in everyday life and became an eternal symbol of hope and faith. To
him, truth was the highest form of God and religion. He clearly stated it in his own words
thus: ‘What I want to achieve, what I have been striving and pinning to achieve is self-
realisation, to see God face to face, to attain moksha. Man’s ultimate goal is to attain
salvation’. Gandhi prescribes service to all as the most effective way to attain salvation.
Gandhi abhorred stagnation, sectarian belief and exclusivity of religion.
8.5 GANDHI’S INTERPRETATION OF THE GITA

The Bhagavad Gita or the Gita was the most influential source of Gandhi’s religious
thought. He was greatly influenced by its teachings in every walk of life. Gandhi’s first
reading of The Gita was a translated version, ‘The Song Celestial’ by Edwin Arnold, in
1890. He later took the translated version and it was his spiritual dictionary and infallible
guide to conduct (B. R. Nanda, p.55). Gandhi quoted thus regarding The Gita: ‘when
I see not one ray of light on the horizon, I turn to the Bhagavad Gita and find a verse
to comfort me. I immediately begin to smile in the midst of overwhelming sorrow. My life
has been full of external tragedies and if they have not left visible and individual effects
on me, I owe it to the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita’. Gandhi was much impressed by
the principle of ‘equality’ of mind under the joyous and adverse circumstances alike; to
remain unaffected by ‘pleasure or pain, victory or defeat, without hankering after the fruit
of action’ was a trait Gandhi tried to imbibe and implement all through his life. He often
found solace in the reading of The Gita, and considered it as a source of solution to all
the problems he faced from time to time. In later years, Gandhi himself interpreted Gita,
which was meant for everyone and published it in Gujarati in March, 1930. He named
it as ‘Anasakti Yoga’, a result of prayerful study and experience (Young India, 12
November, 1925).
Margaret Chatterjee, a prolific writer on Gandhi’s religious thought, interprets Gandhi’s
understanding of The Gita in the following words: ‘The new things claimed by Gandhi are
these: that the Mahabharatha and Gita are allegorical; that the Gita teaches Ahimsa (for
renunciation is impossible without observance of ahimsa) and so the attitude of Anasakti
(the spirit of renunciation or selflessness) is the basis of Karma (action). The Avatar idea
indicates man’s wish to become like God rather than indicates God’s descent to man. It
is possible for every human being to become perfect, as God is, and it is necessary for
us to aspire towards it. As for the ‘gospel’ element in the Gita it is Bhakti or devotion,
the gospel of Jnana or knowledge. Life should be a harmonious whole of these three. But
the key to all of these is the doctrine of anasakti (selflessness)’ (Margaret Chatterjee,
pp.35-36). Liberation from further bondage of action and renunciation as the best form
of Ahimsa appealed to Gandhi with much fervour. Gandhi’s explanation of The Gita
stresses more on the ahimsa and ethos of work and service. Swadharma (the inner
destiny) enables the man to pursue the path of self-discovery and selfless service, which
would determine one’s capacity to attain Moksha. Gandhi thus insisted service to mankind
with detached and selfless approach, which he thought, is the essence of the Gita, a
timeless guide to man’s approach to life.
Gandhi was a persistent practitioner of the creed he believed in and the Gita’s Karma-
yoga greatly influenced him. ‘Gandhi’s annotation of the Gita in the light of ahimsa has
stressed the intimate relation between the truth of philosophy and the daily life and thought
of the people as he tried to mould them with equal significance’ (R.N.Bose, Our
Gandhian Heritage, Tagore Research Institute, Calcutta, 1970, p.50). Gandhi views the
Gita as not an aphoristic work but a great religious poem; he advised all to study the
deeper meaning in it as one derives richer meaning and was meant for all ages, people
and teachings. It is upto the seeker to judge the depth of it and extract from it the
greatest treasure of life.
8.6 INNER PURIFICATION

Without inner purification, Gandhi stressed, there would neither be ahimsa nor the satya.
Keeping in mind the unity of all existence, Gandhi emphasised that ‘identification with
everything that lives is impossible without self-purification; without self-purification, the
observance of the law of Ahimsa must remain an empty dream, God can never be
realized by one who is not pure of heart’ (Autobiography, pp.614-16).
Self-purification encompasses purification in all walks of life. Only when one attains self-
purification, one would be in a position to instill in others to do so, thus leading to the
purification of one’s surrounding. The path to self-purification is laid down by innumerable
sufferings and tests, which would examine one’s capability to achieve the goal. ‘The path
is steep and hard’, Gandhi wrote emphasising that if one has to attain perfect purity, ‘one
has to become absolutely passion-free in thought, speech and action, to rise above the
opposing currents of love and hatred, attachment and repulsion’ (Ibid). In order to attain
this stage, man has to consider and put himself last among his fellow creatures, and strive
continuously to attain salvation. Ahimsa is the best means, according to Gandhi, to attain
this state.
Ahimsa, a much comprehensive principle, has a much deeper meaning in man’s life and
he cannot live without a conscious and unconscious tilt towards committing Himsa.
Therefore ahimsa requires him to remain true to his faith and also remain a firm votary
of truth if he has to develop compassion and self-restraint. Similarly also with firm
adherence to truth, man should keep himself open to correcting his wayward behaviour
and upon realising the mistake of committing wrong, should not only confess but also
atone for it. Self-purification, if it has to be interpreted at a higher level, is the means that
not only connects man to God but also helps in the enhanced enlightened consciousness
that is complementary in nature to the former. Thus a religious life is a life of self-
purification, a dedicated life to God as well as man (M. Chatterjee, p.94). Gandhi’s
experiments in letter and spirit were acts of attaining self-purification. Three most
important ways of Gandhian self-purification include fasting, prayer and celibacy.
Gandhi undertook fasting as a means for paying for sin or violent streaks that surfaced
in humankind from time to time. For example, he undertook fast following the violent
incidents during the civil disobedience movement. To him, fasting was a spiritual effort,
striving, penance and self-purification. The appeal to God, in whatever form, to rid the
mankind from hatred and violence and inculcate in them a constant force of brotherhood
marked the essence of Gandhi’s prayer meetings.
Celibacy helps in the physical self-restraint and bestows mental freedom on man and is
one of the best methods of achieving self-purification that has an abundant energy that is
needed in a Satyagrahi. Gandhi also prescribed vegetarianism as one of the methods of
purification wherein eating is an essential component, that has a direct effect upon man’s
mental faculties and which prevents him from becoming slave to animal instincts. Gandhi’s
methods have much religious significance as one scripture or other has prescribed these
methods as effective tools to tame one’s mind and make it subservient to the one and
only supreme force, i.e. God.
8.7 ON GOD AND UNIVERSAL RELIGION

‘There is an indefinable mysterious power that pervades everything. I feel it, though I do
not see it. It is this unseen power which makes itself felt and yet defies all proof, because
it is so unlike all that ‘I perceive through my senses. It transcends the senses’…. a living
power that is changeless, that holds all together, that creates, dissolves and re-creates.
That informing power or spirit is God’ (Young India, 11-10-1928). Gandhi’s concept of
God cannot be defined as a typical or characteristically similar to Hindu conception of
God, though Gandhi himself time and again proclaimed his staunch Hindu affiliation.
Nevertheless, the impact of Hinduism was evident on this concept. God is not only
formless, characterised by the law of love and dharma; God is truth, eternal, immeasurable
and a power beyond human grasp. Gandhi characterised God as both personal and
impersonal. This can be seen in the distinct Advaitic perspective distinguishing between
the lower and higher levels of reality. Gandhi believed in the absolute oneness of God.
Though he never termed Hinduism as polytheistic, he acknowledged the way Hindus
would worship different Gods and Goddesses, but all leading to the one formless God.
Gandhi also characterised God as truth and also as a living faith. God, to him, is love,
truth, ethics, fearlessness and a source of light, life and beyond and ultimately the
‘conscience’ (Young India, 5-3-1925). Gandhi’s relentless search for truth made him
realise that the law of love, in the form of non-violence and not as a passion, had few
followers or believers. Even the so-called atheists who professed their non-faith in God
were votaries of truth. He reminded that the concepts of truth as in the Hindu philosophy
and also in Islam clearly stated the universality of God as the Supreme power, and it is
the truth, via a spiritual realm, that takes us near to God. He reiterated this in the
following words. ‘I worship God as Truth only. I have not yet found him, but I am
seeking after him. I am prepared to sacrifice the things dearest to me in pursuit of this
quest. Even if the sacrifice demanded to be my very life, I hope I may be prepared to
give it. But as long as I have not realized this Absolute Truth, so long must I hold by
the relative Truth as I have conceived it’ (My Religion, p.42).
‘Satya or sat is that abiding, all-comprehensive, all-inclusive ground which holds and
sustains everything’ (Tiwari, p.61). Various forms and different names are attributed to
God in order to enable man to establish his eternal relationship with the Supreme power
and see God in all living and non-living beings. As Gandhi remarked, ‘when I admire the
wonder of a sunset or the beauty of the moon, my soul expands in worship of the
creator. I try to see him and his mercies in all these creations’ (Young India, 13-11-
1924).
Universal Religion
By religion, Gandhi did not mean any conventional religion but ‘that religion which is at
the root of all religion and that this fundamental religion harmonises the historical religions
and makes them valid’ (My Religion, p.3). He explained further that ‘just as a tree has
one trunk but many branches and leaves, so there is one true and perfect religion,
although it is divided into many as it appears through a human intermediary’ (From
Yervada Mandir, p.39). Gandhi reiterated that ‘God is Truth and ‘Truth is God’. It was
interpreted that he did this not only because of his experience in his search for God and
adherence to truth but also to unite all Indians as difference of religions posed a major
obstacle towards achieving Independence (Tahtinen, p.21). This was meant to be a
psychological appeal to all, including atheists, so as not to divide on the basis of ideology.
Gandhi’s firm conviction that all religions lead to one God is based on his findings of all
good and virtuous traits, almost similar in nature, in different religions. Further, Gandhi
attributed the ‘personal’ dimension to religion for personal faith enables one to achieve
perfection in the practice of one’s own religion. Secondly, Gandhi did not attach any
ritualistic importance to religion so as to suit different individuals in their approach to
attaining God. Individuals should also enrich themselves by reading scriptures of others’
faith and religion in order to foster unity and understanding among all. But without ethical
and truthful angles, religion, however perfect a man may try to follow, serves no purpose
in his self-realisation. For it blinds the man to any moral aspect which is not only essential
for one’s own spiritual progress but also in the service to others. All religions, their
scriptures and values are of equal importance, to segregate them on the claims of
superiority, Gandhi said, is not only deceitful but also deplorable. As he said, ‘In God’s
house there are many mansions and they are equally holy’ (My Religion, p.29).
The Concept of universal religion as propounded by Gandhi is best summarised in the
words of Tahtinen: ‘Gandhi’s religiousness does not exclude or reject the criticism of
religion, since the recognition of the fundamental equality of all religions does not destroy
the distinction between religion and irreligion. We must not tolerate irreligion. Sanctifying
a cruel custom is not religion, but irreligion. Religion which does not take the practical
things of life into account and does not try to explain them is not true religion.’ (Tahtinen,
p.23).
8.8 SUMMARY
Gandhi’s religion is essentially a universal religion, devoid of customs, superstitions and
irrational givings. For him, truth and non-violence were the ultimate forms of unity of
mankind. He denied being christened as ‘saint’, ‘yogi’ or ‘ascetic’ and described himself
as a seeker of truth, the ultimate eternal truth. It had nothing to do with theology, as
Bhikhu Parekh put it, which over–intellectualised religion. True or pure religion, to him,
transcends but does not supersede organised religions, and constitutes their common basis
and connecting link. In today’s world of religious disharmony, it is apt to recollect
Gandhi’s words: ‘the need of the moment is not one religion, but mutual respect and
tolerance of the devotees of the different religions. We want to reach not the dead level,
but unity in diversity. Any attempt to root out traditions, effects of heredity, climate and
other surroundings is not only bound to fail but is a sacrilege. The soul of religions is one,
but it is encased in a multitude of forms. The latter will persist to the end of time. Wise
men will ignore the outward crust and see the same soul living under a variety of crusts’
(Young India, 25-9-1925).

1. What do you understand by Gandhi’s concept of religion?
2. Discuss Gandhi’s views on different religions.
3. ‘Hinduism is the basis of Gandhi’s religious thought’. Discuss at length.
a) Inner / Self-purification
b) Gandhi’s concept of God.
5. How important was ‘The Gita’ to Gandhi as a source of spiritual strength?
SUGGESTED READINGS
1. Gandhi, M. K., My Religion, Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, 1955.
2. Tahtinen, Unto., The Core of Gandhi’s Philosophy, Abhinav Publications, New Delhi,
1979.
3. Parekh, Bhikhu., Gandhi, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1997
4. Tiwari, K. N., World Religions and Gandhi, Classical Publishing Company, New
Delhi, 1988.
5. Dutta, D. K., Social, Moral and Religious Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi, Intellectual
Book Corner, New Delhi, 1980
6. Datta, D.M., The Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi, The University of Wisconsin
Press, Madison, 1953.
7. Chatterjee, Margaret., Gandhi’s Religious Thought, The Macmillan Press Ltd, London,
1983.
8. Saiyidain, K. G., Significance of Gandhi as a Man and Thinker, Publications Division,
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, New Delhi, 1970.
9. Singh, Ramjee., et. al., Aspects of Gandhian Thought, Indian Society of Gandhian
Studies, 1994.
10. Gandhi, M. K., An Autobiography or The Story of My Experiments With Truth,
Navajivan, Ahmedabad, 1927 (1993 edition).
UNIT 9 GANDHI’S CRITIQUE OF MODERN
CIVILISATION
Structure
9.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
9.2 Gandhi’s Idea of Civilisation
9.3 Modern Civilisation and Loss of India’s Freedom
9.4 Modern Civilisation: Bane for India
9.5 Khadi as Critique of Modern Civilisation
9.6 Education as Critique of Modernity
9.7 Nation State and Modern Industrialisation
9.8 Summary
Suggested Readings
9.1 INTRODUCTION
All of you, who have seen Gandhi, in pictures obviously, agree that in his dress and
appearance he belonged to the Indian ascetic tradition. As a mass leader and iron hearted
campaigner against the British imperialism, he consciously chose such an image. His
philosophy too contained symbols and words which were, in look and meaning, essentially
Eastern in general and Hindu in particular. He used these words and symbols as weapons
not only against the British colonisers, but also against the modern civilisation they
represented, and in a sense, against modernity itself. Khadi, about which we will discuss
more in the course of this chapter has been one such symbol and Ram Rajya, Sanatan
Dharma, Satyagraha, Swaraj are some more in the long list. In a sense most of the words
and symbols Gandhi invented and used in his long political and philosophical struggle
against the British and the Western materialism were symbols of Indian tradition on the
one hand and a critique of modern Western civilisation on the other. These words and
symbols have more than one meaning. They also present multiple messages and the most
important among them was a critique of modernity. These essentially Indian words and
symbols were used by Gandhi as critiques of and counter to the three important concepts
of nationalism, industrialism and western education, which form the very core of modernity
in India. All these suggest that Gandhi declined to accept “modern civilisation” which he
designates and describes as “Western civilisation” and most of the values it stood for. He
actively countered them with words, symbols, concepts, traditions, values and in all, the
very philosophy which is essentially Indian.
Aims and Objectives

After studying this Unit, you will be able to understand:
 Gandhi’s ideas and perspectives on modern western and Indian civilisations.
 His perception of modern civilisation as a bane for India.
 His use of Indian symbols like Khadi to counter modern civilisation.
 His ideas of education that best suited India.
9.2 GANDHI’S IDEA OF CIVILISATION

Gandhi explains in detail his ideas and concepts of civilisation, positive and negative
features of Western civilisation i.e., modern civilisation, and comparison and contrast
between Indian and Western civilisations in many speeches and writings especially in Hind
Swaraj which he wrote in Gujarati in 1909 on his return voyage from London to South
Africa. It was serialised in two installments in the same year in the Gujarati edition of
Indian Opinion, the weekly published by Gandhi in South Africa. It was issued as a
booklet in Gujarati in 1910 and was banned by the British authorities on the charges of
seditious content. Undaunted by this move of the imperial authorities, Gandhi later
developed the ideas he expressed in Hind Swaraj further and enriched them by new
contributions throughout his life. When we try to assess Gandhi’s view on the then existing
civilisation, we must take a note of these in the context of the impact of his work on his
total philosophy. His views emanated mainly from his reaction to events and his attempt
to give a lead to many social reforms and political movements. However, the existence
of a uniformity underlying his thoughts will make our task of connecting, understanding and
analysing them relatively easy. This uniformity in Gandhian thoughts arose from a moral
approach and a desire to lead active and creative life not for the sake of himself but for
the sake of his countrymen.
Gandhi regarded violence un-Indian, something alien to Indian civilisation and he makes
his opinions amply clear in Hind Swaraj. In a sense, the aim of Hind Swaraj was to
confront the anarchist and violence-prone Indian nationalism with an alternative to violence
derived from Gandhi’s earliest experiments with Satyagraha. Gandhi mentioned that Hind
Swaraj was written in order to show that his countrymen were following a suicidal policy
of violence, and that if they but revert to their own glorious civilisation, either the English
would adopt the latter and become Indianised or find their occupation in India gone.
Furthermore, in Hind Swaraj Gandhi depicted “the dichotomy between the spiritual,
moral superiority of Indian society, and the violent, politically corrupt nature of European
states” even more dramatically than any of his predecessors. While condemning the `brute
force’ of Western power, Gandhi distances himself from the militant nationalists for their
support to violence which he considered a suicidal strategy as it would provoke `an
organised violence’ by the ruling authority.
Hind Swaraj was a detailed commentary on Western civilisation that thrived on material
power. According to Gandhi, modern Western civilisation is characterised by the many
negative features like greed, aggression, colonialism, imperialism, war technology, inequity,
exploitation, poverty, extravagance and luxury, bodily comforts, unbridled individualism and
vulgar materialism, immorality, valueless and commercial education, alienation and so on.
Gandhi’s Critique of Modern Civilisation 109
These are thoroughly criticised by Gandhi. Before explaining these features in detail and
their impact on social, economic, political and moral aspects of modern human life, and
Gandhi’s overall critique of Western civilisation scattered throughout his extensive works,
it is better to know what Gandhi meant by civilisation -both Western and Indian- by
quoting himself elaborately.
According to Gandhi, “Civilisation is that mode of conduct which points out to man the
path of duty. Performance of duty and observance of morality are convertible terms. To
observe morality is to attain mastery over our mind and our passions. So doing, we know
ourselves” (Gandhi, 1938: 53).
In the chapter titled “Civilisation” in Hind Swaraj, he provides an elaborate explanation
about his ideas on modern (western) civilisation:
Let us first consider what state of things is described by the word “civilisation”. Its true
test lies in the fact that people living in it make bodily welfare the object of life… The
people of Europe today live in better-build houses than they did a hundred years ago.
This is considered an emblem of civilisation, and this is also a matter to promote bodily
happiness. Formerly, they wore skins, and used spears as their weapons. Now, they wear
long trousers, and, for embellishing their bodies, they wear a variety of clothing, and,
instead of spears, they carry with them revolvers containing five or more chambers. If
people of a certain country, who have hitherto not been in the habit of wearing much
clothing, boots, etc., adopt European clothing, they are supposed to have become civilized
out of savagery. Formerly, in Europe, people ploughed their lands mainly by manual
labour. Now, one man can plough a vast tract by means of steam engines and can thus
amass great wealth. This is called a sign of civilisation. Formerly, only a few men wrote
valuable books. Now, anybody writes and prints anything he likes and poisons people’s
minds. Formerly, men traveled in wagons. Now, they fly through the air, in trains at the
rate of four hundred and more miles per day. This is considered the height of civilisation.
It has been stated that, as men progress, they shall be able to travel in airship and reach
any part, of the world in a few hours. Men will not need the use of their hands and feet.
They will press a button, and they will have their clothing by their side. They will press
another button, and they will have their newspaper. A third, and a motor-car will be in
waiting for them. They will have a variety of delicately dished up food. Everything will be
done by machinery. Formerly, when people wanted to fight with one another, they
measured between them their bodily strength; now it is possible to take away thousands
of lives by one man working behind a gun from a hill. This is civilisation. Formerly, men
worked in the open air only as much as they liked. Now thousands of workmen meet
together and for the sake of maintenance work in factories or mines. Their condition is
worse than that of beasts. They are obliged to work, at the risk of their lives, at most
dangerous occupations, for the sake of millionaires. Formerly, men were made slaves
under physical compulsion. Now they are enslaved by temptation of money and of the
luxuries that money can buy. There are now diseases of which people never dreamt
before, and an army of doctors is engaged in finding out their cures, and so hospitals
have increased. This is a test of civilisation. Formerly, special messengers were required
and much expense was incurred in order to send letters; today, anyone can abuse his
fellow by means of a letter for one penny. True, at the same cost, one can send one’s
thanks also. Formerly, people had two or three meals consisting of home-made bread and
vegetables; now, they require something to eat every two hours so that they have hardly
leisure for anything else…
This civilisation takes note neither of morality nor of religion… Civilisation seeks to
increase bodily comforts, and it fails miserably even in doing so… This civilisation is
irreligion, and it has taken such a hold on the people in Europe that those who are in
it appear to be half mad…
This civilisation is such that one has only to be patient and it will be self-destroyed.
According to the teaching of Mohammed this would be considered a Satanic Civilisation.
Hinduism calls it a Black Age… (ibid, pp. 31-33).
Gandhi reasoned why western writers were not critical of the civilisations they lived in:
…We rarely find people arguing against themselves. Those who are intoxicated by
modern civilisation are not likely to write against it. Their care will be to find out facts
and arguments in support of it, and this they do unconsciously, believing it to be true. A
man whilst he is dreaming, believes in his dream. He is undeceived only when he is
awakened from his sleep. A man laboring under the bane of civilisation is like a dreaming
man. What we usually read are the works of defenders of modern civilisation, which
undoubtedly claims among its votaries very brilliant and even some very good men. Their
writings hypnotize us. And so, one by one, we are drawn into the vortex (ibid, pp.30-
31).
Now, let us get an idea of his opinion on Indian civilisation. In this regard, he wrote:
I believe that the civilisation India has evolved is not to be beaten in the world. Nothing
can equal the seeds sown by our ancestors. Rome went, Greece shared the same fate;
the might of the Pharaohs was broken; Japan has become Westernized; of China nothing
can be said; but India is still, somehow or, other, sound at the foundation. The people
of Europe learn their lessons from the writings of the men of Greece or Rome, which
exist no longer in their former glory… In the midst of all this India remains immovable
and that is her glory. It is a charge against India that her people are so uncivilized,
ignorant and stolid that it is not possible to induce them to adopt any changes. It is a
charge really against our merit. What we have tested and found true on the anvil of
experience, we dare not change. Many thrust their advice upon India, and she remains
steady. This is her beauty: it is the sheet-anchor of our hope.
…We have retained the same kind of cottages that we had in former times and our
indigenous education remains the same as before. We have had no system of life
corroding competition. Each followed his own occupation or trade and charged a
regulation wage. It was not that we did not know how to invent machinery, but our
forefathers knew that, if we set our hearts after such things, we would become slaves and
lose our moral fiber. They therefore, after due deliberation decided that we should only
do what we could with our hands and feet. They saw that our real happiness and health
consisted in a proper use of our hands and feet… They saw that kings and their swords
were inferior to the sword of ethics, and they, therefore, held the sovereigns of the earth
to be inferior to the Rishis and the Fakirs. A nation with a constitution like this is fitter
to teach others than to learn from others (ibid, pp. 52-54).
While admiring the Indian civilisation, Gandhi was not unaware of the fact that India of
his days was not exactly like he described it. He was quite aware of the darker side-
child marriage, child widows, teenaged mothers and housewives, women practising
polyandry, existence of the practice of Niyoga, where, girls dedicate themselves to
prostitution in the name of religion, goats and sheep killed in the name of religion. He
candidly regarded those defects as defects. He declared that nobody mistook evils of
Indian civilisation for ancient civilisation. He recognised the attempts that have always been
made in the past to remove those evils and believed that such attempts would be made
to remove them in future too. He said:
We may utilize the new spirit that is born in us for purging ourselves of these evils. But
what I have described to you as emblems of modern civilisation are accepted as such by
its votaries. The Indian civilisation, as described by me, has been so described by its
votaries. In no part of the world, and under no civilisation, have all men attained
perfection. The tendency of the Indian civilisation is to elevate the moral being, that of the
Western civilisation is to propagate immorality. The latter is godless, the former is based
on a belief in God. So understanding and so believing, it behooves every lover of India
to cling to the Indian civilisation even as a child clings to the mother’s breast (ibid, p.55).
Gandhi declared that “India is unique. Its strength is immeasurable.” He also draws our
attention to the historical fact that when other civilisations succumbed, the Indian
civilisation has survived many a shock.
9.3 MODERN CIVILISATION AND LOSS OF INDIA’S

FREEDOM
It is quite possible that one wonders if Indian civilisation was superior to Western
civilisation, then what caused the subjugation and colonisation of India by Western nations.
Gandhi declares in unequivocal terms that the English did not take India, we Indians gave
it to them. He said: “They (the British) are not in India because of their strength, but
because we keep them.” Analysing the loss of India’s freedom to the West, Gandhi wrote:
They (the British) came to our country originally for purposes of trade. Recall the
Company Bahadur. Who made it Bahadur? They had not the slightest intention at the time
of establishing a kingdom. Who assisted the Company’s officers? Who was tempted at
the sight of their silver? Who bought their goods? History testifies that we did all this. In
order to become rich all at once we welcomed the Company’s officers with open arms.
We assisted them. If I am in the habit of drinking bhang and a seller thereof sells it to
me, am I to blame him or myself’? By blaming the seller shall I be able to avoid the
habit? And, if a particular retailer is driven away will not another take his place?
…English merchants were able to get a footing in India because we encouraged them.
When our Princes fought among themselves, they sought the assistance of Company
Bahadur. That corporation was versed alike in commerce and war. It was unhampered
by questions of morality. Its object was to increase its commerce and to make money.
It accepted our assistance, and increased the number of its warehouses. To protect the
latter it employed an army which was utilized by us also (ibid, pp. 34-35).
Gandhi opined that Indians distancing themselves from their civilisation which was
essentially spiritual and, instead, moving towards the material richness on which the
Western civilisation was based on was the inner and fundamental cause for India losing
its freedom. He condemns the fratricidal attitude of Indian princes that gave an opportunity
for the British to enhance their military presence here. He also cites the animosity between
Hindus and the Muslims of India who were at daggers drawn at each other, also as a
potential opportunity the East India Company got and thus the Indians created the
circumstances that gave the Company its control over India. And Gandhi concludes that,
“hence it is truer to say that we gave India to the English than that India was lost.”
Gandhi was of the opinion that the Indian civilisation was unquestionably the best, but that
all civilisations had been on their trial and it was Indian civilisation’s turn during the British
period. During this period, Gandhi rued, that because the sons of India were found
wanting, its civilisation had been placed in jeopardy. Gandhi, however, sounded quite
positive when he ‘recognised’ that the whole of India was not touched by the slavery and
those alone who had been affected by modern civilisation had become enslaved.
Gandhi begins laying down his plan for freeing India by quoting the maxim “that the
removal of the cause of a disease results in the removal of the disease itself.” Similarly,
he declares, “if the cause of India’s slavery be removed, India can become free.” He also
makes an interesting point that “the whole of India is not touched. Those alone who have
been affected by Western civilisation have become enslaved. We measure the universe by
our own miserable foot-rule. When we are slaves, we think that the whole universe is
enslaved. Because we are in an abject condition, we think that the whole of India is in
that condition. As a matter of fact, it is not so, yet it is as well to impute our slavery
to the whole of India” (ibid, p. 56). Having given this picture of India he makes the
soothing remark that “if we bear in mind the above fact, we can see that if we become
free, India is free” (ibid.).
Gandhi saw Indian freedom movement as “India’s contribution to peace.” He defined his
version of nationalism in terms of Swadeshi and Swaraj. He declared that his Swaraj was
to keep intact the genius of our civilisation.
9.4 MODERN CIVILISATION: BANE FOR INDIA

Gandhi blamed certain inseparable aspects of modern civilisation like railways, lawyers
and doctors for the impoverishment of India. He even warned that if we did not wake
up in time, we “shall be ruined.” It appears to us that he unjustly attacked the very
institutions which we consider to be good and essential for comfortable living in today’s
world. Gandhi, however, justified his argument with confidence. He begins his argument
against the symbols of modern civilisation by stating that the “true inwardness of the evils
of civilisation you will understand with difficulty” (ibid, p.39). He continues: “Doctors
assure us that a consumptive clings to life even when he is about to die. Consumption
does not produce apparent hurt it even produces a seductive color about a patient’s face
so as to induce the belief that all is well. Civilisation is such a disease and we have to
be very wary” (ibid.)
Regarding railways he says that but for the railways, the English could not have such a
hold on India as they had. He blames the railways as carriers to the length and breadth
of India, of virus that caused epidemics like bubonic plague and caused untold misery to
the Indian masses. He says: “the railways… have spread the bubonic plague. Without
them the masses could not move from place to place. They are the carriers of plague
germs. Formerly we had natural segregation” (ibid, pp. 39-40). He identifies Railways as
a cause of famine by noting that these modern means of rapid transportation “have also
increased the frequency of famines because, owing to facility of means of locomotion
people sell out their grain and it is sent to the dearest markets. People become careless
and so the pressure of famine increases.” He also says that railways have robbed the holy
places of their holiness as with the help of railways bad men “fulfill their evil designs with
greater rapidity. The holy places of India have become unholy. Formerly, people went to
these places with very great difficulty. Generally, therefore, only the real devotees visited
such places. Nowadays rogues visit them in order to practice their roguery.” He
concludes that “the railways can become a distributing agency for the evil one only” (ibid,
p.40). Gandhi does not accept the notion that it was due to railways that the spirit of
nationalism bloomed in India. He cautions us that attributing our spirit of nationalism for
the railways is a mistake. He vehemently argues that we were a nation before railways
were introduced, even before the British came. He says that the “English have taught us
that we were not one nation before and that it will require centuries before we become
one nation. This is without foundation. We were one nation before they came to India.
One thought inspired us. Our mode of life was the same. It was because we were one
nation that they were able to establish one kingdom. Subsequently they divided us” (ibid.).
Explaining his argument further he says that “I do not wish to suggest that because we
were one nation we had no differences, but it is submitted that our leading men traveled
throughout India either on foot or in bullock-carts. They learned one another’s languages
and there was no aloofness between them and questions his reader- “What do you think
could have been the intention of those farseeing ancestors of ours who established
Setubandha (Rameshwar) in the South, Jagannath in the East and Hardwar in the North
as places of pilgrimage?” (ibid, pp.40-41). Gandhi insists that in doing so our ancestors
were not fools and he recognises the root cause behind their above mentioned actions in
the following words:
They knew that worship of God could have been performed just as well at home. They
taught us that those whose hearts were aglow with righteousness had the Ganges in their
own homes. But they saw that India was one undivided land so made by nature. They,
therefore, argued that it must be one nation. Arguing thus, they established holy places in
various parts of India, and fired the people with an idea of nationality in a manner
unknown in other parts of the world. And we Indians are one as no two Englishmen are.
Only you and I and others who consider ourselves civilized and superior persons imagine
that we are many nations. It was after the advent of railways that we began to believe
in distinctions… (ibid, p.41).
9.5 KHADI AS A CRITIQUE OF MODERN CIVILISATION

As mentioned earlier, Khadi has a complex and different appellation. Gandhi sought to
convey multiple messages through Khadi, arguably the focal one among them was a
critique of modernity. Khadi was an apt symbol of long Indian tradition on the one hand
and a critique of modern Western civilisation on the other.
Khadi is essentially Indian and traditionally Indians have not only been weavers, but also
exporters of cotton fabric since time immemorial. In the more recent history, British
themselves imported huge quantities of clothes from India, before they introduced
machine-made textiles. At the time of arrival of the British in India, next to cultivation,
weaving was the commonest economic activity in the Indian countryside. In fact, weaving
has been a common metaphor, even in the spiritual discourse of many saints and
philosophers of India, the most notable among them was Kabir, himself a weaver. The
saga of the economic exploitation of British colonial imperialism is replete with reference
to the decline of cotton weavers.
Khadi, the theme of hand-woven fabric, was brought up and invested with new meaning
by Gandhi. While not exactly forsaking the spiritual content Kabir and other saints had
introduced, Gandhi reinvented the mundane human endeavour, no less complex though.
Innumerable songs were composed during the years of freedom struggle or afterwards on
how Gandhi would or did drive out the British with the help of his charkha. It became
symbol of freedom struggle and also a means of economic regeneration of the villages and
much more. Gandhi declared in unequivocal terms that his Swadeshi chiefly centred on the
hand-spun Khaddar and extended to everything that could be and is produced in India.
In this sense, Khadi was reversion to that glorious civilisation which India had nurtured
before the Europeans arrived. Gandhi urged the fellow Indians to spin and weave Khadi
on the ground that Khadi linked them with the downtrodden. He pleaded to his
countrymen to spin only thirty minutes everyday as sacrifice. In Gandhi’s world of charkha
and Khadi, there is no room for machines that would displace human labour or
concentration of power in a few hands.
During the years of his withdrawal from active politics in mid-1920s, Gandhi devoted
himself to the propagation of Khadi turning it into a cult, as a strategy of nation-building
from the grassroots. He suggested a Khadi franchise for the organisation and even
envisaged a “yarn currency.” Gandhi’s almost emotional attachment to the spinning wheel
should have baffled both the British and Western educated town-bred Indians. It was
obvious as they were unable to grasp the incredible poverty of Indian villages.
9.6 EDUCATION AS CRITIQUE OF MODERNITY

Basic education was arguably the most important arena for the introduction of modernity
in India. Designed as it was by the colonial masters, besides remaining generally detached
from Indian tradition, it was also oblivious to the needs and problems of the teeming
millions in the countryside. Gandhi’s basic education scheme was primarily a system of
rural education and handicrafts constituted the medium of instruction. Spinning and
weaving was Gandhi’s preference among the crafts and so his entire pedagogy and
educational philosophy was intermeshed with his khadi-based approach to life.
Gandhi was critical of the Western system of education for much of what it stood for.
He felt that it was wholly unsuited to India’s needs, and was a bad copy of the Western
model. He further said that the then education system had, by reason of the medium of
instruction being a foreign language, sapped the energy of the youths who had passed
through our schools and colleges and had produced an army of clerks and office-seekers.
He was of strong opinion that it had dried up all originality, impoverished the vernaculars
and had deprived the masses of the benefit of higher knowledge which would otherwise
have percolated through the intercourse of the education classes with them. This education
system created a gulf between educated India and the masses; it 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. He alleged that this system criminally neglected the greatest
need of agricultural training.
It is difficult to appreciate quite how radical and harsh Gandhi would have sounded to
the educated Indians as he castigated their educational training and their values and told
them they were traitors to their motherland by being willing victims of the education
system in vogue. It is an interesting fact that, despite their opposition to British rule, most
of the nationalists did not reject the British rule. At the same time most other nationalists
did not reject the British system of education outright, since they viewed it as a means
by which India could become a materially advanced nation. Gandhi, however, thought
differently from the beginning of his political career.
Gandhi launched his experiment in education alongside Champaran Satyagraha, his earliest
foray into local politics. In November 1917 the first school was opened in Barharwa and
the experiment grew mature. It was fully developed in 1937, after the Wardha Conference.
In June 1921, writing in Young India, Gandhi had outlined his views on education with
a great deal of clarity:
I can see nothing wrong in the children, from the very threshold of their education, paying
for it in work. The simplest handicraft, suitable for all, required for the whole of India
undoubtedly spinning along with the previous processes. If we introduced this in our
educational institutions, we should fulfill three purposes: make education self-supporting,
train the bodies of the children as well as their minds and pave the way for a complete
boycott of foreign yarn and cloth. Moreover, the children thus equipped will become self-
reliant and independent.
9.7 NATION STATE AND MODERN INDUSTRIALISATION

Among the borrowings from the modern West, and willingly accepted by most of the
western educated Indians, two crucial ones are the idea of nation state and modern
industrialisation. Gandhi had a different concept of both. Gandhi asserted that violent
nationalism, otherwise known as imperialism, was the curse; non-violent nationalism was
a necessary condition for civilised life.
Against mechanistic and aggressive concept of nationalism in the West, Gandhi proposed
a concept of People’s Swaraj based on truth and non-violence for which Khadi was an
apt symbol. Moreover, this symbol also linked the concept of Swaraj with the concern
for the poor- the last man, and village, the supposed bastion of backwardness. Prior to
Gandhi, the nationalist leaders had acquiesced in by and large to a western concept of
nationalism. Gandhi not only critiqued that but also provided an alternative concept, more
deeply rooted in the tradition and encompassing all Indians, rich and poor alike. He gave
a moral perspective to the national movement for which a set of new symbols were
created by him- Khadi, Ramarajya, and Satyagraha. He was designing a new framework
of ideology more appropriate for the teeming millions of India, 85% of them residing in
the countryside. His critique was not merely an alternative ideology. It was a plan of mass
action that he visualised for the political, social and economic regeneration of India.
9.8 SUMMARY
It is not correct to conclude that Gandhi was against all the currents of modern civilisation
and that he wanted to return to the past, essentially Indian. Often he made an
exaggerated attack on modern civilisation for its ills. As far as the social organisation was
concerned, Gandhi was a religious and social reformer. He fought against such practices
as hereditary priesthood, untouchability against the low castes and the denial of entry to
temples to them. He conducted many campaigns, based on social equality and scientific
spirit for the cause of these social reforms. The socio-economic changes that took place
in Gandhi’s times and later in India and the emergence of new social classes helped the
popularisation of modern ideas which Gandhi tried to spread in his times. With regard to
the negation of violence and the prospects of conducting social and political movement,
Gandhi was ahead of his times and was referred as the “Prophet of the Atomic Era.”
Gandhi was critical of pursuit of materialism, opposed machines and centralisation of
production, and favoured, on the contrary, a life of labour for everyone in the society,
concisely contained in his concept of “bread-labour.” He believed in the ideal of economic

self-sufficiency of the villages. He describes his idea of an ideal socio- economic order
in these words: “Independence must begin at the bottom, thus every village will be a
republic or Panchayat having full powers.” There were occasions when Gandhi remarked
on modern western civilisation being yet ‘a good idea.’ He was not against modern
civilisation in total, but had a deep suspicion of the material progress in the West and in
concept of modernity.
It would be erroneous to think that Gandhi rejected ideas from the modern West and
remained uninfluenced by it altogether. It may be pertinent to note that he viewed his life
as “experiments with truth,” ostensibly a tribute to science, to which he was sufficiently
exposed as a student. Of course, he was both selective and innovative when it came to
borrowing from the West. He was aware that there were elements in modern civilisation,
like democratic political philosophy, that could be useful to India. In the preface to the
English edition of Hind Swaraj, he even urged his countrymen to adopt such positive
aspects of modern civilisation to drive out the English.

1. Critically evaluate Gandhi’s arguments against modern civilisation.
2. Elucidate Gandhi’s use of Indian symbols to counter modern civilisation.
3. Do you agree with Gandhi’s description of modern civilisation as a bane for India
and also a cause for the loss of Indian freedom?
4. Examine Gandhi’s perception on western concepts of nation state and modern
Industrialisation.
SUGGESTED READINGS
1. Alexander, Horace., Gandhi Through Western Eyes, Asia Publishing House, Bombay,
1969.
2. Andrews, C. F., Mahatma Gandhi’s Ideas, Allen and Unwin, London, 1929.
3. Gandhi, M. K., Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule, Navajivan Publishing House,
Ahmedabad, 1938 edn.
4. Gandhi, M.K., India of My Dreams, Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, 1947.
5. Gandhi, M.K., Hindu Dharma, Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, 1950.
6. Joyce, Appleby, et. al., Telling the Truth about History, W. W. Norton & Company,
New York, London, 1994.
7. Kamath, M. V., Gandhi, A Spiritual Journey, Indus Source Books, Mumbai, 2007.
8. Pillai, Mohanan, B., Gandhi’s Legacy and New Human Civilisation, Gyan Publishing
House, New Delhi, 1999.
9. Vettickal, Thomas., Gandhian Sarvodaya: Realizing a Realistic Utopia, National
Gandhi Museum and Gyan Publishing House, New Delhi, 2002.
UNIT 10 CRITICAL UNDERSTANDING OF
INDIAN CIVILISATION
Structure
10.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
10.2 The Idea of Civilisation
10.3 The Renaissance and Indian Intellectuals
10.4 Tradition and Reform: Social Reformers
10.5 Gandhi’s Reformist Programme
10.6 Critical Understanding of Indian Civilisation
10.6.1 Religion
10.6.2 Untouchability
10.6.3 Women’s Oppression
10.6.4 Modern Institutions
10.7 Summary
Suggested Readings
10.1 INTRODUCTION
It is good to swim in the waters of tradition, but to sink in them is suicide
- M. K. Gandhi, 28 June, 1925 (Collected Works, vol. 27, p.308)
Gandhi is a well-known critic of modern western civilisation. He saw modern colonialism
as an outgrowth of this modern civilisation. Through his writings, he examines the
‘civilisation’ out of which modernity has emerged. The western modernity mostly identified
with ‘bodily welfare as the object of life and the resource of entire civilisation are put in
the service of the good of ‘bodily happiness’. Its pillars are insatiable possessiveness,
machinery, mechanisation of every aspect of human life, rejection of virtue of religion, and
coercive power. Gandhi’s criticism of modern western civilisation is equally critical about
the science and technology, colonialism, capitalism, consumerism and market. The
propaganda of western mode of civilisation is carried with the power, dominance and
colonialism and market. Gandhi stands against it from the moral worthiness of human
beings.
At the same time, Gandhi is critical about Indian civilisation of contemporary times for
adopting modern western civilisation and its deviation from the glorious ancient Indian
civilisation. In this he is critical about Indian religious tradition on certain aspects. He
considers that a once creative and vibrant civilisation had become degenerated, diseased
and feeble, and fallen prey to foreign invasions of which British was the latest. Gandhi
reflected deeply on the nature and causes of its degeneration and concluded that, unless
radically revitalised and reconstituted on the foundation of a new yugadharma, it was
doomed. Gandhi’s project of regeneration of Indian civilisation brought him into conflict
with the Hindu tradition. Gandhi is critical of Hindu tradition on the issues pertaining to
women, untouchability, peasants, and poverty. Gandhi has creatively used the resources of
the Hindu tradition and also wielded a unique moral and political authority. Gandhi equates
religion with spirituality, spirituality with morality and defined morality in terms of self-
purification and social service.
Aims and Objectives
 The idea of civilisation
 The ideas of tradition and reform and the role of social reformers
 The critical understanding of Indian civilisation with reference to its practices
10.2 THE IDEA OF CIVILISATION

As Mathew Arnold (1879) said, Civilisation is the humanisation of man in society. The
term denotes a ‘developed or advanced state of human society’. Raymond Williams
(1973) in his ‘Key words’ traces the association of civilisation with ‘the general spirit of
enlightenment, with its emphasis on secular and progressive human self-development’, as
well as its ‘associated sense of modernity’. According to the liberal thinker J. S. Mill,
civilisation stands for a ‘whole modern social process’, including an increase in knowledge
and physical comfort, the decline of superstition, the rise of forward moving nations, the
growth of freedom, and also ‘loss of independence, the creation of artificial wants,
monotony, narrow mechanical understanding, inequality and hopeless poverty.’ In the
discourse of anthropology, the concept is associated with evolutionary distinctions contrasting
civilisation with savagery and barbarism. Civilisation has an explicit influence in world-
making in the period when Europeans established world hegemony. European project
justified as a project of civilisation. European powers claimed civilisation as the reason for
their far-flung conquests. Non-European elite made civilisation their own, reshaping the
concept to forge anti-colonial and nationalist struggles. As written in the earlier Unit, the
defenders of modern civilisation include some brilliant and even some very good men,
who are not likely to write against it but support it.
The modern conception of life is based on the principle of scientific rationality by keeping
away from the religious world view. The 17th century conceptions of natural sciences and
fundamental philosophy are, through practice, associated with Newtonian physics, Descartes
philosophy and Hobbesian liberalism. By 18th century modern view of knowing and
knowledge helped to define what came to be known as enlightenment. Scientific reasoning
and scientific knowledge would increasingly displace religious thinking and spiritual
knowledge. Modernity as defined by 17th and 18th century lineage is epitomised by the
view that scientific thinking yields objective knowledge and universal truth. Gandhi is
critical of the trajectory of modern western civilisation, which often cuts off from the
religious tradition. Gandhi considers the western civilisation which is predominantly based
on technology, as the disease of civilisation. According to him, it was the very speed and
power of Western society that was at the root of its problem and these were all a sign
of its moral decay. The supporters of the west believed in illusion built on confusing
power with civilisation and biology with culture. For Gandhi, ‘the distinguishing characteristic
of modern civilisation is an indefinite multiplicity of wants’; where as ancient civilisations
Critical Understanding of Indian Civilisation 119
were marked by an ‘imperative restriction upon, and a strict regulating of these wants’
(Young India, 2 June 1927). Gandhi solemnly states, “If India copies England, it is my
firm conviction that she will be ruined”. Yet Gandhi does not damn England entirely
for her faulty government; it is modern civilisation that is to blame. “Civilisation is not
the infinite multiplication of human wants but their deliberate limitation to essentials
that can be equitably shared by”. Gandhi critically evaluates the idea of civilisation and
rejects this kind of western notion of civilisation. He argued that any civilisation has to be
flourished on the cultural life of its people. Gandhi’s civilisation is based on its moral
worthiness rather than material progress, and practical possibility of moral swaraj. Gandhi
argues for the moral possibility of Swaraj while addressing the British colonialism, violence
and modernisation. He projects the view point that “The tendency of the Indian civilisation
is to elevate the moral being that of western civilisation is to propagate immorality”
(Gandhi, 1908). Gandhi popularised the possibility of another civilisation-a non-Western,
non-technological civilisation.
Gandhi’s ideas on civilisation have to be understood in the context of the struggle for
‘Swaraj’ of India against the colonial western empire. For him, swaraj means individual
discipline, restraint from passion and indulgence and, acceptance of responsibility. He
considers modern Western civilisation as corrupt and weak that lacks morality; bodily
welfare is the object of British civilisation, where as Indian life is spiritual. England should
not be a model or source of inspiration to follow by the rest but be replaced by the pride
of tradition and spirit. At the same time, Gandhi is critical about the oppressive tradition,
social practices and religious dogmas. He argued for the reformation of tradition and
called for universal and humanistic religion.
10.3 THE RENAISSANCE AND INDIAN INTELLECTUALS

Modern way of life claims superiority over the ancient ways. It is believed that all the
material progress is possible only through modernity. It considers that the ancient thought
of India spiritually consisted in a destruction of desires, in the final realisation of a painless
self, of a pure consciousness for which all worldly prosperity has to be sacrificed. The
dominant thought of west discourages these as silly fancies and propagates the scientific
progress for the material good of the humanity.
In the early decades, the British contended that India was a great civilisation that had
fallen on bad times because of their despotic form of government, which denied its
subjects basic liberties. Therefore, the British engaged in the mission of civilising the
natives in the line of liberal rationalist views and justified their rule in terms of the
increasingly fashionable concept of civilisation. They believed that India lacks scientific and
rationalistic approach to life and needs civilising in the cultural and social practices.
Colonialism spawned intense rationalism and undermined tradition both as a mode of
discourse and as a form of knowledge. They engaged in the enterprise of initiating their
subjects into new ways of life and thought. The British approached Indians in an
aggressive and confrontational mood with a conviction of superiority of their civilisation.
They were convinced that they have nothing to learn from the natives. Responding to this
context, Indian intellectuals are constantly challenged to show what in their civilisation was
worth preserving.
At this historical juncture, the age old Indian philosophical traditions and the values
associated with civilisation are revisited in modern times by various scholars in the
backdrop of Western colonialism. The response may be broadly classified into three
categories- Sanskrit Punditic circle, anglicised circle and western educated Indian liberal
circle. The anglicised people are only nominally connected themselves with traditional
faiths, but the problems of religion and philosophy, which are so much valued by their
ancestors, have ceased to have any charm with them. The scholars in the punditic circle
are carrying on their work in a stereotyped fashion not for the intrinsic interest of
philosophy and religion but merely as a learned occupation or for living. The influence of
western education on some Indian people instilled new ideals of nationalism, politics and
patriotism; new goals and new interests of philosophy, life, social relations, social values
and religious values are now appearing before us which are submerging as it were all the
older, cultural and philosophical tendencies of the country.
The context explains that some of the Indian intellectuals are very strongly intoxicated with
western view of life, whereas others are strongly loyal to traditional faiths. There emerged
the new liberal intellectuals of western educated Indians, those who moved away from
both the positions. They were convinced that we cannot bind our faith to our traditional
past nor can we heartily welcome the western outlook of life. They had started
introspection of their tradition in a changed atmosphere. So it is believed that the bed-
rock of the old Indian culture and civilisation which formed the basis of our philosophy
is past slipping off our feet. Our real chance of life, therefore, is neither to hold fast to
the submerged rock, nor to allow ourselves to be washed away, but to build an edifice
of our own, high and secure enough to withstand the ravages of all inundations. They
proposed the greatness of their spiritual tradition against the modern western view. They
had interpreted spirituality with new meanings rather than carrying with typical traditional
view. For instance, they argue that it would be wrong to restrict the meaning of the word
spiritual merely to a sense of God-intoxication or an ethical or religious inspiration. By
spiritual therefore as determining the meaning of philosophy, it means the entire harmonious
assemblage of the inner life of man, as all that he thinks, feels, values and wishes to
create. They wish to keep away from the decayed and dead tradition and its values of
civilisation. Indeed, these English educated liberal intellectuals played a major role in
shaping the Indian culture, philosophy and history in modern times.
10.4 TRADITION AND REFORM: SOCIAL REFORMERS

Tradition and reform are the essential features of any human society. No society is
immune to change. At the same time every society finds ways of preserving, transmitting
and reforming its own traditions, of retaining its links with the past and getting ready to
respond to the future. Many of the 19th century Hindu leaders are able to successfully
challenge unacceptable social practices. Social reformers like Rajaram Mohan Roy argued
against sati and polytheism, K. C. Sen and Lala Lajpat Rai against child marriage, Ishwar
Chandra Vidya Sagar against kulinism and the ban on widow remarriages and Dayanand
Saraswati against image worship. Most of these are appealed to the scriptures, hospitable
to their cause, invoked universal principles of morality, the need to change in the changed
socio-cultural context, and warning the consequences of social practices that followed.
They invoked glorious past of the nation for a solution of the contemporary problems.
However, traditionalists and reformers have different view point on the Hindu tradition.
The Hindu leaders discussed colonial rule in the wider context of the betterment of their
society and civilisation. The response has been varied. As Bhikhu Parekh suggested, the
response may be broadly classified under the categories of traditionalists, modernists,
critical modernists and critical traditionalists. While the traditionalists viewed nothing wrong
with their cultural past and argued for upholding the tradition, others are disturbed by the
state of their society and keen to find alternatives. Among them the modernists argued that
their salvation lay in radically restructuring it along modern or European lines. The critical
modernists pleaded for a creative synthesis of the two civilisations. And the critical
traditionalists preferred to mobilise their own indigenous resources, borrowing from Europe
whatever was likely to supplement and enrich them. Both traditionalists and modernists are
targeted for constant criticism. The critical modernists like Rammohan Roy, K.C.Sen and
Gokhale are popular among this section. They agreed with modernists that India needed
to modernise itself, but insisted that despite all its limitations, the central principles of
Indian civilisation were sound and worth preserving. Though they never specified these
principles, they had in mind such things as the spiritual view of the universe and the
doctrine of the unity of man and of life, the emphasis on duties rather than rights, on
altruism rather than self-interest, on society rather than the state, on the atmic rather than
atomic view of man and on self- sacrifice rather than self-indulgence; the centrality of the
family, the regulation of artha and kama by dharma. They pointed out that the Europeans
had made a mistake of indiscriminately modernising themselves and rejecting their Greco-
roman and especially Christian heritage. As a result their civilisation lacked moral and
religious depth and a sense of meaning and purpose. For India, it had an opportunity to
combine the old with the new, to integrate spirituality with modernity, and to undertake
a unique civilisational experiment capable of becoming a source of universal inspiration.
Unlike the traditionalists who were content to live by the values of their allegedly superior
civilisation and had no interest in turning India into a spiritual laboratory of the world, and
unlike the modernists who were content to adopt the superior European civilisation, the
critical modernists aspired to synthesise the two and become world teachers. Rajaram
Mohan Roy’s Brahmsamaj was intended to be a synthesis of the doctrines of the
European enlightenment with the philosophic views of Upanishads, for K.C. Sen for
reconciliation of ancient faith and modern science and asceticism and civilisation. Gokhale
pleaded for a harmonious blend of the European spirit of science and the Hindu science
of the spirit. These Hindu leaders had an imagination of the Indian civilisation, that was
to provide the foundation upon which was to be constructed the structure of eastern ideas
and institutions. Western natural sciences were to be combined or integrated with the
Hindu metaphysics, the western state with Hindu society, liberal-democratic ideas with
Hindu political philosophy, large-scale industrialisation with Hindu cultural values and
western moral values with the Hindu theory of purusharthas.
The traditionalists, the modernists and the critical modernists were convinced that civilisations
could be compared and assessed on the basis of some universal criteria. The critical
traditionalists including Bankimchandra, Vivekananda, B.C. Pal and Aurobindo rejected
this assumption. For them, civilisation was an organic whole and could not be judged in
terms of criteria derived from outside it. All such criteria were themselves ultimately
derived from another civilisation and thus lacked universality. Further, values and institutions
were an integral part of the way of life of a specific community. The critical modernist
aimed at preserving what was valuable in Indian civilisation; the critical traditionalists were
content to eliminate the evil.
10.5 GANDHI’S REFORMIST PROGRAMME

Gandhi’s reformist programme is more comprehensive and radical than that of his
predecessors. He argued for the moral regeneration of Hindu society based on new
system of ethics, and yugadharma. He defined Hindu tradition in his own way, by
borrowing moral insights from other religious traditions such as Buddhism, Jainism,
Judaism, Islam and Christianity. He was also influenced by the writers such as Tolstoy,
Ruskin and Thoreau. Gandhi’s philosophy both continued and broke with the tradition of
discourse developed by his predecessors. Unlike them, Gandhi’s explanation and critique
of colonial rule was essentially cultural. Gandhi insisted that the colonial encounter was not
between Indian and European but ancient and modern civilisations. Like his predecessors,
Gandhi considered Indian civilisation as spiritual and the European as materialist, but
defined the terms differently. Though Gandhi’s critique of modern materialist civilisation
was similar to that of his predecessors, it did contain novel elements. It had a strong
moralistic content. For Gandhi, Indian civilisation was essentially plural and non-dogmatic.
From the very beginning it had realised that the ultimate reality was infinite and
inexhaustible and that different individuals grasped different aspects of it. None was wholly
wrong and none wholly right. Indian civilisation was not only plural but pluralist, that is,
committed to plurality as a desirable value, not just a collection of different ethnic,
religious and cultural groups but a unity-in-diversity. In this sense, his conception of
Hinduism is more inclusive than sectarian.
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 carried all over the
world by the commercial class. 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 was intact, its integrity and survival was guaranteed. 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 a dialogue with them. For Gandhi, every tradition is a
resource, a source of valuable insights into human condition, and part of a common
human heritage. Gandhi considers that tradition has a source of values and provides moral
insights for humanity, rather than blindly negating the tradition. In that sense tradition is the
valid source of knowledge since it survives the test of collective social experience. He
argues that every tradition contained an internal principle of self-criticism in the form of
its constitutive values. He believes that India had a tradition of negotiating through
dialogue. Further he believed that dialogue between different traditions is both possible
and necessary. This may facilitate for the progress of mankind and it should be open
minded rather than imposing one over other. In this sense he opposed the values of the
western imposition on non-European traditions. As an Indian, he was proud of being an
inheritor of rich diverse religious and cultural traditions.
Gandhi made an attempt to reform Hindu tradition based on his conception of yugadharma.
He has concern for reinterpretation of central principles of Hinduism in the light of the
needs of the modern age. He challenges the orthodox Hindu conception of tradition and
sought to replace it with an alternative view of his own. As Bhikhu Parekh explains,
though Gandhi valued tradition, he was not a traditionalist. He reduced tradition to a
resource, located its essence in its general moral values which commanded respect but left
room for critical evaluation, and gave every individual the freedom to draw upon the
insights of other traditions. Similarly, though he stressed the role of reason, he was not
a rationalist. He respected ‘cultivated reason’, one ‘ripened’ by a deep acquaintance with
wisdom embodied in tradition, especially, but not exclusively, one’s own. And though an
individual remained free to revise traditional values, he was to do so only after making
a ‘respectful’ study of them and giving them the benefit of doubt (p.23). Gandhi saw no
hostility or contrast between reason and tradition. Reason was not a transcendental or
natural faculty, but a socially acquired capacity presupposing and constantly shaped and
nurtured by tradition. Tradition was not a mechanical accumulation of precedents but a
product of countless conscious and semi-conscious experiments by rational men over

several generations. The reformer’s task was to elucidate the historical rationale of
unacceptable practices and to expose their irrationality. He required both sympathetic
understanding and critical spirit, both patience and indignation. This was how Gandhi went
about reforming the Hindu ways of thought and life.
Gandhi engages in a creative dialogue with tradition. He tries to find out truth in tradition
and emphasises it. He attached new meanings to traditional symbols. He believes that
religion and scriptures need to be understood in the light of conscience and morality.
Wherever scriptures contradict conscience, religion demands that conscience should be
followed. Gandhi’s critical dialogue with Hindu tradition and his struggle to reform Hindu
tradition occurred within the colonial context. Gandhi tries to uphold the authority of
Hindu tradition and protect it from the distortions of colonial rule. At the same time, he
was much aware of the uncritical and mindless traditionalism of the orthodox, both unwise
and impractical. Gandhi reconstructed the tradition in a creative mode to suit his context.
10.6 CRITICAL UNDERSTANDING OF INDIAN

CIVILISATION
Gandhi was proud of the great Indian civilisation but was also critical of some of its
dogmatic and inhuman practices in modern times. He questioned the immoral practices
tagged with the name of religion and tradition and relentlessly fought against such
practices. He points out the moral decay of Indian civilisation in contemporary times. He
argues that the British have conquered India not because of their strength, or superiority
but due to the moral failure of Indians. The modern civilisation of the British is responsible
for the sustenance of the British rule. The Indians simply carried with this without any
introspection. Gandhi argues that modern civilisation made man a prisoner of his craving
for luxury and self-indulgence, release the forces of unbridled competition, and thereby
bringing upon society the evils of poverty, disease, war and suffering. The modern
civilisation looks at human-being as mere consumers and opens up to the industrial
production and it becomes a source of inequality, oppression and violence. The idea of
civilisation is central to his philosophy and political struggles. On one hand, Gandhi finds
the problems with the very ideal of modern western civilisation and the Indian engagements
with it, and on the other he is critical of the Indians for deviating from the very moral
foundations of their age old civilisation. As a result one may find novel and pragmatic
interpretation of the Indian civilisation as propounded by Gandhi.
10.6.1 Religion
Gandhi’s idea of civilisation is spiritual and religious. He comments the modern western
civilisation as irreligion. In materialistic society, regardless of its religious or humanistic
professions, the entire system becomes corrupt. He aimed at spiritualising the political life
and political institutions. He insisted that politics cannot be isolated from the deepest things
of life. Gandhi was concerned more about religious values than religious beliefs. He
believes that religious dogmas are hurdles for religious experience. For him, religion does
not mean sectarianism. Sectarian religion is purely personal matter and has no place in
politics. Gandhi argues against the compartmentalisation of human life that had been
brought about in the name of segregation of politics from religion. Religion means a belief
in the ordered moral government of the universe.
Religion is central to Gandhi’s thought. He regarded politics as applied religion. His ideas
on religion are complex and varied from time to time. He derives all his moral resource
from Hinduism. His idea of Hinduism is different from the traditionalist view and is tolerant
of other faiths and assimilates the differences into its fold.
‘It (Hinduism) was the most tolerant of all religions. Its freedom from dogma gave
the votary the largest scope for self-expression. Not being an exclusive religion it
enabled the followers not merely to respect all the other religions, but admire and
assimilate whatever may be good in the other faiths. Non-violence (ahimsa) is
common to all religions, but it has found highest expression and application in
Hinduism. Hinduism believes in the oneness not only of merely all human life but
in the oneness of all other lives’ (Young India, October 21, 1927).
He was proud of Hinduism but it did not prevent him from rejecting and criticising several
institutions, ideas and beliefs which Hindus ordinarily regard as part of their religion. His
Hinduism is not the one conventionally practiced. He attacks what he considers to be
defective like the practice of untouchability. He views contemporary Hinduism as departing
from its core principles. ‘Gandhi’s attitude was liberal and radical rather than conservative
towards religious as well as political social and political institutions. He therefore invoked
religion against all authority and not in support of church or state. He combined an
absolutist sense of sanctity toward religious values with flexible and critical attitude toward
religious institutions, and he was wholly critical toward existing social ideals, though less
toward traditional social institutions’ (Iyer, p.44).
He condemns some of the texts of scriptures because they are contrary to universal truths
and morals or are in conflict with reason, such as child marriages sanctioned in the smritis.
He insists that the defective additions must be rejected as interpolations. On his account,
‘the texts of a tradition must be elastic and open to new readings today, just as they have
in the past.’ The interpretation of accepted texts has undergone evaluation and is capable
of indefinite evolution.
Gandhi condemns the discords that take place in the name of religion, for instance,
Hindus against Muslims. This kind of cruelty, he considers as irreligious. They are not part
of religion, although they have been practised in its name. However, Gandhi argues that
these hardships are far more bearable than those of civilisation. Gandhi writes, ‘when its
full effect is realized, we will see that religious superstition is harmless compared to
that of modern civilisation. I am not pleading for a continuance of religious
superstition. We will certainly fight them tooth and nail, but we can never do so by
disregarding religion. We can only do by appreciating and conserving later’ (Gandhi,
Hind Swaraj, p.43).
The higher religion was universal, and transcended particular religions. ‘Religion does not
mean sectarianism. It means belief in ordered moral government of the universe’. This
religion transcends Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, etc. Such universal religion was in
harmony with his ideas of truth and non-violence. Gandhi’s religion was simply an ethical
framework for the conduct of daily life. As a religious man, he aimed at perfection or
self-realisation.
10.6.2 Untouchability
“Untouchability is not only not a part and parcel of Hinduism, but a plague, which is the
burden of every Hindu to combat.” (Gandhi, From Yervada Mandir, 1935, p.47). The
issue of the caste system is central to Indian society and even a threat to the very idea
of civilisation. The practice of untouchability is very much embedded in the Hindu social
structure and, has existed for several centuries. There are many interpretations of the caste
system, both from its supporters and its opponents. Since the caste system connected to
the Hinduism, there are various attempts to reform Hinduism. The practice of untouchability
is an important issue for both social reform and nationalist movements. Gandhi not only
brought this issue to the larger public but also fought against this inhuman practice in his
own style. He dared to fight against the orthodox Hindus and tried to convince them as
an internal critic. The sanatanists argued that untouchability was enjoined by the scriptures.
In response to this, Gandhi demanded for evidence. He insisted that a religious text was
not a theoretical treatise composed by a philosopher or a pundit given to weighing every
word, but the work of a spiritual explorer containing insights too deep and complex to
be adequately expressed in a discursive language. Gandhi believes that religious texts
propounded eternally valid and, values and principles and were intended to guide all men
everywhere. Religious text is both transcended and were conditioned by time. ‘Untouchability
as it is practiced today in Hinduism in my opinion, is a sin against God and man and is,
therefore like a poison slowly eating into the very vitals of Hinduism. There are
innumerable castes in India. They are social institutions and at one time they served a very
useful purpose, as perhaps, they are even doing now to a certain extent…there is nothing
sinful about them. They retard the material progress of those who are labouring under
them. They are no bar to the spiritual progress. The difference, therefore, between caste
system and untouchability is not one of degree, but of kind’ (Gandhi, Harijan, vol.1,
1933, p.2)
Gandhi argued that caste has nothing to do with Hindu religion. He focused on the
practice of untouchability rather than caste system. He reduced the problem of untouchability
to a matter of self-purification. He even supported varnashramadharma by providing
new interpretation. For him, it is the guna that matters than one’s caste/varna. Sudra
becomes a Brahmin based on guna or his/her worthiness. In varna system, people are
unequal only on functional terms. Gandhi thought that in principle, Sudras and Brahmins
are of equal status. The critics argue that caste practices are sanctioned by the shastras.
In response to this, he said, ‘nothing in the shastras which is manifestly contrary to
universal truths and morals can stand.’ For him, True principles of religion or morality
are universal and unchanging. ‘Caste has nothing to do with religion. It is a custom
whose origin I do not know and do not need to know for the satisfaction of my spiritual
hunger. But I do know that it is harmful both to spiritual and national growth.’ Further
he argues that, ‘The true dharma is unchanging, while tradition may change with time. If
we were to follow some of the tenets of manusmriti, there would be moral anarchy. We
have quietly discarded them altogether.’ For Gandhi the problem of untouchability was the
problem of the self, the collective Hindu self. He saw the movement to eradicate
untouchability as a sacred ritual of self-purification. ‘The movement for the removal of
untouchability is one of self-purification’ (Harijan, 15 April, 1933).
For Gandhi, Swaraj is unattainable without the removal of the sins of untouchability as it
is without Hindu-Muslim unity. Gandhi claimed that the heart of the caste Hindu could be
changed by applying moral pressures within the framework of the Hindu tradition. As
Bhikhu Parekh rightly pointed out, ‘Untouchability was both moral and political problem.
Gandhi’s campaign was conducted only at the moral and religious level. He concentrated
on caste Hindus rather than on untouchables, appealed to their feelings of shame and guilt,
and succeeded in achieving his initial objections of discrediting untouchability and raising
the level of Hindu and, to a limited extent, Harijan conscience. Since he did not organise
and politicise the untouchables, stress their rights and fight for a radical reconstruction of
the established social and economic order, Gandhi’s campaign was unable to go further.
It gave untouchables dignity but not power; moral and to some extent, social but not
political and economic equality; self respect but not self-confidence to organize and fight
their own battles. It integrated them into the Hindu social order but did little to release
them from the cumulative cycle of deprivation’.
10.6.3 Women’s Oppression
Women are often victims of religious tradition. It is argued that the practices of patriarchy
are internalised in the tradition. No civilised society sanctifies the oppression of women.
The issue of women’s oppression is central to the agenda of social reformers and the
leaders of later struggles. Against the age old tradition, Gandhi brought a large number of
women into the forefront of nationalistic struggle and provided courage and source of
inspiration for struggles of women emancipation. Of all the evils for which man has made
himself responsible, writes Gandhi, ‘none is so degrading, so shocking or so brutal as his
abuse of women’. Gandhi’s views on women are different from the earlier reformers. By
commenting on child marriage, widow remarriage, dowry, sati, he exposes and challenges
the Hindu orthodoxy while simultaneously reformulating and, thus, emphasising marriage as
the only regulator of man-woman relationship in the society. He considers these acts as
against swaraj. Gandhi links up the question of oppression to social and national health.
In Gandhi’s view the glaring abuse of Indian womanhood was the custom of childhood
marriages. He saw evil as intimately related to that of child widowhood. It is irreligion,
not religion. Gandhi saw education as an essential means for enabling women to uphold
their natural rights. Gandhi realised that the identification of manliness with violence was
likely to lead humanity to destruction. Men needed to emulate women’s quiet strength and
their resistance of injustice without resorting to violence. For Gandhi, the women who
have the strength, courage, patience and a capacity for suffering can become a symbol
of non-violence and peace. Women should be self-reliant. Gandhi often invoked the
traditional symbols to mark the strength of women. If women were to get justice,
scriptures needed to be revised and all religious texts biased against the rights and dignity
of women should be expurgated. For this Indian women had to produce from amongst
themselves new Sitas, Draupadis and Damyantis ‘pure, firm and self-controlled’. Their
words will have the same authority as the shastras, and command the same respect as
those of their prototype yore. Gandhi argues for the personal dignity and autonomy for
women in family and society. Rules of social conduct had to be framed by mutual
cooperation and consultation, and not forcibly imposed on women from outside.
10.6.4 Modern Institutions

Gandhi was not only critical towards traditional institutions and social practices, but also
critical of the modern institutions and its professional practices. For instance, railways,
lawyers and doctors have impoverished the country. Gandhi could foresee the effects of
these modern institutions and explained it in his Hind Swaraj. He finds the grip of
modern western civilisation through the institutions of railways, legal system and hospitals.
Gandhi explains that railways are a distributing agency for the evil one. It may be a matter
of debate whether railways spread famines, but it is beyond dispute that they propagate
evil. Railways increased the frequency of famines, because, owing to facility of means of
locomotion, people sell out their grains, and it is sent to the dearest markets. People
become careless, and so the pressure of famine increases. They accentuate the evil nature
of man. Bad men fulfil their evil designs with greater rapidity. The holy places of India
have become unholy.
Gandhi was critical of the legal system which had become the handmaid of colonial rule.
The lawyers tightened the English grip. Gandhi argues thus, ‘do you think that it would
be possible for English to carry on their government without law courts? It is wrong to
consider that courts are established for the benefits of the people. Those who want to
perpetuate their power, do so through the courts. If people were to settle their own
quarrels, a third party would not be able to exercise any authority over them. Without
lawyers, courts could not have been established or conducted, and without the latter the
English could not rule.’
Gandhi considers hospitals as institutions for propagating sin. Men take less care of their
bodies, immorality increases. The moral basis of modern medicine is that it is taking a
purely bodily view of health, ignores need for the health of the soul, which is necessary
for the maintenance of even physical health. Men pretend to be civilised, call religious
prohibitions a superstition and wantonly indulge in what they like. The fact remains that
the doctors induce us to indulge, and the result is that we become deprived of self-
control. In these circumstances, we are unfit to serve the country. To study European
medicine is to deepen our slavery. Gandhi was critical of modern knowledge systems of
the west and its practices and argues for the indigenous knowledge systems and its
practices.
10.7 SUMMARY
Gandhi considers modern civilisation as a greater threat to Indians than colonialism.
Colonialism itself is a product of modern civilisation. Gandhi was critical of modern
civilisation from the religious and ethical point of view as it neither takes note of morality
nor religion. Through his writings, he made an attempt to redefine Hinduism and the
concept of dharma. In the past dharma was tied to a hierarchical system of duties and
obligations and to preservation of status. Gandhi was critical of Indian civilisation for its
deviance from the spirit of age old tradition. His criticism of Indian civilisation on the
issues of women, untouchability, and religious orthodoxy are in tune with the yugadhama.
In Hind Swaraj, he made a conscious attempt to actualise the real potential of Indian
civilisation. He believed that Indian society has not fully actualised its age old civilisation
in practice. Only an innovated Indian civilisation can help India to attain swaraj.

1. Critically analyse the Indian intellectuals’ response to western colonialism.
2. Discuss Gandhi’s critique of Indian civilisation in the back drop of British Colonialism.
3. How did Gandhi redefine Hindu tradition and its dharma?
4. How is the caste system a hindrance to the progress of civilisation?
SUGGESTED READINGS
1. Parel, Anthony J., Gandhi – Hind Swaraj and Other writings, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 2004.
2. Parekh, Bhikhu., Colonialism, Tradition, and Reform- An Analysis of Gandhi’s
Political Discourse, Sage, New Delhi, 1989.
3. Rudolph, Lloyd I., Post Modern Gandhi in Lloyd I. Rudolph and Susanne Hoeber
Rudolph., Post Modern Gandhi and Other Essays, Oxford University Press, New
Delhi, 2006, pp.1-59
4. Iyer, Raghavan N., ‘The Indictment of Modern Civilisation’, The Moral and Political
Writings of Mahatma Gandhi, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2000
5. Raghuramaraju, A., (ed.). Debating Gandhi –A Reader, Oxford University Press,
New Delhi, 2006 (Articles by Madhu Kishwar, Sujata Patel, D.R.Nagaraj and
Partha Chatterjee).
UNIT 11 TOWARDS A NEW CIVILISATION
Structure
11.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
11.2 Basic Foundations of New Civilisation
11.3 Overcoming Tradition-Modernity Dichotomy
11.4 Universal Religion: Unity in Diversity
11.5 Truth is God
11.5.1 Satya
11.5.2 Ahimsa
11.6 Swaraj
11.7 Sarvodaya
11.8 Contemporary Relevance
11.9 Summary
Suggested Readings
11.1 INTRODUCTION
‘Civilisation is that mode of conduct which points to man the path of duty.
Performance of duty and observance of morality are convertible terms. To observe
morality is to attain mastery over our mind and our passion. So doing, we know
ourselves… The Gujarati equivalent means ‘good conduct’. If this definition be
correct, then India, as so many writers have shown, has nothing to learn from
anybody else, and this is as it should be.’ Gandhi in Hind Swaraj (p.61)
Civilisation, in its broader sense, means culture shared by large part of humanity, across
countries and nations and throughout vast span of time. In fact, it consists in the social
worthiness of man. Gandhi is inspired by the rich cultural diversity of India and convinced
that Indian culture represents the ideal or true civilisation, for it rests on the firm
foundation of eternal values of life. Against the technological and materialistic oriented
modern western civilisation, Gandhi brings man into the core of the process of civilisation,
and in so doing he also reflects on the whole gamut of circumstances and situations that
concerns man. He views man as integral entity in whom all dimensions of human
existence-economic, moral and spiritual-blend inseparably. Human advancement is possible
only when man stands well-integrated into the very fabric of the world. Gandhi’s concept
of true civilisation is a value concept to be realised universally. Gandhi’s idea of civilisation
is typically indigenous and provides new meaning to it. It is based on religion, and is
universal, tolerant, humanistic and inclusive. The religion he proposes is laid down on the
foundation of morality. This morality is very much internalised in the principles of truth,
non-violence and human dignity. His idea of civilisation is a realisation of one’s self and
freedom. It is the regulation of mind over body. It is spiritualistic rather than materialistic.
It has many implications in the contemporary times.
Generally in western philosophy, modernity is based on the cognitive idea of truth as the
foundation of a scientific world view. Thus truth is a cognitive and not a moral notion.
With truth as a cognitive being replaced by truth as moral and spiritual, Gandhi has turned
the modern civilisation on its head. Gandhi’s vision of nationhood is one based on
decentralised local control, assimilation and tolerance of cultural differences, and above all,
nonviolence. He sought a political system founded on satya and ahimsa, without
separation of dharmic obligation from political and social organisation. In other words, the
philosophical thought of Gandhi has a connection between truth, swaraj, the moral vision
of the human good, technology and economic development. Gandhi’s concern for modern
civilisation and swaraj expressed itself in his deep interest in the revitalisation of India’s
villages.
Gandhi was in favour of appropriate technology that is well informed by the moral vision
of human good. That vision can be found in dharma, which is rooted in truth itself and
discovered by the natural power of the soul. That truth stipulates that the technology that
is appropriate for India should meet the needs of the masses of India. He believes that
the modern technology does not stipulate this. Historically, it has tended to reward the
skilled and the powerful and to marginalise the poor and weak. He wants to modify this
trend. He wants a technology for India that would improve the material welfare of all, not
just that of the rich and the highly educated, and improve it without undermining the
process of self-rule. He is concerned more about what kind of technology that India
needs rather India needs technology or not.
Aims and Objectives
 Basic foundations of new civilisation
 Gandhi’s philosophy of new civilisation based on the principles of satya and ahimsa
11.2 BASIC FOUNDATIONS OF NEW CIVILISATION

Gandhi views the western civilisation as predominantly materialistic, destructive, and violent
and exploitative. He is critical about the modern western civilisation and the ideologies
born out of this phenomenon. He considers this civilisation as the one that is cut off from
its roots. He adds new dimension to the civilisation by redefining dharma and relocating
it in the Indian context. Gandhi opposes the western notion of rationality and science
which is a product of industrial revolution. He equates this kind of rationality with the
power of western colonialism. Gandhi develops an elaborate refutation of the colonial
‘civilising process.’ He redefines rationality and science from Indian point of view, as a
victim of western imperialism. As Partha Chatterjee argues, Gandhi counteracts the
material/outer domain of western superiority by relocating both national and individual
sovereignty in an inner spiritual domain (Nation and its Fragments). As Raghavan Iyer
rightly observed, Gandhi argues that western civilisation has invented ‘the most terrible
weapons of destruction….the frightful disputes between labour and capital and the wanton
and diabolical cruelty inflicted on innocent dumb, living animals in the name of science’
(Raghavan Iyer, The Moral and Political Thought of Mahatma Gandhi, pp.288-89).
Bhikhu Parekh argues that distinctive human powers such as self-determination, autonomy,
Towards a New Civilisation 131
self-knowledge, self-discipline and social cooperation are requirement for any great
civilisation. According to Gandhi, all these qualities are threatened by the modern
civilisation. The emphasis of the first two is of distinctively modern and Euro-American
and they are weak and vulnerable in last three qualities. In fact these qualities are imbibed
very much in the European tradition beginning with Greek and Christian philosophers. The
modern western society lost its balance and the contemporary culture became unstable
and violence-prone. For Gandhi, Swaraj is the battle cry for civilisational self-sufficiency.
He postulates ahimsa as the high water mark of India’s civilisational superiority.
Gandhi’s civilisation is based on virtues and the dharma. He believes that good society
and good way of living is one that follows ethics of virtues. Gandhi’s ethical programme
replaces the ritualistic, dogmatic and inhuman religion with the traditional virtues of
courage, justice, compassion and love. As Gandhi states; ‘morality means acquisition of
virtues such as fearlessness, truth, chastity, etc. Service is automatically rendered to
the country in this process of cultivating morality.’ Gandhi’s civilisation goes in tune
with dharma. He interprets dharma differently from traditional conceptions of dharma. In
view of Gandhi, dharma has no meaning apart from loksangraha, the welfare of the
whole world. Self-conquest is not just a means to self-realisation as they both must be
valued in terms of their contribution to the common good of humanity. The crucial point
for Gandhi, as for some traditional Indian philosophical schools, was that dharma must not
be taken in a formal sense, as laid down by scripture or by custom, but rather as object
of discovery, the self-chosen means of self-discipline of every human being who wishes
to qualify as moral agent.
According to Gandhi, there are three chief ingredients of true civilisation based on truth
and non-violence. First of these is a quest for truth and non-violent way of living and
thinking. The goal of true civilisation is spiritual longing and moral upliftment of man and
not the satisfaction of or obsession with external riches and fascinations. Secondly true
civilisation is simplicity which naturally follows from the first ingredient and is regarded as
the essence of civilisation. Simple living and high thinking is the real motto of Gandhi’s life.
Simplicity generally means a life based not on luxurious use of things but based on simple
wants. Gandhi believed that the true mark of ideal civilisation is not the multiplication but
the deliberate and voluntary reduction of wants. This alone can enable us to attain real
happiness and contentment. His essential protest was directed, not against industrialism as
such, but against social disruption that may accompany it. The third ingredient of
civilisation is the principle of synthesis which has been one of the chief characteristics of
Indian culture and which Gandhi so well articulates in his idea of cultural rootednesses or
the principle of swadeshi. He is well aware that no civilisation can live and flourish in
exclusion. Gandhi’s principle of synthesis has its own distinctive quality. It is neither
eclectic adaptation nor indiscriminate borrowing or copying of any other culture; it meant
to assimilate and adopt whatever may be good and capable of assimilation by us. This
view is well in accord with the Indian spirit of synthesis, that is, the principle of unity in
diversity. This is prompted by the philosophy of Vedanta.
11.3 OVERCOMING TRADITION-MODERNITY

DICHOTOMY
The modern world is characterised by universalism, rationalism and secularism. Modernity
is opposed to the religious worldview which is traditional. Tradition involves uncritical
acceptance of the past which is in the form of dogmas, beliefs and scriptural authorities.
It is argued that, contrary to tradition, modernity brings change in the attitudes, values and
orientation of thinking and mental makeup of the individual so as to make him/her rational,
secular, liberal, self-conscious and self-confident in a changing world. Reason plays a
predominant role to evaluate beliefs, opinions, dogmas, etc. Modernity assumes that
scientific thinking should have precedence over emotions and non-rational thought. Modernity
also involves changes in the socio-economic and political structures facilitating industrialisation,
urbanisation, and democratisation. From the economic point of view, modernity involves
reorientation of the social structure bringing about material prosperity through increasing
expansion of the productive forces of society and by equitable distribution of wealth. In
short, the modern world view is based on empirical and scientific knowledge, and is
incompatible with tradition on all important aspects of life. It is argued by many that
scientific understanding and domination of nature would secure freedom to man from
scarcity and want. Besides, transformation of the individual and control over nature,
rational forms of social organisation and modes of thought would bring liberation from the
irrationalities of myths, religion, superstition, arbitrary use of power and human frailties. As
a result, the universal, eternal and immutable qualities of humanity will be revealed.
It is argued by some thinkers that there is a dichotomous opposition between tradition
and modernity. Modernity is considered to be the anti-thesis to tradition. But many
scholars, for different reasons, contested the view that there is any dichotomy between
tradition and modernity. Also some nationalist thinkers questioned the dichotomy between
tradition and modernity. They attempted to construct the idea of modernity differently.
They challenged the hitherto dominant perspectives on modernity. Nationalist thinkers
argued that modernity, which is equated with industrialisation, scientific and technological
advancement was limited to western countries. The so-called modernity suited colonial
interests at the expense of the colonised. Keeping this view in mind, the rationale of
modernity, which was put forward by western colonial countries, was questioned.
Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj contested the above view. We can see in the thought of Gandhi
a blend of tradition and modernity. He tried to integrate new patterns of thought and
action on traditional culture. He attempted a merger of three levels of Indian social
system, viz., social stratification, culture and polity into a pattern so that the break down
of Indian tradition could be averted. Gandhi’s critique of western civilisation was critique
of modernity and his central argument is that no enduring alternative can be pursued
unless that alternative negotiated to the skills, capacities and wisdom of people.
For Gandhi, tradition was not a repository inviolable norm but a place of considerable
criticism, change and development. As Thomas Pantham rightly observed, ‘Gandhi’s
project is one of overcoming modernism without regressing to traditionalism. In his
approach, there is a merging of the reconstruction of Indian tradition and
reconstruction of western modernity’. He finds that tradition is sound when it celebrates
the dignity of all persons and provides the moral materials for the good life and the good
community. Gandhi seeks to democratise tradition in the most basic sense.
Gandhi sees western modernity addressing a person’s interests or wealth (artha) and
desires (kama), but ignoring questions about person’s responsibilities in the wider world
(dharma). As rationality is the hallmark of modernity, the increased productivity and
technological innovations are the emblems of modernisation. Gandhi finds that many of the
apparent successes of modernity are not real successes at all because many of their
purported benefits come at terrible costs. As against the greediness of modern material
civilisation, Gandhi posed the Indian, in which the tendency is ‘to elevate the moral being.
If culture is the way people conduct their life activities, then its primary quality is morality.
Instead of the greedy pursuit of material good, which he thought characterized, the
modern civilisation, a civilisation like the quintessential Indian would ‘point out man the
path of duty’, by pursuing us attaining’ mastery over our mind and our passions. So doing
we know ourselves.’ This must be the reason why Gandhi tended to invest so much in
tradition. Tradition, or rather the purified tradition, seems to be, for him, the cure for
modern civilisation.
Science and technology of the west which have shaken the spiritual foundations of human
civilisation are pursuing an amoral goal. Modern has been associated with material
progress and the consequent loss of human values. Gandhi’s critique of modernity is
based on the pursuit of truth and non-violence. A spiritually enlightened human society will
be far more non-violent and wedded to truth than any civilisation. The foundation of this
new society will lie in our total dedication to truth and non-violence.
However, Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj is not a rejection of the liberating elements of modernity:
civil liberties, religious tolerance, equality and poverty alleviation. Rather his efforts could
be interpreted as an attempt to integrate these positive elements with a liberating
reinterpretation of tradition, even as some see him as radical and others as reactionary.
With his critique from within the tradition, Gandhi becomes the great synthesiser of
contraries, if not of contradictions, within and across traditions. In Hind Swaraj, Gandhi
equates modernism with sensual self-gratification and condemns it primarily for this reason.
The modern world view of west not only alienates us from nature, but also alienates our
desires from any moral end. The teleology of the ancients, that which gave their life its
ultimate meaning and purpose, has been eliminated in modernism.
11.4 UNIVERSAL RELIGION: UNITY IN DIVERSITY

Religion is central to Gandhi’s idea of Civilisation. He defines religion in his own way. He
projects the true Indian religion (Hindu religion) as universal in appeal and most tolerant,
value-oriented and non-violent. Gandhi’s interest was to recover the values of a traditional
Hindu civilisation that represented genuine pluralism. Further he believed that all religions
are equal and all are to be tolerated. According to Bhikhu Parekh, Gandhi’s Hinduism
had a secularized content but a spiritual form and was at once both secular and non-
secular (Bhikhu Parekh, 1995, p.109)
Religion, for Gandhi, signifies spiritual commitment which is total but intensely personal,
and which pervades every aspect of life. He had firm belief in the fundamental unity of
life. He rejected any distinction between public and private, between secular and sacred,
and ultimately between politics and religion. The principle of unity in diversity is one of
the key components of his philosophy. He argues for assimilation of all cultures in the
religion. In that sense, his reading of religion is universal in character rather than sectarian.
It opens for a dialogue. As Rudolf observed, Gandhi wanted all cultures to be enriched
by each other without losing their identity. But such cultural assimilation was opposed by
political revivalists and religious nationalists. Yet for Gandhi, open and understanding
dialogue must precede, not follow, a free and adoptive assimilation. Thus, an enriched
diversity would then contribute to a more invigorated pluralism and an enhanced unity.
This was precisely Gandhi’s understanding of Indian culture and civilisation (Rudolf,
Economic and Political Weekly, 1999, p.1500)
Ravinder Kumar identified the potential of creative political community in Gandhi’s thought.
India is marked for its diversity in terms of caste, religion, language and region. Gandhi
managed to derive a romantic political community which embraces many caste groups and
religions into a common shared tradition. The structure of Indian society, as understood
by Gandhi, is characterised by social groups with diverging instead of converging social
loyalties. But it was possible, Gandhi argued, to devise a focus of loyalty that could knit
such social groups into a creative political society. The nationalist movement he launched
against British has operated on this loyalty principle.
11.5 TRUTH IS GOD

Gandhi equates truth with God keeping in view the primacy of truth as an ontological
category. He says that Truth is God, rather than God is Truth. Gandhi’s concepts of satya
and ahimsa are the core values of his social and political philosophy. Indeed, Gandhi’s
idea of new civilisation ultimately stands on these values. He developed his own vision of
radical transformation of existing social order and political system based on these two
principles. As Raghavan Iyer explains , ‘his concept of satya, with ahimsa as the means,
determined his doctrine of satyagraha or active resistance to authority, while the concept
of ahimsa, with satya as the common end, enabled him to formulate his doctrine of
sarvodaya or non-violent socialism.’ Gandhi challenged the conventional notions of
authority, law and obligation by appealing to his conception of dharma and self-suffering.
He believes that satya and ahimsa alone can secure an enduring basis for social
consensus and political loyalty. There is no external authority that can claim a higher status
than satya either in religious or in political arena. There is also no political or social
sanction that can be assigned a legitimacy superior to ahimsa. Gandhi visualised the new
civilisation based on the idea of universal harmony in nature. The new social order could
be provided only by the collective pursuit of truth and the general acceptance of
nonviolence. Gandhi condemned the values and structures of modern civilisation as a
system of untruth and coercion, injustice and mutual exploitation and looks for new
method and legitimising principles. The doctrine of Satyagraha was an attempt to raise
the deliberate suffering of a man of outraged conscience to a moral sanction that compels
respect and secures result. Gandhi equates Truth with God or Self and Self-realisation is
the ultimate goal of human life. In his own words, “To me God is Truth and Love; God
is ethics and morality; God is fearlessness. God is the source of Light and Life and yet
He is above and beyond all these. God is conscience. He is even the atheism of the
atheist. For in His boundless love God permits the atheist to live. He is the searcher of
hearts. He transcends speech and reason. He knows us and our hearts better than we
do ourselves. He does not take us at our word, for He knows that we often do not
mean it, some knowingly and others unknowingly.” The ideas of truth-based religion and
truth-based metaphysics dominate Gandhi’s philosophy. The formulation of Truth as the
God has its own implications. By claiming this, Truth has a spiritual dimension in addition
to the moral dimension. Truth is a metaphysical category as it characterises the fundamental
nature of reality. And, Truth is the Absolute Reality which is the source of all existence.
Further, Gandhi acknowledges that God is all things to all men, which enables him to
support the dvaita and vishishtadvaita positions as well as maintaining his own
preference for advaita. Gandhi envisages the idealist view of human culture and civilisation.
According to this view, universe has not only a casual but also a moral order that life
has a value and meaning.
11.5.1 Satya
Gandhi regards satya as the highest value. It is identical with dharma or the moral law.
According to him, the real test for civilisation is that which stands for truth. His notion
of truth is different from conventional categories of western philosophy. Gandhi’s epistemology

is rooted in ‘truth in action’, a concept that locates truth in the facts and circumstance
of a particular situation. Truth has to be understood in relation to tradition which
determines one’s way of life. As Akeel Bilgrami says, ‘Truth for Gandhi is not a cognitive
notion at all. It is an experiential notion. It is not propositions purporting to describe the
world of which truth is predicated, it is only our own moral experience which is capable
of being true. This was of utmost importance for him. It is what an end underlies his
opposition to the enlightenment, despite the undeniably enlightenment elements in his
thought including his humanism and the concern that our moral judgments be relevant to
all people’ (Akeel Bilgrami, Gandhi, The Philosopher, Economic and Political Weekly,
September 27, 2003, p.4164).
For Gandhi, truth did not lie in history, nor did science have any privileged access to it.
Truth was moral: unified, unchanging, and transcendental. It was not an object of critical
inquiry or philosophical speculation. It could only be found in the experience of one’s own
life, by the unflinching practice of moral living. Gandhi’s concept of truth is to undermine
the external authority and to reaffirm the moral autonomy of the individual. Truth qualifies
to be a moral law as it shows how moral values are possible at all. The presupposition
of truth as the fundamental moral principle makes it into a moral law in the sense that
truth prevails as the principle of good life in the world. Gandhi’s realisation of the truth
is the practice of non-violence brought to a high level of self-consciousness through self-
practice. Truth is the sovereign principle, the ultimate dharma from which springs all
virtues. For Gandhi non-violence is the only means to realise truth; non-violence is the
highest virtue to be observed by man. Gandhi rationally justifies non-violence as a
supreme reality, value or duty.
11.5.2 Ahimsa
Non-violence had always been the founding principle of Gandhian spirituality and bedrock
of his political philosophy. It was through an assimilation of various concepts and
philosophical tenets that Gandhi derived his own understanding of non-violence. Jainism
and Buddhism were the most important influences behind his theory of non-violence.
These religions preached non-violence as the basic principle of existence. Non-violence
is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon
of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man. Non-violence is the greatest force man has
been endowed with and his strongest weapon. Gandhi considers violence is antithetical to
democracy, because social system based on the former cannot provide for or protect the
weak. Ahimsa is a functional good on the way to absolute truth. For Gandhi, ahimsa was
the expression of the deepest love for all humans, including one’s opponents; this non-
violence included not only a lack of physical harm to them, but also a lack of hatred or
ill-will towards them. The first principle of non-violence is the non-compliance with
everything that is humiliating. Belief in non-violence is based on the assumption that human
nature in its essence is one and therefore unfailingly responds to the advances of love.
Mankind has to get out of violence only through non-violence. Hatred can be overcome
by love. Human dignity is best preserved only through love and not by destruction. In
India, ahimsa was essential to Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism in different ways. It was
regarded as equivalent to dharma or moral law. Ahimsa requires deliberate self
suffering, not a deliberate injuring of the supposed wrong doer… In its primitive
form, ahimsa means the largest love, the greatest charity (Raghavan Iyer, The
Essential Writings of Mahatma Gandhi, p.180).
11.6 SWARAJ
Gandhi’s notion of civilisation is very much linked up to his struggle for independence of
India through Satyagraha. Complete independence through truth and non-violence means
the independence of every unit, be it a humblest of the nation, without distinction of race,
colour and creed. This independence is never exclusive. Real swaraj is self-rule or self-
control. Swaraj would harmonise rights and duties, head and heart, individual and
community, faith and reason, economic development and spiritual progress, religious
commitment and religious pluralism, self-realisation and political action. He brings together
philosophical discourse and popular culture in enlightened renewal and social reform.
Gandhi interpreted ‘swaraj’ as self-rule, i.e. also self-control exercised by the individual.
For Gandhi, individual is the focus of the nation and interpreting the nation as essentially
consisting of individuals who feel that they belong to it. Further by emphasising the
spiritual unity of all individuals, Gandhi could presuppose an immanent solidarity which
was much stronger than abstractly conceived national sovereignty. This spiritual unity and
self-control is attained by right action, restraint and discipline. Self-control can be attained
only if there is complete freedom from all passions such as anger, hatred and selfishness
which may arouse violent action that leads the self into bondage.
11.7 SARVODAYA
Sarvodaya stands for human society in which the freedom of each individual is recognised
and man is not treated either as a machine or any assemblage of matter. The Sarvodaya
society is based on pure justice where each man is recognised as equal and where there
is no hierarchy of equals and unequals. Further, Gandhi’s Sarvodaya keeps craft
civilisation alive and works as an ideal of self-sufficiency. Decentralisation is an important
aspect of sarvodaya and paves way for freedom. Gandhi argues for sarva dharma
samabhava, which is inclusive of every religion rather than being sectarian and
fundamentalist.
Sarvodaya implies the welfare of all, not associated with the utilitarian philosophy of
maximum welfare for maximum people. It rejects the utilitarian principle of greatest good
of the greatest possible number. It lays emphasis on sacrifice and social harmony. Gandhi
charges that the west takes too narrow a view of happiness. The price of industrialism
in non-economic terms was too high. He did not regard large-scale enterprise as the
means to India’s economic salvation; when it was needed, he wanted it to be owned or
controlled by the state. He is not against economic progress, machine or market. The
village was to be self-sufficient as regards basic needs. Gandhi’s essential insight was that
the Indian village has power of recuperation; his programme was to help that process and
not to hinder it. Gandhi’s new civilisation is concerned about the ills of industrialisation and
argues in favour of self-sustained village economy.
Gandhi has a utopian idea of nation-state, idealised as Ramarajya. Rama is a hero of the
Hindu mythological scripture Ramayana. Gandhi used symbols of particular Hindu culture
as a strategy to mobilise people by giving altogether a different meaning. His use of
symbols specific to a distinct culture is pragmatic, not essentialist. He uses Rama not as
a king of Ramayana or an incarnation of Vishnu, but the name simply means ‘purity of
conduct’ and the ‘search for truth’. He talked of Ramarajya, where the ‘moral authority’
is the basic foundation of the sovereignty of people. He suggests that the content of the
democratic state is expressed by the term Ramarajya, which he explains as follows:
‘Ramarajya’ is the kingdom of Righteousness. By Ramarajya I do not mean Hindu Raj.

I mean by ‘Ramarajya’ divine raj, the kingdom of God….the ancient ideal of Ramarajya
is undoubtedly one of true democracy.’
11.8 CONTEMPORARY RELEVANCE

Gandhi’s criticism of western mediated modern civilisation has a significant relevance in
contemporary times. He is the source of inspiration for many contemporary struggles all
over the world. He stands as a symbol of non-violent protest against colonialism and
imperialism. He provides alternative model of development through the local self-governance.
Against the liberal theory of possessive and abstract individualism, he argues in favour of
reflexive individualism. His notion of individual is located in the social and cultural context.
The individual has source in religion. For him, religion acts as a moral community. He
developed his theory of politics on moral autonomy of individual rather than abstract
individual. Gandhi was neither an uncritical traditionalist nor a dogmatic opponent of all
aspects of modernity. The way he drew upon tradition in formulating his worldview was
creative and owed much to his exposure to western values and institutions. Gandhi’s
philosophy helps in mediating the liberal and communitarian political theories of the West.
In the era of globalisation, the market economy is commanding nations and establishing
the authority of the developed nations over the world. In this context, Gandhi’s development
philosophy is often recalled by the political and social movements of different parts of the
world. As Ronald J. Terchek interprets, Gandhi warns about the globalisation of the
modernised economy because of its economic effects, accompanied with globalisation of
culture. He continually celebrates the diversity he sees in India and fears that such
globalisation is reducing what is distinctive and fostering what is uniform. Local cultures
are crucial to Gandhi’s project because he sees each providing a concrete, not abstract
sense of identity and meaning apart from productivity and consumption. Gandhi’s philosophy
seems to be an anti-state and anti-market; anti-state because he wants a real transfer of
power from the state which is ‘soulless machinery’ to small local communities, typically
villages having more human face. It is anti-market as it recommends production to be
organised, as far as practicable, with locally available labour and resources for the
satisfaction of local needs. The market-oriented competitive economy is often dominated
by big business that looks for profit and exploits the labour. Gandhi’s model of
decentralisation is more radical as it starts from the roots, the basic units of society where
individuals live face-to-face with one another. Decentralisation of political power is the key
principle. He pleads for humanising the technology for its appropriate use. As Ramachandra
Guha observed, Gandhi’s philosophical critique of modern civilisation has profound
implications for the way we live and relate to environment. Gandhi’s philosophy is a
leading force for the struggles of ecological movements. For the peace movements against
the war and dominance, Gandhi’s philosophy always commands respect all over the
world.
11.9 SUMMARY
Gandhi’s ‘new civilisation’ has evolved from his conception of man, society and the notion
of good. He views man as integral entity in whom all dimensions of human existence-
economic, moral and spiritual-blend inseparably. Gandhi’s notion of good is spiritually
progressive rather than materialistic. His idea of welfare or sarvodaya is a composite of
material, moral and spiritual welfare, not just material welfare. Gandhi foresees the
consequences-social and ecological of industrialisation and urbanisation on which the very

idea of western modernity is based. He offers an alternative model of development.
Gandhi maintained that machines must not be allowed to displace the necessary human
labour. Technology must be appropriate for the local needs and livelihoods of the people.
It must be humanised and contribute to the equitable development and progress of
humanity rather than generating inequalities, dominance, power and violence. Precisely,
Gandhi wants a technology which is labour-intensive in nature for producing necessities of
life. He believes that real progress means moral progress and the progress in economy
and technology must be subservient to moral progress. In conclusion, Gandhi’s concept
of true civilisation is a value concept to be realised universally. As a value, civilisation is
identical with ‘good culture’ based on equality, integrity, synthesis of science and
spirituality and sarvodaya. It is the blossoming of the universal law of love. Gandhi aimed
at a new non-violent global community within the reach of human capacity. Truth and non-
violence are two fundamental key principles in realising his concept of the new civilisation.

1. What are the basic features of Gandhi’s new civilisation?
2. How does Gandhi overcome the dichotomy of tradition and modernity?
3. Critically analyse Gandhi’s formulation of ‘Truth is God’.
SUGGESTED READINGS
1. Chatterjee, Partha., Nation and Its Fragments, New Delhi: Oxford University Press,…..
2. Iyer, Raghavan N., The Moral and Political Thought of Mahatma Gandhi, New
Delhi, Oxford University Press, 2004
3. Iyer, Raghavan (ed.)., The Essential Writings of Mahatma Gandhi , New Delhi,
Oxford University Press,1998
4. Rudolf, C Heredia., ‘Interpreting Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj,’ Economic and Political
Weekly, June 12, 1999, pp.1497- 1502
5. Bilgrami, Akeel., ‘Gandhi, The Philosopher,’ Economic and Political Weekly, September
27,2003, pp.4159-4165.
6. Panham, Thomas., ‘Thinking With Mahatma Gandhi- Beyond Liberal Democracy,’
Political Theory, Vol. 11, No.2, May 1983, pp.165-188
7. Yadav, Dharma Raj., ‘Gandhi’s Ideal of a True Culture and civilisation,’ In Ramjee
Singh (ed.), Gandhi and the Future of Humanity, Varanasi, Gandhian Institute of
Studies, 1997, pp.224 -234.
8. Kumar, Ravinder., Class, Community or Nation, Gandhi’s Quest for a Popular
Consensus in India, Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 3, No. 4, p.376.
9. Raghuramaraju, A., (ed.)., Debating Gandhi-A Reader, New Delhi, Oxford University
Press, 2006
10. Parekh, Bhikhu., ‘Colonialism, Tradition, and Reform- An Analysis of Gandhi’s
Political Discourse,’ New Delhi, Sage, 1989
11. Terchek, Ronald J., ‘Gandhi-Struggling for Autonomy’, New Delhi, Vistaar Publications,
2000
12. Parel, Anthony J., ‘Gandhi-Hind Swaraj and Other writings,’ Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press, 2004
UNIT 12 SARVODAYA
Structure
12.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
12.2 Concept of Sarvodaya
12.3 Sources of the Idea of Sarvodaya
12.4 Basic Components of Gandhian Sarvodaya
12.4.1 Swadeshi
12.4.2 Bread labour/Living wage
12.4.3 Aparigraha/ Non-possession
12.4.4 Trusteeship
12.4.5 Non-exploitation
12.4.6 Samabhava
12.5 Sarvodaya: Politico-Social Framework

12.5.1 Swaraj - Sarvodaya Democracy
12.5.2 Sarvodaya and Ramarajya
12.5.3 Sarvodaya Samaj
12.5.4 Sarvodaya and Communism
12.6 Sarvodaya in Practice

12.6.1 Constructive Programme
12.6.2 Application of Sarvodaya to People-Oriented Economics
12.7 Post-Gandhian Phase

12.7.1 Bhoodan Movement
12.7.2 Sampoorna Kranti
12.8 Environmental Dimension of Sarvodaya

12.9 Sarvodaya as a Realistic Utopian Ideal
12.10 Sarvodaya Network
12.11 Summary
Suggested Readings
12.1 INTRODUCTION
“I will give you a talisman. Whenever you are in doubt, or when the self becomes
too much for you, apply the following test. Recall the face of the poorest and
weakest man whom you may have seen, and ask yourself if the step you contemplate
is going to be of any use to him. Will he gain anything by it? Will it restore him
to a control over his own life and destiny? In other words, will it lead to Swaraj
for the hungry and spiritually starving millions? Then you will find your doubt and
yourself melting away”.
UNIT 12 SARVODAYA
Structure
12.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
12.2 Concept of Sarvodaya
12.3 Sources of the Idea of Sarvodaya
12.4 Basic Components of Gandhian Sarvodaya
12.4.1 Swadeshi
12.4.3 Aparigraha/ Non-possession
12.4.4 Trusteeship
12.4.6 Samabhava
12.5 Sarvodaya: Politico-Social Framework

12.5.1 Swaraj - Sarvodaya Democracy
12.5.3 Sarvodaya Samaj
12.6 Sarvodaya in Practice

12.7 Post-Gandhian Phase

12.7.1 Bhoodan Movement
12.7.2 Sampoorna Kranti
12.8 Environmental Dimension of Sarvodaya

12.9 Sarvodaya as a Realistic Utopian Ideal
12.10 Sarvodaya Network
12.11 Summary
Suggested Readings
12.1 INTRODUCTION
“I will give you a talisman. Whenever you are in doubt, or when the self becomes
too much for you, apply the following test. Recall the face of the poorest and
weakest man whom you may have seen, and ask yourself if the step you contemplate
is going to be of any use to him. Will he gain anything by it? Will it restore him
to a control over his own life and destiny? In other words, will it lead to Swaraj
for the hungry and spiritually starving millions? Then you will find your doubt and
yourself melting away”.
(The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, vol. 89, p. 125)

These words of Mahatma Gandhi depict his outlook towards the plight of the poor and
weaker sections of the society and his philosophy of sarvodaya, aimed at universal
welfare.
The rule of the European colonial masters brought in a totally new phenomenon, as it
witnessed the shifting of the political and economic decision-making power in the hands
of the rulers, thousands of miles far away, resulting in the violations of the political,
economic and socio-cultural rights of the Indians. The Indian society remained divided in
the name of class, caste, creed, sect and the majority suffered silently under the
domination of the native higher castes and elites on the one hand and the alien colonisers
on the other. The caste system had reduced and relegated a majority of the Hindu society
as untouchables, ignorant, hapless and helpless. The lower castes and the womenfolk lived
a life of misery. At the advent of the Europeans, India was in higher status economically
and it remained a manufacturing country, enjoying markets and commercial contacts far
and wide including Africa, South East Asia and Far East and also the European markets.
The British imposed heavy taxes upon the Indian products so that they could not compete
with the British manufactured goods. Not only did the Indian producers lose their home
market but also every sector of production suffered. As Tilak wrote in Kesari on January
28, 1896: “Surely India is treated as a vast pasture reserved solely for the Europeans to
feed upon.” The British reversed the fortunes of India by systematically draining its wealth
to Britain. The Indian agriculture, handicrafts and cottage industries were suppressed and
the farmers were required to grow cash crops like cotton and indigo, which were in
demand for the English industries as raw materials. This has seriously affected the native
food production and resulted in periodical occurrence of famines and food shortages that
ravaged the country during the second half of the 19th century. Nearly 29 million people
died during famines from 1854 to 1901, while bubonic plague took a heavy toll of life
in 1896. The famine in 1899 left people with poverty, starvation, disease and death.
The leaders of the freedom movement had to face the challenges of overcoming massive
poverty and inequality perpetuated by the oppressive colonial politico-economic system
and the reactionary social system simultaneously. The Gandhian answer to this challenge
was Sarvodaya, which aimed at the establishment of an ideal politico-social and economic
structure that would strive to achieve the welfare of all.
Aims and Objectives
After studying the unit, you will be able to understand :
 The philosophy of sarvodaya and its political and socio-economic dimensions.
 Sarvodaya as an attempt to achieve a silent, non-violent revolution
 The Gandhian idea of Sarvodaya and communitarian ownership and welfare.
 The Environmental dimension of Sarvodaya.
12.2 CONCEPT OF SARVODAYA

The ideal and objective of Sarvodaya is implied in the word itself- sarva (all) and udaya
(uplift) - uplift/wellbeing of all- universal welfare. This ideal is to be achieved by unceasing
service to humanity. Sarvodaya as the welfare of all represents the ideal social order
Sarvodaya 141
based on all-embracing love. No individual or group is to be suppressed, exploited and

hounded. All are to be equal members of this social order, all sharing in the produce of
their labour, the strong protecting the weak and functioning as their trustees and
protectors, each promoting the welfare of all, according to their abilities and through all
the means at their disposal. Sarvodaya is the peaceful and non-violent way of achieving
social justice.
Sarvodaya is founded on the assurance of meeting basic essential needs and freedoms,
physical and moral, of the humblest Antyodaya (individual last in the line). It was
pervasive, though often enough implicit, strategy for realising fundamental changes to the
socio-economic and political status. This is a strategy of appealing to a reasonable and
realistic vision of an alternative and humanly superior pattern of life: a pattern in which
sarvodaya (uplift/welfare of all, especially of the poorest) would be the guiding principle.
The word sarvodaya epitomises Gandhi’s whole social philosophy, which is aimed at the
attainment of mental prosperity (Abhyudaya) and spiritual realisation (Nishreyasa).
Sarvodaya, for Gandhi, was an altruistic ethic of self-realisation. Satya (truth) and swaraj
(freedom) as the ultimate aim of one’s self-realisation can only grow in an atmosphere of
ahimsa (non-violence). Such an atmosphere will prevail only in a society where equal
share is given “even unto this last”.
Gandhi felt very strongly that the best foundation on which societies should be built were
the qualities of Truth, Love and Compassion in both our personal and public lives. The
theory of trusteeship, elimination of exploitation in every shape or form; a classless society
which offers no privileges by the birth or wealth or talent; mutual cooperation being the
driving force of motivation and behaviour; and above all, securing the welfare of all
without any distinction of race, religion, sex, political affiliation. These may be said to be
the hallmark of the Sarvodaya society envisioned by the Mahatma.
The most predominant characteristics of the sarvodaya ideal are human values, individual
development that is always consistent with the development of society; promotion of
altruism to the highest degree; integration of the individual with society; lifting the whole
human society to the highest level of existence, where love and fair play will have the
most crucial roles to play.
Sarvodaya, therefore, is inclusive, experimental, holistic, ever-evolving and based on
fundamental Gandhian premises of Truth and Non-violence. It is suffused with the spirit
of optimism, participation and creativity. Under the label of sarvodaya, Gandhi presented
flexible heuristic principles for designing a good place for humans to live: a simpler, more
egalitarian life where the welfare of all would have priority and would be taken care of.
Sarvodaya- the rising of all- welfare of each and every human being implies liberation
from all that make one not fully human. Sarvodaya is both an ideal–vision and a praxis-
action programme for the welfare of all. These two functions of sarvodaya are
complementary – as an ideal it sets sublime goals and inspires people to engage in an
action programme to achieve the goals. Sarvodaya cannot be seen in isolation from other
views of Gandhi; rather its significance becomes all the more clear when it is viewed in
the whole spectrum of Gandhi’s vision, his world-view. Sarvodaya occupies the central
place in Gandhi’s worldview or philosophy of life.
The way of life that Gandhi practised in the ashrams he had founded in South Africa and
later in India was known as ‘Sarvodaya’ - the well being of all. The aim of these
Ashrams was plain living and high thinking, where the well-being of all men could be
secured. Through this ideal, Gandhi envisioned the rise of whole of India, which in turn,
can become a light to the other nations of the world. The Gandhian social ideal
encompassed the dignity of labour, an equitable distribution of wealth, communal self-
sufficiency and individual freedom.
12.3 SOURCES OF THE IDEA OF SARVODAYA

Gandhi coined the term sarvodaya in order to articulate his vision of Indian society and
the way he wanted to transform and totally reconstruct it in accordance with his vision,
imagination and prescription. Gandhi used the word Sarvodaya to describe the principles
that he felt should guide us in our efforts to build ourselves, our families, our communities
and nations. He had arrived at these principles of a Sarvodaya society on the basis of
his studies, his observations and his ‘Experiments with Truth and Nonviolence’.
Sarvodaya was a concrete manifestation of spiritual ideas found in many religious
traditions. It seems that Gandhi borrowed the concept of sarvodaya from a Jain scripture
authored by Acharya Samantabhadra, where the expression sarvodayam is used to mean
the well-being of all. Regarding the conceptualisation of Sarvodaya, Gandhi admits his
indebtedness to certain other sources:
a) Tenets of major religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Islam, and Christianity.
b) Religious and philosophical texts such as Bhagavad Gita and the Gospels.
c) Writings of Tolstoy and Thoreau
d) John Ruskin’s ‘Unto This Last’.
Ruskin’s work impressed and influenced Gandhi in a very big way. As Gandhi construed
it, Ruskin’s outlook on political-economic life extended from three central tenets:
- That the good of the individual is contained in the good of all.
- That a lawyer’s work has the same value as the barber’s in as much as all have the
same right of earning their livelihood from their work.
- That a life of labour, i.e., the life of the tiller of the soil and the handicraftsman is
the life worth living.
Gandhi mentions in his Autobiography: “The first of these I knew. The second, I had
dimly realized. The third had never occurred to me. Unto This Last made it clear as
daylight for me that the second and third were contained in the first. I arose with the
dawn, ready to reduce these principles to practice”.
In 1908, Gandhi rendered a paraphrased translation of Ruskin’s book into Gujarati. He
entitled the book Sarvodaya - “the uplift of all”, “the welfare of all”. Most appropriate
rendering of ‘Unto This Last’ would be antyodaya (uplift of the last and the least) rather
than sarvodaya (uplift of all). However, Gandhi has used sarvodaya, since it implies
antyodaya as well and is more comprehensive. Again, sarvodaya would very much begin
with antyodaya, the lowest of the low and the poorest of the poor. It is rightly averred
that antyodaya is the very soul of sarvodaya since it gives priority of service to the most
deprived in the society.
Sarvodaya 143
The emphasis of Ruskin’s essay, as interpreted by Gandhi, is certainly that the ideal
society is one in which there is concern for the welfare of all: ‘unto this last’, that is the
neediest or the poorest of the poor. Like Ruskin, Gandhi too believed sincerely that the
socio-economic organisation that ensures the well-being of all is the only one worth
striving for. As such, for Gandhi, Ruskin’s Unto This Last was the main source of
inspiration for the formulation of sarvodaya. Ruskin’s book crystallized his amorphous
conceptions of the economic and ethical foundations of sarvodaya social order (K.M.
Prasad, Sarvodaya of Gandhi, New Delhi, Raj Hans Publications, 1971, p. 3).
12.4 BASIC COMPONENTS OF GANDHIAN SARVODAYA

Gandhi formulated his economic ideas and principles in the context of his ideal socio-
economic order: a non-violent, non-exploitative, humanistic and egalitarian society- a
sarvodaya socio-economic order. The basic components of Gandhian sarvodaya include
swadeshi, bread-labour, aparigraha or non-possession, trusteeship, non-exploitation and
samabhava (sense of equality).
12.4.1 Swadeshi
Swadeshi literally means “belonging to one’s own country”. It also means reliance on our
own strength. Swadeshi is that spirit in us which restricts us to the use and service of
our immediate surroundings to the exclusion of the more remote. For Gandhi swadeshi is
not a narrow concept of using indigenous goods and despising foreign materials, but is a
way to display genuine love and devotion for the nation and its culture and is a constant
struggle to promote the economic interests of the fellow countrymen, especially when it
is threatened by alien competition. Swadeshi is the basis of the “moral economics”
advocated by Gandhi for India. The promotion of Ayurveda system and nature cure were
also part of swadeshi, as practised by Gandhi. Swadeshi is intended to bring about a
revolutionary change in the Indian outlook, perception, and socio-economic structure.

Labour denotes both mental and physical labour and Gandhi had no preference for the
former at the cost of the bread labour- the physical labour. He believed that obedience
to law of Bread Labour will bring about a silent revolution in the structure of society. An
individual is entitled only to a ‘living wage’ that is enough for a decent living against the
service that he/she renders to the society and nothing more.
12.4.3 Aparigraha or non-possession
For Gandhi, the doctrine of aparigraha or non-possession means that everyone has to
limit one’s own possession to what is needed by one and spend the rest for the welfare
of others. He considered this as a desirable, nonviolent method of reducing inequality of
income distribution and maldistribution of wealth and in that sense, non-possession in
practice means “possession by all”. Non-possession is another form of non-violence, since
possession involves and leads to violence for the sake of protection and promotion of
one’s own possession.
12.4.4 Trusteeship
Trusteeship is the theory closely linked to the concept of Sarvodaya, with its fundamental
objective to establish non-violent and non-exploitative property relationships. Possession
and private property are sources of violence, and in contradiction with the Divine reality
that all wealth belongs to all people. Gandhi recognised that the concept of ownership
would not wither away easily, nor would the wealthy be easily persuaded to share their
wealth. Therefore a compromise was to encourage the wealthy to hold their wealth in
trust, to use for themselves only what was necessary and to allow the remainder to be
utilised for the benefit of the whole society. The concept of trusteeship is based on the
principle of non-possession of means of production and economic equality. Trusteeship is
its natural corollary and is “sarvodaya extended to the firm”. The concept of trusteeship
is born out of Gandhi’s profound belief in the goodness of human beings. Its appeal was
to the higher/better sense of the landlords and the industrialists. Trusteeship is based on
the noble idea that “what belongs to me is the right to an honourable livelihood, no better
than enjoyed by millions of others. The rest of my wealth belongs to the community and
must be used for the welfare of the community”.
Exploitation lies at the root of all socio-economic problems and as such, the removal of
exploitation is a basic requisite for sarvodaya. There can be no living harmony between
nations, races, communities, classes and castes unless the main cause- exploitation of the
weak by the strong - is removed. Only a non-exploitative society can be ‘sarvodaya’
society.
12.4.6 Samabhava (sense of equality)

In Gandhi’s grand vision of sarvodaya society, socio-economic equality occupies a central
place and it is both “an essential principle and indispensable condition”. He advocated
equality not between the equals, but equality between the prince and peasant, wealthy and
poor, strong and weak, landlord and landless and literate and illiterate. It is not equality
in physical sense, which is unnatural and difficult to achieve, but in a moral sense. For
Gandhi, the equality means providing equal preference and opportunity. When there is
redistribution of land, we shall have full employment and an equitable redistribution of
national dividend and thus we shall attain Arthik Samata (Economic Equality), which in
turn will gradually lead to samabhava.
12.5 SARVODAYA: POLITICO-SOCIAL FRAMEWORK

12.5.1 Swaraj-Sarvodaya Democracy
For Gandhi swaraj means freedom for the meanest of our countrymen. They should be
freed not only from the English colonial yoke but from every other yoke whatsoever. He
opined that mere form of political self-government cannot satisfy the essentially democratic
concept of swaraj. By swaraj he meant the government by the consent of the people and
by the acquisition of the capacity by all to resist authority when it is abused. The swaraj
as envisioned by Gandhi does not recognise race or religious distinctions or to be the
monopoly of the few, but to be for all including “the maimed, the blind, the starving toiling
millions”. Again, for Gandhi, swaraj was quite a comprehensive vision. His goal was to
empower the people- not an abstract concept but the toiling people in the fields and
factories, the suffering humanity, the dumb millions – to secure their political and socio-
economic rights. In that sense, swaraj is sarvodaya democracy –of the masses and for
the masses. Sarvodaya democracy of Gandhi had to be worked out dedicatedly from
bottom up by the people of every village rather than imposed by few people from top
down.
Poorna (complete) swaraj precludes all possibility of the swaraj being more for some one
Sarvodaya 145
than for the other, being partial to some or prejudicial to others. Swaraj is not poorna
until all the ordinary/basic amenities of life are guaranteed to all. On the other hand,
poorna swaraj also meant freedom from political, social and economic bondages/restraints
imposed by the then existing political and economic order.
Gandhi also, like Thoreau, held the view that democracy can be realised only in a
stateless society and that government is best which governs the least. Gandhi preferred
society of “enlightened anarchy” to a coercive state and he was for the evolution of an
ideal non-violent State which will be an ordered anarchy. For him, the ideal democracy
is sarvodaya democracy in which every individual enjoyed control over himself and over
his destiny.

Swaraj is a step to Ramarajya – a reign of righteousness and justice on earth, a true
democracy in which the meanest citizen could be sure of swift justice without an elaborate
(so causing inordinate delay) and costly (so not reachable to all) procedure. A gradual
growth in the understanding of Ramarajya can be observed in Gandhi’s writings. In 1937
he described it as sovereignty of the people based on pure moral authority. In 1946 he
wrote that Ramarajya is independence – political, economic and moral – and by next year
he emphasised: “… there can be no Ramarajya in the present state of iniquitous
inequalities in which a few roll in riches and the masses do not get even enough to eat”.
Ramarajya, for Gandhi, is a dreamland, in which “inequalities based on possession and
non-possession, colour, race or creed or sex vanish. In it, land and state belong to the
people and justice is prompt, perfect and cheap. Such a state must be based on Truth
and Non-violence, and must consist of prosperous, happy and self-contained villages and
village communities.”
Ultimately, the goal of sarvodaya became Ramarajya (Kingdom of God) and this kingdom
was to be attained on earth and had to be created and nurtured with sarvodaya beliefs
and practices. Ramarajya was to be Gandhi’s favourite name for his vision of a new
social order where every individual becomes “a full-blooded, fully-developed member of
society”. In a nutshell, Ramarajya is the ideal polity as envisioned by Gandhi for India and
for the world.
12.5.3 Sarvodaya Samaj (Society)

Gandhi’s Sarvodaya is based on a total - social, economic, political, moral, religious and
spiritual - view of life of human society comprising individual as well as groups, the
culmination of which is a liberated society, a sarvodaya samaj. Since sarvodaya stood for
the welfare of all, commitment to all kinds of sacrifices, including one’s own life, for the
welfare of all others was at the core of sarvodaya. For Gandhi, Sarvodaya represented
an Ideal Social Order, ideal for human social order in which the individual was supreme
but as a unit of the society. Sarvodaya envisages a non-violent, egalitarian, decentralised,
people-oriented, sustainable and a flourishing social order.
Gandhi argued that if the Indian society is reformed, colonial rule would automatically
cease to exist. On one hand, Gandhi tried to resist oppressions of all kinds and from all
sources, both domestic as well as external, and on the other, tried to reconstruct Indian
society on the basis of his vision. For him, the end result would be good and would
happen automatically if correct and effective means were employed as per his vision/plan.
This would be a sure, forward step in human civilisation, what Gandhi called the ‘swaraj’
society, to be attained in the future.

Gandhian philosophy, particularly in the Sarvodaya ideal, does contain many socialist
sentiments. The difference between Communism and Gandhian Sarvodaya is not in the
ends but in the means. Gandhi himself more than once declared that he was a Communist
minus the violence that a Communist is ready for. Again, he claimed that he did not
propagate Samyawad (the theory or ideology of Communism) but Samyadharma (the
practice or duty of equality). Gandhian sarvodaya tried to achieve through non-violent
methods the changes in the social and economic order which the Communists waned to
effect through violence. What Gandhi tried to achieve through transforming human heart,
the Communists attempted to accomplish by rolling their head. Communists generally
believed that the evils of the capitalist system could not be banished by wishing a change
of hearts and minds of the owners of property. On the other hand, Gandhian sarvodaya
believed not in the programme of ‘seizure of land’ but in transformation of relationships
ending in the ‘peaceful transfer of land’.
Sarvodaya stands for non-violent socialism and all members of society are equal – none
low, none high – and all are on the same level. A non-violent society of Gandhi’s vision
is non-exploitative and egalitarian, not only equal in rights and opportunities but also in the
sense that there is no exploiter and exploited. He believed that such a horizontal structure
is a necessary condition for self-realisation in liberating both exploiter and exploited from
the shackles of an exploitative structure.
12.6 SARVODAYA IN PRACTICE

Sarvodaya ideal, based on the swadeshi strategy, is closely linked to the economic
reconstruction strategy aimed at village-oriented, people-oriented economy. Consequently
village regeneration became a major aspect of Gandhi’s vision of India. Gandhi tried to
achieve it though constructive programme targeting every sphere of human activity at the
village setting.

The sarvodaya ideal of Gandhi acquired a coherence of thought and action in 1920, when
he introduced a fourfold constructive programme in his ashram environment. To decentralise
the constructive programme, several ashrams were established in different parts of India
predominantly in rural areas. Gandhi initiated several activities under the umbrella of
constructive programme. From the 1920s, he shifted the emphasis of his work from
Satyagraha (nonviolent resistance) to constructive schemes- an embodiment of sarvodaya
- for the welfare of all. The Constructive Programme is “a positive aspect of Satyagraha
in action, and is the concomitant of resistance action”. This programme of sharing
resources, education, rural industry, in particular weaving, and improvement of the position
of the untouchables stems from his philosophy of Sarvodaya.
Initially in 1941, Gandhi listed some fourteen items and later in 1945, he devised eighteen
fold constructive programme and set up a number of organisations to work it out. He
intended to knit together a fellowship of millions and inculcate the pattern of non-violent
conduct into their thought and action through the following steps: communal unity, removal
of untouchability, prohibition of alcohol, promotion of khadi and other rural industries,
village sanitation, nai talim (basic education), adult education, uplift of women, education
in health and hygiene, propagation of rashtra bhasha (national language), swabhasha-
prem (love of one’s language), uplift of labour, uplift of students, service of backward
Sarvodaya 147
tribes, and treatment of lepers. They are merely illustrative, not exhaustive and as such
can be changed according to the varying needs, contexts, traditions and the socio-
economic and political requirements of the people concerned. The constructive programme
of Gandhi was basically “village-oriented” and aimed at village uplift. Gandhi sincerely
believed that if carried out in the right direction and with earnestness, the constructive
programme would result in the ideal sarvodaya samaj, devoid of any discrimination based
on sex, wealth, education and so on. It would provide a common experience and would
result in a democratic common endeavour, thereby bridging the gap between the classes
and the masses.
Gandhi’s economy is village-oriented and his constructive programme is geared towards
village reconstruction and he considered khadi as the lead industry. In khadi Gandhi saw
“the revival of the entire economic, social and cultural life of the villages which constitute
our country”. Through khadi and village industries, Gandhi expected to lay the foundations
of a non-violent economic and social order which would bring peace and happiness to
all, leading to the uplifting of the rural masses. Khadi and village industries are not an end
in itself but a means for the all-round socio-economic development of rural India. Gandhi
intended to link agriculture and industry by making village industries agro-based as an
effective way for meaningful development of agrarian societies. He believed that unless
industries in rural areas are linked with the primary occupation of the vast mass of the
people– agriculture, they would make little impact on the lives of the people.
Gandhi believed that industrialisation has been planned to destroy the villages and village
crafts; instead it should sub-serve the village and their crafts. Gandhian solution to
industrialisation and its evil effects is the reconstruction of rural economy with an emphasis
on the primacy of agriculture and the supplementary and complementary importance of
cottage industries. By the revival and rejuvenation of the village economy, Gandhi wanted
to rejuvenate and restore the simplicity of village life and to establish decentralised, self-
sufficient, self-reliant and autonomous communities. He advocated “production by the
masses” instead of “mass production”. Such Gandhian alternative may be qualified as
“appropriate technology”, “intermediate technology” or “holistic technology”, which could
be adopted by the village homes. Gandhi advocated “the technology of production by the
masses”, which was named by Schumacher as “intermediate technology”, which make use
of the best of modern knowledge and experience, is conducive to decentralisation,
compatible with the laws of ecology, calculative in its use of scarce resources, and
designed to serve the people instead of making them the servants of machines.
The basis of village sarvodaya is the principle of sharing of the natural resources and
means of production among all the members of the community towards the welfare of all.
Gandhi worked towards the resuscitation of the village through the revival of its
handicrafts and industries utilising the resources available locally to satisfy the basic needs
of the rural masses.
12.7 POST-GANDHIAN PHASE

From March 11 to 14, 1948, a month and a half after Gandhi’s assassination, his
followers gathered in Sevagram in order to continue his work in the spirit of his
philosophy of Sarvodaya. It was decided to form a rather loosely structured fellowship
of lok sevaks (servants of people) known as the Sarvodaya Samaj (Sarvodaya Society),
that was further strengthened by the founding of the Akhil Bharat Sarva Seva Sangh
(All India Association for the Service of All). In December 1949, two hundred constructive
workers met in Wardha and endorsed the programme which was published on January
30, 1950 as the Sarvodaya Plan. It was a concrete programme of basic social revolution
and the first attempt to picture concretely a new social order.
Considering India’s overwhelming poverty and dire economic conditions, the sarvodaya
leaders too felt strongly about the plight of the landless people exploited by their landlords
and chalked out a plan which would prove mutually beneficial acceptable to the land
owners and beneficial to the landless masses.
Bhoodan Movement
In this context, Vinoba Bhave (1895-1982), a close associate and faithful follower of
Gandhi, organised the Bhoodan movement (“gift of land”). Sarvodaya workers associated
with Vinoba, J. P. Narayan, Dada Dharmadhikari, Dhirendra Mazumdar, Shankarrao Deo
and K. G. Mashruwala who undertook various projects aimed at encouraging popular
activities during the 1950s and 1960s, including Bhoodan and Gramdan movements.
Vinoba traveled 25,000 miles on foot, persuading 700,000 landowners to give up 8
million hectares. Bhoodan movement is a bloodless revolution unprecedented in the annals
of world history, not a mere movement for equitable distribution of land but a further step
towards establishing a sarvodaya society. Gramdan, along the lines of Bhoodan, and more
radical in its tone and tenor, proved harder to promote than Bhoodan. However, by
1964, some 6,807 of India’s 550,000 villages had accepted this concept and by 1971,
more than 168,000 or roughly 30 per cent of the Indian villages had been pledged to
Gramdan. For Vinoba, these epitomised gramswarajya, a new polity, economy and
society, that would bring about a rural communitarian society characterised by harmonious
relations between the individual and the group and participatory democracy.
Sampoorna Kranti
Jayaprakash Narayan (JP) was another notable sarvodaya leader who initiated Total
Revolution. JP maintained on one occasion: “There is hardly any difference between
sarvodaya and Total Revolution. If there is any, then sarvodaya is the goal and Total
Revolution the means. Total Revolution is basic change in all aspects of life. There cannot
be sarvodaya without this.” To be precise, Total Revolution is a further extension of
Gandhi’s thought on socio-economic problems and technique of change in the context of
the modern social reality. Rampant corruption in the Indian polity and economic life
goaded JP to call for a mass movement. He appealed to the youth to revolt against the
existing system and to be the harbingers of change. Inspite of being termed as a failure,
the mass movement he generated brought about a massive positive change in the systemic
structure.
12.8 ENVIRONMENTAL DIMENSION OF SARVODAYA

Sarvodaya implies an all-round material as well as spiritual development of each and
every individual and is concerned with a continued healthy environment to ensure the
holistic development of man. Since the human is organically linked with the whole eco-
system and its healthy functioning, there is a need to extend the concept of Sarvodaya
to the whole of sentient and non-sentient being in the universe. Again, Gandhi’s sarvodaya-
utopian mode of holistic discourse has an innate ecological dimension. Perhaps, for the
present day ecologically-disturbed world, Gandhian Sarvodaya ideal might be the panacea.
Sarvodaya 149
The concepts of environmental conservation, sustainability and survival are inherent in the
Gandhian ideology. His emphasis on small-scale industry, which promotes “production by
the masses in stead of mass production” was in tune with man-nature co-relationship as
it is less energy-intensive and consequently less-polluting. He advocated sustainable
development and appropriate technology to achieve rural development. The simple life
style that Gandhi preached and practised had a great bearing on nature and its
preservation. His insights into eco-spirituality and eco-villages contribute immensely to
living in harmony with nature.
Gandhi preferred people-centred, need-based economy to machine-centred, greed-fulfilling
economy. Gandhi’s sarvodaya vision has deep environmental implications. He reiterated
the eternal bond of mankind co-existing with nature and advocated that people should not
use more than their share of the resources and the consumption should be based on need
satisfaction rather than greed promotion. In a world of vanishing environmental ethics,
there is a strong and urgent need for evolving ‘eco-centric’ ethic and consciousness and
thus, Gandhian ideals may come in handy in this regard. His exemplary way of life in his
ashrams consist of “voluntary simplicity” or “ecological living” that serve as a source of
insight and inspiration.
12.9 SARVODAYA AS A REALISTIC UTOPIAN IDEAL

Gandhian Sarvodaya is not a mechanistic or deterministic manual but an ideal for
humankind, for individual and social relationships and for human-ecological relationships in
varied and changing circumstances. It enunciates principles and sets the direction, approaches
and guidelines. It encourages us to be ever hopeful for building up a better human being,
a better society and a better world. Sarvodaya or universal welfare was the logical
corollary of Gandhi’s fundamental premises about human perfectibility and the mature fruit
of his repeated experiments with political action and social reforms. Gandhian concept of
ahimsa (non-violence), with satya (truth) as the common goal, enabled him to develop the
doctrine of sarvodaya or non-violent socialism.
Thomas Vettickal maintains that Gandhian sarvodaya has the potential to be a utopian
ideal and the factor that makes it a realistic utopia is the presence of provisionality, open-
endedness, untiring hope in the future, and creativity. In Gandhi’s sarvodaya there is
“creative expectation”, a “hope which sets about criticizing and transforming the present
because it opens towards the universal future of the kingdom (of God)”. The Sarvodaya
ideal of Gandhi stems from an undying hope in the better future of India: utopian economy
that is people-oriented and which promotes appropriate technology; social and communal
life that is village-based, theology and spirituality that is indigenous and a sustainable eco-
system that is in harmony with nature. Gandhi initiated a process that can be realized and
is open to immense possibilities (Ibid., p.76).
Sarvodaya society is liberated from both external and internal oppressors and suppressors
in society. Gandhi’s sarvodaya economics is more of an action programme than abstract
theory and principle, aimed at offering an alternative to the existing condition towards
achieving a better future. It is a constant ideal towards which we are directed with the
hope of attaining the cherished goal. Sarvodaya is a significant and revolutionary contribution
of Gandhi and his worthy disciples to contemporary political thought. Sarvodaya ideal
keeps its appeal to many as it can be easily realised and its openness to future
possibilities.
12.10 SARVODAYA NETWORK

During his lifetime, Gandhi never allowed sarvodaya organisations to be formally instituted.
His thinking was that once you served people, as ‘sevaks‘, within the Sarvodaya
philosophy there was no need to institutionalise. But since his demise, Vinoba gave
sarvodaya an organisational structure, divided into national, state and local levels. Many
groups, descended from these networks, continue to function locally in India today. At
present, Sarvodaya organisations have been established (some 40 of them) world-wide
genuinely helping people towards building new societies from the ‘grass-roots’ up. These
are now being connected into a Sarvodaya network with headquarters in Bangalore,
India.
12.11 SUMMARY
Sarvodaya is the application of the principle of nonviolence in the transformation of
societies: from their present forms which are mostly exploitative and disfavour the most
disadvantaged, toward more balanced, inclusive and equalitarian forms in which could be
enshrined the principle of Social Justice for All. Gandhi’s vision embraced a holistic
approach to life. Gandhian Sarvodaya remains his major and distinctive contribution to
India, a vision that looks forward to the creation of an ideal society, a sarvodaya society
that is nonviolent and peaceful, non-exploitative and equalitarian in nature as well as
structure. Gandhian Sarvodaya vision as well as action has high contemporary relevance.
The neo-liberal market forces in the present day globalised world are exploiting the poor
and marginalised; thousands of farmers committing suicide in different parts of India; and
Special Economic Zones are being created and fertile lands being taken away from the
hands of the poor peasant community and handed over to corporate houses in the name
of industrialisation and economic growth. Depleting natural resources like water, which
remained communitarian so far, are being allowed to be commercialised. The gap between
the rich and poor within the country and rich and poor countries are getting widened day
by day. The ideal of the sarvodaya- non-exploitation and equality – needs to be taken
as a guiding spirit to do away with this disparity, which may eventually lead to crises and
calamity. As such, the sarvodaya ideal is more relevant today than ever before.

1. Describe the concept of ‘sarvodaya’ and bring out its political, socio-economic and
spiritual dimensions.
2. Analyse the contemporary relevance of Sarvodaya. Is it a realistic utopia?
a) Sarvodaya samaj
b) Ruskin’s Unto This Last
c) Ramarajya
d) Ecological dimension of Sarvodaya
Sarvodaya 151
SUGGESTED READINGS
1. Agarwal, S.N., ed. Sarvodaya: Its Principles and Program, Ahmedabad: Navjivan
Publishing House, 1951.
2. Bokare, M.G., Economic Theory of Sarvodaya, Varanasi, Sarva Seva Sangh
Prakashan, 1985.
3. Brown, Judith., Prisoner of Hope, New Haven and London, Yale University Press,
1989
4. Devadoss, T.S., Sarvodaya and the Problem of Political Sovereignty, Madras,
University of Madras, 1974.
5. Doctor, Adi H., Sarvodaya: A Political and Economic Study, Bombay, Asia
Publishing House, 1967
6. Gandhi, M.K., Sarvodaya: Its Principles and Progrmme, Ahmedabad, Navjivan
7. Kantowsky, Detlef, Sarvodaya, the Other Development, New Delhi, Vikas, 1980.
8. Narayan, Jayaprakash, Socialism, Sarvodaya and Democracy, London, Asia
9. Sankara Rao Deo., Sarvodaya Sastra, (in Hindi).
10. Sinha, Archana., The Social and Political Philosophy of Sarvodaya, Patna, Janaki
Prakashan, 1978.
11. Ostergaard, Geoffrey., Nonviolent Revolution in India, New Delhi, Gandhi Peace
Foundation, 1985.
12. Pandey, B.P., Gandhi, Sarvodaya and Organisations, Allahabad, Chugh Publications,
1988.
13. Prasad, K.M., Sarvodaya of Gandhi, New Delhi, Raj Hans Publications, 1971.
14. Narayan, Jayaprakash., “Gandhi, Vinoba and the Bhudan Movement”, Gandhi Marg,
4, 1960, pp. 28-38.
15. Biswas, S.C., (ed.), Gandhi: Theory and Practice, Social Impact and
Contemporary Relevance, Shimla, Indian Institute of Advanced Studies, 1969, p. 4.
16. R.R.Diwakar., “Sarvodaya: A Comprehensive Concept”, Gandhi Marg, 8, June
1986, pp. 173-76.
17. Vettickal, Thomas., Gandhian Sarvodaya – Realizing a Realistic Utopia, New
Delhi, National Gandhi Museum, 2002,
18. Murphy, Stephen., “Brief Outline of Gandhi’s Philosophy”, htttp://www.mkgandhi-
sarvodaya.org/articles/murphy.htm
Websites:
1. http://www.mkgandhi-sarvodaya.org/articles/murphy.htm
2. http://www.markshep.com/nonviolence/GT_Vinoba.html
3. http://www.freeindia.org/biographies/freedomfighters/gandhiji/page11.htm
UNIT 13 DUTIES
Structure
13.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
13.2 Meaning of Duty
13.3 Duty and Social Service
13.4 Duty of Disobedience (Satyagraha)
13.5 Conclusion
13.6 Summary
Suggested Readings
13.1 INTRODUCTION
Gandhi, who was well acquainted with the Western concepts of rights and duties as well
as the Indian texts and other non-European works, evolves a theory of co-relationship of
rights and duties emphasising more on the latter and less on the former. In this context
we should remember that whereas socialism, democracy and duties have roots in antiquity,
individual rights and identity is of recent origin. Gandhi, as a moderniser of tradition and
with his consciousness that he is operating in a society with a history of more than four
thousand years, tried to situate his concepts within this Indian setting.
In the traditional Hindu polity, even the King had to fulfil his duties towards his subjects
in order to command their obedience. Gandhi uses the idiom of duties and its performance
as the basis for securing rights. As a moderniser, he never lost sight of his traditional roots
and that reform of the ancient Indian society would have to use traditional ideas and
established idioms to communicate new ideas and values of individuality, social justice and
equity. At the same time, he also had to confront an imperial power that had for
generations inflicted wounds in self-esteem on his fellow citizens and the need to instil
courage and strength among Indians to acquire a sense of national coherence. An activist
theoretician, described aptly by Bondurant (1967) his framework of enquiry is essentially
non-deterministic in nature1 and at most times, his writings, often the result of thinking
aloud in public were set to solve the immediate problems at hand.
Aims and Objectives
After reading this Unit, you would be able to understand
 Gandhi’s concept of duty
 His interlinking of duty and social service
 The concept of duty of disobedience to attain swaraj.
Duties 153
13.2 MEANING OF DUTY

Gandhi’s distinctiveness lies in his stress on duties as the basis of one’s rights. It is with
the performance of one’s duty that one can enjoy real rights. It is within the framework
of duties that rights can be understood, as rights to be deserved and preserved as rights
are derived from duties which are performed well. Gandhi borrows the concept of duty
from the idea of dispassionate action as advocated by the Bhagavad Gita that enjoins
that an action performed with a degree of detachment would set the individual free from
the anxiety of its future consequences. Non-attachment means to do what one ought to
do without offering inducements or threats or theological sanctions. It does not mean lack
of clarity about the ends one desires to achieve. Gandhi declares ‘if we are sure of the
‘purity’ of the means we employ, we shall be led on by the faith, before which any fear
and trembling melt away’. Reflecting on the Gita, the gospel of action, in 1925, he writes:
The true source of rights is duty. If we all discharge our duties, right will not be far to
seek. If leaving duties unperformed we run after rights, they escape us like a will-o’-wisp.
The more we pursue them, the farther will they fly. The same teaching has been embodied
by Krishna in the immortal words: ‘Action alone is thine- Leave thou the fruit severely
alone’. Action is duty: fruit is the right….No people have risen who thought only of rights.
Only those did so who thought of duties. Out of the performance of duties flow rights,
and those that knew and performed their duties came naturally by the rights. He who
thinks not of the rights gets it, and he who thinks of it loses it. That is the rule of conduct
which I would like to place before you.
Gandhi stresses on the corresponding duty while championing the cause of equal right of
every person to the necessaries of life. Writing in 1931, he remarks:
Every man has an equal right to the necessaries of life even as birds and beasts have.
And since every right carries with it a corresponding duty and the corresponding remedy
for resisting any attack upon it, it is merely a matter of finding out the corresponding
duties and remedies to vindicate the elementary fundamental equality. The corresponding
duty is to labour with my limbs and the corresponding remedy is to non-cooperate with
him who deprive me of the fruit of my labour.
Gandhi’s insistence on duties as a way to realise right forms the core of his political
theory, an argument from which he never deviated. In 1939 he states:
Rights accrue automatically to him who performs his duties. In fact the right to perform
one’s duties is the only right that is worth living and dying for. It covers all legitimate
rights. All the rest is grab under one guise or another and contains in it the seeds of
himsa.
13.3 DUTY AND SOCIAL SERVICE

Gandhi’s theory of rights emphasises on social service rather than the notion of self-
regarding and assertive individual. Rights, for Gandhi, are rights to pursue and realise
values. It is not merely the absence of restraints but the freedom to achieve by
overcoming obstacles and by assuming obligations of cooperative kind. Pursuance of duty
is civilised conduct. He constantly reminds his readers and followers that good conduct
is the meaning of civilisation in Gujarati and therefore, there is an intrinsic link between
civilisation and virtue.
According to Gandhi, rights are not created by the state; the state only recognises rights.
A right is created not by any group but by the individual. Accepting the moral worth of
every person, Gandhi rejects ascribed properties such as gender, class, birth, caste,
education or nationality that can justify unequal treatment and disqualify some as moral
agents. He supports the right of everyone to make the choice as they desire. He is
concerned, according to Terchek, with how people are treated and with individual choices
and capacity to make choices are affected by institutional practices and asymmetrical
distribution of power.
Writing in Young India on 27th December 1930 Gandhi observes, “rights accrue
automatically to him who duly performs his duties” thus underlining the greater importance
and priority of duty over rights and the fact that a citizen is morally obliged to fulfil duties
as a member of a given segment of society. However, he does not rigidly link rights with
rank and order as it is clear from his rejection of the ills of the caste system, namely the
inequities and human indignities. He defends the caste system as a functional division of
labour: the four castes of Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra and their respective
occupations- that of imparting knowledge, defending the defenceless, engaging in trade
and farming and performing service through physical labour as four universal occupations.
However, he rejects the caste system from the standpoint of modern ideal of human
equality and considers equality of status as being crucial for the establishment of a
universal community of free persons.
As a firm believer in the first principles of democratic equality and his idolisation of the
British constitution for providing equality and justice to all, Gandhi could not accept its
serious violations when it involved Indians in South Africa. When he arrived in India he
was struck by the intolerable inequalities within the Indian society. He seeks to undermine
the rigidities that had crept into the caste system through measures like inter dining and
inter (community) marriage. Caste was never the basis of his ashrams. His relentless
campaign against untouchability2 is a testimony to his efforts to reorganise the institutions
of his own society. Recalling his own experiences of the bitter humiliation of discrimination
in South Africa, he forges tools to fight against social injustices. He does not hesitate in
rejecting scriptural sanction of untouchability which he described as a ‘sinful institution’ and
considers the Harijan (untouchable) as capable of exercising responsible functions as the
Brahmin. The revolutionary character of Gandhi’s thought becomes clear when he rejects
birth and ascribed properties as a determining factor and on his insistence that everyone
earn their own bread labour. Accepting human dignity and worth as intrinsic goods, he is
severe in his indictment of practices that are demeaning, humiliating and unequal and thus
accepts the core idea of right based individualism.
13.4 DUTY OF DISOBEDIENCE (SATYAGRAHA)

When Gandhi speaks of the supremacy of the individual he stresses on the fact that the
individual has a soul, unlike the state which is soulless, and is vested with the moral
authority to pursue satya and ahimsa3. Like Kant, he considers the individual alone as
a moral person. The individual has the duty to judge the state and its laws by standards
of dharma (moral law) that encompasses satya and ahimsa, and if need be, to challenge
and even disobey the state, as all states violate satya and ahimsa. The individual citizen
has the responsibility to uphold satya and practise ahimsa which cannot be relinquished
or abdicated.
Duties 155
Gandhi points out that if a state is corrupt and many of its laws are positively inhuman,
if its administrators are capricious and if its government is exploitative, then “every citizen
renders himself responsible for every act of his government. And loyalty to a capricious
and corrupt state is a sin, disloyalty a virtue. Like Thoreau, he does not consider the
government to be important in the day to day activities of the individual, as both believed
that all states, including the democratic ones, are the embodiment of force and physical
strength, concerned with functions related to law and order, and protection of property.
Laws, policies and associations are essentially coercive, stifling and hindering individuality
and spontaneity. Gandhi insists on the need to look at political work within the framework
of social and moral progress, as power resides in the people and not in legislative
assemblies. He dismisses disparagingly power politics, and like Huxley, desires politics that
would enable people to improve their lot. Thoreau tries to assert the continued relevance
of the right of resistance to the citizen’s responsibility in any state. Thoreau insists that
individual has a duty to not lend support to an unjust government, as the individual’s
status as a human being is morally and logically prior to, and always more meaningful
than, his role as a member of society or a citizen of any state. Gandhi differs from
Thoreau and argues more like Green by invoking the idea of sarvodaya as he is
convinced that individual conscience, if genuine, would culminate in conduct that would
arouse and appeal to the conscience of others. His emphasis on ahimsa as a means of
realising satya makes him insist that resistance to injustice, properly conducted could not
lead to general anarchy4.
“Civil disobedience becomes a sacred duty when the state becomes lawless or, which is
the same thing, corrupt, and a citizen who barters with such a state shares its corruption
and lawlessness” (Gandhi, 1951). This duty becomes a prerogative and seen in the
context of his philosophy of conflict “the technique of satyagraha assures the acquisition
of right” (Bondurant 1967, pp.171-2). Gandhi points out that there are no rules that tell
us how, where and who can carry out civil disobedience. Nor are there rules that tell us
which laws foster untruth. Only experience can guide a person and that requires time and
knowledge of facts.
A truly democratic state deserves the loyalty of its citizens. Satyagraha5 is the moral right
of every individual, a “birthright that cannot be surrendered without losing self respect”
(Ibid, 155). It is an inherent right of being human and cannot be extended to include
violent revolt. Gandhi describes a satyagrahi as ‘real constitutionalist’ on the grounds that
disobedience to evil laws is a moral duty and in disobeying and accepting punishment he
obeys a higher law. The existence of injustice justifies political resistance and political
protest is basically moral. According to Gandhi, cooperation with a just government is a
duty and non-cooperation with an unjust government is equally a duty.
To put down civil disobedience is to imprison conscience. Civil disobedience can only
lead to strength and purity (Ibid, 174).
It is the inherent right of a subject to refuse or assist a government that will not listen
to him (Young India, July 1926).
Gandhi also accepts that the majority could be wrong and stresses on the fact that an
individual, at all times, must have the power to veto over state action. Reiterating
Antigone6, he points out a citizen must have the right to judge the state on the basis on
higher law. Like Socrates7, according to Gandhi, a citizen must willingly accept the
consequences of challenging the laws of the state. This is all the more necessary, as
modern day states, including representative democracies augment greater power and
violence and ignore truth. Like Locke and Jefferson, Gandhi believes that loyalty to a
constitution and its laws need to be reviewed and affirmed once in every generation. He
accepts the Lockean principle that political authority has to be judged and questioned,
and, if necessary, disobeyed.
Satyagraha demonstrates an intricate relationship between means and ends through a
philosophy of action. In its approach to conflict, Gandhi does not seek a compromise but
a synthesis, as a satyagrahi never yields his position which he regards as truth but he
is prepared to accept the opponent’s position, if that is true. By sacrificing one’s position
he does not make any concessions to the opponent but only to a mutually agreeable
adjustment. Both parties are satisfied without either feeling triumphant or defeated as both
do not compromise in course of the resolution of the conflict. His belief in the notion of
relative truth8, the basis of satyagraha reinforces his faith in the individual. Satyagraha
for Gandhi is based on a profound respect for law and is resorted to non- violently and
publicly9. The Satyagrahi willingly accepts full penalties10, including obeying cheerfully the
rigours of jail discipline, as resistance has to be respectful, civil and restrained undertaken
by law abiding citizens. A satyagrahi accepts personal responsibility publicly. He must
inform the concerned government official(s) about the time and place of the act, the
reason(s) for protest and if possible, the law that would be disobeyed. A satyagrahi
cooperates not out of fear of punishment but because cooperation is essential for the
common good11. Satyagraha is resistance without any acrimony or hatred or injury to the
opponent. A satyagrahi also suffers the consequences of resistance. As a person he owes
it to himself to suffer, if necessary for his conscience and as a citizen, it is his duty to
suffer the consequences of his conscientious disobedience to the laws of the state. A
satyagrahi invites suffering and does not seek mercy and in the process brings out the
best in the opponent. Gandhi says, “Civil disobedience is a terrifying synonym for
suffering. But it is better often to understand the terrible nature of a thing if people will
truly appreciate its benignant counter-part. Disobedience is a right that belongs to every
human being, and it becomes a sacred duty when it springs from civility, or, which is the
same thing, love…. The condition of this terrible resistance…is possible of fulfilment only
by a long course of self purification and suffering”. Through self-suffering rather than
inflicting on the opponent, truth is vindicated. As a citizen it is his duty to suffer the
consequences of his conscientious disobedience to the laws of the state. Civil disobedience
must appear civil to one’s opponent, demonstrating that there is no intention to harm the
opponent.
Gandhi’s analysis of civil disobedience conflated two separate notions –the natural right,
the universal obligation of every human being to act according to his conscience in
opposition, if necessary, to any external authority or restraint, and secondly, the duty of
the citizen to qualify himself by obedience to the laws of the state to exercise on rare
occasions his obligation to violate an unjust law or challenge an unjust system, and to
accept willingly the consequences of his disobedience as determined by the legal sanctions
of the state (Iyer, 1973, p.278).
Gandhi’s perceptions were determined by the British colonial traditions and the faith he
had in the British love of justice, rule of law and fair play, mainly because of the British
constitutional practice of equality before law, not only of the British citizens, but for all.
He idolises the British constitution because it guarantees both individual freedom and racial
equality. Until the Jallianwallah Bagh massacre of 1919, he was a loyalist of the Empire
and was convinced that helping the Empire would qualify for swarajya, i.e. self-rule for
Duties 157
Indians. His understanding of the British history and character leads him to the use of the
technique of Satyagraha. Grievances could be redressed only if people demonstrate their
willingness to suffer to get relief and cited the example of the British Suffragists for Indians
in South Africa to emulate12. Gandhi describes satyagraha as the act of the brave and
the fearless13 and through it, “Gandhi turned the moral tables on the English definition of
courage by suggesting that aggression was the path to mastery of those without self-
control, non violent resistance the path of those with control” (Rudolph & Rudolph, 1967,
p.185).
13.5 CONCLUSION
The English Utilitarian, Jeremy Bentham, who champions the cause of individual rights, has
very little meaning in Gandhi’s philosophy of treating every individual as an end in himself
which means the essence of the human being gets a fulfilment out of a larger societal
cohesion and common good. It is because of this emphasis that Gandhi is often compared
with T.H. Green for whom also the philosophy of common good occupied the central
position. Any kind of self interested motivation of an individual action is not acceptable
to Gandhi as he always looks to the individual as part of a larger whole based on the
philosophy of oceanic circles. It is because of this underpinning that sacrifice assumes a
pivotal importance in Gandhi’s theory of the essence of human nature and its reflection
in the larger collective based on consensus. He is not interested in Rousseau’s understanding
of commonality in which someone can be forced to be free, as in Gandhi, there is a
flowering of the individual with his control of the senses and avoiding any link with
selfishness, the individual performs the kingly duty of merging with aspirations with that of
humanity. The ancient Indian political texts which emphasised the duties of the kings, in
the sense, as the conventions have become part of the British Constitution; similarly
Gandhi transforms this pre-modern idea of a single individual performing his duty to a
world of today in which every single individual can perform the duties like the ancient
Indian kings.
Gandhi considers duties and rights as inter-twined and the realisation of one without the
other is not possible, as both pave the way for the fulfilment of common good. Individual
freedom is of supreme importance to Gandhi but he constantly stresses that the individual
is a social being and that human beings have “risen to their present status only by learning
to adjust his individualism to the requirements of social progress” (Harijan, May 1939).
Gandhi accepts the core idea of right-based individualism, the dominant paradigm in
contemporary political theory, namely human equality and moral worth of every person but
he understands rights with reference to duties, assigning individuals with responsibilities to
lead a moral life and to devote to the good of their community. He also supports the
basic rights of those at the margins of society, namely women, the untouchables and the
poor, who have been objects of domination and humiliation. For him any discourse of
rights would have to focus on how persons are treated. He pays attention to the role of
institutions or the way resources affect choices available for individuals, an aspect which
most theorists on autonomy, with the exception of Raz, ignores. Another difference
between Gandhi and conventional theories of autonomy is that, for Gandhi, individuals are
equal members of a harmonious and interdependent cosmos rather than abstracted selves.
It is only through an association with others based on mutual respect and cooperation that
persons become complete or achieve good. The community ought to be one that is open
and tolerant of diverse conceptions of good and that its institutional practices do not
hinder the pursuit of their good by ordinary persons.
Gandhi considers duties as primary and considers the duty to act morally regardless of
the consequences as the highest. The emphasis on duties emanates from his quest for
building a humane society and the hope that conflict(s) would be resolved non-violently
through adherence to truth or satyagraha. Duties for Gandhi are disinterested action
which is performed without much attention to the result and, just as in Kant, one which
morally conforms to the order of the Universe. The complementary nature of rights and
duties lead to common good which is the basis of swaraj – self-rule, self-restraint, self-
discipline and voluntary self-sacrifice and this in turn is based in the notions of individual
autonomy and moral self-determinism. “When Gandhi pursued the political goal of swaraj
(self rule) he meant to teach himself and Indians, that only those who could rule
themselves in the sense of self restraint could rule themselves in the sense of controlling
their political universe” (Rudolph & Rudolph, 1967, p.249).
13.6 SUMMARY
Gandhi places pivotal importance on the performance of duties as a way of realising
rights. His conception of individual is that of social self with an innate moral sense and
therefore with a right and duty to disobey unjust policies and laws. Gandhi is convinced
that such an outlook would help to realise a harmonious society with a harmonious
individual.

1. Explain Gandhi’s concept of duties and its relationship with Rights.
2. Why does Gandhi consider satyagraha as both a right and a duty?
3. How does Gandhi modernise Indian texts and links rights with duties?
SUGGESTED READINGS
1. Bandyopadhyaya, J., Social and Political Thought of Gandhi, Bombay, Allied
Publishers, 1969.
2. Bhattacharya, B., Evolution of the Political Philosophy of Gandhi, Calcutta,
Calcutta Book House, 1969.
3. Bondurant, J. V., Conquest of Violence: Gandhian Philosophy of Conflict,
Berkeley, University of California Press, 1967.
4. Chatterjee, M., Gandhi’s Religious Thought, London, Macmillan, 1983.
5. Chatterjee, P., Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World: A Derivative
Discourse, Delhi, Oxford University Press,1986.
6. Dalton, D., India’s Idea of Freedom, Gurgaon, Academic Press, 1982.
7. Haksar, V., “Rawls and Gandhi on Civil Disobedience” Inquiry, 19, 1976.
8. —————, “Coercive Proposals: Rawls and Gandhi”, Political Theory, 4, 1976.
9. Iyer, R. N., The Moral and Political Thought of Gandhi, Bombay, Oxford
University Press, 1973.
10. Pantham, T, and Deutsch, K., (ed), Political Thought in Modern India, New Delhi,
Sage, 1986.
11. Parekh, B., Gandhi’s Political Philosophy, Notre Dame, Notre Dame University
Press, 1989.
12. Rudolph, L, and Rudolph, S., The Modernity of Tradition, Chicago, University of
Chicago Press, 1967.
13. Woodcock, G., Mohandas Gandhi, New York, Fontana, 1971.
Duties 159
(Endnotes)
1 Gandhi describes himself as a philosophical anarchist but he assimilates the ideas of Conservatives,
Socialists, Marxists and even the liberals and ‘yet none of these for, he never lost his profoundly
revolutionary character’ (Bondurant 1967, 3).
2 The Vykom Satyagraha of 1924-25 was for the right of the untouchables to use the temple road.
3 “Gandhi’s commitment to non violence and truth (satyagraha, or ‘truth force’), … suggests how
traditional ideals can be transformed for modern purposes. He self consciously rejected the fatalistic,
other worldly and ritualistic orientation that some Jain and Hindu practitioners had lent them. His
private struggle for competence and potency taught him to evoke their humanistic, evangelical and
world mastering implications. If his commitments to non violence and satyagraha had instrumental
dimensions, fitting the requirements of an unarmed nation confronting an imperial conscience capable
of responding to moral appeals, he infused their practice with meanings that transcend utility and
national boundaries” (Rudolph & Rudolph 1967, 158).
4 The primacy of public peace and the danger of anarchy have been stressed from times immemorial.
Democritus wants the peace-breaker, an enemy of public order be put to death. Thucydides points out
that the state’s welfare depends on the maintenance of the authority of laws, even though these laws
may not be the best possible.
5 Satyagraha is coined during the movement of Indian resistance in South Africa, to the Asiatic Law
Amendment Ordinance introduced into the Transvaal Legislative Council in 1906. At first, Gandhi calls
the movement passive resistance but realizes that a new principle had crystallized with the unfolding
of the movement. He then announces in the Indian Opinion, a prize for the best name to describe
the movement. One competitor suggests ‘sadagraha’ meaning firmness in a good cause. Subsequently,
it is changed to satyagraha, “a force which is born of Truth and Love or non violence” replacing
‘passive resistance’, first used by Bipin Chandra Pal (1858-1932) and the by Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1856-
1920) and Aurobindo Ghosh. For Gandhi, satyagraha incorporates civil disobedience though it goes
beyond the pressure tactics associated with strikes and demonstrations to include moral, social and
political reform (Dalton 1982, 148). Satyagraha, unlike civil disobedience, is resistance without acrimony
or hatred or injury to the opponent. It is both a ‘mode of action and a method of enquiry’ (Bondurant
1967, v).
6 Antigone was torn between two loyalties, that of her religion which commands her to bury the body
of her brother, while that of the state which commands that his body be left unburied and unmourned
to be eaten by dogs and vultures. She obeys her conscience on the grounds, that no ruler however
powerful has the right to demand acts contrary to divinely ordained norms.
7 A general reading of the Crito, a dialogue written by Plato, about the trial and death of Socrates,
reveals that civil disobedience requires fulfillment of certain conditions. Its underlying assumption
being the imperative obedience to the city, if one is reasonably satisfied with its laws. For Socrates,
the entitlement of the state to obedience is because it confers benefits. Anticipating Locke, he argues
that Athenian citizens ought to obey the laws of their city since they have freely consented to do
so and obedience to the state is for three reasons: gratitude, consent and morality. Socrates does not
acknowledge any limits to an individual’s duty. He does not consider the fact that person(s) accept
benefits with certain assumptions and in the hope of certain reasonable expectations. If these are not
fulfilled, then obedience to the state is no longer tenable, though breaking or defying the law may
undermine and eventually destroy the state, a proposition that is valid if the state is just. In case there
are unjust laws, it is better to rectify it and make the state stronger and just. Socrates and Crito never
discuss the justification of disobedience but rather the reasons for citizens’ obedience to a city. They
contend that if anybody who remains in the city willingly demonstrates his readiness to comply with
its laws. Disobedience is only permissible if vocalized by a superior authority, in that case, the latter’s
command overrides that of the city.
8 Gandhi considers truth and God as inter-dependent and acknowledges the need to go beyond ‘God
is Truth’ to ‘Truth is God’. “In ‘God is Truth’, is, certainly does not mean ‘equal to’ nor does it mean,
‘is truthful’. Truth is not an attribute of God, but He is That. He is nothing if He is not That. Truth
in Sanskrit means Is. Therefore Truth is implied in Is. God is nothing else. Therefore, the more truthful
we are, the nearer we are to God” (Gandhi 1949, 29). In view of the concept of relative truth and
acceptance of human needs as the basic yardstick to judge actions and policies, Gandhi recommends
ahimsa, as truth differs from person to person.
9 The recent debates on civil disobedience have been within the framework that Gandhi provides. Rawls
discusses civil disobedience within the framework of constitutional democracy and provides the
deepest philosophical analysis on the subject till date. He defines civil disobedience as a public non
violent and conscientious act which is contrary to law and which is usually done with the intention
to bring about change in the policies and laws of government.
10 The willing acceptance of penalties by the civil disobedient(s) to prove that a law is broken for a
political reason by an allegiant citizen(s) with faith in the rule of law is found in Hobbes’ writings. For
Hobbes, the end of obedience is protection and that none would have the right to aid and abet another
to refuse the command of the sovereign, even though all have a right of self preservation.
11 See end note iv.
12 It was in South Africa that Gandhi developes the philosophy and techniques of Satyagraha which
he subsequently applies to British colonial rule in India. He remained a loyalist of the Empire and,
setting aside anything that he had said and done before, even recruited Indian soldiers for British army
during the First World War. Gandhi defends his action by remarking “There can be no friendship
between the brave and the effeminate. We are regarded as a cowardly people. If we want to become
free from that reproach, we should learn the use of arms. The foregoing argument will show that by
enlisting in the army we help the Empire, we qualify ourselves for Swarajya, we learn to defend India
and to a certain extent regain our lost manhood” (Gandhi 1938, 437, 445). Dalton (1982, 132) sees a
similarity in the perceptions of Gandhi and early, Aurobindo, the relation of violence to manliness. Two
events- the Amritsar tragedy of 1919 and the British settlement of the Khilafat question helped Gandhi
to realize “for the first time, of the logical consequences of all that he had learned and taught in South
Africa” (Dalton 1982, 133). C. F. Andrews, a close associate of Gandhi, observes that Amritsar “changed
Gandhi from a wholehearted supporter into a pronounced opponent” (1930, 230). General Dyer’s lack
of remorse at perpetrating unspeakable brutality and the subsequent Report of the Hunter Committee
which attempted to whitewash the event, and more shocking was the reaction of the British public
which he expected would be unanimous repentance, with his belief in the English sense of justice, but
instead it turned out to be one of ambivalence and even an attempt to exonerate Dyer completely
(Nanda 1958, 176-180).
13 Gandhi realizes the need to confront the fundamental fear of Indians as propagated by some British
that Indians lack courage, are weak and morally unworthy.
UNIT 14 SWARAJ
Structure
14.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
14.2 Swaraj as Self control
14.3 Swaraj as Self Rule
14.4 Conclusion
14.5 Summary
Suggested Readings
14.1 INTRODUCTION
In the late nineteenth century, the establishment of the Indian National Congress in 1885
and the parallel consolidation of cultural nationalism under the leadership of Swami
Dayananda and Swami Vivekananda created a feeling of self-assertion and identity shaking
off the sense of inferiority that the educated middle class felt earlier on. It is in this
context of the new assertiveness the two important phrases that the nationalist movement
imbibed were Swadeshi and Swaraj, each being complementary to the other. Tilak’s
famous statement that ‘Swaraj is my birthright’ is an important reflection of the new mood
of nationalism that consolidated after the Ilbert Bill controversy. The Partition of Bengal
of 1905 further enriched this till of thinking with self-assertiveness and also with an
attempt to create a new awareness with new Indian idioms. Rabindranath Tagore’s essay
entitled ‘Swadeshi Samaj’ depicts this new awareness and an emerging identity of one
India where the gulf between the educated and uneducated and between the cities and
the villages were to be eradicated not under the patronage of the colonial masters but
with our own efforts and sacrifices. In the Hind Swaraj (1909), Gandhi’s indictment of
the Brown Sahib represents the spirit of this new accommodative nationalism.
Gandhi prefers to use Swaraj instead of the English word, independence or freedom. In
Gandhi’s practice and theorising, there is an effort of building a theory on the basis of
continuity of tradition with essential reforms and integrating with the larger organic concept
of the individual that he propagated swaraj. It assumes a different meaning in Gandhi
rather than in the simple political sense that was used by his predecessors. Freedom or
swaraj, for Gandhi, is an inclusive concept - political, economic, social and moral -
emphasising on the utmost necessity of the human being to be as perfect as possible. He
asserts in the Hind Swaraj, “real home self is self control”.
Aims and Objectives
 Gandhi’s concept of Swaraj
 The meaning of swaraj as self-control and self-rule.
14.2 SWARAJ AS SELF-CONTROL

Gandhi borrows the term ‘swaraj’ from the Vedas. One meaning of swaraj is self rule
and self control and differs from the English usage, which implies freedom without
restraints. It also means the “all around awakening-social, educational, moral, economic
and political” (Young India, 26 August 1926). True freedom is conformity to moral law,
the inner conscience, and the law of one’s true being. It induces a person to seek the
good and attain it, an end that is worthy. Freedom means self-control, a conquest over
self which can be attained only by being fearless. It involves arduous discipline and
requires that one follows one’s vows of self-purification and self-realisation. It is through
active involvement and participation in the day to day affairs of society that the individual
attains salvation or moksha. Gandhi insists on the need to rationalise and synthesise
desires in an integrated life in order to attain the moral height to distinguish humans from
brutes. Another implication of swaraj is moral and spiritual freedom or anāsakti which
comes as the consequence of will and reason leading to concentration of energy. This is
the cardinal lesson that Gandhi learns from the Bhagavad Gita.
Swaraj as self-rule or self-control means three things: first, freedom is primarily an
individual, not a collective quality. Second, it includes the conventional civil liberties of the
press, speech, association and religion and third, it distinguishes between inner and outer
forms of freedom, inner freedom as anchoring and sustaining outer freedom (Dalton,
1982, pp.144-47). For Gandhi, the individual is the pillar of Swaraj but this does not
mean unbridled individualism; rather it implies, as in T. H. Green, a balance between
individual freedom and social restraint. He insists on individuals cultivating qualities of
discipline, voluntary loyalty and solidarity and internal freedom as these would ensure an
unimpeachable character and conduct. He constantly emphasises that inert and emasculated
people would never be able to attain freedom and individual consciousness alone would
lift people out of servility. Gandhi considered weakness, cowardice and fear as sins
against human spirit. He taught the Indians the spirit of fearlessness. Self-rule, self-
restraint, self-discipline and voluntary self-sacrifice rooted in the notions of individual
autonomy and moral self-determinism forms the basis of swaraj. “When Gandhi pursued
the political goal of swaraj (self rule) he meant to teach himself and Indians, that only
those who could rule themselves in the sense of self restraint could rule themselves in the
sense of controlling their political universe” (Rudolph & Rudolph, 1967, p.249).
Gandhi sees an intimate link between swaraj and swadeshi or self-reliance. For Gandhi,
freedom is rooted in human nature and is to be claimed as part of self-awareness earned
through self-effort and conversely, any external threat to human freedom arises not from
circumstances outside one’s control but by recognising our weaknesses in the first place,
which is why he considers self-purification as integral to the concept of swaraj, as that
gives the individuals the strength and capacity to translate the abstract notion of freedom
into a practical reality in society and politics. According to Gandhi, a person truly realises
freedom if he listens to his conscience or the inner voice, the only tyrant that one should
accept. Fearlessness, self-rule, self- restraint, self-discipline, non-attachment, renunciation
and voluntary self-sacrifice would make resistance to evil easy and that forms the core
of the philosophy of satyagraha. Gandhi describes satyagraha as the act of the brave
and the fearless1 and through it, “Gandhi turned the moral tables on the English definition
of courage by suggesting that aggression was the path to mastery of those without self-
control, non violent resistance the path of those with control” (Rudolph & Rudolph, 1967,
p.185).
Swaraj 163
14.3 SWARAJ AS SELF-RULE

Swaraj for Gandhi also means positive freedom, to participate in the process of politics
in every possible way. It implies participatory democracy as there exists an intimate
relationship between the citizen and the state.
By swaraj I mean the government of India by the consent of the people as ascertained
by the largest number of adult population, male or female, native born or domiciled, who
have contributed by manual labour to the services of the state and who have taken the
trouble of having registered their names as voters…. Real swaraj will come not by the
acquisition of authority by a few but by the acquisition of the capacity by all to resist
authority when it is abused. In other words, swaraj is to be obtained by educating the
masses to a sense of their capacity to regulate and control authority (Gandhi 1947, 14).
To underline the meaning of swaraj, Gandhi in the Hind Swaraj (1909), through the
Italian example, points out that for Victor Emanuel, Cavour and Garibaldi, ‘Italy meant the
king of Italy and his henchmen’ whereas for Mazzini, it meant the whole of the Italian
people, that is, its agriculturalists. Mazzini’s ideal remained unrealized and that Italy still
remained in a ‘state of slavery’. Merely replacing the British rulers with their Indian
counterparts is Englishstan and not Hindustan, an “English rule without the Englishman,
the tiger’s nature, but not the tiger” (1997, ch. IV). The quintessence of swaraj is service
for the betterment of the ordinary people, an idea that Gandhi derived from Vivekananda,
Tolstoy, Sermon on the Mount and numerous texts and saints of the Indian tradition.
Gandhi’s concern for majority alleviation led him to advance the notion of Gram Swaraj
with its focus on the village, at the centre of his social, political and economic philosophy.
As majority of Indians lived in the villages, he was moved by the appalling conditions –
lack of sanitation, health care, hygiene and education, under which they lived. The
enormous gap that exists between the villages and cities with regard to employment
opportunities, educational avenues, health care, recreational facilities coupled with the
onslaught of modern machinery and industrialisation, villagers migrated from villages to
cities, only to live in shanties with its squalor and a sense of rootless existence. While
village is natural, a city is artificial facilitating the exploitation and plunder by the imperialist
powers. Though he considers the growth of cities as an evil thing, as it houses ‘brokers
and commission agents for the big houses of Europe, America and Japan’, he is not
seeking its elimination.
Gandhi castigates the Indian princes for the condition of the poor in their states. He
severely criticised the British occupation of India, as it led to extreme oppression of the
poor pointing out to the earlier periods of self-sufficiency in food and clothing. The English
East India Company was responsible for ruining the village industries, and it is for this
reason that he places centrality to the renewal of villages through the Constructive
Programme2.
Gandhi, with the help of his close associate, Kumarappa, prepares the blueprint to change
India’s rural life. ‘Villagism’, a term which Kumarappa coins, is accepted by Gandhi to
bring about a complete revival of villages and realise swaraj. The aim of gram swaraj
is self sufficiency in material conditions necessary for fulfilling the needs of the ordinary
person. The India of my dreams, observes Gandhi, is the swaraj of the poor person
(Ibid, 17). A truly non-violent state would be composed of self-governing and self-
sufficient small cohesive village communities in which the majority would rule with due
consideration to the rights of the minorities.
Indian independence must begin at the bottom. Thus every village will be a republic or
panchayat, having full powers. It follows, therefore, that every village has to be self-
sustained and capable of managing its affairs, even to the extent of defending itself against
the whole world. It will be trained and prepared to perish in the attempt to defend itself
against any onslaught from without. Thus ultimately, it is the individual who is the unit. But
this does not exclude dependence on the willing help from neighbours or from the world.
It will be free and voluntary play of mutual forces…. In this structure composed of
innumerable villages, there will be ever widening, never ascending circles. Life will not be
a pyramid with the apex sustained by the bottom. But will be an oceanic circle, whose
centre will be the individual always ready to perish for the village, the latter ready to
perish for the circle of villages, till at last the whole becomes one life composed of
individuals, never aggressive in their arrogance, but ever number, sharing the majesty of
the oceanic circle of which they are integral units.
Gandhi makes welfare of the masses, with fulfilment of their basic needs as the basis of
economic freedom, thus reflecting the inspiration that he derives from Ruskin. Gandhi
points out that political independence, without economic freedom, without an improvement
and elevation in the lives of the ordinary people, the toiling masses, would be meaningless.
He wants the complete destruction of modern civilisation and the creation of a new
society without governments, parliaments, railways and other fast modes of transport,
machinery, doctors, lawyers and armed forces and, in which, people totally renounce
violence and resist authority through satyagraha. Like Thoreau, he does not consider the
government to be important in the day to day activities of the individual, as both believed
that all states, including the democratic ones, are the embodiment of force and physical
strength, concerned with functions related to law and order, and protection of property.
Laws, policies and associations are essentially coercive, stifling and hindering individuality
and spontaneity. Gandhi insists on the need to look at political work within the framework
of social and moral progress, as power resides in the people and not in legislative
assemblies. He dismisses disparagingly power politics, and like Huxley, desires politics that
would enable people to improve their lot. Echoing Aristotle’s sentiments, Gandhi considers
public life as the arena for bringing out the highest spiritual qualities of an individual.
Politics is not the art of capturing, holding and managing governmental power but of
transforming social relations in terms of justice.
“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”.
Gandhi clarifies equal distribution as his ideal and till that is realised he would like to settle
for equitable distribution, as that would not only ensure elimination of gross disparities in
income but also allow every member of the society to receive enough goods and services
to meet his basic requirements and enjoy a certain minimum standard of living. He
considers accumulation of wealth as immoral which is why he proposes trusteeship. To
achieve equitable distribution he proposes four specific measures: (a) Bread Labour3 as
that would remove exploitation and obliterate the distinctions of rank. It would reduce not
only economic inequality but also social inequality and in the Indian context it would
Swaraj 165
undermine caste-based inequalities. (b) Voluntary renunciation, a value that Gandhi reiterates
from the Isopanishad and that means not coveting the possessions of others and not
accumulating beyond one’s basic needs. Personal wants ought to be kept to the barest
minimum keeping in mind the poverty of one’s fellow human beings and try for a new
mode of life. (c) Satyagraha to resolve industrial and agricultural disputes as legitimate
and the proposal of trusteeship to resolve the conflict between labour and capital with the
core idea of non-appropriation by owners. The Ahmedabad Mills strike of 1918 was an
example of Gandhi led satyagraha movement in industrial conflict4 just as the Champaran
satyagraha of 1916 undermined the notion of submissive labour force and initiated the first
village improvement scheme. (d) The need for governmental action to ensure that every
work receives a minimum or living wage. Gandhi insists that his ideal would have to be
realised through moral process of transformation of individuals by non-violent measures.
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 would depend on limiting
the wants of the rich. To get rid of poverty there is a need for drastic changes in
prevailing attitudes to consumption and to wealth in affluent as well as in the poorer
societies.
Gandhi desires economic equality but without wanting to abolish private property. He
accepts the fact that the capacities of human beings differs and in any society only a few
can accumulate wealth by industriousness but that does not mean they have a right to go
for conspicuous consumption. 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, except in large-scale industries which would be
dictated by concerns of public welfare. He admits that state ownership is preferable to
private ownership but in general, he considers the violence of private ownership as less
injurious than the violence of the state. According to Gandhi, if there is no law of
inheritance5 then it would not lead to the growth of a privileged class or allow for
personal inequalities of wealth.
The development of social spirit and humanist 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 prohibits conspicuous consumption. It has a Calvinistic overtone
and is beneficial to societies like India where wide disparities are an eyesore and exist
without any effective social sanction and control.
Gandhi advances two propositions on the state that establishes his close affinity to
classical anarchism, namely (1) the state represents an authority that poses a threat to
individual liberty and (2) that it represents violence in an organised form. He shuns
Austin’s notion of absolute state sovereignty and advocates limited state sovereignty.
Accepting the distinction between state and society he looks upon with suspicion any
increase in state power. A state has no right to dehumanise or suppress the individual. It
exists to fulfil the needs of the individual and failure to do so entitles the individual the
duty to disobey and to resist.
The state represents violence in a concentrated and organized form. The individual has a
soul, but as the state is a soulless machine, the state can never be weaned from violence
to which it owes its very existence…. I look upon an increase of the power of the state
with the greatest fear, because although while apparently doing good by minimizing
exploitation, it does the greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality, which lies
at the root of all progress…what I disapprove of, is an organization based on force,
which a state is (Gandhi, cited in Tendulkar, 1960, Vol. IV, pp.11-13).
Power, according to Gandhi, lies in being an actively engaged citizen with a capacity of
public involvement and political participation rather than being a passive acquiescent
subject. If individuals recognise the power in their hands and use it constructively to bring
out sarvodaya through non-violent means against injustice and repression of the state,
then the monopolistic and coercive nature of state power could be reduced, thus ensuring
purification of politics. A truly non-violent state would be composed of self-governing and
self-sufficient small cohesive village communities in which the majority would rule with due
consideration to the rights of the minorities. He desires the revival of the panchayat
(council of five) system but not in its traditional form which was organised around the
group and was strictly patriarchal. For Gandhi, the individual and not the group is the unit
of the modernised panchayat elected annually by all adult villagers- men and women
alike. Individual freedom would be the basis of his village democracy with consensus6 as
the basis of decision-making process.
Gandhi’s swaraj recognises no race or religions; nor does it distinguish between lettered
persons or the moneyed. It is also inclusive with due respect to the toiling masses. It is
secular and egalitarian. It is complete independence from foreign rule and complete
economic independence. He constantly reminds his readers that political independence
involves transfer of power from one set of rulers to another; true freedom is freedom
from exploitation, suffering, poverty, deprivation and destitution. Freedom for Gandhi is
freedom from political subjugation, economic exploitation and social tyranny. True Swaraj
would be realised with mass awakening which is possible only through non-violent non-
cooperation. Rule of people, for Gandhi, means transcendence of particular interests.
As a philosophical anarchist Gandhi desires a society without the state but as a practical
idealist he settles for a minimal state. In a state of enlightened anarchy everyone is his
own ruler, ruling in a manner without obstructing others. There would be no political
power as there would be no state. In the absence of this ideal, Thoreau’s maxim of a
“government is best which governs the least” is the next possible option. According to
Gandhi, human beings have the capacity for developing their moral capacities to such an
extent that exploitation could be reduced to the minimum which is why he states that he
“looks upon an increase in the power of the State with the greatest fear, because,
although while apparently doing good by minimizing exploitation, it does the greatest harm
to mankind by destroying individuality, which lies at the root of all progress”. The citizens’
obligation to accept the authority of the state would depend on its just laws and non
repressive policies. A government is an instrument of service if it is based on the will and
consent of the people. It is citizens’ obligation that distinguishes a democratic from an
authoritarian state though Gandhi views all states as soulless machines. A citizen’s
responsibility is greater under a democratic regime as citizens would have to safeguard
against authority becoming corrupt and farcical. In every state there is a possibility of
abuse of power and it is the citizens vested with superior moral authority who should not
lose their conscience or lose their distrust of state authority. Gandhi makes it the
responsibility of every citizen for every act of the government.
It is the citizen who ought to decide whether to show active loyalty or total opposition
to the state, to resist none or few of its laws as the citizen is endowed with satya and
Swaraj 167
ahimsa. The citizen cannot relinquish a portion of this responsibility in the name of a
social contract or legal sovereignty or tacit consent or the rule of law or similar notions
that are implicit in democratic constitutionalism. According to Gandhi, for the sake of
peace there can be no unconditional consent, even if secured under majority rule nor can
the limits of state action be established in advance in a manner that will automatically
secure the citizens his natural rights. Gandhi distrusts institutional safeguards in societies
with many factions and class conflict, as the majority could be wrong. The individual alone
is a moral person which no state or institution could ever become. A citizen could appeal
to eternal unwritten laws against the laws of human beings and of states and the
commandments of religion, but like Socrates accept the consequences for challenging the
laws of the states.
Not only are states undesirable but even parliaments are as these are ineffectual and can
do only when there is outside pressure. Gandhi is critical of the parliamentary system of
government in the Hind Swaraj (1909), as the members of parliament ‘are hypocritical
and selfish’; indifferent to matters of serious concern and engage in endless talk.
“Members vote for their party without a thought. Their so-called discipline binds them to
it. If any member, by way of exception gives an independent vote, he is considered a
renegade. The Prime Minister is more concerned about his power than about the welfare
of the Parliament. His energy is concentrated upon securing the success of his party. His
care is not always that Parliament shall do right. Prime Ministers are known to have made
Parliament do things merely for party advantage…. If they are to be considered honest
because they do not take what are generally known as bribes, let them be so considered,
but they are open to subtler influence. In order to gain their ends, they certainly bribe
people with honour. I do not hesitate to say that they have neither real honesty nor a
living conscience”. Through his criticisms of the British parliament, Gandhi tries to show,
according to Bandyopadhyaya (1969) that even the best of the parliaments are not the
ideal substitute for anarchy. Later Gandhi diluted his rigorous opposition to parliaments. In
1937, he points out that today’s legislatures, unlike that of the past, are composed of
representatives of people and that people must be taught how to stand up effectively
against the government. Members of the legislature ought to render service to the people,
undertake constructive social work and ensure the passage of right legislations. He clarifies
that he does not want to destroy the legislatures but “destroy the system which they are
created to work”. In the late 1930s, Gandhi also moved away from minimal role of the
state in the economy to state ownership of key industries as it would provide employment
to large number of people. The state would look after secular welfare, health,
communications, foreign relations, currency and own land as cooperative farming by the
peasants subject to state ownership of land is something that he toyed with but never
really developed in full details. Gandhi also insists that the state must eschew physical
violence. He supports the idea of a decentralised, non-industrial, non-violent, self-sufficient
and self-reliant free society; village swaraj would advance the cause of individual
freedom.
14.4 CONCLUSION
This elaboration of the implicit meaning of swaraj in the formulation of the three pillars
of swaraj sums up the entire political philosophy and action of the Mahatma. Emphasising
the utmost necessity to have unity in a situation of larger plurality and also with the larger
awareness of two India’s, one of the city and another of the village with abject poverty
allows him to portray a more realistic depiction of the Indian reality, much better than
attempted by the socialists and the Marxists. To give life and meaning to the concept of
swaraj, Gandhi’s formulation of the constructive programme is of supreme importance. It
portrays the essential reformative nature of his theorising ensuring the minimum resources
and environment essential for self-development of every single Indian and as a means of
reaching the goal of swaraj.
14.5 SUMMARY
Gandhi prefers to use Swaraj instead of the English word, independence or freedom. It
assumes a different meaning in Gandhi rather than in the simple political sense that was
used by his predecessors. Freedom or swaraj, for Gandhi, is an inclusive concept -
political, economic, social and moral - emphasising on the utmost necessity of the human
being to be as perfect as possible. Gandhi borrows the term ‘swaraj’ from the Vedas.
One meaning of swaraj is self-rule and self-control and differs from the English usage,
which implies freedom without restraints. Swaraj for Gandhi also means positive freedom,
to participate in the process of politics in every possible way. It implies participatory
democracy as there exists an intimate relationship between the citizen and the state.
Gandhi’s concern for majority alleviation led him to advance the notion of Gram Swaraj
with its focus on the village, at the centre of his social, political and economic philosophy.

1) Explain Gandhi’s concept of Swaraj.
2) What does Gandhi mean by Swaraj as self-control?
3) How does Gandhi equate Swaraj with self-rule?
4) What are the economic bases of Swaraj?
5) According to Gandhi, true swaraj is both political and economic independence.
Explain.
SUGGESTED READINGS
1. Bandyopadhyaya, J., Social and Political Thought of Gandhi, Bombay, Allied
Publishers, 1969.
2. Bhattacharya, B., Evolution of the Political Philosophy of Gandhi, Calcutta,
Calcutta Book House, 1969.
3. Bondurant, J. V., Conquest of Violence: Gandhian Philosophy of Conflict,
Berkeley, University of California Press, 1967.
4. Bose, N. K., Studies in Gandhism, Ahmedabad, Navajivan Publishing House, 1972.
5. Chatterjee, M., Gandhi’s Religious Thought, London, Macmillan, 1983.
6. Chatterjee, P., Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World: A Derivative
Discourse, Delhi, Oxford University Press, 1986.
7. Dalton, D., India’s Idea of Freedom, Gurgaon, Academic Press, 1982.
Swaraj 169
8. Haksar, V., “Rawls and Gandhi on Civil Disobedience” Inquiry, 19, 1976.
9. —————., “Coercive Proposals: Rawls and Gandhi”, Political Theory, 4, 1976.
10. Iyer, R. N., The Moral and Political Thought of Gandhi, Bombay, Oxford
11. Pantham, T and Deutsch, K., (ed), Political Thought in Modern India, New Delhi,
Sage, 1986.
12. Parekh, B., Gandhi’s Political Philosophy, Notre Dame, Notre Dame University
Press, 1989.
13. Rudolph, L. and Rudolph, S., The Modernity of Tradition, Chicago, University of
Chicago Press, 1967.
14. Woodcock, G., Mohandas Gandhi, New York, Fontana, 1971.
(Endnotes)
1 Gandhi realizes the need to confront the fundamental fear of Indians as propagated by some British
that Indians lack courage, are weak and morally unworthy.
2 The Constructive Programme conceive of reorganization of society for the attainment of poorna
swaraj (complete independence) through the following: (1) communal harmony, (2) removal of
untouchability, (3) prohibition, (4) Khadi, (5) cottage industries, (6) village sanitation, (7) new or basic
education – nai talim, (8) adult education, (9) upliftment of women, (10) education in health and
hygiene and (11) propagation of national language, Hindustani. “The idea behind the Constructive
Programme is to create the model of production even in the face of the opposition of those who try
to preserve the status quo by means of political power. Its aim is to convert all men into toilers, and
distribute the wealth of mankind equitably, if not equally….The idea behind Non-violent Non
cooperation is not to oust the present rulers anyhow from power, but to convert them by determined,
yet civilized refusal to subscribe to proved wrongs. The aim of conversion is to secure their
cooperation in helping their erstwhile victims in building up a new social and economic order based
on justice, equality and freedom” (Bose 1972, 10).
3 Gandhi understands Bread Labour to mean performance of body labour by everyone that would
entitle them to daily bread. Symbolically it assumed the “form of Khaddar (handspun) economics with
its tool and symbol the charka (spinning wheel) (Bondurant 1967, 156).
4 Four injunctions were given during the strike: no violence, no molestation of blacklegs, no
dependence upon alms, but self support through other labour, and no surrender, however long the
strike were laid down before the striking workers. He considers the workers and the capitalists as
‘fundamentally equal’ with the former striving for conversion of the latter as “destruction of capitalists
must mean the destruction of the worker” (Young India March, 1931). The outcome of the strike was
the formation of the Ahmedabad Textile Labour Association, which exists till date, actualizing Gandhi’s
concept of the relationship between the employer and the employee. It is more than a trade union.
It has its own library, hospital, school, recreation centre, bank and newspaper.
5 Gandhi represents the spirit of the modern era when he voices his discomfort against inheritance
tax. Tom Paine is the earliest to articulate his critique of hereditary power and extends his critique
of inherited political power to that of inherited economic power. In his two works, The Rights of Man
(1791) and Agrarian Justice (1797) he argues for the adoption of inheritance tax in England to offset
the unfair distribution of landed property. Reiterating Locke, Paine points out that it is common sense
that God gave “the Earth as an inheritance” to all of God’s children. He proposes the creation of a
national fund out of the inheritance tax to give (1) a sum of 15 pounds sterling to everyone on turning
21 years old as a compensation for the loss of their ‘natural inheritance’ and (2) a sum of 10 pounds
a year to every person over the age of 50, an early version of social security.
Andrew Carnegie staunchly endorses estate taxes. His Gospel of Wealth (1928) explores the three
possible ways to dispose of wealth: (1) leave it to the families of decedents, (2) bequeath it for public
purposes and (3) administer it during one’s life. He disliked the first, allowed the second and
encouraged the third. He dismisses the argument that parents leave great fortunes for their children
out of affection, stating that such affection is misguided as it does more harm than good to their
recipients. He concludes that motivation behind bequeath is family pride and not the welfare of the
children. Sharply distinguishing between the intended consequences of the inheritance tax (to create
funds for public purposes) and its unintended consequence (private philanthropy) he stresses that
wealth is a trust fund for the community that enables the rich to ‘dignify their lives’. Philanthropy
in a capitalist economy, according to Carnegie, solves the problem of rich and power. “The laws of
accumulation will be left free, the laws of distribution free. Individualism will continue, but the
millionaire will be but a trustee for the poor.” Carnegie concludes his famous tract with the words:
“The man who dies rich dies disgraced.” True to his belief he gave away 90 percent of his estate
before his death which also included a trust fund for Theodore Roosevelt’s widow, as there was no
provision made by government for the wives of former presidents, and left a modest trust fund for
his family
Swaraj 171
In 1906, in a message to the Congress, President Theodore Roosevelt proposed a federal inheritance
tax with a logic that differed from that of Carnegie. Unlike Carnegie who advocates the duty of the
rich towards the poor, Roosevelt, echoing Adam Smith’s sentiments in the Wealth of Nations (1776):
“It is only under the shelter of the civil magistrate that the owner of valuable property can sleep a
single night in security.” states that the wealthy have a special obligation to the government itself.
A rich person needs to pay for the protection provided by the state for his property, both from
external threat of foreign invasion and from internal threat from theft, fraud or destruction. In more
recent times Warren Buffet echoes the sentiments of Paine and observes that if talent cannot be
passed on to the next generation so shouldn’t money? In this history of the concept of inheritance/
estate/gift tax two arguments form the basis:the fairness issue (inherited wealth is not fair to the poor)
and the productivity issue (inherited wealth is not beneficial for its recipients).
6 The idea of Panchayat is consensus and shunning of adversary process; of allowing all those who
should be heard and decisions reached not through show of hands but by judging the sense of moral
fitness of the participants. Discussion continues till a satisfactory consensus could be arrived at; and
in case of a standoff it becomes clear that no agreement is possible (Rudolph & Rudolph 1967, 187-
88).
UNIT 15 SWADESHI
Structure
15.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
15.2 Swadeshi: Self-Reliance
15.3 Swadeshi: An Economic Philosophy
15.4 Village Economy
15.5 Swadeshi Movement And Khadi
15.6 Swadeshi: A Religious Idea
15.7 Summary
Suggested Readings
15.1 INTRODUCTION
Swadeshi is that spirit within us which restricts us to the use and service of our
immediate surroundings to the exclusion of the more remote.- Gandhi
The word svadeśī derives from Sanskrit and is a sandhi or conjunction of two Sanskrit
words. Sva means “self” or “own” and deśa means country, so svadeśa would be “own
country”, and svadeśī, the adjectival form, would mean “of one’s own country”. The
opposite of svadeśī in Sanskrit is videśī or “not of one’s country”. The word swadeshi
had many connotations in Gandhian thought- economic, political, cultural and philosophical.
It is central to Gandhi’s philosophy, which in effect, means self-sufficiency. Swadeshi is
that spirit in us which restricts us to the use and service of our immediate surroundings
to the exclusion of the more remote. Swadeshi is the political movement in British India
that encouraged domestic production and boycott of the foreign goods. In politics, it is
defending the indigenous institutions. In economics, things that are produced by one’s
immediate neighbours and serve those industries by making them efficient and complete
where they might be found wanting. In religion, it means protecting the tradition of one’s
own ancestral religion. By advocating swadeshi in all these spheres, Gandhi argues for an
amalgamation of these by keeping away from its defects. In other words, swadeshi is the
philosophy of defence of one’s own home by revitalising it through all means. However,
historically, swadeshi as a movement is significant in national movement directing against
the boycott of western goods by defending indigenous industries and its goods. Gandhi
considers that much of the deep poverty of the masses is due to the ruinous departure
from Swadeshi in the economic and industrial life. In the spirit of swadeshi, Gandhi’s idea
of economy is self-supportive and self-contained economy. His religion is not only
sanatan but also tolerant. Gandhi says, I must not serve my distant neighbour at the
expense of the nearest. It is never vindictive or punitive. It is in no sense narrow,
for I buy from every part of the world what is needed for my growth. I refuse to
buy from anybody anything, however nice or beautiful, if it interferes with my
growth or injures those whom Nature has made my first care.
Swadeshi 173
The philosophy of swadeshi spins around the idea of service to our immediate neighbours.
Gandhi holds that Swadeshi is the only doctrine consistent with the law of humility and
love. Swadeshi, for Gandhi, was the spiritual imperative. Swadeshi, as a strategy, was a
key focus of Gandhi and described it as the soul of swaraj (self-rule). Swadeshi is a
concept evolved in search of making a nation against the colonial British India. Swadeshi
assigned national meaning to territory, economy and culture. Swadeshi movement aimed to
achieve swaraj by establishing India’s economic self-sufficiency from Britain. This unit
explores the various facets of Gandhi’s idea of swadeshi and its relevance in the
contemporary world, which is market-centred, greedy and commercialised. In the times of
globalisation, the philosophy of swadeshi is inspiring in protecting one’s own economy and
identity.
Aims and Objectives
 Gandhi’s concept and meaning of swadeshi.
 The meaning of self-reliance.
 The meaning of swadeshi as an economic philosophy.
15.2 SWADESHI: SELF-RELIANCE (IN DEFENCE OF

INDIGENOUS LIFE)
Generally, the idea of Swadeshi in Gandhian philosophy means local self-reliance and use
of local knowledge and abilities. In other words it aims at appropriate technology.
Swadeshi (Self-reliance) is mainly understood to mean a protectionist technique that
Gandhi employed against the mercantile policies of the British, whereby the masses were
urged to abstain from using cloth manufactured outside India, and instead to use cotton,
silk, or wool cloth made in India. But Gandhi gives it a broader meaning: “Swadeshi
carries a great and profound meaning. It does not mean merely the use of what is
produced in one’s own country. That meaning is certainly there in swadeshi. But there is
another meaning implied in it which is far greater and much more important. Swadeshi
means reliance on our own strength. We should also know what we mean by `reliance
on our own strength’. `Our strength’ means the strength of our body, our mind, and our
soul. From among these, on which should we depend? The answer is brief. The soul is
supreme and therefore soul-force is the foundation on which man must build.” (Essential
writings of Mahatma Gandhi, p.362)
In sociology and critical social theory, alienation refers to an individual’s estrangement from
traditional community and others in general. It is considered by many that the atomism of
modern society means that individuals have shallower relations with other people than they
would normally the term “exploitation” may carry two distinct meanings. One, the act of
using something for any purpose. In this case, exploit is a synonym for use. Two, The
act of using something in an unjust or cruel manner.
Gandhi believed that alienation and exploitation often occur when production and
consumption are divorced from their social and cultural context, and that local enterprise
is a way to avoid these problems. To renew India’s vitality and regenerate its culture,
Gandhi had a vision of free India that was not a nation-state but a confederation of self-
governing, self-reliant, self-employed people living in village communities, deriving their
right livelihood from the products of their homesteads. Maximum economic and political
power - including the power to decide what could be imported into or exported from the
village - would remain in the hands of the village assemblies. Gandhi considers that in
India, people have lived for thousands of years in a relative harmony with their
surroundings: living in their homesteads, weaving homespun clothes, eating homegrown
food, using home-made goods; caring for their animals, forests, and lands; celebrating the
fertility of the soil with feasts; performing the stories of great epics, and building temples.
Every region of India has developed its own distinctive culture, to which travelling
storytellers, wandering ‘sadhus’, and constantly flowing streams of pilgrims have traditionally
made their contribution.
Gandhi defends that the doctrine of swadeshi is neither exclusive nor patriotic. It is
inclusive and considers everybody in the nature. Gandhi felt that in seeming to serve India
to the exclusion of every other country, “I do not harm any other country. My patriotism
is both exclusive and inclusive. It is exclusive in the sense that, in all humility, I confine
my attention to the land of my birth, but is inclusive in the sense that my service is not
of a competitive or antagonistic nature.” (Speeches and Writings of Mahatma Gandhi,
Madras: G.A.Natesan & Co., 1933, p. 344).
In the words of Gandhi:
I believe in the truth implicitly that a man can serve his neighbours and humanity
at the same time, the condition being that the service of the neighbours is in no
way selfish or exclusive, i.e., does not in any way involve the exploitation of any
other human being. The neighbours will then understand the spirit in which such
service is given. They will also know that they will be expected to give their
services to their neighbours. Thus considered, it will spread like the proverbial snow-
ball gathering strength in geometrical progression, encircling the whole earth. It
follows that Swadeshi is that spirit which dictates man to serve his next-door
neighbour to the exclusion of any other. The condition that I have already
mentioned is that the neighbour, thus served, has, in his turn, to serve his own
neighbour. In this sense, Swadeshi is never exclusive. It recognizes the scientific
limitation of human capacity for service (Harijan, 23-7-1947, p. 79).
15.3 SWADESHI: AN ECONOMIC PHILOSOPHY

Gandhi’s Swadeshi is an economic doctrine. It proposes not only self-reliance and usage
of indigenous skills and knowledge systems, but also propagates simple living and one’s
own dignity. In times of globalisation, market-oriented and commoditised life, swadeshi has
its contemporary relevance.
Gandhi’s idea of swadeshi deals about the importance of indigenous skills and its
productivity. He believed that swadeshi is means in realising the self-reliance and self-
governance (swaraj). In that sense his politics of spirituality has not only internalised the
essence of material production and labour, but also proves that he is a pragmatic
philosopher. The practice of economic philosophy of swadeshi had direct hit on British
Empire and its economy.
Gandhi was never dogmatic in articulating his ideas of swadeshi; rather he is practical and
had great concern for his fellow human beings. It is true that he opposes the western
Swadeshi 175
civilisation based on greed-centred industry and technology. He is even critical about the
modernity based on this kind of temperament. In place of individual centred philosophy,
he argued for community centred religious philosophy. In other words, in his philosophy
the life and economy of village occupies central place against the city and modernity. In
that sense, he has favoured a reformed tradition. It does not mean that Gandhi is against
reason, science and technology. He defends his religious and cultural traditions, indigenous
skills and traditional economy in the backdrop of western colonial rule but at the same
time he opts for appropriate technology. It provides alternative reasoning to the logic of
western modernity.
Gandhi never meant that his idea of swadeshi has totally excluded the foreign or western
in course of strong defence of home industry. As Gandhi says,
I have never considered the exclusion of everything foreign under every conceivable
circumstance as a part of Swadeshi. The broad definition of Swadeshi is the use of
all home-made things to the exclusion of foreign things, in so far as such use is
necessary for the protection of home industry, more especially those industries
without which India will become pauperized. In my opinion, therefore, Swadeshi
which excludes the use of everything foreign, no matter how beneficial it may be,
and irrespective of the fact that it impoverishes nobody, is a narrow interpretation
of Swadeshi (Young India, 17-6-1926, p. 218).
Further Gandhi holds the view that,
I buy useful healthy literature from every part of the world. I buy surgical
instruments from England, pins and pencils from Austria and watches from
Switzerland. But I will not buy an inch of the finest cotton fabric from England or
Japan or any other part of the world because it has injured and increasingly injures
the millions of the inhabitants of India.
I hold it to be sinful for me to refuse to buy the cloth spun and woven by the needy
millions of India’s paupers and to buy foreign cloth although it may be superior in
quality to the Indian hand-spun. My Swadeshi, therefore, chiefly centers round the
hand-spun Khaddar and extends to everything that can be and is produced in India
(Young India, 12-3-1925, p. 88).
The modern worldview is that the more material goods you have, the better your life will
be. But Gandhi said, “A certain degree of physical comfort is necessary but above a
certain level it becomes a hindrance instead of a help; therefore the ideal of
creating an unlimited number of wants and satisfying them, seems to be a delusion
and a trap. The satisfaction of one’s physical needs must come at a certain point
to a dead stop before it degenerates into physical decadence. Europeans will have
to remodel their outlook if they are not to perish under the weight of the comforts
to which they are becoming slaves.” Gandhi’s struggle of boycotting foreign goods and
promotion of swadeshi goods is based on a principle but not on hatred against British.
Gandhi is in principle against the commoditised consumer goods. In that way, swadeshi
goods are not an exception to him. As Gandhi maintains, Even Swadeshi, like any other
good thing, can be ridden to death if it is made a fetish. That is a danger that must
be guarded against. To reject foreign manufactures, merely because they are foreign
and to go on wasting national time and money in the promotion in one’s country
of manufactures for which it is not suited would be criminal folly and a negation
of the Swadeshi spirit. A true votary of Swadeshi will never harbour ill-will towards
the foreigner; he will not be actuated by antagonism towards anybody on earth.

Swadeshism is not a cult of hatred. It is a doctrine of selfless service that has its
roots in the purest AHIMSA, i.e., love. (M K Gandhi, From Yerawada Mandir: Ashram
Observance, Translated by V.G. Desai, Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, 1957,
p. 66).
15.4 VILLAGE ECONOMY

The British believed in centralised, industrialised, and mechanised modes of production.
Gandhi turned this principle on its head and envisioned a decentralised, homegrown, hand-
crafted mode of production. In his words, it is “Not mass production, but production
by the masses.” In Gandhi’s swadeshi economy, village economy and local industry play
an important role. He aims at self-sufficiency of the village community. According to the
principle of swadeshi, whatever is made or produced in the village must be used first and
foremost by the members of the village. Swadeshi avoids economic dependence on
external market forces that could make the village community vulnerable. It also avoids
unnecessary, unhealthy, wasteful, and therefore environmentally destructive transportation.
The village must build a strong economic base to satisfy most of its needs, and all
members of the village community should give priority to local goods and services. Every
village community of free India should have its own carpenters, shoemakers, potters,
builders, mechanics, farmers, engineers, weavers, teachers, bankers, merchants, traders,
musicians, artists, and priests. In other words, each village should be a microcosm of
India - a web of loosely inter-connected communities. Gandhi considered these villages so
important that he thought they should be given the status of village republics. The village
community should embody the spirit of the home - an extension of the family rather than
a collection of competing individuals. Gandhi’s dream was not of personal self-sufficiency,
not even family self-sufficiency, but the self-sufficiency of the village community.
By adopting the principle of production by the masses, village communities would be able
to restore dignity to the work done by human hands. There is an intrinsic value in
anything we do with our hands, and in handing over work to machines we lose not only
the material benefits but also the spiritual benefits, for work by hand brings with it a
meditative mind and self-fulfillment. Gandhi wrote, It’s a tragedy of the first magnitude
that millions of people have ceased to use their hands as hands. Nature has
bestowed upon us this great gift which is our hands. If the craze for machinery
methods continues, it is highly likely that a time will come when we shall be so
incapacitated and weak that we shall begin to curse ourselves for having forgotten
the use of the living machines given to us by God. Millions cannot keep fit by
games and athletics and why should they exchange the useful productive hardy
occupations for the useless, unproductive and expensive sports and games. Mass
production is only concerned with the product, whereas production by the masses is
concerned with the product, the producers, and the process.
Gandhi believes that a locally based economy enhances community spirit, community
relationships, and community well-being. Such an economy encourages mutual aid. Mass
production leads people to leave their villages, their land, their crafts, and their homesteads
and go to work in the factories. Instead of dignified human beings and members of a self-
respecting village community, people become cogs in the machine, standing at the
conveyor belt, living in shanty towns, and depending on the mercy of the bosses.
Swadeshi 177
According to Gandhi, when every individual is an integral part of the community; when
the production of goods is on a small scale; when the economy is local; and when
homemade handicrafts are given preference, it is the real swadeshi. These conditions are
conducive to a holistic, spiritual, ecological, and communitarian pattern of society. “My
idea of village swaraj [self-rule] is that it is a complete republic, independent of its
neighbours for its own vital wants, and yet interdependent for many others in which
dependence is a necessity” (Essential Writings of Gandhi, p.358).
15.5 SWADESHI MOVEMENT AND KHADI

Initially the idea of swadeshi figured in the writings of early nationalists such as Dadabhai
Nauroji, M.G.Ranade and Bipin Chandra Pal, who came in defence of the national
economy against the colonial economy. The swadeshi movement assumed its radical and
mass form after 1905 following the contested spatial partition of Bengal. In 1907,
swadeshi was officially incorporated within the conceptual and ideological framework of
the Indian National Congress in the avowed objective of swadeshi swaraj. The partition
of Bengal created widespread indignation all over the country. In the turbulent atmosphere
that followed the boycott, Swadeshi movements started. Swadeshi was a paradigmatic
instance of totalising territorial nativism. Historically Swadeshi was linked to the other
categories such as national economy, territory and culture. Swadeshi literally meaning one’s
own country, aimed at the promotion of indigenous industry. Along with Swadeshi, the
boycott of British goods was organised. The Swadeshi and boycott were powerful
instruments directed against foreign rule. They attacked the British rule where it hurt most.
About Swadeshi, Lajpat Rai said, “I regard it as a salvation of my country. The Swadeshi
movement ought to teach us how to organise our capital, resources, labour, energies,
talents for the greatest good of all Indians irrespective of creed, colour or caste. It ought
to unite us, our religious and denominational differences notwithstanding. In my opinion,
Swadeshi ought to be the common religion of united India.” On the boycott movement,
he said, “The meaning of the boycott is this ... The primary thing is prestige of the
government and the boycott strikes at the root of the prestige. The illusory thing they call
prestige is more powerful and potent than authority itself and propose to do this by
boycott - We desire to turn away our faces from the government house and turn them
to the huts of people”.
In Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj of 1909 Swaraj, Satyagraha and Swadeshi are key principles.
To realise the swaraj, Gandhi believes that the ideal of swadeshi is necessary in every
sense. He appreciated the Indian civilisation against western to make meaningful interpretation
of swaraj and satyagraha. Gandhi took this swadeshi to the popular level by making a
powerful political movement with mobilisation of masses. Gandhi created a new form of
swadeshi politics that encouraged the production and exclusive consumption of khadi.
Sumit Sarkar, the noted historian, defines the concept of Swadeshi, a sentiment closely
associated with many phases of Indian nationalism-that indigenous goods should be
preferred by consumers even if they were more expensive than or inferior in quality to
their imported industries and that it was patriotic duty of men with capital to pioneer such
industries even though profits initially might be minimal or non-existent (Swadeshi Movement
in Bengal 1905-1908, New Delhi, 1973, p.92).
Gandhi describes swadeshi as a call to consumer to be aware of the violence he is
causing by supporting those industries that result in poverty, harm to workers and to
humans and other creatures. Indian nationalists believed that the causes of their economic
woes were partly due to the British colonialisation of India. Swadeshi was a nationalist
movement to boycott British goods and to buy Indian goods.
Historically, the Indian local economy was dependent upon the most productive and
sustainable agriculture and horticulture and on pottery, furniture making, metal work,
jewelry, leather work, and many other economic activities. But its base had traditionally
been in textiles. Each village had its spinners, carders, dyers, and weavers who were the
heart of the village economy. However, when India was flooded with machine-made,
inexpensive, mass-produced textiles from Lancashire, the local textile artists were rapidly
put out of business, and the village economy suffered terribly. Gandhi thought it essential
that the industry be restored, and started a campaign to stem the influx of the British
cloth. Due to his efforts, hundreds of thousands of untouchables and caste Hindus joined
together to discard the mill-made clothes imported from England or from city factories
and learned to spin their own yarn and weave their own cloth. The spinning wheel
became the symbol of economic freedom, political independence, and cohesive and
classless communities. The weaving and wearing of homespun cloth became a mark of
distinction for all social groups.
Khadi: A Symbol of Economic Sufficiency
The term swadeshi had both economic and political dimensions in India’s struggle against
British colonialism. For Gandhi, it is centred on handspun khaddar and extended to
everything that could be produced indigenously by rural masses. Khadi emerged as a
symbol of swadeshi. The swadeshi workers articulated the significance of khadi to the
people of nation through various forms. Khadi was portrayed as the material artifact of
the nation, which is a traditional product and produced by traditional means. The
Gandhian nationalist movement rendered khadi a discursive concept by defining its
significance in terms of contemporary politics and economics of swadeshi. The swadeshi
proponents effectively transformed a common object of everyday life, homespun, home-
woven cloth, into the consummate symbol of the Indian community. As it is observed,
khadi became a visual symbol in that it marked individual bodies as distinctly Indian in
relation to visual symbols of regional, religious, caste and class identification. Susan Bean
views khadi as both a symbol of India’s potential economic self-sufficiency and a medium
for communicating to the British the dignity of poverty and equality of Indian civilisation.
15.6 SWADESHI: A RELIGIOUS IDEA

Gandhi links up his idea of swadeshi to religion. Swadeshi is not an isolated economic
and political principle of his philosophy. It is very much connected to his philosophy of
spiritualism and religion. Gandhi considers economic swadeshi not as a boycott movement
undertaken by the way of revenge, but as a religious principle to be followed by all.
Swadeshi is a religious principle to be undergone in utter disregard of physical discomfort
caused to individuals. A person conforming to the ideas of swadeshi will learn to do
without a hundred things which today he considers necessary.
According to Gandhi, Swadeshi in religion teaches one to measure the glorious past and
re-enact it in the present generation. The pandemonium that is going on in Europe shows
that modern civilisation represents forces of evil and darkness, whereas the ancient, i.e.,
Indian civilisation, represents in its essence, the divine force. Modern civilisation is chiefly
materialistic, destructive, as ours is chiefly spiritual. Swadeshi is intimately related to Hindu
religion. For Gandhi, Hindu religion is inclusive, tolerant and reformative. In that sense
Gandhi’s swadeshi upholds the tradition of Hindu religion.
Swadeshi 179
15.7 SUMMARY
Swadeshi is one of the central principles of Gandhi’s philosophy. Gandhi realises the
swaraj through swadeshi. Swadeshi was a paradigmatic instance of totalising territorial
nativism by connecting national economy, territory and culture. Gandhi’s swadeshi is
always in defence of indigenous skills, local knowledge systems, cultural traditions and
village economy. Swadeshi may read as self-sufficiency of the home through revitalisation
in all its aspects. Through Swadeshi, Gandhi is successful in uniting the economic struggles
with nationalist movement. Gandhi envisaged an organic and political society characterised
by the economic self-sufficiency and social harmony. The swadeshi worker not only
symbolises charkha and khadi but also lives in simplicity and spirituality. In Gandhi’s
Swadeshi, economics would have a place but would not dominate society. The swadeshi
economics is based on the principle of non-possessiveness, where as capitalism is based
on possessiveness. It is believed that beyond a certain limit, economic growth becomes
detrimental to human well-being. Gandhi’s principle of swadeshi has relevance in the
contemporary times of globalisation.

1. Discuss various connotations of swadeshi in the philosophy of Gandhi .
2. Critically evaluate the economic philosophy of Gandhi.
3. Write a note on village economy of Gandhi
5. Discuss the principles of swadeshi and its relevance in contemporary times.
6. Write a short note on:
a) Khadi Industry
b) Swadeshi Movement
SUGGESTED READINGS
1. Andrews, C.F., Mahatma Gandhi’s Ideas, including Selections From His
Writings, pp.118-130.
2. Diwan, Romesh., The Economics of Love; Or an Attempt at Gandhian Economics,
Journal of Economic Issues Vol.XVI ,No. 2 June, 1982, pp. 413-433.
3. Satish Kumar., Gandhi’s Swadeshi-The Economics of Permanence , The Case
Against the Global Economy - and For a Turn Toward the Local; edited by Jerry
Mander and Edward Goldsmith. http://squat.net/caravan/ICC-en/Krrs-en/ghandi-econ-
en.htm
4. Gandhi, M.K., ‘Swadeshi’, The Selected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol.6,
Navajivan Publishing House, 1968, pp.336-339.
5. Goswamy, Manu., From Swadeshi to Swaraj: Nation, Economy and Territory
in Colonial South Asia, 1870-1907, Comparative Studies in Society and
History, Vol.40,No.4 (October 1998), pp.609-636.
6. Iyer, Raghavan., (Ed.)The Essential Writings of Mahatma Gandhi, Oxford University
Press, Oxford, 1990.
7. Iyer, Raghavan., The Moral and Political Writings of Mahatma Gandhi, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, 1986.
8. Trivedi, Lisa N., Visually Mapping the Nation: Swadeshi Politics in Nationalist India,
1920-1930, Journal of South Asian Studies, Vol.62, No.1 (February 2003), pp.11-
41.
UNIT 16 SATYAGRAHA
Structure
16.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
16.2 Concept of Satyagraha
16.2.1 Superiority of Satyagraha to Passive Resistance
16.2.2 Satyagraha, a Glorious, Internal Revolution
16.2.3 Satyagraha and Militant Nationalism
16.2.4 Satyagraha, Civil Disobedience and Non-Cooperation
16.2.5 Duragraha
16.3 Sources of the Idea of Satyagraha

16.4 Satyagrahi
16.4.1 Satyagrahi and His Opponent
16.4.2 Discipline of the Satyagrahi
16.5 Satyagraha in South Africa

16.6 Satyagraha Movements in British India
16.6.1 Champaran Satyagraha
16.6.2 Kheda/Kaira Satyagraha
16.6.3 Ahmadabad Mill Worker’s Strike
16.6.4 Bardoli Satyagraha
16.6.5 Salt Satyagraha
16.6.6 Individual Satyagraha
16.7 Satyagraha in the French and Portuguese India

16.8 Satyagraha Legacy outside India
16.9 Contemporary Relevance
16.10 Summary
Suggested Readings
16.1 INTRODUCTION
I have no doubt that the British Government is a powerful Government, but I have no
doubt also that Satyagraha is a sovereign remedy. The acme of satyagraha would be to
lay down our lives for the defence of India’s just cause.
Gandhi in Harijan, September 1946
‘Power’ of any state or government is often measured by its military and economic
strength and it is always maintained that the country A is powerful enough to convince or
coerce country B to take certain measures that are favourable to the former even at the
expense of the latter. Against this backdrop, Gandhi’s words mentioned above displays his
Satyagraha 181
faith in the philosophy and practice of ‘Satyagraha’, a ‘sovereign remedy’ in the hands of
the ‘powerless’ to fight against the most ‘powerful’. Gandhi developed the concept of
Satyagraha, which involved a search for satya (truth), ahimsa (Non-violence) and self-
suffering. With his Satyagraha, Gandhi not only challenged the conventional notion of
power, but showed to the world that the weaker section of society was as powerful in
crucial respects as the strong. He trusted the power of the ‘idea’ of Satyagraha to face
the ‘might’ of the British imperialism/colonialism. For him, Sarvodaya is life’s goal and
Satyagraha - non-violent resistance - is the means to achieve it, while anasakti is a
method of training of self-discipline to gain power. Gandhi believed that Satyagraha is an
infallible panacea and is the only weapon that is “suited to the genius of our people and
of our land, which is the nursery of the most ancient religions …”
The Indian National Congress (INC) established in 1885 worked for the arousal and
consolidation of the national feeling, bringing in a large number of the Indians into the
vortex of nationalist political agitation and struggle. Early nationalists offered economic
critique of imperialism/colonialism and constantly wrote and spoke about India’s growing
poverty and linked it with the British colonial economic exploitation. The nationalists gave
full support to the popular struggle for human rights that was being waged in South Africa
after 1893 by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Later, by 1915, Gandhi returned to India
and plunged into the national politics. The emergence of Gandhi in the Indian political
scene and his ‘Satyagraha’ movement turned it into a vigorous and successful mass
movement, which eventually freed India from the clutches of the European colonial rule.
Aims and Objectives
After studying the unit, you will be able to understand:
 The philosophy of ‘Satyagraha’ and its political and socio-economic dimensions.
 Satyagraha as an attempt to achieve a silent, non-violent revolution.
 The difference between ‘Satyagraha’ and ‘Passive Resistance’
16.2 CONCEPT OF SATYAGRAHA

Having experienced the scornful racist discrimination in South Africa, Gandhi resolved to
unite the ‘coloured’ people and to fight for their rights. Gandhi initially called the popular
movement against the racist regime as ‘passive resistance’, a term he borrowed from Leo
Tolstoy. But ‘Passive resistance’, was not only a foreign term that Gandhi had strong
reservations about, but the connotations of the term was also inadequate to highlight the
aspect of truth and moral courage that Gandhi associated with non-violent political
resistance. Moreover, it put political ends at the forefront, dissociated from deeper
ideological values. Gandhi needed an Indian term that could encompass all these aspects
of the revolution within it. Gandhi felt that “passive resistance” was “too narrowly”
construed and could be interpreted as a weapon of the weak. Maganlal Gandhi suggested
the term Sadagraha (sad-truth; agraha-firmness and so, firmness in a good cause).
Gandhi changed the word ‘Sad’ to ‘Satya’ - “Satyagraha”, to designate the struggle, he
was planning to launch. The word “Sat” implies openness, honesty and fairness: Truth.
“The word Satya (Truth), is derived from Sat, which means being. And nothing is or
exists in reality except Truth (M.K. Gandhi, Young India, July 30, 1931).” Satyagraha
literally means insistence on truth. This insistence arms the votary with matchless power.
This power or force is connoted by the word Satyagraha. Gandhi explains: “Truth (Satya)
implies love and firmness (Agraha) engenders and therefore serves as a synonym for
force. I thus began to call the Indian movement “Satyagraha”, that is to say, the Force
which is born of Truth and Love or non-violence, and gave up the use of the phrase
“passive resistance” (M.K. Gandhi, Satyagraha in South Africa, 1928, p. 72).
The term satyagraha expressed the nature of non-violent direct action of the Indians
against the racial policy of the Government of South Africa. It is the relentless pursuit of
truthful ends through non-violent means. It is an attempt to vindicate truth, not by inflicting
suffering on the opponent but on one’s own self in an effort to bring in change of heart
on the part of the opponent. It postulates the conquest of the adversary by suffering in
one’s own person. Gandhi maintained: “The hardest heart and the grossest ignorance must
disappear before the rising sun of suffering without anger and without malice” (Young
India, February 19, 1925).
While commenting on the basic characteristic of Satyagraha which implies onward march
only and of no possibility of retreat or look back, Gandhi comments: “Since Satyagraha
is one of the most powerful methods of direct action a Satyagrahi (practitioner of
Satyagraha) exhausts all other means before he resorts to Satyagraha. He will therefore
constantly and continually approach the constituted authority, he will appeal to public
opinion, educate public opinion, state his case calmly and coolly before everybody, who
wants to listen to him, and only after he has exhausted all these avenues will he resort
to Satyagraha. But when he has found the impelling call of the inner voice within him and
launches out upon Satyagraha he has burnt his boats and there is no receding” (Young
India, October 20, 1927). Again, he adds: “My experience has taught me that a law of
progression applies to every righteous struggle. But in the case of Satyagraha the law
amounts to an axiom. As a Satyagraha struggle progresses onward, many other elements
help to swell its current, and there is a constant growth in the results to which it leads.
This is really inevitable, and is bound up with the first principles of Satyagraha. For in
Satyagraha the minimum is also the maximum, and as it is irreducible minimum, there is
no question of retreat, and the only movement possible is an advance”.
Highlighting the significance of ‘Fasting’ as a tactic as a part of Satyagraha philosophy,
Gandhi points out: “Fasting unto death is an integral part of Satyagraha programme, and
it is the greatest and most effective weapon in its armory under given circumstances. Not
every one is qualified for undertaking it without a proper course of training (Harijan, July
26, 1942). Here, Gandhi tries to convince the detractors of the demonstrative effect of
one’s suffering on others, for paving way to a positive impact.
16.2.1 Superiority of Satyagraha to Passive Resistance
Satyagraha and Passive Resistance are methods for meeting aggression and settling
conflicts. Passive Resistance as practised by non-Conformists in England and the Germans
in Ruhr against the French was a political weapon of expediency whereas Satyagraha is
a moral weapon based on the superiority of soul-force or love-force over physical force.
Passive Resistance is the weapon of the weak, while Satyagraha can be practised only
by the bravest who have the courage to die without killing. Passive Resistance aims at
embarrassing the opponent into submission, while Satyagraha intends to wean the
opponent from error by love and patient suffering. In Passive Resistance there is no place
for love for the opponent; in Satyagraha there is no room for ill-will and hatred, since
the Satyagrahi is supposed to act against the evil and not the evil-doer. Passive Resistance
is static, while Satyagraha is dynamic. Passive Resistance is a negative approach, while
Satyagraha 183
Satyagraha is positive in content and conduct. Passive Resistance does not exclude the
possibility of violent methods. Satyagraha does not permit violence in any form or shape
and on any eventualities. There is nothing passive about Satyagraha and on the other
hand, it is active, pure and simple. It emphasizes internal strength of character, while
passive resistance does not lay emphasis on the moral stature of the resistance (M.K.
Gandhi, Satyagraha in South Africa, 1928, pp.73-5).
16.2.2 Satyagraha, a Glorious, Internal Revolution

Gandhi believed that change in the polity or society is to be brought about by changing
the hearts and minds of men and not by bloody revolutions. Since every individual has
a conscience, Gandhi aimed at its awakening, not through violent means, but, by stressing
on self-purification and moral influence. He was convinced that through Satyagraha the
change of heart can be made possible. In essence, the idea underlying Satyagraha is to
convert the wrongdoer, to awaken the sense of justice in him, to show him also that
without the co-operation, direct or indirect, of the wronged the wrongdoer cannot do the
wrong intended by him (Harijan, December 10, 1938). It seeks to eliminate antagonisms
without harming the antagonists themselves, as opposed to violent resistance, which is
meant to cause harm to the antagonist. A Satyagrahi therefore does not seek to end or
destroy the relationship with the antagonist, but instead seeks to transform or “purify” it
to a higher level. Satyagraha is also termed as “silent force” or a “soul force”. It arms
the individual with moral power rather than physical power. It is a “universal force”that
“makes no distinction between kinsmen and strangers, young and old, man and woman,
friend and foe.”
16.2.3 Satyagraha and Militant Nationalism

The Indian anarchists living in London at the beginning of the twentieth century and those
who were in the field in India were advocating use of force and violence to achieve the
right to self-determination and freedom from colonial rule quickly, since they sincerely and
seriously believed that strategies of moderates may delay, if not deny, the achievement of
freedom. The youth of the country lamented the evil effects of the colonial rule and this
helpless and hapless feeling as well as the failure of the moderates in achieving the goal
of self-determination, enthused some among them to take recourse to violence as a means
to achieve their right.
In his Hind Swaraj, Gandhi criticised the use of force by the Indians as a means to
achieve the goal of self-rule. For him, “Swaraj is not English rule without Englishman. Real
Home Rule is self-rule or self-control; the way to it is passive resistance that is soul-force
or love-force and in order to exert this force, Swadeshi in every sense is necessary”
(M.K. Gandhi, Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule, 1938, Eighteenth Reprint, 2006, p.
90). “Real home rule is possible only where passive resistance is the guiding force of the
people. Any other rule is foreign rule”, remained his conviction (Ibid., pp.72-3). Gandhi
reiterated that “Brute-force is not natural to Indian soil. You will have, therefore, to rely
wholly on soul-force. You must not consider that violence is necessary at any stage for
reaching our goal”( Ibid, p.84).
Though he accepted and acknowledged the patriotic spirit of extremists and their craving
for right to self-determination and admired their spirit of sacrifice for the sake of their
mother country, he disapproved of their violent activities and believed that the extremists
would complicate rather than clear the mess that the Indians were in under the alien rule.
As an alternative, he suggested ahimsa and Satyagraha, non-violent mass movement to
face the all-powerful British Raj. He believed that ahimsa is the weapon of the strong and
a true Satyagrahi is handling a more lethal weapon than the extremists were handling.
16.2.4 Satyagraha, Civil Disobedience and Non-Cooperation

Civil disobedience and non-cooperation as practised under Satyagraha are based on the
“law of suffering”, a doctrine that the endurance of suffering is a means to an end. This
end implies a moral upliftment or progress of an individual or society. Therefore, non-
cooperation in Satyagraha is a means to secure the cooperation of the opponent
consistently with truth and justice. Gandhi sincerely believed that “non-cooperation with
evil is as much a duty as is cooperation with good”. Pacifism, civil disobedience, rightful
resistance against wrong policies, passive resistance, non-cooperation are some of the
forms of non-violent struggles Gandhi brought into practice. All these terms come under
the common term “Satyagraha”.
16.2.5 Duragraha
Gandhi contrasted Satyagraha (holding on to truth) with “Duragraha” (holding on by
force), as in protest meant more to harass than enlighten opponents. He wrote: “There
must be no impatience, no barbarity, no insolence, no undue pressure. If we want to
cultivate a true spirit of democracy, we cannot afford to be intolerant. Intolerance betrays
want of faith in one’s cause.”
16.3 SOURCES OF THE IDEA OF SATYAGRAHA

‘Satyagraha’ was based on the principles of Ahimsa or non-violence, which was the
founding principle of Gandhi’s political ideology that was based on theological tenets of
Jainism, Buddhism, Upanishads and the Bhagavad-Gita. The Upanishads declare that the
entire world rests on the bedrock of satya or truth. Buddha gave to the mankind the
message of Ahimsa or non-violence and maintained that hatred could be overcome not by
hatred but by love. Mahavira held ahimsa as the highest form of religion. The Hindu
mythology abounds in stories, especially of Raja Harishchandra, extolling the virtue of
holding on to truth, through thick and thin. Philosophy of Socrates and teachings of Jesus
Christ too are based on perfect Satyagraha. The Christian dictum, “Resist no evil; if
anybody smite your right cheek, show him the left also”, remains the guiding principle of
the Gandhian Satyagraha.
Gandhi gave this concept a new shape and philosophy and converted it into a new
weapon against evil. Gandhi was also influenced by the writings of Thoreau, Tolstoy and
Ruskin. They advocated non-cooperation of civilians against the government if it proved
suppressive or tyrannical. Their thoughts got a practical shape in Gandhi’s approach, first
against the highly unruly administration of colonial Governments in Africa and later in the
struggle for Independence in India. It is rather natural when Gandhi maintains: “I do not
claim to have originated any new principle or doctrine. I have simply tried in my own way
to apply this eternal principle to our daily life and problems. Truth and non-violence are
as old as hills. All I have done is to try experiments on as vast a scale as I could”
(Harijan, March 28, 1936).
16.4 SATYAGRAHI
Satyagraha is fundamentally a way of life, which guides the modes of political activism
undertaken by the Satyagrahis. On an individual level, it involves a life committed to truth,
Satyagraha 185
chastity, non-attachment and hard-work. On the political front, Satyagraha involves

utilisation of non-violent measures to curb the opponent, and ideally to convert him rather
than to coerce him into submission. A Satyagrahi wants to make the evil-doers see the
evil that they are indulging into, and realise their injustice. It involves transforming them
into acceptance of the right, and if that fails to come around, then at least to stop them
from obstructing the right. Picketing, non-cooperation, peaceful marches and meetings,
along with a peaceful disobedience of the laws of the land were typical modes of
resistance adopted by Satyagrahis. His course is plain. He must stand unmoved in the
midst of all cross currents.
Reverence to the opposition was one of the unique features of the Satyagraha preached
by Gandhi. Under no circumstance, should the opposition or the flag of the opposition be
insulted in a Satyagraha movement. A true Satyagrahi had to resist and bear all hardships,
including physical assault with patience, not ever stooping to anger, and to defend the faith
even at the cost of life. Satyagrahis had to be extremely strong in inner strength and moral
courage in order to do that. Satyagrahis need to maintain a pure and simple life. Gandhi
made his own life a veritable example of his teachings, and also turned his ashram at
Sabarmati as a haven for individuals who chose to maintain a life based on his teachings.
Violence of all forms was to be resisted and refrained from. Abuses and swearing were
strictly prohibited and all forms of abstinence from sensual pleasures were highly
advocated. Every one was meant to work for his or her food and the clothes, which
Gandhi called bread-labour. Wearing Khadi and leading a simple life was prescribed.
Absolute secularism and eradication of every shade of untouchability were also distinct
characteristics of satyagraha. Through this, Gandhi believed that the Indians would be
strong enough to tread the paths of a truly non-violent revolution.
Satyagraha or struggle against injustice could be individualistic or on a mass scale. Gandhi
felt that a Satyagrahi had to obey the laws of the society intelligently, and of his own free
will. For mass civil disobedience it was necessary to create a band of well tried, pure
hearted volunteers who thoroughly understood the strict conditions of Satyagraha. Patience
and sleepless vigilance were required for the same. Gandhi was also aware of the
difficulties in organising devoted volunteers, in a continued struggle. Gandhi set up
Satyagraha Ashram at Kochrab with 25 men and women as the first inmates to train
Satyagrahis.
16.4.1 Satyagrahi and his Opponent

While elaborating on the relationship between a Satyagrahi and his opponent, Gandhi
maintained that the former must know that his suffering will melt “the stoniest heart of the
stoniest” opponent (Young India, June 4, 1925). As such, through self-suffering he
appeals to his opponents better nature, as retaliation is to his baser (Harijan, July 26,
1942). “It is never the intention of a Satyagrahi to embarrass the wrongdoer. The appeal
is never to his fear; it is, must be, always to his heart. The Satyagrahi’s object is to
convert, not to coerce, the wrongdoer. He should avoid artificiality in all his doings. He
acts naturally and from inward conviction” (Harijan, March 25, 1939). A satyagrahi must
be willing to shoulder any sacrifice which is occasioned by the struggle which they have
initiated, rather than pushing such sacrifice or suffering onto their opponent, lest the
opponent become alienated and access to their portion of the truth become lost. He must
always provide a face-saving “way out” for the opponents. The goal is to discover a
wider vista of truth and justice, not to achieve victory over the opponent. A Satyagrahi
bids goodbye to fear. He is therefore never afraid of trusting the opponent. Even if the
opponent plays him false twenty times, the Satyagrahi is ready to trust him the twenty-
first time, for an implicit trust in human nature is the very essence of his creed.
16.4.2 Discipline of the Satyagrahi

The following points were laid down by Gandhi as a code of discipline for volunteers in
the 1930 movement:
 Harbour no anger but suffer the anger of the opponent. Refuse to return the assault
of the opponent.
 Do not submit to any order given in anger, even though severe punishment is
threatened for disobeying.
 Refrain from insults and swearing.
 Protect opponents from insult or attack, even at the risk of life.
 Do not resist arrest nor the attachment of property, unless holding property as a
trustee.
 Refuse to surrender any property held in trust at the risk of life.
 If taken prisoner, behave in an exemplary manner.
 As a member of a Satyagraha unit, obey the orders of Satyagraha leaders, and
resign from the unit in the event of serious disagreement.
 Do not expect guarantees for maintenance of dependents.
Gandhi envisioned Satyagraha as not only a tactic to be used in acute political struggle,
but as a universal solvent for injustice and harm. He felt that it was equally applicable to
large-scale political struggle and to one-on-one interpersonal conflicts and that it should be
taught to everyone. He asked Satyagrahis to follow the following principles (Yamas
described in Yoga Sutra):
 Nonviolence (ahimsa)
 Truth — this includes honesty, but goes beyond it to mean living fully in accord with
and in devotion to that which is true
 Non-stealing
 Chastity (brahmacharya) — this includes sexual chastity, but also the subordination of
other sensual desires to the primary devotion to truth
 Non-possession (not the same as poverty)
 Body-labour or bread-labour
 Control of the palate
 Fearlessness
 Equal respect for all religions
 Economic strategy such as boycotts (swadeshi)
 Freedom from untouchability
Satyagraha 187
16.5 SATYAGRAHA IN SOUTH AFRICA

Gandhi’s Satyagraha experiment began in South Africa in 1906. The non-white immigrants
were expected to register themselves in the Registrar of Asiatics and the government
issued a certificate of registration with their identity and fingerprints. Failure to comply with
the regulation resulted in forfeiture of their right to live in Transvaal and the defaulter was
liable to a fine of 100 pounds and deportation. Gandhi was determined to oppose this
black ordinance and goaded the Indians not to submit to the ordinance if it became law.
While speaking before 3,000 Indians gathered at a theater in Johannesburg on September
11, 1906, Gandhi organised a strategy of nonviolent resistance to oppose racist policies
of the South African Government. Satyagraha was born and since then, it has been
adopted by many around the world to resist social injustice and oppression. On July 1,
1907, the ordinance came into effect and the Indians were required to get themselves
registered by July 31. Gandhi and his followers stoutly opposed the move. The Transvaal
Indian Association organised boycott, dissuaded Indians from registering and as a result
only 100 out of 1500 registered in July. Leaders of the movement including Gandhi were
imprisoned. General Smuts assured Gandhi that in case the Indians would voluntarily
register, the Registration Act would be repealed. On Gandhi’s advice, the Indians
voluntarily registered by April 1908. However, Smuts went back on his promise and
refused to repeal the act. Popular movement was resumed and Gandhi announced his
decision to burn the certificates collected earlier. Soon, women, working class and the
peasants joined the Satyagraha movement against oppression and injustice meted out by
the White rulers towards the coloured people. Gandhi devised and gave concrete shape
to his doctrine of Satyagraha and between 1907 and 1914 he initiated a number of civil
resistance movements which revealed the effectiveness of organised nonviolent resistance
against a more powerful opponent.
16.6 SATYAGRAHA MOVEMENTS IN BRITISH INDIA

The British Government appointed the Rowlatt Commission for recommendations regarding
administration of justice in India. The Committee recommended greater curbs on civil
liberties in India. Consequently, the Imperial Legislative Council passed two bills, one
provided for the arrest and detention of persons involved in anarchical activities, the other
made the possession of seditious literature a crime. The Rowlatt Bills had granted
sweeping powers of preventive detention or enforced residence on all suspected political
agitators and as such was received with dismay by every section of Indian public opinion.
In opposition to these, Gandhi initially requested the Viceroy to withhold his assent for the
‘black bills’, but on the latter’s failure, he galvanised mass support for this act of defiance;
he proclaimed April 6 as Satyagraha Day, a day of hartal (suspension of all business),
fasting, mass meetings to protest against the hated legislation. The non-co-operation
evoked a widespread response. The people were denied of their freedom of expression,
freedom of association, right to religion and other such fundamental freedoms. On April
13, 1919, people who congregated in the Jallianwala Bagh for certain religious purpose
were fired upon by the British army officer O’Dyer. This massacre, termed by Nehru as
“a long horror and terrible indignity”, resulted in the loss of 1,202 lives and left 3,600
wounded and some permanently disabled.
Eruption of violence among the masses during the course of the popular movement in
different parts of the country made Gandhi to realise the need for teaching the people of
civil disobedience and Satyagraha and launched massive training programme. In Young
India he called the public attention “to constructive Satyagraha as also sometimes
cleansing Satyagraha”.
16.6.1 Champaran Satyagraha

Under the Tinkathia system the peasants of Champaran in Bihar were bound by law to
grow indigo on 3/20th of their land and sell it to the British planters at prices arbitrarily
fixed by the latter. They were liable to unlawful extraction and oppression by the planters.
Gandhi went into a systematic enquiry into their grievances and took up their cause. His
activities forced the local administration to appoint a committee of inquiry and as a result,
Champaran Agrarian Bill and subsequently Act was passed protecting the interests of the
poor peasants.
16.6.2 Kheda/ Kaira Satyagraha

The crops had failed in Kaira district of Gujarat in 1918 but the officers insisted on full
collection of land revenue. Gandhi organised the peasants to offer Satyagraha and goaded
them to refuse to pay taxes and to suffer all consequences. Even those who could afford
to pay declined to pay as a matter of principle, on the face of all threats of coercion and
attachment. The government was forced to yield to the pressure and to arrive at a
settlement with the peasants.
16.6.3 Ahmedabad Mill Worker’s Strike

Gandhi led the mill-workers of Ahmedabad in a strike against the mill-owners who had
refused to pay them higher wages and exploited them severely. He rallied behind them by
under-taking a fast and this united all so firmly that the mill-owners gave in on the fourth
day of the fast and agreed to a 35 per cent wage increase.
16.6.4 Bardoli Satyagraha

The Bardoli Satyagraha, led by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel with undisputed zest, marks an
important movement with non-violence as its hallmark. In 1928, the taluka contained 137
villages with some parts of it rich in crops like cotton, rice etc. The peasants of the region
were incensed by a large increase in land revenue announced by the British government.
The non-violent movement started after two years of petitioning and protesting, with the
peasants moving a resolution on non-payment of taxes until the government considered
withdrawing the increase in revenue. Large number of men and women participated in this
Satyagraha movement wherein they were threatened by the government that their land
would be forfeited. An iron will is said to have prevailed in Bardoli with mass resignations
from the village headmen and the subordinate officers. After a four-month battle and a
spate of observations, threats of arrests and continuous assessment of situation, peace was
opted for and led to the reinstatement of the headmen and talatis and release of arrested
Satyagrahis. Following a careful scrutiny of official records and taking stock of the
situation, the government annulled the increase which they tried to enforce at any cost.
The leadership acumen of Patel was recognised by one and all and earned him the credit
of being a true disciple of Gandhi. Sarojini Naidu, a prominent leader, noted that Patel
‘translated Gandhi’s teachings into practical, dynamic action’ (cited in Rajmohan Gandhi,
Patel, pp.168-9).
16.6.5 Salt Satyagraha

The British had decided to take the Indian salt back to Britain and refine it and
Satyagraha 189
repackage it and sell it back to the Indian people at about 20 times the price. The
enormous taxes imposed on salt, an essential commodity that everybody needs every day,
was perceived by one and all totally unjust, and made Gandhi to decide to defy the salt
tax. He decided to break the infamous salt law as it affected everybody, Hindus and
Muslims, rich and poor. Gandhi calculated that movement against oppressive salt laws
would unite the people irrespective of their religion, region or economic status.
The Salt Satyagraha was organised in 1930, when Gandhi announced to the nation that
he was going to defy the salt laws enacted by the British and defy the British government.
When Gandhi began the march, 247 miles to the sea, on March 12, 1930, it just caught
the imagination of the people and millions poured out into the streets; the response was
so tremendous that the Congress doubters also began to see the wisdom of it, and the
British government was taken completely by surprise. It turned out to be a turning point
in the freedom struggle in India. Gandhi’s Satyagraha reached the pinnacle of success, and
the Indian Nationalist movement reached a feverish pitch, forcing the government to initiate
procedures towards the Gandhi-Irwin pact, followed by the Second Round Table
Conference, where Gandhi gave one of his greatest speeches exposing the evils of the
British rule and endorsing the methods of Satyagraha.
16.6.6 Individual Satyagraha

From his experience, Gandhi understood that every individual is not fit to be a
‘Satyagrahi’ by inclination and temperament and so, there was a virtual need for training
and conditioning. He was aghast with the mass violence in retaliation of use of force by
the state agencies like police. As such, in October 1940, when he thought of launching
a fresh Satyagraha movement, it was decided that the campaign should be limited to
selected individuals who were trained to be Satyagrahis. To his credit, Vinoba Bhave was
selected by Gandhi to be the first leader to offer Satyagraha. Satyagraha by that time has
gained wide popularity, and there were committed Satyagrahis all over the country. The
Quit India Movement reclaimed the ideals of Satyagraha, which finally went a long way
in securing Indian independence by August 15, 1947.
16.7 SATYAGRAHA IN THE FRENCH AND PORTUGUESE

INDIA
16.7.1 French India
The news of the British withdrawal from India before August 1947 augmented the
nationalist movement in the French Indian colonies. The locals intended to join free India
and this idea spurred them into action. On August 3, people of Pondicherry surrounded
the Government offices and demanded freedom from the French rule. Under the
leadership of Kamal Prasad Ghosh, the mayor of Chandernagore, a general strike was
called for and a hartal was announced but withdrawn after the release of about 100
persons who had been arrested earlier. On August 9, the French Indians took to direct
action and the public agitation crippled the French India administration as the people
sealed the government offices, forced the police to lay down their arms and drove away
the French Administrator. Anticipating a flare-up in the French Indian settlements on the
eve of August 15, the French approached the Indian Government through Paul Henri
Roux, Chargé d’Affaires of France in New Delhi at that juncture, who appraised Nehru
to the effect and sought an amicable settlement between the Governments of France and
India. Nehru suggested to the French to put their stand on French India on paper and
present it to the Indian Government but the French refused to commit themselves on
paper. Meanwhile, François Baron, the then Governor of French India, directly approached
Gandhi, and pleaded for his interference and assured him of their resolve to settle the
matter peacefully through negotiations with its Indian counterpart, assuring to introduce
constitutional reforms towards democratising the French Indian administration. Gandhi
condemned the action of the Indians who declared their freedom from France and
Portugal, as thoughtless and a sign of arrogance and warned against taking the law in their
own hands. Gandhi condemned the freedom fighters in Chandernagore as duragrahis and
not satyagrahis, who are supposed to be fighters of a righteous cause through fair means
and not violence. Gandhi’s condemnation was distorted, printed and distributed throughout
French India that further confused and divided the nationalist elements. Taking benefit of
this confusion and the resultant lull in the popular movement, Baron let loose rigorous
oppression of the freedom fighters and started constitutional reforms for which, he
claimed, he got the approval of Gandhi. Though the Indian leaders were enamoured by
the French, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, true to his character and conviction, firmly asserted
that the French Settlements too must be liberated at the same time as India became free
from the British colonial yoke while Gandhi and Nehru opined that their liberation could
wait for some more time.
However, on November 7, 1947, Subbiah, the Communist leader from Pondicherry and
Arunanshu from Chandernagore met Gandhi at Delhi and impressed him on the cunningness
of Baron and how his words were twisted and falsely presented to serve the purpose of
suppressing the satyagraha and in perpetuating the French rule on the Indian soil and
strengthening their regime here. Gandhi maintained: “I am surprised that my friendly act
towards Chandernagore could be distorted by anyone to suggest that I could ever
countenance an inferior status in the little foreign settlements in India.” (CWMG, LXXXIX
(August 1, 1947 – November 10, 1947), pp. 500, 514). The leaders and participants
of freedom movement in French India imbibed the ideals of Gandhism and fought against
the French colonial rule. The Gandhian non-violent movement with a popular base and
participation subsequently achieved independence from the French colonial rule as the
French Indian problem was solved amicably through peaceful negotiation between France
and India by 1954.
16.7.2 Portuguese India

The Portuguese India too witnessed the establishment of nationalist organisations such as
the Goa Seva Sangh founded in 1943 by Purushottam Kakodkar, Vinayak Mayenkar,
Nilakanth Karapurkar and others to fight the Portuguese colonial rule. The spread of
nationalist ideas harnessed mass support for the satyagraha movement at a later date.
This awakening resulted in the launching of a popular movement in the Portuguese India
for the restoration of civil liberties on June 18, 1946 under the leadership of Dr.Ram
Manohar Lohia, who maintained: “Goa is part of us (the Indians) and we can’t allow her
movements for freedom and unity to be suppressed with such wanton ferocity”. He
advised the Goans that “the first step towards the resurgence of national life in Goa was
the abolition of its infamous law regarding assembly, organizations and publication”. The
Portuguese Government reacted vehemently; arrested Lohia and barred his entry into Goa.
With the formation of Goa National Congress which decided to offer satyagraha on 8th,
18th and 28th of every month, public meetings, hoisting of Indian national flags, and
circulation of pamphlets were undertaken. Police brutalities and imprisonment of the
leaders failed to unnerve the Goan nationalists. While supporting Lohia’s courageous
action, Gandhi advised him to leave the matter to Nehru. The news of the British
Satyagraha 191
withdrawal from India by mid 1947 encouraged popular movements in Portuguese India
in spite of the ruthless suppression and oppression spearheaded by the colonial
administration. The intransigence of the Portuguese colonial rulers made it difficult for
Nehru and the Indian Government to engage and convince its Portuguese counterpart.
The Indian nationalist elements resorted to direct action, which resulted in Satyagraha on
August 15, 1954. The Portuguese authorities endeavoured to convince the international
community that the satyagrahis were not Goans but Indian intruders. It also alleged
connivance and support of the Indian Government. Its proposal to appoint a team of
observers from the countries selected by Portugal and India to probe the matter was
turned down by the Indian Government. Further, inspite of appeals from the leaders of
the liberation movement to come to their rescue, Nehru believed that the Satyagraha
opposition to Portuguese colonialism should be an “entirely Goan movement, popular and
indigenous” and did not favour the Indian nationals’ participation in the Satyagraha
movement in Goa. Despite tremendous adverse public opinion, Nehru stuck to his guns
and imposed a ban on the entry of Indian nationals into Goa on August 15, 1954. In
June 1955, the Portuguese police opened fire and dispersed a gathering of Goans at
Cancona in South Goa as they were taking “an oath of allegiance to the liberation
movement” from within, without any prior warning indicating that the satyagrahis were
not safe in the Portuguese India.
Despite the lack of open support and encouragement from the Indian side, mass
Satyagraha was held on August 15, 1955. Some 4,204 satyagrahis marched into the
Portuguese possessions but faced the Portuguese police firing. This violent episode led to
the death of 22 satyagrahis and injuries to 225 persons. Following this, Nehru deplored
the ‘wanton and brutal exercise of force against unarmed people’ and asked the
Portuguese to close their delegation in Delhi. On September 1, 1955, both the countries
closed down their respective Consulates and the Goa borders were sealed off preceded
by the economic sanctions and further denial of any facilities to the Portuguese ships
entering Indian ports. On September 4, 1955, the Congress Working Committee declared
that individual Satyagraha by the Indian nationals for the liberation of Goa should be
avoided and ruled out mass entries into Goa. In April 1956, Morarji Desai, the then Chief
Minister of Bombay, urged the Goan citizens of Bombay to build up a fearless Satyagraha
movement and pointed out: “But, the struggle for Goan freedom has essentially to be a
Goan movement. You have to help yourselves.” In a public meeting held in Poona on
February 5, 1957 a demand was raised for the relaxation of the Union Government’s
restrictions on the non-violent Satyagraha campaign launched by the people for the
liberation of Goa by K.M.Jadhe, President of the Goa Vimochan Sahayak Samiti (The
Hindu, September 5, 1955). The Portuguese Indian authorities had scant respect for non-
violent Satyagraha movement, and the satyagrahis were dealt with utmost contempt and
in a crude fashion. To avoid violent reaction, Nehru relied on economic blockade and
then on diplomacy. In the end, he had to resort to ‘show’ of force, if not ‘use’ of force
to liberate Goa from the Portuguese colonists.
16.8 SATYAGRAHA LEGACY OUTSIDE INDIA

Satyagraha has gained wide acceptance around the world as a more potent tool of
resistance than armed violence. Satyagraha legacy was carried on long after Gandhi and
Martin Luther King used it in his battle against racism and also used the term “soul force”
during his famous “I Have a Dream” speech. The Reverend Martin Luther King used it
in the United States to oppose segregation and during the campaigns he led for the civil
rights movement in the United States. While acknowledging Gandhian influence over his
work, Martin Luther King said: “Like most people, I had heard of Gandhi, but I had
never studied him seriously. As I read I became deeply fascinated by his campaigns of
nonviolent resistance. I was particularly moved by his Salt March to the Sea and his
numerous fasts. The whole concept of Satyagraha was profoundly significant to me. As
I delved deeper into the philosophy of Gandhi, my skepticism concerning the power of
love gradually diminished, and I came to see for the first time its potency in the area of
social reform. ... It was in this Gandhian emphasis on love and nonviolence that I
discovered the method for social reform that I had been seeking”. Later, Nelson Mandela
used the Satyagraha technique in South Africa to end apartheid.
16.9 CONTEMPORARY RELEVANCE

At present, the negative effects of globalisation have created an unbridgeable gap between
rich and poor countries and people as well. Powerful nations try to corner all the world’s
resources for their own benefit and are ready to use military force to impose their will
on others. Moreover, militancy, insurgency and terrorism have become the order of the
day in several parts of the world. Minority Politics of language, culture, ethnicity, religion
and region and consequent crises situation has taken a heavy toll on global peace and
security. Real or perceived grievances – political, economic and socio-cultural – have led
to catastrophic conditions everywhere. On failure of peaceful, constitutional means in
achieving the goal, the leadership has taken recourse to violence and use of force. There
are incidents leading to huge loss of life and property by terrorist activities and also by
counter-terrorist actions of the State. Unfortunately, innocent civilians are becoming targets
of both terrorists and state agencies. Terrorists terrorise to discredit the State in the eyes
of its own subjects and State terrorises to eliminate opposition to its authority and to
suppress political dissensions. While terrorists try to justify their action in the name of right
to self- determination/achievement of political goals/ root cause of socio-economic injustice,
the State justifies it in the name of protecting their citizens and safeguarding their territorial
integrity. There is rather a race between the parties to terrorise and who terrorises more
comprehensively and effectively wins the race. This is the sorry spectacle of international
politics of the day. In such a situation, all right thinking human beings have to resolve that
violence is unacceptable and unjustifiable and serves no purpose.
Here comes Gandhian technique of ‘Satyagraha’ and his vision of a non-violent mass
movement. All his arguments against the use of violence on the part of anarchists against
the British colonial rule are more relevant today than they were ever before. That violence
leads to more violence needs no further proof. His advocacy of the use of soul-force or
love-force and his strategy of Satyagraha to attain unsullied ‘swaraj’ stands vindicated.
Uninterrupted peace and ever-lasting prosperity could be achieved, if only Gandhian
prescription to the issues of globalisation and international terrorism is paid heed of.
16.10 SUMMARY
To achieve the goal of national independence from colonial rule, Gandhi emphasised
ahimsa and satya, which he welded together in the concept and practice of Satyagraha.
Satyagraha proved to be a novel method of political action, a technique which revolutionised
Indian politics and galvanised millions to action against the British Raj. Satyagraha for
Gandhi was the only legitimate way to earn one’s political rights, as it was based on the
ideals of truth and non-violence. Satyagraha was the key aspect of all revolutions of the
Indian National Movement in the Gandhian era. It is the most potent legacy Gandhi left
Satyagraha 193
to India and to the world. Satyagraha is the pursuit of truth. Gandhi believed that truth
should be the cornerstone of everybody’s life and that we must dedicate our lives to
pursuing truth, to finding out the truth in our lives. And so his entire philosophy was the
philosophy of life. It was not just a philosophy for conflict resolution, but something that
we have to imbibe in our life and live it all the time so that we can improve and become
better human beings.

1. Describe the concept of ‘Satyagraha’ and bring out its political, socio-economic and
spiritual dimensions.
2. Evaluate the role of Gandhi in transforming the Concept of Satyagraha as a political
weapon against the European Colonial masters.
3. Is Satyagraha a panacea to the present day ills in national and international politics?
SUGGESTED READINGS
1. Gandhi,M.K., Satyagraha in South Africa, Translated from the Gujarati by Valji
Govindji Desai, Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, 1928 .
2. ………………., Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule, Navajivan Publishing House,
Ahmedabad, 1938, Eighteenth Reprint, 2006.
3. Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi.
4. Prabhu, R.K, and U. R. Rao., (eds), The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi, Ahmedabad,
Revised Edition, 1967.
5. Lohia, Ram Manohar., Action in Goa, August Publication House, Bombay, 1947.
6. Sheik Ali, B., (ed.), Goa Wins Freedom Reflections and Reminiscences, Goa
University, Goa, 1986.
7. Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s Foreign Policy Selected Speeches, September1946 – April
1961, The Publication Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government
of India, Second Reprint, New Delhi, 1983
8. Krishnamurthy,B., “Hind Swaraj: Gandhian Prescription to the Right to Self-
Determination” in Journal of Gandhian Studies, Special number on Hind Swaraj, Vol.
VII, No.1, 2009, pp. 69-81.
9. ———————, “Role of Satyagraha in the Freedom Movements in the French
and Portuguese India”, Journal of Gandhian Studies, Vol. V, Nos. I & II, 2007,
pp.55-70.
10. Chandra, Bipin., et al., Freedom Struggle, National Book Trust, New Delhi, 2000
(Fourth Reprint)
11. Gandhi, Rajmohan., Patel: A Life, Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, 1990.
12. Parekh, Bhikhu., “Gandhi in the 21st Century”, Posted on September 2, 2009 by
gandhifriends, www.gandhitoday.com.
13. Brecher, Michael., Nehru – A Political Biography, Oxford University Press, Delhi,
1998 (Reprinted as Oxford India Paperbacks)
Relevant Web-sites:
www.gandhitoday.com
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyagraha
http://www.quietspaces.com/satyagraha.html
http://www.mapsofindia.com/personalities/gandhi/satyagrah.html
SUGGESTED READINGS
Ahluwalia, B.K, and Ahluwalia, Shashi., Architects of Swaraj, Intellectual, New Delhi,
1982.
Alexander, Horace Gundry., “Gandhi” (In His) Consider India: An Essay in Values,
Asia Publishing House, Bombay, 1961.
Anand,Y.P., Mahatma Gandhi and Buddhism, Journal of Oriental Studies, Vol. 14,
October, 2004.
Ananthu,T.S., Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj: Its Appeal to Me, Gandhi Peace Foundation,
New Delhi, 1965.
Arnold, G., Gandhi, Pearson Education Ltd, Toronto, 2001
Bakshi, S.R., Gandhi and Concept of Swaraj, Criterion Publications, 1988.
Bakshi, S.R., Gandhi and his Techniques of Satyagraha, Sterling Publications Private
Ltd, New Delhi, 1987.
Bakshi, S.R., Gandhi and Ideology of Swadeshi, Reliance Publishing House, New Delhi,
1987.
Basu,Sajal., (ed), Satyagraha as Movement, Gandhi Smarak Sangrahalaya, Barrackpore
and Sujan Publications, Kolkata, 2007.
Bharathi,K.S., Philosophy of Sarvodaya, Indus, New Delhi, 1990.
Bharathi,S.R., Satyagraha of Mahatma Gandhi, Indus Publishing Co., New Delhi,
1980.
Borman, William., Gandhi and Non-Violence, State University of New York Press,
1986.
Bose, Anima., Dimensions of Peace and Non-Violence: The Gandhian Perspective,
Gyan Publishing House, New Delhi, 1987
Cain, Wlliam,E., A Historical Guide to Henry David Thoreau, Oxford University Press,
2000.
Chakrabarti, Mohit., Gandhian Aesthetics, Atlantic Publishers and Distributors, New
Delhi, 1991.
Chanderkanta., “Ends and means” In Kewal Krishan Mittal., (ed), Ethical Ideas of
Mahatma Gandhi, Gandhi Bhavan, Delhi, 1981.
Chatterjee,M., Gandhi’s Religious Thought, Macmillan, London, 1983.
Chopra,R.K., Thus Spake Gandhi, R.K.C. Publisher, New Delhi, 1994.
Coomaraswamy, Ananda K and Horner., Living Thoughts of Gautam : The Buddha,
Rupa, New Delhi, 2003.
David, Yohanan Ben., Indo-Judaic Studies: Some Papers, Northern Book Centre, New
Delhi, 2002.
Suggested Readings 195
Diwakar, R.R., Gandhiji’s Basic Ideas and Some Modern Problems, Bombay, 1963.
Diwakar, R.R., Satyagraha: The Pathway to Peace, Patna, 1950
Gandhi, M.K., What is Hinduism? Published on behalf of Indian Council of Historical
Research by National Book Trust, New Delhi, 1994.
Gandhi,M.K., Ethical Religion, Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, 2007 reprint.
Gangrade,K.D, Kothari, L.S, and Verma AR., Concept of Truth in Science and
Religion, Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi, 2005.
Ganguli,B.N., Gandhi’s Social Philosophy: Perspective and Relevance, Vikas Publishing
House Pvt Ltd, New Delhi, 1973.
Gokhale,B.K., Gandhi and History, History and Theory, Vl. 11, No.2, 1972, pp. 214-
225.
Goyal, O.P., Gandhi: An Interpretation, Kitab Mahal, Allahabad, 1964
Horsburh, H.J.N., Non- Violence and Aggression, Oxford University Press, 1968.
Hunt,James.D., Gandhi and the Non-Conformists, Promilla and Co. Publishers, New
Delhi, 1986.
Iyer, Raghavan N., “Gandhi’s Interpretation of History” in Gandhi Marg, Vol. 6, No.4,
1962, pp. 319-327.
Joshi, Tarkateertha Laxmanshastri., Development of Indian Culture: Vedas to Gandhi,
Translated by S.R.Nene, Lokmanya Griha, Mumbai, 2001.
Kaka, Kalelkar., Mahatma Gandhi’s “Gospel of Swadeshi”, Gandhi Hindustani Sahitya
Sabha, New Delhi, 1922, reprint 2004.
Karna, K.K. Lal., Mahatma Gandhi Contribution to Hinduism, Classical, New Delhi,
1981.
Karunakaran, K.D., Gandhi Interpretation, Gitanjali Publication House, 1985.
Khanna, Suman., Gandhi and the Good Life, Gandhi Peace Foundation, New Delhi,
1985.
Khoshoo,T.N., Mahatma Gandhi: An Apostle of Applied Human Ecology, TERI, New
Delhi, 1995.
Kim,S.K., The Philosophical Thoughts of Mahatma Gandhi, Vikas Publishing House,
New Delhi, 1996.
Kochukoshy, C.K., Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi, International Cultural Forum,
Delhi, 1961.
Kokandakar, J.R., Prelude to the search of truth, Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay,
1994
Koshal, Rajindar K, and Koshal Manjulika., Gandhian Economic Philosophy, American
Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 32, No. 2, April, 1973, pp.191-209.
Kumar, Ravindra., Non-Violence and Its Philosophy, Dynamic Publications, Meerut,

2005.
Kumarappa, J.C., The Non-Violent Economy and World Peace, Rajghat, Varanasi,
1958.
Lewisburg,P.A., Ruskin and Gandhi, Bucknell University Press and London Associated
Press, 1970.
Maharajan,M., Gandhi Thought : A study of Tradition and Modernity, Sterling, New
Delhi, 1996.
Majumdar, Uma., Gandhi’s Pilgrimage of Faith: From Darkness to Light, State
University of New York Press, 2005.
Malhotra, S.L., “Gandhi’s Doctrine of Swadeshi and the Pattern of International
Peace,” In R. Balasubramaniam and T.S.Devadoss, (ed), Gandhian Thought, University
of Madras, Madras, 1981.
Mathai, Mundackal Paulaose and Joseph, Siby., Meditations on Gandhi: A Ravindra
Varma festschrift, Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi, 2002.
Mathur, J.S, and Mathur, A.K., (ed.) Economic Thought of Mahatma Gandhi, Arihant
Publications, Jaipur, 1994.
McDonough, Sheila., Gandhi’s Response to Islam, D.K.Printworld, 1994
Moore,Charles.A, and Morris, Aidyth V., The Indian Mind: Essentials of Indian
Philosophy and Culture, East West Center Press, 1967.
Naess, Arne., Gandhi and GroupConflict: An Exploration of Satyagraha, Theoretical
Background, Universitetsforlaget, Oslo-Bergen-Tromso, 1974.
Nanda,B.R., Gandhi and His Critics, Oxford University Press, Delhi, 1985.
Nandy, Ashis., “From outside The Imperium: Gandhi’s Cultural Critique of the West”
In Traditions, Tyranny, and Utopias: Essays in the Politics of Awareness, Oxford
University Press, Delhi, 1987.
Nevaskar, Balwant., Capitalists without Capitalism: The Jains of India and the
Quakers of the West, Greenwood Press, Westport CT, 1971.
Pal, Bipin Chandra., Swadeshi and Swaraj, Yugantar Prakashan Ltd., Calcutta, 1958.
Parel, Anthony. J., (ed.) Gandhi, Freedom and Self-Rule, Lexington Books, MD, 2000.
Patil,S.H., Gandhi and Swaraj, Deep and Deep Publishers, New Delhi, 1983.
Pattanaik, D.D., The Swadeshi Movement: Culmination of Cultural Nationalism,
Orissa Review, August, 2005.
Prabhu, R.K., and Rao, U. R., (ed) “The Gospel Of Sarvodaya, in The Mind of
Mahatma Gandhi , Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, revised Edition, 1967.
Prasad, Shambhu., Towards an Understanding of Gandhi’s views on Science, Economic
and Political Weekly, Vol. 36, No. 39, September 29- October 5, 2001, pp.3721-3732.
Suggested Readings 197
Prasad,K.M., Sarvodaya of Gandhi, Rajhans Publications, New Delhi, 1984.

Puri, Rashmi-Sudha., Gandhi on War and Peace, Praeger Publishers, 1987.
Rai, Ajay Shankar., Gandhi Satyagraha: An Analytical and Critical Approach, Concept
Publishing Company, New Delhi, 2002.
Raju, P.A., Gandhi and his Religion, Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi, 2000.
Ramachandran, G, and Mahadevan, T.K., (ed.) Quest for Gandhi, Gandhi Peace
Foundation, New Delhi, 1970.
Ranade,R.D., Spiritual Awakening in Gandhi and Other Indian Saints, Sarva Seva
Sangh Prakashan, Varanasi, 2003.
Rao, K.L.Seshagiri., Mahatma Gandhi and Comparative Religion, Motilal Banarsidas
Publications Private Ltd., New Delhi, 1978, reprint 1990.
Sahasrabudhey, Sunil., Gandhi’s Challenge to Modern science, Other India Press, Goa,
2002.
Saxena, Sushil Kumar., Ever Unto God, Essays on Gandhi and Religion, Indian
Council of Philosophical Research, New Delhi, 1988.
Sonnleitner,Michael.W., Gandhian Non-Violence: Levels of Satyagraha, Abhinav
Publications, New Delhi, 1985.
Suman, Kwatra., Satyagraha and Social Change, Deep and Deep Publications, New
Delhi, 2001.
Tahtinen, U., Ahimsa: Non-Violence in Indian Tradition, Navajivan Publishing House,
Ahmedabad, 1976.
Trivedi, Lisa., Clothing Gandhi’s Nation: Homespun and Modern India, Indiana
Unnithan,T.K.N., Gandhi and Social Change, Rawat Publications, Jaipur, 1979.
Varma, Ravindra., Spiritual Basis of Satyagraha, Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad,
2001.
Varma, Ravindra., Spiritual Perception of Mahatma Gandhi, Rupa and Co., New
Delhi, 2006.
Varma, Vishwanath Prasad., Political Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi and Sarvodaya,
Lakshmi Narain Agarwal, Delhi, 1959.
(Compiled by Ms.Mamta Tyagi, Research and Teaching Assistant, School of

Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Studies, Indira Gandhi National Open
University, New Delhi)

02 Philosophy of Gandhi @nadal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

02 Philosophy of Gandhi @nadal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

02 Philosophy of Gandhi @nadal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNIT 1 INDIC RELIGIONS: HINDUISM, JAINISM

1.2 Hinduism: Sources and Basic Doctrines

Aims and objectives

1.2 HINDUISM: SOURCES AND BASIC DOCTRINES

Schools of Philosophy: There are six schools of philospophy, known as Darshanas

1.3 HINDUISM AND GANDHI

And one who practises:

1.4 JAINISM: SCHOOLS, VOWS AND BASIC

1.5 GANDHI AND JAINISM

1.6 BUDDHISM: FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS AND THE

1.7 GANDHI AND BUDDHISM

1.9 TERMINAL QUESTIONS

Aims and objectives

2.2 JUDAISM: HISTORY, THEOLOGY, PHILOSOPHY

These Ten Commandments establish the ethical monotheism in Judaism.

2.3 CHRISTIANITY: THE TEACHINGS AND BASIC

2.4 GANDHI AND CHRISTIANITY

2.5 ISLAM: SPREAD OF ISLAM, THE HOLY QURAN

2.6 GANDHI AND ISLAM

2.8 TERMINAL QUESTIONS

Aims and objectives

3.2 GREEK TRADITION: HISTORY, TRADITION AND

3.3 JOHN RUSKIN (1819-1900)

3.4 TOLSTOY, COUNT LEO NIKOLAEVICH (1828-1910)

part in a discussion in a society for the Establishment of Peace among men- on

3.5 HENRY DAVID THOREAU (1817-1862)

3.6 GANDHI AND THOREAU

3.8 TERMINAL QUESTIONS

Aims and objectives

4.3 BHAKTI MOVEMENT

4.4 KABIR AND THE SUFI SECT

4.5 TULASIDAS: SOCIAL CONCERN AND FORMLESS

Sources and Manuscripts

3. Shuddhadwaita: Vallabha’s philosophy is known as ‘Shuddhadwaita’, or Pushti

4.7 ANASAKTI YOGA

4.9 TERMINAL QUESTIONS

7. Bhattacharya, N.N., (ed), Medieval Bhakti Movement in India, Shri Chaitanya

5.3 Gandhi’s Concept of Man

5.4 Man: Brutishness to Divinity

5.2 GANDHIAN APPROACH TO UNDERSTANDING

5.2.1 Gandhi and Advaita School of Shankara

5.2.2 Spirit and Matter: A Critique of Marxian Approach

5.2.3 Human Nature: A Historic Perspective

5.3 GANDHI’S CONCEPT OF MAN

5.3.1 Innate Goodness of Man

5.3.2 Obedience to the Call of Conscience

5.4 MAN: BRUTISHNESS TO DIVINITY

5.5 STEPS FOR UPWARD MOVEMENT: SOURCES OF

5.6 HUMAN PERFECTIBILITY

achieving something radical and revolutionary, through education and persuasion. He

5.9 TERMINAL QUESTIONS

6.6 Gandhi and the Advaita Perspective

6.2 MEANING OF TRUTH, TRUTH IS GOD

6.3 THE IMPORTANCE OF TRUTH IN HUMAN LIFE

6.4 ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE TRUTH

6.5 TRUTH AND GOD

6.5.1 Realisation of the Self

6.6 GANDHI AND THE ADVAITA PERSPECTIVE