Reflections on Gandhi - George Orwell

Summary and Analysis

Orwell’s Reflections on Gandhi is one of his most important essays probing the popular saint’s
personality, perspective and works from various angles. The author has tried his best to be
impartial on Gandhi since even his adversaries were unable to remain uninfluenced by him. The
question that whether Gandhi was a saint, a politician or both has haunted scholars. Answering it
definitively would require a vast amount of research and reasoning. One notable fact about
Gandhi’s life was abstinence and George Orwell highlights it in his essay at various stages in order
to answer questions on Mahatma’s character. Orwell has also reflected upon Gandhi and his
teachings and techniques in the context of the atomic war which was one of the darkest
questions requiring answer following the dropping of the atom bomb. The author also judges the
appeal of Gandhi’s ideas of non-violence and if it had a universal appeal and could be practiced
worldwide.

One great fact about Orwell’s essay is that you will find a stunningly clear picture of Gandhi in it – a
picture that looks vastly different from the one media or the other sources paint. Orwell has
analysed Mahatma’s personality with great care and still he himself does not look satisfied. Orwell
was an investigator who would probe any topic till he reached the right conclusion. Despite
having drawn from second hand resources mainly, he has painted a large and clear picture of
Mahatma. If any ordinary author tries to weigh and evaluate Mahatma Gandhi’s personae, it
would take him a lot of reasoning with his own conscience. Gandhi had the power to bend others’
will in his favour. Orwell assesses Gandhi’s character and soul in his own honest manner.

Gandhi’s attitude and appearance could give rise to some distaste as Orwell openly accepts in his
essay. His actions and thoughts have not escaped criticism either and were considered anti-human
and reactionary by many. However, while there were several things impractical about Gandhi and
still an impartial evaluation shows his ideals and ideology as a potent tool against violence and
mass destruction. Orwell successfully highlights the strengths of Gandhi’s philosophy and how
one simple man and his simple philosophy had the potential to change the world. However, at an
inner level, Gandhi was not as simple as he looked. His personality was complex because of the
mixed traits, the existence of which in the same person is unimaginable for most of us. Many of us
trying to understand Gandhi’s personae would not be able to see beyond the first few layers. His
stubbornness and courage are some important traits that can’t be overlooked. Without putting
things in the right context, one cannot have a clear picture of Gandhi. Orwell is not trying to
defend Gandhi or his character in his essay. Instead he is trying to present a clearer picture that
helps you see past the Mahatma’s personality and outer appearance. For most people, it was
impossible to peep into Gandhi’s soul. The aura of simplicity around Gandhi was tough as a turtle’s
shell.

Orwell’s approach to understanding Gandhi is more candid than others. He starts his essay by
asking questions about Gandhi’s sainthood and the extent to which he was a saint or a politician.
He asks if Gandhi was moved by vanity and if his ability to shake empires by sheer spiritual power
had corrupted his conscience. If he was a saint, then to what extent did politics corrupt him or did
he compromise his principles by entering politics. A definite answer to these questions is
impossible without having studied the saint’s life in detail and without considering every large and
small act in his life which was a pilgrimage in itself. Orwell had studied his autobiography which
was only partial because it continues only into the 1920s and still provides some strong evidence
into those parts of his life which prove that he was a shrewd man who would have become a
successful lawyer, administrator, or business man but chose otherwise, shunning all the worldly
pleasures and wealth.

Orwell raises such questions right at the outset because he cannot agree with the normal picture
of the Mahatma presented to the world but subjects the ordinary photograph drawn by media to
his own litmus test. One important strength of the Gandhian philosophy that comes to light from
Orwell’s discussion is that rejecting a few small things is essential to reach the bigger things in his
life. Slavery is for those who are weakened by their personal biases and when your personal bias
stops weakening you, you find strength against the biggest monster that can dominate you – your
ego. Gandhi’s personality is complex and to see under its layers impossible. This complexity can
hinder judgement and one may end up being over-influenced or unclear in his view of the
Mahatma. The personality that looked simple and frictionless could exert pressure that even Hitler
did not.

While Gandhi in person did not make a great impression on Orwell, his autobiography did, whose
first few pages he got to read in a low quality Indian newspaper. The things that were most
commonly associated with Gandhi like home-spun cloth, ‘soul forces’ and vegetarianism did not
hold any special appeal in the eyes of the Western masses. The British believed they were using
him as he had the ability to prevent violence. In private, the English would admit that he was a
man with real influence. However, as his nonviolent methods grew more targeted at the British, it
had left the conservatives angry.

Orwell had noted that even the officials that talked of him with amusement and disapproval had
developed a genuine liking for him later. Such was the influence of the Mahatma that it was
difficult to hate him for long. No one could find vulgarity or malice in him or fear or even
cowardice. However, when you are judging a person like Gandhi you instinctively apply the very
highest standards as you apply in case of saints. This can make people ignore some of his most
important and finest virtues. Orwell highlights his courage as an example. It was one of the most
neglected of his virtues. Any man of stature in politics who valued his life would have hundreds of
guards surround him. Gandhi was not well guarded at the time he was murdered. It proved either
he did not fear death by an enemy or did not suspect having one. His simplicity kept other things
about him hidden.

He was free from other vices too like he did not have that suspicion of a maniac which most
Orientals can be accused of and which Forster highlighted in his ‘A Passage to India’. Neither was
he a hypocrite like the British. While he was quite shrewd at detecting dishonesty, he never tried
to press his personal values upon others and could connect with their better side easily.
Moreover, he was not afflicted by envy or inferiority despite being from a poor family or lacking
physical appeal. He was surprised by racism when he first saw it in South Africa in its worst form.
Orwell highlights his virtues and his innocence because these virtues cannot be found in a person
without innocence. While fighting against racism in South Africa, he never thought of people
based on their color or race. To him, everyone from governor of a province to a cotton millionaire,
a half-starved Dravidian coolie or a British private soldier were all similar. For such a person, it was
difficult to be without friends and even when he was unpopular for fighting for Indians, he had
some European friends.

Orwell explains how the Mahatma’s career went through stages before he started being known
as the saint. His autobiography despite not being a literary masterpiece was impressive. It showed
that while Gandhi might have been more content in some other field, he was forced to join politics
and adopt his extremist opinions in stages and at times unwillingly. Gandhi did not happen by
chance or by accident. He himself did not draw the path he followed. His character was shaped by
circumstances and created through demand. He even made attempts to adopt a Westernized
lifestyle as Orwell notes from Gandhi’s autobiography. “He wore a top hat, took dancing lessons,
studied French and Latin, went up the Eiffel Tower and even tried to learn the violin” (Source:
Orwell Foundation). He was not a saint since childhood as usually happens in the case of most.
Neither was he of the type that shun sensational debaucheries after once having drowned
themselves in them. While Gandhi has confessed in his autobiography he did not have many sins
to hide, there are really too few to confess. All his worldly possessions he had at the time of his
death did not cost any more than Five Pounds. The same can be said about his sins or what he
gladly accepts as mistakes in his autobiography. If they were to be heaped together, they would
weigh less than those committed by a ten years old kid. His sins could be counted on fingers.

Apart from a few cigarettes, consumption of meat once or twice and a few annas stolen and two
fruitless visits to a brothel, he had hardly committed any worldly sins. This is not possible without
personal character. Hardly ever did he lose his temper or judgment except one or two times.
Orwell does not miss to highlight the highest degree of self-control which Mahatma
demonstrated and which could otherwise be found only in Buddhist monks. Since his childhood,
he possessed a strong sense of ethics, even stronger than religion but remained directionless till
he turned thirty. So, his first entry into something that could really be called life of public activity
was made by way of vegetarianism. His ancestors were solid middle class businessmen and in his
personality those strengths could be felt clearly. So, for the sake of social service, he abandoned
his ambitions but even then remained as Orwell notes “resourceful, energetic lawyer and a hard-
headed political organizer, careful in keeping down expenses, an adroit handler of committees
and an indefatigable chaser of subscriptions” (Source: Orwell Foundation).

Exploring so many facets of Gandhi’s personality is not possible without feeling confused but
Orwell has given an impartial touch to his analysis. He touches on Gandhi from several angles and
while he is mostly appreciating Gandhi’s contributions he also explains what different people or
groups have felt about him. He tries to reach the core of the topic that what made Mahatma a
Mahatma (a saint) – as he was later called in his life. However, his teachings are based on his
religious beliefs and so whether they can be accepted by everyone is not certain. Several people
had also felt Gandhi to be touched by Orthodoxy. Despite those mixed traits in his character, there
was hardly one that could be called sinful and for that even his worst critics have admitted him to
be a wonderful man whose life was a gift to this world. While Orwell’s analysis is the most
penetrating of all, it is so because he touches more on the real side of the Mahatma than the more
glamorous side publicised by media. For many, Gandhi was like an enlightened monk but Orwell
portrays him more as a real person who wrestled India away from the British by virtue of his
simplicity.

Gandhi’s teachings cannot be approached in the same manner as every piece of knowledge. They
must be interpreted in the right context otherwise a tendency had grown to talk of him as if he
were an integral part of the western left-wing movement. His opposition to state violence and
centralism has made anarchists and pacifists claim him for their own herd. Orwell notes there is
also an alien like and anti-humanist tendency of his doctrines that the anarchists and pacifists
might have ignored. Gandhi’s teachings can mainly be interpreted in the Hindu context where only
God is the truth and the material world an illusion. To see it in a different context can lead people
to varying conclusions.
Apart from shunning all kind of animal food, he shunned alcohol, tobacco and spices. Sex was not
a sin but must be practiced within restrictions and for the purpose of bearing kids only. In his mid-
thirties, Gandhi took oath of complete Brahmacharya that does not just mean complete chastity
but also elimination of sexual desire. For an average man such high level of discipline must be very
difficult to practice. He did not take milk either since it would arouse sexual desire. After it, the
most important point – the person pursuing goodness must lose the personal and be impersonal.
While trying to reflect on Gandhian perspective, Orwell also compares it with the common-
sensical. Several of his actions and views do not look like based upon common sense and still he
handled some of the most difficult questions in politics with skill and responsibility. It is why
Orwell refers to the presence of a shrewd man inside Gandhi who was not a genius like Einstein
but still had strong foresight. His shrewdness was also justified in the light of the problems he
fought against.

There are no close friendships or exclusive loves. The way you like ‘A’ is the way you like ‘B’. He
found close friendships dangerous and misleading because the personal bias born of it could lead
you into moral wrongdoing. Orwell also finds it true because to love God or the humanity in its
entirety, one must not give any one person a particular preference. To cultivate a bias for
someone is not like loving him. However, to an average person it would mean being inconsiderate.
You love your family means you love them more than others. This is where the humanistic and the
religious do not match. His autobiography does not talk much about how he treated his kids and
wife but gives a certain account where he was not ready to administer them animal food and
instead was willing to let them die. Any average man would consider it inhuman and would find it
impractical because letting your kid die for want of animal food when he is ill is not less than
cruelty. While such sacrifice on Gandhi’s part may look noble, for an average man it is inhuman.

Orwell while trying to evaluate Gandhian values in the light of their relevance for average human,
sheds light on why they must not be adopted by a common man. The essence of humanity is not
perfectionism and one must not chase asceticism to an extent making friendly communication
impossible. Detachment or non-attachment is most often seen as a method to deliver oneself
from worldly pain. This is where humanistic and religious ideal seem incompatible. Detachment or
non-attachment cannot become every human being’s reason who has to find reason in his worldly
connections. Moreover detachment also means shunning responsibilities. While most people do
not have a genuine desire to be saints, those who possess such desire are not much tempted to
be common humans. The difference is similar to that between drama and reality. However, Orwell
is not trying to ridicule Gandhi because if Gandhian lifestyle became everyone’s lifestyle, the
originality and genuineness related with Gandhi’s personality will fail. He is trying to clarify the
logic behind Gandhi’s perspective and if there was anything ridiculous behind it.

To sketch a complete picture of Gandhi is a difficult task but Orwell does try it and for it he studied
many facets of Gandhi’s lifestyle, ideals, personal values and teachings. One cannot talk of him
without mentioning Satyagraha which as per Orwell was a method of nonviolent warfare that was
used to defeat the enemy without kindling any kind of fear, hatred or need for retaliation. It
includes the use of tactics like civil disobedience, strikes, and similar more without being
aggressive. However, Gandhi objected to passive resistance being understood as Satyagraha.
Satyagraha is active resistance and active protests against oppression and evil – it denotes a firm
stance in the favour of truth. Gandhi even served as a stretcher bearer in the Boer war and was
ready to serve again in the World War I.
Even after having accepted nonviolence completely he believed that war had logic and you had to
choose your side during a war. In this regard, he did not abstain from accepting the logic and did
not pretend that you could be neutral in war and that both sides were exactly the same and which
one won did not really matter. Gandhi remained honest even while answering such difficult and
awkward questions. While the Western Pacifists evaded questions related to Jewish
extermination, Gandhi answered that German Jews ought to commit collective suicide, which will
rouse the world to Hitler’s violence. This answer could have shaken people as was Mr Fischer. The
later events justified his response and Jews died in large numbers. While urging a non-violent
resistance against Japanese invasion, he was ready to admit that it might lead to several million
deaths.

Orwell questions the strength of Gandhian beliefs and if the person was able to think beyond his
own struggle and if he even understood totalitarianism. He was able to generate publicity and
arouse the world when right to free assembly and free press were limited by the government.
There was no Gandhi in Russia and Russians could implement such movements only when the idea
occurred to all of them. In Orwell’s view applying non-violence to international politics was
difficult and it was proved by the conflicting statements that Gandhi gave about the world war.
The nature of pacifism changes when applied to international politics. Moreover the assumption
that people have a better side and can be approached generously was not true in all contexts. If
you were dealing with lunatics you will not necessarily find them approachable.

Gandhi might have been unaware of several facts but never felt afraid of answering a question
and always handled them honestly. The Second World War had happened and the globe was on
the brink of another. This had left George Orwell concerned that it would not be able to bear the
effects of another world war. He could not see another way out of it than world-wide adoption of
non-violence. When Gandhi died, India was engaged in a bitter civil war. No one would have
predicted the event till one year before the British fled India. It happened at the hands of a labor
government and had Churchill been in control, things might have taken a different turn. However,
by the time Gandhi died he had attained his biggest dream of India’s liberation from the British
rule. Orwell asks a few questions before the conclusion. Was it Gandhi’s influence that so much
support had gathered in favour of India by 1945? Had Gandhi been able to decontaminate the
political environment with his non-violent struggle? If such questions are raised about Gandhi, it is
not difficult to imagine his mammoth stature. Questions can be raised about his sainthood and
one can deny his ideals or feel a strong distaste for him but compare him to the other political
figures of his time and his mere existence was a blessing for this world. Gandhi remained a
misunderstood or less understood mystery and perhaps this was the reason that rather than
being rewarded for his sacrifices and leadership, he was murdered brutally by a Hindu fanatic.
However, even in his death he remained a picture of outstanding physical courage.

Orwell’s work illustrates Mahatma’s personality in detail. To avoid being partial, Orwell does not
base it on first hand meetings or interviews and instead proposes to bring to light what can be
uncovered only through reasoning. He peels the cover off Mahatma’s personality like an orange to
show the pulpier side of him. He shows there is no stink underneath and Mahatma has preserved
his soul from degeneration through sheer spiritual power and faith in basic principles like truth
and non-violence. In politics, this will be seen as a great sacrifice and not as mere leadership.