by Gurnoor Kaur Suri
Literary work on Gandhi is marked by phenomenal abundance. What accompanies this abundance are two extremities of such analyses: viewing Gandhi as either a highly politicised
Indian icon or a holy man who revolutionized the conventional perception of being “holy.” Such wide distinctions in the way that he is understood makes it challenging for us to bridge the two together. I do not wish to restrict my perception of Gandhi to one fixed quarter while also acknowledging my strong belief in him persisting as a moral, instead of a political, icon—his philosophy shaping, and in some forms, triumphing his politics. At the very core of this morality lies his “religion;” a religion that I view as being uncontaminated by the human-created boundaries of belief. I argue that it is this religion, which I later frame as dharma, that underlines Gandhian philosophy. As Hind Swaraj pieces together a passionate argument, I briefly solicit attention towards the hidden paradoxes, subtilties, and the interplay between philosophy and politics that dharma entails. While doing so, I appreciate the excellent work of three prominent authors on Gandhi. I use Sorabji’s Gandhi and the Stoics to discuss the attainment of moksha with the dharma-packed route that it requires pursuing and highlight the rich-sub section regarding sacrifice and suffering in Chatterjee’s Gandhi’s Religious Thought. Additionally, I briefly revise and counter some key arguments regarding the present-day relevancy of Gandhi in Rao’s Gandhi’s Dharma while sourcing fundamental inspiration from Rao’s text and the all-encompassing way in which it presents dharma. Therefore, much of this essay focuses on what this dharma entails, with a further emphasis on Gandhi’s attempt at philosophising politics.
Religion in Hind Swaraj can be complex at first glance, owing especially to it carrying two, distinct yet related, meanings: “as a sect or organised religion, and as ethic, albeit one grounded in some metaphysic.”[1] Dharma evokes the latter implication of religion which is consistent with what some may view religious essence to be: a fervent pursuit of something, in many cases a godly figure. One may perceive this distinction to reflect a Gandhian opposition to worldly religions. However, these ethics are, in Gandhi’s terms, also a form of religion, something that “underlies all religion,” and is where the human-made religions, in their organised religion format, lead to. God is, therefore, the symbol of these ethics for Gandhi.[2] Reverence for the several religions that India hosts, for Gandhi, is almost synonymous with possessing a strong national spirit wherein one nation can never equal a single religion.[3]
As explicitly framed by Gandhi, Hind Swaraj contains passionate resistance against what forms the foundation of the very existence of the British rule: modern civilisation; Britishers are stated to be mere catalysts in this process: “… India is being ground down not under the English heel but under that of modern civilisation.”[4] Civilisation is a curable disease which, Gandhi believes, has afflicted the English who, thus, require our sympathy. Blaming the British is, therefore, an act displacing accountability from the “Kingdom of Civilisation”—the modern civilisation— to those merely victimised by it.[5] Dharma, in some ways, evokes a sense of pity (which in contemporary understanding may be defined as empathy, instead of mere sympathy) for what is just be another nation oppressed by this civilisation. Such empathy forms the basis of his later argument against physically opposing the colonisers: “The poet Tulsidas has said ‘Of religion, pity or love is the root, as egotism of the body. Therefore, we should not abandon pity so long as we are alive.’”[6] This civilisation is placed opposite to religion as if the two exist in an inversely proportional relationship. Civilisation—as he believed to have partly infiltrated through India rendering them as “half-Anglicised”— is a turn away from God.[7] I perceive dharma in Hind Swaraj as being born out of a recognised necessity to reverse this effect of civilisation and not merely oppose the British government.
Dharma lies on the brick of self-sacrifice, a suffering limited to the self with an acceptance of whatever consequence may come this self’s way. When violence is used to counter a law, it equals the use of body-force since self-sacrifice is absent here; self-sacrifice is, therefore, fundamental. Bearing the penalty of this law is critical, as Gandhi states, but so is the opposition to a law that is “repugnant to our conscience.”[8] Chatterjee in the chapter “The Non-Violent Weapon of Suffering” noted in her book Gandhi’s Religious Thought offers significant depth to Gandhi’s unconventional perception of suffering and refers to it as the term that I borrow from her: paradoxical. She frames Gandhi’s model of suffering as reforming previous Indian thought which assumes that all “ethico-religious endeavour[s]” target such external suffering and the subsequent removal of it. She understands Gandhian dharma as reaching beyond this, assuming an apparent paradox-like stance: “… it was not until Gandhi that we find the innovatory idea of suffering itself being regarded as a way of dealing with suffering.”[9]
His idea of suffering, as Chatterjee states, is a combination of the traditional way of looking at the removal of suffering as imperative and the unconventional way of refraining to view it as “general cosmic condition.”[10] Gandhi’s approach, something that Chatterjee reiterates across her text as being inherently scientific and reformatory, is not concerned with the philosophical why of suffering—something that several of our previous texts focus on— and instead, actively aims to remedy it in a collectivist manner.[11] However, while suffering must be viewed in a communal way, it remains as “voluntary” thus signalling towards dharma being a conscious engagement. We, therefore, must not mistake his belief in suffering to be a justification for the “involuntary suffering” that the status quo imposes on people. In fact, the very usage of ahimsa, or non-violence, is argued for by Gandhi as an attempt to restrict the further addition of this involuntary suffering in the world. Chatterjee places Gandhi’s focus on social injustice as being parallel to Marx with the only difference being Gandhi’s emphasis on using love-force, instead of bodily-force; Hind Swaraj strongly builds against this idea of using body-force. Gandhi understands dharma as demanding against passive compliance- it asks of us a voice (and not arms) against injustice, even if it takes the form of an abiding law. Dharma, hence, does not require bodily strength and courage since simple “[c]ontrol over the mind is alone necessary, and, when it is attained, man is free like the king of the forest, and his very glance withers the enemy.”[12]
I take a moment to piece Chatterjee’s passing claim of Gandhi possessing a scientific claim as being parallel to what is echoed by Hind Swaraj. Gandhi self-labels his dharma as universal with its conceptualisation being as robust as that of two plus two equalling four.[13] This science, as commented by the editor, is not of the modern, rational, research backed knowledge house of empiricism but is the “science of morals.”[14] Additionally, although Hind Swaraj notes Gandhi’s devotion to Ramayana, a pivotal Hindu mythological text, as the “greatest book in all of devotional literature,” for Gandhi, such scriptures do not overshadow his dharma.[15] I addressed above his call for respecting all religions equally as parallel paths to a single end point. With this respect also comes his belief in science and scepticism. He acknowledges that all religions, and their scriptures alike, are subjectively created by humans and “[i]f there was anything in scripture which offended against reason or conscience, so much worse for scripture.”[16] I perceive this to be a courageous take, especially in consideration of the highly religious context of India.
Condemning physical-force, Gandhi evokes “love-force.” Hind Swaraj frames truth or love as the premise of this dharma, with its strongest evidence arising from the continuance of the human species. Love-force is real: the wars not leading to the triumph of a singular man with everybody else rendered dead or enslaved is the “most unimpeachable evidence of the success of this[love-force] force.”[17] I quote Chatterjee in her description of the Gandhian love-force: “The reign of love is to be brought about not through the sacrificial love of God’s son on the Cross, but through every man’s act of self-sacrifice.”[18] She further sources a direct quote from Gandhi who says, “[d]o not preach the God of history, but show Him as He lives today through you.”[19] Dharma was thus, inherently religious— blurring the gaunt line between religion as sect and ethic—with the difference being the ethic’s application in the now and the action being active.
Dharma was, as I described above, not of the “isolationist” form, or the conventional way to pursue enlightenment and “self-perfection” that one may initially view it as. Instead, Gandhi diffuses the concept of “heroism” across all those who commit to self-suffering and this truth-force.[20] Dharma was also not perpetuated through mere preaching. He viewed conversational style reasoning approach to be, in some ways, surface-level when what was at direct stake were things of “fundamental importance to the people”— the people being at the centre of effort. Self-suffering was, in Chatterjee’s terms, “more than a tool of conflict resolution, it is a way of ‘changing reality.’”[21] His philosophy was, therefore, also inherently social in nature.
As I aim to continue my discussion of dharma using Chatterjee’s rich arguments, I introduce Sorabji’s Gandhi and the Stoics. Sorabji in the chapter “Gandhi’s Individual Freedom, and Berlin on Zeno’s—Sour Grapes?” highlights Tolstoy’s Letter to a Hindoo, a correspondence that was addressed by the editor of Hind Swaraj as being controversial in its political scope. These letters were later published by Gandhi which proved the “common ideological outlook” that the two figures had.[22] Thus, I evoke some critical lines this manuscript to reflect on the inward-looking approach that dharma too adopts: “If the people of India are enslaved by violence it is only because they themselves live and have lived by violence and do not recognise the eternal law of love inherent in humanity.”[23] Chatterjee exemplifies this by stating that Gandhi’s understanding of rural reconstruction was what we may causally frame as taking matters in our own hands for “those who bear the brunt of a particular injustice…must learn to mobilise their non-violent strength in order to improve their condition.”[24] I often view this, in agreement with other critics of Gandhi, as a sense of hollow victimisation and shifting the blame from the perpetrators to the sufferers. Dharma’s focus on the self—not of the colonisers but of the colonised— can appear discrediting and undervaluing of the extremities colonisation, for instance, contains.
Sorabji offers excellent review work on the politicisation of philosophy that my own argument centres around. In doing so, he elicits the concept of moksha, or “spiritual liberation.” Although standard in his understanding of moksha being freedom from rebirth, we see Gandhi’s collectivistic approach being reiterated as he doesn’t believe that in order to achieve moksha, one must withdraw from the social (and inherently political) world. It was to be acquired by engaging with the downtrodden, those who—as we discussed above— were suffering not by choice but due to social injustice. Gandhi believed the truest version of swaraj to be moksha. This engagement with the world or, in Sorabji’s words, “immersion with the world” is what I frame as being central to his philosophy shaping his politics and not his politics directing his philosophy.
Gandhi, therefore, viewed politics to be “subservient” to his religion, something that he perceived to be “a part of the effort for moksha.” He claimed politics to be like a snake coiling everyone and keeping them bondage: “I wish therefore to wrestle with the snake.”[25] Political activity must be spiritualized, and dharma preceded and not merely accompanied these politics. An excellent example of the mass reach of this concept was detailed by Sorabji as happening in the Bardoli Satyagraha. In his analysis, he refuses to keep political and spiritual goals distant—blurring this distinction— as he states the several reasons why the satyagrahis opt to be involved in a march ranging from them viewing it as a battle against fear and for the logistical reason of contesting a law. However, as Gandhi saw in Bardoli, “loss of political objective would not call off the march, loss of the spiritual objective would.”[26]
Politics to Gandhi is, nonetheless, significant. I present a block-quote detailing this further while also highlighting Gandhi’s unwavering commitment to his dharma.
“The Bhagvadgita did not require Gandhi to give up political goals. When it urges nonattachment to the fruit of action, it is not instructing us not to collect the fruit, but only not be attached to it, not to be hung up about it. As Gandhi says, it does not require us to disown the fruits. Being ready to disown them is the spirit that Gandhi showed in calling off his campaign in Bardoli…”[27]
I evoke another quote from Gandhi as noted in Gandhi’s Religious Thought:
“To see the universal and all-pervading spirit of Truth face-to-face one must be able to love the meanest of creation as oneself. And a man who aspires after that cannot afford to keep out of any field of life. That is why my devotion to Truth has drawn me unto the field of politics; and I can say without the slightest hesitation and yet in all humility that those who say that religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion means.”[28]
Therefore, while he firmly believes that a holy man “who had taken a vow of silence” too is obligated to raise concern over political injustice, the pursuit of dharma was the means to detach from political gains.[29] I reaffirm Sorabji’s concise opinion here: since moksha included, literally, final “release from the world,” his dharma and moksha could not merely be goals ending with political swaraj and went beyond.[30]
Discipline held the spine of dharma. Chatterjee provides us with a backdrop to Gandhi’s focus on this self-discipline. She writes that Gandhi was a strong believer in the common humanity and goodness that we all shared. Man possessed dual capabilities: one is able to both, resonate deeply and impact “another’s woe” and make their heart and soul inaccessible, adopting a self- centered lifestyle. However, it was this shared humanity that allowed for the mobilisation of people and defeating who he terms as the “opponent.”[31] However, this conquest was not merely external—I reiterate the inward-looking focus addressed earlier—to the satyagrahis; it was a conquest over themselves and their earlier “pampered” selves.[32] One may read this either being sourced from Hind swaraj’s take of this pampering embodying the luxuries of modern civilisation or simply as the generic “factors which had previously stood in the[their] way of understanding.”[33]
To become a true satyagrahi, one is required to “observe perfect chastity, adopt poverty, follow truth, and cultivate fearlessness.”[34] Gandhi reckons chastity to be a core medium through which one can establish such discipline. A passive resister must not merely fully restrict sexual passions beyond when performed to reproduce—something that Gandhi perceives to be “an animal indulgence”—but also sacrifice such a “narrow scope” for progeny.[35] Poverty and a heartfelt acceptance of living in a low economic state is important too. Although, he does not expect the rich satyagrahis to discard all their money, but dharma requires them to practice detachment from it. Truth and complete elimination of fear are important although Gandhi describes them as being deeply intertwined.[36] In fact, without undergoing what Chatterjee states as the process of “preliminary self-purification,” non-violence and satyagraha could be rendered without any, or opposite, utility and can potentially transform into a method of coercion or blackmail.[37]
Gandhi, therefore, both distinguished and interlinked swaraj and real swaraj, the former implying political independence or home-rule and the latter, self-rule and self-control. He perceived political freedom—in the form of independence from the British rule—as being incomplete without complete acquisition of self-control and dharma. In fact, political swaraj was a resultant of “many men” accomplishing real swaraj. Tolstoy’s view urging Indians to accept accountability for their colonisation is reiterated by Gandhi here: “The reason why they [Britishers] rule over us is to be found in ourselves; that reason is our disunity, our immorality and our ignorance.”[38] Personal realisation of swaraj must be followed by endeavouring to perpetuate it further but that must only come after, and not before, our personal experience with it. In some ways, hence, swaraj was also individual before being communal.
As I conclude my argument, I intend to convey the intense hold that Gandhi’s claims have had on me as a citizen of what was once a colony. I acknowledge that Rao’s work in Gandhi’s Dharma echoes the crux of my argument. His book’s title, literally, magnifying dharma is only a symbolic preface to work on almost all aspects of Gandhian political philosophy, including swaraj, swadeshi, and satyagraha. Dharma is, therefore, the very root of all that it encompasses.
I return to my introductory argument about Gandhi persisting as an icon of morality. I say this while relying on my local-level experience of growing amidst a society where the term Gandhi, inherently, calls for bowing one’s head in reverence and legacy or a morality class is incomplete without frequent recourse to Gandhian ethics. However, as Rao argues, Gandhi has been rendered irrelevant to Indian politics with his name reduced to something that is casually used to elicit votes in a rally: “His legacy remains more in the form of relics and museums people may visit than as programmes pursued to make a difference in the lives of people.”[39] However, Rao, in the chapter “Shanti,” states that the highly globalising, changing world makes Gandhi’s ideas even more relevant. I argue against this using his quote cited above. I view Gandhi’s method to be a highly shrewd and partly successful way of leveraging what Indians may have seen as the “good” in the British in the form of their civilisation and modernity and rejecting those very by-products. This is especially relevant since the “enemy” to be defeated was a coloniser whose material power Gandhi claimed to be “matchless:” “If we wanted to fight with you on your own ground, we should be unable to do so.”[40] It was the context that was, thus, excellently weaponised by Gandhi; his ideas, therefore, derived success from its highly contextual application.
Endnotes
[1] Gandhi, ‘Hind Swaraj’ and Other Writings, ed. Anthony J. Parel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 41fn66.
[2] Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, 41.
[3] Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, 50.
[4] Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, 41.
[5] Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, 7.
[6] Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, 86.
[7] Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, 113.
[8] Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, 89-90.
[9] Margaret Chatterjee, Gandhi’s Religious Thought (London: The Macmillan Press Ltd, 1983), 76.
[10] Chatterjee, Religious Thought, 76.
[11] Chatterjee, Religious Thought, 76.
[12] Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, 92.
[13] Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, 86-87.
[14] Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, 87-175.
[15] Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, 86fn174.
[16] Chatterjee, Religious Thought, 84.
[17] Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, 87.
[18] Chatterjee, Religious Thought, 77.
[19] Chatterjee, Religious Thought, 78.
[20] Chatterjee, Religious Thought, 80.
[21] Chatterjee, Religious Thought, 79.
[22] Richard Sorabji, Gandhi and the Stoics (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2012), Ii.
[23] Sorabji, Gandhi and the Stoics, 68.
[24] Chatterjee, Religious Thought, 81.
[25] Sorabji, Gandhi & Stoics, 51.
[26] Sorabji, Gandhi & Stoics, 52.
[27] Sorabji, Gandhi & Stoics, 53.
[28] Chatterjee, Religious Thought, 83.
[29] Sorabji, Gandhi & Stoics, 53.
[30] Sorabji, Gandhi & Stoics, 53.
[31] Chatterjee, Religious Thought, 80.
[32] Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, 94.
[33] Chatterjee, Religious Thought, 80.
[34] Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, 95.
[35] Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, 95.
[36] Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, 96-97.
[37] Chatterjee, Religious Thought, 83.
[38] Sorabji, Gandhi & Stoics, 71.
[39] Koneru Ramakrishna Rao, Gandhi’s Dharma (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2017), 258-9.
[40] Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, 112.
Bibliography
Gandhi. Hind Swaraj. Edited by Anthony J. Parel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.
Rao, Koneru Ramakrishna. Gandhi’s Dharma. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2017.
Sorabji, Richard. Gandhi and the Stoics: Modern Experiments on Ancient Values. Oxford: Oxford university Press, 2012.
Chatterjee, Margaret. Gandhi’s Religious Thought. London: The Macmillan Press Ltd, 1983.