Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Perhaps timely to read in our present day of saffron revivalism. Interesting to see the trajectory of Gandhi's reputation in the past two decades. I sometimes think that at this point, Gandhi's teachings have almost become memes in the public sphere. The essence of his works and thought has receded into obscurity. Plus the saffron party does not shy away from a jab or two at the man either, unfailingly. Maybe that's what happens when you become a saint.

Anyway, the first thing that becomes indisputably clear is the impossibility of separating Gandhi's religion from his politics. His interpretation of religion is the underpinning of the dual nature of swaraj that he advocated for: one, swaraj as the capacity for self-governance; and two, swaraj as the capacity of self-restraint and moksa, or salvation.

And for all this vehement conviction in religion, to the point of rejecting modernity, refusing to be separated from the caste system, etc (something my atheistic sensitivities find insufferable), it must be said that there is some uniqueness to his interpretation of politics and religion. To his religious understanding he called anasakti yoga, which he made the distinction, was different from theologizing and from the revivalist ethos of people like VR Savarkar, BG Tilak, Aurobindo Ghose, et al. His approach is founded in the Jain doctrine anekantavada: which states that ultimate truth is complex and many-sided. And this allowed him for some double-conversions. Take for example how he couples of idea of ahimsa from the Jain and Buddhist doctrine, with the Christian idea of caritas. Which was in turn wedded with Hindu concept of anasakti (non-attachment) and nishkam karma (action without desire). Another would be his idea of fasting for penance which was inspired from ancient Hinduism, mixed with the Christian value of suffering love and vicarious atonement.

In the domain of his political thought, his originality perhaps lies in his experience of South Africa. His idea of nationalism wasn't borne of the locality and the nation, like most other popular nationalists of the time, but from his stay in South Africa. This enabled him to articulate the nationalist struggle in a different vocabulary than that of his contemporaries.

A crucial foundation of the idea of swaraj or self-rule is Gandhi's critique of Western civilization. His critique, as is commonly misunderstood, is directed toward modern, industrial civilization than Western values itself. Modernity, not Western foundational values, was to be blamed for the state of affairs in colonial India and around the world. He made a distinction between British people and the modern corrupted version of it, he attributed to the downfall what he saw as "de-Christianization" of Britain. He saw urban centres as antithetical to the development of a self that would be the conducive to the growth of swaraj in terms of personal growth and awareness. Urban civilization and the its focus on machine-like materialism, Gandhi believed, would lead to the dehumanization of man. His conviction was that it would behove India to cling to traditions of old, Indian civilization rather than adopt a value system of the Western world, and that reform of religious superstitions would begin not by discarding religion but by respecting it. The nature of some of the contradictions of his arguments against modern, Western civilization notwithstanding, Gandhi did understand the hypocrisy of the system: he criticized how though Europe championed ideals such as liberty and freedom, they still used it to justify colonialism, slavery, racism, etc.

But since Gandhi's focus was on the darker aspects of modern civilization, he clearly overlooked some of its great achievements such as: the quest for personal autonomy, a non-hierarchal social structure, and social justice. He failed to note that swaraj as the realization of human rights was based on the ideas of universalism and individualism that was shaped by modernity (in line with thinkers like Rousseau, Locke, Ruskin, et al). This left him in a paradoxical position where he appropriated part of the ethos of modern civilization, while rejecting the very institutions that nurtured such ideas. His idea of swaraj in terms of its political and administrative structure was modelled on rural and self-sufficient communities. This seems impractical in a world connected by globalisation. He also acknowledged the need to combat poverty and economic inequalities, ensure social justice by abolishing social practices like untouchability; but such idea of ensuring welfare does not seem likely in a decentralized model of government. A considerable level of a system of national planning, an effective bureaucracy, and structures that articulate public spaces and opinion: such growth is capable in a strong, central government.

And his unfailing conviction in the truth of religion subsumed issues that were unmistakably the cause of conflict in the social sphere, something BR Ambedkar criticized him for. Though Gandhi was undoubtedly against the practice of untouchability, he hesitated in discarding the caste system itself. His interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita omitted the charge by Lord Krishna that the failure of duty leads women to caste confusion. The patriarchal undertone also extends to the absence of any realization for women as an active part of the economic and public sphere.

Swaraj, for Gandhi, was the persistent and proactive effort independent of governmental control, be if foreign or national. He believed moral insight and political acumen crucial for moksha in which swaraj is seen as a part of one's dharma. Self-rule and true democracy was possible only in a non-statal polity that was federally constituted: in which citizens conducted local affairs, with minimal authority for higher levels of governance. In terms of education, swaraj would be attained when the masses are educated to the capacity of regulating and controlling authority.

All in all, although weakened by inconsistencies, Gandhi's ideas on problem of the self, the praja, modern industrial civilization, colonialism, legitimization of terroristic violence by extreme nationalists--were novel and controversial in their interpretation. This separation from the then popular Moderates and Extremists, indelibly changed and strengthened the course of the struggle for Indian Independence, and Indian history.