M.K.

Gandhi
Unlike Vivekananda who subscribed to the orientalistic categorization of identifying India
with spiritualism and the West with materialism, Gandhi succeeded in overcoming the problem.
In fact, he cast it aside. Instead, he disaggregated the West by introducing a more radical and novel
distinction between the modern Western civilization and Western society. He wrote that he "bears
no enmity towards the English but [he does] towards their civilization" (1989: 92). Gandhi
acknowledged the use of modern and Western interchangeably. In this regard he says: "... I have
so often written and spoken upon and against the materialistic tendency of modern civilization -- I
will not say Western civilization though as it so happens for the time being, the two have become
convertible terms" (1986: 312).
He clarified that modern civilization was different from Western civilization:

Do not for one moment consider that I condemn all that is Western. For the time being I
am dealing with the predominant character of modern civilization, do not call it Western
civilization, and the predominant character of modern civilization is the exploitation of the
weaker race of the earth. The predominant character of modern civilization is to dethrone
God and enthrone Materialism (1986: 345).

He further added:

[The English] are enterprising and industrious, and their mode of thought is not inherently
immoral. Neither are they bad at heart. I therefore respect them. Civilization is not an
incurable disease, but it should never be forgotten that the English people are at present
afflicted by it (1989: 34).

He maintained:

It is my deliberate opinion that India is being ground down, not under the English heel, but
under that of modern civilization (1989: 38).

Identifying the elements in modern Western civilization he wrote:

 Western civilization is material, frankly material. It measures progress by the progress of
matter -- railways, conquest of disease, conquest of the air.... No one says, `Now the people
are more truthful or more humble.' I judge it by my own test and I use the word `Satanic'
in describing it …. The essential of Eastern civilization is that it is spiritual, immaterial
(1986: 328).

Further, he wrote:

I do not believe that multiplication of wants and machinery contrived to supply them is
taking the world a single step nearer its goal …. I wholeheartedly detest this mad desire to
destroy distance and time, to increase animal appetites and go to the ends of the earth in
search of their satisfaction. If modern civilization stands for all this, and I have understood
it to do so, I call it Satanic (Young India, 17 March 1927: 83).

He conclusively asserted that it is “machinery that has impoverished India. It is difficult to measure
the harm that Manchester has done to us. It is due to Manchester that Indian handicraft has all but
disappeared” (1989: 82). Making evident a sharp discord with Vivekananda, Gandhi, though
without naming him, declared that,

“If India copies England, it is my firm conviction that she will be ruined” (1989: 31).

Yet another important difference between Vivekananda – along with many others who have toed
the orientalist categorization of the East as spiritual and West as material, -- and Mahatma is that
the latter steps outside orientalistic thematic by disaggregating the West into the modern and the
pre-modern.
Gandhi offered a clear critique of modernity. He indicted modern civilization on moral
grounds. This civilization, he said `is irreligious,' and it `leaves no time for contemplation, offers
neither stability nor certainty, is treacherously deceptive, hypnotic and self-destructive.' The
criticism was clear, forthright and total.i
Through this distinction between the modern and British, Gandhi not only highlighted the
colonial domination of India by the British, but also emphasized the damage that the modern
civilization had done to the Western society. Through this distinction between modernity and the
pre-modern Gandhi managed a stronger criticism of the British rule in India. Modernity not only
subjugated the non-Western societies but also subjugated Western society. In other words,
modernity brought forth the process of colonization both within and outside the Western society.
Through this formulation, Gandhi exposed the expansionism of the British along with instances of
internal erosion or derangement caused by modernity within the West society itself. This reading
of modernity helped Gandhi to grasp the qualitative difference between traditional and modern
forms of oppression.
Thus, Gandhi disaggregated the West into modern and the non-modern, and noted the
similarities between India and the non-modern West. Regarding this he wrote:

The People of Europe, before they were touched by modern civilization, had much in
common with the people of the East; anyhow, the people of India and, even today,
Europeans who are not touched by modern civilization are far better able to mix with the
Indians than the offspring of that civilization (1986: 293).

To further understand the differences between the approaches adopted by Vivekananda and
Gandhi, it may be noted here that while Vivekananda focused on the material backwardness and
poverty of Indians and looked for solutions in Western materialism, thereby suggesting the
possibility of contact between India and the West, Gandhi concentrated on the moral perils of the
people of Europe subsequent to their contact with modernity. It was those Europeans ‘who are not
touched by modern civilization’ that Gandhi felt would serve as a link between Europe and India.
He further added:

East and West can only and really meet when the West has thrown overboard modern
civilization, almost in its entirety. They can also seemingly meet when East has also
adopted modern civilization. But that meeting would be an armed truce, even as it is
between, say, Germany and England, both of which nations are living in the Hall of Death
in order to avoid being devoured, the one by the other (1986: 293).
Unlike Vivekananda who bemoaned the fact that there was too much of ‘inactivity’, ‘too much of
weakness’ in the Hindu race, Gandhi, in contrast, said,

There is a charge laid against us that we are lazy people and that Europeans are industrious
and enterprising. We have accepted the charge and we therefore wish to change our
condition. Hinduism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Christianity and all other religions teach that
we should remain passive about worldly pursuits and active about godly pursuits, (1989:
38).

To further focus on the ignorance of the orientalist construction of the orient he added:

Macaulay betrayed gross ignorance when he labelled Indians as being practically cowards.
They never merited the charge…. Have you ever visited our fields? I assure you that our
agriculturists sleep fearlessly on their farms even today; but the English and you and I
would hesitate to sleep where they sleep (1989: 40).

To contest the claim that Europeans were known for their unity, which for many including
Vivekananda had become a sore point, Gandhi said:

We were one nation before they [British] came to India…. I do not wish to suggest that
because we were one nation we had no differences, but it is submitted that our leading men
travelled throughout India either on foot or in bullock-carts. They learned one another’s
languages and there was no aloofness between them … they saw that India was one
undivided land so made by nature. They, therefore, argued that it must be one nation (1989:
42-43).

The broad features of the Mahatma paradigm, therefore, are: (i) It identifies the modern West with
materialism and the non-modern West and India with religion and morality. (ii) It rejects modern
Western materialism, thus foreclosing the possibility of any exchange between the modern West
and India. Thus the Mahatma paradigm radically differs from the Swami paradigm on important
counts.
 (1) Vivekananda saw continuity from the Greeks to modern Europe freezing the dynamic
feature of European history. He thus endorsed homogeneity and continuity within the West. And,
he maintained the difference between India and the West on cultural terms.
In contrast, Gandhi recognized important discontinuities between the modern and the
non-modern (or traditional which includes non-elitist society and its institutions), and thus
disaggregated the West into modern and the non-modern.
In talking about the traditional West, Vivekananda mostly referred to the Greeks. Gandhi,
on the other hand, referred to Christ and the Sermon on the Mount, while talking about the
non-modern West. Thus, while Vivekananda subscribed to the orientalist categorization of East
with spiritualism and West with materialism, it is in Gandhi that we find orientalism rejected.
(2) Vivekananda recognized the positive aspects in materialism, and recommended
materialism to India on an exchange basis for the eradication of poverty and backwardness of
Indian society. Gandhi completely rejected modern civilization as Satanic and irreligious. For him
it was the industry of the modern civilization, its greed for power that created Indian poverty. So
it could not be used to eradicate what it has created. Taking a very clear stand he wrote:

Our leaders say that, in order to fight the West, we have to adopt the ways of the West. But
please rest assured that it will mean the end of Indian civilization. India's face is turned
away from your modern trend; that India you do not know. I have travelled much and so
come to know the mind of India and I have discovered that it has preserved its faith in its
ancient civilization. The swaraj of which we hear will not be achieved the way we are
working for it. The Congress League Scheme, or any other scheme which is even better,
will not get us swaraj. We shall get swaraj through the way in which we live our lives. It
cannot be had for the asking. We can never gain it through copying Europe (1986:
302-302).

Gandhi is more radical when he says that modern civilization is bad not only for India but also for
the West, displaying in the process his ingenuity in avoiding provincialism. To pick up the thread
from the discussions at the beginning of the chapter, there exist both modern and pre-modern
institutions in India. The modern may be seen to be consisting of the Indian state and represented
by Vivekananda, and the pre-modern consisting of communities and villages represented by
Gandhi.