GANDHI

INFLUENCES OVER GANDHI

Some of the events which contributed to change in Gandhi’s political ideology
towards pro-British to Anti-British were:
● Partition of Bengal
● Racial discriminations against Indians in South Africa
● Rowlatt Acts
● Jallianwala Bagh Massacre
● Khilafat issue
The change in Gandhi’s political thinking during this period was also influenced
by the following books, which he read:

i) Critical Writings on Modern Civilization

During this period, Gandhi read the works of Tolstoy, Ruskin, Carpenter,
Maitland, Salter, R.P.Dutt, Dadabhai Naoroji, etc. Of these, Leo Tolstoy’s The
Kingdom of God is Within You and The Gospel in Brief and John Ruskin’s Unto
This Last had a very great impact on Gandhi. Gandhi’s ideas of swaraj and
sarvodaya, meaning self-realization through service to others, were greatly
influenced by Tolstoy and Ruskin.

ii) Hindu Religious Philosophy

Gandhi also studied the Bhagavad Gita and several other holy books of
Hinduism, some of which were recommended to him by his Jain mentor,
Rajchand Mehta, also called Raychandbhai. These were books on yoga, advaita
vedanta, Jainism, Buddhism, Samkhya, etc. These books led Gandhi to espouse
a set of religiously inspired norms or principles of personal and collective
conduct, e.g., the values of satya, ahimsa, aparigraha and samabhava. Gandhi
saw in them an alternative or corrective to the dominant, modern/western values
or principles of individualism, utilitarianism and violence.
The hymns of Narsinh Mehta, a saint-poet of the fifteenth century, also instilled
in him the value of service to others, especially the poor and the needy.

Unacademy Code: DRPIYUSH11

 Gandhi’s moral-political ideas can be found in his books as well as in
his articles, letters and editorials in the four weekly journals, which he
edited or published at different times during his public life in South
Africa and India. These weekly journals were: Indian Opinion, Young
India, Harijan, and Navajivan. Gandhi’s books, some of which were
first serialized in his journals, were: Hind Swaraj, Satyagraha in
South Africa, The Story of My Experiments with Truth, Ashram
Observances in Action, A Guide to Health, Discourses on the Gita
and Constructive Programme. Gandhi also wrote and published
paraphrases and/or translations (in Gujarati) of Plato’s Apology, W.
Salter’s Ethical Religion, John Ruskin’s Unto this Last, Henry David
Thoreau’s Principles of Civil Disobedience and Leo Tolstoy’s Letter
to a Hindoo.

GANDHIAN CONCEPTION OF SWARAJ

Although the word swaraj means self-rule, Gandhi gave it the content of an
integral revolution that encompasses all spheres of life. "At the individual level
swaraj is vitally connected with the capacity for dispassionate
self-assessment, ceaseless self-purification and growing swadeshi or
self-reliance".
By Swaraj, Gandhi meant both outward or political freedom and inward or
spiritual freedom. In “outward freedom,” he included national political
independence and parliamentary swaraj. They are forms of outward freedom in
that they seek to free people from external control or rule by others, be they
foreigners or one’s own compatriots.
By “inward freedom,” he meant freedom from such inner impediments as
ignorance, illusions, selfishness, greed, intolerance and hatred. These,
according to Gandhi, impede or obstruct the individual’s self-realization or
attainment of moksha, i.e. the atman’s realization of its identity with the
Brahman or paramatman. Hence, he writes: “Government over self is the truest
Swaraj, it is synonymous with moksha or salvation”.
How to realize swaraj also engaged Gandhiji's attention seriously. He reminded
his colleagues that swaraj will not drop from the cloud and it would be the fruit
of patience, perseverance, ceaseless toil, courage and intelligent appreciation of
the environment. He also reminded them that swaraj means vast organizing
ability, penetration into the villages solely for the services of the villagers; in other
words, it means national education i.e., education of the masses.' And in the
Gandhian discourse, education of the masses means conscientization,
mobilization and empowerment, making people capable and determined to
stand up to the powers that be. He said: "Real swaraj will come, not by the

Unacademy Code: DRPIYUSH11

acquisition of authority but by the acquisition of the capacity by all to resist
authority when it is abused. In other words, swaraj is to be attained by
educating the masses to a sense of their capacity to regulate and control
authority."
He talked of his ideal of swaraj as a square, of which the four inseparable sides
are: (i) political independence; (ii) economic independence; (iii) Non-violence in
social relations and moral obligations toward others; and (iv) Truth as dharma.
Swaraj is complete independence of alien control and complete economic
independence. So at one end, you have political independence, at the other the
economic. It has two other ends. One of them is moral and social; the
corresponding end is dharma, i.e. religion in the highest sense of the term.

INDEPENDENCE AND PARLIAMENTARY SWARAJ

The first component of Gandhi’s conception of swaraj as outward freedom is
national political independence. While maintaining that national political
independence was an essential meaning of his conception of swaraj, Gandhi
argued that it is only a partial or incomplete meaning or component of it. That
fuller conception of swaraj includes, besides national political independence, the
following additional components: a “parliamentary or democratic swaraj” and
swaraj as self-realization through service to others.
In 1931, he elaborated it in the following words: By Swaraj I mean the
government of India by the consent of the people as ascertained by the
largest number of the adult population, male or female, native-born or
domiciled…. [R]eal 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.
While answering to his critics regarding his views on Industrialization he said
that his Hind Swaraj was to be taken, not as “an attempt to go back to the
so-called ignorant dark ages”, but as an attempt to examine modern civilization
“in the scale of ethics.” He declared that in the name of his ideal swaraj, he
would not dream, as he had been accused of doing, “of no railways, no
machinery, no army, no navy, no laws and no law courts.” He would rather
have them re-structured so that they operate “for the benefit of the people,” and
“not as now for draining the masses dry.” He now viewed “parliamentary”, i.e.,
“democratic swaraj” as a very necessary and valuable component of his
conception of comprehensive swaraj.
As to the organizational features of “parliamentary swaraj,” Gandhi preferred it to
be a village-based, decentralized set-up, in which all but the lowest level of
government was to be indirectly elected by the immediately lower level. This
decentralized (adopted in DPSP of the Indian Constitution), village-based model

Unacademy Code: DRPIYUSH11

of parliamentary/democratic swaraj was not the model that was favored by the
Congress and adopted by the Indian Constitution.

Some Features of Parliamentary Swaraj

In his practical and theoretical work for establishing Parliamentary Swaraj,
Gandhi concentrated on endowing it with four features: universal adult franchise,
civil liberties, minority rights, and a primary commitment to justice for the poor
and the exploited. These, he believed, are the necessary ingredients of
parliamentary swaraj. Gandhi regarded personal and civil liberties to be the
“foundation” and “breath” of Parliamentary Swaraj.
Gandhi was acutely aware of the danger of parliamentary democracy lapsing
into majoritarian tyranny over, or intolerance of, minority groups or communities.
Gandhi ji supported the principle of the guarantee or protection of fundamental,
cultural or religious rights of minority communities. In 1931 Gandhi maintained
that “matters of first rate importance” to the religious and cultural life of the
minority communities should be kept outside the purview of the democratic,
procedural principle of majority rule. A very special feature of Gandhi’s
conception of parliamentary/democratic swaraj is the justice of its basic
institutions, which seeks to promote the welfare of all by giving primacy to the
interests of the poor and needy. Gandhi’s conception of social/distributive justice,
which he often referred to in terms of “economic quality,” is rooted in his
trusteeship doctrine of property. He believed that statutory trusteeship is a form
of organizing economic life, which, without depriving the individuals of their
legitimate incentives for greater productivity and without depriving the
society of the increases in wealth, brings about a non-violent, equitable
distribution of wealth.
(To extract more materials on this topic, click here.)

SARVODAYA: SWARAJ AS SELF-REALIZATION

THROUGH SOCIAL SERVICE
The term was first coined by Mohandas Gandhi as the title of his 1908 translation
of John Ruskin's tract on political economy, "Unto This Last", and Gandhi came to
use the term for the ideal of his own political philosophy. In that book, Ruskin
gave a moralistic critique of the science of political economy of self-interest. He
outlined three basic features of sarvodaya:
1. that 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 in as much as all
have the same right of earning their livelihood from their work;
3. that a life of labor, i.e., the life of the tiller of the soil and the
handicraftsman is the life worth living.

Unacademy Code: DRPIYUSH11

While swaraj conveys Gandhi’s idea of freedom, sarvodaya (welfare of all)
conveys his idea of equality. Gandhi’s doctrine of sarvodaya (which is often
rendered as non-violent socialism) is a corrective to utilitarianism, communism
and the doctrines which justify inequalities and exclusions on the basis of
caste, race, color, gender, etc.
Of these three principles, the first is the main principle of sarvodaya (welfare of
all). There are several steps in Gandhi’s thinking on sarvodaya (welfare of all).
They are:
- Our aim in life is self-realization or moksha.
- Self-realization or moksha means identification of the self or atman with
Brahman or God. This requires a discipline or yoga of self-purification.
- The way of realizing our identification with Brahman or, in other words,
the way of finding God is to see God in all his creation or manifestation.
- Love or service of all is the way to self-realization or moksha in this world.
Gandhi believed that without self-restraint or self-purification, we could not
render moksha-oriented service to others. Refuting the charge that these are
ideals for the ascetics, he said that they are meant “for acceptance by mankind in
general.” He wrote: No worker who has not overcome lust can hope to render any
genuine service to the cause of Harijans, communal unity, Khadi, cow-protection
or village reconstruction. Great causes like these cannot be served by intellectual
equipment alone; they call for spiritual effort or soul-force.
Mahatma Gandhi was of the firm view that the earth provides enough to satisfy
every man's needs, but not for every man's greed. In the Sarvodaya society of his
dream, therefore, every member will be free from any greed for limitless
acquisition of material wealth and more and more luxurious living and they will
follow the motto of simple living and high thinking. Everyone will, thus, get
ample opportunity to produce and earn sufficiently through honest work for
decent and dignified living. Consequently there will be no problem of
unemployment. Of course, obviously, the income of different people may be
different, depending on their talent, ability and effort. But those who will earn
more will use the bulk of their greater earnings for the good of the society as a
whole. In such a society, all wealth, including land, will be assumed as common
property to be utilized for the welfare of all. If an individual has more than his
proportionate portion, he becomes a trustee of the excess wealth for the benefit
of the less fortunate members of the society. As regards use of machinery in
economic activity, Gandhi said that "If we feel the need of machines, we
certainly will have them. But there should be no place for machines that
concentrate power in a few hands and turn the masses into mere
machine-minders, if, indeed, they do not make them unemployed."
Gandhi’s moral-political conception of sarvodaya is a corrective both to Western
utilitarianism and to the inequalities and exclusions of the traditional caste
system. His critique of utilitarianism can be found in his Introduction to his
Sarvodaya, which was his paraphrase of Ruskins’s book, Unto This Last.

Unacademy Code: DRPIYUSH11

SATYAGRAHA VERSUS PASSIVE RESISTANCE
Satyagraha is the most important contribution of Gandhi to social philosophy
and movement. It emerged as a weapon of conflict resolution. The concept of
satyagraha could be understood in the broader context of Gandhian
socio-political thought that developed out of actions, which he called
'Experiments with Truth.' It was aimed not merely at political change, but at the
complete social, political, economic and cultural transformation. So far as its
contemporary relevance as a means for attainment of justice and conflict
resolution is concerned, diverse worldwide social movements drew and continue
to draw inspiration from the Gandhian Way.
Satyagraha is the name of the Gandhian, non-violent way of political action to
resist and transform untruthful and violent systems of social or political power.
During 1906-14, Gandhi successfully used such a way of political action to resist
the policy of racial discrimination, which the British colonial government of
South Africa had adopted against the Indian immigrants. Gandhi acknowledged
that his theory of satyagraha was influenced to some extent by Henry David
Thoreau’s writings. In Thoreau’s essay, “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience”,
Gandhi found confirmation of his views on coercive features of state and on the
individual’s obligation to his own conscience.
Gandhi’s initial struggles against racial discriminations in South Africa were
described as ‘Passive Resistance’. But, he soon found the English term to be
unsatisfactory, partly because it was not intelligible to ordinary Indians and partly
because it did not convey the special characteristic of his method of political
struggle. Hence, in 1906, he invited the readers of his weekly, Indian Opinion, to
suggest an alternative name. The best of the suggestions received was
satyagraha, meaning “firmness in a good cause.” Gandhi changed it to
satyagraha as it conveyed his preferred idea of “truth force.” He explained his
choice in the following words: 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 to Truth
and Love or on-violence, and gave up the use of the phrase “passive resistance.”
Gandhi distinguished between body-force = brute-force = the force of arms from
soul force = love force = truth force. He referred to the former as the method of
violence, which, he said, is celebrated in and by modern civilization. Satyagraha,
he said, relies on soul-force or truth-force and is appropriate to swaraj. He wrote:
‘Satyagraha…. is a method of securing rights by personal suffering; it is the
reverse of resistance by arms. When I refuse to do a thing that is repugnant to
my conscience, I use soul-force’.
According to Gandhi, satyagraha was both practically necessary and morally
desirable for the Indian Freedom Movement. He said that since the “English are
splendidly armed”, it would take many, many years for the Indians to arm
themselves in a matching or effective manner. More than this practical difficulty,
Gandhi disapproved of the immorality of the method of violence. He pointed out

Unacademy Code: DRPIYUSH11

that “to arm India on a large scale is to Europeanise it” or, in other words, to
continue to be seduced by the morally flawed modern European civilization.
According to Gandhi, the distinctive features of satyagraha, in comparison with
“passive resistance,” are as follows:
1. While the passive resisters harbor hatred toward their adversaries, the
satyagrahis view their opponents with love.
2. The passive resisters, unlike the satyagrahis, may harass and injure their
opponents.
3. Satyagraha, unlike passive resistance, can be offered even to one’s nearest
and dearest ones.
4. Passive resistance is a resistance by the weak and helpless, and it does not
exclude the use of violence, whereas satyagraha is a moral-political action
by the strong, and it excludes the use of violence. Believing themselves to
be weak, the passive resisters would tend to give up the struggle at the
earliest opportunity.
“On the other hand,” Gandhi wrote, “if we offer satyagraha believing ourselves
to be strong, two clear consequences follow. Fostering the idea of strength,
we grow stronger and stronger every day. With the increase in our strength,
our satyagraha too becomes more effective and we would never be casting
about for an opportunity to give it up.”

Principles and Methods of Satyagraha

Satyagraha is based on the principles of satya (truth), ahimsa (non-violence) and
tapas (self-suffering). Gandhi believed in the dharmasastra tradition according to
which dharma, derived from ‘dhr’ (to be firm, to sustain or uphold) refers to the
moral law governing the cosmos. Its essence is satya (truth), the root of which is
sat (being, reality, right, what is and what will be). Gandhi writes: The word satya
(truth) is derived from sat, which means being. And nothing is or exists in reality
except Truth. That is why sat or Truth is perhaps the most important name of
God.
Gandhi’s satyagraha is an experiment for the introduction of truth and
non-violence into political conduct. According to Gandhi, although Truth is
absolute, our knowledge and experience of it is relative and partial. What we take
to be truth may be untruth for others. Infact, the satyagrahi assumes that his
opponents or oppressors are also truth-seekers, acting on the basis of what they
perceive to be the truth. It is for this reason that ahimsa (non-violence) is the
means of discovery of truth. Acting on the basis of relative truths, the satyagrahis
seek to resolve basic conflicts and ensure social harmony through the
non-violent path of vindicating the validity of rival truth claims. Gandhi writes:
Satyagrahis use truth-force or love-force not to eliminate the opponents or
oppressors, but to bring about a restructuring of the total conflictual or
oppressive relationship so that both parties to the initial conflict can realize a
heightened mutuality or moral interdependence. Through satyagraha, the

Unacademy Code: DRPIYUSH11

victims of oppression seek to liberate themselves by aiding in the emancipation
of their oppressors from their self-deceptive truth-denying beliefs and actions.
Gandhi writes: In its negative form it (ahimsa) means not injuring any living
being whether in body or mind. I may not, therefore, hurt the person of any
wrong-doer or bear any ill-will to him and so cause him mental suffering. In its
positive form, ahimsa means the largest love, the greatest charity. If I am a
follower of ahimsa, I must love my enemy or a stranger to me as I would my
wrong doing father or son. This active ahimsa necessarily includes truth and
fearlessness. Its positive test is action meant to promote the welfare of others.
We have so far considered two elements of satyagraha, namely, satya (truth) and
ahimsa (non-violence). A third element is Tapas (self-suffering). Action based on
love toward others, we saw earlier, is a positive test of truth. From this Gandhi
goes on to say that tapas or self-suffering is the test of such love. Self-suffering by
satyagrahis, it must be understood, is not out of their cowardice or weakness; it is
based on a higher form of courage than that of those who resort to violence and
it is meant to aid in the moral persuasion of one’s opponents or oppressors.He
writes: Since satyagraha is one of the most powerful methods of direct action, a
satyagrahi 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. In a satyagraha campaign, the
satyagrahis seek to validate the truth of contested social “system” or norms
through (i) reasoning, i.e., persuading the opponents about the untruth of their
position and at the same time remaining open to their counterarguments; and
(2) appealing to the opponents through the self-suffering of the satyagrahis. The
various methods of satyagraha are:
● purificatory or penitential actions by the satyagrahis, such as pledges,
prayers and fasts;
● acts of non-cooperation, such as boycott, strikes, hartal, fasting and hijrat
(i.e. voluntary emigration);
● acts of civil disobedience, such as picketing, non-payment of taxes and
defiance of specific laws;
● a constructive programme of social reform and social service, such as the
promotion of inter-communal unity, the removal of untouchability, adult
education, and the removal of economic and social inequalities.

Critical Evaluation of Satyagraha

Concerning Gandhi’s theory and praxis of satyagraha, several critics maintain
that non-violence and self-suffering are impractical methods against violent
oppression. The Gandhian way, they way, is “other-worldly” and “anti-humanist”.
Gandhi maintained that non-violence and self-suffering were “not for the
unworldly, but essentially for the worldly.” He did admit that these principles
were very difficult to practice, but insisted that we need to, and can, keep on

Unacademy Code: DRPIYUSH11

moving along these lines.“Perfect non-violence whilst you are inhabiting the
body, '' he wrote, “is only a theory like Euclid’s point or straight line, but we have
to endeavor every moment of our lives”.
It may still be objected that satyagraha demands of the satyagrahis,
self-suffering even unto death. It is true that self-suffering is a major element of
satyagraha. However, self-sacrifice is also involved in case of violent resistance.
Sacrifice even unto death is, thus, the common element in both violent and
non-violent resistance against oppression. That is why Gandhi approved of the
use of satyagraha only in cases of conflict over fundamental issues and only after
all milder methods of nonviolence have failed. Gandhi explained my non-violent
resistance is activised resistance on a different plane. Nonviolent resistance to
evil does not mean absence of any resistance whatsoever, but it means not to
resist evil with evil but with good. Resistance therefore, is transferred to a higher
and absolutely effective plane.
Gandhi acknowledged that reading Tolstoy made him realize the “infinite
possibilities of universal love” and made him a “firm believer in ahimsa”. Gandhi
and Tolstoy corresponded with each other. In his last letter to Gandhi, Tolstoy
acknowledged that his satyagraha movement in South Africa was a new and
most important mode of emancipatory struggle by the oppressed. Like Tolstoy,
Einstein too has written in deep appreciation of Gandhian satyagraha. In a tribute
published in a festschrift for Gandhi’s seventieth birthday, he wrote: Gandhi is
unique in political history. He has invented an entirely new and humane
technique for the liberation struggle of an oppressed people and carried it out
with the greatest energy and devotion. The moral influence which he has
exercised upon thinking people through the civilized world may be far more
durable than would appear likely in our present age with its exaggeration of
brute force. For the work of statesmen is permanent only insofar as they arouse
and consolidate the moral forces of their peoples through their personal example
and educating influence.

GANDHI ON ENVIRONMENT
The Industrial Revolution has greatly changed the face of European civilisation
including heavy industrialisation, pursuit of capitalist patterns of economy,
exploitation of labor and injudicious use of natural resources. It has given to human
society tremendous material pleasure and prosperity that was eventually pursued by
other nations. At the same time, it has also imperceptibly done irreparable loss to
mankind. Reckless and limitless pursuit of industrialisation by all nations is now
posing serious problems for the very existence of not only man but also for all living
creatures and all kinds of species on our Planet.
Reference: S. K. Jha, see Mahatma Gandhi- An environmentalist with a
Difference:http://www.mkgandhi.org/environment/environment.htm.

Unacademy Code: DRPIYUSH11

Population explosion, mass poverty, over-utilisation of renewable resources, overuse
of fertilizers leading to water pollution, rapid industrialisation, global warming, desert
formation, deforestation, emission of harmful substances into air causing air
pollution, industrial and synthetic wastes, nuclear hazards that are more man-made
in nature are all causing irreparable damages to our planet. As the environmental
consciousness spread worldwide, there were meetings including the Stockholm
Conference, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
and so on that recognised the need to use the natural resources judiciously so as to
ensure a safe future for the coming generations. The ‘Union of Concerned
Scientists’ stated that human beings and the natural world are on a collision course.
Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and
on the critical resources. It calls for a great stewardship to halt further damage and
mutilation of the planet and also calls for reducing the over-consumption to reduce
the pressure on global environmental resources (Ramjee Singh, pp.129-130). Gandhi
precisely called for the same measures in a prophetic tone.
Gandhiji was a practitioner of recycling decades before the idea caught on in the
West, and he initiated perhaps the most far-reaching critiques of the ideas of
consumption and that fetish of the economist called “growth”. Thus, in myriad ways,
we can believe that he was a thinker with a profoundly ecological sensibility.
There are three respects in which the ecological vision of Gandhiji’s life opens itself
up to us.
1. He was of the considered opinion that nature should be allowed to take its
course. The environmental crises and “extreme weather events” that are upon
us have been precipitated by the gross and appalling instrumentalisation of
nature. The earth is not merely there to be mined, logged and hollowed out.
However, we have to first preserve the ecological equanimity of the body.
Nature’s creatures mind their own business; if humans were to do the same,
we would not be required to legislate the health of all species. Gandhiji did not
prevent others from killing snakes but a cobra entering his room was left
alone. “I do not want to live at the cost of the life of a snake,” he said.
2. Gandhiji mounted a rigorous critique of the “waste” that is behind modern
industrial civilisation in more ways than we imagine. European colonization
the world over was justified with the claim that natives and indigenous people
“wasted” their land and did not render it sufficiently productive. But Gandhiji
held the view that humans are prone to transform whatever they touch into
waste. His close disciple and associate Kaka Kalelkar was in the habit of
breaking off an entire twig merely for four or five neem leaves he needed to
rub on the fibers of the carding-bow to make its strings pliant and supple.
When Gandhiji saw that, he said: “This is violence. We should pluck the
required number of leaves after offering an apology to the tree for doing
so. But you broke off the whole twig, which is wasteful and wrong.”
3. Gandhiji was a staunch vegetarian, and he would have been pleased with a
great deal of modern research which has established that the meat industry
has put extreme pressures on the soil and water resources and the massive
increase in levels of meat consumption when people start entering the middle

Unacademy Code: DRPIYUSH11

 class in countries such as India. But to be “ecological” in sensibility also means
harboring a notion of largesse towards others; it is a way of being in the world.
Gandhiji strikes a remarkable chord with all those who have cherished the
principles of non-injury, cared for the environment, practiced vegetarianism,
worked energetically to conserve air, soil, and water, resisted the depredations
of developers, recycled paper, or accorded animals the dignity of humans. (Vijay
Lal:https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/mahatma-gandhi-an-environmentalist
-by-nature/article29566196.ece )

Spiritual Basis of Environmentalism

Gandhi’s views on the environment consist of moral, spiritual and non-violent
dimensions. To him, the hallmark of development of man consisted not in
materialism or consumerism but in spiritual self-realization, a character heavily
loaded with morality and non-violence. The craving for materialistic wants was
alien to him for it hindered the path to one’s realization. His simple living and
high thinking reiterated his love for all living beings, which is the very manifestation
of God’s creation. His concept of non-violence thus encompassed all living beings
and embodied the eternal values of life in his thoughts and actions. As Gandhi said,
‘My ethics not only permits me to claim but requires me to own kinship with not
merely the ape but the horse and the sheep, the lion and the leopard, the snake and
the scorpion…’ (M.K.Gandhi, Truth, Navajivan, Ahmedabad, 1952, p.10). He insisted on
the eternal sacredness of life that included a tree, plant or a cow. ‘Indeed his love
towards all life constitutes his attempt to realize the Vaishnava ideal ‘Vasudevam
Sarvamidam’ (Everything is HE) (Benoy Gopal Ray, Gandhian Ethics, Ahmedabad,
1950, p.8)
Gandhi was greatly influenced by Adolph Just’s book ‘Return to Nature’ that further
strengthened his conviction that if a man desires to live a wholesome life, he will
have to share his life with not only humans but all living beings - birds, animals,
plants and the whole ecosystem. Man must return to nature what he takes from her.
He abhorred violence, in any form, towards animals or other living beings. Gandhi
thus expressed his sense of the unity of all life. He wrote in Harijan in 1937, “I do
believe that all God’s creatures have the right to live as much as we have.” Gandhi
was a great believer in advaita (non-duality) and in the essential unity of man and all
lives (Young India, 1924). Thomas Weber brings an interesting perspective on how
Arne Naess, who was thoroughly influenced by Gandhian philosophy, interprets the
link between self-realization and non-violence. Weber’s interpretation is as follows:
1. Self-realization presupposes a search for truth.
2. All living beings are one
3. Himsa (violence) against oneself makes complete self-realization impossible
4. Himsa against a living being is Himsa against oneself and.
5. Himsa against a living being makes complete self-realization impossible (T.
Weber, Gandhi and Deep Ecology, Journal of Peace Research, vol.36, No.3, May
1999). The ancient Indian religious philosophy, thought and action and

Unacademy Code: DRPIYUSH11

 practices point out to a harmonious relation between man and other living
beings. Gandhi was an ardent believer of this philosophy of Vedanta, a
combination of spiritual faith and scientific thought.

GANDHI’S CRITIQUE OF MODERN CIVILISATION

Gandhi was undoubtedly a visionary who could foresee the ills of industrialisation
and modernisation. He was an early critic of the dehumanizing character of modern
industrial civilization. It is in the context of new value orientation and the quest for
human survival threatened by environmental and ecological crisis that the
re-discovering of Gandhi’s warning of ‘industrialize and perish’ has to be seen’ (Savita
Singh, pp.58-59). His Hind Swaraj depicts his understanding of the chaos the modern
civilisation would usher in. Having witnessed the human devastation that
industrialisation had caused in England, he warned us of the impending dangers of
an urban industrial society. He was baffled at the thought of India being heavily
industrialized and its culture eroded through dehumanizing. He wrote in Young
India (20-12-1928, p.422), ‘God forbid that India should ever take to industrialism
after the manner of the West. The economic imperialism of a single tiny
Kingdom (England) is today keeping the world in chains. If an entire nation of
300 millions (India’s population in 1928) took to similar economic exploitation, it
would strip the world like locusts’. He further elaborates that ‘to make India like
England and America is to find some other races and places on earth for
exploitation. So far it appears that the western nations have divided all the
known races outside Europe for exploitation and that there is no new world to
discover, what can be the fate of India trying to ape the west?’
Gandhi firmly believed that India lives in its villages. And to erode its village’s culture
and civilisation via technology, machinery and industrialisation, to him, amounts to
sin. He warned the youth not to be carried away by the glitter of modern civilization
because ‘its defects are well known but not one of them is irremediable’. He
advocated village life as the goal, as India is an inheritor of rural civilisation. Therefore,
the intentions of the youth may be ill founded if they were to uproot it and
substitute for it an urban civilisation (Young India, 7-11-1929). He was also against the
use of machinery that is meant to displace people from their livelihood means. He
was thoroughly in favor of promoting Charkha, hand machinery as against “the
machinery that displaces the labor of those who cannot otherwise be employed.
What we must dread is huge machinery run not by hand but by non-human power
such as steam, electricity, etc’ (4-10-1929 in a letter to Shri Giriraj).
Regarding urbanization, Gandhi expressed his views as follows: ‘it is a process of
double drain from the villages. Urbanization in India is slow but sure death for her
villages and villagers. It can never support 90% of India’s population, which is living in
her 7,00,000 villagers (number of villages in 1934). To remove from these villages
tanning and such other industries is to remove what little opportunity there still is for
making skilled use of the hand and head. And when the village handicrafts
disappears, the villagers working only with their cattle on the field, with idleness for
six or four months in the year, must be reduced to the level of the beast and be

Unacademy Code: DRPIYUSH11

without proper nourishment either of the mind or the body, and, therefore without
joy and without hope’ (Harijan, 7-9-1934). To him the modern civilisation, therefore,
with its explicit or implicit stress on unabated exploitation of resources,
multiplication of wants, production for the market and consumption is satanic
(Hind Swaraj, p.33) The best practice, as he suggested, was ‘instead of welcoming
machinery as a boon, we should look upon it as an evil, it would ultimately go’ (Hind
Swaraj, p.84). Adopting this modern civilisation and life-style negates one’s
spirituality and morality. He was concerned that ‘this civilisation takes note neither of
morality nor of religion. Immorality is often taught in the name of morality.
Civilisation seeks to increase bodily comforts, and it fails miserably even in doing so’
(Hind Swaraj, pp.32-33). Civilisation, as he perceived it, is that mode of conduct which
points out to man the path of duty; to observe morality to attain mastery over our
mind and passions (Hind Swaraj, p.53). Having a moral and religious basis in our
civilisation, he expressed ‘there will naturally be progress, retrogression, reforms and
reactions but one effort is required and that is to drive out Western civilisation. All
else will follow’ (Hind Swaraj, p.80).

GANDHI SOCIAL PROGRAMMES

REMOVAL OF UNTOUCHABILITY
The first and foremost item of this reform was the removal of untouchability, a cruel
and inhuman institution. It violates human dignity and blinds the sensibility of both
the oppressor and the oppressed. Untouchability was against the spirit of democracy
and also raised economic problems. The untouchables were the poorest section of
Indian society.
Their avenues of employment were strictly limited; they lived apart, in unhygienic
surroundings, on the outskirts of villages and cities. Though they were Hindus and
believed in and worshiped Hindu gods and goddesses, they were not allowed to
enter Hindu temples. Public institutions like schools, hotels, hostels, etc., were closed
to them.
Gandhi rightly felt that they who denied justice to those who suffered injustice at
their hands had no right to demand justice for themselves from their oppressors.
In tackling the problem of untouchability Gandhi did not call upon the untouchables
to join in the struggle for the assertion of their human rights. They were even
incapable then of doing so. They took their lowly position as having been ordained by
God. During the campaign against untouchability, the so called higher castes often
visited their lowly homes.
If they asked for water from them, they would refuse to give it, saying that it would
be ‘adharma’ for them to offer water to high caste people. It was such a degradation
to which a large portion of the population was reduced. Gandhi, therefore, called
upon the caste Hindus to make all the sacrifice necessary for the removal of
untouchability. He said that they would thus be rendering only belated justice for the
grievous injury inflicted by their ancestors on the untouchables through the
centuries.

Unacademy Code: DRPIYUSH11

About untouchability Gandhi said: “To remove untouchability is a penance that caste
Hindus owe to Hinduism and to themselves. The purification required is not of
‘untouchables’ but of the so-called superior castes. There is no vice that is special to
the ‘untouchables’, not even dirt and insanitation. It is the arrogance which blinds
superior Hindus, to their own blemishes and which magnifies those of the
downtrodden brethren whom they have suppressed and whom they keep under
suppression. Religions like nations are being weighed in the balance. God’s grace
and revelation are the monopoly of no race or nation. They descend equally upon all
who wait upon God. That religion and that nation will be blotted out from the face of
the earth which pins its faith to injustice, untruth or violence.”
He poured out the anguish of his soul when he said : “I do not want to be reborn. But
if I have to be reborn, I should be born an untouchable, so that I may share their
sorrows, sufferings, and the affronts leveled at them, in order that I may endeavor to
free myself and them from that miserable condition. I, therefore, pray that if I should
be born again, I should do so not as a Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya or Shudra but as an
Atishudra.” In framing the Congress constitution he made it a condition precedent
for anybody joining the national organization that he declares himself against
untouchability. This was incorporated in the annual pledge that every Congressman
had to take.
Temple Entry
The equality that Gandhi claimed for the untouchables in Hindu society included the
right to enter Hindu temples. It did not matter to him if these temples were built or
endowed by caste Hindus. This insistence of Gandhi on temple entry was
misunderstood by some intellectuals. This was generally due to the influence of
Marxist thought, which explains every human activity and institution in economic
terms. Such an interpretation is manifestly untenable in the case of untouchability in
India, as is the racial and color prejudice in Western communities, in their homelands
and their colonies. Untouchability in India, as the race and color problems in the
West, rests upon the idea of the superiority of one section of people over another on
account of their birth. The untouchable continues to profess the Hindu religion,
worships the same gods and goddesses but is denied access to the Hindu temples.
Once the untouchable is allowed entry into Hindu temples, the stigma attached to
his community will no longer be there, being deprived of its so-called religious
sanction. About this Gandhiji says: “Temple entry is the one spiritual act that would
constitute the message of freedom to the ‘untouchables’ and assure them that they
are not outcastes before God”. “It is not a question of Harijans asserting their right of
temple entry or claiming it. They may or may not want to enter that temple even
when it is declared open to them. But it is the bounden duty of every caste Hindu to
secure that opening for Harijans”.
“If all that there is in the universe is pervaded by God, that is to say, if the Brahmana
and the Bhangi, the learned man and the scavenger, the Ezhava and the Pariah, no
matter what caste they belong to- if all these are pervaded by Lord God, in the light
of this Mantra, there is none that is high and none that is low, all are absolutely equal,
equal because all are the creatures of that Creator. And this is not a philosophical
thing to be dished out to Brahmanas or Kshatriyas, but it enunciates an eternal truth
which admits of no reduction, no palliation. And if that is so, how can anyone here
dare to arrogate superiority to himself or herself over any other human being? I tell
you, therefore, that if this Mantra holds good, if there is any man or woman here who

Unacademy Code: DRPIYUSH11

believes that the temples are defined by those who are called Avarnas, that person, I
declare, would be guilty of a grave sin”.
Gandhi made it a point not to enter a Hindu temple which was not open to Harijans.
His religion did not require him to enter a temple. But he sometimes did it as a mark
of courtesy. Even this courtesy did not extend to the temples where Harijans had no
free access. Gandhi set up the Harijan Sevak Sangh, which was to work for the
removal of all their disabilities. This organization continues to function even to this
day. It consists not only of politicians but also all those who on humanitarian grounds
are against untouchability.
To set an example, Gandhi brought a Harijan family to live in the Ashram. He adopted
their daughter as his own. He also blessed all the marriages that were celebrated
between Harijans and caste Hindus. Some of these marriages took place in his own
Ashram. In 1932 he even endangered his life to see that the disabilities of the Harijans
were removed while they remained in the Hindu fold. He opposed the award of the
British Prime Minister giving them separate electorates. He knew that a vast majority
of them did not want to abandon their religion in spite of the fact that they could
have equality with other citizens by merely changing it. Then even the Hindus would
not regard them as untouchables.

CASTE SYSTEM
The movement against the caste system in India is almost as old as caste itself.
Buddhism and Jainism were reformist movements which were partly aimed against
caste. The Bhakti movement of the middle-ages was mainly directed against the
caste system. Sikhism was similarly opposed to caste. The various reformist
movements in the second half of the Nineteenth Century like the Brahma Samaj,
Prarthana Samaj, Arya Samaj, Ramakrishna Mission, Theosophical Society, etc. all
believed in human brotherhood and the leveling up of Hindu society.
Gandhi separates what he considers to be the inessentials of the caste system from
its essentials, rejects the former and declares the latter to be beneficial for society. He
tackles the problem on three fronts: (i) untouchability and its attendant strictures, (ii)
the thousands of endogamous or semi-endogamous groups called caste, and (iii)
varna or the four-fold functional division of society. He regards untouchability as
‘immoral’ and therefore, in need of complete eradication, caste as unnecessary and
undesirable.
Gandhi believed that there is no inseparable connection between untouchability and
the caste system; untouchability can be eradicated without abolishing caste
altogether. He argues in favor of the abolition of the multiplicity of castes and their
reduction into the four varnas; the eradication of untouchability is not dependent
even on this proposed simplification of the caste system, not to speak of its abolition
altogether. Gandhi had asked for a message from Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the leader of
the untouchables, for the inaugural number of Harijan. Ambedkar refused to send
any message, and instead sent a statement for publication in the inaugural issue of
the journal. Dr.Ambedkar observed untouchability as a by-product of the caste
system, and it could be abolished only when the ‘odious and vicious dogma’ of caste
was altogether abolished. Gandhi published this statement in the first issue of
Harijan with the following comment:

Unacademy Code: DRPIYUSH11

“As to the burden of his message, the opinion he holds about the caste system is
shared by many educated Hindus. I have not, however, been able to share that
opinion. I do not believe that the caste system, even as distinguished from
varnashrama, to be an ‘odious and vicious dogma’. It has its limitations and its
defects, but there is nothing sinful about it, as there is about untouchability, and if it
is a by-product of the caste system it is only in the same sense that an ugly growth is
of a body, or weeds of a crop. It is as wrong to destroy caste because of the outcaste,
as it would be to destroy a body because of an ugly growth in it, or a crop because of
the weeds’ (Harijan, 11-2-1933).
Yet, since in practice the caste system represents a social hierarchy based on the idea
of high and low, and since it is an unnecessary outgrowth of the four varnas which
alone are fundamental and essential to the organization of a society, he considers
the multiplicity of castes to be undesirable and superfluous. “The division, however,
into innumerable castes is an unwarranted liberty taken with the doctrine (of
varnashrama). The four divisions are all-sufficing”.

COMMUNAL PROBLEMS
Gandhi was a protagonist of the concept of common good of all the inhabitants of
India; he believed in the spiritual unity and equality of mankind and in Hindu-Muslim
unity on moral grounds. He never made distinctions among people on racial,
religious and caste grounds. His Satyagraha in South Africa was launched to redeem
the civic rights of the Indian community amongst whom the Muslims constituted a
majority and controlled the larger share of wealth.
Gandhi supported the Khilafat movement because he deeply felt that it was initiated
on the grounds of restoring justice and also because it offered “an opportunity of
uniting Hindus and Muslims as would not arise in a hundred years”. In a letter to the
Viceroy in 1920, he wrote: “I consider that, as a staunch Hindu wishing to live on
terms of the closest friendship with my Mussalman countrymen, I should be an
unworthy son of India if I did not stand by them in their hour of trial”.
In 1920, Gandhi had emphasised Hindu-Muslim unity as a precondition for Swaraj. He
had said that Hindus and Muslims should unite on the issue of fighting for freedom.
This unity would have hastened the process of the achievement of political
independence and would have negated the cry for the partition of the country.
Gandhi did not advocate Hindu-Muslim unity mainly for social and political reasons.
In 1924, he undertook a twenty-one day fast for Hindu-Muslim unity and claimed that
the fast was dictated by God and thus was the call of the highest duty. In the eyes of
God, all men are equally his children and Gandhi was deeply anguished at the
growing communal schism and tensions in the country.
The solution that Gandhi provided for the Hindu-Muslim problems was threefold.
First, a sincere and devout understanding of the fundamental moral bases of the two
religions was essential. He himself had studied Sale’s translation of the Koran in the
early years of his stay in South Africa. He ‘learnt of the Prophet’s greatness and
bravery and austere living’.
He read Washington Irving’s Life of Mahomet and his Successors. From the
chapter entitled ‘Comparative Study of Religions’ in his Autobiography, it is clear
that Gandhi read Carlyle’s chapter on Muhammad’s practical instinct as reformer and

Unacademy Code: DRPIYUSH11

his monotheism have been ‘a constant strength and support to him’. C. F. Andrews
mentions that for Gandhi, Ali, Hassan and Husssain were representatives of the
concept of ‘suffering injury without retaliation’ (Andrews, 1931, pp.163-64). Gandhi was
encouraged to find that in moments of despair and confusion, Muhammad also
fasted and prayed. He admired the patriarchal simplicity of the early Caliphs of Islam.
In 1924 Gandhi wrote: “When the West was sunk in darkness a bright star rose in the
eastern firmament and gave light and comfort to a groaning world. Islam is not a
false religion. Let Hindus study it reverently, and they will love it even as I do”. He
believed that communal struggles are rooted in an insufficient understanding of the
tenets of the two religions and cultures. He stated that to say that “Hinduism and
Islam represent two antagonistic cultures” is a denial of God for “I believe with
my whole soul that the God of the Quran is also the God of the Gita”. He accepted
that all the religious scriptures of the world should be studied in a spirit of genuine
humility. He disclaimed the use of religious scriptures as armory for pugnacious
disquisitions and sectarian animosities. He preached, instead, a process of
“heart-unity”. Gandhi opined, in the Koran, non-violence is sanctioned as a duty while
violence is permitted only as a matter of necessity.
The second basic point in Gandhi’s approach to the communal problem was that he
pleaded for generosity on the part of the majority community. He did not subscribe
to the mathematics of the exact allocation of seats and shares in strict proportion to
the numbers of the two communities. Instead, he wanted an attitude of generosity
to be cultivated. He felt that being in a majority did impose some obligations and the
majority community had to inspire the minorities with confidence in their bona fides.
They had to adopt even an attitude of self-sacrifice. He was not tired of eulogising the
self-sacrificing martyrdom of Ganesh Shankar Vidyarthi in April 1931, at Kanpur, in the
cause of settling Hindu-Muslim tensions and riots.
The third point in Gandhi’s philosophy of communal harmony is the pursuit of the
Constructive Programme by both the communities. Such a common social and
economic action was bound to generate in their hearts an enhanced regard for
independence. The Constructive Programme was bound to bring together the
masses and the classes, and foster unity of hearts based on mutual interest. It was
clear that the common pursuit of the Constructive Programme as a method of
Hindu-Muslim unity would generate a process of the growth of heart unity. For the
promotion of lasting unity what was needed was not a promulgation of a decree by
the foreign government but the pursuit of the obligations of a common citizenship
as implied in the Constructive Programme. Gandhi had regarded Hindu-Muslim
unity as a matter of pre-eminent national importance. He was never tired of
repeating that they were blood brothers born of the same sacred soil of Hindustan
and nourished by the same water. Regarding each other as natural enemies was the
denial of the central divinity lodged in the heart of all living beings. The advent of
British imperialism wedded to the cult of ‘divide and rule’ and drove the wedge of
acrimony and suspicion among them. He believed that during Muslim rule, Hindus
and Muslims lived more in peace than under British rule. Their unity could convey
the gospel of reconciliation to the world.
On August 15, 1947, India not only became independent from British imperial rule but
was also partitioned into India and Pakistan. Instead of celebrating in Delhi, the
nation’s capital, Mahatma Gandhi was in Calcutta (the capital of the state of West
Bengal), pitting his whole soul against the communal riots that had broken out

Unacademy Code: DRPIYUSH11

between Hindus and Muslims in the wake of partition. On August 26, 1947, Lord
Mountbatten, the last Viceroy of British India and first Governor-General of
Independent India, sent a letter to Gandhi that said: “My dear Gandhiji, in the
Punjab we have 55 thousand soldiers and large-scale rioting on our hands. In
Bengal our forces consist of one man, and there is no rioting. As a serving officer,
as well as an administrator, may I be allowed to pay my tribute to the One-man
Boundary Force.”

DIGNITY OF WOMANHOOD
Gandhi worked for the restoration of the status of India’s womanhood which had
deteriorated appallingly in a degenerating society. Gross violations of the dignity of a
woman veiled under customs and traditions, violated women's equal rights with
man. Gandhi succeeded in lifting, to some extent, the degrading burden placed
unjustly on the Indian woman. Gandhi revolted against the subordination of women:
‘By sheer force of vicious custom even the most ignorant and worthless men have
been enjoying superiority over women which they do not deserve and ought not to
have.’ Illiteracy is no justification for the denial of their ‘equal and natural rights’ as
human beings. He pointed an accusing finger at ‘the glaring inequalities to which
they are subjected’ in being, for instance, incapacitated to inherit anything. ‘The root
of evil lies much deeper than most people realize. It lies in man’s greed of power and
fame, and deeper still in mutual lust . . . ‘She should labor under no legal disability
not suffered by man’ (Young India, 17-10-1929).

Ill-treatment of Women
What came in for real scathing remarks from him was the positive ill treatment of
women. We know by painful experience of what is daily happening in India, that
there are enough husbands who regard their wives as their property like their cattle
or household furniture, and therefore think they have the right to beat them as they
would their cattle.’ ‘More often than not the woman’s time is taken up, not by the
performance of essential domestic duties, but catering for the egoistic pleasures of
her lord and master… To me this slavery of woman is a symbol of our barbarism... It is
high time that our womankind was freed from this incubus.’ ‘Excessive subordination
of the wife to the husband.... This has resulted in the husband sometimes usurping
and exercising authority that reduces him to the level of the beast’ (Harijan, 5-6-1940).

Child Marriage
Gandhi lashed mercilessly against some evil customs in Indian society, such as child
marriage etc. ‘It is irreligion not religion to give religious sanction to a brutal custom’
he said of the evils of child marriage. He even defied the Hindu scriptures when they
gave sanction to it. The health of the race, the morality of the children involved and
so many other reasons, he said, would induce us to hold it as ‘sinful’ to give children
in marriage. He spoke against it by drawing on his own experience and also on the
appalling statistics he had before him of its consequent evils. He spoke against

Unacademy Code: DRPIYUSH11

forced marriages and forced widowhood, especially of teenage widowhood. He was
all for ‘voluntary widowhood .which adds grace and dignity to life, sanctifies the
home and uplifts religion itself.’ But he could not bear the ‘enormity of the wrong
done to the Hindu girl widows…Widowhood imposed by the religion or custom is an
unbearable yoke, and defiles the home by secret vice and degrades religion’,
especially when widowhood is so common in child marriages. Besides, it makes one
‘lose sight of elementary justice’.

Dowry and Purdah System

The system of dowry, for Gandhi, ‘was nothing but the sale of girls’. Speaking of the
evils of dowry, for instance disposing of young children to old men by needy parents,
accused the community of committing ‘a double sin’. ‘Any young man who makes
dowry a condition for marriage discredits his education and his country and
dishonors womanhood.’
He waged war also on the system of purdah. Refuting the charge that it was meant
to protect the chastity of women, he said: ‘Chastity is not a hothouse growth. It
cannot be superimposed. It cannot be protected by the surrounding wall of the
purdah. It must grow from within, and to be worth anything it must be capable of
withstanding every unsought temptation. It must be as defiant as Sita’s. It must be a
very poor thing that cannot stand the gaze of men. Men, to be men, must be able to
trust their womenfolk even as the latter are compelled to trust them’. In 1927 he
spoke against the purdah saying: ‘It pained and humiliated me deeply. I thought of
the wrong done by men to the women of India, by clinging to a barbarous custom
which, whatever use it might have had when it was first introduced, had now
become totally useless and was doing incalculable harm to the country’ (Young
India, 3-2-1927).

Other Evils
There are many other fields in which Gandhi tried to uphold the dignity of the
woman. Thus for example he continually railed against obscene literature which had
reached ‘an altogether wrong apotheosis’ of women, thus degrading their nature. He
did his best to counteract the practice of prostitution which he called ‘a life of shame’,
a life of ‘debasing indulgence’, against which ‘curse’ he hoped ‘humanity will rise. So
too, he pitted himself against the protagonists of contraceptives who asked the
Indian woman to violate ‘the sacredness of her body’.
Behind all his holy zeal there lay the implicit conviction that women are as much
human as men and hence they must enjoy perfect equality of rights pertaining to
human nature as such. He said: ‘I am uncompromising in the matter of women's
rights. In my opinion she should labor under no legal disability not suffered by man.
He emphasized the point repeatedly. ‘She has the right to participate in the minutest
detail of man's activity, and she has the same right of freedom and liberty as he.’
‘Man and woman are equal in status, but are not identical. They are a peerless pair
being complementary to one another…..’ Of course he admitted the ‘point of
bifurcation’ in them. Thus he said: ‘Whilst both are fundamentally one, it is also

Unacademy Code: DRPIYUSH11

equally true that in the form there is a vital difference between the two. Hence the
vocation of the two must be also different.’ The woman by vocation is destined to
rear children. And it would be wrong to forsake that work together for another.
Gandhi felt that ‘she is entitled to a supreme place in her own sphere of activity as
man is in his’ and is unjust in denying her that right.
Gandhi did succeed in bringing back honor to India’s womanhood. He asked them to
‘forget that they belong to the weaker sex’; he convinced them that ‘the economic
and moral salvation of India’ rested mainly on them. ‘The future of India lies on your
knees, for you will nurture the future generation.’ He drew thousands of them into
his political campaign; scores of hundreds answered his call to the satyagraha and
swadeshi drive; they lived up to his definition of woman – ‘embodiment of sacrifice
and suffering’ by giving their all to fight for truth with him. The fearlessness they
displayed and their capacity to ‘work wonders on behalf of the motherland’,
rebounded in getting back the honor and dignity that had increasingly been denied
to them in modern Indian society.

SOCIAL EQUALITY
Gandhi was driven by the basic conviction that no man can claim superiority just by
his birth. It is the equality of human rights derived from one common Father whom
we have in God that postulates a social equality among men. And due to his
persuasion, he threw himself headlong into the struggle for social justice. This
struggle was specially seen in his efforts to reinstate the Indian woman in her rightful
position, and to purge the scourge of untouchability from India’s soil. Gandhi was too
much of a realist to rule out every difference in social status. He admitted some
inequalities in property and opportunities and saw the necessity of a social hierarchy.
``We own no master but Daridra Narayana, and if for the time being we own human
superiors, we do so voluntarily well knowing that no organization can be carried on
without discipline. Discipline presupposes an organizing head. He is only the first
among equals. He is there on sufferance. But whilst he is there, he is entitled to the
whole hearted allegiance and uncompromising obedience of all the fellow servants’
(Harijan, 22- 6-1935). Though this was said in connection with some ‘humanitarian
services’ there is no doubt that it well expresses the social aspect of his philosophy.
Coming to the positive meaning of his social equality he says, ‘I do not believe that all
class distinctions can be obliterated. I believe in the doctrine of equality as taught by
Lord Krishna in the Gita. The Gita teaches us that the members of all the four castes
should be treated on an equal basis. It does not prescribe the same dharma for the
Brahmin as for the bhangi. But it insists that the latter should be entitled to the same
measure of consideration and esteem as the former with all his superior learning.’
This equality derives from ‘God, who is the creator of all.’ ‘All are one in the eyes of
God’, and so He, ‘the Father in heaven will deal with us all with even handed justice’.
Therefore, ‘there cannot be greater ignorance than this; birth and observance of
forms cannot determine one’s superiority or inferiority. Character is the only
determining factor. God did not create men with the badge of superiority or
inferiority, and no scripture which labels a human being as inferior or untouchable,
because of his or her birth, can command our allegiance. It is a denial of God and of
Truth which is God’ (ibid, 31-8-1934). Gandhi held that man’s essential dignity, which

Unacademy Code: DRPIYUSH11

he has in common with all men, derives neither from his birth nor his occupation but
from his very human nature, which entitles him to all basic human rights and to an
undiscriminating justice.

PROHIBITION
Gandhi was a tireless campaigner against alcohol and an open advocate of
prohibition as a national policy. He considered the consumption of alcohol as a social
evil, on par with the reprehensible practice of untouchability, and totally inimical to
the pursuit of nonviolence. Gandhi’s public opposition to consumption of alcohol
dated back to his days in South Africa when it was reported that ‘one of the reasons
for disenfranchisement of Indians in South Africa was because they either supplied
liquor to the natives or consumed it in very large quantities themselves’. Writing in
the Vegetarian, 21 February 1891, Gandhi said:
“Alcohol is one of the most greatly-felt evils of British Rule, an enemy of mankind
and a curse of civilization. The poor, as everywhere, are the greatest sufferers. It
is they who spend what little they earn in buying alcohol instead of buying good
food and other necessaries. It is that wretched poor man who has to starve his
family, who has to break the sacred trust of looking after his children, if any, in
order to drink himself into misery and premature death” (Collected Works of
Mahatma Gandhi, 1, pp.29-30).
The use of alcoholic drinks is habit-forming and there is always the possible danger
of excess. It is more so among the poor whose power of resistance to a bad habit is
the lowest. Also, they can ill-afford to indulge in this expensive habit. They generally
waste their earnings, which could be profitably used for raising the standard of living
of their families and promoting the welfare of their children. Often the laborer as
soon as he gets his wage visits the grog shop before he goes home. The
consequence is that the family lives in chronic poverty and indebtedness. Thus the
innocent are made to suffer for the guilty. In the case of most people, especially the
poor, intoxicating drinks impair their intelligence which distinguishes man from the
animal. It also deadens one’s moral sensitivity. Gandhi says: “Having identified myself
with labor, I know what ruin drink has brought to the homes of laborers given to
drink. I know that they will not touch liquor if it was not within their reach. We have
contemporaneous evidence that drinkers themselves are in many cases asking for
prohibition”.

OCEANIC CIRCLES

Background
The concept of participative democracy with its roots rising from villages is what had
been one of the biggest aims that MK Gandhi looked after India attained
independence. For this purpose, he wanted a proper development of social
organizations at the rural level. Hence, MK Gandhi sought to create a new polity
based on this communitarian society in which men would work for a common life.

Unacademy Code: DRPIYUSH11

According to MK Gandhi, “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 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.”

The true basis of such polity would be the various groupings in society starting with
the family, village, state in which there would be instructive cooperation and at the
higher stage of evolution cooperation would not be based on rules and laws. 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 it will be an oceanic circle whose center will always be individual. The outermost
circumference will not yield power to crush the inner circle but will give strength to
all within and derive its own strength from it.

Why is there a need for a decentralized concept?

● Modern urban-industrial civilisation was approached critically by Gandhi and
thus many of its tendencies and features like centralizing tendency,
homogenisation, industrialisation leading to centralized mass production etc.
were also reflected upon with suspicion by him.
● Gandhi saw, as Bhikhu Parekh observes, modern civilisation 'primarily
through the eyes of its victims'. For Gandhi modern Western civilisation
lacked self restraint as it is devoid of a sense of direction and purpose.
● Gratifications based on materialism are at the core of modern civilisation's
conception of human beings. The unbridled hunger for profit has fostered a
mad rush for mechanization and industrialisation leading to centralisation in
production, power and organizational structures.
● Nevertheless, Gandhi notes, this phenomenon inevitably invites colonial
expeditions and thus violence becomes the logical corollary of this trend.
● Exploitation of fellow human beings is, in consequence, built into the very
structures of modern urban-industrial civilisation.
● Another key feature of modern civilisation is that it is based on 'naive
rationalism'. For Gandhi this rationalism is inherently hierarchical and
missionary and thus has deep imperialist orientation as it has a tendency to
homogenize and suppress diversity.

Unacademy Code: DRPIYUSH11

 ● The centralisation of production in the modern economy, according to Gandhi,
created social and economic problems of national and international
magnitude. This also provided impetus to a centralized political agency to deal
with such problems. Thus the emergence of a highly centralized and
bureaucratic modern state enjoying and guarding its monopoly of political
power is also a necessary product of this civilisation.
● The state, for Gandhi, has a vested institutional interest in remaining at the
center of the social life and creating the illusion that the problems of the
society are too complex and intractable to be solved by ordinary citizens
acting individually or collectively, and therefore should be left to the state and
its official agencies.

Oceanic Circles
Gandhian Oceanic Circles Theory is in accordance with the philosophy of
double-edged weapons, the basic goal of which is to transform society and
individuals concurrently by inculcating the principles of truth and violence.

Source: Springer

As per this theory, it is the individual who is the unit. This does not exclude
dependence on and willing help from neighbors or from the world. It will be free and
voluntary play of mutual forces. These individuals will combine to form the society.
When a society will come into existence, the newly conglomerated resultant unit will
be necessarily highly cultured in which every man and woman knows what he or she

Unacademy Code: DRPIYUSH11

wants and what is more, knows that no one should want anything that others
cannot have with equal labor.

But it will be an oceanic circle whose center 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 humble, sharing the majesty of the oceanic circle of which they
are integral units.

Therefore, the outermost circumference will not wield power to crush the inner
circle, but will give strength to all within and derive its own strength from it. We must
have a proper picture of what we want before we can have something approaching
it.

Modern hierarchical systems are both embedded in and also emanate from
pyramids like societal organizations. Gandhi's suspicion for crushing the hierarchical
system is quite evident in his conception of the oceanic circle. He also allots a central
role to the individual and the village in his scheme. This way Gandhi suggests
radically altering the power equations prevailing in modern societies where power
moves from top to bottom.

Relevance of Oceanic Circles

The essence of world reality, not merely the reality of India reflected by Oceanic
Circles. Oceanic Circles could be seen as a reasonably authentic construct of the past,
though this construct may not be adequately satisfying to a historiographer but then
this is true of the theories of social contract on which so much of fulfilling political
and philosophical discourses hinged. The Gandhian Oceanic Circles approximate to,
or atleast are not unrelated with, what is conveyed by the present day ideas of civil
society.

In so far as civil society consists of communitarian arrangements social and

economic ,entered into by citizens for their social and economic life, without
dependence on state, Gandhi’s Oceanic Circles could represent civil societies of an
earlier era.

These arrangements had the virtue of possessing a built-in hedge against the
destabilizing risks of international trade. As stated above, the civil societies
constituting the Oceanic Circles were not devoid of inter-linking but did not have
integrating arrangements, driven by comparative advantage-based trade.

They did not suffer from general glut or lack of aggregate demand, as they did not
function at all on the basis of aggregation, the bane of modern societies. The civil

Unacademy Code: DRPIYUSH11

societies of olden times remained unintegrated until the time when the state, in the
modern sense, came into existence and tended to weave those together.

Application of science, which advanced in the meantime, played a 6 cementing role

in this integration, loosening the communitarian arrangements. The slow methods
of transmitting knowledge of the historic civil societies gave way to newer methods
made possible by science and technology, over which members of communities
ceased to have any control or say.

Gandhi wanted a technology that would improve the material welfare, particularly
from the perspective of the last person, of all - not just of the rich and 'educated' and
thus becoming the very basis of self-rule. 'His debate is not on whether India needs
technology; his debate is on the kind of technology that India needs'. As a
corollary, what he argued was that we must have industry, but of the right kind.

While the unintegrated civil societies needed travelers and explorers to transmit
knowledge, companies took over this role gradually, with modern science advancing
fast. Trade started growing quickly, with companies all the time pushing for growth
of trade.

Small societies lost in the process their simplicity and gradually ceased to qualify to
the epithet of Gandhi’s Oceanic Circles, because comparative advantage
considerations of the companies were the driving force behind trade now, not the
test whether something was essential, or import of that militates against the
presumed preference of communities.

With revolution in transport facilities, distant trade became the order of the day.
Small communities were so integrated, each of those did not have any view over
what its commerce could be doing in a distant community with which it was trading.
In Oceanic Circles, there is a counter to aggregation and in them there is no general
glut or the problem of deficiency of aggregate demand. There is thus reality in the
concept of Oceanic Circles as regards the past as also a craving to return to some of it
whether for avoiding the risks of trade or for securing human rights. This is because
the implications of economic pursuits are at home to be felt by everyone, not in
distant places if we succeed in getting back to the Oceanic Circles. Gandhi realized
that we have moved too far away from Oceanic Circles that may have existed earlier
and suggested steps to restore some of it by

1. Trusteeship idea
2. Reining in Science and Technology by Conscious efforts

The important point to note is that via trusteeship, Gandhi provided in his thinking
for play of enterprises and entrepreneurship, and for accumulation, but ensured that
accumulation is for social good by inculcating the spirit of guardianship and use of
accumulated resources for common good.

This still could work and lead to sharing resources equitably and democratically in
other words to Commons, with all that this expression evokes. Global warming and

Unacademy Code: DRPIYUSH11

the need to change life-styles and reduction in consumption patterns to counter
global warming may lead the world to turn to the rich ideas of Hind Swaraj and
Oceanic Circles, that the political philosopher Gandhi left to us as his bequest, for
pondering and action.

Hence, through his Oceanic Circles Theory, Gandhi was trying to move towards a
more equalizer world. It is because Gandhi was one of the initial thinkers who poked
at the growing asymmetry between the city and the village. To Gandhi it is
imperative to rejuvenate the village against the big city, and individual against the
machine. The decentralized scheme in which the village and the 'local' is the locus of
production dovetail well with the essence articulated in the notion of oceanic circle.
To rejuvenate the village against the big city Gandhi called for decentralized and
diffused 'rural industrialisation' with the objective of 'work for all'.

Conclusion
Gandhi stated, “The adoption of correct philosophy even at this stage can save
the country as the country is passing through crises of identity.” The Gandhian
alternative of oceanic circles may or may not be perfect, but if it is remembered that
the kind of individual he is aiming for is precisely the key to the solution of the most
of the problems confronting human societies, for in the ultimate analysis it is the
individual who has marginalized himself, the fundamental truth of Gandhi’s ideas
becomes clear.

In a nutshell, Gandhi tried to depict that just like the waves of the ocean transfer their
energy, the empowerment of individuals will get transmitted to uplift the deprived
section of the society.

Unacademy Code: DRPIYUSH11