40 Gandhiji and Freedom Struggle

S. Abdul Sattar

Biography

Mahatma Gandhi was born at Porbandar on the 2nd of October 1869. His ancestors were Vaisya by caste and profession, but his father, uncle and grandfather were service-holders. His father was, for some time, prime minister in the court of Rajkot and also in Vankaner. Although his parents were orthodox Vaisnavas, they were enlightened enough to make all necessary arrangements for giving modern education to their children. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi grew in a mixed but balanced set-up. He was initiated into religious and moral traditions, and yet his mind was sufficiently open to the changing needs of the time.

2. Influences that shaped his thought

It is true that Gandhi’s thought has originality and freshness about it, but it carries on it the stamp of a number of influences. One of the earliest influences that provided to Gandhi’s thought its backbone was that of ancient Hindu tradition. He had grown up in a family and in a tradition that had always respected orthodox Hindu ways of religion and worship. At a very early age he had studied the Gita and the Ramayana, and also the Vaisnava and the Jaina literatures. These studies sharpened his moral sense and kindled his religious insight.

While in England he got an opportunity of being acquainted with some of the intellectuals of the time and also with Christianity. It is said that when he saw the statue of Christ at St. Peters in Rome, he burst into tears. He had a tremendous respect for the life and personality of Jesus, and thus was able to incorporate in his thought some of the original sayings of Jesus Christ. For that he was, in some respects, indebted to Tolstoy, who in his The Kingdom of God is within you, gave almost a new interpretation to Christianity. Tolstoy left his mark on the mind of Gandhi in various ways, specially his emphasis on the power and dignity of suffering gave to Gandhi an inspiration for developing his own notion of Satyagarha. Likewise, the great American thinker Thoreau also influenced Gandhi a great deal. His idea of civil disobedience revealed to Gandhi the possibility of using nonviolence as a technique for solving even the major problems of social and political life. Besides these he had also first-hand knowledge of Zoroastrianism and Islam and also of the works of Ruskin and those of some of the theosophists of the time. All these influences were taken and deliberated upon. Gandhi carried on experiments after experiments on moral, religious and existential issues both in his inner life and in outward existence; and his thought is nothing but a product of the series of experiments that he carried upon.

3. God and Truth

Gandhi did not have any training in academic philosophy, for him the distinction between Pantheism and Theism was not even relevant; but this can be said that Gandhi’s theistic beliefs were, more or less, of the ‘Vaisnava’ type. His early initiation into the Vaisnava cult, and the influence of the family-atmosphere in which he grew, implanted on his mind the rudiments of the idea of a theistic God.

Vaisnavas in India are theists par excellence. They respect the authorities of the Vedas and the Upanisads and, at times, draw their inspirations from them. But, in a general way they are not inclined to accept that Advaitic trend of thought and belief that has become very prominent in India. The great Advaita Vedantist, Sankara, emphasised the reality of Nirguna Brahman, and came to think that the world which apparently looked real, was meta-physically merely an illusion created by ignorance of the individual. Naturally therefore, the Advaita Vedantist never felt the need of a Creator or a God. If the reality is essentially one, if the perception of the many is a product of an illusion — producing ignorance, then both creation and the creator become unreal. The Vaisnava thinkers, on the other hand, accept the reality of the world, and therefore, believe in a God as the creator and preserver of the world. There is yet another, a more significant, point of difference between the Advaita Vedan tist and the Vaisnava thinker. According to the former reality is an attributeless, indeterminate Brahman, and therefore, salvation consists in the knowledge of this reality. Reality, being Nirguna, cannot be approached in the devotional manner, because devotion presupposes inter-personal relations. Therefore, the only way that the Advaita Vedantist recommends for attaining liberation is the way of knowledge. Vaisnava thinkers conceive God in a theistic manner, and as such, God becomes a personal God.

Now, they feel that a cold and dispassionate way of knowledge will always fail to establish a feeling relationship with God, and therefore, will always maintain a ‘distance’ from Him. God, according to these people, has to be felt and realised, and therefore, the way of feeling and devotion is the only way to salvation. Not that they deny the role of importance of knowledge altogether, but they somehow feel that devotion and emotional surrender are the essential requirements for salvation. This is the chief reason why the Vaisnava-cult is popular in India, it advocates a simple path that can be taken up by every man.

Gandhi’s philosophy of God also is strictly theistic in character. It is true that at times Gandhi, more or less like an Advaitist, talks of the nirguna character of the real. But that is so because he feels that the academic distinction between ‘saguna’ and ‘nirguna’ is irrelevant for the beliefs and practices of a true believer. In fact, he feels that God is needed not merely for the satisfaction of reason or intellectual curiosity, but also for providing strength and solace. A faith in God must enable an individual to be in peace with the world. He says, ” … . He is no God who merely satisfies the intellect, if He ever does. God to be God, must rule the heart and transform it.” This is possible only where an inter-personal relationship is possible, and only when God is conceived as a person. Gandhi was deeply impressed by the life and practices of the saints of the Bhakti-cult, and therefore, it was not difficult for him to arrive at the conception of a personal God. He was helped in arriving at this notion of God by his studies of the Bible and the Quran.

4. Truth is God

Gandhi was aware of the difficulty, and therefore, he very often tried to make his standpoint clear. He says, “In my early youth I was taught to repeat what in Hindu scriptures are known as one thousand names of God. But these one thousand names of God were by no means exhaustive. We believe — and I think it is the truth — that God has as many names as there are creatures and therefore, we also say that God is nameless, and since God has many forms we also consider Him formless, and since He speaks to us in many tongues, we consider Him to be speechless and so on … if it is possible for the human tongue to give the fullest description, I have come to the conclusion that for myself God is Truth.”

An interpretation of this passage will bring to light the reasons for Gandhi’s saying that God is Truth. Firstly, this assertion is the result of a search for a name or a category for the univer-sal reality that is God, which appears to defy all description. Secondly, God is described as Truth because God alone is real. Truth, according to Gandhi, is not an attribute of God, but God is Truth. Truth, according to him, is derived from the word ‘sat’, and ‘sat’ means ‘is’. And so, by calling God Truth, what is being asserted is that God alone is.

What is Truth? In the logical sense of the word ‘Truth’, truth is considered to be a property of judgment, but, in the metaphysical context Truth is conceived differently —it is conceived as right knowledge, as knowledge that corresponds to reality. In Indian metaphysics, at times, Truth is conceived as self -illuminating as revealing itself. Gandhi somehow combines all these meanings of the word ‘Truth’ and then comes to identify Truth with God. In fact, in doing so he relies on, what can be called, the popular meaning of the word ‘truth’. Popularly a distinction between ‘Sat’ and ‘Satya’ is not made. Gandhi explicitly asserts that the word ‘Satya’ is derived from ‘Sat’, and this leads him to identify Satya with reality.

5. Some other Characters of God

Gandhi never misses an opportunity of trying to describe the characters of God. The characters mentioned by him are generally theistic, but they bear the mark of Gandhi’s basic conviction, namely that ‘Truth is God.’

Gandhi conceives God as all-pervasive. God is the reality in which everything lives and moves. In conceiving God in this manner, Gandhi is almost identifying the metaphysical reality with the theistic God, and in the process, he is also identifying character of all-pervasiveness with that of omnipresence. He says, “There is an indefinable mysterious power that pervades everything. I feel it, though I do not see it. It is this unseen power that makes itself felt and yet defies proof, because it is so unlike all that I perceive through my senses”.

God is also, at times, described as Law. Although this description creates the impression that God is an impersonal principle, Gandhi rises above such an impression when he says that God’s Law and God are not different from each other. God himself is the Law. To say that God rules everything means simply that his Law abides.

God is present in every one of us, and therefore, by a gradual process of extending love we can love everybody and thereby God himself. This kind of love demands a kind of a self-sacrifice — a sacrifice of the egoistic and selfish ways for the love and the good of others. Gandhi says, “I have but shadowed forth my intense longing to lose myself in the external and to become merely a lump of clay in the Potter’s divine hands so that my service may become more certain because uninterrupted by the baser self in me.”

6. Nature of the World

It is difficult to outline precisely Gandhi’s view on the nature of the world, because his remarks on the nature of the world are both casual and too much scattered. Yet, an attempt can be made to organise his thoughts into a full-fledged account of the nature of the world. Nature, according to Gandhi, is the expression of God, is an evidence of the all-pervasive reality. He says, “God manifests himself in innumerable forms in this universe and every such manifestation commands my reverence.”

This description of Nature has two implications: one metaphysical and the other practical. Although Gandhi does not like either to raise or to answer the question regarding the why of creation, it is apparent that metaphysically speaking the world is an expression of God, and as such is both real and finite. It is real because it is God’s creation, it is finite because it is not itself God. Even a casual survey of the course of the evolution of the universe will show that the universe is real, although finite. Gandhi tries to gather the results of the studies and researches of different sciences and comes to find that there is a Law governing every movement and every development in every part of the universe. “All things in the universe including the sun and the moon and the stars obey certain laws. Without the restraining influence of these laws the world would not go on for a single moment.” ”Gandhi perceives in the inexorable laws of nature nothing but the force or the will which maintains the world in harmony and order, and saves it from destruction. This force for him is nothing but God, and the laws are nothing but the ways of the working of that force.” That gives to the world its reality. This is also apparent from the consideration of the fact, which is more or less, confirmed by the sciences, that there is continuity among the various forms of life and existence. Sciences have shown that the world exhibits a gradual progress — a continuous process of growth. What is the end towards which this onward march of Nature is progressing? It can be nothing else but God himself who is the perfect and the ultimate ideal of everything. Thus, God is the beginning of the world and also its end. This gives to the world its reality.

This emphasis on the reality of the world has a practical implication also. If the world has a reality, then it is suicidal to deny the reality of anything. Gandhi would never favour a ‘denial of the will to live’, on the other hand, in accordance with his conviction he recommends a return to Nature. Nature does not merely appear to him as full of poetic charms, he also perceives in it a field for action. Gandhi feels that Nature provides to man a   ‘Karma-sthala‘—a field for action, where man can discipline his soul by leading a religious and moral life. That is the reason why Gandhi, at times, talks of the beauties of Nature—of the solemn silence of forests and hills and of the majesty of the snow-clad Himalayas and at other times, he recommends an actual return to nature just to derive benefits of the actual healing power of Nature. His deep love for Naturopathy, his recommendations to take plenty of air and later and to walk barefooted are some of the evidences of his love for Nature.

Even so, the world is finite. It is finite because it is not infinite, and it is not infinite because there cannot be two infinites. That the world is finite is shown to be a fact by referring to the forces of destruction and disharmony present in the universe.

Gandhi is not blind to the discordant notes evident in the world. The presence of such elements does not negate the reality of the world but merely proves its finitude and limitedness. Neither Nature nor man is free from imperfection, and so, what is required is an attempt to transcend this finitude and imperfection.

7. Nature of Man

Gandhi would say that these pictures of man are superficial and partial because they do not emphasise the basic truth about man. It would appear to Gandhi that these pictures of man, are in fact, pictures of the apparent man only. Gandhi feels that all such accounts of man are based on partial or superficial analysis of man’s external behaviour and conduct. It does not mean that the bodily aspects of man do not have any reality or that the apparent picture of man is essentially a false picture. Gandhi is aware of the importance and value of this aspect of man, but he believes that there is another aspect of man which is much more basic, which gives nourishment even to the bodily aspect and which is, more or less, neglected or forgotten by all psychological or psychoanalytic or sociological theories about human nature. This, according to Gandhi, represents the true nature of man.

Gandhi feels that man is a complex being. The bodily man is the apparent man; his body is natural in so far as it is akin to other objects of nature. The body grows and decays according to the laws of Nature. But, this aspect of man represents merely the physical aspect. Man is not merely a physical being. He has many other characters which are not just physical. He has consciousness, reason, conscience, will, emotion and similar other qualities. He has an aesthetic sense, a feeling-sensibility, and an insight into the nature of good and bad. These are not just physical activities; these are all expressions of the real man — of the spirit or soul present in him.

In fact, Gandhi’s conception of the nature of man is based on his metaphysical conviction. Gandhi, metaphysically speaking, is a monist, he believes in the reality of one Supreme God. As such, he has to believe that whatever we come across is an expression of the one God. Man, therefore, is also an expression of that one reality. Thus, both the bodily and the spiritual aspects of man are expressions of God, Even so, Gandhi feels that the spiritual aspect of man represents man’s superior and true nature simply because it is akin to Divine nature.

Gandhi accepts that every individual is a mixture of the bodily and the spiritual. He also believes that initially the bodily and the physical aspects were more predominant and that the spiritual went on becoming more and more prominent as the evolutionary process progressed. Evolution, according to him, is a change from the physical to the spiritual, aiming ultimately at the complete realisation of spirituality, that is, Divinity. This also shows that in spite of the fact that the bodily aspect of man also has its own importance and value man’s essential nature consists in his spirituality.

This belief in the essential spirituality and goodness of every man leads Gandhi to believe further in the essential unity of mankind. He says, ‘I believe in absolue oneness of God and therefore also of humanity… though we have many bodies, we have but one soul. The rays of the sun are many through refraction, but they have the same source.”3 This unity is expressed both in the life of an individual and in social life. The spiritual law is constantly working behind all kinds of activities, individual, social, economic and political, and is, in fact, running through and unifying them all. He clearly says, “I believe in advaita. I believe in the essential unity of man, and for that matter of all that lives.”

8. Non-Violence (Ahimsa)

An account of Gandhi’s theory of Truth necessarily takes us to the consideration of his views on the nature of Non-violence. Gandhi himself says, “I have nothing new to teach the world. Truth and Non -violence are as old as the hills. All I have done is to try experiments in both on as vast a scales as I could. In doing so I have sometimes erred and learnt by my errors. Life and its problems have thus become to me so many experiments in the practice of truth and non-violence. . . .In fact it was in the course of my pursuit of truth that I discovered nonviolence.” Explaining more clearly the transition from the notion of Truth to that of Non-violence he says, “Ahimsa and Truth are so intertwined that it is practically impossible to disentangle and separate them. They are like the two sides of a coin, or rather a smooth unstamped metallic disc. Who can say, which is the obverse, and which the reverse? Ahimsa is the means; Truth is the end. Means to be means must always be within our reach, and so ahimsa is our supreme duty. If we take care of the means, we are bound to reach the end sooner or later.”

Let us first try to determine the Gandhian sense of the word ‘Ahimsa’. Not that Gandhi is using this word in some special sense which is entirely different from its traditional or customary sense, but, Gandhi has emphasised certain aspects of Ahimsa which have not been given that importance by any other believer in Ahimsa. On account of such emphasis there has emerged a Gandhian sense of the word, which, although similar to its usual sense, has some distinctive features of its own.

In Gandhi the word Ahimsa has both a negative and a positive import. The positive aspect of its meaning is more fundamental for Gandhi, because it comprehends the negative aspect also and represents its essence.

The usual meaning of Ahimsa is non-killing. Most often its meaning is made broader by emphasising that non-killing is merely one example of Ahimsa. Ahimsa, then, is conceived as non-injury. In any case, Ahimsa is conceived as the opposite of himsa. Gandhi accepts this and adds much more to its content. He also accepts that himsa means causing pain or killing any life out of anger, or from a selfish purpose, or with the intention of injuring it. Refraining from doing all this is Ahimsa. In fact, in conceiving Ahimsa thus Gandhi seems to be influenced by Jainism which recommends the practice of Ahimsa in thought, speech and action. According to it, even thinking ill of others is himsa. Not only this, Jainism demands that one should not only commit himsa himself, he should not cause himsa or permit himsa to take place. Gandhi’s negative requirements of Ahimsa are not as rigid as that, because Gandhi is aware that it is not possible to observe non-violence in as strict and rigid manner as Jainism demands. He is aware that in certain cases himsa is unavoidable, as for example, in the processes of eating, drinking, walking, breathing etc. It is impossible to sustain one’s body without injuring other bodies to some extent. Gandhi in fact, openly recommends killing under certain circumstances.

He says, “Taking life may be a duty. We do destroy as much life as we think necessary for sustaining our body. Thus, for food we take life, vegetable and other, and for health we destroy mosquitoes and the like by the use of disinfectants etc., and we do not think that we are guilty of irreligion in doing so . . . for the benefit of the species we kill carnivorous beasts . . . even man — slaughter may be necessary in certain cases. Suppose a man runs amuck and goes furiously about sword in hand, and killing anyone that comes in his way, and no one dares to capture him alive. Anyone who dispatches this lunatic, will earn the gratitude of the community and be regarded as a benevolent man,” He makes this point still clearer when he says, “I see that there is an instinctive horror of killing living beings under any circumstances whatever. For instance, an alternative has been suggested in the shape of confining even rabid dogs in a certain place and allow them to die a slow death. Now my idea of compassion makes this thing impossible for me. I cannot for a moment bear to see a dog or for that matter any other living being, helplessly suffering the torture of a slow death. I do not kill a human being thus circumstanced because I have more hopeful remedies. I should kill a dog similarly situated, because in its case, I am without a remedy. Should my child be attacked with rabbies and there was no helpful remedy to relieve his agony, I should consider it my duty to take his life. Fatalism has its limits. We leave things to Fate after exhausting all the remedies. One of the remedies and the final one to relieve the agony of a tortured child is to take his life.” Thus, it is apparent that Gandhi considers it almost a virtue to take life under certain conditions. In fact, he feels that under conditions similar to the examples given by him, continuing to live itself is pain and that, therefore, non-killing amounts to prolonging pain and agony. Thus, Non-injury itself has been conceived in a slightly different manner by Gandhi.

He is of the opinion that killing or injury to life can be an act of violence only under certain conditions. These conditions are anger, pride, hatred, selfish consideration, bad intention and similar other considerations. Any injury to life done under these motives is hirhsa. Thus, the negative meaning of Ahimsa is ‘non-killing or non-injury’, but this presupposes that a nonviolent act is free from hatred, anger, malice and the like.

Ahimsa demands a sincere effort to free mind from feelings like anger, malice, hatred, revenge, jealousy etc., because these create obstacles in the way of Love. Love, according to Gandhi, is the energy that cleanses one’s inner life and uplifts him, and as such, love comprehends such noble feelings as benevolence, compassion, forgiveness, tolerance, generosity, kindness, sympathy etc.

9. The Technique of Ahimsa — Satyagraha

Gandhi is aware that a theoretical emphasis on the value and importance. Truth and Non-violence would lead us nowhere unless a way is shown for the practice of Ahimsa. That takes him to develop a technique of Ahimsa, to which he gives the name of Satyagraha, which is translated in English as Truth-force, or even, at times, as Soul-force or Love-force, Gandhi, throughout his life went on making newer and newer experiments with this technique and thus succeeded in giving to it some definite shape. In order to be able to appreciate its nature it would be better to begin with the description of this technique in Gandhi’s own words. Describing the nature of Satyagraha Gandhi says, “Its equivalent in the vernacular rendered into English means Truth-Force. I think Tolstoy called it also Soul-Force, or Love-Force and so it is. Carried out to its utmost limit, this force is independent of pecuniary or other material assistance, even in its elementary form of physical force or violence. Indeed, violence is the negation of this great spiritual force which can only be wielded or cultivated by those who will entirely eschew violence. It is a force that may be used by individuals as well as by communities. It may be used as well in political as in domestic affairs. Its universal applicability is a demonstration of its permanence and invincibility. It can be used alike by men, women and children. It is totally untrue to say that it is a force to be used only by the weak, so long as they are not capable of meeting violence by violence. This superstition arises from the incompleteness of the English expression [Passive Resistance]. It is impossible for those who consider themselves to be weak to apply this force. Only those who realise that there is something in man which is superior to the brute nature in him, and that the latter always yields to it, can effectively be passive resisters. This force is to violence and, therefore, to all tyranny, all injustice what light is to darkness.”1 An attempt to explain clearly the ideas contained in this lengthy passage taken from the writings of Gandhi will bring to light the salient features of Satyagraha.

One thing seems to be obvious, and it follows from the very etymology of the word ‘Satyagraha’. Truth according to Gandhi, is God, and Satyagraha is ‘agraha’ of ‘Satya’ and thus, it means holding fast to truth. It, therefore, demands a deep sincerity and a vigorous love for Truth. It works on the conviction that Truth represents the will and the ways of God. Therefore, the path of Truth has to be followed in a vigorous manner for no other consideration except the fact that it is God’s way — that it is the way of Truth. In this sense the doctrine of satyagraha is strictly rigoristic.

This means that Satyagraha is essentially based on love. In fact, Satyagraha appears to Gandhi almost as a religious pursuit. It rests on a religious belief that there is one God behind everything and being, and as such the same God resides in every one of us. This is the basis of Love, and unless one has this basic love for mankind he cannot practise the technique of Satyagraha. There is yet another religious presupposition of Satyagraha. In fact, all rigoristic ethical doctrines, somehow or other, believe that there has to be another life, otherwise, they would not be able to explain the strictly rigoristic character of their belief. Gandhi also feels that a belief in rebirth is almost a pre-condition of Satyagraha. Satyagraha demands selfless and sincere pursuit of Truth without having any consideration of any advantage or gain, But, one will be able ‘to walk on such a sharp ‘razor’s edge’ only if he somehow believes that he will get the fruits of his good work, if not in this life, in subsequent life. He says, “with the knowledge that the soul survives the body, he [the satyagrahi] is not impatient to see the triumph of truth in the present body.” Gandhi describes Satyagraha as a force against violence, tyranny and injustice. All these evils arise on account of a neglect of the ‘truth’ that is all-pervasive and all-comprehending Therefore Gandhi says that if we start resisting evil with evil, violence with violence, anger with anger, then we are only adding fuel to fire. The most effective force against these evils can be the one which would force them to evaporate, and that can be done only by Satyagraha.

This is possible only because satyagraha creates conditions for the anger of the opponent to spend itself out. It gives ot the opponent a chance to see and realise his mistake and thereby to mend his ways. It is based on the conviction that there is an element of essential goodness in every man because man contains divinity within himself. Evils result because this element is either pushed to the background, or is clouded by passion, hatred and anger. What is, therefore, required is to awaken this aspect of man. The moment this element of goodness is aroused, the individual himself will realise the wrong that he had been doing. The Satyagrahi can do this by subjecting himself to suffering for the sake of Truth. Ahirhsa is conscious suffering. The Satyagrahi, therefore, suffers and thereby converts the opponent. Gandhi says, “Nations, like individuals, are built through the agony of the cross and in no other way. Joy comes not out of infliction of pain on others, but out of pain voluntarily borne by oneself.”

That is why Satyagraha has been described as a method of conversion rather than a method of coercion. Coercion implies violence, it may not be physical violence, but it is at least mental violence. The aim of satyagraha is not to embarrass the wrongdoer. It does not appeal to fear, it does not proceed in terms of threats. It appeals to the heart and to the good sense of the wrong-doer. Its intention is to bring about, what Gandhi calls, a change of heart. It fact, satyagraha is based on the pre-supposition that there are no ‘enemies’ or ‘opponents’, but that there are only wrong-doers. A wrong-doer will also develop some kind of a resistance if he is physically forced to be otherwise, but if he is made to see and realise the wrong, he will himself repent and change.

Therefore, Satyagraha is based on love. There must be love even for the opponent. Distrust or hatred of any kind will prevent the success of Satyagraha. There must be a ‘trust’ in the goodness of the opponent and a love based on the realization that he is also one of us. Gandhi goes on to add that there must also be a respect for the opponent. Satyagraha seeks to persuade the wrong-doer to give up his wrong, and this can be done very effectively when the wrong-doer is also approached with love and respect.

Satyagraha also demands extreme patience on the part of the satyagrahi. A wrong-doer cannot see his wrong at once; he will take time to win over his anger and hatred. The Satyagrahi must wait patiently for the good sense of the wrong-doer to be aroused.

Gandhi distinguishes Satyagraha from Passive Resistance with which it is usually confused. Firstly, Satyagraha is not a passive state; in fact, it is more active than violence. Secondly in passive resistance, there is an element of force, it does not completely forbid the use of violence. In fact, in it there remains the scope for the use of arms on particular occasions. In Satyagraha, on the other hand, violence is completely forbidden even in the face of very adverse situation. Thirdly, “In passive resistance there is always present an idea of harassing the other party and there is a simultaneous readiness to undergo any hardship entailed upon us by such activity, while in Satyagraha there is not the remotest idea of injuring the opponent. Satyagraha, postulates the conquest of the adversary by suffering in one’s own person.”1 Fourthly, in passive resistance laws are disobeyed and as such the impression is created that passive resisters do not have respect for law. In Satyagraha, on the other hand, there is invariably a very great respect for the higher Law — the Law of Truth and God. In fact, the entire process of Satyagraha is initiated by such a respect. Fifthly, while there is no scope for love in passive resistance, hatred has no place in Satyagraha, but is a positive breach of its principle and function. Passive resistance is based on a feeling of dislike (if not of complete ‘hatred) for the opposite party. Satyagraha is based on a feeling of love. Sixthly, Passive resistance tends to compel the other party to do a thing, there is an element of coercion in it. It does not seek to change men’s/heart. The Satyagrahi essentially appeals to the mind and heart of men with the sole aim of bringing about a conversion. The essence of Satyagraha is to liquidate antagonism, not the antagonist.

Thus, Satyagraha is based on the conviction that through love, ahirhsa and conscious suffering the forces of evil can be neutralised, because this is the Divine way, the way of Truth. Gandhi believes that this technique is universal in its application. It can be practised by children and adults, by men and women, by individuals and communities and by societies and nations. It can be put to use on all possible fronts— in domestic life, in social relationship or in political situations. Its universality is derived from the fact that it is the way of God.

10. Requirements of a Satyagrahi

But, Gandhi is aware that although it is possible for everybody to use this technique, it cannot be followed in a loose or casual or insincere manner. It requires a very strict moral and religious discipline, Gandhi has, in course of his numerous references to this subject, mentioned a number of qualities and characters which a Satyagrahi must possess. Some of the basic ones can be enumerated and emphasised here.

A Satyagrahi must be basically honest and sincere. It implies honesty of purpose and sincerity of effort. Without this a Satyagraha will remain satyagraha merely in name.

A Satyagrahi must not have any mental reservations, he must be open-minded.

Gandhi feels that a change of heart can be brought about only when the other party, is approached open-mindedly, with no ‘second’ or ‘hidden’ ideas or motives.

A Satyagrahi must be a disciplined soldier. Truth alone should be his master and conscience his guide. He should be loving, but firm.

This means that a Satyagrahi must be completely fearless. He must not fear anything worldly — even death. Gandhi says that one who has not conquered fear cannot follow the way of Satyagraha effectively.

Fearlessness leads to another virtue, sacrifice. A Satyagrahi must be prepared for the greatest possible sacrifice. He has to be completely selfless, and no sacrifice is great for him. He must be prepared to undergo any amount of suffering for the sake of Truth and for the good of others.

Suffering and Sacrifice have to be undergone in an attitude of simplicity and humility. If a Satyagrahi becomes arrogant and starts feeling that he is doing something great, his satyagraha would go in vain. Humility, according to Gandhi, is one of the prime virtues of a Satyagrahi.

Gandhi asserts that a Satyagrahi is required to practice truthfulness and non-violence not only in his actions, but also in thought and speech. He admits that this is not possible all at once, but asserts that constant discipline and sincere effort would be of great help.

A Satyagrahi must be firm in his dealings and behaviour. He must not yield to pressure; he must not give way to greed and dishonest persuasions. He must have strength of character and a resoluteness of will. Honesty and Integrity must be his ideal.

There must be conformity between the thought and action of a Satyagrahi. Gandhi knows that the absence of this character gives rise to many kinds of evils. More over, it reflects the disintegrated and disorganised character of the person concerned. A Satyagrahi has to win the confidence and love of the adversary, and therefore there must be a co-ordination between what he thinks and says and what he does.

Gandhi also recommends that the Satyagrahi must learn to put on restraints upon his own self. He gives practical tips and hints for such practices. One of the effective suggestion in this regard is the practice of Fasting.

He also recommends the cultivation of some of the essential virtues of life. The virtues most often mentioned are the ones that ancient Indian philosophy has emphasised—viz. Asteya (Non-stealing), Aparigraha (Content ment), Brahmacarya (Celebacy) etc.

The Satyagrahi must also have tolerance in him. Gandhi is not happy with this word, but for want of a better word he uses it. He says that a Satyagrahi has always to deal with adversaries. If he does not have tolerance, he will lose self-control, and thus, will upset the way of Love.

The Satyagrahi is also required to observe other ordinary virtues of life like punctuality and order. These, according to Gandhi, are forms of Discipline that help in the cultivation of the power of self-control.

The most fundamental requirement is that a Satyagrahi must have a living faith in God. In fact, the entire principle of Satyagraha is based on the conviction that there is one God and also on the faith that there is an element of Divinity present in everyman. A faith in God, therefore, is the religious pre-requisite of the life of a Satyagrahi.

11.  Philosophy of End and Means

In every ethical thought that seeks to reflect upon the nature and standard of morality, the problem regarding ‘Means and End’ becomes a very significant problem. In fact, traditional ethical thought has tried to relate these two concepts to the concepts of ‘Right’ and ‘Good’. The word ‘good’ even etymologically has a reference to ‘end’ and the word ‘right’ means ‘according to law’. Being ‘in accordance with law’ has a necessary reference to the ways of operation and behaviour, and therefore, to means. That is why sometimes it is suggested that if ‘right’ and ‘good’ have a necessary relation with each other, there is a ‘ relation between means and ends also as they are conceived in the light of the concepts of ‘right’ and ‘good’. Some thinkers have gone to the extent of suggesting that in case the means is right, the end has to be good. Gandhi also conceives ‘end’ and ‘means’ in somewhat similar manner, with the difference that he takes these concepts much more seriously. In fact, these two concepts have become ‘central’ in his thought, in so far as the relationship that is conceived to exist in between the two concepts has very important implications for Gandhi’s notions of Truth and Non-violence.

Gandhi’s assertion that End and Means are intimately related with each other is a common-sense assertion. But, he goes beyond common-sense when he says that ‘means’ and ‘end’ are convertible terms in his philosophy of life. This assertion is not to be taken too literally because it merely throws light on the essentially inseparable character of the two. The end is the ‘goal’, and the means is the ‘way’ of the realisation of the goal. Means cannot be separated from the end just as ‘the way’ cannot be separated from the ‘goal’. Explaining the relation between the two Gandhi says, “The means may be likened to a seed, the end to a tree; and there is the same inviolable- connection between the means and the end as there is between the seed and the tree.” One implication of this description is that means somehow contains in it, (of course in an implicit manner) the possibility of the end, just as the seed contains in it the energy that is expressed in the form of the tree.

This raises the question regarding the justification of end and means in terms of each other. Does the end justify the means? Are we permitted to attain good ends by whatever means we can? Should means also be essentially good if a good end is to be realised? Is purity of means an essential aspect of the way of the realisation of a good end? These are precisely the questions which engage Gandhi’s attention in his philosophy of means and end.

In arriving at his views on the matter, Gandhi, as usual, is determined by his basic metaphysical conviction regarding the essential spirituality and unity of everything. Spiritual unity is the ideal of life, the goal or the end of every activity. A spiritual end cannot be attained by any non-spiritual means. That means that a good end cannot justify any and every means. If a good end is to be attained, it is also essential that the means adopted for the realisation of the end is also good.

That is why Gandhi gives very great importance to ‘means’. He says, “They say ‘means are after all means.’ I would say ‘means are after all everything.’ As the means so the end. There is no wall of separation between means and end. Indeed the Creator has given us control (and that too very limited) over means, none over the end. Realisation of the goal is in exact proportion to that of the means. This is a proportion that admits of no exception.” He illustrates this further by showing that adoption of a particular means makes very great difference in the nature of a work. Even when the end is the same and only the means are different, the character of the work will differ in accordance with the nature of the means. “If I want to deprive you of your watch, I shall certainly have to fight for it, if I want to buy your watch, I shall have to pay you for it, and according to the means I employ, the watch is stolen property, my own property, or a donation. Thus, we see three different results from three different means.” This shows that Gandhi is almost convinced that ends do not justify the means and that purity of means is an essential condition of realising good ends. A wrong means will adversely affect the character of a work.

There is a logic behind this. If we examine the nature.of a work or a project, we find that the end of the work is always beyond our control. End is the ideal, and therefore, is not yet within our reach or grasp. What we have at our disposal and control is the means. We can change or adjust or manoeuvre only means and never the end. Goodness or badness of an act depends upon my doing it, and in doing anything we are concerned only with the means. Therefore, it follows that the means has to be the right one. Clarifying his stand on the point Gandhi says, “Though you have emphasised the necessity of a clear statement of the goal, but having ones determined it, I have never attached importance to its repetition. The clearest possible definition of the goal and its appreciation would fail to take us there, if we do not know and utilise the means of achieving it. I have, therefore, concerned myself principally with the conservation of the means and their progressive use. I know if we can take care of them attainment of the goal is assured. I feel too that our progress towards the goal will be in exact proportion to the purity of our means.”

Gandhi’s philosophy of End and Means has a direct relation with his doctrine of Truth and Ahimsa. Truth is the ideal of life; it is the goal towards which we must strive. But what would be the nature of this striving? What would be the way ‘to approach Truth? That, according to Gandhi, is Ahimsa. Therefore, for Gandhi, Truth is the end and Ahimsa is the means. We cannot attain Truth by any other way. On some such considerations Gandhi, even while recommending that swaraj was the ‘end’ of the Indian People, always insisted on the adoption of non-violent ways for the realisation of swaraj. He clearly said, “let there be no manner of doubt that swaraj established by non-violent means will be different in kind from the swaraj that can be established by armed rebellion.” “Violent means will give violent swaraj. That would be a menace to the world and India itself.” Thus, Gandhi’s uncompromising arid straight recommendation is that if the end of Truth is to be attained, the means has to be pure, has to be the means of Ahimsa.

12. Religion and Morality

In a philosophical account of the thoughts and beliefs of a particular thinker ‘religion’ and ‘morality’ ought to be dealt with separately because, philosophically speaking, the two concepts are basically different. Moral values are essentially this -worldly, they are concerned with life as it is lived. Religious values have a reference to the ‘beyond’. It is quite possible for the two to co-exist, but conceptually they are different. In Gandhi’s thought, however, they almost overlap. Gandhi believes that true religion and true morality are inseparably bound up with each other. He would unhesitatingly reject any religious doctrine that conflicts with morality. He would be prepared to accept even unreasonable religious sentiment if it is not immoral. He says, “As soon as we lose the moral basis, we cease to be religious. There is no such thing as religion over-riding morality. Man for instance cannot be untruthful, cruel and incontinent and claim to have God in his side.”

The basic conviction of Gandhi is that there is one reality — that of God, which nothing else but Truth is. His religious ideas are also derived from that conviction. If truth is God, sincere pursuit of Truth is religion. Religion is ordinarily defined as devotion to some higher power or principle. Gandhi is not against such a description of religion, he only qualifies it further by saying that that higher principle being Truth, devotion to Truth (or God) is religion. He tries to give an outline of what he means by religion in the following lines. He says, “Let me explain what I mean by religion. It is not the Hindu religion… but the religion which transcends Hinduism, which changes one’s very nature, which binds one indissolubly to the truth within and whichever purifies. It is the permanent element in human nature which counts no cost too great in order to find full expression and which leaves the soul utterly restless until it has found itself, in own its maker and appreciated the true correspondence between the Maker and itself.”

An explanation of the passage quoted above brings to light the salient features of Gandhi’s views on the nature of religion. Firstly, religion is the expression of the permanent nature of man. The animal and brutish aspect of man’s nature is not its permanent aspect, the permanent aspect is the aspect of Divinity— the element of essential goodness present in every man. Secondly, religion has the character of purifying and elevating one’s nature. Gandhi believes that true religious spirit has the capacity of changing one’s nature because it is the expression of the good elements present in man. Thirdly, religion has the power of arousing in man a sense of spiritual restlessness — a kind of a thirst—which enables the individual to cultivate and develop a sense to the right and the good, and makes him a truly moral man. Fourthly, religious aspiration is based on a ‘desire and a cognitive urge to know’ the beyond. It has somehow the feeling that the ultimate religious ideal is nothing but the realisation of God. Fifthly and finally, religion involves a conscious and sincere love and striving for Truth. Without this all other characters of religion would be ineffective. Therefore, Gandhi says that there is no religion higher than Truth and Righteousness.

13. The Cardinal Virtues

The virtues approved and recommended by Gandhi are nothing different from the requirements laid down for a true Satyagrahi . Only he can be truly moral who has voluntarily chosen for himself the way of Satyagraha. Therefore, Satyagraha is the highest morality. Even so, Gandhi has given special emphasis on some of the virtues of life — which, according to him, are essential for a pious and moral life. These virtues have nothing new about them, but the emphasis that has been put on them is both novel and morally expedient.

Traditional Indian philosophy has also emphasised the need of some cardinal virtues which everyone should try to practice. In fact, all the systems of Indian philosophy except Carvaka believe that the world is being governed by a moral law, and that the nature of the world is moral. They believe that every kind of action — good or bad — produces some tendencies and effects which the doer has to face or suffer. This is the belief in ‘Law of Karma” which, in terms of morality, changes into the maxim. ‘As you sow, so you will reap’. This being so, it is very essential that only such actions are performed which generate good tendencies. Here in comes the need of developing certain basic virtues, which would enable an individual to be on the right path. Indian Ethics talk about five such virtues: they are Non-violence (Ahimsa), Truthfulness (Satya) Non-stealing (Asteya), Non-acceptance or Non-possession (Aparigraha), and Chastity (Brahmacarya). Gandhi admits all these, and adds some more. The only difference is that Gandhi interprets these virtues in his own way — in the light of his own experiences. His one consideration is that these virtues must be interpreted in an up-to-date manner so that they may be consistent with the needs of the time and the conditions of existence prevalent at the time.

Gandhi asserts that these virtues are to be practiced not only outwardly, but in thought, speech and action. The aim of ethical activities is attainment of purity, and complete purity can be attained only when a person is virtuous not only in deeds but also in thought and speech.

Web links

• https://www.dmoz.org/Society/History/By_Region/Asia/South_Asia/Personalities/Gandhi%2C_Mohand as_Karamchand%2C_Mahatma/
• https://www.gandhiheritageportal.org/
• http://www.gandhiashramsabarmati.org/
• http://www.gandhismriti.gov.in/indexb.asp
• http://www.gandhi-manibhavan.org/
• http://www.gutenberg.org/author/Gandhi,+Mahatma
• https://archive.org/search.php?query=%28subject%3A%22Gandhi%22%20OR%20creator%3A%22Gand hi%22%20OR%20description%3A%22Gandhi%22%20OR%20title%3A%22Gandhi%22%29%20OR%20%28 %221869-1948%22%20AND%20Gandhi%29
•  http://librivox.org/author/622

Bibliography

• Abel M (4 January 2005). Glimpses of Indian National Movement. ICFAI Books. ISBN 978-81-7881-420-9.
• Parel, Anthony J., ed. (2009). Gandhi: “Hind Swaraj” and Other Writings Centenary Edition.
• Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-14602-9.
• Todd, Anne M. (1 January 2009). Mohandas Gandhi. Infobase Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4381-0662-5.
• Johnson, Richard L. and Gandhi, M. K. (2006). Gandhi’s Experiments With Truth: Essential Writings by and about Mahatma Gandhi. Lexington Books. ISBN 978-0-7391-1143-7.
• Jack, Homer A., ed. (1994). The Gandhi Reader: A Source Book of His Life and Writings. Grove Press. ISBN 978-0-8021-3161-4.
• Guha, Ramachandra (2 October 2013). “1. Middle Cast, Middle Rank”. Gandhi Before India.
• Penguin Books Limited. ISBN 978-93-5118-322-8.
• Gandhi, Rajmohan (9 October 2007). Mohandas: True Story of a Man, His People. Penguin
• Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand (1990). Desai, Mahadev H., ed. Autobiography: The Story ofMy Experiments With Truth. Mineola, N.Y.: Dover. ISBN 0-486-24593-4.
• Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand (1928). “Drain Inspector’s Report”. The United States of India 5 (6,7,8): 3–4.
• Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand (1994). The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi. Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of India. ISBN 978-81-230-0239-2. (100 volumes). Free online access from Gandhiserve.
• Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand (1928). Satyagraha in South Africa (in Gujarati) (1 ed.). Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House. “Translated by Valji G. Desai” Free online access at Wikilivres.ca (1/e). Pdfs from Gandhiserve (3/e) &Yann Forget (hosted by Arvind Gupta) (1/e).
• Gandhi, M. K.; Fischer, Louis (2002). Louis Fischer, ed. The Essential Gandhi: An Anthology of His Writings on His Life, Work and Ideas. Vintage Books. ISBN 978-1-4000-3050-7.
• Duncan, Ronald, ed. (May 2011). Selected Writings of Mahatma Gandhi. Literary Licensing, LLC. ISBN 978-1-258-00907-6.
• Dalton, Dennis, ed. (1996). Mahatma Gandhi: Selected Political Writings. Hackett Publishing. ISBN 978-0-87220-330-3.
• Andrews, C. F. (2008) [1930]. “VII – The Teaching of Ahimsa”. Mahatma Gandhi’s Ideas Including Selections from His Writings. Pierides Press. ISBN 978-1-4437-3309-0.