Gandhi – the Characterization

To understand Gandhi is a tricky exercise. He was unlike other political thinkers, philosophers and strategists not just because he lacked a definitive set of theory colluded with strange and vacillating principles but also because he held unusual objectives in his mind which often made his public-private life distinction seem to be obscure. Over the years following his assassination, hagiographic accounts created a larger than life image of Gandhi which associate the now popular and text-bookish ideas of Satya, Ahimsa, Non-Cooperation and Civil-Disobediences with him. These ideas, indisputably, were crucial part of the Gandhian way of life however it is a gross error to understand Gandhi as a person by analysing these Gandhian socio-political constructs. In my view, Gandhi’s humility is the crucial lynchpin between his simple yet complex character. I have tried, like many others, to empathize with Gandhi from a self-devised framework but have failed miserably in my attempts to cement together his inconsistencies. Reading Gandhi’s accounts and texts one wonders at the unfazed manner in which he wrote, seemingly detached yet anxious. His ideas continue to evolve with time. He appears as a man who is ever engaged into conversations, primarily with himself, to better understand what he really wants. His personality confounds me because of his eccentric behaviour that makes him difficult to comprehend. Why is he sometimes unusually cold - even with his closest kith and kin - and at other times, outrageously emotive so much that he forgets to take rest even for a second? The likes of M. Chatterjee and A. Sharma describe him as a spiritual seeker who is ever searching, in an odd mixture of passion and detachment, his way ahead in life. Evidently, at times reason can fail to make sense out of a selfless oriental seeker whose personality is largely driven by metaphysical concepts and interests, which lay beyond the conventional boundaries of rationality. A psychoanalytic point of view explains his adult personality as a sort of defence mechanism towards fighting and escaping his childhood guilt and fears.

Methods = Means?

The method of Non-Violent Passive Resistance or Satyagraha is interesting in many ways. Branded by many as anarchic, sometimes even as political blackmail, this was a tool newly invented which helped India to foster its Independence struggle. However, its importance must not stem out of the extent of its success in delivering the Indian freedom fighters with the objectives that they had aimed originally. Going by that logic it failed miserably, when applied 50 years later in 1971 during the Bangladesh war of liberation by East Pakistanis with Awami League leading the vanguard against West Pakistan - eventually leading to brutal crackdown of demonstrators by Pakistani Air-Force and Army. Clamped down with LMGs and artillery fire on major East Pakistan cities, it broke into a violent civil war between Pakistani Army and rebel guerrilla forces demanding emancipation and resulting in the death of around 3 lakh civilians. Satyagraha worked in one case but failed in other. The above small example is important to understand that for Gandhi this is precisely the point. He did not choose a method because it harboured possibility to work and succeed. He seems to be not concerned with the final result of his methods instead his prime focus was the methods themselves. For those who were of the opinion that - means were after all means – for them Gandhi had an answer – means were everything. These methods were not means employed to achieve specific goals, even if Congress and people by and large perceived them to be such. They were instead a way of personal life extended into the larger public domain. More on this later.

Gandhi, Ramana Maharishi and Advaita

Gandhi calls himself an Advaitin. One wonders by what parameters he qualifies as such. Advaita literally means non-dualism. There are texts available which command their authority over the philosophy of Advaita; Shankaracharya’s being the major ones. However to define Advaita or any such attempts goes fundamentally opposite to what Advaita stands for. At most, it can be felt or realized. Ramana maharishi stands as an exemplar personality who lived by the philosophy of Advaita as a Jivanmukt. However, Ramana’s life in many ways was diametrically opposite to Gandhi’s. While the Jivanmukt lived a strange disinterested life, Gandhi was a very active and emotional man. But if there is one commonality in both of them, then it’s their perplexing and unpredictable mind.

The perplexity of non-dual reality

Sound divorced from meaning or the other way round, will result in absurdity. It will not contain any information. For humans, information lies in language, which is a distinctive combination of sound and meaning. So information exists only in the presence of a combination of sound and meaning with a human to perceive it.

For an Advaitin there is no distinctness between himself and a bowl. Why so? The answer lies in knowing the origins of distinction. Separation, the word, the concept and its meaning only exists in the framework of language and thought. Outside it, it is hard to imagine its existence. An Advaitin will realize otherness only if he will come to think or speak of it, on employment of thought or language. To address the metaphysical concepts of Advaita with limited faculties of rationality will only create illusions and that is why an Advaitin will never employ dialectics to understand reality. For an Advaita, the non-dual reality can only be felt when the mind is free from the vice grip of reason and language. A mind detached from worldly affairs can best experience it.

Having no way to know what a real Advaitin would be, can we assume that Gandhi is sincere when he says that he is an Advaitin too? Yes, sincere he is, for he does not come out as a man who would give such a public statement just in jest. Everything he does, more than explaining the reason to do it to others, he seems to explain it to himself. So much so that often after deeply pondering he sometimes admits to have believed incorrectly originally and later corrected himself after having seen the light of the day. Such as his view that Truth is God. But is he really an Advaitin? For the sake of our understanding, keeping Ramana maharishi in mind, can we say that he is an Advaitin in making? An Advaitin like Ramana will harbour strikingly different outer and inner views, which unlike conventionally are strangely aligned with each other. Outer view is the same as or emerges out of the inner view. Outer view is the outlook and behaviour towards the external world. When a devotee asked him, does God exist, he replied in return, who is asking the question? This simple answer from the Advaitin explains that there is no separation unless we ask and create one. Who is asking the question, is a food for thought for the questioner to ponder deep within and ask him/herself that who am I and why do I ask and create the illusion of separateness? Inner view is the thought within one’s mind. Ramana would avoid, rather be disinterested in all such thoughts which would create the illusion of duality. There is a continuum from the inner to the outer. The absence of duality and a certain ignorance of language and thought. Internal mental setup is extended to the external behaviour. The private life is carried into the public domain. Or in other words, in consistency to the main philosophy, the distinction between private and public is a myth. They are one and the same.

Model of Politics

At this juncture, we seem to identify the similarities in Gandhi and Ramana. Let’s say, Gandhi holds on to a private life which is disciplined, rigorous in habits and checked by vows. But, he seems to be training himself, for a larger aim and his training extends into the public domain as well. Coming of age leadership experiences in South Africa shaped him into a confident, curious and mature person from a much afraid, reticent and diffident youth. Steady spiritual realizations offered him to think about the wider transcendental mysteries of the world around him. This larger aim seems to be his quest to take control of himself and live a rediscovered righteous life. Satya and Ahimsa are much deeper feelings and recognitions that his humane heart learns to harbour for the whole world around him. His Satya, the feeling of identifying what was just in a situation and then being true to follow one’s inner voice was a universal principle applied in an absolute manner to everything without any exemption. Ahimsa was his belief in universal empathy and love. Satya and Ahimsa go deep as universal Justice and Love, which Gandhi seems to accept as fundamental to universal service. It is hard to see where Advaita fits in this. However, one explanation is Gandhi’s unquestioning dedication to empathize with everything around, with his failure to identify any difference between man and man coupled with nearly obstinate will to challenge and destroy all thoughts that make one believe in distinctions. Never hate the man, hate the intention. This intention is the illusion which divides man from man.

Gandhi’s ways are as much private as they are public. It is hard to find Gandhi ever retreating into an unknown private domain hidden from people around. His engagements with politics are more of a symptom than the cause themselves. The main cause is his lifestyle, curious to ask and question, to care and provide, and to live righteously and maintaining this tempo unaffected by external factors in a detached manner. He is a self-trained man serious about his practices, which are beyond the language of private and public. He holds to his intention of taking full control of his life with sheer fortitude and discipline. This is coupled by what A. Sharma recalls as his quality of putting praxis before theory that makes him the ideal karmayogi of Indian scriptures. The beauty and perhaps curse of Gandhi’s personality is the sheer sincerity and depth of his beliefs yet uncertain character of its ability to bring change.