Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi- the saint of action

Gandhi emerged as an exceptional political strategist with an unconventional personality. He took an active interest in the lives of people and community at large which made him a man of politics albeit a very peculiar one. This is because he didn’t work within the traditional paradigm of politics. He was not systematic at all. He did not follow the traditional rules of politics. People defy political orders and histories of every country are a living testimony to it. People resist with all strength and anger. But Gandhi’s lesson of defiance was different. He said, ‘one can disobey only if there’s scope to obey, but in our case there’s no question to obey anything.’ His disobedience had an element of detachment. This is the important juncture where he juxtaposed the spiritual with the practical. The detachment stemmed out of the spiritual and the spiritual out of religion. This shall be my aim- to understand how Gandhi reconciles religion with politics.

First look at his qualities will present a plethora of contradictions. Such as Religion and Politics; a combination that every modern nation wants to shy away from. Secularism is the motto of the day. But Gandhi enforced that politics must be reformed through religion. In my opinion, he even believed that politics is an outgrowth of religion. More contradictions- he was ideal and romantic but also realistic and shrewd. Believed in universal equality but still accepted the castes and Varnashrama Dharma. However after reading more and understanding him better I realized that Gandhi understood these ideas from a standpoint where they were not contradictions at all. Gandhi justified how idealism will go hand in hand with realism, how equality and freedom will go hand in hand with caste duties and how politics was a subset of religion. He also admitted that his views may become inconsistent with the time, but that was also justified in his system of things.

To understand this extraordinary personality and how he cultivated himself, we must understand his scheme of things, his influences and his objectives- immediate and long term.

Let us for a moment not look at Gandhi as the Mahatma or a politician who fought for our independence but instead as a middle class boy born and brought up in a traditional religious Gujarati family belonging to the Bania (Merchant) caste. If we read his autobiography we will find the early sources of his religious leanings. Ladha Maharaj, a friend of his father would often visit his home to read Tulsidas’ Ramayana and young Gandhi often listened with rapt attention. He was exposed to Jain beliefs through his mother’s contacts. Very soon, he came in contact with Raychandbhai, a Jain philosopher, who later became his spiritual guide during his years in South Africa. He was very impressed by the teachings of Bhagavad Gita and went so far to translate them. His western influences were John Ruskin’s ‘Unto this last’ which mainly discussed the Sermon on the Mount and Tolstoy’s ‘Kingdom of God is within you.’ ‘Offer the other cheek also if someone slaps you,’ repeated Gandhi very often from the Sermon. He was also influenced by folk traditions, stories, and hymns, especially that of Narsinh Mehta’s. The Bhagavad Gita and the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta had the most significant influence on him. The retelling of these influences is very important because they had been instrumental in shaping Gandhi’s thoughts.

From a psychological point of view, I am trying to understand the way in which Advaita Vedanta of Gita and Upanishads, the Jain, folk and epic literary texts had shaped his mind and thoughts. His own individual endeavours to train himself with vows and forced discipline were equally instrumental. But I see that even his self-training was an outcome of religion. He was training himself to be a seeker. What was he seeking? Later. Once we understand his thoughts, we would see why he was unlike ordinary men and women and did not qualify as any traditional politician. We will also see how he observed the world around him and will get justifications of his actions in his private spheres like relations with his wife, sons and extended family friends and in public life which were mostly political and social in nature.

What was Gandhi interested in? Were these interests political in nature? Did he have any self-interests?

Gandhi was a religious man and he believed that he was only a humble servant of the Lord of the universe. The Bhagavad Gita had taught him the theory of Nishkan-karma which meant to be simultaneously in a state of action and detachment both. In Gita, Krishna told Arjun that he was a Karmayogi therefore he must follow his Dharma. Gandhi also took himself to be a karmayogi - the humble servant of the Lord- who had to pursue his dharma. But before proceeding we must understand the meaning of these terms and the central concept of Advaita around which all of them are woven.

Gandhi thought in a certain way that subscribed to the school of non-dualism. He was aware of the Atman present in each and every person, animal and objects of nature. He was also aware of the universal Brahman that existed independently. ‘Brahma is the imperishable supreme aspect of God and Adhyatama is the individual soul living in the body of all beings as the doer and the enjoyer,’ [1]he said. He asserted the Advaita when he said ‘the supreme state of Brahma is reached by sages who have freed themselves from the likes and dislikes by observing Brahmacharya.’[2] Gandhi was of the view that humans were perfectible and that the Atman could reach the universal Brahman. Bhagavad Gita gave ample evidence of this perfectibility by presenting Krishna as the mortal who carried the Supreme God within him. In Bhagavad Gita, Krishna said, ‘the man of vision (who loves me, does my bhakti) and I are one. His whole soul is one in me and I am his supreme path.’[3] Gandhi’s views on human perfectibility were also corroborated by his belief in the Jain ideal of Syadvad. These views were formed mostly by staying in touch with Raychandbhai. Syadvad means the presence of multiplicity of individual truths. Everyone holds fast their own truths and they are false only if they are considered to be exclusive. Syadvad believes that the universal truth is the collective whole of all the individual truths. This is similar to saying that the Atman is the truth within and the universal Brahman is the ultimate truth. One must hold fast to his individual truth and seek towards the ultimate truth. Gandhi believed that the journey from Atman to Brahman can take place only when the ego within is extinguished and we served ourselves humbly to the universal lord. The seeker must pursue the absolute.

Back to the first question. Why did he seek at all? What were his interests? Does this absolute truth also mean Moksha?

At this important point we must understand that Gandhi was not seeking the absolute truth out of any interests. He was seeking it as a duty. Why? Because in the affairs of mortal life a karmayogi must follow his dharma, which in the Upanishadic sense means right conduct or righteous duty. Just as Arjun finally decided to fight for righteousness when Krishna exhorted him to follow his dharma, Gandhi decided to follow his dharma which was his duty to pursue the absolute truth or the universal God. He did not questions this and performed it with a sense of detachment, the nishkam-karm. Moksha comes later. We must first understand the nature of this universal God, in Gandhi’s scheme of things.

Gandhi gave his own interpretation to the God of Gita. He called him the Daridranarayan or the God of the weak. Borrowing from Advaita, he saw the absolute Brahman as a collective of individual Atmans of all people. This was similar to Vivekananda’s interpretation and explained the etymology of the word Harijan. ‘God lives in the starving millions,’ he said many a times. The 3 supreme ideas mentioned in Bhagavad Gita are of Gyan (Light), Bhakti (Love) and Karma (Life). As mentioned above, Krishna said in Gita that the supreme Lord could be attained only by doing his bhakti. Since Gandhi’s God resided in people he did the bhakti of the masses by dedicating his karma towards them.

So far we have understood that Gandhi as a seeker was pursuing the absolute truth (ultimate Brahman) because a karmayogi must follow his dharma. Dharma dictates righteous duty, which in turn means complete dedication to the Lord Almighty- ultimate Brahman. The Lord resided in the weak so dharma dictated complete devotion to the service of the destitute. We should also look at his ways to serve God, the starving millions.

Gandhi was a Hindu but he accepted the religion in a selective manner. He did not blindly followed all sacraments and tenets. He went so far to say that those Vedas which asked for sacrifices and indicated towards subjugation of the weak must be ignored. He paid immense importance to the Jain ideals of Brahmacharya, Aparigraha, Satya, Asteya and Ahimsa and very craftily added them into his scheme of things which was originally inspired from the wisdom of Gita and stories from the epic literatures of India namely Ramayana and Mahabharata. For him these ideals were instrumental in serving the poor. He invoked the element of pity, daya from Bhagvad Gita as crucial for this service. His favourite hymn ‘Vaishnav jan to tene kahiye je, peed paraayi jaane re’ originally written by Narsinh Mehta means Vaishnava (devotees of Lord Vishnu) people are those who feel the pain of others. He was a staunch believer of reincarnation, which is a central tenet of classic Hinduism but was of the opinion that he wanted to be born again and again to serve the weak endlessly. This was his definition of serving and dedicating himself forever to the lord almighty. We can see that these ideas emerge out of Bhagvad Gita but Gandhi shaped them in a certain way that suited his understanding of dharma- duty to the Lord. This makes me remark on the beauty of the Bhagavad Gita and its ability to be interpreted by the seeker for what he or she is looking for.

Moksha for Gandhi was complete liberation from any impure thoughts. Any deviance from the route of serving others was an impediment to Moksha. To immerse oneself into dharma, the right conduct, one’s own truth of serving the almighty lord with Anasakti- selfless action, would lead to Moksha. Gandhi wanted to be born again and again so that he can serve the people endlessly and this was Moksha for him. Jain influences made him see life in all beings. Gandhi saw in each being a small part of the Brahman. For him all was sacred so he enforced Ahimsa with all his might. ‘Love your neighbour as your God’. This was his idea of Loksangraha, a collective effort for universal brotherhood. He taught Ahimsa not just in physical aspect but also in spirit. Even a thought of ill-will would broke the principle and was an aberration from Moksha.

He was a karmayogi who wanted to follow his dharma to serve others with detachment and bhakti for endless time. He believed in teaching through setting example. He never forced anyone, but exemplified the life of a karmayogi with tenacious will and determination. He believed that if everyone lived their lives as karmayogis then the human civilisation would set up the Kingdom of God right here on earth. The Advaita reinforced itself again and again as reflected in this thought. Earth and Heaven were same. This was his concept of Ram-Rajya.

---

[1] Discourses on the Gita- Mahatma Gandhi Chapter 8.

[2] Discourses on the Gita- Mahatma Gandhi Chapter 8.

[3] Bhagvad Gita- Chapter 7 Verse 18.

Je Suis Charlie

Before even going into the what-a-bad-act-of-violence sentimental outpour I want to focus first on the meaning of Secularism as interpreted and enshrined by the Constitutional Council of France. The idea of this article is not to analyse whether it was a bad and horrific action or a good and justified reaction. Certainly there are causes responsible for an action. In fact Mr. Devdutt Patnaik goes so far, although not very impressively, to give a philosophical bend to the recent attacks by talking about maya: we live in our constructed realities smothered by the maya which makes us the killer and the killed both. One can always throw in more constructed jargons like Justice by arguing that 12 people lampooning prophet get killed in cold blood in France by two isolated militants and 3.7 million people come out in their support but 2000 plus innocent people including children and pregnant women are captured in their own homes in Nigeria and butchered for committing no crime by an army of organised militants and still only a handful of news agencies talk about the incident. Call it the ridiculousness or mishandling to deal with global terror outfits or the absurdity of modern day realpolitik one cannot but be compelled to frown at these incidents. These are matters of grave concern which make us rethink our basis concepts of justice, freedom, peace, tolerance, security and allegiance to basic humanism and simply commenting that it was good or bad would be gross oversimplification.

The text-book definition of Indian secularism is that the government shall remain neutral to all religion by not meddling itself into the affairs of any single one of them. Free practice, profession, propagation (of) your religion (conversion although is not a right as said by SC in one verdict and de facto conversion by force is infringement of freedom of conscience), freedom from taxation (on religious institutions), freedom to give religious instructions (to autonomous private education institutions), freedom to manage language and culture (religious minority) are some provisions mentioned under part-3 of Indian Constitution also called as ‘Fundamental Rights’. Pretty impressive isn’t it? In theory, yes. But this is not the case in France.

In France, Secularism simply means concerning with the affairs of natural and not the supernatural. The French state does not recognize religion and recent past incidents would also show that there’s a certain element of hostility against religion in their secularism. The French accepted the concept of Laïcité – the separation of church and state way back in 1905. However the more severe version of secularism was defined by the French courts recently in 2004. Increasing amount of immigration in the past decade gave way to the emergence of multiple identities. To prevent the practice of appeasement politics, which destroys social fabric – India being a fantastic example, the decision was taken to identify secularism as a strict non-recognition of any religion. This essentially means that the people of France have the right to offend religion just as they can other sensitive matters like public figures. In 2011 they passed a law for mandatory revelation of face at places of work, officially banning Hijabs and Naqabs. This came into implementation since 2014.

Charlie Hebdo was practicing this legal and political facility to express its disagreement of institutionalised religion, specifically Islam as per the context. Certainly the fact that they didn’t express why they disagreed with Islam but straight away lampooned it as a joke is questionable. Charlie’s belief is that rather than pouring in over the top militarised troops into the middle-east, they should instead create such an atmosphere of liberal thought that Islam like Christianity is reduced to a banality. Despite several threats and some previous attacks, Charlie did not succumb. Theirs was a provocative, thoughtful, funny, obscene and an anarchist method.

Most important now is to understand the socio-political implications of these attacks on Charlie Hebdo. Anti-immigration sentiments are high in European nations. Whether they are anti-Islam marches in Germany or the rising Islamophobia in France, one must clearly understand the backlash that Charlie Hebdo will create.

Clearly there were reported attacks on Mosques and other Islamic centres which only corroborate the rising fear of Islam in European countries. These are not isolated incidents. The growing immigration compounded by an anti-Islam sentiment has been further responsible for alienating the Muslim communities in European countries. This has caused ghettoization and marginalisation. I even heard Mr. Bobby Jindal recently talked about certain no-non Muslim zones in England where a more severe form of Islam is strictly followed. The idea is that if one reads the profile of majority of Muslim people living in these areas, one would find that these are 2^nd and 3^rd generation immigrants from marginalized working classes living in grim high rise suburbs at the outskirts of large cities where unemployment, drug exploitation and other crimes plague day in and day out. Such marginalisation and unemployment brings along dejection and stigma with it, which if can be solved by joining a radical Islam then the latter is considered a viable option. Such reasons which provide a meaning to these despondent men and women then become an explanation to incidents of young people flocking in groups to join radical forces in Middle-East like IS.

Charlie Hebdo and its aftermath must be treated very sensitively. The government and law enforcement agencies must work hard to keep all the sections of people in confidence and ensure their ideal of secularism in practice.