In seeking to fully grasp the moral and philosophical tenets of the man often called Mahatma Gandhi, one must first understand the source of his disdain for the name “Mahatma”—meaning “great soul”—and any possibility that such a thing as “Gandhism” would exist. He himself said “There is no such thing as ‘Gandhism’ and I do not want to leave any sect after me. I do not claim to have originated any new principle or doctrine. I have simply tried in my own way to apply the eternal truths to our daily life and problems.” He repeatedly stated that his message was “nothing new” and that anything he shared with the world was a result of teachers before him (Gandhi, 2005, p. 42). His dedication to the oneness of humanity was unsurpassed and he believed that “Man’s ultimate aim is the realization of God, and all his activities, political, social and religious, have to be guided by the ultimate aim of the vision of God,” (Gandhi, 2005, p. 57). This is the purely humble, selfless spirit through which Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi shared his messages with the world as he sought equality in South Africa and freedom from British rule for the people of India.
Gandhi was a deeply religious man, and yet rejected most of the requirements that religion teaches. He chose instead to connect with the source directly, encouraging others to do the same. A lawyer by training, he was also an intellectual and used this dual intellectual-spiritual power to develop some of modern history’s most profound theories on human nature and society. While his ideologies span every category imaginable, three fundamental doctrines permeate throughout. First, Gandhi’s life mission and personal dharma was to seek truth or satya; and without this ideal, all of his other concepts would not exist. Next, Gandhi sought to achieve satya through ahimsa, or nonviolence, in every capacity and at every level of humanity. And finally, all of these were supported and informed by his deep faith in the supremacy of the individual over all other entities of society (Iyer, 1973). Through these three concepts, one can see a clear picture of Gandhi’s ideal world as it relates to various aspects like religion, interpersonal relations, economics and politics.
Truth, or Satya
To say that Gandhi sought truth in the world is a wild understatement. Gandhi lived, breathed and worshipped truth. He believed truth was the answer to all—he even aimed to be the human embodiment of truth. Gandhi stated that “nothing exists in reality except Truth, everything else is illusion,” and held that truth in itself was God (Iyer, 1973, p. 150). The word Gandhi regularly used for truth was satya, which Iyer describes in his book The Moral and Political Thought of Mahatma Gandhi to be “the one reality, [which] is the source of eternal and universal values like truth, righteousness and justice—truth in the realm of knowledge, righteousness in the domain of conduct and justice in the sphere of social relations, ” (Iyer, 1973, p. 151).
Gandhi’s view of satya is most present in his teaching on human relations, where he describes that humans must not only seek truth but should vow to base their morality on the search for satya and align their dharma, or duty, to this (Iyer, 1973). His focus on vows was not without reason or forethought. Gandhi believed that if humans did not cultivate firmly adhered-to ideals, then “[d]etermination is worth nothing if it bends before discomfort. The universal experience of humanity supports the view, that progress is impossible without inflexible determination,” (Iyer, 1973, p. 78). He had great faith in the human spirit, but also a realistic understanding that the human being’s will is easily shifted during times of challenge; and that progress toward satya required unwavering loyalty to achieve long-lasting results.
It was in the areas of economics and politics where Gandhi’s ideal of satya became a defining aspect of his doctrine. Gandhi’s fundamental faith was in “religion,” used “in its broadest sense, meaning thereby self-realization or knowledge of self,” (Gandhi, 2005, p. 9). As he explored the message of truth through religion, he came to the understanding that “religion” in this sense should not be disconnected or removed from political or economic systems. He concluded that politics, like all things in existence, were part of the “fundamental unity of life,” and therefore were not separate from the sacred (Iyer, 1973, p. 45). Ultimately, Gandhi confirmed his belief that:
. . . politics bereft of religion are absolute dirt, ever to be shunned. Politics concern nations and that which concerns the welfare of nations must be one of the concerns of a man who is religiously inclined, in other words, a seeker after God and Truth. For me God and Truth are convertible terms…Therefore, in politics also we have to establish the Kingdom of Heaven. (Gandhi, 2005, p. 63)
This dedication to the path of satya encouraged him, as a man of action, to use truth toward achieving equality. He first determined that because satya is God, therefore it is also equal to love (Iyer, 1973). Then he chose the word agraha, meaning firmness or inflexibility, to change this passive word of truth into one of action. In March 1921, he coined the term satyagraha, which he describes as meaning “truth-force” or “soul-force,” (Iyer, 1973). Through satyagraha, Gandhi distinguished his efforts from passive resistance movements in the past; this “truth-force” was rooted in civil disobedience, rather than resistance and sought to use the laws of the time to make a point for their injustice (Iyer, 1973). This concept alone could have truly made Gandhi’s leadership one that lived on well beyond his own life, and yet, from this was borne another: nonviolence, or ahimsa.
Nonviolence, or Ahimsa
Iyer (1973) describes Gandhi’s expansion of satya toward ahimsa as follows:
In his own moral and political quest Gandhi found that satya led him to ahimsa, but he also came to believe that they are like two sides of the same coin as the universe is governed by the Law of Truth or Love. (p. 227)
Simply put, satya and ahimsa are equal but different parts of our universal Truth and both are needed in order to achieve an equal world. Gandhi himself even stated, “Satyagraha demands absolute non-violence,” (Iyer, 1973, p. 296). In this way, Gandhi’s belief in ahimsa was borne out of his dedication to satya and its action-based doctrine of satyagraha.
Ahimsa on its own often means non-killing, but in a broader sense, refers to the intention to not injure, hurt or kill any living being in existence; it is, in its fullest definition, the intentional act of nonviolence toward all (Iyer, 1973). This doctrine became central to Gandhi’s message because he believed in the oneness and “divinity” of all things, meaning that violence toward one is violence toward all (Iyer, 1973). This oneness also gave way to the concept that if we are all one, then there is no enemy and that we should “Hate the sin and not the sinner,” a concept that was—and still is—quite foreign to most and remarkably controversial (Gandhi, 2005, p. 23).
In his teachings of ahimsa within interpersonal relations, Gandhi described two fundamental concepts. First, he taught that in order to truly practice ahimsa, human beings must cease to be brutish or bestial. He asserted that: Man must choose either of the two courses, the upward or the downward, but as he has the brute in him he will more easily choose the downward course than the upward, especially when the downward course is presented to him in a beautiful garb. (Iyer, 1973, p. 90) Gandhi knew that all human beings have the “downward” tendency within them, which is why, as previously discussed, he focused heavily on loyalty and conviction in the form of vows. This theme of brutishness reappears often in his teachings, as he sought to appeal to the human conscience toward progress through our own divinity, rather than regression toward beasts (Iyer, 1973).
Perhaps even more fundamental to ahimsa among humans, however, was Gandhi’s focus on the whole world as one family, having one soul. In both his speech and his actions, Gandhi believed that “The golden way is to be friends with the world and to regard the whole human family as one,” and that this is the purest embodiment of ahimsa (Gandhi, 2005, p. 109). This concept was not a new one—it appears regularly in many religious texts that Gandhi studied throughout his life, including the Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads, as well as the teachings of Buddha. Through ancient teachings and his own life experience, Gandhi understood that as we treated other humans as if they were our own family, or perhaps our own selves, ahimsa would naturally follow (Iyer, 1973).
Ahimsa, supported through acts of satyagraha, was Gandhi’s primary tool for political and economic action. He taught that “The principle of nonviolence necessitates complete abstention from exploitation in any form,” (Gandhi, 2005, p. 83), which meant that if a society were to truly embrace nonviolence as a policy, it would inherently become more equal, or at least, distribute resources more equitably. Gandhi’s doctrine held that economic equality and ahimsa were almost interchangeable, that one could not exist without the other. He even laid out a rubric for how equal distribution could be brought about through nonviolence: he encouraged all to reduce their belongings to a minimum, to ensure their earnings were completely free from dishonesty, and to practice self-restraint in every part of life (Gandhi, 120). Gandhi even went so far as to suggest that to possess anything at all that one was not using immediately, was to “thieve” it from someone else—and thus advocated for non-possession as a crucial part of an economic system based on nonviolence (Gandhi, 2005).
This ideal translated into his political work, where ahimsa took center stage. Gandhi’s theory was heavily influenced by his belief that the State was inherently focused on “power politics,” and thus could not be trusted, as it had no conscience, unlike that of the individual. He affirmed that “The State represents violence in a concentrated and organized form. The individual has a soul, but as the State is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence,” (Gandhi, 1973, p. 132). In this way, Gandhi used ahimsa as the means of acting through satyagraha, because he believed that ahimsa could be used to influence “power politics” but it would be contradictory for a system of ahimsa to actively hold political power (Gandhi, 2005). Thus, Gandhi focused his teachings of ahimsa on the human beings who made up the leadership of the State and put great stock into encouraging their personal development as leaders of this machine. Gandhi believed that:
It is this Law of Love which, silently but surely, governs the family for the most part throughout the civilized world. I feel that nations cannot be one in reality, nor can their activities be conducive to the common good of the whole humanity, unless there is this definition and acceptance of the law of the family in national and international affairs, in other words, on the political platform. Nations can be called civilized only to the extent that they obey this law. (Iyer, 1973, p. 295) The doctrine of ahimsa could then be taught to a few “votaries” who would vow to govern through it and the State would be improved by their nonviolent, and perhaps, “familial” policies (Gandhi, 1973, p. 181). It is through this faith in the supremacy of the individual, over the State or other social entity, that Gandhi was able to complete his ideal world.
Supremacy of the Individual, or Swaraj
Unlike many political theorists, Gandhi focused much less on the characteristics of his ideal political system, and much more on the individuals who created it to begin with. To truly understand Gandhi’s focus on the individual, one must first identify his fundamental beliefs on individual purpose and potential. As a student of many faiths, including Buddhism and Hinduism, Gandhi assumed that all human beings have a dharma, or purpose, that is preordained or determined at their birth. His faith in the power of the individual over themselves led to his confidence that each human should find their own dharma and should not just “accept” what had been given to them based on their class or community (Iyer, 1973). This idea of self-rule, or swaraj, was fundamental to his deep certainty in the infinite potential of human beings to progress toward a state of divinity (Iyer, 1973).
He actively debated the theory that humans are inherently evil—or any suggestion of “original sin”—and advocated for the belief that all are equal at birth, even though all may not have the same capacity (Gandhi, 2005). Iyer (1973) supports this, writing “Gandhi believed that men become knaves or goondas mainly because they have not been helped by society to see the need to pursue consciously worthy ends reflecting the highest human values,” (p. 67).
In the area of interpersonal affairs, Gandhi rejected “unrestricted individualism” as the law of the brute. He appealed to the conscience, teaching that “social restraint for the sake of the well-being of the whole society, enriches both the individual and the society of which he is a member,” (Iyer, 1973, p. 115). This meant that while swaraj for oneself is deeply important, each individual has the responsibility as a member of society to protect his own and other’s swaraj through self-restraint. Gandhi often encouraged this restraint through the taking of vows, especially to what he considered to be the highest court of all: the Court of Conscience (Iyer, 1973). Gandhi’s faith in the conscience of the individual was boundless, leading to his assuredness in the potential for the individual to rule themselves, and to never do anything against their own will. His conviction of the conscience is best exemplified in his following statement:
There are times when you have to obey a call which is highest of all, i.e., the voice of conscience, even though such obedience may cost many a bitter tear, and even more, separation from friends, from family, from the State to which you may belong, from all that you have held as dear as life itself. For this obedience is the law of our being. (Iyer,1973, p. 120)
Ultimately, Gandhi’s faith in the supremacy of the individual was a reflection of his confidence in the individual conscience.
The supremacy of the individual was crucial to Gandhi’s ideal political and economic systems. More than most theorists, Gandhi demonized the purpose of the State, calling it a “soulless machine” and exalted the individual as the only entity who could uphold the standards of nonviolence (Gandhi, 2005). Still, he believed in the necessity of the State to “watch over the maintenance of individual rights,” (Iyer, 1973, p. 115-116). As a believer in self-determination and self-rule, Gandhi held strong to the conviction that government can only exist if members of society consent “consciously or unconsciously, to be governed,” (Iyer, 1973, p. 184). In this sense, the State’s supreme purpose was to ensure that swaraj was always protected and honored. The closest political structure to Gandhi’s ideal was therefore democratic socialism. He believed in the need for each individual to exercise their own self-rule, or swaraj, through democratic means, and also promoted the idea that humans must practice restraint and ahimsa in order to ensure equitable distribution of resources, as all are not born with the same capacity. Gandhi articulated this most eloquently when he said:
True democracy or the Swaraj of the masses can never come through untruthful and violent means, for the simple reason that the natural corollary to their use would be to remove all opposition through the suppression or extermination of the antagonists. That does not make for individual freedom. Individual freedom can have the fullest play only under a regime of unadulterated ahimsa. (Iyer, 1973, p. 185)
This swaraj could only be achieved, Gandhi believed, through the leadership of individuals who he saw as “heroes” and had taken strict vows to uphold the values of satya and ahimsa. Gandhi studied and later taught the “heroic ideal,” supporting the theory that these leaders would act heroically in helping to establish a State that upheld the swaraj of its citizens and operated under a policy of ahimsa whenever possible. It was through these individuals, whose “honor is at the center of [their] being,” that an ideal State could slowly emerge (Iyer, 1973, p. 135).
It is quite easy to see why those around him would wish to call Gandhi “Mahatma,” or great soul. Gandhi’s dedication to his cause was a whole experience; he aligned his personal being with his message and belief system to a degree that it became nearly impossible to distinguish the man from his doctrine. This he accomplished through his steadfast faith in God as Truth and the conviction that human beings are supremely capable of existing in a world of nonviolence and familial love for one another. His growth became the growth of a nation; and then the world (Gandhi, 2005). If such a thing as Gandhism existed—to his expressed disagreement, of course—would it be a political ideology? A philosophy? A religion?
For certain, Gandhism would hold that all of humanity is a single divine being, connected to the same source as rays of the sun. This source would be an eternal, conscious energy, whose essence is pure love. This love and source would be synonymous with Truth or satya, which would give each individual meaning in life and connect them to their dharma. It would also teach that human beings are in their highest state when they have the capacity to determine their own path, to reach their own dharma and act upon it, without being held back by inequality or injustice (Iyer, 1973). Yet, if there did exist inequality or injustice, such a philosophy would encourage the individual to activate their right to act in civil disobedience and engage in satyagraha to ensure that the injustice was righted. It would advocate for ahimsa in all things—personal, political and economic—from condemning the eating of meat to supporting the use of active, peaceful resistance in achieving political progress (Gandhi, 2005). Such a religion might completely deny the existence of any enemies, noting that all humans are part of the same family and any act of himsa, or violence, on one being, is an act toward all. It would teach things like:
The basic principle on which the practice of non-violence rests is that what holds good in respect of oneself equally applies to the whole universe. All mankind in essence are alike. What is, therefore, possible for one is possible for everybody. (Gandhi, 1973, p. 180)
It could also lift up the supremacy of the individual, calling for greater self-determination for each person, through personal and political means. This might manifest as a society based in democratic socialism, where personal station is determined by the individual alone and “all members of society are equal—none low, none high,” (Gandhi, 2005, p. 75). Caste, segregation, aristocratic and other systems of hierarchy or discrimination would be done away with if such a philosophy were to become widespread. Above all, the idea of “separateness” among human beings would cease to dictate societal norms and perhaps exist at all. Economic means would be seen as shared by all and economic systems would be designed with ahimsa as their basic tenet. At the beginning, the rich would become the keepers of the poor until all could become equal, wherein they would share resources so they were distributed equitably (Gandhi, 2005). This world of Gandhism would be one where all beings consciously and purposefully supported the needs of others, as they acted upon their dharma through ahimsa, toward the good of the whole.
Clearly this man called Gandhi was a being of principle; yet he honored his human form by recognizing, and often publicizing, his shortcomings and imperfections. If there was something he was not—it was proud. He believed in the ultimate power of the human spirit to experience divinity but was humble in his search for it. He had much to teach the world but considered himself the ultimate student. In his essence, he was a seeker of Truth, who found God and Love along the way.
References
Attenborough, R. (Producer & Director). (1982). Gandhi [Motion Picture]. Goldcrest Films.
Gandhi, M. (2005). All men are brothers: Autobiographical reflections. Continuum.
Iyer, R. N. (1973). The moral and political thought of Mahatma Gandhi. Oxford University Press.
Slater, J. (2019, October 2). A hero to the world, Gandhi is increasingly controversial in India. Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/a-hero-to-the-world-gandhi-is-increasingly-controversial-in-india/2019/10/02/556be3ee-e3a7-11e9-b0a6-3d03721b85ef_story.html (Links to an external site.)
Comments