A critical exploration whether Gandhi was primarily a political figure or a social reformer - Research Paper Example

? A Critical Exploration Whether Gandhi was Primarily a Political Figure or a Social Reformer A Critical Exploration Whether Gandhi was Primarily a Political Figure or a Social Reformer Introduction Mohandas Karamchad Gandhi is one of the influencing personalities of modern history. He is well-known mostly because of his involvement with the fate of Modern India, a country which is greatly indebted to him for its independence in 1947. This involvement with the emergence of India brings Gandhi the fame as a political figure. He spent a significant part of his life as a political activist in the Congress, one of the two major political parties of India under the British rule. Though he had been an active political figure, his political activities were bordered on the verge of social reformations which could successfully bring him the landslide faith and support from the common Indians. Indeed the question whether he was primarily a political figure or a social will continue to engender debate till one fails to pursue the true Gandhian nationalist zeal. The son of a senior British Government clerk, Gandhi adamantly believed in the soul of democracy and the formal democratic politics.1 Therefore, Gandhi, once the devout British patriot who once worked publicly to earn the Indians’ support for the British Army’s war against Zulu Kingdom in 1906, could not call for the violent liberation war that, causing much bloodshed, could have destroyed the British-induced political reform in India.2 Prior to his experience of successful civil-disobedience or non-violent protest against the segregation Act of the Transvaal Government in 1906, he became familiar with British democratic political culture, while he was studying law in London. Later his experience of the success of ‘Satyagraha’ further provided him a political insight into the non-violent public protest against the tyranny of a political system.3 Indeed Gandhi’s political insight and experience urged him to assume the role of a social reformer. His pose as a social reformer only served his political purpose of uniting the Indians to emerge as a strong political force. Also for the same reason, he did not have his own pure political or social philosophy. His personal philosophy was more of a loose collection of ideas that a strict structure of thought. Indeed Gandhi was a great political leader under the apparel of a social-reformer. Brief Background of Gandhi’s Concept of Satyagraha Gandhi, once the Barrister in South Africa was inspired to put his wholehearted faith in Satyagraha, the heart of his civil-disobedience.4 This barrister was sagacious enough to perceive the power of public unity and support in a modern democratic state. He adopted the Civil-disobedience policy as a means of political protest which could simultaneously sustain the state and create pressure on it toward the intended end. Indeed this protest policy of civil disobedience could sustain the basic form of a government through non-violent defiance, while forcing her to compromise with the defiant civil group.5 But the success of civil disobedience crucially pivots on the weight, of the defiance of protesters, which in democracy is considered as the volume of support. With this new insight, in 1915, Gandhi returned at a critical moment when India was rolling into a democratic political environment from the shadow of the British colonial rule. Gandhi the barrister with his new political insight was wise enough not to jeopardize the prospect India, then, the child of democracy.6 During the 1910s the democracy was budding through the National Congress Party; it was the age when the literate Indians had already adapted with the democratic environment and the rural underdeveloped Indians were waiting for a leader who could lead to the light of democracy. Indeed Gandhi fulfilled this very need of a leader who could raise political awareness among the common Indians only to strengthen the Indians’ voice for independence.7 If Gandhi had called for violent resistance against the British Colonial rule in India, it was possible that the majority of the Indians would have remained from the light of democracy. In that case what amount of Indian blood was needed is anyone’s guess. Political Essence of Gandhi’s Concept of Satyagraha The reason why Gandhi’s image as a political figure should be prioritized over his image as a social reformer lies in the fact that none of his social reforms is free of a political essence. In fact, he was more of a sociopolitical reformer. Almost all of his social reform was dedicated to the country’s political culture. Gandhi’s personal philosophy had been influenced by a wide array of ideas, thoughts and other philosophies. During his stay in London, he came into contact with these philosophies and thoughts, as Vinay Lal says, In London, Gandhi encountered theosophists, vegetarians, and others who were disenchanted not only with industrialism, but with the legacy of Enlightenment thought. They themselves represented the fringe elements of English society. Gandhi was powerfully attracted to them, as he was to the texts of the major religious traditions; and ironically it is in London that he was introduced to the Bhagavad Gita.8 Indeed his ideas and activities can be connected together with an underlying political motto to unite the Indians together under a singular Indian national identity. Gandhi believed in a singular Indian national identity that surpasses religion, cast, race, and color.9 For example, he was deeply traumatized by the division of the Indian subcontinent into India and Pakistan on the basis of religion. South Africa he became familiar with the racial divides that can keep a nation politically scattered and fragmented. The possible reason behind his adoption of the policy of Satyagraha at the heart of non-violent protest was his political sagacity to read people’s devotion to what they think as right or truth. Indeed the term, ‘Satyagraha’ can be considered as a shrew political catchword that could appeal to the people of every race, creed, color and religion. A Sanskrit term, Satyagraha, derives from two other linguistic origins: “Satya” meaning truth, and “agraha” meaning the power of soul or will. Together they mean something “devotion to truth”. In Gandhi’s own words: Truth (satya) implies love, and firmness (agraha) engenders and therefore serves as a synonym for force. I thus began to call the Indian movement Satyagraha, that is to say, the Force which is born of Truth and Love or non-violence, and gave up the use of the phrase “passive resistance”, in connection with it, so much so that even in English writing we often avoided it and used instead the word “satyagraha” itself or some other equivalent English phrase.10 Whereas the philosophical and religious connotations of ‘truth’ are diverse, Gandhi, a popular political leader’s call for the common people’s devotion to truth (or right, or justice) without a clear definition and rather attributing it to the Indian political activists’ movement against the British colonial oppression, could unite the Indian commoners of different castes and creeds on one political stage, namely the National Congress party.11 Though Gandhi’s Satyagraha is often equated with David Henry Thoreau’s civil disobedience, Gandhi disputes this idea in a letter to PK Rao in 1935: The statement that I had derived my idea of Civil Disobedience from the writings of Thoreau is wrong. The resistance to authority in South Africa was well advanced before I got the essay ... When I saw the title of Thoreau's great essay, I began to use his phrase to explain our struggle to the English readers. But I found that even "Civil Disobedience" failed to convey the full meaning of the struggle. I therefore adopted the phrase "Civil Resistance.12 Gandhi expected the Satyagrahi or the civil resisters to turn the resistance into zero-violence. They will maintain ashima, which contradicts any invectives, insults, swearing, anger, retaliation, or any type of activity that can stir up violence. Gandhi wholeheartedly believed that “pursuit of truth did not admit of violence being inflicted on one’s opponent but that he must be weaned from error by patience and compassion.”13 Apparently it may seem to be an altruist or philanthropist’s philosophic assertion about life; but in the Indian context, it was an invitation to the people, who had never experienced the modern democratic political culture, to increasingly participate in the British-induced governmental reforms. Gandhi might have anticipated that such non-violent participation would contribute to the growth of the political awareness without evoking the wrath of the mighty British Raj.14 In this regard, Lavanam notes, Mahatma Gandhi very much wanted to inculcate a sense of self-respect, self-confidence and self-reliance to promote the power of decision-making among the people. He very much wanted that every individual would acquire the capacity to resist the abuse of power.15 Gandhi: A Social Reformer’s Protest against the British Empire In no way, it can be denied that by introducing Satyagraha to the Indian society, Gandhi brought about an enormous change to it. But a close analysis will necessarily reveal that what Gandhi’s Satyagraha brought to the Indian society was the change in the society’s political behavior. The Indians, because of being under the spell of a long tradition of monarchic political system which collapse with the introduction of the colonial rule in the continent, were less prepared to adapt themselves with the democratic culture which was then budding. The democratic political practice was confined within the metropolis and few other educated rural people. In such a sociopolitical background, Gandhi took the moderate way. He taught people to follow Satyagraha as a form of the non-violent resistance. In my opinion, by doing so, he, on one hand, could raise awareness among the commoners who then thought of ‘Satyagraha’ as a political as well as sacred duty. On the other, he was preparing them through social reforms to gather enough political momentum to raise their voice against the mighty British Empire. Referring to interconnection between Gandhi’s social reforms and his political objective, Dr.Shandilya Perminder Kour comments: Before going for any political demands, Gandhi ji always sought to bring about necessary reforms in the society and get his ideas and methods well accepted by the society Gandhiji always preferred self-realization for social equality and service of the community instead of force.16 Indeed, Gandhi did not wish to repeat the history of failed armed rebellions who took place in the past in India. Obviously, Gandhi’s Satyagraha might have influenced the other social aspects of India. But the most visible influence was the change in the sociopolitical behavior of the people. Thus Gandhi’s image as a great political leader is affirmed. An astute observer will find that Gandhi’s activities ideas and concepts are, in some ways or others, politics centric. He wanted to build up a united Indian national identity for every Indian. Simultaneously, he was aware of the fact that even during the First World War, the Indians were not prepared enough to claim the independence. Though Gandhi was initially an ardent supporter of the British Government, his support seemed to evolve from his admiration for modern political and governmental reforms that the British introduced in India. In this regard, Sharp Gene claims that Gandhi’s support for the British Government was a stance to involve the Indians in the Governmental affairs for two reasons: first, psychologically the Indians would be the governmental affairs. Second, the British government would be depended more on the Indians, thus it would realize the potentials of the Indians as an eligible nations.17 Ultimately both of these two reasons would nourish the prospect of Indian Independence. Gandhi’s strategy was not to uproot the British Government, rather he wanted to adapt the Indians and incorporate the Indians into it through events like his decision to support the British force in the First World War in 1918 and SWARAJ movement in 1921 which aimed to control and populate all of the Indian Government Institutions with the Indians.18 Later SWARAJ was redirected to self-education, Swadeshi, untouchability, eradication of ignorance and poverty, etc. Gandhi was first and foremost a politician who was well-aware of the nature of modern state, the importance political awareness of its citizens and the weight of their unanimous defiance.19 By teaching the Indians ‘Satyagraha’ he rather made them aware of the power of defiance in a civil state. When his Satyagraha gained enough momentum, Gandhi tactfully redirected such civil-defiance to challenge the British Empire on more sectors such as economy, local government, poverty, ignorance, etc.20 Indeed when an Indian became defiant to British’s product and claimed more position in the local government office, the Empire felt more threatened. In response, the British Raj arrested him and sentenced him 8 years in jail. Indeed the self-education, Swadeshi, untouchability, social movement against ignorance and poverty seemed to be pure social reforms, they were essentially intended for a political purpose. While Sawraj inspired the Indians to educate themselves more to get a government job, the Swadeshi was meant to bring the economy under the Indians’ control. Even the social reform of ‘untouchability’ was also meant for reducing the racial divide in the Indian society which would be the platform of future powerhouse against the British Raj.21 Indeed Gandhi’s experience of self-consuming racism in South Africa helped to decide his moves to reduce the gaps between the castes and classes, as Vinay Lal says, “Gandhi himself came to an awareness of the frightening force and fury of European racism…when he when thrown out of a first-class railway compartment car....From this political awakening Gandhi was to emerge as the leader of the Indian community.”22 As a great sagacious political figure he could see far ahead of his time. So to implement his political goal, he assumed the role of a social reformer to bring the desired changes successfully in the society. Political Impact of Gandhi’s Civil Disobedience The future results of Gandhi’s civil disobedience were quite harmonious with his expectation. The more and the longer the Indians observed Satyagraha, the more and the faster the political awareness among the Indians were growing and the more the movement was spreading in every sphere of life. The British Raj felt threatened and passed the Rowlett Act in 1918 which aimed to ransack the civil rights and liberties of the Indians. Gandhi vehemently opposed the Act and questioned the government’s validity. He began to ask, “If the Empire did not provide equality and liberty for Indians, then what did it stand for?”23 The Rowlatt Act of 1918 and the subsequent massacre of Amritsar are to be a breaking point in Gandhi’s pro-British stance.24 But a critical analysis will reveal that his rebellion against the British Raj and his pro-independence activities started immediately after he returned to India with his concept of Satyagraha. In my opinion, since Satyagraha was essentially the ‘indianized’ version of western democratic protest and western concept of the freedom of speech, the British Raj could do little against the Gandhi’s followers. Even though the Government often cracked down on the silent and unarmed protesters, eventually, it had to compromise with them, cementing their courage and belief in protest as a means to achieve rights. What Gandhi preached in the name of Satyagraha from 1915 to 1918 reached its test-ground in 1918. During the years preceding 1918, he rather brought the Indians close to their once cruel rulers through the participation with the British Forces in World War I and Satyagraha, only to dispel the fear of being punished and to teach them to raise their voice politically. (I have argued above that Satyagraha had a number of influences on the Indians. It was simultaneously an Indian’s spiritual adherence to view of what are politically right, an awareness of political affairs, and an awareness of the power of a nation’s political defiance.) Eventually in 1918, Gandhi began to reap the harvest of Satyagraha. Kheda and Champaran Satyagraha was the first success that had been able to achieve in 1918. Though the early armed rebellion of the Indigo farmers ended in smoke, this time Gandhi’s Satyagraha movement which started in 1914 had been able to reach their goals of reducing the tyrannical tax which was imposed upon the poor farmers bereaved by the flood and feminine, as Suvas Bose comments on the Kheda and Champaran Satyagraha: Gandhi's political career took a head start when he went to lead Satyagraha against the indigo merchants at Champaran in Bihar. He raised his voice…His methods, as always, were based on non-violence, and he met with success. The British authorities were forced to accept to the demands of the indigo workers.25 Indeed the Kheda and Champaran Satyagraha were quite remarkable for Gandhi’s political sagacity. Gandhi’s strategy was no less efficient than that of any great political leaders of human history. He had been able to win concurrently the faith of the British Government while attracting its attention to the “abject tyranny amidst a terrible humanitarian disaster”. He primarily convinced both the Government and the indigo farmers to believe that the Kheda and Champaran Satyagraha were totally different from the movement of Swaraj. The protesters’ activities in those two provinces should not allude to Swaraj and no other districts other than Gujarat and Kheda should rebel against the British Raj. Behind such strategy, Gandhi wanted to prevent the British Rulers from assuming it a pan India independence movement. Rather by giving it a local look, he attempted to draw the Raj’s attention to its own naked tyrannical face. Even he insisted the NCP not to involve into Kheda and Champaran affairs. He only allowed humanitarian support from the Congress Party and from other provinces of India. 26 Gandhi’s political strategy helped to prevent the Raj from taking any massive suppressive measures. Here one may ask whether Kheda and Champaran was a social reform though Gandhi visibly wanted to give it a non-political look. Indeed the question can be best answered as following: though Gandhi wanted to give it a non-political look, he essentially was driven by a political motif to take the nation inevitably one step towards the Independence. Behind this non-political movement, he assumed his typical role of reforming as well as preparing the underdeveloped society for a better political future. It is undeniable that he was a social reformer; but without his political sagacity, he could progress little. With the dexterity of a great political leader, he gathered supporters and organized them to lead important social works such as building innumerous schools, hospitals, cleaning-up the villages, etc. He also led massive campaigns against racial divide of untouchability. As a wise political leader, he could foresee the fact that a resistance movement of the illiterate and prejudiced villagers against the mighty British was destined to failure. So he attempted to build up a political-exploitation resistant society by bringing massive social reform. Satyagraha and Gandhi’s Political Sagacity as a Political Figure Even Gandhi’s Satyagraha is not a pure philosophy of a man’s non-political life. It was indeed a political commitment in spiritual mask. The term, ‘devotion to truth’ was quite an ambivalent notion that could appeal to people of classes, races and creeds. He had been able to use this slogan to shape the Indians political faith and behavior. Because of its ambiguity it could be a driving force behind the social reforms also. For example, ‘devotion to truth’ could easily be used to convince a rural Indian to send their children to school. Also manipulating this same idea, a Gandhian could convince a man of upper caste to eat and drink on the same table, though Hinduism strictly maintains the division among the castes in every sphere of life. Obviously the political essence of ‘Satyagraha’ is visible in Gandhi’s strategic application of it. Gandhi’s political stance about Satyagraha did not allow him to adhere to it adamantly. Charlie Andrews, a friend of Gandhi, confirms, “Personally I have never been able to reconcile this with his own conduct in other respects, and it is one of the points where I have found myself in painful disagreement.”27 Though during the First World War his propaganda to provoke the Indians to go to war in support of the British severely threatened the purity of his concept of Satyagraha, his political intention was to make the Indians familiar with armed conflict. He might conjecture that by going to the war, the Indians would be more familiar with armed conflict on one hand; and on the other hand, the British Raj would be forced to view the Indians in different light. Gandhi acknowledged it in a leaflet, “Appeal for Enlistment” in 1918, “To bring about such a state of things we should have the ability to defend ourselves, that is, the ability to bear arms and to use them...If we want to learn the use of arms with the greatest possible dispatch, it is our duty to enlist ourselves in the army.”28 This affirmation of Gandhi about the necessity of arms ultimately defines the political dimension of ‘Satyagraha’. While Satyagraha was spiritual to provoke rural Indians to bring a spontaneous change in the society, it was political enough to make them non-violently resistant to the oppression of the British Raj. Such non-violent was congenial enough to keep, to a great extent, the political environment free of bloodstains, by driving the political system in term of power-dynamics of public support. Throughout his whole lifetime, Gandhi sincerely stayed away from answering the question: ‘what should the Indians do in cases when there is no other way but to take up arms?’ But the reality was that his Satyagraha was the seedbed of an inevitably major, possibly armed, conflict.29 The subsequent Salt Satyagraha was such consequence of the political impact of Gandhian concept of ‘devotion to truth’. It forced the British Raj to negotiate and release all the political prisoners in exchange for a halt in the civil-disobedience movement of Gandhi-led Congress according to the Gandhi-Irwin Pact in 1931.30 But the seeds of political awareness that Gandhi’s Satyagraha sowed in the hearts of the Indians had grown into a matured banyan that could stand upright against any political suppression. Now Satyagraha could stir up the conscience of Indians from every walk of life and could take the non-violent resistance to a premature but massive political threat to the Raj. Conclusion Gandhi was a wise political leader. But often the opposite seems to be true. He, as a social reformer, often surpassed his political persona and also his personal religious beliefs. His political career was more of a means to attain the goal of building up a singular Indian national identity which could lead the country’s fate to Independence. For this political purpose he did what the circumstance required him to do. To him, his political image was of secondary importance. As a result, in 1932 he resigned from his membership in the Congress. Since pan Indian nationalism was his primary objective, he did not want to corrupt his effort to build up a singular Indian nationalism or a singular national identity with political pluralism. When a political identity was based plural political stances, groups and communities -such as “communists, socialists, trade unionists, students, religious conservatives, etc”, Gandhi’s Pan Indian nationalism surpasses all these political and religious sectarianisms.31 Also he was afraid of that his political identity could evoke the British Raj’s anger which eventually could stifle his social reformation. Gandhi was a political persona. But he was one of those who wanted to make him an example of what he believed. Such integrity to his thought and belief made him a live example to be followed by the Indians of all classes. In order to show that he mostly belonged to the lower class of the Indian society, he began to wear handmade clothe. In 1932, he led campaigns to improve the conditions of the Dalit or the outcastes of the Indian society; meanwhile, he also opposed the untouchable separate electorate ratified by the Poona Pact. The reason behind his opposition of the Poona Pact was essentially his fear that Indian Nationalism would have a legally acknowledged fringe in its heart. Bibliography Andrews, Charles Freer. "VII – The Teaching of Ahimsa". Mahatma Gandhi's Ideas Including Selections from His Writings. Pierides Press, 2008. Bose, Suvas. “Gandhi and the Indian National Congress”, Maps of India. 2001. Available from http://www.mapsofindia.com/personalities/gandhi/role-in-indian-national-congress.html. Accessed 8 December 2012 Brown, Judith. Gandhi's Rise to Power: Indian Politics 1915-1922. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974. Cribb, R. B. "The Early Political Philosophy of M. K. Gandhi, 1869-1893". Asian Profile 13 (4) (August 1985): 353–360. Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchad. "67. Appeal for enlistment", Collected Works, Vol 17. Nadiad, 1965. Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchad. Satyagraha in South Africa. Ahmedabad: Navajivan, 1928. Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchad. “letter to P. Kodanda Rao, 10 September 1935; in Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, electronic edition, vol. 67, 2010. Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchad. “Statement to Disorders Inquiry Committee.” The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi vol. 19, (Madraz: Gandhi Society, 1920) 206 Gandhi, Rajmohan. Gandhi: the man, his people, and the empire. California: University of California Press, 2006. Herman, Arthur. Gandhi and Churchill: the epic rivalry that destroyed an empire and forged our age. Random House Digital, 2008. Kour, Shandilya Perminder. “Social Reform Movements: Role of the Buddha and Gandhi”, Available from gujaratisbs.webs.com/.../Abstract%20S%20perminder%20kaur. accessed 8 December 2012 Lal, Vinay. “Mahatma Gandhi”, History Politics. 2001. Available fromhttp://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/History/Gandhi/gandhi.html. Accessed 8 December 2012 Lavanam, “Gandhi's Revolutionary Personality”, Available from http://www.positiveatheism.org/india/lavgand1.htm. accessed 8 December 2012 Sharp, Gene. Gandhi as a political strategist: with essays on ethics and politics. New York: Sargent Publishers, 1979. Spark Notes, “Mohandas Gandhi”. n.d. Available from http://www.sparknotes.com/biography/gandhi/study.html#explanation3 Accessed 8 December 2012 Read More