M K Gandhi And The Gandhian Legacy

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->If Gandhi’s sojourns in Untouchable colonies were stage-managed to give the appearance of the Holy Saint uplifting the masses, his core religious philosophy was also of deceptive quality. On the surface, Gandhi’s religious philosophy – and here we focus on his belief in the equality of religions – can easily be accepted to the Hindu mind that tends to a live and let live attitude towards life.  Indeed, this religious philosophy might strike one as being a worthy heir to the spiritualized mentality of ancient India.  However, despite similarities it shares with Hindu scriptures, there is a subtle yet crucial difference.

Gandhi’s religious philosophy followed that because he believed in all religions being equal, he was not only a ‘true’ Hindu, but also a follower of all the religions, which only had ‘slight differences:’

I consider myself a follower of Islam, Christianity, Zoroastrianism and every other religion because I am a true Hindu. All religions are equal and they are founded on the same faith. Various religions are like different leaves on the same tree, with slight differences in shades and shapes. Scriptures have said that one who condemns other religions, condemns one's own religion. I consider myself a representative of all the true religions...After all we are servants of the same God, by whatever name we may call Him. We may call him Rama or Rahim, Krishna or Karim. 56

Gandhi did get part of the equation correct, when he speaks of religions being founded on the same faith.  It is of course true that religions are founded on the same belief in something higher than this material world; even a religion like Islam contains that elementary Truth.  Since they are founded on this Truth, in that sense religions are equal – their source , not the manifestation or external principles written or verbalized.  The same type of equality applies to creations of Nature; the Tree, the Animal, the atom, the Human, the plant, all contain the Divine within them, all are upheld by the Divine.  However, the Divine manifests himself in different degrees according to the evolved state of each creation; he is latent in the Tree, passive and still, but in Humans the Divine manifests in multitude forms of power and love, beauty and knowledge.  Essentially what this is means, is that the Divine is able to do more in the human form than can be done with lower evolved forms, even if he upholds all forms regardless of their evolution in Nature.

When we apply this idea to religions, using Gandhi’s analogy of the Tree, we can say that if the soil that each tree (religion) grows on is of equal value, the quality of the trees that grow from the soil may very well be of different Nature.  Even though religions are equal in their aspiration towards some type of Divine state, the way they express this aspiration is varied, in some cases there are significant differences, not slight discrepancies.  The Vedic ideal was that all paths (we can include religions, philosophies, etc in this) have Truth in them.  This is not the same as saying that ‘all paths are equal.’  For some paths (or religions, ideologies, etc) contain only certain Truths to them, while others bask in the Light.   Each religion does have truths to be absorbed, but some religions are more developed than others, even if no religion can claim to be the Absolute Truth or sole representative of the Truth, since the Absolute Truth itself cannot be expressed entirely by Human language or forms. 

To further extrapolate, no religion can claim its particular God to be the sole reality while holding other names of God to be false, for as told by the Veda, “Truth is One.  The wise call it by Different Names.”  Thus, it would be a falsehood to claim the worship of one particular Deity alone, or the following of one particular path (with the exclusion of all other paths), or the following of one particular philosophy, as the only way to experience a Divine state.  But this is what Gandhi, whose philosophy on the surface appears so tolerant and inclusive, claimed to the contrary:

My Hinduism is not sectarian. It includes all that I know to be the best in Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and Zoroastrianism. I approach politics as everything else in a religious spirit. Truth is my religion and ahimsa is the only way of its realization. 57

How would Gandhi know Ahimsa as the only way of realizing Truth, when – as he earlier admitted 58 – he had yet to experience the Supreme Reality.  Without direct knowledge of the Truth, he could only claim belief that his ahimsa was the only way for realization.  A belief he still had no subjective or objective proof of.  To believe ones religious practice as the only way to realizing Truth is a delusion of the Ego that can only see things from its viewpoint, and believes itself the center of things and superior to others, just as the Earth was believed to be the center of the universe.  Let us suppose Gandhi’s ahimsa actually led him to the Truth.  Would that still make it the only way?  Of course not, because each being has his own Svadharma, an inner law that he must follow, which will lead towards that higher state, through the use of different spiritual practices (such as Karmayoga, Hathayoga, Bhaktayoga, Jnanayoga) in various degrees according the Individual’s Nature.  It was falsehood for Gandhi to claim his way (which was primarily a form of Bhaktayoga - the path of devotion) as the only one, and it was arrogant to declare himself the perfect Hindu, when he said, “Hinduism does not belong only to you. I am a Hindu too, and a perfect Sanatani.” 59

Since he was the perfect Sanatani, since his path was the only way to the Truth (that he had yet to realize), it follows that his Hinduism was the correct form of Hinduism.  He said as much after a 1948 prayer speech:

I am a Hindu. I know that if the world were to adopt my Hinduism mankind would be free from all the worldly ills and man would live in a truly human manner. All this that I have dictated for you has just occurred to me after the prayer. 60

The irony is astonishing.  Here is Gandhi, the man who claimed all religions equal, turning around to say his Hinduism had to be adopted for the world to be free from its ills.  It is from this we see through the illusion of tolerance that Gandhi’s philosophy appears to be.  The root of his philosophy is closer to Middle East faiths than it is to Hinduism, for he shares the same exclusiveness.  His path was the only path, just as the Quran was the final word of God, just as Jesus was the only Son of God, just as the Jews were the chosen people.  He should not be compared to the Sadhus of India, for whom Divine realization was accomplished, for whom the Reality pervaded all beings and forms and expressions. He was like the prophets of Arabia declaring their path the sole path to enlightenment, refusing to identify with Truth deeply felt in the hearts of others or the Truth seen by others through inner vision.

And to claim his Hinduism as the savior of man from worldly ills characterizes the hollowness of his words, because Gandhi was not free from worldly ills such as despair.  It was despair Gandhi felt when he heard of continued acts of violence committed by Hindus towards Muslims.  In particular, he despaired because he felt Hindus were disgracing the name of Hinduism by their actions.  Could such a broad and ancient religion have been blackened beyond recognition simply because for a few months some of its members chose to defend their lives by force? 

For myself, I have now given up that desire. I can’t bear to see Hinduism being destroyed by Hindus. Even the so-called Mahatma seems to have become an alpatma (small soul) today. 61

The reason Gandhi declared Hinduism destroyed returns us to the belief that his Hinduism was the path for the world to free itself from bondage.  Believing this, he associated acts committed by Hindus in relation to his beliefs as to what constituted Hinduism.  Thus when the Hindu killed a Muslim, he was veering far from Gandhi’s path of ahimsa, and was disobeying Hinduism, since Gandhism had to be true Hinduism, for Gandhi was the perfect Sanatani, knower of the only way to the Truth.  So what if the Hindus wanted to fight for their livelihood, that was unacceptable because it was not ahimsa, therefore by doing so they would no longer be considered true Hindus, since Gandhi was the sole decider as to who was a Hindu.  Hence his shame with each act of Hindu violence, because believing his ideas to constitute Hinduism, he naturally expected followers of the religion to do as he said.

This is a base tendency of the lower ego, which once believing its thoughts and philosophy to be the only course for the rest of humanity, in some cases has an increased desire for everyone else to follow its beliefs.  Especially amongst exclusionary religions, certain individual followers may believe themselves the truest believer, or at least take pride in denigrating other co-religionists for not following the religion 'properly'.  Little surprise that the nature of the religions inception influences the individual ego, as its founders were men with an exaggerated sense of self, making it more likely their followers might absorb this inherent character, a trait of the ego used partially to help differentiate oneself from the mass, becoming more exclusive from an already exclusive group.

Another formation taken – rarely - by the ego is to not only consider itself the true devotee of its particular religion, but also to claim itself the true exemplary of other paths like socialism, or to include it as members of different social groups like the Untouchables.   This is another way to delude itself into believing everyone shares its limited worldview, instead of respecting the multitude forms and realities of the Truth in its external expression.  It was this delusion Gandhi possessed, believing himself born to reconcile the religions, a ‘representative’ who miraculously made the external divisions disappear.  While his intent is credible, he erred in trying to harmonize such surface or external relations from that superficial level.  For if he had paid less attention to being in the public eye, less attachment to his particular mental formations, maybe his sadhana would have yielded deeper results, enabling him to truly unite with Muslims and all others at a Divine level, at the level of the Soul; the only level where one can in complete totality claim unity with others.  Instead he could only claim himself the true Hindu and Muslim based on mental affinity, instead of direct Soul-to-Soul identity (which first requires realization of ones own Soul).  Mental affinity, let alone requiring a spiritual realization, does not require any rational basis, thus he was a true Muslim simply because he was a true Hindu, just like that:

Then I went to the refugee camps at Diwan Hall, Wavel Canteen and Kingsway. I met the Sikh and Hindu refugees there. They had not yet forgotten my past services to the Punjab. But I noticed some angry faces in all those camps. Those people can be forgiven. They talked to me in sharp tones for being harsh to the Hindus. They said that I had not undergone the hardships that they did, and not lost my kith and kin. They said I had not been compelled to beg at every door. They asked me how I could comfort them by saying that I had been staying at Delhi to do my utmost to establish peace in the capital of the country. True I cannot bring back the dead. But death is a gift of God to all living things-human beings, animals. Being a true Hindu I also claim to be a true Muslim. I always recite the great Muslim prayer in which it is proclaimed that God is one and He protects the whole world by day and night. 62

Indeed just as his ahimsa was the truest, the only path to follow, just as the Hindus of Partition were doing a poor job of following (his) Hinduism, also was his Islam and his Christianity superior to the ones practiced by their (so-called) followers.  After all, Mohammed and Jesus themselves were sure to have declared, he, the Great Mahatma, a True Muslim, and a True Christian:

Gandhi: Has England? Has it not still to grapple with the problems that baffle her? It is a very curious commentary on the West that although it professes Christianity, there is no Christianity or Christ in the West of there should have been no war. That is how I understand the message of Jesus.

A.Freeman: Would you say Islam has repudiated its teacher, as Christianity of today has its Jesus?

Gandhi: I have said so openly. Where is Mohammed and his message which is peace? I said recently at a public gathering that if Mohammed came to India today, he would disown many of his so-called followers and own me as a true Muslim, as Jesus would own me as a true Christian.

A.Freeman: How can we bring men back to God or to the teachings of Jesus or that of Mohammed?

Gandhi: I might give the answer that Jesus gave to one of his followers: "Do the will of my Father who is in Heaven, not merely say Lord, Lord (St Matthew VII. 21)" That holds true for you ,me and everybody. 63

For him to believe that Mohammed or Jesus would accept him reveals a curious mixture of naiveté and arrogance.  Naive because neither Islam nor Christianity accept among their followers worshipers of other Gods, and to believe otherwise showed an inability to admit that some religions might not display the same acceptance he did.  The intolerance of Islam regarding worship of other Gods has already been discussed.  The Christian religion shares this character, enshrined in the Ten Commandments, that “Thou shall take no other Gods before me.” Jesus also had this message of intolerance, saying “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” (Mark 16:16) Gandhi, though admitting to being a Christian if the criteria was just the Sermon on the Mount64, was not baptized nor believed Christ to be the sole son of God, making it impossible for Jesus to own him as a Christian, if we are to follow Biblical scripture. 

Arrogant because who is Gandhi to declare himself the ‘true’ this or the ‘true’ follower of that (at the same time denigrating practicing Muslims and Christians), since these declarations were based on subjective interpretation of Islamic and Christian scripture (interpretation revolving around his fascination with the Sermon on the Mount, some Jainism, and some externals of Hinduism). While it may have been easier for him to declare himself a (not the true) Christian, since he did follow the teachings of the Sermon, one Sermon does not make the whole Bible.  And to read into Islam, of all religions, the message of nonviolent suffering, is to display a strong bias to willfully ignore passages not in tune with his thinking.  While it is true Mohammed believed himself to be persecuted, and practiced a form of non-violent opposition towards the Pagans (only because he did not have the military capabilities needed to fight during the early period), this initial period of non-violence was followed by horrific persecution of those whom he believed the tormentors of Islam.  Gandhi’s need to maintain his cherished idea of all religions being equal – or, that all religions preached his message – led him to deliberately repress awareness of the obvious, in order to maintain himself and his philosophy as the perfect example of all religious faiths.  Believing himself born to spread this apparent equality, explains his curious inability to come across (or, at least, to comment upon) blatant and widespread hatred in the Quran, for an acceptance of facts might have shattered him, destroying five decades of his message that somehow, throughout different time periods and different areas of the globe, all religious scripture created preached solely the messages of absolute nonviolence and extreme suffering.

Even if he could not, by their definitions, become member of the two faiths, he would come to share certain characteristics within his own religious philosophy.  Absorbed along with ‘turn the other cheek’ was the intolerance of other paths, the belief that the entire Truth could be possessed within one book or the world-view of one Human.  For Gandhi believed less in the greatness of Christianity or Islam, than in the greatness of Gandhism. And if these faiths chose to spread their beliefs in overt or even physically violent ways, Gandhi had neither the means nor the desire to convert in a direct manner.  However, physical violence is not the only form of violence, indeed the original idea of ahimsa was the practice of not harming oneself first, which meant that if by not using violence one was causing himself harm (whether of the physical or vital or mental type), it was himsa.  Thus by blackmailing Hindus65 to go against what they felt and knew (according to their inner law) was the right course of action under the circumstances, Gandhi was imposing himsa on the nation, forcing them to wage a form of violence against their inner will, forcing them to turn against their Dharma in order to uphold the partial and exaggerated truths of ahimsa and the equality of religions.

Citations:
1.        Harijan November 28th 1936
2.        Indian Opinion, 9-11-1907, CWOMG vol 7, pg 339
3.        Mandukya Upanishad verse 7
4.        Katha Upanishad Part I Chapter III
5.        Katha Upanishad Part II Chapter II
6.      Isha Upanishad
7.      Quran 29:025: And he said: You have only taken for yourselves idols besides Allah by way of friendship between you in this world's life, then on the resurrection day some of you shall deny others, and some of you shall curse others, and your abode is the fire, and you shall not have any helpers.
8.        May 27, 1947 Prarthana Pravachan-I, pp.88-92, CWOMG vol 88, pg 19-22
9.        May 30, 1947  Prarthana PravachanI pp 103-6, CWOMG vol 88, pg 41-2
10.     Indian Opinion, 26-6-1909, CWOMG, vol 9, pg 265
11.     June 1 1947 Prarthana PravachanI pp 111-6, CWOMG vol 88, pg 52-54
12.     June 1 1947 Prarthana PravachanI pp 111-6, CWOMG vol 88, pg 52-54
13.     http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritche...n/412b.html#n14
14.     June 1 1947 Prarthana PravachanI pp 111-6, CWOMG vol 88, pg 52-54
15.     Prarthana Pravachan-I, pp 82-6, CWOMG vol 88 pg 5-7
16.     May 25, 1947 Prarthana Pravachan-I, pp 82-6, CWOMG vol 88 pg 5-7
17.     Footnote 2 Prarthana Pravachan I pp 14-9, CWOMG vol 87 pg 194-8
18.     May 2 1947 Prarthana PravachanI pp 59-62, CWOMG vol 87, pg 398-9
19.     may 2 1947 Prarthana PravachanI pp 59-62, CWOMG vol 87, pg 398-9
20.     may 2 1947 Prarthana PravachanI pp 59-62, CWOMG vol 87, pg 398-9
21.     270. Speech at Prayer meeting April 17 1947, Bihar Samachar, CWOMG vol 87, pg 297-8
22.     Footnote 1, Hindustan Standard 30-4-47, CWOMG vol 86 pg 402
23.     Panchgaon Jan 28 1947 Hindustan Standard 30-4-47, CWOMG vol 86 pg 402
24.     Footnote 2, April 7, 1947 Prarthana Pravachan Part I pp 32-5, CWOMG vol 87 pg 225-6
25.     April 7, 1947 Prarthana Pravachan Part I pp 32-5, CWOMG vol 87 pg 225-6
26.     May 30, 1947  Prarthana PravachanI pp 103-6, CWOMG vol 88, pg 41-2
27.     April 3 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I pp 14-9, CWOMG vol 87 pg 194-8
28.     April 3 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I pp 14-9, CWOMG vol 87 pg 194-8
29.     April 3 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I pp 14-9, CWOMG vol 87 pg 194-8
30.     April 3 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I pp 14-9, CWOMG vol 87 pg 194-8
31.     April 3 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I pp 14-9, CWOMG vol 87 pg 194-8
32.     April 3 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I pp 14-9, CWOMG vol 87 pg 194-8
33.     April 3 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I pp 14-9, CWOMG vol 87 pg 194-8
34.     April 3 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I pp 14-9, CWOMG vol 87 pg 194-8
35.     nov 21 1947 Prarthan Pravachan-IIpp 101-5, CWOMG vol 90 pg 79-80
36.     Speech at prayer meeting May 7, 1947 Prartana Pravachan p I p74-81, CWOMG vol 87, pg 429-34
37.     Speech at prayer meeting May 7, 1947 Prartana Pravachan p I p74-81, CWOMG vol 87, pg 429-34
38.  Speech at prayer meeting May 7, 1947 Prartana Pravachan p I p74-81, CWOMG vol 87, pg 429-34
39.     Nov 21, 1947 Prarthan Pravachan-IIpp 101-5, CWOMG vol 90 pg 79-80
40.     April 7, 1947 Prarthana Pravachan Part I pp 32-5, CWOMG vol 87 pg 225-6
41.     Prarthana Pravachan I pp 166-70, CWOMG vol 88, pg 162-3
42.  Harijan 31-8-47, CWOMG vol 89, pg 80-1
43.  Mohammed’s army would acquire slave girls after victories they achieved.  In one particular hadith, Mohammed tells a follower not to practice coitus interruptus on a slave girl, the obvious implication that use of these girls as sex-slaves was allowed:  Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri - That while he was sitting with the Prophet a man from the Ansar came and said, "O Allah's Apostle! We get slave girls from the war captives and we love property; what do you think about coitus interruptus?" Allah's Apostle said, "Do you do that? It is better for you not to do it, for there is no soul which Allah has ordained to come into existence but will be created."  Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 77, Number 600
44.     Harijan 31-8-47, CWOMG vol 89, pg 80-1
45.  (Speech at RSS rally New Delhi September 16, 1947 harijan 28-9-47, CWOMG vol 89, pg 193-5): If the vast bulk of the Hindus wanted to go in a particular direction, even though it might be wrong, no one could prevent them from doing so. But even a single individual had the right to raise his voice against it and give them the warning. That is what Gandhiji was doing. He was told that he was the friend of the Muslims and the enemy of the Hindus and Sikhs. It was true that he was a friend of the Muslims, as he was of the Parsi and others. In this respect he was the same today as he had been since the age of twelve. But those who called him the enemy of the Hindus and the Sikhs did not know him. He could be enemy of none, much less of the Hindus and Sikhs.
46.     Harijan 31-8-47, CWOMG vol 89, pg 80-1
47.   The Kalma Tayyabah in original Arabic pronunciation is “la ila-ha il lal-lah, mu-hum-ma-dur ra-soo-lul-lah.” This pillar of Islam is used during conversion, although it is not the only part of the ritual.   Nevertheless, two key Islamic principles, Allah being the only true God, and Mohammed his prophet, are evident.  The exact source for the kalma Tayyabah is found in the Sahih Bukhari Book 1, Number 1, where Mohammed gives the principles of Islam to a traveler: 

At last he sat with the Apostle (peace be upon him) He knelt before him placed his palms on his thighs and said: Muhammad, inform me about al-Islam. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: Al-Islam implies that you testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and you establish prayer, pay Zakat, observe the fast of Ramadan, and perform pilgrimage to the (House) if you are solvent enough (to bear the expense of) the journey. He (the inquirer) said: You have told the truth.

48.  Do not make excuses; you have denied indeed after you had believed; if We pardon a  party of you, We will chastise (another) party because they are guilty. Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'" Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57
49.     Mahatma Gandhi the last phase vol II pp 161 -5, Talk with two socialist leaders, CWOMG vol 87, pg 424-5
50.     April 1, 1947 Prarthana-Pravachan Part I, pp 5-11, CWOMG vol 87, pgs 183-86
51.     April 1, 1947 Prarthana-Pravachan Part I, pp 5-11, CWOMG vol 87, pgs 183-86
52.     April 3, 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I pp 14-9, CWOMG vol 87 pg 194-8
53.     April 3, 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I pp 14-9, CWOMG vol 87 pg 194-8
54.     September 10, 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I pp 294-8, CWOMG vol 89, pg 167-170
55.     Prarthana Pravachan II pp 283-5, CWOMG vol 90 pg 393, 1/9/48
56.     Harijan 23-3-1947, CWOMG vol 87, pg 45-46
57.     statment to press, harijan 30-4-1938, CWOMG vol LXVII pg 37
58.     See the first column in this series, Rethinking Gandhi:  A True Mahatma?
59.     June 1 1947 Prarthana PravachanI pp 111-6, CWOMG vol 88, pg 52-54
60.     Dilhiman Gandhiji II pp 112-3, CWOMG vol 90 pg 248
61.     Letter to Ranchhoddas Patwari, CWOMG vol 89 pg 277
62.     Speech at Prayer Meeting Sept 10 1947 Prarthana Pravachan I pp 294-8, CWOMG vol 89, pg 167-170
63.     Harijan 17-11-46 intervew with A Freeman CWOMG vol 86 pg 22
64.     For more, read Was Satyagraha a Hindu Movement?
65.  For more, read Saving Hinduism by Killing all the Hindus<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->