Trusteeship -- Corporate Social Responsibility

Gandhian economics is essentially the collection of Gandhi's thoughts on various economic systems. Gandhi was not an economist and he didn’t propound any new economic theory. In his time any discussion on economics was centered around two accepted economic systems - Capitalism and Socialism. Both were rigid in their own terms and even today there is no universally accepted economic system that can be uniformly applied over space and time. Every region can have its characteristic economic system which varies with time. One has to take in to account the prevalent conditions; Socio-political, economic and educational status of the people; comparative advantages and disadvantages of the regional economy etc.

Gandhi’s thoughts on economic systems evolved over time and they incorporated the good of both Capitalism and Socialism. A conservative may identify his views when he reads that Gandhi was against the confiscation of private property. Similarly a liberal socialist identifies his views when he reads about non-recognition of private property, social responsibility of those possessing property etc., Every thought of Gandhi may not be relevant today but Gandhian economics is very comprehensive to deal with many present day issues. One such issue is “Corporate Social Responsibility”, which can be traced to Gandhi’s concept of “Trusteeship”.

Corporate Social Responsibility links Corporate Sector to Social Sector.It is becoming more relevant in our society plagued by increasing inequalities between haves and havenots. Corporate Social Responsibility means that the corporate sector, which earns profit through the sale of its goods and services in the society also has some responsibility towards it. This is essential to promote growth with equity and to achieve an inclusive society. Increasing number of industrial houses are taking active interest in the welfare of the employees, their families and society at large. Starting from the provision of basic necessities like drinking water,primary education, health facilities to the development of environment friendly technologies on regional/national or even international scale, they are working in various spheres. In taking up few initiatives, some of them also have enlightened self-interest in mind. They are not only able to advertise their products but are also selling them to the beneficiaries of their activities. Some of them are involved in the charity work like provision of mid day meals to school children. Many of them have their own NGOs operating at ground level,and in other cases they are involving the civil society in their activities.

Reading Gandhi's concept of trusteeship, we understand that he wanted capitalists to act as trustees (not owners) of their property and conduct themselves in a socially responsible way.

Quoting Jayant Pandya from his "Gandhi and his Disciples"

"Believing as he did in non-violence, Gandhi was against the physical liquidation of the capitalists and landlords.Yet their exploitation had to end.This he believed could be done if the landlords and the capitalists acted as trustees of the poor.His doctrine of Trusteeship is designed to work in all spheres of life.Like parents acting as trustees for their children,the government should act as trustees of those who have choosen them to be their representatives in the legislative assemblies. The trustee, by its implications,meant that he is not the owner.The owner is one whose interest he is called upon to protect".

The philosophy of Trusteeship believes in inherent goodness of human beings. It involves the capitalists and landlords in the service of society without any element of coercion. It doesn’t want the destruction of capitalists. Gandhi himself believed that their destruction would result in the end of the workers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mahtma Gandhi's "Gospel Of Trusteeship"

http://www.mkgandhi.org/momgandhi/chap53.htm

Some Excerpts:

I am inviting those people who consider themselves as owners today to act as trustees, i.e., owners, not in their own right, but owners in the right of those whom they have exploited.

Supposing I have come by a fair amount of wealth—either by way of legacy, or by means of trade and industry—I must know that all that wealth does not belong to me; what belongs to me is the right to an honourable livelihood, no better than that enjoyed by millions of others. The rest of my wealth belongs to the community and must be used for the welfare of the community.

The question how many can be real trustees according to this definition is beside the point. If the theory is true, it is immaterial whether many live up to it or only one man lives up to it. The question is of conviction.

It is my conviction that it is possible to acquire riches without consciously doing wrong. For example I may light on a gold mine in my one acre of land. But I accept the proposition that it is better not to desire wealth than to acquire it, and become its trustee. I gave up my own long ago, which should be proof enough of what I would like others to do. But what am I to advise those who are already wealthy or who would not shed the desire for wealth? I can only say to them that they should use their wealth for service.

As for the present owners of wealth, they will have to make their choice between class war and voluntarily converting themselves into trustees of their wealth. They will be allowed to retain the stewardship of their possessions and to use their talent, to increase the wealth, not for their own sakes, but for the sake of the nation and, therefore, without exploitation.

When the people understand the implications of trusteeship and the atmosphere is ripe for it, the people themselves, beginning with gram panchayats, will begin to introduce such statutes. Such a thing coming from below is easy to swallow. Coming from above it is liable to prove a dead weight.

To the landlords I say that, if what is said against you is true, I will warn you that your days are numbered. You can no longer continue as lords and masters. You have a bright future if you become trustees of the poor Kisans. I have in mind not trustees in name but in reality. Such trustees will take nothing for themselves that their labour and care do not entitle them to. They then will find that no law will be able to reach them. The Kisans will be their friends.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After independence, Vinobha Bhave in one way demonstrated the "Trusteeship" Concept through the "Bhoodan Movement".

Brief History of the Bhoodan Movement
http://www.gandhimuseum.org/sarvodaya/vinoba/bhoodan.htm

By adopting Gandhi’s ideas to the solution of the basic economic problem of land collection & equitable redistribution among the landless, the Movement kept Gandhi’s ideas of socioeconomic reconstruction alive at a period when the tendency of the educated elite was to overlook, if not to reject Gandhi’s ideas as irrelevant.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An excellent article by Dr T Karunakaran, former Vice Chancellor of Gandhigram Rural University on the emergence of Corporate Social Responsibility in last few years, CSR in action, illustration of Mahatma Gandhi's concept of Trusteeship and the United Nations endorsed "Global Compact" concept.

http://tafva.org/pdf_word/Corporate%20Social%20Responsibility.doc

Gandhi- Premodernist, Modernist or Postmodernist ?

The major relevance of Gandhi's philosophy is his relation with Postmodern thoughts. Gandhi is usually seen as a forceful critic of modernism and exhorts us to pre-modern forms of existence. This might have been a reasonable hypothesis to his contemporaries and most commentators since his death; it is now time for us to re-evaluate Gandhi's philosophy in light of post-modern modes of thought. Dr. S. Radhakrishnan's first impression of Gandhi was that he possessed a "medieval attitude of mind," but he later saw that he was mistaken.

Gandhi’s mind-body dualism (which in some places is Manichean)) is the greatest obstacle to his post-modern interpretation but nevertheless Gandhi may, if we discount his dualism, offer significant contributions to a post-modern view of the self, ethics, religion, and political philosophy. Hence, Gandhi’s philosophy is much more compatible with "constructive" postmodernism. In the following article the author has tried to take into account the Pre-modern, Modern and Post-modern characters of Gandhi’s philosophy.

Following was Gandhiji’s statement in Harijan, 29-4-1933 p.2 which seems appropriate in this context-

“I would like to say to the diligent reader of my writings and to others who are interested in them that I am not at all concerned with appearing to be consistent. In my search after Truth, I have discarded many ideas and learnt many new things. Old as I am in age, I have no feeling that I have ceased to grow inwardly or that my growth will stop at the dissolution of the flesh. What I am concerned with is my readiness to obey the call of Truth, my God, from moment to moment, and, therefore when anybody finds any inconsistency between any two writings of mine, if he still has faith in my sanity, he would do well to choose the latter of the two on the same subject.”

GANDHI- A PREMODERNIST

The crisis of the modern world has led many to believe that the only answer is to return to the traditional forms of self and community that existed before the Modern Age. Such a move would involve the rejection of science, technology, and a mechanistic cosmology. Ontologically the modern world-view is basically atomistic, both at the physical and the social level. The cosmos is simply the sum total of its many inert and externally related parts, just as modern society is simply the sum total of social atoms contingently related to other social atoms. The modernist view of time is also linear, with one event happening one after the other, with no other purpose than simply to keep on continuing that way. The modernist view of the sacred has been to reject it altogether, or to place God in a transcendent realm far removed from the material world.

By contrast the Pre-modern vision of the world is one of totality, unity, and, above all, purpose. These values were celebrated in ritual and myth, the effect of which was to sacralise the cycles of seasons and the generations of animal and human procreation. The human self, then, is an integral part of the sacred whole, which is greater than and more valuable than its parts. Myth and ritual facilitated the painful passage through personal and social crises, rationalized death and violence, and controlled the power of sexuality. One could say that contemporary humankind is left to cope with their crises with far less successful therapies or helpful institutions.

When Gandhi says that "in order to restore India to its pristine condition, we have to return to it" most commentators have taken this to mean that Gandhi has joined the pre-modernist revolt against modernism. The pristine India was for him the village communities where a vast majority of Indians still live today. In the villages Gandhi found people who "overflowed with faith" and "whose wisdom was boundless." Because of his confidence in these people, he called for a dismantling of centralized state authority and a return to what he called "village republicanism." Gandhi also insisted that the son should follow the father’s occupation, as long as that job did not involve immoral activity. Even more pointed is his disavowal of modern technology, mechanized industry, centralized bureaucratic administration, and the rule of science in all areas of life. Most of us would probably agree with Gandhi that the modern state does indeed swallow up individual persons, even as it is, ironically, celebrating their autonomy, and that it has also destroyed the intimate ties of traditional community life. Gandhi reaffirms his own Hindu tradition that the goal of human life should be truth and virtue rather than wealth and power. According to The Laws of Manu, the attainment of family and prosperity is only a stage on life's way, a stage that is eventually replaced by the person who takes vows of non-violence, non-possession, and chastity.

Gandhi’s Manicheanism is pervasive and it may have come from Christian influences as well as his own Indian tradition: "In God there is no duality. But as soon as we descend to the empirical level, we get two forces–God and Satan, as Christians call them." Gandhi claims that we are necessarily violent because of life in a body, so that is why we should aim to be rid of it or at least train ourselves to become imperious to its needs. Interestingly enough, a mind-body dualism characterizes much of modern thought, but it is formulated in a much more subtle and sophisticated form. So Gandhi's dualism is definitely more pre-modern than modern and it stands as the greatest obstacle to a post-modern interpretation of his thought.

As we now look beyond Gandhi as a pre-modernist, it is important to note that, although he admired the achievements of the ancient India, he realized that he could not take the dharma of another age as his own. Distinctively modern, or even post-modern, is Gandhi's principle that each society, as each individual, has its own truth, and that simply reviving ancient truths was not only anachronistic but unworkable.

GANDHI- A MODERNIST

Modernism has been described as a replacement of Myth by Logic. The Greek Sophists stood for ethical individualism and relativism; they gave law its adversarial system and the now accepted practice that attorneys may "make the weaker argument the stronger"; they inspired Renaissance humanists to extend education to the masses as well as to the aristocracy; and they gave us a preview of a fully secular modern society.

One of Gandhi's most basic assumptions was his firm belief in the integrity of the individual. "The individual is the one supreme consideration"; and "if the individual ceases to count, what is left of society?" Gandhi said that he feared the power of the state, because "it does the greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality, which lies at the root of all progress." For Gandhi each individual must act on her own truth regardless of the consequences and regardless of whether others think she is in error. If individuation is ultimately illusory, the very foundations of Gandhi's political ethics are dissolved.

Gandhi’s experiments with truth are distinctively modernist with their firm assumption that the individual is the final arbiter of action. To assert a source of authority outside of the laws of any God is a sure sign of the modernist mind. Gandhi also rejects a premodern cyclical view of history in favor of a modernist view of linear moral progression. A very modernist Gandhi states: "The force of spirit is ever progressive and endless. . . . The remedy [from self-destruction] lies in every individual training himself for self-expression in every walk of life, irrespective of response of the neighbours." This is not only progressive and individualistic, it also appears to undermine his pre-modern view that one should train in the profession of one’s father. Because of our finitude and fallibility, Gandhi firmly asserted that we can only attain relative truths. Gandhi's position on truth is more compatible with constructive postmodernism.

Gandhi's conception of religion could be called modernist as well. He believed that all religions are equal; and all are to be tolerated. Gandhi was a fervent believer in prayer and he also chanted Rama's name, but even these practices are sometimes given a modernist rendering. Gandhi said that for him Rama was not the king of the Ramayana or an incarnation of Vishnu, but the name simply means "purity of conduct" and the "search for truth". For Gandhi religion is a purely personal matter, and "there are as many religions as there are individuals." One could also say that he is committed to the modernist reduction of religion to ethics. He has his own special version of this: religion is the search for truth, an endeavour even inclusive of atheists. Also modernist is his position that the state should not support religious organizations. But this did not prevent his holding that religion should be integrated into political action as its ethical ground and justification. Gandhi's famous warning that "India is in danger of losing her soul" does not express a fear that Indians are losing their ancient pre-modern traditions; rather, it means that Indians will lose their moral autonomy in a dehumanizing bureaucratic state.

Gandhi's commitment to civil disobedience is intimately related to the issue of Gandhi's professed anarchism. Gandhi called his village republicanism a form of "enlightened anarchy" in which "everyone is [her] own ruler." He said that "government is best that governs least" and he believed that government is a necessary evil. Gandhi spoke fervently of his village communities as ideal states, but he was keenly aware of human fallibility and the limits of reason, especially the calculative reason of modern mass political organization. Gandhi's practice of nonviolence and self-suffering discourages self-interest and reintroduces constraint and coercion in a way unlike any other previous political theory.

GANDHI- A POSTMODERNIST

Postmodernism may be defined as "the adoption or adaptation of Western developmental models to indigenous systems"; or alternatively a "synthesis of old and new which is qualitatively new from the old and the new".

Gandhi wanted to protect the individual from dissolution either in a premodern totality or the modern bureaucratic state.

Gandhi also qualifies his individualism with other-constitution, and he definitely joins in this postmodern reconstruction of the self. As he once reminded a correspondent: "I value individual freedom, but you must not forget that man is essentially a social being".

Gandhi’s reasons for rejecting other Indian nationalists’ programs can best be interpreted as constructive postmodern. Both the liberal constitutionalist Shri Gokhale and radicals such as Shri Tilak and B. B. Pal, who recommended violent means to the end of Indian independence, were thoroughly modernist in their worldviews. Both separated the inner from the outer, both proposed a rationalist methodology, and both ridiculed Gandhi’s belief that legitimate political action must have a spiritual foundation. Answering questions at the 1930 Round Table Conference in London, Gandhi explained why he had to stand apart from these other nationalists. In South Africa he found that he was very good at marshaling facts and presenting a convincing case to his fellow Indians. He was dismayed, however, in their usual response: many quickly proposed violent solutions to their grievances. Gandhi concluded that his follower’s minds were in the right place but their hearts were not prepared for the nonviolent action that was required. It was here that Gandhi discovered his most important philosophical principle: namely, that good ends must always be matched with good means. This principle will be the key to distinguishing utilitarianism, where means are independent from ends.

Gandhi’s fusion of means and ends, the inner and the outer, of religion and politics is neither premodern nor modern, but distinctively postmodern in the constructive sense (Constructive postmodernism can be seen as the result of a dialectical triad in which modernism negates premodernism, and then the constructive postmodernist, in a third stage of reintegration, gleans value from both).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have tried to present the summary of this wonderful piece of work. Original, full length article may be found at the following link-

http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/gpm.htm

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-Violence—The Greatest Force

[July 15, 1926]

Non-violence is the greatest force man has been endowed with. Truth is the only goal he has. For God is none other than Truth. But Truth cannot be, never will be, reached except through non-violence. That which distinguishes man from all other animals is his capacity to be non-violent. And he fulfils his mission only to the extent that he is non-violent and no more. He has no doubt many other gifts. But if they do not subserve the main purpose—the development of the spirit of non-violence in him—they but drag him down lower than the brute, a status from which he has only just emerged.

The cry for peace will be a cry in the wilderness, so long as the spirit of non-violence does not dominate millions of men and women.

An armed conflict between nations horrifies us. But the economic war is no better than an armed conflict. This is like a surgical operation. An economic war is prolonged torture. And its ravages are no less terrible than those depicted in the literature on war properly so called. We think nothing of the other because we are used to its deadly effects.

Many of us in India shudder to see blood spilled. Many of us resent cow-slaughter, but we think nothing of the slow torture through which by our greed we put our people and cattle. But because we are used to this lingering death, we think no more about it.

The movement against war is sound. I pray for its success. But I cannot help the gnawing fear that the movement will fail, if it does not touch the root of all evil—man’s greed.
Will America, England and the other great nations of the West continue to exploit the so-called weaker or uncivilized races and hope to attain peace that the whole world is pining for? Or will Americans continue to prey upon one another, have commercial rivalries and yet expect to dictate peace to the world?

Not till the spirit is changed can the form be altered. The form is merely an expression of the spirit within. We may succeed in seemingly altering the form but the alteration will be a mere make-believe if the spirit within remains unalterable. A whited sepulchre still conceals beneath it the rotting flesh and bone.

Far be it from me to discount or under-rate the great effort that is being made in the West to kill the war-spirit. Mine is merely a word of caution as from a fellow-seeker who has been striving in his own humble manner after the same thing, may be in a different way, nodoubt on a much smaller scale. But if the experiment demonstrably succeeds on the smaller field and, if those who are working on the larger field have not overtaken me, it will at least pave the way for a similar experiment on a large field.

I observe in the limited field in which I find myself, that unless I can reach the hearts of men and women, I am able to do nothing. I observe further that so long as the spirit of hate persists in some shape or other, it is impossible to establish peace or to gain our freedom by peaceful effort. We cannot love one another, if we hate English-men.We cannot love the Japanese and hate Englishmen. We must either let the Law of Love rule us through and through or not at all. Love among ourselves based on hatred of others breaksdown under the slightest pressure. The fact is such love is never real love. It is an armed peace. And so it will be in this great movement in the West against war. War will only be stopped when the conscience of mankind has become sufficiently elevated to recognize the undisputed supremacy of the Law of Love in all the walks of life. Some say this will never come to pass. I shall retain the faith till the end of my earthly existence that it shall come to pass.

The Hindu, 8-11-1926

Students and the "Gita"

This is what Gandhi had to say about the ignorance of religion among students due to lack of teaching in schools in the name of secularism. He advised that students should form self help groups if there is no teaching available. The article is presented below.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The other day, in the course of a conversation, a missionary friend asked me, if India was really a spiritually advanced country, why it was that he found only a few students having any knowledge of their own religion, even of the Bhagavad Gita. In support of the statement, the friend who is himself an educationist told me that he had made it a point to ask the students he met whether they had any knowledge of their religion or of the Bhagavad Gita. A vast majority of them were found to be innocent of any such knowledge.

I do not propose to take up at the present moment the inference that because certain students had no knowledge of their own religion, India was not a spiritually advanced country, beyond saying that the ignorance on the part of the students of religious books did not necessarily mean absence of all religious life or want or spirituality among the people to which the students belonged. But there is no doubt that the vast majority of students who pass through the Government educational institutions are devoid of any religious instruction. The remark of the missionary had reference to the Mysore students, and I was somewhat pained to observe that even the students of Mysore had no religious instruction in the State schools. I know that there is a school of thought which believes in only secular instruction being given in public schools. I know also that in a country like India, where there are most religions of the world represented and where there are so many denominations in the same religion, there must be difficulty about making provision for religious instruction. But if India is not to declare spiritual bankruptcy, religious instruction of its youth must be held to be at least as necessary as secular instruction. It is true that knowledge of religious books is no equivalent of that of religion. But if we cannot have religion we must be satisfied with providing our boys and girls with what is next best. And whether there is such instruction given in the schools or not, grown-up students must cultivate the art of self-help about matters religious as about other. They may start their own class just as they have their debating and now spinners’ clubs.

Addressing the Collegiate High School students at Shimoga, I found upon enquiry at the meeting that out of a hundred or more Hindu boys, there were hardly eight who had read the Bhagavad Gita. None raised his hand in answer to the question, whether of the few who had read the Gita there was any who understood it. Out of five or six Mussalman boys all raised their hands as having read the Koran. But only one could say that he knew its meaning. The Gita is, in my opinion, a very easy book to undestand. It does present some fundamental problems which are no doubt difficult of solution. But the general trend of the Gita is in my opinion unmistakable. It is accepted by all Hindu sects as authoritative. It is free from any form of dogma. In a short compass it gives a complete reasoned moral code. It satisfies both the intellect and heart. It is thus both philosophical and devotional. Its appeal is universal. The language is incredibly simple. But I nevertheless think that there should be an authoritative version in each vernacular, and the translations should be so prepared as to avoid technicalities and in a manner that would make the teaching of the Gita intelligible to the average man. The suggestion is not intended in any way to supplement the original. For I reiterate my opinion that every Hindu boy and girl should know Sanskrit. But for a long time to come, there will be millions without any knowledge of Sanskrit. It would be suicidal to keep them deprived of the teachings of Bhagavad Gita because they do not know Sanskrit.

Young India,

25-8-1927

-----------------------------------CWMG Vol. 39, Art. 447, Pg. 452----------------------

Did Gandhiji support Casteism?

Did Gandhiji support Casteism? The answer could be both yes and no.
Yes, in the sense that it was practiced in his idealistic way, and No to the way it existed then and today. He wanted to preserve the Varnashrama dharma, which is very different from the caste system of today. Varnashrama did not have discrimination or superior and inferior castes. Its classification was based on behavior and work.
Now here goes his version of casteism and how and why it should be preserved, as reported in Navajivan, on 7-6-1925.


277. INVASION IN THE NAME OF RELIGION
I have received a long letter about the struggle that is going on in the Lad community. The writer has made an honest attempt to provide me with lots of information and shown that all possible steps have been taken to reach a compromise. I am prepared to believe that. But my intention is not to write or suggest something about the Lad community but to place the thoughts provoked by it before Hindu society.
On the one hand, unification is going on for the protection of Hinduism, on the other; the weaknesses which have entered Hinduism are corroding it from within. That is to say, just as a worm in the heart of a thick log of wood goes on eating it, and, even if we put a covering on it from above or apply some solution to it, the wood will ultimately be eaten away, similarly if we do not destroy the worm that has entered the heart of Hinduism and is consuming it, no matter how much we protect it from outside, it will surely be destroyed. In the name of preservation of the castes, the castes are being and have been intermingled. The restraints of caste have disappeared, only its excesses have endured. These restraints were intended to preserve religion; these have now become retrograde and are now corroding it. The castes should be four in number but they have become far too many. The castes having become extinct, communities have become divided into sub-castes and, like cattle wandering about in a backyard being forced into a pen, we who are without a master have been caught up in the mesh of sub-castes and are held prisoner there. The castes gave sustenance to the people; the sub-castes have proved destructive to them. Instead of serving the Hindus or India, we have been engaged in protecting our sub-castes, that is, our shackles, and have been draining our intelligence, and our money in solving problems arising there from. A hunter stands in front of the foolish honeybees intent on destroying their honeycomb, while they are arguing about the control of one another’s residence. When the distinction between Visha and Dasha deserves to be obliterated, how can there be any question whether Visha is greater or Dasha is greater? When the need is to unite the Vania community throughout India, how can there be any room for the distinctions and quarrels between Dasha and Visha, Modh and Lad, Halari and Ghoghari?
The castes came into being because of the professions, while the sub-castes subsist on account of the relationship of marriage, etc. As long as I conform to these restrictions, what does it matter if I run a wine shop, bear arms or sell canned beef from foreign lands? In spite of doing all this, I can be an honoured member of the Vania community. Whether I observe the principle of one-man-one-wife or flirt with many damsels is no concern of my community; and regardless of what I do, I can pass as a rich man of the community, can compose new scriptures for it and can win honour from it. It takes note of where I dine or where I marry off my son or daughter, but it will not scrutinize my conduct. As I have now returned from abroad, I cannot enter the sanctorum of the temple of Kanyakumari, but if I have openly been leading an adulterous life, no one can stop me from entering it! There is no exaggeration in this picture. This is no dharma; this is the extreme limit of adharma. This does not mean protection of caste but its annihilation. I who am keen to preserve the caste system shall prove incapable of doing so if adharma is not done away with. In this travesty going by the name of caste, instead of the destruction of the excess, there is danger of caste itself being annihilated. Now let us see how the innumerable castes can be preserved. A religion in which non-violence predominates protects castes by means of violence. A man who has broken the artificial and improper restrictions of caste is not shown his “mistake” but is instantaneously boycotted. Boycott means his harassment in every way; his meals are stopped, no girl is offered to him in marriage, he is denied obsequies and this punishment descends even to the heirs of the boycotted man! This means leading an army to kill an ant or, to speak in the language of this age, Dyerism. By such harassment, communities of a thousand or two thousand people instead of continuing to live will perish. Destruction is desirable but destruction brought about by force is harmful. If this destruction is brought about deliberately, then alone will it provide sustenance to society. The best remedy is that the mahajans of the various small communities should join together and constitute a single caste, and that this big association should merge with other associations and the four castes should become a single caste. But in the present atmosphere of weakness such a reform would be considered impossible. That is to say following dharma is as easy as it is difficult. Just as every organization can promote the growth of dharma, individuals too can do likewise. An individual should be fearless and follow what he regards as dharma and if he is boycotted he should not worry. He should courteously welcome the three punishments of the caste and should regard them as free from compulsion. There is no benefit in giving caste dinners, very often there is in not giving them. I for one regard it a sin to give dinners after a person’s death. Even if a girl cannot be found for a boy or a boy for a girl in the same community, that too need not cause worry, because it is no punishment to one who does not believe in the existence of sub-castes. There will certainly be no difficulty in getting a suitable match from the reformers of other groups if the boy or girl herself is worthy. But if there is difficulty, dharma consists in putting up with it. To a man of character and restraint these are no troubles at all. He bears with them with a composed mind. If he does not receive help from his community at the time of his death, why should it trouble him? There will be others to help. I have already written about a hearse. We can do with little help if it comes into use. And one who cannot command even that little help should engage labourers. One who is so poor as not to afford even labourers is a creature of God and he should be confident that He would send him succour from any quarter. Satyagraha consists in not being bothered by punishment. Just as satyagraha is a golden weapon with which to fight the Government, so it is to fight the caste-organization, because both the ailments are the same and hence the remedy too is the same. The remedy against oppression is satyagraha. Satyagraha alone can preserve Hinduism or any other religion. It is my humble advice to every lover of religion that he should keep clear of the petty squabbles of the communities and should remain devoted to his duty. His duty is to protect his religion and his country. Protection of dharma does not lie in according unjustified protection to small communities, but in leading a life of religion. Protection of religion means protection of every Hindu. The protection of every Hindu consists only in ourselves being men of character. To acquire character means to follow the vows of truth, brahmacharya, ahimsa, etc. To become fearless means to cease to fear any man, to trust in God and fear Him alone, to know that He is witness to all our actions and all our thoughts and to tremble even to entertain evil thoughts, to help every created being, to regard even a follower of another religion as a friend, to pass our time doing good to others, etc., etc. The existence of sub-castes can, at the present time at any rate, be considered as pardonable if their activity on the whole gives sustenance to religion and country. The caste which uses the whole world to promote its own interests will be destroyed. The caste which permits itself to be used in promoting the welfare of the world will live.
[From Gujarati] Navajivan, 7-6-1925
As appearing in :CWMG Vol. 031, Article no. 277, page 445

(Benefits of) The “Gita” and the “Ramayana”

Gandhiji, through this article, presented the thoughts of a correspondent who had written a letter describing how study of Ramayana and Gita had benefitted him.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many young people, unable to keep away from sin in spite of their best efforts, become despondent and gradually sink deeper into sin. Some even begin to look upon sin as virtue. I often advise such people to read the Gita and the Ramayana again and again. But they don’t find it interesting. For their consolation I give below an extract bearing on the subject form the letter1 of a young man. One would scarcely find young men more despondent and cynical than the writer of this letter was. Sins had made their abode in his body. But the faith he has today should inspire hope in young people. No one who studies the Ramayana and such other works, placing his faith in the experience of those who have conquered their passions, can remain unmoved. Even on the study of ordinary subjects, we often have to spend many years and employ diverse means. How much effort then would be needed to study something which concerns peace not only in the life but hereafter? What can be said of one who in spite of this would spend the minimum time and attention on the Ramayana and the Gita and still expect them to be interesting? The writer of the above letter says that passions invade him the moment he is conscious of being calm. What is true of the body is true of the mind. One whose body is perfectly healthy is never conscious of his health. That consciousness in not necessary at all. Being healthy is the nature of the body. The same is the case with mind. The day we become conscious of it being clean we should understand thatpassions are creeping in. So the way to keep the mind ever clean is to keep it constantly engrossed in good thoughts. That is why Ramayana and the like were invented and sung. One in whose heart Rama dwells permanently, can never be assailed by passions. The truth is that Ramanama ultimately sinks into the heart of one who recites it with true devotion. When this happens, it become an impregnable fortress. Impurity can be combated not by brooding over it, but by contemplating purity. With good intentions we often go in for contrary remedies. We contemplate impurity when we brood: where did it come from? This is to be compared with violent remedies, the true remedy being non-co-operation. When impurity invades us, there is no need to bid it quit.

We must contemplate purity as if impurity did not exist. There is a trace of fear in bidding it quit. Courage lies in not even thinking of it. One should develop the faith that impurity will not even touch one. This method is proved by experience.

[From Gujarati]

Navajivan, 14-4-1929

1 Not translated here. The correspondent had described his study of theRamayana and the Gita had benefited him.

--------------------------------CWMG Vol. 045, Art. 329, Pg. 344------------------------

Meaning of Gita

A correspondent had written to Gandhiji and had argued that chapters I and XI of the Gita did not seem to support Gandhiji’s view that it taught nonviolence. Gandhiji replied the corresspondent and wrote an article in Navjivan. I here present only that part of the article which directly deals with the topic. In the text before this article Gandhiji had written about how he got introduced to Gita, he confessed to meat eating and killing insects and bugs, and his thinking for violent ways to end the Raj and how he realised that he was mistaken. He then explained the discipline required to understand the Shastras completely and then goes on to give examples from Ramayana. Finally he starts explaining the meaning of Gita which I produce here. The complete article can be found in CWMG Vol. 033, Art no. 50, pg. 83.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let us now examine the Gita. Its subject-matter is simply the realization of Brahman and the means thereto; the battle is only the occasion for its teaching. One can say, if one likes, that the poet used it as an occasion because he did not look upon war as morally wrong. On reading the Mahabharata, I formed quite different impression. Vyasa wrote his supremely beautiful epic to depict the futility of war. What did the Kauravas’ defeat and the Pandavas’ victory avail? How many among the victors survived? What was their fate? What was the end of Kunti, mother of the Pandavas? What trace is left today of the Yadava race?

Since the Gita’s subject is not description of the battle and justification of violece, it is perfectly wrong to give much importance to these. If, moreover it is difficult to reconcile a few of the verses with the idea that the Gita advocates non-violence, it is still more difficult to reconcile the teaching of the work as a whole with the advocacy ofviolence.

When a poet composes his work, he does not have a clear conception of all its possible implications. It is the very beauty of good poem that it is greater than its author. The truth which a poet utters in his moment of inspiration, we do not often see him following in his own life. Hence the lives of many poets are at vari-ance with the teaching of their poems. That the overall teaching of the Gita is not violence but non-violence is evident from the argu-ment which begins in Chapter II and ends in chapter XVIII. The in-tervening chapters propound the same theme. Violence is simply not possible unless one is driven by anger, by ignorant love and by hatred. The Gita, on the other hand, wants us to be incapable of anger and attain to a state unaffected by the three gunas1. Such a person can never feel anger. I see even now the red eyes of Arjuna every time he aimed an arrow from his bow, drawing the string as far as his ear.

But, then, had Arjuna’s obstinate refusal to fight anything to do with non-violence? In fact, he had fought often enough in the past. On the present occasion, his reason was suddenly clouded by ignorant attachment. He did not wish to kill his kinsmen. He did not say that he would not kill anyone even if he believed that person to be wicked. Shri Krishna is the Lord dwelling in everyone’s heart. He understands the momentary darkening of Arjuna’s reason. He, therefore, tells him:”You have already committed violence. By talking now like a wise man, you will not learn non-violence. Having started on this course, you must finish the job.” If a passenger travelling in a train which is running at a speed of forty miles an hour suddenly feels aversion to travelling and jumps out of the train, he will have but committed suicide. He has not in truth realized the futility of travelling as such or of travelling by train. Arjuna was in a similar condition. Krishna, who believed in non-violence, could not have given Arjuna any advice other than what he did. But to conclude from this that the Gita teaches violence or justifies war is as unwarranted as to argue that, since violence in some form or other is inescapable for maintaining the body in existence, dharma lies only in violence. The man of discriminating intellect, on the other hand, teaches the duty of striving for deliverance from this body which exists through violence, the duty, that is, of striving for moksha.

But whom does Dhritarashtra represent, and likewise Duryodhana, Yudhishthira, or Arjuna? Whom does Krishna represent? Were they historical personages? Does the Gita relate their actual doings? Is it likely that Arjuna should suddenly, without warning , ask a question when the battle was about to commence, and that krishna should recite the whole Gita in reply? And then, Arjuna, who had said that his ignorance had been dispelled, forgets what he was taught in the Gita, and Krishna is made to repeat his teaching in the Anugita2.

Personally, I believe that Duryodhana and his supporters stand for the Satanic impulses in us, and Arjuna and others stand for Godward impulses. The battle-field is our body. The poet-seer, who knows from experience the problems of life, has given a faithful account of the conflict which is eternally going on within us. Shri Krishna is the Lord dwelling in everyone’s heart who is ever murmuring His promptings in a pure chitta3 like a clock ticking in a room. If the clock of the chitta is not wound up with the key of self-purification, the in-dwelling Lord no doubt remains where he is, but the ticking is heard no more.

I do not wish to suggest that violence has no place at all in the teaching of the Gita. The dharma which it teaches does not mean that a person who has not yet awakened to the truth of non-violence may act like a coward. Anyone who fears others, accumulates possessions and indulges in sense-pleasures will certainly fight with violent means, but violence does not, for that reason, become justified as his dharma. There is only one dharma. Non-violence means moksha, and moksha means realizing Satyanarayana4. But this dharma does not under anycircumstances countenance running away in fear. In this world which baffles our reason, violence there will then always be. The Gita shows the way which will lead us out of it, but it also says that we cannot escape it simply by running away from it like cowards. Anyone who prepares to run away would do better, instead, to kill and be killed.

If the verses cited by the correspondent cannot be understood even after this explanation, I cannot explain them. I am sure no one doubts that God, who is omnipotent, is, and must be, the Creator, the Preserver and the Destroyer of the Universe. He who creates has certainly the right to destroy. Even so, He does not kill, for He does nothing. God is so merciful He does not violate the law that every creature that is born will die one day. If He were to follow His fancies and whims, where should we be?

[From Gujarati]

Navajivan, 11-10-1925

1 Sattva (purity or clarity), rajas (restlessness) and tamas (torpidity)

2 Epilogue to the Gita

3 Mind-stuff

4 Truth as God; God in the form of Truth

--------------------------CWMG Vol. 033, Art no. 50, pg. 83.----------------------------

Women are not Dependent

This is what Gandhi had to say to Women.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who says that woman is dependent on others? The Shastras say nothing of the sort. Sita was Rama’s better half and enjoyed empire over his heart. Neither was Damayanti1 dependent. Who will say, after reading the Mahabharata, that Draupadi2 was dependent on others? Who will call Draupadi dependent, Draupadi who, when the Pandavas failed to protect her, saved herself by an appeal to Lord Krishna? We cherish as sacred the names of seven women as chaste and virtuous wives. Were they dependent? A woman who has the strength to preserve her purity, to defend her virtue—to call such a woman dependent is to murder language and violate dharma.

[From Gujarati]Navajivan, 31-5-1925

1 Wife of King Nala, in the Mahabharata
2 Wife of the five Pandava princes, in the Mahabharata

--------------------------------CWMG Vol. 31, Art. 203, Pg. 338-------------------------

Power of Ramanama

A correspondent had written a letter mentioning Gandhiji’s statement in a speech that he had thrice been saved from sin by Ramanama. Pointing out that a local paper, Saurashtra, had commented on this statement and drawn inferences which were not clear, he had asked Gandhiji himself to explain what he had meant.Gandhiji answered the corresspondent in Navjivan. What I produce here is a part of the letter which directly deals with the question. In the text which I have not produced here, Gandhiji had requested such readers to send the copy of the newspaper report they wish to speak about and pointed out the reasons for that. This letter not only shows the Mahatma's belief in god, but also shows his truthfulness.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the first occasion, I went to the place1 out of false regard for the friend and, if God had not saved me, I would certainly have fallen. This time the woman whose house I had entered herself threw me out with contempt. I simply did not know what to say or how to behave in such a situation. Prior to this incident, I always regarded it as shameful even to sit near a public woman, so that I was trembling even when entering that house. After going in, I could not even look at her face and I do not know what her face was like. What could that smart woman do to such a fool but turn him out? She said a few angry words to me and asked me to go away. At that time, of course, I did not realize that God had saved me. I left feeling miserable. I felt crest fallen and even unhappy about my stupidity! I felt that I lacked manliness. It was later I realized that I had been shielded by my stupidity. God had saved me by making me behave like a fool. Else how could I, who had entered a house of ill-fame with evil intention, have been saved?

The second occasion was more dreadful than the first one. I was not so innocent then as I was at the time of the first incident, though I was of course more vigilant. Moreover, I had the protection of a vow administered to me by my revered mother.2 But this time the place was in England. I was in the very flush of youth. Two of us friends were lodged in one house. We had gone there only for a few days. The land-lady was as good as a prostitute. Two or three of us sat down to play cards with her. In those days I used to play cards on occasion. In England, a mother and a son can, and do, play cards for innocent amusement. On this occasion too, we sat down to play, following the usual custom. The beginning was completely innocent. I, of course, did not know that the landlady lived on her body. But as the play warmed up, the atmosphere changed. The woman started making gestures. I was observ-ing my friend. He had abandoned all restraints. I felt tempted. I was flushed in the face, for lust had entered me and I had become impatient. But who can harm him whom Rama protects? To be sure, His name was not on my lips at that hour, but He ruled my heart. On mylips was the language of lust. My good friend noticed my behaviour. We knew each other very well. He had seen me in difficult sutuations in which I had, with an effort of will, kept my purity. But he saw that on this occasion evil had entered my mind and that, it the night progressed while I was in that mood, I too would fall like him.

It was this friend who first made me realize that even immoral men have good instincts. He felt unhappy to see me in that plight. I was younger than he. Rama came to my help through his person. He aimed arrows of love at me: “Moniya!” (This is an affectionate form of “Mohandas”. I remember that I used to be called by that name by my mother, my father and the eldest cousin in our family. The fourth person to call me so was this friend who, through his goodness, proved a brother to me.) “Moniya, be careful. You know that I have fallen.But I shall not let you fall. Recall the promise you have made to your mother. This thing is not for you. Be off from here. Go to bed. Are you gone? Throw off the cards.”

I do not remember whether I replied to him. I put down the cards. For a moment I felt unhappy. I felt ashamed and my heart began to beat fast. I got up and went to bed.

I woke up. I started repeating the name of Rama.“How miraculously I have been saved, how He has saved me! All honour to my promise! All glory to my mother! All glory to my friend ! All glory to Rama!”—I kept saying to myself. For me this was indeed a miracle. If my friend had not shot at me the invincible arrows of Rama, where would I have been today?

He on whom Rama’s arrows have lighted—

he knows what they are.

He on whom love’s arrows have lighted—

he knows what they are.

For me, this was an occasion when I first became aware of the existence of God.If today the whole of world told me that there is no God, no Rama, I would say it lied. If I had fallen on that terrible night, I would not today be waging battles of satyagraha, would not be washing away the filth of untouchability, would not be repeating the holy name of the spinning-wheel, would not regard myself fit to be blessed by the darshan of millions of women, and would not be surrounded by hundreds of thousands of them who sit near me without fear as they sit around a child. I would always be running away from them, and they would have quite justifiable kept themselves at a distance from me. I look upon this occasion as the most perilous in my life. Seeking pleasure I learnt self-restraint. On the path to forsake Rama’s name, I had his darshan. A miracle indeed.

Oh scion of Raghu’s race, protect my honour,

I am a fallen man, old in my evil ways;

Take my boat safely to the other shore.

The third incident is amusing. During one of my journeys, I came into fairly close contact with the ship’s captain, as also with an English passenger. In every port where the ship weighed anchor, the captain and some passengers would go and search for brothels. The captain once invited me to go with him and see the port. I did not know what that meant. We went and stood before a prostitute’s house. Then I knew what was meant by going to see a port. Three women were produced before us. I was completely taken aback, but felt too embarrassed to say anything. Nor could I run away. I had of course no wish to indulge in this immoral pleasure. Those two went into the rooms. The third woman led me into her own room. While I was still thinking what I should do, the other two came out of the rooms. I donot know what that woman must have thought about me. She stood smiling before me, but that did not have the slightest effect on me. Since we spoke different languages, there was no question of my talking to her. Those friends shouted for me and so I went out. I certainly felt a little humiliated. They had seen that I was a fool in these matters. They even joked between themselves on this point. They pitied me, of course. From that day, I was enrolled among the fools of the world, as far as the captain was concerned. He never invited me again to see a port. If I had remained in the room longer or if I had known that woman’s language, I do not know what would have been my plight. But I certainly realized that day, too, I was not saved by my own power, but that it was God who had protected me by having made me stupid in such matters.

I remembered only these three incidents at the time of the speech in question. The reader should not think that I have not been through more of similar experiences. But I certainly wish to state that every time I escaped, thanks to Ramanama. God gives strength only to the weak who approach Him in utter helplessness.

So long as the elephant trusted to his own strength,

So long his efforts availed him not.

Let the weak appeal to Rama’s strength,

He will come to help before the name is uttered in full.

What, then, does this Ramanama mean? Is it something to be repeated parrot-like? Certainly not. It that were so, all of us would win deliverance by repeating it mechanically. Ramanama ought to be repeated from the depth of one’s heart; it would not then matter if the words are not pronounced correctly. The broken words which proceed from the heart are acceptable in God’s court. Even though the heart cries out “Mara, mara”, this appeal of the heart will be recorded in one’s credit column. On the contrary, though the tongue may pronounce the name of Rama correctly, if the lord of that heart is Ravana, the correct repetition of Rama’s name will be recorded in one’s debit column.

Tulsidas did not sing the glory of Ramanama for the benefit of the hypocrite who “has Rama’s name on his lips and a knife under his arm”. His wise calculations will go wrong, while the seeming errors of the man who has installed Rama in his heart will succeed. Rama alone can repair one’s fortunes and so the poet Surdas lover of God, sings:

Who will repair my fortunes?

O who else but Rama?

Everyone is a friend of his on whom good fortune smiles,

None of his whom fortune has forsaken.

The reader, therefore, should understand clearly that Ramanama is a matter of the heart. Where speech and the mind are not in harmony with each other, mere speech is falsehood, no more than pretence or play of words. Such chanting may well deceive the world, but can Rama who dwells in man’s heart be deceived? Hanuman broke open the beads in the necklace which Sita gave him as a gift, wanting to see whether they were inscribed with Rama’s name. Somecourtiers who thought themselves wise asked him why he showed disrespect to Sita’s necklace. Hanuman’s reply was that, if the beads were not inscribed with Rama’s name inside, then every necklace given to him by Sita was a burden to him.The wise courtiers there upon smilingly asked him if Rama’s name was inscribed in his heart. Hanuman drew out his knife and, cutting open his chest, said : “Now look inside. Tell me if you see anything else there except Rama’s name.” The courtiers felt ashamed. Flowers rained on Hanuman from the sky, and from that day Hanuman’s name is always invoked when Rama’s story is recited.

This may be only a legend or a dramatist’s invention. Its moral is valid for all time : only that which is in one’s heart is true.

[From Gujarati]

Navajivan, 17-5-1925

---------------------------CWMG Vol. 31, Art. 211, page 346------------------------------

(Revolutionary) At it Again

The revolutionary who was carrying on the dialogue with the Mahatma trying to impress that the revolutionary movement was better than the non violent movement came back again with some questions which the Mahatma has answered in this article.

Text in Italics - Questions

Normal Text - Answers

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AT IT AGAIN

My revolutionary friend has returned to the charge, but I must tell him that he has not been as patient with his composition as before. He has introduced in his letter under discussion much irrelevant matter and has argued loosely. So far as I can see, he has exhausted all his argument and has nothing new to say. But should he write again, I advise him to write his letter more carefully and boil down his thoughts. I have been obliged to do that for him this time. But as he is seeking light, let him read carefully what I write, then think out his thoughts calmly and then write out clearly and briefly. If it is merely questions he has to ask, let him simply write them out without arguing to convince me. I do not pretend to know everything about the revolutionary movement, but as I have been obliged to think, observe and write a great deal, there is very little new that he can tell me. Whilst, therefore, I promise to keep an open mind, I ask him, please, to spare a busy servant of the nation and a true friend of the revolutionary the labour of reading much that he need not read. I am anxious to keep in touch with the revolutionary and I can only do so through these columns. I have a soft corner for him in my heart, for there is one thing in common between him and me—the ability to suffer. But as I humbly believe him to be mistaken and misguided, I desire to wean him from his error or in the process myself be weaned from mine.

My revolutionary friend's first question is :

“The revolutionaries have retarded the progress of the country.” Do you differ with your own view, when you wrote in connection with the Bengal Partition : ‘After the Partition people saw that petitions must be backed up by force, and that they must be capable of suffering. This spirit must be considered to be the chief result of the Partition . . . . That which the people said tremblingly and in secret began to be said and written openly. . . . People, young and old, used to run away at the sight of an English face; it no longer awed them. They did not fear even a row, or being imprisoned. Some of the ‘best sons of India’ are at present in banishment.”1 The movement which followed the Partition or more correctly which was the manifestation of the unrest of the people was the revolutionary movement, and the best sons of India you speak of are mostly revolutionaries or semi-revolutionaries. How is it that these so-called ignorant and misguided persons were able to reduce, if not remove, the cowardice of India? Would you be so intolerant as to call the revolutionaries ignorant, because they cannot understand your peculiar dogma of non-violence?

There is no difference between the view expressed in Indian Home Rule2 from which the writer has quoted and the views now expressed by me. Those who led the Partition movement, whatever and whoever they were, undoubtedly shed the fear of Englishmen. That was a distinct service to the country. But bravery and selfsacrifice need not kill. Let my friend remember that indian Home Rule, as the booklet itself states, was written in answer to the revolutionary's arguments and methods. It was an attempt to offer the revolutionary something infinitely superior to what he had, retaining the whole of the spirit of self-sacrifice and bravery that was to be found in the revolutionary. I do not call the revolutionary ignorant merely because he does not understand or appreciate my method, but because he does not even appear to me to understand the art of warfare. Every one of the warriors whom my friend quotes knew his art and had his men.

The second question is :

Was Terence MacSwiney a “spotless lamb” when he died of hungerstrike of 71 days? Please remember that he was to the last an advocate of conspiracy, bloodshed and terrorism, and maintained his ideas expressed in his famous book Principles of Freedom. If you can call MacSwiney a “spotless lamb”, will you not be ready to use the same term for Gopimohan Shaha3 ?

I am sorry to say I do not know enough of the life of MacSwiney to be able to give an opinion. But if he advocated ‘conspiracy, bloodshed and terrorism”, his method was open to the same objections that have been advanced in these pages. I never regarded him as a “spotless lamb”. I gave my humble opinion when his fast was declared, that from my standpoint it was an error. I do not justify every fast.

The third question is :

You believe in varnas. Therefore, it is self-evident that you hold the Kshatriyas to be of the same utility as any other varna. The revo- lutionaries profess to be Kshatriyas in this Nikshatriya epoch in India. Kshatat trayate iti Kshatriyah. I consider this state of India to be the greatest Kshata which India has ever met with, in other words this is the time when the need of Kshatriyas in India is the uttermost. Manu, the Prince of Hindu lawgivers prescribes four ways for the Kshatriya: “sama, dana, danda, bheda”. In this connection I reproduce a passage from Vivekananda, which I think will greatly help you to comprehend the matter full well.

“All great teachers have taught ‘Resist not evil”, have taught that the non-resisting is the highest moral ideal. We all know that if, in the present state of world, people try to carry out this doctrine, the whole social fabric would fall to pieces, society would be destroyed, the violent and the wicked will take possession of our property, and possibly take our lives also. Even one day of such non-resistance would lead to the utter dissolution of the country”. I know what you will do in this awkward position, you will try to interpret it differently, but you shall find that he left no room for such misinterpretation, because he instantly adds, “Some of you have read perhaps the Bhagavad Gita and many of you in Western countries may have felt astonished at the first chapter wherein our Shri Krishna calls Arjuna a hypocrite and coward, on account of his refusal to fight or offer resistance, because his adversaries were his friends and relatives—his refusal on the plea that non-resistance was the highest ideal of love. There is a great lesson for us all to learn, that in all things the two extremes are alike; the extreme positive and the extreme negative are always similar; when the vibrations of light are too slow we do not see them nor do we see them when they are too rapid; so also with sound, when very low in pitch we do not hear it, when very high we do not hear it either. Of like nature is the difference between resistance and non-resistance . . . We must first care to understand whether we have the power of resistance or not. Then having the power, if we renounce it and do not resist, we are doing a grand act of love; but if we cannot resist and yet at the same time make it appear and ourselves believe that we are actuated by motives of highest love, we shall be doing the exact opposite of what is morally good. Arjuna became coward at the sight of the mightly array against him, his 'love' made him forget his duty towards his country and King. That is why Shri Krishna told him that he was a hypocrite: ‘Thou talkest like a wise man, but thy actions betray thee to be a coward, therefore stand up and flight.” I want to add nothing more except a few questions. Do you think that your so-called heart-and-soul non-violent disciples can resist this alien bureaucrat government by physical force? If yes, on what ground; if not, how then does your non-violence remain the weapon of the strong? Please answer these questions in the most unmistakable terms, so that no one can make different interpretations.

Along with it I shall ask you the following questions, which directly arise from your statement. In your swaraj, is there any place for sol- diers? Will your swaraj government keep armies? If so, will they fight—I mean use physical force, when necessary, or will they offer satyagraha against their opponents?

I have room in my philosophy of life for Kshatriyas. But my definition of him I take from the Gita. He who does not run away from battle, i.e., danger, is a Kshatriya. As the world progresses, the same terms acquire new values. Manu and the other law-givers did not lay down eternal principles of conduct. They enunciated certain eternal maxims of life and laid down for their age rules of conduct more or less in accord with those maxims. I am unable to subscribe to the methods of bribery and deceit even for gaining entrance into heaven, much less for gaining India’s freedom, for heaven will not be heaven and freedom will not be freedom if either is gained through such methods.

I have not verified the quotation said to be from Vivekananda. It has neither the freshness nor the brevity that mark most of that great man’s writings. But whether it is from his writings or not, it does not satisfy me. If a large number of people carry out the doctrine of nonresistance, the present state of the world will not be what it is. Those individuals who have carried it out have not lost anything. They have not been butchered by the violent and the wicked. On the contrary, the latter have shed both their violence and wickedness in the presence of the non-violent and the good.

I have already stated my meaning of the Gita. It deals with the eternal duel between good and evil. And who does not, like Arjuna, often quail when the dividing line between good and evil is thin and when the right choice is so difficult?

I heartily endorse, however, the statement that he alone is truly non-violent who remains non-violent even though he has the ability to strike. I do, therefore, claim that my disciple (I have only one and that is myself) is quite capable of striking, very indifferently and perhaps ineffectively, I admit; but he has no desire to do so. I have had in my life many an opportunity of shooting my opponents and earning the crown of martyrdom, but I had not the heart to shoot any of them. For I did not want them to shoot me, however much they disliked my methods. I wanted them to convince me of my error as I was trying to convince them of theirs. “Do unto others as you would that they should do unto you.”

Alas! In my swaraj of today there is room for soldiers. Let the revolutionary friend know that I have described the disarmament and consequent emasculation of a whole people as the blackest crime of the British. I have not the capacity for preaching universal nonviolence to the country. I preach, therefore, non-violence restricted strictly to the purpose of winning our freedom and, therefore, perhaps for preaching the regulation of international relations by non-violent means. But my incapacity must not be mistaken for that of doctrine of the non-violence. I see it with my intellect in all its effulgence. My heart grasps it. But I have not yet the attainments for preaching universal non-violence with effect. I am not advanced enough for the great task. I have yet anger within me, I have yet the dwaita bhava— duality in me. I can regulate my passions. I keep them under subjection, but before I can preach universal non-violence with effect, I must be wholly free from passions. I must be wholly incapable of sin. Let the revolutionary pray with and for me that I may soon become that. But, meanwhile, let him take with me the one step to it which I see as clearly as day-light, i.e., to win India’s freedom with strictly non-violent means. And, then, under swaraj, you and I shall have a disciplined, intelligent, educated police force that would keep order within and fight raiders from without if, by that time, I or someone else does not show a better way of ealing with either.

Young India, 7-5-1925

1 Vide “Hind Swaraj - Chapter II : The Partition of Bengal”, 22-11-1909.
2 Vide “Hind Swaraj”, 22-11-1909.
3 Slip for Gopi Nath Saha; vide “Interview to The Times of India”, 5-6-1924.

------------------------CWMG Vol 31, Art. 169, Pg. 285-----------------------------------

Seeker of Truth

These are thoughts of a person, who was at first a Non Co-Operator and then thought that Non Co-Operation is merely a Social Movement and the revolutionary is the true political movement and then again started to think that the path of non violence is correct.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“SEEKER AFTER TRUTH”

One who describes himself a seeker after truth sends me his own reflections arising out of my discussion of revolutionary views. He tells me that at first he was a non-co-operator, then, he began to think that non-co-operation was merely a social movement and that therevolutionary was the only true political movement. At Belgaum again, he began to think anew. I condense below his reflections without in any way whatsoever changing the sense or his language:

The Revolutionary is certainly patriotic. He is a Hero. He is prepared to give up his life in the cause of Motherland. But his very aim is wrong. What is it the Revolutionary wants? Freedom for the country. So far quite right. Why is the freedom required? So that the people may be happy. This also is right. How can the people be happy? By changing the system of Government.

Now here comes the real point.

Let us just consider our state. We Indians have ever so many virtues. But what of our weaknesses? We have become cowards. We have taken to several vices. Amongst the Hindus we have the untouchables. We till the ground and produce grains, vegetables and such things which could very easily feed us all. All the same, the fact remains that the major portion of us are half-starving. We all weave and work in mills. Still we are but half-clad. We have got enough clay. We know how to make bricks and build beautiful houses. Still there areseveral of us who have no other place than beneath trees to live. No doubt the foreigners are, to a very large extent, to blame for our difficulties. Wrong though it may be, that is our sincere opinion. But what of our own share of the responsibility? Are we not at all to blame? Or suppose that we, with the help of the revolvers or such things, do drive away the enemies? Is it not possible for any other foreigner to occupy the position of the present foreigner? After all warfare is but a sort of gambling.

I do not propose to deal with the utility or otherwise of non-violence, maintaining armies and such things. I consider myself absolutely incompetent to discuss this subject. Suffice it to say that I am beginning to understand Gandhiji’s views on this subject and his views appear to me to be right. The United States of America, it is generally said, have a very good Government. What of the several plots, the several murders, dacoities, swindlings, etc., that take place there? The Bolshevik system is considered to be good. Why then the daily increasing capital punishment, riots and such things? Any number of such examples can be given.

To dispose of Gandhiji's ideas as merely idealistic and impracticable is wrong; much more so for a revolutionary to do so. For he has really the welfare of the people at heart. It is not impossible to bring about a situation where the world will be an abode of happiness. The best thing, of course, is to do good to others. But at present you need not even go so far. Do good to your own self. Don’t you waste a good portion of your time? Don’t you send out crores of your rupees to other countries by purchasing their cotton goods? Spin and make good use of your time. Weave your own cloth and use the same and save your crores.

This spinning, I take it, does not merely mean spinning of cotton yarn. I take it to mean home industry. It is a solution as much for any other country as for India. Removal of untouchability, Hindu-Muslim unity and such things are internal. It is self-purification. Everyone has his own dirt to wash. The Hindus have the untouchability, the Indians, the Hindu-Muslim rupture. It is thus for every country to wash itself of its own curse. The revolutionary will thus see that he has more useful work in spreading this wonderful cure of the world-illness. He serves not only himself and his countrymen, but he serves the whole world.

When you have purified yourself, and when you have become selfsufficient how on earth can anyone levy tax or collect by any other means money from you without your co-operation? It is impossible to govern without the co-operation of the governed. Now we, the governed, are not pure, we are not self-sufficient. But we will soon become such. This is the real meaning of non-violent non-co-operation. Fear none but your conscience. Why do you hide and throw bombs on the foreigner? Come out and tell him boldly that we hold him to a large extent responsible for our weaknesses, fear not if he sends you to jail. Tell him also that you propose as much to change him as your own self. Thus you will be doing good both to your own self and to the person whom you now consider to be your enemy.

Young India, 30-4-1925

-----------------------------------CWMG Vol. 31, Art. 145, Page. 228--------------------

To ‘Revolutionary in the Making’

Someone had written a letter to Gandhiji putting his arguments explaining that revolutionary does no violence when he takes the life of his adversary and probably also intended to himself being a revolutionary in the making. The following is Gandhiji's reply to 'Revolutionary in making'.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TO ‘REVOLUTIONARY IN THE MAKING’

You will pardon me for not reproducing your letter. I would have gladly published it, if it was a presentable letter—not that the language of your letter is at all in bad taste or violent. On the contrary, you have attempted to present your case fairly and calmly, but theargument is loosely and unconvincingly put. What you want to say is that the revolutionary does no violence because when he takes the life of his adversary, he does so to benefit him, i.e., his soul, even as a surgeon performs a painful operation on a patient for his (the latter’s) good. You argue that the adversary has a vile body which vitiates the soul and that the sooner it is destroyed, the better for him.

Now, the analogy of the surgeon is wrong because he is concerned merely with the body. He operates on the body to benefit the body. His science ignores the soul. Who can say how many bodies have been repaired by surgeons at the expense of the soul? But the revolutionary destroys the body for the supposed benefit of the adversary’s soul. In the first instance, I do not know a single revolutionary who has ever thought of the adversary’s soul. His singleaim has been of benefit the country even though the adversary may perish, body and soul. In the second instance, since you believe in the Law of Karma, a compulsory destruction of a body merely paves the way for the creation of a tougher body for the same soul. For the manwhose body is destroyed will weave for himself a body after his own longing. That, to my mind, is the meaning of the persistence of evil and the crimes we see about us. The more we punish, the more persistent crimes become. They may change colour, but the substance is the same. The way to serve the adversary’s soul is to appeal to the soul. It defies destruction, but it is amenable to appeals tuned to the required pitch. Souls must react upon souls. And since non-violence is essentially a quality of the soul, the only effective appeal to the soul must lie through non-violence. And do we not arrogate to ourselves infallibility when we seek to punish our adversaries ? Let us remember that they regard us to be as harmful to society as we regard them. It is idle to drag in the name of Krishna. Either we believe him to be the very God or we do not. If we do, we impute to him omniscience and omnipotence. Such a one can surely destroy. But we are puny mortals ever erring and ever revising our views and opinions. We may not without coming to grief ape Krishna, the inspirer of the Gita. You should remember too that the so-called Christians of the Middle Ages thought exactly as you believe revolutionaries think. They burnt heretics for the benefit of the latter’s souls. We of today laugh at the atrocious folly of these ignorant so-called Christians of the Middle Ages. We now know that the inquisitors were wrong, their victims were totally innocent.

I am glad you are turning the wheel. Its silent revolution will bring you peace and bring the freedom you love much nearer than you imagine. Do not mind your fickle friends who have deserted you leaving behind a legacy of “bug-ridden bed born” slivers. If I were you, I would recard these slivers. You may not know carding. If you do not, you must go to the nearest man who knows it and learn the beautiful art of carding. He is an indifferent spinner who knows not how to card. You need not be afraid that the method of non-violenceis a slow long-drawn-out process. It is the swiftest the world has seen, for it is the surest. You will see that it will overtake the revolutionaries whom you imagine I have misjudged. To point out errors is not to misjudge. I am devoting so much space to them because I want their exhaustless energy to be directed in the right channel.

Young India, 30-4-1925

-----------------------------------------CWMG Vol. 30, Art. 142, Pg. 223-----------------