Gandhi,
Religion And
Indian Nationalism
By Ram Puniyani
05 October, 2007
Countercurrents.org
The
Gandhi anniversary this year has been very special (2007). With UN declaring
2nd October as the International Day for Non-Violence, with the renewed
interest in Gandhi all over the globe one needs to revisit the Father
of Indian Nation and his yeomen contribution in the articulation of
the concepts of non-violence and nationalism in Indian context. At another
level his own unique definitions and practice of religion and definition
of God as truth and non-violence have their own matchless place in the
history of human thought.
Even before coming to India,
the Mahatma had sharpened his philosophy and political methods. When
he returned from South Africa, India was in the grip of religiosity
and broad masses were part of the churning process due to the on going
social changes. Broadly they were not yet major part of freedom movement.
Gandhi on one hand had the exposure to liberal British political system
and on the other had experienced the repressive South African regime,
which was practicing apartheid. In India the social changes were slow
to come by. The elite through different political formations dominated
political process at that point of time. We had Indian National Congress,
mainly espousing Indian nationalism, where the elite were the main participants.
In Muslim League and Hindu Mahasabha, the landlords and princes were
the core participants, later they were joined in by those few who came
from the background of modern education. They were not from the landed
gentry but they did develop political ideologies suiting the interests
of feudal classes. Gandhi's decision, to launch non-cooperation movement,
and to involve broad layers of society, alienated some of elites from
within Congress. Those from communal organizations were not concerned
about freedom movement anyway. Some from the Congress left in due course
of time to join the communal formations. Gandhi was firm on the involvement
of whole nation in the process of national movement.
This ensured that our freedom movement would emerge as the biggest mass
movement not only of India but any time in the World. This had the participation
of people of all the religions, castes and of both the genders. This
movement was also to define the contours of Indian constitution while
laying the path to freedom from British colonialism. His major opponents
were in Muslim League and Hindu Mahasabha, which later were joined in
by the RSS. These formations were reflecting the interests of landed
gentry and upheld the birth based caste and gender hierarchies. He faced
the tough task of taking all the sections of society along to the path
of Independence of the nation. In this, those on the side of secularism
and democracy had some differences with him, but their common point
of acceptance was the values of democracy and secularism His differences
with Ambedkar and Bhagatsingh are highlighted by sections of society
to the limit of exaggeration. They deliberately overlook that the grounds
of agreement on major fields of political terrain did exist and were
and are crucial in understanding the diverse paths towards modern India.
The Poona Pact with Ambedkar did deprive the dalits them separate electorate,
but it also kept them in the fold of emerging India. The separate electorate
to Muslims did in a way led to the foundation of Pakistan.
He did not make efforts to
save the life of Bhagat Singh who was given the death penalty by the
colonial powers. Here he was sticking to his principles of non-violence,
which for him was the central credo of value system.
His differences with Muslim
League, Hindu Mahasabha and RSS were more on the fundamental issues.
These political formations were for Religion based nationalism, Muslim
and Hindu. Subtly they were also upholders of birth based caste and
gender hierarchy. These were the differences, which were used by the
British to partition India. His central place in the freedom movement
and his espousing the cause of all did get hostile reaction from Muslim
communalism and Hindu Communalism both. These formations projected him
to be against their religion, while his opposition was not to religions
but to the politics in the name of religion. Nothing could be more contradictory
in the approach to religion, than the approach of communalists and Gandhi.
The communalists, both Muslim and Hindu, used the religious identity
of their religion, by-passing the issues related to values and social
reform. They used it to exclude the 'other', while Gandhi on the other
hand saw religion mainly as a moral force, a set of values, which should
guide the individual in her/his life. He hardly talked of identity and
his religion was innovatively inclusive of the other.
While Muslim League talked
of Islamic Nation, Pakistan, and Hindu Mahasbha/RSS talked of Hindu
nation, Gandhi talked of secular India, articulating the aspirations
of majority of the country. He wanted religion to be a private matter
for the individual, "In India, for whose fashioning I have worked
all my life, every man enjoys equality of status, whatever his religion
is. The state is bound to be wholly secular", and, "religion
is not the test of nationality but is a personal matter between man
and God, and," religion is a personal affair of each individual,
it must not be mixed up with politics or national affairs". It
is clear that while communalists saw religion as the dividing institution,
Gandhi in his unique way, more in continuation with Bhakti and Sufi
traditions saw religion as the ground which united people, "I consider
myself as good a Muslim as I am a Hindu and for that matter, I regard
myself as equally good a Christian or a Parsi" This quote of his
has to be seen along with his two other more often cited quotes,"
For me, politics bereft of religion is absolute dirt, ever to be shunned",
and "politics divorced from religion is like a corpse, fit only
to be burnt." (all quotes from Gandhi and Communal Problems, CSSS,
1994 pg 6). This again is so exceptional in its innovation in understanding.
Here by religion he meant its morality aspects not just the ones related
to external identity.
While he had differences
from Ambedkar, he took up the cause of untouchables in his own way.
Ambedkar hammered his point in an uncompromising way and Gandhi did
his all to take the eradication of untouchably far and wide. As secularization
process had not gone far in the country which was/is in the grip of
religiosity, he realized that policies and values laced in the language
of religion will reach the people in an effective way. His contribution
in the eradication of this evil of untouchability cannot be underestimated.
His use of the word Harijan for the untouchables was again in tune with
his language, which he devised to communicate with the masses. It was
not that he wanted to humiliate them by using a separate derogatory
term for them. It was to lift them up in the popular perception.
At the same time Ambedkar
correctly rebelled against the rigid chains of prevalent Brahminic Hinduism,
Gandhi wanted to take along the majority of social sections towards
the process of reform. At this point the Hindu communalists were talking
of values of Manusmiriti, we are already having the best of social laws
in this book, they claimed. There are also incidents when people like
Savarkar also worked for temple entry for untouchables, but such moves
are mere exceptions. His impact on the process to improve the condition
of women reached all over, at a time when the communalists were putting
all obstacles for women coming out for education and to participate
in social life. It is no surprise that we do not see women's participation
in the communal organization while National movement led by Gandhi has
huge participation by women, and there are illustrious women who led
by example in the fold of national movement.
The divide between Gandhi
and communalists, both Hindu and Muslim, was not merely for the political
goals; it ran deeper, to the way of looking at society. It was about
the approach to the social and human values. A section of Hindu communalists
perceived Gandhi as the "biggest enemy of Hindu". Nathuram
Godse symbolized this section. He killed the father of nation. He began
his career as the trained pracharak of RSS and was later to become the
Secretary of Pune Branch of Hindu Mahasabha. The paper he edited had
the title, Agrani and was subtitled as Hindu Rashtra. Even today while
Hindu right pays lip service to the Mahtama, they do not regard him
as the father of the Nation, and look down upon his principles of non
violence as being emasculating to Hindus and so should be forgotten.
Their discomfort during the present revival of interest in Gandhi's
values is palpable through their reaction as seen in number of list
serves and web sites run by them, and through other expressions of theirs'.
Today sixty years down the
line, the world has come far. The increase in violence all over the
world, the politics wearing the clothes of religion has intensified
the 'Hate other' ideology. Can we look up to Gandhi to confront the
misuse of religion for political agenda of the mighty at global as well
as local level? Can we pick up some of the values from him rather than
just bypass him or merely pay lip service to his ideals?
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.