The political views of Mahatma Gandhi

     By the Gandhian conception of democratic decentralization, the higher units of the government get their strength and power from the lower units. As a result, the panjayat has to be the basic unit of democratic decentralization and the higher units will have to tender sound advice, give expert guidance and information, and co-ordinate the activities of the village panchayats with a view to increasing the efficiency and skill of administration and public service. These village panchayats have some important functions. The functions of the village panchayats would be very wide and comprehensive covering almost all aspects of social, economic and political life of the village community. Education, Recreation, Protection, Agriculture, Industries, Trade and Commerce, Sanitation and Medical Relief, Justice, Finance and Taxation these are the functions of the village panchayat. Therefore, Gandhi wants village panchayats to perform a variety of functions covering practically all aspects of the village welfare.

     Ahimsa, Satyagraha, Swaraj, Swadeshi, Sarvodaya all are the instrument to achieve decentralized political structure. Individual freedom and empowerment ensures in this decentralized democracy. In this society there is no place to hierarchy and any other variations. Gandhian conception politics of democratic decentralization is very much important and relevant to the present day situation of the political as well as social field for welfare of the world. Comparatively the concept of democracy is the best to governance, especially Gandhian model of decentralized democracy is very suitable to create equality and paternity. So it is called democracy of with in democracy. The system of Panchayatiraj has enormously helped to implement successful democracy. This is giving great opportunity to villagers to participate decision making and governance process. Gandhi’s concept of political decentralization not only helped to people in the field of politics and also helped to social and economic. This is the method of all round development of the people. This is the Gandhian political ideal as based on ethical and spiritual grounds raising real democratic values. In the state of Gandhian enlightened anarchy, there is no place for injustice, immoral actions, any kind of variations based on caste or religion, possessions or non-possessions, sex etc. Equality and paternity only remaining there and people are enjoying their life peacefully. 
 

2.3 The Gandhian Legacy of Hindu-Muslim Relations 

     The great historian Eric Hobsbawm described the 20-th century as the century of extremes. Economic growth through burgeoning industrialisation, scientific breakthroughs in the fight against disease and rising standards and human survival, the end of colonial domination, and the spread of democracy were some of the outstanding achievements of that period, but, on the other hand, bloody wars, two of them known as world wars, fought in the name of nationalism and racist ideologies, killed altogether 110 million people (35 million in World War I and 75 million in World War II). Also, despite enormous economic growth and end of colonialism poverty and poverty-related other forms of human degradation continued to afflict the wretched of the earth most of whom were found in Africa, Asia and Latin America. The 20-th century ended without the extremes being eliminated or a middle path getting established. One cannot deny, however, that the 20-st century epitomised the leadership of the West. That leadership became a fact of history from at least the beginning of the 19-th century when European powers completed their expansion into Asia and Africa, while in the 20-th century those empires received severe blows emanating from within the Western civilisation.

     Mahatma Gandhi lived and worked out his social and political philosophy in the 20-th century although his long stay in South Africa began already in the end of the 19-th century. He faced discrimination and racism in that British colony and later developed novel methods of challenging the abuse of power and authority. Among those methods the most famous is Satyagraha, or non-violent civil disobedience and resistance. It not only influenced the Indian freedom struggle but also struggles for national liberation and social emancipation in many other parts of the world.

These days one hears quite so often that the 21-st century is going to be an Asian century. Such optimism is justified because after several centuries we find Asian societies exuding great dynamism and progress. East Asia, South East Asia, China and now India are emerging as engines of great economic growth and many hope that this contagion will spread westwards into the mainly Muslim-majority countries of west and central Asia. But a 21-st Asian century characterised by economic growth and rapid industrialisation and urbanisation will be very different from Gandhiji’s worldview of a good society constituted by self-sufficient villages based mainly on a natural economy. Rather his idyllic good society will be a sure casualty of the 21-st century market economy Juggernaut impacting Asia. But one can wonder if it will suffice to pursue economic growth and become successful consumers of ever increasing gadgetry? In that case will this not be a century of extremes too or perhaps of contrasts between the successful and the failed; the haves and the have-nots; the powerful and the weak? Will it not then be a continuation of the Western century but with some Asian trappings?

     After all, the 20-th century bequeathed one of the most dangerous legacies of international terrorism. A well-trained, international network of Islamic warriors laced with jihadi ideology sponsored by the United States and Saudi Arabia was deployed against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Those jihadis then turned there guns against the West once Afghanistan was freed of Soviet occupation. It culminated in the terrorist attacks of 9/11 in the United States.

     Thousands of innocent lives were lost in that outrage. In some bizarre sense it unleashed a clash of civilisations, thus perpetuating societal dichotomies as in the past; but instead of class and race, ‘civilisations’ became the basis of polarisation. Such a situation is going to become even more complicated in the future as globalisation imposes increasing, cultural and religious heterogeneity on the world. How would two fellows living next door to each other deal with each other if they happen to belong to two different civilisations? Would even deadlier weapons and surveillance systems suffice to contain the threats posed by those who become civilisational enemies and threats? How will terrorism and minority bashing and killing be dealt with in the 21-st century? One can go on and on to point out the limits of a worldview based on immutable and eternal tribal rivalries and conflicts.

     While answers to these questions can only be tentative we cannot escape the responsibility to take a position on the perennial question: are human beings intrinsically united or estranged in their essence. Perhaps the safe answer is: both. Human beings are capable of great sympathy and solidarity as well as deep iniquity and hostility. But a choice between humanism and tribalism will have to be made in order to make sense of the world around us and to prevent impending man-made disasters created by extremes and contrasts culminating in some terrible, irreparable catastrophe for the whole humankind. Nobody comes to my mind as a more appropriate source of inspiration and role model than Mahatma Gandhi.

     Although born a Hindu and one who remained deeply spiritual in his approach to human relations Gandhi was not a dogmatic thinker. The influence of Tolstoy and his ideal of small Christian village communities, of Jainism from where he developed his firm commitment to non-violence, of the techniques and methods of peaceful civil disobedience that he witnessed in England during his stay in that country combined with his reading of Hindu, Islamic, Christian and other sacred scriptures to furnish an elaborate philosophy of social activism and reformism that was not a sum total of those diverse sources but a new, modern approach to politics and questions of social amity and justice. If Gandhi’s moral and social philosophy is to be summed up in a few words it would be that human beings are intrinsically good and therefore through love and solidarity societal differences – cultural, religious, economic and political – can be transcended. However, he did not believe that goodness can prevail on its own; constant efforts have to be made to establish justice in society. Thus while declaring himself an orthodox Hindu he did not hesitate to reject untouchability as a great social evil within Hindu society. Much of his reform efforts were directed at the eradication of untouchability.

     Given the challenges of cultural and religious diversity and the threats of terrorism that the 21-st century will face, there are good reasons to believe that Gandhian social and political ethics will witness a revival and would need a new interpretation because massive injustices and grievances continue to haunt the destiny of humankind. Gandhi would probably define civilisation as the ability of people to live in peace in a just and fair social order, notwithstanding their differences in beliefs and cultural affiliations. On the other hand, barbarism to him would be a celebration of tribalism in its various garbs. All this can be verified by having a close and dispassionate look at how he approached Hindu-Muslim relations. He employed a number of regular practices to enhance Hindu-Muslim understanding. He also took part in some political events to create better understanding between the two communities. It would be fair to say that his practices and efforts were motivated by two primary objectives: to bring British colonial rule to an end and to keep India united.

     The most important idea and practice that he introduced in his daily public interaction with people was to declare that all religions deserve equal respect. The correct wording for it is Sarva Dharma Samabhava. In its original Sanskrit meaning this Vedic adage stood for ‘all religions are equal and harmonious to each other’ and one can consider it the most original principle emanating from the Indic civilisation. In contrast, Middle Eastern monotheism has had great difficulty in accepting such an outlook. However, in the increasingly pluralist societies of the contemporary era equal respect for all religions is an imperative so as to create a sufficiently stable basis for social harmony. In the deeply religious and communitarian cultures of Asia Sarva Dharma Sahabhava needs very special emphasis since it corresponds more readily to the fact of strong religious affiliations and associations among individuals. However, as already noted, Gandhi did not imply by respect for all religions a dogmatic or uncritical approach to how established religion impacts on society and social relations. His struggle against untouchability as alien to the spirit of what he believed was Vedic Hinduism is ample testimony of his efforts at reform from within.

     When he spoke about religion he had in mind the deepest moral and spiritual values such as truth and kindness within religious systems that he emphasised. With regard to Hindu-Muslim relations his morning sessions of public prayers are particularly significant. He began the day with recitations from the Bhagwad Gita, Quran, Bible and other sacred scriptures. Doing this was an exceptional way to demonstrate that all paths lead to the same God. Many Muslims who witnessed the morning prayers have admitted to the present author that they were deeply touched by the sanctity Gandhiji accorded to the Quran. Thus Gandhi elevated Sarva Dharma Sahabhava the leitmotif of his social philosophy and gave it a dignity in his daily actions that did not exist in the past.

     An important distinction needs to be made between nationalism and patriotism although the two words are often used as interchangeables and in some situations the two can coincide. Patriotism is love for the land of birth and is an inclusive term. It is perhaps one of the most universal sentiments. It does not mean hatred of others. Gandhi was committed to such an understanding of the love for India. Thus he wanted an end to British rule but did not hate the British as a people. He could even envisage Englishmen settling in India and becoming a part of South Asian society, enriching its already very diverse pluralist social and cultural order. On the other hand, nationalism in its strong sense is essentially an ethnic term. It divides the world into different nations or tribes and assumes tension and conflict between them as inevitable. In the milder sense of course nationalism means the right of a people to exercise sovereignty and that can coincide with patriotism.

     When it comes to Muslims, as argued above, Gandhi wanted to bring the Muslims into the patriotic anti-colonial struggle against the British. He recognised that Indian Muslims were in an emotional and religious sense affiliated with a universal community, but rather than hold this against them he tried to win them over by coming out openly in favour of the Khilafat Movement. The Khilafat movement (1919-24) originated in India in the aftermath of Ottoman Turkey’s defeat in the First World War. The institution of Khilafat or caliphate was established in 632 following the death of the Prophet Muhammad. Thereafter, it symbolised continuity of Islamic political sovereignty. Sunni Muslims all over the world recognised the Ottoman sultan as their caliph – more in a symbolic and emotional rather than political sense. Thus, when the war broke out, Indian Muslims were confronted with a veritable moral and religious crisis: how to continue associating themselves religiously with the caliphate while simultaneously maintaining good relations with their British rulers. A way out was found by agreeing to remain loyal to the British on the understanding that the caliphate will be spared and suzerainty over the Muslim holy places in the Middle East continue to be vested in the Ottoman sultan. However, an Arab revolt in 1916, masterminded by British agents, under the leadership of Sharif Hussain of Mecca hastened the defeat of the Turks. The victorious allies now wanted to penalise the Ottomans severely by depriving them of their remaining non-Turkish areas. Among them, British Prime Minister Lloyd George was the most vengeful. Most crucially, the allies wanted to confer sovereignty over the holy lands on their Arab proteges. The Treaty of Sevres aimed virtually at reducing Turkey to an Anatolian rump state.

     Indian Muslims felt cheated. They suspected that a sinister conspiracy against Islam and Muslims existed. Consequently many stalwarts stepped forward to mobilise support for Turkey. 1n 1919 some Western-educated Muslims as well as many ulama and some Sindhi pirs (spiritual divines) came together to establish the Khilafat Committee. The Muslim realised that without the support of Hindu leaders and masses they could not challenge British authority. They were therefore greatly pleased when Gandhi declared the Khilafat cause just and offered his support. He was invited to join the All-India Khilafat Committee that was set up in 1919. He served for a while as its president. Consequently, a genuine patriotic upsurge took place in which Muslims and Hindus joined ranks at all levels against colonial rule. Muhammad Ali Johar and his brother Shaukat Ali, Maulana Abdul Bari of Firangi Mahal, Mahmud Hasan of Deoband, Zafar Ali Khan and Abul Kalam Azad were some of the leading Muslims who took part in the movement. Some of them were incarcerated or confined to remote areas.

     Civil disobedience, boycott of foreign goods, rejection of government grants, titles and employment were some of the tactics employed. However, Gandhi suddenly called off the support when in some areas violence was used by the protestors. From 1922 onwards the Muslim-Hindu alliance began to crumble and instead rioting took place in many places. The most well-known being the uprising of Muslim peasants called Moplahs against their Hindu landlords. Gandhi was attacked by liberal Muslims such as Jinnah who were opposed to mass politics and mixing of religion and politics, while rightwing Hindu leaders felt that Gandhi provided a popular forum to the ulema and thus conferred legitimacy on their radical type of Islamism.

     Individual Hindus as well as Muslims had talked of separate nationhood since the late 19th century but the first notable demand for the division of India on a religious basis was made by Hindus in the Punjab in the 1920s following the activism and radicalism of the ulema during the Khilafat Movement. Among prominent Muslims the first to demand a separate Muslim state was Allama Iqbal, who took up the issue at the annual session of the Muslim League in Allahabad in 1930. Only a year earlier, the Indian National Congress at Lahore had demanded independence for an undivided India. While much has been written on the separatist tendency among Muslims, especially the landed elites who felt threatened by the Indian National Congress’s anti-feudal thrust one needs to bring into the picture the role of rightwing Hindu leaders and organisations. In 1923 the Hindu Mahasabha (founded 1915) leader Vinayak Damodar Sarvarkar threw up the idea of “Hindutva” — an ethno-cultural concept purporting to bring all Hindus into a “communitarian” fold. Non-Hindu Indians were urged to accept a Hindu cultural identity and declare that their prime loyalty was to India.

     It is important to point out that until the mid-1930s separatist ideas from both Hindu and Muslim sources remained marginal and nobody took much notice of them. The 1930 (Allahabad) session of the Muslim League, for example, was so poorly attended that the organisers had to run around town to bring people to meet the quorum requirement to adopt the resolutions. The stage for broad-based electoral politics was set by the Government of India Act of 1935. The 1937 elections resulted in a victory for Congress in six provinces and for regional parties elsewhere. The Muslim League did very poorly in the Muslim-majority provinces. The Congress then blundered by not extending a generous hand towards the Muslim League. For example in Uttar Pradesh where some informal understanding existed between the Congress and Muslim League to share power the Congress after trouncing completely in that province demanded that Muslim Leaguers should first join the Congress before they could be considered for a ministerial post. Most scholars have noted that it was the beginning of the real rise of Muslim separatism.

     It was in these circumstances that Madhav Saashiv Gowalkar, the leader of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS, founded in 1925) made a most provocative statement in 1938: “The foreign races in Hindustan must either adopt the Hindu culture and language – [they] must learn to respect and hold in reverence Hindu religion, must entertain no ideas but those of the glorification of the Hindu race and culture... or may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu Nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment not – even citizen’s rights. The RSS adopted a semi-military style of organisation to instill “martial arts” among Hindus. Both the Hindu Mahasabha and RSS looked upon Muslims as the main threat to Indian unity. Conversions to Islam – as well as Christianity – were viewed with dismay.

     Fascistic ideas gained ground among some Muslim groups too. Military drill and strict discipline were introduced by the militant Khaksar movement founded in the Punjab by Allama Inayatullah Khan Mashraqi in 1931. Ideologically, the Khaksars wanted to establish an Islamic state all over India. In practice, they remained anti-British rather than anti-Hindu or -Sikh. Another radical Islamic movement, the Majlis-e-Ahrar, founded in 1929 in the Punjab was loudly anti-British and a close ally of the Congress. It had a fairly large membership throughout the Punjab. The Ahrar never supported the division of India. Also, the Deoband ulema remained loyal to the Congress.

     The Muslim League’s demand for a separate state assumed a mass character only in 1940 when the Lahore resolution was passed in an open public meeting:

     No constitutional plan would be workable or acceptable to the Muslims unless geographical contiguous units are demarcated into regions which should be so constituted with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary. That the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in majority as in the North-Western and Eastern zones of India should be grouped to constitute independent states in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign.

     Thereafter, the march towards a separate state became the main goal of the Muslim League which, as mentioned above, till 1937 had been no more than a party of the Muslim gentry seeking protection of their interests in a decentralised but united India.

     If we place Mahatma Gandhi’s efforts to bring Hindus and Muslims together into a single anti-colonial front in the context of the politics of confrontation and ethno-nationalism that had grown at that time we can understand that he was confronted by very powerful forces loaded against him. He did however, very perceptively, warn many times that the partition of India will result in bloodshed because no division of the subcontinent would be acceptable to all communities.

     Whereas Gandhi attached the greatest importance to the unity of India and to Hindu-Muslim unity as a prerequisite for it to happen it is a great irony of history that it was because of his colossal miscalculation in launching the Quit India Movement on August 9, 1942 that facilitated the partition of India. Gandhi believed that the British were about to be defeated by the Japanese who were advancing rapidly towards eastern India from Burma. Under the circumstances power should be handed over to Indians by the British and they should leave. The mass agitation that he launched was met with a firm and resolution response by the colonial government. The Viceroy Lord Linlithgow ordered the arrest of Congress leaders from top to bottom and not until the end of World War II were they released.

     During this period the Muslim League, which had decided to support the war effort was able to disseminate its message of Pakistan among the Muslims. It was able to make breakthroughs in the key province of Punjab as well as in other Muslim majority provinces. The Muslim voters were convinced by the Muslim League that they would escape the humiliation of caste oppression as well as the economic tyranny of Hindu and Sikh moneylenders if they supported the creation of Pakistan.

     The provincial elections held in 1946 were fought by the Congress and Muslim League from two diametrically opposite platforms: the former wanted a mandate to keep India united while the latter stood for a separate and independent, sovereign Pakistan. The election results vindicated the contradictory claims of both parties. Congress secured 905 general seats out of a total of 1585 while the gains of the Muslim League were even more impressive. It won 440 seats out of a total of 495 reserved for Muslims. It is to be noted that Muslims in the Hindu-majority provinces also voted massively in favour of the Muslim League.

     The post-war Labour Government of Clement Atlee sent a high-powered mission to probe the possibility of a rapprochement between the two adversaries. The Cabinet Mission Plan of 16 May 1946 recommended a loose federation and overruled the demand for Pakistan. The Muslim League reluctantly accepted the Plan, but the Congress rejected it. The factor that sealed the fate of unity was the eruption of large-scale communal violence following Jawaharlal Nehru’s ill-considered press statement of 10 July 1946 in Bombay declaring that Congress would enter the Constituent Assembly completely unfettered by agreements and free to meet all situations as they arise.