DR. JYOTI PRABHA ASSISTANT PROFESSOR DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY M.R.M. COLLEGE, L.N.M.U., DARBHANGA 2ND SEMESTER, SESSION: 2019-21 CC- 5 : HISTORY OF IDEAS UNIT- 1: HISTORY OF IDEAS, ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL

TOPIC :- MOHANDAS KARAMCHAND GANDHI

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi ( 2 October 1869 – 30 January 1948) was an Indian lawyer, anti-colonial nationalist, and political ethicist, who employed nonviolent resistance to lead the successful campaign for India's independence from British Rule, and in turn inspire movements for civil rights and freedom across the world. The honorific Mahātmā (Sanskrit: "great-souled", "venerable"), first applied to him in 1914 in South Africa, is now used throughout the world. Born and raised in a Hindu family in coastal Gujarat, western India, Gandhi was trained in law at the Inner Temple, London, and called to the bar at age 22 in June 1891. After two uncertain years in India, where he was unable to start a successful law practice, he moved to South Africa in 1893 to represent an Indian merchant in a lawsuit. He went on to stay for 21 years. It was in South Africa that Gandhi raised a family, and first employed nonviolent resistance in a campaign for civil rights. In 1915, aged 45, he returned to India. He set about organizing peasants, farmers, and urban labourers to protest against excessive land-tax and discrimination. Assuming leadership of the Indian National Congress in 1921, Gandhi led nationwide campaigns for easing poverty, expanding women's rights, building religious and ethnic amity, ending untouchability, and above all for achieving Swaraj or self-rule. The same year Gandhi adopted the Indian loincloth, or short dhoti and, in the winter, a shawl, both woven with yarn hand-spun on a traditional Indian spinning wheel, or charkha, as a mark of identification with India's rural poor. Thereafter, he lived modestly in a self-sufficient residential community, ate simple vegetarian food, and undertook long fasts as a means of self-purification and political protest. Bringing anti-colonial nationalism to the common Indians, Gandhi led them in challenging the British-imposed salt tax with the 400 km (250 mi) Dandi Salt March in 1930, and later in calling for the British to Quit India in 1942. He was imprisoned for many years, upon many occasions, in both South Africa and India. Gandhi's vision of an independent India based on religious pluralism was challenged in the early 1940s by a new Muslim nationalism which was demanding a separate Muslim homeland carved out of India. In August 1947, Britain granted independence, but the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two dominions, a Hindu- majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan. As many displaced Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs made their way to their new lands, religious violence broke out, especially in the Punjab and Bengal. Eschewing the official celebration of independence in Delhi, Gandhi visited the affected areas, attempting to provide solace. In the months following, he undertook several fasts unto death to stop religious violence. The last of these, undertaken on 12 January 1948 when he was 78, also had the indirect goal of pressuring India to pay out some cash assets owed to Pakistan.[13] Some Indians thought Gandhi was too accommodating. Among them was Nathuram Godse, a Hindu nationalist, who assassinated Gandhi on 30 January 1948 by firing three bullets into his chest. Gandhi's birthday, 2 October, is commemorated in India as Gandhi Jayanti, a national holiday, and worldwide as the International Day of Nonviolence. Gandhi is commonly, though not formally, considered the Father of the Nation in India, and was commonly called Bapu (Gujarati: endearment for father). GANDHI ON STATE AND VIOLENCE:

In Gandhi’s assessment, the state (Western type) was the symbol of violence in concentrated form. In order to ensure allegiance from the citizens the state (which means its authority) applies coercion or violent measures mercilessly.

Once he said “the individual has a soul but the state is a soulless machine, the stale can never be weaned away from violence to which it owes its existence”. In other words, Gandhi treated both state and violence or coercion synonymous. He further says that there is a state but not violence or coercion in any form cannot be imagined.

He gathered experience in South Africa that more and more power to the state meant more and more violence or greater amount of coercion. In the name of the maintenance of law and order the South Africa’s white government acquired enormous power and this led to the ruthless administration, exploitation and curtailment of individuals’ liberty.

He once said that a political organisation based on violence would never receive his approval. Rather, he is always afraid of such an organisation. What he felt about the Western state system is quite explicit in a comment which he made, “I look upon an increase in the power of the state with greatest fear, because although while apparently doing good by minimising exploitation, it does the greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality which is at the root of progress”. From the above analysis it is absolutely clear that Gandhi rejected the state of Western model on the ground that it represented violence or coercion. Now the question is why did he oppose violence so much? The modern state, according to Gandhi, was about to destroy individuality—that individual freedom and spontaneous urge to work. Secondly, the individualism is the root cause of progress. Gandhi believed that nothing could be done by applying coercion. Again, the individual cannot be forced to do any work against his will or spontaneous desire. To put it in other words, according to Gandhi the progress of the society can be achieved through the functions which the individuals perform willingly. Here Gandhi appears to us as a great individualist philosopher. The two great utilitarian philosophers—Bentham (1748-1832) and J. S. Mill (1806-1872)—wanted to put curb upon the activities of the state to enhance the quantum of freedom of the individuals. The state, prescribed by Bentham and Mill, is called limited state. Both Bentham and J. S. Mill did not approve coercion for demanding allegiance from the individual’s.

But Gandhi appears to us as more aggressive. Under any circumstances the individual’s freedom cannot be sacrificed. Gandhi’s love for individual’s freedom ranks him with the great anarchist philosophers (we shall discuss his anarchism later on). The central idea is that to Gandhi state is an undesirable political organisation because of its close connection with violence. STATE AND SOCIETY:-

Though Gandhi does not deal with society and its relationship with state it is not difficult to frame certain conclusions about his attitude to society keeping his general outlook and philosophy in mind. His inordinate love for liberty rights of the individual and democracy and strong opposition to violence and coercion make it abundantly clear that he stressed more importance on society and less importance to state.

In his judgment society is the best place for the free play of individual’s opinion, in society people enjoy freedom of speech and expression and mainly in society individuals get ample opportunities to mould and remould their views This is due to the fact that the area of state is vast and always it is not suitable for individual’s tree and spontaneous activities.

A very considerable part of Gandhi’s philosophy is covered by satyagraha and non-violence. People, in the opinion of Gandhi, can start Satyagraha and non-violence against the state because the state is the usurper of liberty and encroacher of rights these people do form a platform which is, for all practical purposes, society.

Since individual s relationship with society is direct, it is more important to them People from their views about morality, ethics, ideals and many other eternal values as members of society. In Hegelian philosophy the society had no special importance but Gandhi did not share this view. In his political philosophy absolute sovereignty had no place—naturally society was more important. Gandhi’s glorification of society may be treated from another perspective. He believed that through the society people can develop their individuality properly. In his account state is to some extent foreign to the individuals. Not only Gandhi many others have been found to think in the same time.

STATE AND DECENTRALIZATION:

The Gandhian theory of state is based not only on the principles of freedom, non-violence, morality, justice and truth but also on decentralisation. To him swaraj and democracy are synonymous but decentralisation of power must be the basic part of democracy. In Greek city-states there was a system of decentralising the political power. In the writings of Rousseau we get support for decentralisation of power. Of course, Rousseau did not directly deal with this concept but his advocacy for open assembly concept provides a basis for decentralisation. In modern constitutional, system, decentralisation is stressed. But Gandhi’s decentralisation has a different character. Through the decentralisation of political power individuals will get full scope to participate in the affairs of state and they can do it absolutely in non-violent way. Again, decentralisation is the best means for the realisation of all democratic rights and freedoms.

So, without decentralisation all these will remain distant hopes. Coercion and violence are associated with centralisation. Authority receives or want to receive allegiance from the citizens by means of coercive measures. But decentralisation means people will act everything on their own volition. Through decentralisation men will be able to develop their various faculties.

Thus, we find that in Gandhian perspective state, democracy, freedom, participation and non-violence all are closely connected. Gandhi’s decentralisation can be stated in the following phrase: expansion of democracy upto the grass-root level. Democracy without decentralisation is practically an impossible concept. CONCEPT OF STATE: - SWARAJ AND RAMRAJYA

Ramrajya of my dreams ensures equal rights to both prince and pauper. ~ Mahatma Gandhi Mahatma Gandhi’s knowledge of India and its people was profound. Rama of the Ramayana occupies an important space in the hearts of the millions. His awareness of the historical roost of the Indian played a revolutionary because he knew how to make the most of the objective conditions. He could reach the heart of the masses. Gandhi as throughout his life an orthodox Hindu In his ideas and methods, in his daily rituals and routine, in his prayer and preaching, in his attempt to rouse the masses through Hindu religious songs, like the Ramdhun, he uttered the name of Rama to reach the heart of the semi-literate and illiterate masses to instill his idea of Ramrajya where ‘the prince and the peasant, the wealthy and the poor, the employer and the employee, are all on the same level.’ Michelet, the French historian, wrote in 1864: “A serene peace reigns there (Ramrajya), in the midst of conflict there is infinite sweetness, a boundless fraternity, which spreads over all things, an ocean of love, of pity, of clemency.’ However, as regards the strategy of the Mahatma, Bernard Shaw once remarked that though Gandhi committed quite a few of tactical errors, his essential strategy continued to be correct. Writing in Young India (September 19, 1929) Gandhi had said: “By Ramrajya I do not mean Hindu Raj. I mean by Ramrajya Divine Raj, the kingdom of God… whether Rama of my imagination ever lived or not on the earth, the ancient deal of Ramrajya is undoubtedly one of true democracy in which the meanest citizen could be sure of swift justice without an elaborate costly procedure. Even the dog is described by the poet to have received justice under Ramrajya. The ideal Ramrajya, according to Gandhi, may politically be described as ‘the land of dharma and a realm of peace, harmony and happiness for young and old, high and low, all creatures and the earth itself, in recognition of a shared universal consciousness. Indeed, by Ramrajya, Gandhi meant Swaraj or selfrule. In its fullest sense, swarai is much more than freedom from all restraints, it is self-rule and self- restraint and can be equated with moksha or salvation. In fact, the idea of swaraj in India is as old as the Rigveda. It was Gandhi who defined it in its fullness for us particularly as the agenda for postindependence India. This is, in fact, the only social ideal which Gandhi himself had more or less clearly formulated and from which he did not consciously deviate at any stage of his life. He gave the first systematic exposition of this ideal in his seminal book Hind Swaraj, published in Gujarati in 1909. When Gokhale saw the English translation, on his visit to South Africa in 1921, he feared that Gandhi himself would destroy the book after spending a year in India. Even in 1921, the Mahatma, after carefully reading the book again, said he altered nothing except perhaps the language in some parts. Since the majority of Indians lived in villages, Gandhi saw the revival of villages from their abysmal state as the core of swaraj in free India. He thus coined the term ‘Gram Swaraj’ ~ every village is a republic with legislative, executive and judiciary combined. Although the word swaraj means self-rule, Gandhi envisaged an integral revolution that encompasses all sphere of life. At the individual level, swaraj is virtually connected with dispassionate self-assessment, ceaseless self-purification and growing swadeshi of self reliance. Politically, swaraj is selfgovernment not good government (for Gandhi, good government is no substitute for self- government) and it means the continuous effort to be independent of government control, whether it is foreign or national. In the other words, it is the sovereignty of the people based on pure moral authority. To achieve Gram Swaraj, Gandhi reminded his colleagues that it would be fruit of the patience, perseverance, ceaseless toil, courage and intelligent appreciation of the environment. Gandhi used to say that ‘Real swaraj will come, not by acquisition of the authority but by the acquisition of capacity by all to resist the authority when it is abused. In other words, swaraj is to be attained by educating the masses to regulate and control authority.’ Political independence was an essential precondition and exclusively the first step towards realization of swaraj. For political freedom, Gandhi worked with and through the Indian National Congress, but there were serious philosophical and ideological differences between Gandhi and other prominent leaders of the Congress. The development model evolved by Gandhi and enunciated by him in his Hind Swaraj was totally unacceptable and dismissed as ‘completely unreal’ by Nehru. So Gandhi wanted an internal cleansing chiefly through self-motivated voluntary action in the form of constructive work. In his words, ‘ The constructive programme may otherwise and more fittingly be called construction of Poorna Swaraj or complete independence by truthful and non-violent means. To many thinkers, Gandhi’s concept of ‘Gram Swaraj’ and Ramrajya appears to be utopian ~ a hollow idealism. Indeed, all the philosophies are primarily utopian since they are distant dreams to be achieved. Thomas More, a social thinker of the 18th century, coined the term utopia. In his book entitled Utopia he remarked that all philosophers dream of Utopia till it is not practically applied. We have our own political freedom but we are yet to attain economic, social and moral freedom. These freedoms are harder to attain because they are more constructive and less exciting. More than seven decades after Independence, poverty and disparity are endemic. Economic growth without social justice is the hallmark of a violent and unsustainable social order. We need to revisit Gandhi’s concept of swaraj and set the course of India’s economic development accordingly. His emphasis is on the maximum striving for the realization of values. The methods prescribed by him cannot be executed on the basis of a shortcut programmatic blueprint. The pragmatic character of his recommendations arises out of his insistence only on the quality of the means and the articulation of the immediate practical step which is consistence with the ultimate values. Gandhi often said after Newman: ‘One step enough for me.’