Since Gandhi had his own set of beliefs, viewing him through the lens of other philosophers would do him a great disservice.
Posted Date – 12:44 AM, Wed – 1/4/23
by Manish Narwade
When we see Gandhi as an institution, we respect the freedom struggle he led. He started his nonviolent resistance journey in South Africa, a different country with a different culture. In fact, some people still feel anxious about leaving their hometown. Gandhi demonstrated unstoppable power, the power of truth beyond culture and tradition, and this is true all over the world. Truth brings justice. Justice is the result of truth. Gandhi is the symbol and institution of justice and truth. But is Gandhi’s concept of justice and moral practice reasonable and fair to society?
The goal of the civil disobedience movement led by Gandhi was to bring about justice. The pursuit of justice as a whole is guided by the concept of truth. He spearheaded protests in South Africa against registration cards, Indian immigration restrictions, poll tax, Indian marriage annulment and Transvaal immigration. Tolstoy proposed that the best way to fight evil is through nonviolent resistance, an idea that Gandhi also embraced.
In January 1915, Gandhi returned to India. He has been considered a “savior” because South Africa has given him enormous support for the concept of civil disobedience. Initial acts of civil disobedience, including the Champaran Satyagraha, the Ahmedabad factory strike of 1918, the first hunger strike, and the Kheda Satyagraha, were all hugely successful. With these, Gandhi successfully used his philosophy of nonviolence to illustrate the concepts of truth and justice. His leadership of the entire movement of nonviolent resistance had a profound impact on society.
philosophy of nonviolence
Things started to change when Gandhi became the leader of the independence struggle movement. The non-cooperation movement, civil disobedience, and Gandhi’s Quit India movement were all based on the philosophy of nonviolence. Gandhi was a living example of non-violence, as can be seen in the withdrawal of the non-cooperation movement after the Jory-Chola violence. Gandhi stated that the general public still has not learned or fully understood the method of nonviolence. His main argument was that violent movements could be quickly suppressed by colonial governments, which would use outbreaks of violence as a justification for using state military power against demonstrators.
Gandhi’s nonviolent methods had their roots in liberal British colonialism, but could he apply them to a fascist-ruled country like Germany? Will Gandhi’s ideas live on in Nazi Germany? Did Nazi Germany justify Gandhi’s moral dictum, “If one manages the means well, the end will follow itself?” It was conceivable only in Plato’s “Platoworld”. As long as the means and ends do not violate the rights of others, it is acceptable.
quick goal
As Gandhi suggested, one of the most unethical ways to achieve your goals is to fast. If the threat of murder is wrong, how can the threat of suicide be right? If someone brandishes a gun and orders them to perform a specific action, they would rather die with dignity than violate their moral convictions. But it would be an affront to human dignity for someone to hold a gun to his head and threaten action. A person would rather die than accept an incorrect and immoral point of view, because a moral person doesn’t want to be mean with his life. If someone points a pistol at himself to force others to believe that what he says is wrong, how can he force others to believe what he says is true by turning the gun on himself?
Gandhi once started a hunger strike to put pressure on Dr. BR Ambedkar, which is an example of how he achieved his purpose (Poona Pact). Ambedkar was forced to compromise, not because he agreed with the cause Gandhi was fighting for, but because he didn’t want Gandhi to die for it. According to Ambedkar, Gandhi would have mistakenly thought he had changed his mind. He still believed that he was right and Gandhi was wrong, but he could not take responsibility for the violence Gandhi had inflicted on himself by insisting on fasting.
Ambedkar demonstrated non-violence whereas Gandhi’s method was clearly violent. Gandhi threatened to pledge pressure on Ambedkar in a last-ditch effort. It just means, “To convince you of my point, it doesn’t matter whether I threaten to kill you or kill myself.”
Buddha’s philosophy
It’s a good idea to compare Buddha’s philosophy of nonviolence to that of Gandhi. Angulimara, a bandit in the Persian Kingdom, was converted by the Buddha. However, the Buddha did not threaten suicide or continue fasting if Angulimala did not accept his teachings. The Buddha said that the goodness within you is still there. Just give it a chance and it will change you. What would have happened if Gandhi had met Angulimala? Would his philosophy of nonviolence and fasting influence Angulimala to take a particular course of action? Gandhi’s life may have been spared by Angulimala, but it seems unlikely that he would change to stop what he was doing.
Gandhi had his own set of beliefs. Viewing Gandhi through the eyes of other philosophers does him a great disservice. He has unconventional ideas like bringing Hindus and Muslims together in a non-cooperation movement, which is what India needs in this era of radicalization. One can take inspiration from some ideas of Dr. BR Ambedkar and Gandhi to move away from injustice. The country needs Ambedkar’s intellectuals and Gandhi’s vision of truth. Even Gandhi, who hated violence, died by violent means, deeply mourned those who used violence against non-violent people.
