16

Gandhiji’s life was indeed multi-dimensional. No one can deny this fact. He had built up his own concepts and principles worth considering in almost all walks of life, especially in cultural, economic, educational, political and social fields. He also led a life founded on these ideas, which he formulated after long experience and learning.

He believed in conducting experiments on himself and learnt from his own mistakes to testify to the Satya of what

Indian philosophy preached. I, therefore, choose to say that Gandhiji was, in entire human history, among a few great men who had uniformity in their views and actions to the maximum, if not in toto.

Gandhiji is remembered as a politician, a social reformer and a great soul –the Mahatma all over the world. His socio-political and economic ideas and works in these fields always remained the subject of criticism. They are so even today. His nearest colleagues and comrades were disagreeing with his cultural views in his lifetime; and so many others are not agreeing till date. It is a natural public reaction, because of the difference between one’s ideas and actions or having disparity with his way of working, which is unavoidable. This state has always prevailed.

Not only this, so many volumes –books have been written on Gandhiji during his lifetime as well as after his passing away, keeping his life, ideas and works as nuclei. So much of research has been conducted on Gandhiji and his ideas –way or philosophy. This process still continues all over the world. No one else in the entire South and Southeast Asia triggers so much of curiosity for researchers, writers and thinkers, as him in this regard. In many universities and institutions of higher education of India and around the world, exclusive Gandhian studies and research centres have been established. Despite this, Gandhiji himself has never been accepted as a scholar in the academic sense. We are all aware of this fact.

Gandhiji’s socio-political, educational and cultural ideas were criticised by many in India itself. Several still do so for their own respective reasons. His views in these fields and actions are despite their being centred on common men severely criticised.

It is pertinent to know why he has been the target of so much of criticism. Gandhiji called for maintaining morality in politics in all situations; he was, therefore, criticised by his political opponents. His mass activities laid on the basis of Ahimsa –non-violence were also criticised, as no one believed in the strength of non-violence, thinking it to be the weapon of the weak. Critics did so, being ignorant or indifferent about the basic spirit of morality, and Ahimsa (that is active goodwill towards living beings) and its acid test (that is intent underlying the act). They do so even today.

Gandhiji was targeted by social scientists for his cultural ideas and also views related to nationalism and socialism. For this reason, his book, Hind Swaraj was rigorously criticised. His critics saw with their closed eyes, narrowness and isolation in his views related to nationalism rather than noticing the broad outlook persisting therein. They did not try to go deeper to catch the importance of Gandhiji’s statement in which he said, “For me patriotism is the same as humanity. I am patriotic because I am a human and humane.” (Young India, March 16, 1921) They overlooked nationalism of Gandhiji knowingly-unknowingly and criticised assessing it in the light of nationalism of the West.  Not only this, his critics found orthodoxy in his views ignoring one of his most progressive statement in which he clearly said that for large scale welfare of humanity, man should continuously step forward on the pathway of progress with co-operation, co-ordination and harmony of fellow beings. Hence, stepping forward is necessary, therefore, Go ahead, (if not so), fall is inevitable.

In India, a country of villages, cottage industries played a vital role for self-sufficiency of people. For centuries small industries provided livelihood to the masses; agriculture and related cottage industries still immensely contribute to the nation’s economy. Gandhiji preferred cottage industries over heavy industries; therefore, his ideas were disliked by those supporting heavy industries –including economists, industrialists, supporters of socialism of the West and communists.

Gandhiji was a self-realised one and he accepted the reality of equality of all. He rightly comprehended that progress –welfare of one remained in the welfare of all. That is why; through his concept of Trusteeship he expected capitalists, industrialists, Zamindars or those who owned resources, to consider themselves the Trustees of their wealth or resources and to take it as their moral duty to use all gains thereof in the lager benefit of the people. Through this, he also called for Antyodaya–uplift of the last and Sarvodaya–rise of one and all so that everyone could get appropriate opportunities in life to have her/his all-round development. But, how could his ideas be liked by individualists or those who had a mentality that they were only born superior and gaining prosperity was their birthright? Gandhiji, on the other hand, wished to change hearts of capitalists, industrialists and landlords filling in them the high level of morality; thus, through the process of reform he undertook to transform them into the Trustees of capital or resources. But, even after a remarkable success of the Bhoodan Movement after Gandhiji’s passing away, the importance of his ideas is not accepted till today by those who still believe that no fundamental change or transformation in society is possible without the use of violence.         

Many did not like Gandhiji’s statement related to culture in which he said, “I do respectfully contend that an appreciation of other cultures can fitly follow, never precede, an appreciation and assimilation of our own.” Although Gandhiji mentioned in the beginning of this statement, “nothing can be further from my thought than that we should become exclusive or erect barriers”, but without comprehending well his views –the basic spirit at the root of his statement and also the true meaning and sole purpose of a culture knowingly-unknowingly and connecting culture with a particular religious community or a sect, they could not digest Gandhiji’s ideas. India is still replete with such people even today.

I have already talked about the fact that Gandhiji is not accepted as a scholar in the academic sense; however, in my view, his ideas on education are matchless, and for this he emerges as a distinctive educationist. His views presenting a four sided education plan paves the way for all-round development of one’s personality. His idea of Buniyadi Shiksha (basic education) is not only significant in the current perspective, but is effective to achieve the goal as per the basic spirit and the purpose of education. His concept of education is all timely; therefore, worth following even today. 

In short, despite many accepting Gandhiji as their ideal and icon and following the non-violence-based way of life shown by him in their struggles for equality, freedom, justice and rights, his ideas and actions and even his personal life remained subject to criticism. Currently it is so. Unfortunately, he is more criticised for his ideas and actions baselessly in his own country.

……..to be continues in the next issue.

—  Dr. Ravindra Kumar is a Former Vice Chancellor of Meerut University, he is also the Editor of Global Peace International Journal.

[The view expressed here are personal and don’t reflect those of the government]