George Orwell said that saints should always be judged guilty until proven innocent. There have been any number of people and agencies which have readily judged Mahatma Gandhi guilty based on what they chose to focus on in his vivid life. His patriarchal nature, coercion through fasts, and deep involvement in politics are used to denounce him as just another 'crafty, controlling old man.' I belong to the other side, which chooses to view him as a 'saint.' I am amazed by his undying adherence to pacifism, his love for the environment through simplicity in his approach to life, monumental efforts towards Hindu-Muslim amity in India, and tireless pursuit of the eradication of untouchability in Hindu society. His application of the method of Satyagraha as a tool of civil disobedience showed the world how to confront an enemy without hurting him or arousing hatred.
In this second and final volume of his 'magnum opus' on Gandhi, Dr. Guha traces the last thirty-three years of Gandhi's life. He writes as a historian and without judgment. It covers Gandhi's controversial actions on the Khilafat movement, his elevation of the struggle against untouchability above that of the independence struggle, leading the Congress party to a stunning victory in all the Muslim-dominated provinces in the 1936 elections, his dramatic fast to end Hindu-Muslim violence in 1947 in Calcutta and many others. Gandhi's personal life was also very public, as he made no distinction between the two. Dr. Guha does not paper over Gandhi's hitherto-little-known 'spiritual love affair' with Sarladevi or his well-known experiments in celibacy or his obstructive interference in his son Manilal's desire to marry the woman he loved. It draws on a vast amount of archives, sources, letters to and from Gandhi, and his essays. It is a voluminous book of nearly a thousand pages, and I found the narrative gripping, detailed, evocative, and touching. The Gandhi that emerges is one who was kind, compassionate, stubborn, democratic, revolutionary, saintly, reformist, restless, visionary, narcissistic, patriarchal, inconsistent, and much more. This review would be too long if one touches on all these aspects. Hence, I shall focus on a few issues of interest.
Gandhi was passionate about India becoming independent. But two other questions were equally important to him, if not more. One was Hindu-Muslim unity, and the other was the riddance of untouchability from the hearts and minds of Hindus. Dr.Guha gives a fascinating account of how both these missions evolved and unraveled during the freedom struggle. As I neared the end of the book, I felt that, in spite of his Herculean efforts, as India approached independence in 1947, the vast majority of Muslims in India had turned away from him. The Muslim League leadership was positively hostile to him. It was evident in 1946 when Muslims in southern and western India voted the Muslim League to a big win in the reserved constituencies, even though they had little chance of being part of a new Muslim homeland carved out of India. The violent religious riots between Muslims and Hindus/Sikhs in 1947 pointed to Gandhi's message of love not making many inroads into the hearts and minds of Hindus and Muslims.
Similarly, the leadership of the Depressed Classes had turned decidedly anti-Gandhi even as early as the 1930s. They suspected Gandhi to be devious and supportive of upper-caste dominance in a free India. However, Dr. Guha's chronicle points clearly to evidence that the masses of the untouchables viewed Gandhi as their leader. They voted the Congress party to a massive victory in 1946 in the reserved constituencies for the Untouchables. Dr.Ambedkar's Scheduled Caste Forum barely won a couple of seats in the polls.
Reflecting on these two monumental missions, I felt that both these tasks are impossible to make significant inroads in a single lifetime for anyone. Gandhi stubbornly believed that he could accomplish both endeavors by appealing to the innate goodness in human beings. As a Hindu himself, he appealed to fellow-Hindus to show magnanimity towards Muslims. Gandhi wanted Hindus to reach out to Muslims even when they were victims of religious riots. He called for both communities to focus on their syncretic culture rather than the differences. But the ground reality on Hindu-Muslim relations was far from responding to such a liberal approach. Dr. Guha's description shows that the situation in the 1920s was sickeningly similar to what it is today in 2019. There were the same kind of militant Swamis and truculent Maulvis as we encounter today. Hindus objected to cow-slaughter and beef-eating, suspected evil designs in Muslim men marrying Hindu women and converting them to Islam. Arya Samaj leaders busied themselves in trying to bring 'converted Hindus' back into the Hindu fold. The Muslims matched them in sectarianism. For their part, Muslims complained about playing music or performing ceremonial rituals near the mosques. They got enraged over abusive pamphlets on the polygamous tendencies of the Prophet. Some objected to Gandhi quoting the Koran in his prayer meetings. The statues of Gandhi in their neighborhood also became unacceptable because it smacked of idol worship.
Gandhi, however, was too strong-willed and stubborn to be dissuaded in his approach. He refused to accept the fall-out from an India which has been living for millenniums in societies that segregated people by caste, religion, and class. A syncretic culture had indeed developed over centuries between Hindus and Muslims. But it failed to forge a deep understanding of each other's culture or religion in the minds of the masses of either community. Besides, the Muslim elite had felt since the 19th century that the Muslims were a 'separate nation.' They even believed that they were the legitimate heirs of India since the British won India from Muslim rulers. So, the Mahatma was up against formidable odds in his goals of Hindu-Muslim amity.
On Untouchability, Gandhi tried a similar approach by appealing to upper-caste Hindus to look deep into themselves and atone for what they have been doing to the Untouchables for millenniums. He fought for the entry of the depressed classes into temples and their rightful access to public spaces. However, Dr. Ambedkar, the leader of the Depressed Classes, fundamentally differed from Gandhi in his approach.
Both wanted the emancipation of the Depressed Classes. Ambedkar placed more faith in constitutional processes, in changes in the law while Gandhi saw more hope in social change, in the self-directed renewal of individuals and communities. Ambedkar emphasized the creation of more jobs for the untouchables. Gandhi wanted spiritual equality between Hindus of all castes. As one belonging to the upper castes, Gandhi felt a sense of guilt and a desire to make reparations. Ambedkar, belonging to the Depressed Classes himself, was animated by the drive to achieve a position of social equality and human dignity for his fellow members. More importantly, he wanted their struggle to be led by one from the Depressed Classes and not by an upper-caste individual like Gandhi.
Nevertheless, Ambedkar was far less graceful than Gandhi in their interactions. While Gandhi was always civil and understanding towards Dr.Ambedkar, the reverse wasn't the case. Dr. Ambedkar called Gandhi a man without vision, one without knowledge and judgment, and one who was a failure all his life. When Gandhi was assassinated, Ambedkar did not send any condolence message. A bit later, he wrote to a friend that some good will come out of the death of Gandhi and that it will release people from bondage to superman, make them think for themselves and compel them to stand on their own merits. Dr. Guha says that towards the end of his life, Gandhi was more willing to acknowledge the material roots of discrimination. Ambedkar, in turn, was beginning to appreciate that moral transformation might be as significant as legal reform.
Dr.Guha writes at length on Gandhi's evolution on the question of the emancipation of Indian women and his vision of a free India where the village would be the driving force. On the latter, he failed to convince his fellow Congressmen. Nehru was determined to shape India into an industrial state, based on science and technology. On Gandhi and the emancipation of women, the author makes some original observations. Gandhi's most significant relationship with a woman was that of his wife, Kasturba. He saw her initially as an object of lust and later demanded that she follow him blindly in his activist and personal choices. Finally, he came to mature accommodation where they respected and loved one another. However, there was no denying that her life was dictated by his.
Over his thirty-three years in India, Dr.Guha says that Gandhi did a great deal to undermine gender hierarchies. He attacked the pernicious purdah system, which was practiced in both Hindu and Muslim households, particularly in northern India. He energetically promoted the education of girls in his ashram school and 'national' colleges. There was no gender division of labor in his ashrams. Men cooked and cleaned while women taught and spun the yarn. He actively worked to get Mrs. Sarojini Naidu elected as the president of the Congress in 1925, at a time when it was hard to see a woman heading the British Labor Party or the US Democrats. Women activists participated in large numbers in the Quit India, in Satyagrahas, other Congress movements, and Salt marches. Dr.Guha says that Gandhi would be considered conservative in modern days but says that he was progressive for his times. In comparison, Jinnah's Muslim League, Dr. Ambedkar's Scheduled Caste Federation, and Sastri's Indian Liberal Party had few active women. To take the analogy further, the author says that many more women joined the freedom struggle led by Gandhi than the movements led by Lenin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, or Fidel Castro.
Gandhi's vision of a future India rested on the pillars of Hindu-Muslim amity, the abolition of untouchability, and a nation built on village-level self-sufficiency. Looking at the reasonably successful Reservation (affirmative action) programs for the Depressed Classes in independent India, we can say that Gandhi's fight for social justice in Hindu society has been partially successful. Hindu-Muslim tensions have largely remained even though southern Indian Muslims have prospered much better than their compatriots elsewhere in India. As for a village-centric Indian developmental model, one has to admit that it has been a non-starter.
Many would say that today's India is a far cry from what the Mahatma envisaged and that his dreams are in tatters. They are perhaps right.
But, as far as I am concerned, Gandhi's 'kingdom' may be in shambles, but he is still King!