Every Occidental who reads Gandhi's "Credo" and stops at these lines is
apt to feel that they reveal a mentality so different from ours and so
far removed in time and space as to make comparison with our ideals
impossible, owing to the lack of a common measure. But if he will read
on, he will find, a few lines below, the following words, which express
a doctrine more familiar to us:
I believe implicitly in the Hindu aphorism that no one truly knows the
_Shastras_ who has not attained perfection in Innocence [_Ahimsa_],
Truth [_Satya_], and Self-Control [_Brahma-Charya_] and who has not
renounced all acquisition or possession of wealth.
Here the words of the Hindu join those of the Gospel. And Gandhi was
aware of their similarity. To an English clergyman who asked him in 1920
which books had influenced him most, Gandhi replied, "The New
Testament."[31]
The last words of Gandhi's "Ethical Religion" are a quotation from the
New Testament,[32] and he claims that the revelation of passive
resistance came to him after reading the Sermon on the Mount in
1893.[33] When the clergyman asked him, in surprise, if he had not found
the same message in Hindu scriptures, Gandhi replied that while he has
found inspiration and guidance in the Bhagavad Gitâ, which he reveres
and admires, the secret of passive resistance was made clear to him
through the New Testament. A great joy welled up in him, he says, when
the revelation came to him, and again when the Gitâ confirmed this
revelation.[34] Gandhi also says that Tolstoi's ideal, that the kingdom
of God is within us, helped him mold his own faith into a real
doctrine.[35]
It should not be forgotten that this Asiatic believer has translated
Ruskin[36] and Plato[37] and quotes Thoreau, admires Mazzini, reads
Edward Carpenter, and that he is, in short, familiar with the best that
Europe and America have produced.
There is no reason why a Westerner should not understand Gandhi's
doctrine as well as Gandhi understands those of our great men, provided
the Westerner will take the trouble to study Gandhi a little deeply. It
is true that the mere words of Gandhi's creed may surprise him, and that
two paragraphs, in fact, if read superficially, may seem so different
from our mentality as to form an almost insurmountable barrier between
the religious ideals of Asia and Europe. One of these paragraphs refers
to cow-protection and the other to the caste system. As for Gandhi's
reference to idol-worship, it requires no special study. Gandhi explains
his attitude when he says that he has no veneration for idols but
believes idol-worship to be part of human nature. He considers it
inherent to the frailty of the human mind, because we all "hanker after
symbolism" and must needs materialize our faith in order really to
understand it. When Gandhi says he does not disbelieve in idol-worship,
he means no more than what we countenance in all our ritualistic
churches of the West.
"Cow-protection," says Gandhi, is the central fact of Hinduism. He looks
upon it as one of the "most wonderful phenomena of human evolution."
Why? Because the cow, to him, is taken as the symbol of the entire
"sub-human world." Cow-protection means that man concludes a pact of
alliance with his dumb brethren; it signifies fraternity between man and
beast. According to Gandhi's beautiful expression, by learning to
respect, revere, an animal, man is "taken beyond his species and is
enjoined to realize his identity with all that lives."
If the cow was selected in preference to other creatures it was because
in India the cow was the best companion, the giver of plenty. Not only
did she give the milk but she made agriculture possible. And Gandhi sees
in "this gentle animal" a "poem of pity."
But there is nothing idolatrous about Gandhi's cow-worship, and no one
condemns more harshly than he the fetishism of many so-called believers,
who observe the letter of "cow-worship" without exercising a spirit of
compassion "for the dumb creatures of God." Whoever understands the
spirit of compassion and fellow-feeling that Gandhi would have men feel
for their dumb brethren,--and who would have understood this better than
the _poverello_ Assisi?--is not surprised that Gandhi lays such stress
on cow-protection in his creed. From this point of view he is quite
justified in saying that cow-protection is the "gift of Hinduism to the
world." To the precept of the gospel, "Love thy neighbor as thyself,"
Gandhi adds, "And every living being is thy neighbor."[38]
Gandhi's belief in the caste system is almost more difficult for a
European or Western mind to understand--it seems more foreign, almost,
than the idea of the fellowship of all living beings. I should perhaps
say "European or Western mind of to-day," for while we still believe in
a certain equality, Heaven knows how we will feel in the future, when we
become thoroughly imbued with the consequences of the evolution,
democratic in name only, which we are undergoing! I do not imagine that
at our present stage of development my explanation of Gandhi's views
will make them seem acceptable as regards the caste system; nor am I
anxious to have them seem so. But I would like to make it clear that
Gandhi's conception of the caste system is different from what we
usually mean by that term, since he does not base it on pride or vain
notions of social superiority, but on duties.
I am inclined to think [he says] that the law of heredity is an eternal
law, and that any attempt to alter it must lead to utter confusion ...
_Varnashrama_ or the caste system, is inherent in human nature. Hinduism
has simply reduced it to a science.
Gandhi believes in four classes or castes. The _Brahmans_, the
intellectual and spiritual class; the the military and governmental
class; the _Vaishyas_, the commercial, industrial class; and the
_Shudras_, manual workers and laborers. This classification does not
imply any superiority or inferiority. It simply stands for different
vocations. "These classes define duties, they confer no privileges."[39]
It is against the genius of Hinduism to arrogate to oneself a higher
status or assign others to a lower. All are born to serve God's
creation, the _Brahman_ with his knowledge, the _Kshatriya_ with his
power of protection, the _Vaishya_ with his commercial ability, the
_Shudra_ with his bodily labor.
This does not mean that a _Brahman_ is absolved from bodily labor but it
does mean that he is predominantly a man of knowledge and fittest by
training and heredity to impart it to others. There is nothing again to
prevent a _Shudra_ from acquiring all the knowledge he wishes. Only he
will best serve with his body and need not envy others their special
qualities for service. A _Brahman_ who claims superiority by right of
knowledge falls and has no knowledge. Varnashrama is self-restraint and
conservation of economy and energy....
Gandhi's caste system is based, therefore, on "abnegation and not on
privileges." It should not be forgotten, moreover, that according to
Hinduism reincarnation reestablishes a general equilibrium, as in the
course of successive existences a _Brahman_ becomes a _Shudra_, and
_vice versa._
The caste system, which deals with different classes of equal rank,
bears no relation whatsoever to the attitude of Hindus to the
"untouchables," or pariahs. We will study later on Gandhi's passionate
appeals for the pariahs. His campaign in favor of the "suppressed
classes" is one of the most appealing phases of his apostleship. Gandhi
regards the pariah system as a blot on Hinduism; it is a vile
deformation of the real doctrine, and he suffers intolerably by it.
I would rather be torn to pieces than disown my brothers of the
suppressed classes.... I do not want to be reborn, but if I have to be
reborn, I should be "untouchable" so that I may share their sorrows,
sufferings and the affronts leveled at them in order that I may endeavor
to free them from their miserable condition.
And he adopts a little "untouchable" girl and speaks with emotion of
this charming little imp of seven who rules the household with her gay
prattle.
§ 6
I have said enough to show Gandhi's great evangelical heart beating
under his Hindu creed. Gandhi is a Tolstoi in a more gentle, appeased,
and, if I dared, I would say, in a more Christian sense, for Tolstoi is
not so much a Christian by nature as by force of will.
The resemblance between the two men is greatest, or perhaps Tolstoi's
influence has been strongest, in their condemnation of European and
Occidental civilization.
Ever since Rousseau our Western civilization has been attacked by the
freest and broadest minds of Europe. When Asia began to wake to a
realization of her own power and revolt against Western oppression, she
had only to peer into Europe's own files to compile formidable records
of the iniquity of her so-called civilized invaders. Gandhi did not fail
to do so, and in his "Hind Swaraj" he cites a list of books, many of
which were written by Englishmen, condemning European civilization. But
the document to which there can be no rejoinder is that which Europe
herself has traced in the lifeblood of races oppressed and despoiled in
the name of lying principles and, above all, in the brazen revelation of
Europe's lies, greed, and ferocity as unfolded during the last war,
called the "War for Civilization." And in it Europe sank to such depths
that in her insanity she even invited the peoples of Asia and Africa to
contemplate her nudity. They saw her and judged her.
The last war has shown as nothing else has the Satanic[40] nature of the
civilization that dominates Europe to-day. Every canon of public
morality has been broken by the victors in the name of virtue. No lie
has been considered too foul to be uttered. The motive behind every
crime is not religious or spiritual but grossly material... Europe
to-day is only nominally Christian. In reality it is worshipping
Mammon.[41]
You will find sentiments such as these expressed again and again, during
the last five years, both in India and Japan. Leaders too prudent to
voice them openly show by their attitude that such is their inmost
conviction. This is not the least disastrous result of the Pyrrhic
victory of 1918.
Gandhi, however, had seen the real face of Western civilization long
before 1914. It had revealed itself to him unmasked during his twenty
years' campaign in South Africa, and in 1908, in his "Hind Swaraj," he
calls modern civilization the "great vice."
Civilization, says Gandhi, is civilization in name only. In reality it
corresponds to what ancient Hinduism called the dark ages. It has set
material well-being up as the only goal of life. It scorns spiritual
values. It maddens Europeans, leads them to worship money only, and
prevents them from finding peace or cultivating the best within them.
Civilization in the Western sense means hell for the weak and for the
working classes. It saps the vitality of the race. But this Satanic
civilization will destroy itself. Western civilization is India's real
enemy, much more than the English, who, individually, are not bad, hut
simply suffer from their civilization. Gandhi criticizes those of his
compatriots who would want to drive out the English, to develop India
themselves, and civilize her according to European standards. This, he
says, would be like having the nature of a tiger without the tiger.
India's aim should be to repudiate Western civilization.
In his arraignment of Western civilization Gandhi scores three
categories of men particularly: magistrates, doctors, and teachers.
Gandhi's objection to teachers is quite comprehensible, since they have
brought the Hindus up to scorn or neglect their own language and to
disown their real aspirations; in fact, the teachers in India have
inflicted a sort of national degradation on the schoolchildren in their
charge. Besides, Western teachers appeal to the mind only; they neglect
the education of the heart and of the character. Finally, they
depreciate bodily labor, and to spread a purely literary education in a
country where eighty per cent of the population is agricultural and ten
per cent industrial is positively criminal.
The profession of magistrate is immoral. In India the courts are an
instrument of British domination; they encourage dissensions among
Indians, and in a general way they foster and increase misunderstanding
and animosity. They stand for a fattening, lucrative exploitation of the
worst instincts.
As for the medical profession, Gandhi admits he was attracted to it at
first, but he soon realized it was not honorable. For Western medical
science is concerned with giving relief to suffering bodies only. It
does not strive to do away with the cause of suffering and disease,
which, as a rule, is nothing but vice. In fact, Western medical science
may almost be said to encourage vice by making it possible for a man to
satisfy his passions and appetites at the least possible risk. It
contributes, therefore, to demoralize people; it weakens their
will-power by helping them to cure themselves with "black magic"
prescriptions instead of forcing them to strengthen their character by
disciplinary rules for body and soul.[42] In opposition to the false
medical science of the West, which Gandhi has often criticized unfairly,
he places preventive medical science. He has written a little pamphlet
on the subject entitled "A Guide to Health," which is the fruit of
twenty years' experience. It is a moral as well as a therapeutic
treatise, for, according to Gandhi, "disease is the result of our
thoughts as much as of our acts." He considers it a relatively simple
matter to establish certain rules that will prevent disease. For all
disease springs from the same origin, i. e., from neglect of the natural
laws of health. The body is God's dwelling-place. It must be kept pure.
There is truth in Gandhi's point of view, but he refuses a little too
obstinately to recognize the efficacy of remedies that have really
proved to be useful. His moral precepts are also extremely rigid.[43]
§ 7
But the nucleus of modern civilization, its heart, so to speak, is
machinery. Age of iron! Heart of iron! The machine has become a
monstrous idol. It must be done away with. Gandhi's most ardent desire
is to see machinery wiped out of India. To a free India, heir to British
machinery, he would prefer an India dependent on the British market. It
would be better to buy materials manufactured in Manchester than to set
up Manchester factories in India. An Indian Rockefeller would be no
better than a European capitalist. Machinery is the great sin which
enslaves nations, and money is a poison as much as sexual vice.
Indian progressives, however, imbued with modern ideas, ask what would
become of India if she were to have no railroads, tramways, or
industries? To this Gandhi asks if India did not exist before they were
invented? For thousands of years India has resisted, alone, unshaken,
the changing flood of empires. Everything else has passed. But thousands
of years ago India learned the art of self-control and mastered the
science of happiness. She has nothing to learn from other nations. She
does not need the machinery of large cities. Her ancient prosperity was
founded on the plow and the spinning-wheel, and on a knowledge of Hindu
philosophy. India must go back to the sources of her ancient culture.
Not all at once, of course, but gradually. And every one must help in
the evolution.[44]
This is Gandhi's fundamental argument. It is a very important one, and
demands discussion. For it stands for a denial of progress and,
virtually, of Europe's scientific achievement.[45] This medieval
conception is apt, therefore, to clash with the volcanic forward march
of the human mind and incurs the risk of being blown to bits. But, first
of all, it would perhaps be wiser to say, the "forward march of a
certain _phase_ of the human mind," for if one may believe, as I
believe, in the symphonic unity of the universal spirit, one must
realize that it is made up of many different voices, each one singing
its own part. Our youthful Occident carried away by its own score, does
not realize sufficiently that it has not always led the song, nor that
its own law of progress is subject to eclipses, backslidings, and
recommencements; that the history of human civilization is really a
history of human civilizations, and that while within the domain of each
civilization a certain progress may be discernible, a progress
irregular, chaotic, broken, and at times completely halted, it would be
wrong to say that the predominance of one great civilization over
another necessarily implies general human progress.
But without entering into a discussion as to the European dogma of
progress and merely bearing in mind that this dogma, such as it is,
conflicts with Gandhi's faith, we must realize that no conflict will
weaken Gandhi's faith. To believe anything else would be to show a total
ignorance of the workings of the Oriental mind. As Gobineau says:
"Asiatics are much more obstinate than we, in every way. They will wait
centuries, if necessary, for the fulfilment of their ideal, and when it
rises triumphant after such a long slumber it does not seem to have aged
or lost any of its vitality." Centuries mean nothing to a Hindu. Gandhi
is prepared for the triumph of his cause within the year. But he is
equally prepared for it within the course of several centuries. He does
not force time. And if time makes haste slowly, he regulates his gait by
its march.
If, therefore, in the course of his campaign Gandhi finds India
insufficiently prepared to understand and practise the radical reforms
he wishes to impose, he will adapt his doctrine to conditions. He will
bide his time. That is why it is not astonishing to hear the
irreconcilable enemy of machinery declare, in 1921:
I would not weep over the disappearance of machinery or consider this a
calamity. But for the time being I have no designs on machinery as
such.[46]
Or:
The law of complete Love is the Law of my being. But I am not preaching
this final law through the political measures I advocate. I know that
any such attempt is foredoomed to failure. To expect a whole mass of men
and women to obey that law all at once is not to know its working.[47] I
am not a visionary. I claim to be a practical idealist.[48]
Gandhi never asks men for more than they can give. But he asks for all
that they can give. And this is much in a nation like India--a
formidable nation, through its numerical power, its force of duration,
and its abysmal soul. From the very first Gandhi and India have formed a
pact; they understand each other without words. Gandhi knows what he can
demand of India, and India is prepared to give whatever Gandhi may
demand.
Between Gandhi and India there reigns, first of all, absolute agreement
as to goal: _Swaraj_, home rule, for the nation.[49]
"I know," he says, "that _Swaraj_ is the object of the nation and not
non-violence."
And he adds--words amazing on his lips, "I would rather see India freed
by violence than enchained like a slave to her foreign oppressors."
But, he continues, correcting himself at once, this is an impossible
supposition, for violence can never free India. _Swaraj_ can only be
attained by soul-force. This is India's real weapon, the invincible
weapon of love and truth. Gandhi expresses it by the term _Satyagraha_,
which he defines as truth-force and love-force.[50] Gandhi's genius
revealed itself when, by the preaching of this gospel, he revealed to
his people their real nature and their hidden strength.
Gandhi used the word _Satyagraha_ in South Africa to explain the
difference between his ideal and that of passive resistance. Particular
stress must be laid on the difference between these two movements.
Nothing is more false than to call Gandhi's campaign a movement of
passive resistance. No one has a greater horror of passivity than this
tireless fighter, who is one of the most heroic incarnations of a man
who _resists._ The soul of his movement is active resistance--resistance
which finds outlet, not in violence, but in the active force of love,
faith and sacrifice. This threefold energy is expressed in the word
_Satyagraha._
Let not the coward try to hide his cowardice under Gandhi's banner!
Gandhi drives him out of the community. Better violence than cowardice!
Where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I advise
violence....[51] I cultivate the quiet courage of dying without killing.
But to him who has not this courage I advise that of killing and of
being killed, rather than that of shamefully fleeing from danger. For he
who runs away commits mental violence; he runs away because he has not
the courage to be killed while he kills.[52]
I would risk violence a thousand times rather than emasculation of the
race.[53] I would rather have India resort to arms to defend her honor
than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless
victim to her own dishonor.[54]
But I believe that non-violence is infinitely superior to violence,
forgiveness more manly than punishment. Forgiveness adorns a soldier.
Abstinence is forgiveness only when there is power to punish; it is
meaningless when it pretends to proceed from a helpless creature.... I
do not believe India to be helpless. One hundred thousand Englishmen
need not frighten three hundred million human beings.
Besides.
Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an
indomitable will. Non-violence does not mean meek submission to the will
of the evil-doer but the putting of one's whole soul against the will of
the tyrant. Working under this law of our being it is possible for a
single individual to defy the whole might of an unjust empire and lay
the foundation for that empire's fall or its regeneration.