Jyotirmaya Sharma’s book on Gandhi unravels charges of Gandhi’s critics

Raja Sekhar Vundru

DR BR AMBEDKAR was one of the few who prominently disagreed with Mahatma Gandhi on his ideas of non-violence and ahimsa. Ambedkar, who clashed with Gandhi mostly on political matters and electoral methods, also assessed the saintly appearance of Gandhi through the political lens. Gandhi is very well known to have used his principles of ahimsa and the methods of non-violence into actionable programmes of civil disobedience, and for political action against the British colonial power successfully. The most disarming aspect of Gandhi was his conceptual understanding of resisting a colonial power through non-violence and his well-oiled idea of ahimsa.

It was not without debates and criticism that Gandhi trudged the path of non-violence in India (after its initial grounding in South Africa) in an inherently violent society divided on lines of caste, class, religion and origin. Gandhi chose to ignore some criticism, debated some and sometimes was heavily criticised for his unflinching adherence to the principle of non-violence, even at the cost of being accused of not having tried to save the life of Bhagat Singh.

The new film ‘Sardar Udham’ now eulogises and grants justification to such acts which Gandhi was opposed to. Gandhi very well knew the romanticism attached to revolutionaries and the great pull it had for young Indians during the struggle against colonial rule.

But Gandhi stood steadfast, and Jyotirmaya Sharma’s book tries to unravel the charges of those critics with his new insight into Gandhi’s non-violence and ahimsa. Sharma picks up Ambedkar, VD Savarkar, Lala Lajpat Rai and discusses two incidents in detail to evaluate Gandhi’s philosophical grounding of his position on non-violence and ahimsa. One was the murder of Arya Samaj’s Swami Shradhanand by a Muslim man in 1926 and the second, Gandhi not asking the British government to not hang Bhagat Singh and associates.

The author also dwells in great depth on Swami Shradhanand’s ideas on caste, Varna and untouchability. The author interlaces the relationship and their influence on each other and then interrogates Gandhi on the assassination of Swami Shradhanand and his expressions through speeches and his writings. He also talks about the obituary Gandhi wrote for ‘Young India’ on December 30, 1926 titled ‘Shradhanand the martyr’ and also in January 1927: ‘Swamiji as I knew him’.

The author’s idea to evaluate Gandhi through his reaction to Swami Shradhanand’s murder is one of those aspects which is hitherto unexplored. The book, while trying to examine Gandhi‘s reactions to revolutionaries’ hanging and also the murder of Swami Shradhanand, asks why Gandhi did not turn these into issues of protest. The author brings in Savarkar, who describes Gandhi’s response to Swami’s murder as one that is bound to create confusion. Savarkar had accused Gandhi of not showing enough courage to raise the issue against Muslims and failing to give the Muslims a clear warning.

The author, while trying to navigate Gandhi’s often contradictory and paradoxical views, finds three distinct lines of Gandhi’s argument. First, Hinduism was the perfect faith while other religions were still in the process of resolving theological issues. Second, the core of every religion remains untempered and unaffected (by either its evolution or location), which is peace. Third, Gandhi seems to have accepted the Hindu self-image that emerged in the 19th century — the self-description of Hindus as essentially non-violent.

The book traces Gandhi’s making of ahimsa as a core idea and his attestation of his unquestioned fidelity to Hinduism through a series of affirmations in his life. The author evaluates Gandhi as a Sanatan Hindu steeped in the Hindu tradition, including the acceptance of ahimsa as a non-negotiable principle. Gandhi’s support of Manu Smriti and his views on Gita and Buddha have been brought out in the book. But as the author locates the book only in the 1920s, he does not bring in Ambedkar’s challenge to Gandhi in the 1930s and 1940s on Manu Smriti and Gita, apart from Ambedkar’s evaluation of caste-ridden Hinduism against the test of ideas of liberty, equality and fraternity.

Gandhi’s formulation of ahimsa, often seen through the prism of non-cooperation and satyagraha campaigns during India’s freedom movement, gets clouded by the urgency and efficacy of his politics. The evolution of Gandhi’s politics in 1930s and during the 1940s’ war years needs to be posited to explain Gandhi’s ahimsa. The book is a must-read to understand Gandhi’s conclusive debate in the 1920s that set his political agenda on the foundations of non-violence and ahimsa.