GANDHI AND WORLD CULTURE

 

V. V. RAMANA MURTI

Reader in Political Science, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur

 

“I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the cultures of all lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any.”

–M. K. GANDHI

Young India

 

I

 

The most urgent task of our times is beyond doubt to create a citizen of world loyalty whose allegiance is not confined to narrow national frontiers. We all realize that the rapid growth of science and technology rendered the need for world peace imperative in a nuclear age. The great process of the coming together of the peoples everywhere has come to stay, and nothing can prevent it from continuing and growing, in any foreseeable future. As the world is fast shrinking and all nations have to live together, nationalism is clearly impossible of practice. The claims of World Government under the aegis of a global community are indisputable, and they can no longer be ignored or postponed. One World has ceased to be a dream; it is now a reality. “I will not like to live in this world”, declared Gandhi “if it is not to be one.” And he added: “Certainly I should like to see this dream realized in my lifetime.” 1

 

Such a view of Gandhi was entirely in consonance with his life-mission devoted to the preservation of man’s spirit and the unification of mankind through his chosen means of non-violence. His oft-repeated insistence on the self-sufficiency of the village was nothing more than a specific prescription for curing Indian economy of its many chronic maladies and should not be regarded as a universal panacea for all the ills of the world. Regional self-sufficiency was advocated by him only with regard to the material welfare. It would lose its justification if it were extended to all other spheres of life. If its strict application was insisted on in cultural and intellectual matters, it would amount to a most deplorable stagnation of the human mind. Autarky–in the sense of ‘closing of the doors’, might be valid in a given context for the objective of providing the material interests but it might well produce very undesirable results if it is maintained even with reference to intellectual development. Gandhi would, therefore, regard the village as his world for material things; but for the things of the mind he would take the world as his village.

 

Gandhi’s concern to give a national orientation to the culture of India is more meaningful in the light of this cardinal feature of his thought. The basic requirements that are needed to make an Indian culture truly Indian are never missed by him at any time. During his fateful association with the Indian people for a long period, he never discarded his adherence to the fundamental values that are sanctioned by the culture of his country through- out the ages. He upheld them always, and did not swerve from his path amidst any crisis. Gandhi first sought to build a solid structure for the culture of his nation, and he proceeded to raise a secure foundation for the culture of the world mainly on the national basis of his country’s culture. It was the uniqueness of Gandhi that he admitted no division between the pursuit of the national good and the service of all nations at large. He recognized no final and rigid differences between the culture of his people and the culture of other peoples. He found a natural harmony between them and, therefore, he always strove for synthesis and not conflict. Gandhi served, in the words of Ernest Barker, “as a bridge and reconciler”. 2

 

II

 

What was Gandhi’s image of Indian culture? He never subscribed to a narrow view in this respect. The validity of an Indian culture was always cherished by him but he refused to identify it with, what has come to be known in certain circles as, Aryan or Hindu culture. It is worthwhile to recall his categorical repudiation of this mythical species in his own words. Gandhi contended:

 

“There is no such thing as a pure Aryan culture in existence today in India. Whether the Aryans were indigenous to India or were unwelcome intruders, does not interest me much. What does interest me is the fact that my remote ancestors blended with one another with the utmost freedom and we of the present generation are a result of that blend”. 3

 

A concept of Indian culture, according to Gandhi, should be a blend or harmonious composition of different elements in Indian life. Only a composite or cosmopolitan culture could be entitled to represent the culture of India. As it had ever been the accredited land of many races and groups from the beginning of its recorded history, it would violate its own nature and defeat its self-ordained purpose if it tried to lay stress exclusively on any one aspect of its cultural heritage. Exclusiveness is the genesis of intolerance; and cultural intolerance is the ultimate source of national disasters. Also, a culture worth its name must inevitably learn to absorb and assimilate live influences from other cultures; and habits of positive tolerance and active sympathy are crucial for its survival and growth. “No culture can live” as Gandhi proclaimed, “if it attempts to be exclusive.”

 

As regards the viability of Indian culture, Gandhi believed that it “is in the making.” It is still in the process of its formation because the clashes and conflicts between several groups and peoples are not yet resolved to produce “a blend of all the cultures”. He resolutely maintained that the various and different systems and their respective cultures should be allowed to have their full interplay in India. At the same time all care and concern should be exercised to find sources of reconciliation and bonds of friendship. On the question of lingua franca for India, Gandhi commended neither Hindi nor any other language but a common mixture of Hindi and Urdu languages, popularly known as Hindustani. In our endeavour to evolve a national culture for India, an incessant stress on points of divergence would only lead to distrust and friction. It will certainly mean the end of diversity and its very existence. What is more helpful is to find out ways and means of unity that ever exist between different cultures.

 

Holding this broad perspective as he did, Gandhi’s attitude to different religions and philosophies was one of neither simple acceptance nor of complete rejection. He responded to his own religion with characteristic devotion. But his Hinduism was no sectarian principle, and he also chose to be its foremost reformer when he was confronted with an unforgivable evil like untouchability at its core. He challenged the sanction of Hinduism for this practice and waged a heroic battle against the orthodox exponents of his religion when they would support it. Again, when it was pointed out to Gandhi that ‘Gita’, the central doctrinal source of Hinduism, preached violence, he contested the authenticity of this view. He argued that it did not preach violence but actually sanctioned non-violence; and he himself reinterpreted the classic for this pre-eminent purpose. Gandhi was not a traditionalist in the accepted sense of the term. He was willing to discard the traditions and conventions if they did not conform to his highest truth.

 

A similar non-conformist method was discernible in Gandhi’s approach to other religions like Christianity and Islam. His encounter with the Sermon on the Mount at an early and impressionable age was recounted in a moving reference by Gandhi himself in his Autobiography. 4 His attachment to the Christian hymns was well known. But he disapproved of the attempts of the Christian missionaries towards proselytization and insisted on nobody’s conversion to any other’s religion. He claimed that Jesus was a Satyagrahi and rejected the conventional inactivity of the Christian groups on the issue of pacifism and resistance to war. Similarly, he remained the most invincible votary of Hindu-Muslim unity and did not give up his faith in it till the end of his life. Indeed, it was for the cause of Hindu-Muslim concord that Gandhi laid down his life. Gandhi deduced the Gospel of Non-violence as freely from Koran as from the Gita. He refused to believe that Islam sanctioned violence and passionately voiced his conviction that the great religion of the Prophet proclaimed the lessons of compassion and peace.

 

It will be seen that Gandhi did not remain an uncritical votary of any religious faith. Much as he accepted a great deal of religion, he also took up the role of a reformer and revolutionary if it was necessary. Gandhi’s reactions to various religions could well be regarded, in the language of Arnold Toynbee, as continuous alterations between response and challenge. He responded to the call of agreement for his cause, but he challenged the basis of opposition to his conviction. The resultant effect of such a live process in Gandhi’s thought is obvious in the natural culmination of a harmony and unity. As Gandhi himself stated, he stood for a “synthesis of the different cultures that have come to stay in India, that have influenced Indian life, and that, in their turn, have themselves been influenced by the spirit of the soil”. 5 Gandhi’s vision of Indian culture is as symbolic of the genius of India as of the spirit of its culture.

 

III

 

A culture, before it claims all nations, must be rooted in a nation. An appreciation of the culture of other nations and peoples flows from a basic understanding of the culture of one’s own. Without the foundation of a national culture, an attempt to erect an international or world culture will be futile. The freedom of India is indispensable in Gandhi’s view because that is the only basis for India’s service of humanity. Conflict between nationalism and internationalism did not arise in the case of Gandhi who found an organic correlation between them. Internationalism is indeed an extension, and not a restriction, of nationalism. Gandhi says:

 

“It is impossible for one to be an internationalist without being a nationalist. Internationalism is possible only when nationalism becomes a fact…..” 6

 

It was only natural that Gandhi should absorb a genuinely international outlook. Though he began as an ardent nationalist, he soon reached the end of a world citizen. Even when he was fighting the cause of the Indians against England, he bore no ill will towards the English people. His historic campaign of non-cooperation in 1920 was preceded by a chivalrous appeal “To every Englishman”.  During the very critical period of the World War II, Gandhi was deeply moved by the possible destruction of the capital of Great Britain. His meeting with the Viceroy of India, Lord Linlithgow was related by him. “I told His Excellency”, Gandhi observed, “that my sympathies were with England and France from the purely humanitarian standpoint. I told him that I could not contemplate, without being stirred to the very depth, the destruction of London……And as I was picturing before him the House of Parliament and the Westminister Abbey and their possible destruction, I broke down. I have become disconsolate”. 7

 

It was with this anguish for peace that Gandhi wrote his historic letter to Herr Hitler on 23rd July 1939 when he implored him not to “reduce humanity to the savage state” by waging a war. He condemned the conquest of Abyssinia by Mussolini in emphatic terms, and urged the victims of aggression everywhere in Europe not to yield to physical force but resist it by Satyagraha. His recipe was non-violent resistance against the aggressor, and he commended this method to Indians and foreigners alike. The brave Poles and Czechs, the Jews and the Negroes–and all members of the oppressed humanity received the same counsel of heroic conduct amidst the crisis. Gandhi had succeeded in indentifying himself with every one anywhere in the world. During the fateful decade from 1930 to 1940, he found himself an uncompromising champion of pacifism and internationalism. One of the remarkable characteristics of his internationalist creed was that he desired to further internationalism through the means of pacifism. Alternately, his outspoken pacifism in India and abroad at this time was noteworthy for its increasing stress on internationalism.

 

Gandhi’s internationalism was rooted in his pacifism. His love of mankind sprang from his devotion to non-violence. And the sustaining force of his creed, universal brotherhood, was derived from a synthesis of all religions. Gandhi was neither just a Hindu nor a Christian. And he was certainly much more than an Indian. He felt that he was as much an Englishman as he was an Indian. When Mr. Louis Fischer met Gandhi for the first time in 1942 at Sevagram, he noticed a decoration on the mud walls of his hut. A print of Jesus was seen with the inscription “He is our Peace”. Mr. Fischer enquired about it and reminded him that he was not a Christian. “I am a Christian, and a Hindu, and a Moslem, and a Jew”, Gandhi replied.8 He represented the completest expression of the oneness of humanity. Gandhi was the Universal Man in every sense of the term.

 

A world culture can function in the present circumstances only as a humanistic culture. The most cardinal feature of it must be based on the integral nature of man. Kant long ago stated that every man is an end in himself. Can we now say the same thing in terms of a nation? We are still far away from the position when we can believe that every nation is an end in itself. At a time when the people everywhere are engaged in the reconstruction of the world order and the experiments of World Government, the question about the place of a nation and the nature of its culture is a pertinent one. Gandhi’s weltanschauung of culture is much relevant in this context when the union of all nations is being deliberated. While the unification of mankind must go on, no effort must be spared to preserve the identity and culture of every nation. It will be a grievous mistake if the unity of the world is reduced to the uniformity of the world. Similarly, the anxiety of all nations and peoples to merge themselves into a worth while world order will not be complete and successful if the diversity of every group and nation is not scrupulously and willingly maintained. An over-zealous sacrifice of the diversity of individual or nation at the altar of a rigid uniformity is bound to be followed by regrettable consequences. Diversity in unity and unity in diversity is a valid maxim for a nation, and it is no less relevant for the world. The enemies of culture, whether national or international, are the forces of divergence and uniformity under whatever disguise they may function.

 

IV

 

Mathew Arnold spoke of culture in terms of “sweetness and light”. Perhaps Gandhi would add ‘non-violence’. It is the very core of his thought; and its increasing acceptance by different peoples and nations is a convincing proof of its universal appeal. A non-violent culture is not impossible, and unless we court collective suicide through a thermo-nuclear war, it has perhaps no alternative. Gandhi says:

 

“The world of tomorrow will be, must be, a society based on non-violence…..An individual can adopt the way of life of the future–the non-violent way without having to wait for others to do so. And if an individual can do it, cannot whole groups or individuals? whole nations?” 9

 

The end of Gandhi’s life on 30th January 1948 did not mean the end of his great mission. It was only the beginning of the vast influence that his personality and work had generated in the entire world. We now see that the magical power or his name and creed are steadily growing in all parts of the globe. Much as he served the values of man in his life, Gandhi seems to serve them much more through his martyrdom. The process of paying heed to the hitherto unknown aspects of his teaching is continuing.

 

The technique of non-violent direct action is more in evidence in the world today. The evil of racial segregation has been non-violently resisted not long ago by the leaders of the Indian community in South Africa. The weapon of civil resistance is being utilized by the Negroes in the United States, and Dr. Martin Luther King, their great leader, has found it quite effective. In many parts of Africa, Asia and Europe, the non-violent technique is being chosen by more and more numbers of people to use it in favour of justice and peace. In England, the employment of the Gandhian method by the pacifist groups has been one of the most notable experiments in recent times. The non-violent technique is revived by no less a world celebrity than Bertrand Russell who has stated that he continues to believe in this method. It seems to fulfil a most significant mission when it is accepted to further the cause of peace in our times.

 

We can reject Gandhi and his ideas only at our total peril. It is also obvious that the surest way for our survival and peace consists in accepting the Gandhian way. His life-work is truly universal, and he now belongs to humanity.

 

An Indian who was visiting Germany recently came across a villager in Konigswinter on the Rhine. On knowing that the visitor came from India, the villager said to him “Gandhi est ein Gut Man”. An unknown person in a far of corner thus pays his homage to the Universal Man in Gandhi whose unique contribution to world culture is already acknowledged by history.

 

1 Harijan, 20-4-1947. Gandhi gave this statement in the course of his answer to a question whether he believed in the concept of One World and its success under present conditions. The query was put to him by a delegate of the Inter-Asian Relations Conference in New Delhi when Gandhi attended it for the first time on 1st April 1947.

2 Vide: “Mahatma, Gandhi: Essays and Reflections on his Life and Work” by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan. Pp. 58-62 (“Gandhi, As a Bridge and Reconciler” by Ernest Barker)

3 Harijan: 9-5-1936, P. 100.

4 See An Autobiography or The Story of My Experiments with Truth by M. K. Gandhi; Chapter XX (Part I); Pp. 91-92.

5 Young India, 17-11-1920.

6 Young India, 18-6-1925; P. 211.

7 Harijan: 9-9-1939.

8 Quoted in “The Life of Mahatma Gandhi” by Louis Fischer. P. 360.

9 ‘Liberty’ (London), 1931.

 

Back