GOKHALE
AND GANDHI:
SPIRITUALITY
IN PUBLIC LIFE *
PROF.
D. G. KARVE
Formerly,
Vice-Chancellor, Poona University
Speaking
at a function which must have been among the very first held to pay homage to
Gokhale after his demise, which had occurred only a few weeks earlier, Gandhi
said (Jubilee Souvenir of the G. I. P. A., Pp. 84-86):
“I
have declared myself his disciple in the political field and I have him as my
Raj-Guru, and this I claim on behalf of the Indian people. It was in 1896 that
I made this declaration and I do not regret having made the choice.”
He
went on to say: “Mr. Gokhale taught me that the dream of every Indian who
claims to love his country, should be to act in the political field, not to
glorify it in language, but to spiritualize the political life of the country,
and the political institutions of the country.”
In
view of the fact that Gokhale exhorted his countrymen to spiritualire public
life, and that this exhortation evoked a deep, reverent and abiding response in
the heart of Gandhi, whom later generations have cherished as the Father of the
Nation, the concept of “spirituality in public life” may merit close attention.
In the same speech of Gandhi, he asked:
“What
is the meaning of spiritualizing the political life of the country?”
Admitting
that it was difficult to offer a generally acceptable answer, he declared his
own response as follows:
“I
think the political life must be an echo of private life and there cannot be
any divorce between the two.”
Going
through the several speeches of Gokhale, where a reference to an appropriate
attitude towards politics and public life occurs, and keeping in view some of
the controversies on a high moral and political plane which went on when Gandhi
made his first speech about Gokhale, his remarks have a special significance.
If political life, that is, those activities of one’s life which have their
origin in one’s position as a member of the polity, the state, is treated by
citizens as an optional and additional activity, their interest in public
affairs is at best casual. With the mass of the people having no more than an
indifferent or only occasional interest in politics, a democratic or liberal
form of government, built on the assumption of active participation of
citizens, is ruled out. For both Gandhi and Gokhale the objective of political
struggle was not only to gain freedom from Britain, but to get it in such
manner that the Indian State, which will emerge at the end, will be a
democratic, progressive and equalitarian society. For, an integrated goal of
political activity such as this the distinction between ends and means was most
crucial.
There
were not a few among the well-known contemporaries of Gokhale, and later of
Gandhi, who felt that achievement of political freedom from foreign rule was
itself such a supremely moral end that any controversy about the ethical merits
of the means to be adopted to attain that end was irrelevant. Gokhale and
Gandhi very emphatically held a different view on the subject. According to them
political or civic conduct is, or ought to be, part and parcel of the normal
life of a member of a civilized community. Not only must he give to civic and
political interests the same attention which he normally gives to his personal
or family interests, he must also be held accountable in both spheres to the
same standards of good behaviour. Political life, said Gandhi, must be an echo
of private life, there cannot be any divorce between the two. In fact, Gandhi
expressed his views about the crucial importance of the quality of means in a
social transformation more firmly on another occasion when he observed: “It is
true we cannot rise till our political condition is reformed. But it is not
true that we shall be able to progress if our political condition undergoes a
change by any means and in any manner.” **
As
Gokhale was among the very first of his countrymen to appreciate fully the high
moral plane on which Gandhi moved–the first meeting between the two is
described by Gandhi as “love at first sight”–he continued throughout his later
life to pay unstinted public tribute to Gandhi, to his work in South Africa and
to his teachings. In one of his innumerable references to Gandhi, Gokhale said
that in him Indian humanity has reached its high-water mark. While
appreciating, and following, the high principles of fairness and morality in
public life which the two shared, Gokhale was prepared to devote himself in a
workmanlike manner to the essential task of building India’s public life.
Throughout his career Gokhale worked as a Congressman, and he filled several
positions in that organization. In 1903 when he was only 37 years of age, he
was elected Joint Secretary of the Congress. In that capacity he toured the
country to create the necessary interest in, and to guide the progress of
public life. The speech that he delivered in Madras in July 1904 was an
occasion for him to make an important statement of his views on public life in
India.
He
first dealt with those who had by then grown weary and pessimistic about the
results of political activity conducted by the Congress. Gokhale felt that
considering the strength of those who were entrenched in power, and the
weakness of the people seeking their rightful position, the achievements in
respect of creating and organizing public opinion were by no means meagre or
discouraging. The struggle, in his opinion, was bound to be a long and arduous
one in which success will depend on the development of the people’s capacity
and character, and on the quality of their efforts individual as well as
institutional. To those who felt that it would be more fruitful to turn the
organised activities of people into industrial channels, Gokhale answered: “It
is with me a firm conviction that unless you have a more effective and more
potent voice in the government of your own country, in the administration of
your affairs, in the expenditure of your own revenues, it is not possible for
you to effect much in the way of industrial development.” The spurt in planned
economic development which has occurred in independent India during the last
fifteen years, in contrast with the systematic stunting of India’s economic
life under foreign rule for over a hundred and fifty years, fully bears out the
validity of Gokhale’s analysis and his emphasis on priority of political
work.
The
circumstances of the times, he thought, justified, better hopes and called for
more intensive and disciplined action. He declared that “Our public life is
really feeble and ineffective because it is so faint-hearted and so soulless.
Very few of us have really faith in the work we are doing.” He went on to add
that if we desire to emulate the example of Japan–which was then emerging as a
strong Asian power–we must have a more concentrated and more disciplined public
life. Elaborating the same thought further he observed:
“The
day has gone by when politics could afford to be amateurish in this land. It
has been ameteurish in the past but the struggle is growing keener and keener,
and it is necessary that men should take up the duties and
responsibilities of public life in the same manner as they choose their
profession and devote their energies to it...Surely in every
province, the country has the right to expect at least one or two men to come
forward and give more of their time and energy to the building up of the public
life, whose weakness we all so much deplore. These men could then be centres
round whom our young men could group and band themselves together, and it would
then be possible to build up a much higher type of public life than now. There
is a great deal of quiet work to be done for which we want young men, who will
be willing to go among the public without noise or fuss, not anxious to address
meetings but willing and content to do quiet work. If we all recognise our
respective duties in this spirit, we shall be able to turn our present efforts
into a great, rousing movement for the political emancipation of this land.”
Only
next year, that is, on June 12, 1905, the Servants of India Society was established
with headquarters in Poona with Gokhale as its First Member, who at sunrise on
that administered the oath of membership to his three fellow-members. In a
preamble to the constitution of the Society Gokhale brings out more fully the
implications of his views on public life in India. In an important part of this
statement he observes:
“A
creditable beginning has already been made in matters of education and of local
self-government; and all classes of the people are slowly but steadily coming
under the influence of liberal ideas. The claims of public life are every day
receiving wider recognition, and attachment to the land of our birth is growing
into a strong and deeply cherished passion of the heart...One essential
condition of success in this work is that a sufficient number of our
country-men must now come forward to devote themselves to the cause in the
spirit in which religious work is undertaken. Public life must be
spiritualised.”
It
will thus be seen that Gokhale’s exhortation to his countrymen to spiritualize
politics had several implications. That they should follow
in their public or political life the same standard of good conduct as they
naturally do in their private life was an important, but only one of the
important, implications of his teaching. That all civilised and patriotic
persons have a public aspect of their life for which they must have a programme
of daily devotion, as they reserve for their private life, is a principle of
behaviour on which alone the life of a great nation is based. Gokhale had Japan
very much in his mind as one of the outstanding examples of an Asian country
rising as one man, and working like a dedicated family for the freedom and
progress of the nation. Not in one field, but in all, unless people devoted themselves
to their social, civic and political duties with the same idealism and
dedication which are considered appropriate virtues in private life, political
freedom, democracy and progress would be impossible of attainment.
This
was Gokhale’s and Gandhi’s teaching for all their countrymen. For the select
few who would muster strength and enough idealism and dedication to devote
themselves entirely to national service a higher standard of sacrifice and
selflessness was demanded. As an example may be quoted the following vows which
each member of the Servants of India Society has to take before his admission
into the Society:
(i)
That the country will always be the first in his
thought and he will give to her service the best that is in him.
(ii)
That in serving the country he will seek no
personal advantage for himself.
(iii)
That he will regard all Indians as brothers and
will work for the advancement of all, without distinction of caste or creed.
(iv)
That he will be content with such provisions for
himself and his family, if he has any, as the Society may be able to make. He
will devote no part of his energies to earning money for himself.
(v)
That he will lead a pure personal life.
(vi)
That he will engage in no personal quarrels with
anyone.
Such
a rigid code of conduct was possible only for those who could rise to an
exceptionally high level of moral and social sublimation of the normal
instincts and interests of common men. In a way this code is for Political or
Social Sannyasins. Gandhi, enjoined in substance all these obligations on the
members of his Ashram, and on his immediate co-workers. For the rest, both
Gokhale and Gandhi were content to exhort their contrymen to follow these
principles in spirit to the best possible extent. An educated, alert and public-spirited
mass of the people, an appropriate number of leading workers giving a fair
portion of their time and resources to organizing public activities, a
widespread network of institutions engaged in promoting different aspects of
national welfare, and a select group of dedicated workers such as those who
formed the Servants of India Soceity was Gokhale’s conception of an appropriate
public life for India. In his day, both in quantitative terms and in terms of
the functions to be allotted to active workers the expectations of Gokhale were
naturally very limited as compared with those which were appropriate to later
times, such as those the final stages of the national struggle under Mahatma
Gandhi.
Spiritual
loftiness, moral depth, organizational leadership and practical realism were
combined in Gandhi to an exceptionally high degree. In a manner of speaking, he
took over the leadership India’s struggle for Independence where Gokhale left
it. In some of the words used by Gandhi in his speech referred to country seem
to indicate that he was conscious of his inheritance of faith as well as of
responsibility.
“My
dear countrymen,” said he, “I wish to say this to you that you have given me a
great opportunity or rather a privilege on this great occasion….God is not in
me (referring to the fact his clothes were not dusty and tattered as mentioned
in Tagore’s description of a man with whom God moves, in a song of welcome
which was used on the occasion). There are other conditions attached; but in
these conditions too I may fail; and you, my dear countrymen, may also fail;
and if we do tend this thought well we should not dishonour the memory of one
whose portrait you have asked me to unveil this morning...He inspired my
life and is still inspiring; and in that I wish to purify myself and
spiritualize myself. I have dedicated myself to that ideal. I may fail, and to
what extent I may fail, I call myself to that extent an unworthy disciple of my
master. ***
That
Gandhi did not fail in physical or material terms is now well known. He
fulfilled to the very letter Gokhale’s prophetic claim that, “It may be that
the history of the world does not furnish an instance where a subject-race has
risen by agitation. If so, we shall supply that example for the first time. The
history of the world has not yet come to an end, there are more chapters to be
added.” (Madras, February 1904)
Such
moral prestige as India enjoys in the present-day world is almost entirely due
to the addition made by the Indian people under Gandhi’s leadership, and under
his banner of truth and non-violence, of a glorious chapter to world’s history.
That a determined, dedicated and united people can achieve their just rights
against mighty material odds by mobilizing the forces of their own moral regeneration
is a truth that civilised human beings would like to believe. They, however,
see few major instances of the vindication of this truth in real experience.
Gandhi, in pursuit of the ideal which he shared with Gokhale, supplied a
shining illustration which has inspired hope and courage among many others who
are faced with similar and worse trials.
For
Gokhale and Gandhi, the merit of achieving an end-result lay at least as much
in the quality of the means as in the extent of the achievement. In fact for
several reasons they attached more importance to means than to ends. As a rule
disregard of just means leads to an eventual deterioration which would rob the
achievement of all substance, at least of all moral substance, of the ideals in
support of which the struggle is undertaken. Here again, Gokhale expresses the
relatively greater importance of legitimate means when he says: “The real moral
interest of a struggle, such as we are engaged in, lies not so much in the
particular readjustment of present institutions which we may succeed in
securing, as in the strength that the conflict brings us to be a permanent part
of ourselves.” (Presidential Address at the Banaras Congress Session, 1905)
Now,
after nearly nineteen years have elapsed since the successful issue of the
great popular movement for independence sponsored by the Congress under the
leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, it should be possible to take stock of the
situation and to see how far the struggle has added to our permanent strength.
For
freedom to be real, it has to be experienced by the common man in his daily
life. This alone evokes interest and participation by the citizen in public
affairs. A pattern of social organization in which the affairs which directly
affect the people of each locality or region are left substantially to their
own mangement is to be welcomed as a foundational feature of stable democracy.
Gokhale was an ardent advocate of decentralised administration. That
considerable progress has been made in setting up these local organs of
self-government at all levels of our national community is in one sense a
fulfilment of the promise of a truly democratic regime. That the new set-up has
its own problems, especially on the human or personnel side, only poses a fresh
challenge and an opportunity for the organization of public life in the spirit
in which Gokhale preached its extension in the nation’s political life. The
smooth functioning of democratic institutions nearer one’s own place of
interest and their utilization for promoting public welfare, constitute a
permanent addition to the opportunities and obligations of public life which
all can now share.
The
same feeling of a substantial fulfilment of the institutional promise of the
mass struggle for national independence may be conveyed by the efforts made to
initiate a social order in which planned economic development of all classes
and regions finds suitable recognition. This observation does not necessarily
imply that the machinery, or the making, or the implementation, of plans has
been faultless. That is a different issue by itself. But as with a broadbased
structure of political life, so with a commitment to planned economic
development of all classes and regions in the country; the two together
constitute a permanent accession of strength to the nation. Their early and
firm establishment in the country is a natural and a healthy
sequel to the policies underlying the national struggle, for which Gokhale
worked throughout his life. To bring to an end political as well as economic
subjection, which more than any other purpose, was Gokhale’s special concern,
has now been attained. Internally, and internationally, we are free in both
these respects to order our affairs as the people of this country freely
desire.
It
must be admitted, however, that in one or two prominent respects, and in a
somewhat unexpected fashion, a few of the most cherished values in public life,
on which Gokhale and Gandhi laid great stress, appear to have faded out of
sight. Public life must be spiritualized, said Gokhale. Gandhi understood that
to be the principal teaching of his Guru, which in his life he tried to follow.
Look upon your public life as a part of your personal life: follow the same
high standard in both: do your public work as you do your private work, in a
religious spirit. This was their teaching, their precept and their example.
After nineteen years of independence a generation has appeared to whom the
exhortation would appear to be pointless, if not meaningless. That version of
secularism, which in practice has meant virtual eclipse of religion for the
great mass of the people, in which new generations are being brought up without
any assured introduction to religious philosophy and faith, would fail to
constitute, in the Gokhale–Gandhi tradition, a worthy preparation for public,
or for that matter for private, life.
Another
equally disquieting development is the absorption, into the political vortex of
governmental power, of all the traditions of disinterested service of the
nation and of humanity for which the generation of Gokhale and Gandhi worked,
Gandhi’s withdrawal from the Congress on the eve of the latter’s assumption of
governmental power in Delhi was an event of great symbolic significance. The
Congress, such as it was in the middle of 1947, was an institution devoted to
the attainment of freedom by Indians of all classes, to the making of which
persons, with different ideologies and back-grounds, but having a common
dedication to national independence, had contributed their mite. The prestige,
goodwill and historical appeal, which had gathered round the name of the
Congress, was not the creation of any particular group, each one of whom would
been legitimately free to form an electioneering organ of its own in the new
democracy which was born. The Congress would they have continued as a truly
non-partisan national body giving unity and inspiration to all those who had a
disinterested, dedicated, spiritualized interest in public life–such as people
had before the setting up of governmental institutions of our own for which
electioneering postures and arrangements were thought to be necessary. It was
reported at that time, that Gandhi desired that after independence the Congress
should cease to be a political body in a partisan sense.
The
obviously unnatural situation which has been created in many parts of the
country–that we have hardly any political party to compare with the Congress,
but the Congress itself is full of rival factions and dissident splinters–is a
portentous circumstance. What is more relevant to any hope of spiritualizing
public life, the entire tradition of disinterested national service having been
pressed into the normal functioning of a party government, several basic
spheres of social amelioration in which non-political motivations are alone
effective have come to be neglected to a point of danger. To take only a couple
of examples: prohibition and tribal welfare.
In
pre-independence days, almost all social workers, except a fringe of highly
modernized patriots, felt interested in the cause of temperance. Many among the
older generation of today would recall the sustained efforts then made to
persuade the victims of the drink evil to follow better ways. The whole of the
official machinery in those days was hostile to such an effort, partly because
the rulers did not look upon drink in the same unfavourable light as we did,
and partly because excise revenue was an important feeder of the public purse.
One had every right to expect that in both these respects conditions would
materially change when we had our own governments. Temperance workers, with the
assistance of a suitable public policy and of better example from the new
rulers, would have hoped for better success, and for a cleaner and healthier society.
But
when the reformers donned the clothes of rulers, or of policemen, in their
inexperience and arrogation, they thought what was needed to end the drink evil
was an anti-drink law and little more. Lip sympathy is even now paid to the
need for educative propaganda. But I have yet to see leading lights of the
ruling party going into drink-infested localities, and carrying on an
anti-drink campaign as their own predecessors were doing. Now they would more
easily send a police party. If public work is no more than public coercion,
albeit in a good cause, all hope of spiritualizing public life, of carrying it
on in a religious spirit, would vanish.
Even
more disturbing are the developments, or the lack of development, in the tribal
areas. The rehabilitation, and the social, cultural and economic betterment of
the tribal people is a debt, is an obligation, which we owe to the whole
humanity. If ever a missionary approach of serving God in serving one’s
fellow-men is called for, it is here that the need is greatest. Whatever the political
motive of the foreign rulers may have been, it cannot be doubted that the
foreign missionaries in the tribal areas played a significant role in bringing
the tribal people into the fold of the more advanced peoples of the world. Both
Gokhale and Gandhi placed the greatest emphasis on this sphere of public
service. Thakkar Baba, a colleague of Gokhale and Gandhi, played almost a
historical role in reclaiming for the national cause the allegiance of some
tribal communities, who, left to themselves, might otherwise have posed
problems almost as big as those which are now posed by some other tribal
groups. The overnight transformation of the Congress into a political party and
its being enthroned in Viceregal, and Governor’s, palaces as the ruling power,
has meant an end, at least an eclipse, of genuine public service, such as the
one which Gokhale and Gandhi lived for and died for.
Obviously,
it is too late in the day to undo what has been done in this respect. The
remedy in the political field will now have to be a political one. But in the
sphere of non-partisan social, human and civic activity it has now become
necessary, in view of the many major frustrations of the people’s hopes and
ideals, to reconstruct public life more or less along the same principles which
were advocated by Gokhale and Gandhi over fifty years ago. With a democratic
constitution, with widespread knowledge, and with growing abundance of
resources, it should now be easier to build local and national units of public
service. What is needed is the spirit of non-partisan and devoted regard for
the relief of misery, for the spread of knowledge, and for the vindication of
justice. There is an urgent call for public service in all these respects, and
with a government committed to the principles of social justice as outlined in
the preamble and in Part IV of our Constitution, the prospects of fulfilment
even in material terms, as distinguished from the moral satisfaction of the
worker, are definitely more assured. The attainment of independence, and the
transformation of the Congress into an electioneering party, have not lessened
but multiplied both the need and the opportunity of organizing public activity
according to the principles of Gokhale and Gandhi.
This
should not surprise or disappoint us in any way. Wider freedom and more
sophisticated organizations always create larger and more intricate problems.
Our efforts to solve them have also be better organized, better equipped and
better directed. But the moral principles and human values to be pursued by
workers in all circumstances remain the same. To repeat, with Gokhale and
Gandhi: –
(a)
The dream of every Indian who claims to love his
country should be to spiritualize the political life of the country;
(b)
Political life must be an echo of private life;
there cannot be any divorce between the two;
(c)
A sufficient number of our countrymen must come
forward to devote themselves to the cause in the spirit in which religious work
is undertaken; and
(d)
Public life must be spiritualized.
So
long as his countrymen remember, and try to follow, these invaluable teachings
of Gokhale, he would not have lived in vain.
* Extract from the
Centenary Address delivered in the Gokhale Birthday Centenary Celebrations at
the Gokhale Institute of Public Affairs, Bangalore, on the 9th of May 1966.
** Gokhale: My Political
Guru. p. 50
*** Pages 84-86;
Jubilee Souvenir of the G.I.P.A. 1965