ON ART:

GANDHIJI AND ANANDA K. COOMARASWAMY

S. DURAI RAJA SINGAM

I

There is a general misconception that in the Gandhian way of life art does not play an important role. In fact, so prevalent is this fallacy that in his “Verdict on India,” Beverly Nichols boldly says: “Gandhi is probably typical of the modern Hindu’s (emphasis mine) complete insensibility to art; it simply does not enter his scheme of things.” This remark needs no refutation. It has only to be noted if the modern Christian is really cultured he will, with equal completeness, be insensible to the verdict of Beverly Nichols. But what is more relevant is that the cultured Christian will have greater respect for the sympathetic but critical verdict of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru who in his Autobiography says: “Gandhi had little sense of beauty of artistry in man-made objects, though he admired natural beauty. The Taj Mahal was for him an embodiment of forced labour and little more….And yet in his own way he had made of his life an artistic whole. Every gesture had meaning and grace, without a false touch.” But even Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru’s comment needs qualification in the light of the following anecdote. During one of his visits to Mysore, Gandhiji was shown some beautiful landscape studies by Sri K. Venkatappa, the well-known artist. One of these showed the first outburst of the monsoon and the “mist-clad and rain drenched” hill at Ooty. When looking at this picture he said that he felt “the chill and cold blast of the rains” as if he were actually caught in the monsoon on the Nilgiri Hills. Those about Gandhiji noticed that he even shivered. This incident clearly shows that he is not impervious to man-made beauty, to art in the strict of the word.

Additional proof that the Mahatma is not a philistine is shown by the little publicised fact that he sent his grand-nephews (Diren and Narain Gandhi) and their sister to be trained first at Ahmedabad by the artist R. M. Raval and later at Santiniketan by that great artist Nandalal Bose. How often has he secured the services of the saintly Nandalal Bose, to layout the village sessions of the various Congresses in tune with the genius of Indian art.

Now, comments and anecdotes apart, what has Gandhiji himself to say on the subject?

Unfortunately there is no single treatise where Gandhiji has expressed his views on art. Unlike Beverly Nichols, with his propensity for passing verdicts on matters beyond his comprehension, Gandhiji was, as he himself said in an interview with Sri G. Ramachandran; too conscious of his limitations to hold forth on art. But he has expressed his fundamental convictions on art which can be gleaned from his writings and statements.

Assessing modern art, he is unequivocal in his criticism: “Who can deny that much that passes for science and art today destroys the soul instead of uplifting it and instead of evolving the best in us panders to our basest passions? (Young India, August 11, 1927) That goes for Beverly Nichols, the atom bomb and the two-penny thriller.

In one of his interviews with Sri Dilip Kumar Roy, he defines the purpose of true art thus:

All true art is then the expression of the soul. The outward forms have value only in so far as they are the expression of the inner spirit of man.

All true art must help the soul to realise its inner self. In my own case, I find that I can do entirely without external forms in my soul’s realisations. I can claim, therefore, that there is truly sufficient art in my life, though you might not see works of art about me. My room may have blank walls; and I may even dispense with the roof, so that I may gaze out upon the starry heavens overhead that stretch in an unending expanse of beauty. What conscious art of man can give me the panoramic scenes that open out before me, when I look up to the sky above with all its shining stars? (Among the Great, Dilip Kumar Roy)

Again in one of his first interviews with Sri G. Ramachandran he stresses the aim of true art:

“I am grateful”, exclaimed Ramachandran, “to hear your views on art, and I understand and accept them. Would it not well be for you to set them down for the benefit of the younger generation in order to guide them right?”

“That”, replied Gandhiji with a smile, “I could never dream of doing, for the simple reason that it would be an impertinence on my part to hold forth on art. I am not an art student, though these are my fundamental convictions, I do not speak or write about it, because I am conscious of my own limitations. That consciousness is my only strength. Whatever I might have been able to do in my life has proceeded more than anything else out of the realisati0n of my own limitations, my functions are different from the artists and I should not go out of my way to assume this position. True art takes note not merely of form but also of what is behind. There is an art that kills, and art that gives life. True art must be evidence of happiness, contentment and purity of its authors.” (Young India, August 11, 1921)

On the relative merits of art and nature he says in his interview with Sri Dilip Kumar Roy:

“This, however, does not mean that I refuse to accept the value of productions of art, generally accepted as such, but only that I personally feel how inadequate these are compared with the eternal symbols of beauty in nature. The productions of Man’s Art have their value only so far as they help the soul onward towards self-realisation.

“Have I not gazed and gazed at the marvellous mystery of the starry vault”, he went on, “hardly ever tiring of that great panorama? Have I not the forests and seas, the rivers and the mountains, the fields and the valleys with which to slake my thirst for beauty? Could one conceive of any painting comparable in inspiration to that of the star-studded sky, the majestic seas, the noble mountains? Is there a painter’s colour comparable to the vermilion of an emergent dawn or the gold of a parting day? No, my friend,” he smiles, “I need no inspiration other than nature’s. She has never failed me yet; she mystifies me, bewilders me, sends me into ecstasies. What need have I for the childish, colour schemes of humans? Beside God’s handiwork does not Man’s fade into insignificance? And to be more concrete–tell me Dilip, how can art be so thrilling, after all, when nature, the Mightiest Artist, is there to cater for us?”

And here is a view I obtained from the late Mrs. Millie Graham Polak who lived with Gandhiji in South Africa. “As the devotee of a mystic’s God, art as created and demonstrated by man had very little place in Gandhiji’s conception of life and beauty. His approach to perfection and beauty was by a different road, and this we can accept for him without trying to change or to give him an attribute for which he had no use.

“During the years that my husband and I lived in close contact with him, we had many discussions on the need for some expression of art in Man’s life. The following one I recorded in my little book, Mr. Gandhi: The Man, and it is a good example of two different approaches in the search for the good and the beautiful. It was a few days after my return from Natal to Johannesburg, to make a home for Mr. Gandhi, my husband and myself. A little house had been secured for this purpose before I arrived. This was very ugly and built of the cheapest kinds of materials without any finish. It was furnished with the barest necessities. I, being young, hopeful, and energetic, set to work to bring some kind of redeeming features into being, and asked for material to make curtains, and a rug or two for a bare board-floor. “But why?” asked Mr. Gandhi, in a surprised tone. Why? Is not the country you can see from your window more beautiful than that picture? Why, then, do you warn to shut it out by curtains? Muslin or lace curtain that I am thinking of will not shut out the view, but will hide the ugly, cheap wood that frames the window. I cannot look out of the window all day, and furthermore it gets dark at about 6. Then there are only distempered walls to meet one’s eye. It is all without any harmony, and I want to hide some of the ugliness of the buildings, since I cannot change it. This can be done with my labour and very little money.’ ‘But’, again urged Mr. Gandhi, ‘why do you want to cumber yourself with things that will need time to be spent on them? You say you love beauty. You have it all around you. God has given you that. Why, then, do you want things made by man?’

‘I do not easily distinguish between God and man’, I replied. ‘If man creates things of beauty, it is God speaking through him. Man is God’s interpreter. A beautiful picture can raise the mind to a higher perception of God as the Giver of all beauty.’ Mr. Gandhi was quite unmoved; he could not appreciate such a need or point of view. We had many such discussions. Poetry, music-apart from hymns which pleased him because of the sentiments the words expressed–beautiful works of art found no living place in his life; and in after years I realised that for him such things were not only not necessary, and, therefore, not really understood as having any spiritual value, but would act as a veil to cover what to him was Truth.”

Then Sri Dilip Kumar Roy asked him why he is against music. And Gandhiji replies:

“And to think that I should be dubbed an enemy to an art like music because I favour Asceticism. I, who cannot even conceive of the evolution of Indian’s religious life without her music. Why, it is the limit.

“Against music–well, I know, I know. It is not your fault if you should have drawn such a picture of me. There are so many superstitions ripe about me, that it has now come almost impossible for me to overtake those who have been spreading them all over the place. As a result, my friend’s only reaction is almost invariable a smile when I claim I am an artist myself. Indeed, they take it to be a first class joke.

“How well I remember the joy and peace and comfort that music used to give me when I was ailing in a South African hospital. I was then recovering from some hurts I had received who has been engaged to cripple me–thanks to the success of my Passive Resistance Campaign. At my request the daughter of a friend of mine used, very often, to sing to me the famous hymn “Lead kindly light”. And how it acted like a healing balm–invariably. I still remember this song with gratitude. So there–are you persuaded that I really care for music–or shall I have to produce more convincing proofs?” (“Among the Great”–Dilip Kumar Roy).

Nevertheless, he maintains that asceticism is the great art in life. “For what is art but beauty in simplicity and what is asceticism but the loftiest manifestation of simple beauty in daily life shorn of artificialities and make believes? That is why I always say that a true ascetic not only practises art but lives it.” (“Among the Great”–Dilip Kumar Roy).

On the relative importance of form and content in art he says in his interview with Sri G. Ramachandran “True art takes note not merely of form but also of what is behind.”

On another occasion in an interview with Miss Agatha Harrison, he integrates beauty and utility and shows that what is useful cannot for that reason be dismissed as not beautiful. Dealing specially with plant life, hr asked her, “Why, won’t you see and enjoy the beauty implicit in plant-life in the various forms of vegetables? Besides, there is enough beauty in the untarnished glory of the skies. But you refer to the variegated radiance of the colours of the rainbow. But that is a mere illusion for the eyes. Our education has hitherto taught us that one need not put beauty to any practical uses, and the objects of utility are not invested or blessed with any beauty. I should like to demonstrate that things that satisfy the practical ends of life are also things of beauty. Therefore we can plant vegetables in places which were formerly beds of flowers. I do not think that this change could hurt anybody’s sense of beauty.”

Writing in Harijan of September 30th 1950, Sri Kanu Gandhi on Garlands - floral or yarn, says that when Sir Jagadischandra Bose, the world-famous scientist, demonstrated to Gandhiji with the help of experiments that trees and plants have also life like animals and that they too go to sleep at nightfall just as we do, Gandhiji became more particular in the matter; he began to say that except when absolutely necessary one should not pluck even if a leaf from a plant or tree, more particularly after sun-set. So also whenever he found a wreath of flowers withering on account of the heat of the hand he used to say, “The real beauty of these flowers lasts so long as they are on the trees and plants” and so he did not like to receive a gift of flowers whenever it was made to him.

Finally he relates beauty to truth. “I see and find beauty in truth or through truth. All truths, not merely true ideas, but truthful faces, truthful pictures or songs are highly beautiful. People generally fail to see beauty in truth, the ordinary man runs away from and becomes blind to the beauty in it. Whenever men begin to see beauty in truth, then true art will arise.” (“Among the Great”–Dilip Kumar Roy)

III

At this stage it is worth-while noting what one of the greatest authorities on Oriental Art, Dr. Ananda K. Coomaraswamy, thinks of Gandhiji’s attitude to art. When I wrote to him asking his opinion of the above-quoted views of Gandhiji, he observed,

“There is obviously very much in Gandhiji’s saying about art that I can fully agree with, but I don’t think any good purpose would be served by trying to draw parallels with things I have said. I have the highest respect for Gandhiji, of course, and also agree with him in all that he (and Bharatan Kumarappa) have to say about industrialism on the one hand and “Villagism” on the other. But all that Gandhiji has to say about art, is a product of his individual thinking;...and he often seems to hold the naive view that “Art” means just painting, whereas art, from an Indian and all traditional points of view covers all making and ordering and so embraces about one half of all human activity, the other half being represented by conduct (Vritti) on the other hand all that I have to say about art is not a matter of personal thinking at all; it is a matter of knowledge, based on Sruti and Smriti.

An example of Gandhiji’s deviation, the result of personal feeling, is his attitude to the wearing of jewellery (on which see the chapter on “Ornament” in my Figures of Speech) where he should have distinguished between good (significant) and bad (meaningless) jewellery he simply wants everyone to stop wearing it. This is part of his propagandist asceticism; his asceticism is right for him and no one would defend Sanyasa against the world more than I would, but he is very wrong in demanding not merely a certain austerity, but particular sacrifices from everyone, that can only result in all the evil of “premature” Vairagya, even Srikrishna would not have all men follow in his way. (B. C. III. 23) Much of all this is due to Gandhiji’s intellectual background, which is still fundamentally Victorian. So while I can agree with many things that Gandhiji has to say about art, I disagree with the general trend of his position in this matter.

Gandhiji is a saint, not an intellectual giant; I am neither but I do say that those whose authority I rely on when I speak have often been both.

IV

Most OF Gandhiji’s fundamental convictions on art are beyond criticism. No student of art would question his insistence on a purpose in art, his emphasis on the importance of content as against form in art and his linking up of beauty with both truth and utility.

On these points there is substantial agreement between Gandhiji Dr. Coomaraswamy, an agreement that is vital because the art-for-art’s-sake school of criticism is still alive and kicking and because all the modern fads in art (post-impressionism, cubism, etc.) emphasize form to the detriment of content. It is only the similar outlook of men like Gandhiji and Dr. Coomaraswamy which can rescue modern art from its isolation from reality and its consequent degeneracy.

But when Gandhiji goes on to say that the beauty of Nature is the highest form of art and denotes the ability of any painter to copy Nature’s beauty he only confirms Coomaraswamy’s statement that to Gandhiji art is synonymous with painting. If he can appreciate the natural beauty that opens out before him when he looks at the starry sky, he must be able to appreciate the revealing nature of the artist’s mind. To say that since nobody can copy the beauties of nature exactly no true artist can exist is too naive. An artist is no mere copyist. He is as creative as nature, and with the slightest touch he can make one to realise his inner self. In fact, the appreciation of good music which Gandhiji claims to possess shows that true art does exist. That music is often rendered badly does not in any way detract this statement.

Ananda Coomaraswamy again says rightly that Mahatmaji’s propagandist asceticism makes him blind to the value of significant as distinct from meaningless jewellery. Hence to criticise the use of any jewellery is to stifle the aesthetic sense.

Fundamentally, Gandhiji’s definitions on art are true. But when he comes down to his selective appreciation the contradictions between his fundamental statements and later assertions are all too apparent.

A saint who depends to a large extent on intuition in all matters of life, though great in his own sphere, comes very often into conflict with views based to a large extent on intellect as are those of Dr. Coomaraswamy. The contradiction in Gandhiji’s statements are no doubt due to the fact that most of his opinions were given at different times in different circumstances. Nevertheless, these contradictions do not detract Gandhiji’s greatness in any way. An idealist who goes one step further than Lord Krishna in asking his adherents to follow the ideal implicitly inspires one to realise one’s innerself just as much as an intellectual artist who reveals the same thing in a different way.

All in all the chief points of identity between Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Ananda Coomaraswamy lie in their deep spirituality, their profound patriotism and their desire not only to preserve the graceful arts and crafts of India but to develop them for the spiritual, cultural and social advance of India’s millions. Nor is their message only for India. It is a message for the world to end destructive strife and attain a creative peace.

A more succinct expression of Gandhiji’s and Coomaraswamy’s place in the world of art has been given to me by Sjt. Sanjiva Dev which is reproduced below:

“Ananda Coomaraswamy is a Master Aesthete while Gandhiji is a Mater Ascetic. Coomaraswamy’s aestheticism is, to some extent, ascetic because he does not consider form alone is all in all in art. On the other hand Gandhiji’s asceticism is not free from aestheticism because he reacts to music and he is extremely fond of Bhajan. He often loses himself in ecstasy while singing. So, Gandhiji’s asceticism is not a symptom of philistine. Coomaraswamy’s aestheticism is not free from asceticism because he is not easily fascinated by mere external beauties of form when the content in it does not happen to be noble and fine beneficent to the life of humanity. Thus Gandhiji is an Aesthetic Ascetic whereas Coomaraswamy is an Ascetic Aesthete. This denotes Gandhi is not opposed to art but opposed to artificiality. Gandhi may not be able to appreciate the technical charms of a painting due to his lack of training in that phase of art. But facts show that he deeply reacted to the paintings of Mr. Venkatappa as well as by other master painters.

But the chief difference that lies between the Gandhian view and that of Coomaraswamy is that the former does not give prominence to aestheticism in human life whereas the latter considers aestheticism to be sine qua non in the daily life of man. Gandhi encourages the production of crafts through the view-point of utility and social economy whereas Coomaraswamy does from the view-point of beauty and social enlightenment. But Gandhi never desires that the craft should not be beautiful and similarly Coomaraswamy never wants that the craft should not be useful. Gandhi is a realist; Coomaraswamy an idealist. The former’s realism moulds the ideals whereas the latter’s idealism beautifies the bare realities.

The highest ideal of all an is to lead the humanity to the ultimate reality which is no other than the Beauty Eternal. Gandhi and Coomaraswamy are leading humanity to the same goal through their apparently contrasting yet intrinsically harmonising sadhana: This sadhana itself, the greatest art.

When I submitted the following essay to Dr. Coomaraswamy he replied: “If you wish you can also quote me as follows:

On the last page it is a pity that Sanjiva Dev uses the word aestheticism because this word, like aesthete, has always a bad meaning, which the words aesthetic, aesthetics, aesthetician do not necessarily have. So it is not true that I consider “aestheticism to be a sin qua non in the daily life of man.”

What I say is what Ruskin said, that “Industry without art is brutality” or as St. Thomas Aquines expressed it, “There can be no good use without art.” In this capacity as Creator, God is the archetype of the human artist as manufacturer, which is what is meant when art is called an imitation of nature in her manner of operation, i.e., of the Divine Nature. Bharatan Kumarappa’s understanding of the place of art in human life–stated in is wise and splendid book, a “Capitalism, Socialism, or Villagism”–is far deeper than Gandhiji’s who is too ready to give expression to his own feelings.

Gandhiji did the greatest service for the cause of art by getting successive sessions of the Congress at Lucknow, Faizpur and Haripura artistically illuminated with the decorations of the saintly Nandalal Bose, whom he regarded as the greatest creative master of his time. Of Gandhiji as the “Great Artist “ Sri Nandalal Bose, says:

Mahatmaji may not be an artist in the same sense that we professional artists are, nevertheless I cannot but consider him to be a true artist. All his life he has spent in creating his own personality and in fashioning others after his high ideal. His mission is to make Gods out of men of clay......We were talking now and then of art and craft; and of Santiniketan. Observing that my gaze was gazed on the pipal leaf of steel-sheet covering the lata he said, “it is not beautiful. It bears the impress of Nature, moreover a blacksmith of this very village has made it and given it to me as a token of his love. It is very precious to me. I think the complete explanation of the principles of artistic creation is to be found in these few words. “There is an interesting story of how once Gandhiji tried his hand at art. A pen sketch depicting a temple, Shiva, Cupid and a farmer was drawn by Gandhiji in an autograph book of Sri Amarnath of Santiniketan when Gandhi visited Bengal during the year when Desabandhu Chittaranjan Das died. Sri Amarnath relating the story in the Uttar Pradesh Congress Office said that he went with artist Sri Nandalal Bose to Mahatma Gandhi and presented his autograph to him. Gandhiji wrote a couplet of Tulsidas on kindness and mercy and signed it. Finding Sri Nandalal Bose busy in sketching he also started scribbling something and said smilingly to him, “You are not the only artist. I too know something of art.” One American journalist offered Rs. 20,000 for the sketch but Sri Amarnath refused to part with it, but worked to present it to the National Museum of Free India.

Much as I desired to obtain Mahatmaji’s opinion in the ensuing months it became a vain dream owing to the foul hand of the assession. But happily I have been able to cull an extract from a publication of Navajivan”s. It is the booklet “Selected Letters of Gandhiji” chosen and translated by V. J. Desai. The art treasures at the Vatican greatly interested Gandhiji. He spent two hours in St. Peter’s. The Cistine Chapel held him rapt in awe and wonder. Tears Sprang to his eyes as he gazed at the figure of Christ. He could not tear himself away. In one of his letters to a worker Gandhiji says: “I enjoyed the visit to art galleries in Rome and took great interest in the art, but what would be the value of an opinion expressed after a brief visit lasting only two hours? I am hardly qualified as an art critic. I liked immensely some of the things there. If I could live there for two or three months, I could have observed the paintings and statues everyday and make a study of them. I saw the statue of Christ on the cross. It attracted me most. But I did not think that European art was superior to Indian art. Both these arts have developed on different lines. Indian art is entirely based on the imagination, European art is an imitation of nature. It is therefore easier to understand, but turns our attention to the earth; while Indian art when understood tends to direct our thought to Heaven. This is only for a person like you I attach no importance to these views. It may be that my unconscious partiality for Indian or perhaps my ignorance makes me say...Take me for a parent who narrates stories for the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, as he knows them to his children who knows much less. You will see that I do enjoy art. But I have given up or have had to give up many such pleasures.”

Back