Mahatma Gandhi is a famous personality not only in India but in the world as well. Some famous people all over the world still claim to take inspiration from him. Few notable mentions include Nelson Mandela and Barak Obama.
Over the last few decades, he has been immortalized in every nook and corner of the country through ceremonial remembrances, anniversaries, public holidays, currency notes, street names, statues, movies, and school textbooks.
The acclaimed Bengali poet Rabindranath Tagore called him Mahatma (a great soul) and Subhash Chandra bose referred to him as the father of the nation.
However, Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar, the architect of Indian constitution didn’t always agree with Mahatma Gandhi.
For Ambedkar, Mahatma Gandhi was only a hypocrite and usurper of Dalit interests.
In an interview with BBC in 1955, Dr. Ambedkar famously said, “Gandhi was never a Mahatma; I refuse to call him a Mahatma“.
Quite recently, the current Home Minister, Amit Shah also referred to Gandhi in a not-so-honorable fashion.
While addressing a political rally in Raipur, Amit Shah publicly called Mahatma Gandhi a “bahut chatur Baniya” (a very clever Baniya – a trading caste).
Interestingly, both Amit Shah and the incumbent Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi belong to the same Baniya caste.
So who was Gandhi? Was he really a Mahatma i.e. a great soul or only a cunning and shrewd politician who rose to eminence by exploiting the prevailing circumstances in his favor?
In this article, we have compiled the opinions and outlook of Gandhi on some important socio-economic and political issues concerning India and Indians.
After reading them, readers can reach their own conclusions if Gandhi was really a great soul or just an upper caste “chatur Baniya” who cared only for his own class and caste interests?
Gandhi and Caste System
It is no hidden fact that Mahatma Gandhi was an ardent supporter of the caste system. He saw great value in caste and openly advocated its continuance.
He believed that the caste system was responsible for the durability of Hindu society for ages. Karthik Raja Karuppusamy writes in the wire that, Gandhi regarded caste system as-
- a seed of swaraj (freedom);
- an unique power of organization,
- a means of providing primary education and raising a defense force;
- a means of self-restraint;
- the natural order of society; and most important of all,
- as the eternal principle of hereditary occupation for maintaining societal order.
Not only this, he fervently opposed those who wanted to destroy the edifice of the Hindu caste system. He declared, “these being my views I am opposed to all those who are out to destroy the caste system”.
As opposed to this, Dr. Ambedkar often talked about the complete annihilation of the caste system. He blamed this unjust institution for the plight, suffering, and humiliation of the depressed classes for ages.
Gandhi was not in favor of inter-dining and inter-caste marriages amongst Indians.
Gandhi campaigned for the eradication of untouchability only after the communal award of 1932. Perhaps, it made him realize the grave existential dangers it posed to Hindu-Brahmanism.
But he wanted to eradicate untouchability without eradicating the caste system or varna-based distinctions of the caste system.
Further, he was not in favor of mixing up the issue of removal of untouchability with that of inter-caste marriages and inter-dining.
He felt that such restrictions existed among both upper and lower-caste Hindus and among Harijans themselves.
Gandhi and Communal Electorates
On August 16, 1932, the British Government announced the Communal Award on the recommendations of the Indian Franchise Committee (also called the Lothian Committee).
It granted separate electorates and reserved seats to different classes of Indians like Muslims, Sikhs, Dalits, Depressed Classes, Marathas, and Anglo-Indians, etc in the proportion of their population.
If one were to also add backward classes to this list, together these communities would constitute over 80% of all Indians. And if fully implemented, such an award would have made upper-caste Hindus a new minority in India.
Hindu upper-caste dominated Congress which unilaterally considered itself to be the sole representative and spokesman of all Indians was bitterly outraged and infuriated.
It was particularly concerned about separate representation being given to depressed classes. Obviously, the award challenged and threatened the socio-political domination of upper-caste Hindus in British India.
Hence, as expected, Congress vehemently criticized the communal award on various pretexts. However, instead of openly terming the communal award as an attack on upper-caste Hindu domination, it cleverly euphemized it as an attack on Indian unity and nationalism.
Mahatma Gandhi on his part threatened that if the depressed classes were treated as a separate political entity, the question of abolishing untouchability would get undermined and that the untouchables would remain untouchables in perpetuity, writes Rajiv Ahir.
This shows that Gandhi’s motives and rationale for his advocacy of the temple-entry movements and removal of untouchability were far from benign and altruistic.
It appears Gandhi was more concerned about saving Hindu-Brahmanism than the rights and representation of untouchables and depressed classes.
In his own words, “Hinduism dies if untouchability lives, untouchability has to die if Hinduism is to live”.
Gandhi, Muslim League and Dalits
As evidenced from Ambedkar’s writings, in order to deprive the separate electorates to the depressed classes, Gandhi even tried to strike a deal with Muslim League leaders.
He promised to support all their demands if they voted against separate electorates for the depressed classes, writes Rajiv Ahir in his book “A brief history of modern India“.
Muslim leaders in general, however, did not fall into this trap of Gandhi and openly sympathized with the plight of depressed classes of India.
Most importantly, they came together with the depressed classes, Sikhs, Christians, and Anglo-Indians in a “Minorities’ Pact” to realize the common goal of separate electorates and representation in proportion of their population.
Gandhi cried foul and fought desperately against this concerted move that had the potential to radically unite and empower all non-upper-caste Hindu Indians against Congress.
Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the Muslim League stalwart, often referred to the Congress as “a Fascist organization of upper-caste Hindus” which wanted to “dominate and rule over Mussalmans and other minor communities of India with the aid of British bayonets” (Bipin Chandra).
Further, Jinnah worried that in the long run, Muslims might meet the same feat under an upper-caste Hindu rule.
In his rallies, he vociferously reminded Muslims that, “if we fail to realize our duty today you will be reduced to the status of Sudras and Islam will be vanquished from India”, write Bipin Chandra in India’s struggle for Independence.
It should be noted here that Dr. Ambedkar had urged the Simon Commission and the British Government to treat depressed classes as “a distinct, independent minority separate from the upper-caste Hindus” and had demanded separate electorates for them on the same lines as Muslims.
Even, the Bengal Depressed Classes Association had lobbied for separate electorates with seats reserved according to the proportion of depressed class members to the total population as well as for adult franchise, writes Rajiv Ahir.
Gandhi and Minorities
A careful analysis of some of his statements shows that on a few occasions, Gandhi even threatened minorities, especially Muslims.
When British Viceroy Linlithgow rebuffed Congress during World War II, by saying that he would consult “representatives of several communities, parties, and interests in India” over the future of India, Gandhi again claimed Congress to be the sole representative body of all Indians.
In a veiled threat to Muslims, he said further that “Congress will safeguard minority rights provided they do not advance claims inconsistent with India’s independence“, writes Rajiv Ahir.
Whenever the British Government tried to give representation to different castes and classes of Indians, Gandhi and Congress quickly derided the British attempt to reduce the Congress to the status of a purely upper-caste Hindu party and insisted on its right to speak for all castes and communities.
Obviously, the British had their own selfish reasons for their act of politically empowering other communities through reservations and representations. But it was also unjustified on part of a few upper-caste Hindus to eat upon the rights of the majority of Indians under the pretext of nation, freedom, and unity, etc.
Was Gandhi Arrogant and defiantly Stubborn?
According to Dalit-Bahujan and Subaltern scholars, Mahatma Gandhi came from ultra-rich Hindu upper-caste family background and studied in the best schools and colleges of India and England. His father was a Diwan or Prime Minister of a princely state in Gujarat.
“Even though Gandhi belonged to an upper-caste Hindu Baniya community barely consisting of only 2-3% Indians, he often claimed to be representing the Indians of all classes and backgrounds”, write Dalit scholars.
“Preposterous it may sound but at times, he even claimed to be the sole representative of all communities of India, even though leaders of other communities vociferously opposed him and accused him of usurping their socio-political interests.”
For instance, at the second round-table conference in London (September 1931 – December 1931), Gandhi (and therefore the Congress) claimed to represent all people of India. The other delegates, however, did not share this view, writes Rajiv Ahir.
Rather than coming to an understanding with other communities, Gandhi unilaterally reiterated that the Congress alone represented India and all classes of Indians.
Earlier in the conference, Ambedkar had attempted to compromise with Gandhi on reserved seats in a common electorate, but Gandhi, who had declared himself the sole representative of India’s oppressed masses, rejected Ambedkar’s proposal and denounced the other delegates as unrepresentative.
And like a typical upper-caste Hindu, Gandhi discarded the idea of special safeguards or separate electorates either for religious minorities or depressed classes even when leaders of other communities vehemently disagreed with Gandhi.
Mahatma Gandhi and Capitalists
Many Indian capitalists were life-long and close friends of Mahatma Gandhi.
And Gandhi often hobnobbed with leading Indian capitalists like Jamnalal Bajaj, Shankar Lal Banker, Purushottamdas Thakurdas, Ghanshyam Das Birla, etc.
Gandhi was so close to GD Birla that he choose to stay at GD Birla’s home in New Delhi during the last four months of his life.
Gandhi also inaugurated a grand Hindu temple in Delhi at the insistence of the Birla family.
Further, these capitalist friends of Gandhi generously financed the Indian National Congress even though the latter claimed independent decision-making.
Interestingly, when in the rest of the world, workers were fighting the petty bourgeoisie for their rights, Mahatma Gandhi was promoting the idea of “Trusteeship” in India.
Under this model, the capitalists would work for not only themselves but for the welfare of the workers and the poor as a trust does. In return, “the workers would consider the capitalists as their benefactors and would keep faith in them”, writes Rajive Ahir.
On the other hand, Dr. Ambedkar, being a trained economist, was highly skeptical of the rich protecting the interests of the poor, writes KR Karuppusamy.
Also Read: Indian Capitalists and the National Movement: A Brief Overview
Why Mahatma Gandhi is called Racist?
In addition to being a life-long admirer of the caste system, Mahatma Gandhi was perhaps also a racist by heart at least in his early adulthood.
This is manifested by his conduct and statements while he stayed in South Africa.
During his stay in South Africa, Gandhi referred to Black Africans as “Savages” and barbarians.
For instance, in 1893, Gandhi wrote to the Natal parliament saying that a “general belief seems to prevail in the Colony that the Indians are a little better, if at all, than savages or the Natives of Africa”.
According to South African academics Ashwin Desai and Goolam Vahed, “Gandhi believed in the Aryan brotherhood.
This involved whites and Indians higher up than Africans on the civilized scale. To that extent, he was a racist. To the extent that he wrote Africans out of history or was keen to join with whites in their subjugation he was a racist”, Desai adds.
Gandhi’s emotional attachment to Britain
Mahatma Gandhi never hid his sympathies and emotional attachment to England and British System.
Even during the penultimate years of British withdrawal from India, Gandhi confessed to the British Viceroy in India about his affection to British Parliament and assured him of his full and unconditional support in the war against Germany.
According to Bipin Chandra, Gandhiji’s reaction was highly emotional during world War II. He told the Viceroy that the very thought of the possible destruction of the House of Parliament and Westminster Abbey produced a strong emotional reaction in him and that, fully sympathizing with the Allied Cause, he was for full and unquestioning cooperation with Britain.
Also, when the Japanese were fighting to liberate Asia from European Colonialism, Gandhiji quickly slammed the Japanese slogan of “Asia for Asiatics” and even asked Indians to boycott Japanese products.
It is interesting that the so-called great leader of India’s freedom struggle held such compassionate views for Britain and the British parliament which were responsible for India’s slavery and oppression.
One must not forget that the same British parliament had passed resolutions extolling General Dyer-the butcher of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre and had earlier called Indians corrupt and uncivilized.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Mahatma Gandhi was a person with a dynamic personality that had both virtues as well as certain flaws.
For some like Tagore, Nehru, and Bose, he was just a great leader with a saintly personality.
For some others, he was a charismatic leader who fought for India’s freedom from British rule.
Yet some others like Ambedkar refused to address Gandhi as a Mahatma or saint. For them, Gandhi was just a hypocrite and usurper of Dalit interests.
If given a choice today, a majority of Indians might surprisingly choose Dr. Ambedkar over Gandhi as the father of the nation and constitution.
Perhaps, Gandhi was not as great and charismatic as he is often idealized.
But given the difficult time he lived in, with all his flaws, he was certainly better than many of his contemporaries who openly talked and advocated much worse than what Gandhi did.
Some of the founders of the United States of America were racist too. For, they were no believers in liberty for slaves and colored people.
Yet they remain a father figure in today’s America. Sometimes, judging people from the distant past with today’s standards may lead to awkward and disastrous situations.
As rational people, we must seek a rational closure and move on while ensuring that the injustices of the past don’t unravel the peace and harmony of the present.
