Revision as of 17:58, 19 May 2021

Inspirations

The four basic strands of his ideology

Sep 24, 2019: The Times of India

(From: Kaka Saheb Kalelkar’s Stray Glimpses of Bapu)

4 questions Gandhi asked of himself, and of all of us

Historian Judith M Brown explains the contemporary relevance of the Mahatma through answers to questions Gandhi searched for all his life

150 years after Gandhi’s birth there are many Gandhis, in India and worldwide. Diverse people and groups have valued and used some of his ideas and practices, or used his name to grace their own projects. Sometimes he has been deployed in support of causes which he would not have recognised. In a real sense, he has become “global property”. If we turn to the historical Gandhi, to a man living in a particular time and place, working in a specific social and political context, I would argue that his real relevance in India and in the wider world today is that he had the depth of character and vision to pose fundamental questions for modern men and women: questions about the value of the human person, the proper nature of public identity, and the right ways to live in community and to deal with inevitable disagreements and conflict. This is in contrast to those “Gandhians” who would argue that he provided “answers” relevant in any situation. Let me suggest just four of these major questions which Gandhi in his own time in South Africa and India was to ask — of himself and of those around him.

1 What is religion?

This may seem a strange question to start with. But Gandhi’s answer to this question was very different from the answers which would have been given by many of his contemporaries in India and beyond. Moreover, it had fundamental implications for his understanding of the significance of all human persons, and for his commitment to enter public life to serve others, and to work in such a way as to preserve their dignity and autonomy. For Gandhi, religion was not a clearly packaged and labelled set of beliefs and practices; neither was it a communal or semi-tribal identity. It was a pilgrimage in search of truth, a lifelong searching for God as truth rather than for a divinity which could be described in any simpler way. It is significant that he subtitled his partial autobiography, written in the mid-1920s, as “The Story Of My Experiments With Truth.” This understanding of religion set him at odds with contemporaries for whom religion was a particular orthodoxy of belief and practice, or the cement of specific socio-political identities. He believed that Truth resided at some deep level in every individual, and that consequently he was called to serve humanity, particularly those who were weak and disadvantaged in ordinary human terms. Other fundamental questions flowed from these assumptions.

2 What is the nature of political identity, particularly the ‘nation’?

This was an urgent question in the context of late colonial India. The nature of the family, of caste, region, community and nation were all under scrutiny in the final years of the empire as Indians contemplated the shape of their country and society after independence. Gandhi’s answer to these sorts of questions was rooted in his belief in the primacy of a common humanity which should override all other social and political connections. Consequently, he favoured small-scale communities where people knew each other face to face, and where it was more difficult to categorise people as ‘other’. As far as the Indian nation was concerned, he envisaged it as being made up of many of these small-scale communities. India was not to be defined by language or creed or even place of birth and heritage. What mattered in making “an Indian” was living in the subcontinent, making it one’s home, and valuing its ancient and complex civilization. The identity of the nation was urgent in his time because of the imminent departure of the British rulers, and increasingly violent controversies over the relationship between national and religious identity. The question is as significant as ever — in contemporary India, and in a global context marked by the rise of exclusive right-wing nationalisms, which would discriminate against minorities, particularly those created by immigration.

3 How should one conduct oneself in the practice of politics?

Gandhi recognised that disagreement and conflict are inevitable in human society and interaction between individuals and groups. If all people shared a common humanity then a crucial question for him was how to manage conflict, and particularly how to conduct oneself in the political arena when addressing differences and controversies. His answer to this question, forged over many years in public life in South Africa and India, was the multi-dimensional practice of non-violence or satyagraha. Conversion rather than coercion was his remedy for conflict.

Non-violent resistance to what was perceived as wrong was most likely to create long-term change in all the parties to a conflict, and would protect the integrity of all those concerned. In many ways non-violence was his most creative and long-lasting idea; though his life showed that in practice it was not the universal panacea for peaceful change which he had envisaged. Even though non-violent modes of public and political action often seem to have failed in his lifetime and beyond, his life and teaching raise the perennial question of the right ways to behave in the public arena.

4 The final question Gandhi raised, not least by his mode of life, was the broad one: how should one live?

This really coupled together several issues relating to the obvious inequalities between individuals and groups within India and also globally. It has taken on new urgency as we are increasingly aware of the impact of humankind on the environment as people and groups strive for ever-greater patterns of consumption. Gandhi is said to have uttered the powerful aphorism that “there is enough in the world for every man’s need but not for every man’s greed”. He also drew on his lawyer’s training in London to deploy the idea of “trusteeship” to denote how those who have more resources should consider and use them for the wider good.

His own lifestyle in the last 25 years of his life back in India is well known — and Gandhi was well aware of the publicity effect of his freely chosen poverty and simplicity in food, clothing and possessions. In his own lifetime, people commented on the effort and expense it took other people to “keep Gandhi poor”; and certainly an ashram life is not one to which most people are called. But the question he posed remains — how should we live? Our answers are critical for the future of our world — for the relationships between privileged and underprivileged within nations, for relationships between richer and poorer parts of the world, and for the very existence of our planet as a place fit for human habitation.

The writer is Emeritus Beit Professor of Commonwealth History in the University of Oxford. She has also written the book, Gandhi: Prisoner of Hope

When Tilak ‘Delayed’ Swaraj

In 1917, the first meeting of the Gujarat Political Conference was held at Godhra (Gujarat). Gandhi arrived on the dot as was his habit. The great Lokmanya Tilak had also been invited to the conference, but he arrived a little late. Gandhi received the Lokmanya with great respect and all the deference due to a national leader. But Gandhi could not desist from commenting that the Lokmanya was half an hour late, and if Swaraj was delayed by half an hour, he would have to bear the blame for it.

Rajchandra, Shrimad / Raichandbhai

Anup Taneja, October 2, 2020: The Times of India

In his very first meeting with Shrimad Rajchandra, also known as Raichandbhai – a Jain poet, mystic and philosopher – in July 1891, MK Gandhi was convinced that he was a man of great character and erudition. What appealed to Gandhi most about Rajchandra was his spotless character, wide knowledge of scriptures, his burning passion for Self-realisation and above all, his ability to remember and attend to many things simultaneously.

Despite being engaged in the business of pearls and diamonds, Rajchandra yearned to see God, face-toface. Gandhi writes: “The man who, immediately on finishing his talk about weighty business transactions, began to write about the hidden things of the spirit, could evidently not be a businessman at all, but a real seeker after Truth.” According to Gandhi, Rajchandra was the very embodiment of non-attachment and renunciation; he considered the whole world as his family and his love extended to all living beings. Gandhi imbibed from Rajchandra his lessons for self-improvement and on Truth and non-violence.

Long before Gandhi came to be called as a ‘Mahatma’, he faced a spiritual crisis in South Africa when his Christian and Muslim friends were pressing him to convert to their faiths. During this crucial phase Gandhi sought advice from his spiritual guide, Rajchandraji, in a letter which contained some questions relating to spiritual matters. One of the questions raised by Gandhi was: “If a snake is about to bite me, should I allow myself to be bitten or should I kill it, if that is the only way in which I can save myself ?”

Rajchandra wrote back saying that though he would hesitate to advise that he should let the snake bite him, yet, at the same time, it was important to understand that after having realised that the body is perishable, where lies the justification in killing the snake (that clings to its body with love) and in protecting the body that has no value for him?

Rajchandra further said that anyone who wants to evolve at the spiritual level should allow his body to perish in a situation like this. Even for a person who does not desire spiritual welfare, it would not be advisable to kill the snake; the reason being that this sinful act will result in severe punishment in the nether worlds. However, a person who lacks culture and character may be advised to kill the snake, but we should wish that neither you nor I will even dream of being such a person.

Little wonder that Rajchandra’s emphasis on truth, compassion and non-violence in every walk of life later crystallised as the fundamental tenets of Gandhism, which played a significant role in the Indian struggle for independence! The inner bond between Rajchandra and Gandhi initiated a brilliant new chapter, not only in their own lives, and in the history of Gujarat, but in the cultural, political and spiritual history of the entire nation.

Gandhi said, “Many times I have said and written that I have learnt much from the lives of many a person, but it is from the life of poet Raichandbhai, I have learnt the most and I must say that no one else has ever made on me the impression that Raichandbhai did.”

The writer is author of the book, ‘Influences that shaped the Gandhian Ideology’ published in 2020

Philosophy of life

Buddhism

Lama Doboom Tulku, Mahatma Through The Eyes Of A Buddhist, October 2, 2018: The Times of India

MK Gandhi said, “Many Buddhists in Ceylon, as if by instinct, claimed me as their own. Undoubtedly, if the Buddhists of Ceylon and Burma, China and Japan would claim me as their own, I should appreciate that honour readily, because I know that Buddhism is to Hinduism what Protestantism is to Roman Catholicism, only in much stronger light, in a much greater degree.”

If we take out the various sects, cults, rituals and also fine philosophical distinctions from what is known to us as Hinduism today, what will remain is the fundamental teachings on good living, attitude and behaviour with fellow human beings and realisation of the final goal. There is no significant difference between Buddhism and Hinduism as far as these basic precepts are concerned. Another way of expressing this is to acknowledge that “Buddhism and Hinduism are two branches of same Bodhi Tree” as Morarji Desai said.

Gandhiji was born and raised a Hindu, and he avowed that denominational label all his life. Yet his intense engagement and relation with Abrahamic religions were personal, theological and pragmatic. He writes in his autobiography that he read Edwin Arnold’s ‘The Light of Asia’ with even greater interest than he did the Bhagwad Gita. “Once I had begun it, I could not leave off … My friends consider that I am expressing in my own life, the teachings of Buddha. I accept their testimony.” Gandhiji also said he was trying his level best to follow Buddha’s teachings. All Buddhists in the world today agree that Gandhiji lived Buddhism.

Followers of Buddhism are given five precepts: abandon killing, stealing, unwise and unkind sexual behaviour, lying and taking intoxicants including alcohol and recreational drugs. We can also draw a formula essentially based on Gandhiji’s life for ethical living: non-aggressive culture, truthfulness, moderation and sense of fairness to others.

Non-aggressive culture: There are three ‘doors’ of action and any action takes place through these doors. Among them, the mind is the first and foremost. But, it is not visible until it is expressed either through verbal or physical doors. Normally, verbal expressions such as harsh words or lie utterances precede harmful physical actions. Aggression is not only associated with muscle power but also money power and/or men power.

Culture of truthfulness: Gandhiji’s concept of Truth as God was in line with the Buddhist doctrines of Dharma Kaya. Ahimsa as a sense of identification with all creation, matches with the Buddhist practice of upekkha, equanimity. In everyday life, being truthful means not only abstaining from telling lies but also keeping promises.

Moderation: We must accept our limits and not expect to achieve high goals right from the beginning itself.

Fairness to others: Often we hear people asking whether such and such deeds are kalyan (meritorious) or akalyan (non-meritorious). You are actually asking whether you will suffer as a result of this or that act. To completely eradicate such self-minded attitude is too high a goal to achieve for an average person. What is possible is to gradually minimise thinking only of oneself; and not ignoring others and the environment.

I conclude with a prayer from Shantideva’s ‘Engaging in noble character’:

By the force of this merit of mine, May all living beings without an exception Abstain from all harmful acts; and Be engaged in righteous deeds, all the times.

Teaching the Bible

January 28, 2018: The Times of India

WHEN GANDHI TAUGHT THE BIBLE

…And saw it as wholly consistent with Hinduism, writes noted Gandhi scholar Tridip Suhrud

Gandhi first read the Gita as a student in London with theosophist friends — Bertram and Archibald Keightley — in Sir Edwin Arnold’s translation, The Song Celestial. Gandhi recalled in his autobiography that he was captured by Verses 62 and 63 of the second discourse.

‘If one Ponders on object of the sense, there springs Attraction; from attraction grows desire, Desire flames to fierce passion, passion breeds Recklessness; then the memory – all betrayed Lets noble purpose go, and saps the mind, till purpose, mind, and man are all undone.’

What awakened in Gandhi a religious quest and longing that was to govern his entire life henceforth was the message contained in these two verses — that the only way to be in the world was to strive to reach the state of brahmacharya. The Gita became a lifelong companion and a spiritual guide.

Later when Gandhi dwelled in the Sabarmati Ashram in Ahmedabad, he decided to give a daily discourse on the Gita, hoping to elaborate on the incessant striving to lead his life by its ideals. On February 24, 1926 Gandhi gave the first discourse; by the time he concluded the lecture series on November 23, 1926 he had given 218 discourses on the Gita. Gandhi had been commenting on stray verses and deducing his own meaning from them, often leaving his co-workers confounded by his interpretation. They demanded that Gandhi also translate the Gita into Gujarati with notes. Thus, Gandhi began the Gujarati translation of the Gita so that the meaning he derived from it could be fully comprehended.

Gandhi rarely made a claim to originality and even rarer it was for him to claim literary merit for his writings. But while presenting his translation he made a claim that no translation had made thus far. ‘This desire does not mean much disrespect to other renderings. They have their own place. But I am not aware of the claim made by the translators of enforcing their meaning of the Gita in their own lives. At the back of my reading there is the claim of an endeavour to enforce the meaning in my own conduct for an unbroken period of 40 years. For this reason I do indeed harbour the wish that all Gujarati men or women wishing to shape their conduct according to their faith should digest and derive strength from the translations here presented.’ The path of the Gita, Gandhi said, was neither contemplation nor devotion; the ideal was sthitaprajna. Gandhi adopted, and wanted the Ashram community to adopt, a mode of conduct, a self-practice to attain a state where one acts and yet does not act. This mode, this disposition was yajna, sacrifice. Gandhi found the word yajna full of beauty and power. He saw this ideal of sacrifice as the basis of all religions. Gandhi emphasised the aspect of cultivating the disposition of a yogi, and his exemplar was Jesus Christ. It was he who had shown the path. Gandhi said that the term yajna had to be understood in the way ‘Jesus put on a crown of thorns to win salvation for his people, allowed his hands and feet to be nailed and suffered agonies before he gave up the ghost’.

For Gandhi, an act of service was sacrifice, or yajna. But how does one perform sacrifice in daily life? His response was twofold; for one, he turned to the Bible and other was uniquely his own. ‘Earn thy bread by the sweat of thy brow’, says the Bible. Gandhi made this central to the life of the Ashram and borrowed the term ‘bread labour’ from Tolstoy to describe the nature of work. It was dharma, duty, to perform bread labour, and those who did not perform this yajna, ate, according to the Gita, ‘stolen’ food. The other form of yajna was known as Yug-dharma, duty entailed upon one by the particular age. For Gandhi, the yajna of his times was spinning, his Yug-dharma. Spinning was an obligatory Ashram observance; each member was required to spin 140 threads daily, each thread measuring four feet. This spinning was called sutra-yajna, sacrificial spinning.

During the same year, students of the Gujarat Vidyapith that he had founded in 1920, and whose chancellor he was, invited him to give lectures. They wanted him to reflect on the life of Christ. The lectures on the Bible, specifically the Sermon on the Mount, began on July 24, 1926. The plan was to conduct these classes on each Saturday thereafter. But as soon as Gandhi began teaching the New Testament, he was ‘taken to task’ for reading it to the students. One correspondent asked, ‘Will you please say why you are reading the Bible to the students of the Gujarat National College? Is there nothing useful in our literature? Is the Gita less to you than the Bible? You are never tired of saying that you are a staunch Sanatani. Have you not now been found as a Christian in secret? You may say that a man does not become a Christian by reading the Bible. But is not reading the Bible to the boys a way of converting them to Christianity? Can the boys remain uninfluenced by the Bible reading?’ Gandhi saw this hypersensitivity as an indication of the intensity of ‘the wave of intoleration that is sweeping through this unhappy land’ and refused the correspondent’s request to give preference to the Vedas over the Bible. To him, his study and reverence for the Bible and other scriptures was wholly consistent with his claim to be a Hindu. ‘He is no Sanatani Hindu who is narrow, bigoted and considers evil to be good if it has the sanction of antiquity and is to be found supported in any Sanskrit book.’ The charge of being a Christian in secret was not new. He found it both a libel and a compliment. It was a libel because there were still people in the world, especially at a time when he was writing and publishing the Autobiography, who believed that he was capable of being anything in secret, for the fear of being that openly. He declared, ‘There is nothing in the world that would keep me from professing Christianity or any other faith the moment I felt the truth of and the need for it.’ This was a compliment, because therein Gandhi felt an acknowledgement, however reluctant, of his capacity for appreciating the beauties of Christianity. He wished to own up to that charge and the compliment.

Edited excerpts from Tridip Suhrud’s introduction to Mahatma Gandhi’s ‘An Autobiography or the Story of My Experiments with Truth’ (Critical Edition) courtesy Penguin Random House India

Gandhi’s all-embracing Hinduism

Nitin Luthra, The mosaic of Gandhi’s all-embracing Hinduism: Its hallmark was tolerance and willingness to learn from everywhere, October 2, 2018: The Times of India

At the end of The Satyagraha Ashram Gandhi writes, “Politics, divorced of religion, has absolutely no meaning.” Time and again he asserted his identity primarily as a Hindu. However, he had a pluralist conception of religion. Religion for him was a matter of spirituality and social responsibility rather than institutional observance and dogmatic behaviour. In 1927 he wrote in Young India that “in spite of my being a staunch Hindu, I find room in my faith for Christian and Islamic and Zoroastrian teaching, and, therefore, my Hinduism seems to some to be a conglomeration … It is a faith based on the broadest possible toleration.”

He defined Hinduism as a search after truth through nonviolent means. His faith in Hinduism did not hinder him from condemning several Hindu customs and practices such as untouchability, child marriage and prohibition of widow remarriage. In his formative years Gandhi read widely and took inspiration from diverse sources. It is quite well known that the Gita and the Bible influenced Gandhi profoundly, but he also learned from western writers like Ruskin, Tolstoy and Thoreau.

Gandhi was influenced by British writer John Ruskin’s critique of distancing morality and ethics from economics and politics in his book Unto This Last (1862). He later translated the book into Gujarati as ‘Sarvodaya’ (well-being of all) in 1908. Russian writer Leo Tolstoy’s advocacy of non-violence in his theory of ‘non-resistance to evil’ also left a lasting impression on Gandhi. He also learnt from Tolstoy the ‘law of bread labour’, that is everyone must do physical labour.

Tolstoy used to work on his farm for eight hours a day in spite of being a nobleman, a practice Gandhi imbibed from him and practiced throughout his life. He put their ideas into practice by establishing the Phoenix Ashram (1904) in South Africa where all the residents were to get the same remuneration and lived as an integrated community, irrespective of their race, religion and nationality.

Although religion was very important to Gandhi, he believed it to be a personal matter. As a law student in England, Gandhi read the Bible and the life of Jesus inspired him immensely. MN Srinivas, in his article ‘Gandhi’s Religion’, notes that the notion of returning love for hatred and good for evil enthralled him. The suffering of Jesus for others had the greatest impact on Gandhi and he later incorporated this self-sacrifice (tapasya) in his philosophy of non-violence.

Gandhi also appreciated the Quran for its evolutionary view of religion and included verses from the book in his prayer meetings. In his book Communal Unity he stated his appreciation for Prophet Muhammad’s fasting and austere living. He also found justification of nonviolence in the Quran. According to him, although the Quran allows violence, it prescribes nonviolence as a duty. He believed in the unity of all religions. He not only helped in the establishment of Jamia Millia Islamia university for the education of Muslims but also sent one of his sons to study there.

He had a very different interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita than most others. According to him, it evinced the futility of violence and material desires. The ideal of acting without any desire for result (‘nishkama karma’) influenced him profoundly and led him towards a life of philanthropy. Gandhi focussed primarily on the ethical instead of the metaphysical aspect of religion. According to him, “every formula of every religion has in this age of reason to submit to the acid test of reason and universal justice if it is to ask for universal assent” (Young India, 1925).

Gandhi’s ideas are more than relevant in today’s time. In a society still struggling with communal tension and caste based violence, we need to hark back to his ideas of ahimsa and satyagraha. On the issue of cow protection which has resurfaced as a severe communal issue, he had written in Young India in 1921 that to “attempt cow protection by violence is to reduce Hinduism to Satanism.” As we enter the 150th year of the Gandhian era, let us not just remember the father of our nation but also the values that made him a ‘mahatma’ (great soul).

The writer is assistant professor of English at Deen Dayal Upadhyaya College

Isha Upanishad’s ‘Renounce and enjoy!’

Madan Mohan Mathur, Gandhiji’s Secret Mantra: Renounce & Enjoy!, November 29, 2017: The Times of India

When Gandhiji was asked if he could put the secret of his life into three words, he quoted from the Isha Upanishad: ‘Tena tyaktena bhunjithah’ – ‘Renounce and enjoy!’ But does this not seem contradictory? How can we enjoy something if we renounce it?

The Isha Upanishad is universally acclaimed for the precision with which it conveys the essence of Vedic philosophy. Therefore, in order to fully appreciate the importance of these three words quoted by Gandhiji, we need to understand the full meaning of the shloka referred to by him.

The first shloka of Isha Upanishad reads as follows: ‘Ishavasyamidam sarvam, yatkinca jagatyam jagat; Tena tyaktena bhunjitah, ma grdha kasya svid dhanam’.

Swami Ranganathananda, of the Ramakrishna Mission, translates this shloka as follows: ‘Whatever there is changeful in this ephemeral world, all that must be enveloped by the Lord. By this renunciation, support yourself. Do not covet the wealth of anyone.’ The same idea has been expressed somewhat differently by Swami Prabhavananda: “In the heart of all things, of whatever there is in :. . the Universe, dwells the Lord. He . alone is reality. Wherefore, reno- R N , C uncing vain appearances, rejoice in him. Covet no man’s wealth.”

It will appear that the shloka has three distinct, though interconnected, parts. Firstly, whatsoever moves on earth or whatever exists or is changeful in this ephemeral world, should be covered or enveloped by the Lord. Elaborating on this, Swami Parmananda says: “We cover all things with the Lord by perceiving the Divine Presence everywhere. When consciousness is firmly fixed in God, the conception of diversity naturally drops away; because the One Cosmic Existence shines through all things.”

The second part of the verse brings us to the crucial three words which Gandhiji has interpreted as ‘renounce and enjoy’. As explained above, ‘tena tyaktena’ means ‘through renunciation or detachment’ and ‘bhunjithah’ means ‘protect or support yourself’. Adi Shankra also interprets it as ‘protect’ because knowledge of our true Self is the greatest protection and sustainer. Although Gandhiji uses the word ‘enjoy’, it is intended to mean that having renounced the ‘unreal’, we may enjoy the ‘real’.

As Swami Ranganathananda explains, “In the language of Vedanta there must be both negation and affirmation. Therefore, if we are to enjoy this world, we must protect ourselves by renouncing whatever is not real.”

The shloka ends with a forthright directive: ‘Do not covet the wealth of another.’ This is a very plain statement but it involves a number of ethical and spiritual values. Whatever you have gained by your honest labour, that alone belongs to you; enjoy life with that and do not covet what belongs to others.

The whole purport of the first shloka of the Isha Upanishad, has been summed up as follows: Renunciation is an eternal maxim in ethics as well as in spirituality. There is no true enjoyment except what is purified by renunciation. This world is worth enjoying and we should enjoy it with zest.

Zest for life is expounded throughout the Bhagwad Gita and the Upanishads. Great teachers who discovered these truths were not killjoys; they were sweet and lovable people. Sri Ramakrishna was full of joy and Sri Krishna too was full of joy. But before we can enjoy this world, we have to learn the technique of enjoyment and this technique is: ‘Renunciation’.

Ram Rajya

Madan Mohan Mathur, MK Gandhi’s Vision Of Ram Rajya, March 13, 2019: The Times of India

Whether we consider the Ramayana as history or mythology, it cannot be denied that the concept of Ram Rajya is an integral part of our cultural inheritance. Establishment of Ram Rajya has been the ultimate ideal of genuine political leaders, right from those who engaged in India’s freedom struggle led by Gandhiji, to those in successive elected governments, post-Independence.

Writing in ‘Young India’ (September 19, 1929), Gandhiji had said: “By Ram Rajya I do not mean Hindu Raj. I mean Ram Raj, the kingdom of God. For me, Ram and Rahim are one and the same; I acknowledge no other God than the one God of Truth and righteousness. Whether Ram of my imagination ever lived on this earth, the ancient ideal of the Ramayana is undoubtedly one of true democracy in which the meanest citizen could be sure of swift justice without an elaborate and costly procedure.” In the Amrit Bazar Patrika of August 2, 1934, he said: “Ramayana of my dreams ensures equal rights to both prince and pauper.”

Again, in the Harijan of January 2, 1937, he wrote, “By political independence, I do not mean our imitation of the British House of Commons, the Soviet rule of Russia, the Fascist rule of Italy or the Nazi rule of Germany…We must have ours, suited to ours … I have described it as Ram Rajya, that is, sovereignty of the people based on moral authority.” According to him, the ideal Ram Rajya may be politically described as “the land of dharma and a realm of peace, harmony and happiness for young and old, high and low, all creatures and the earth itself, in recognition of a shared universal consciousness.”

However, writing in the Harijan on June 1, 1947, just two months before Independence, Gandhiji lamented that “there can be no Ram Rajya in the present state of iniquitous inequalities in which a few roll in riches and the masses do not get even enough to eat!” Apparently, after the initial euphoria of Independence and the unexpected violence resulting from the Partition, the focus of political leaders shifted towards building India into a secular and socialistic society, taking a leaf from the ideology of Soviet Russia. Over the following decades, overzealous secular politicians tried to reduce Ram Rajya to a metaphor; while its spiritual and religious connotation were overlooked.

After the demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya in 1992, and the later change in political ideology of the netas in power, the emphasis suddenly shifted to the rebuilding of a Ram Mandir in Ayodhya. Ambitious and elaborate plans have been announced over the years, while a dispute over possession of the land is pending in the courts. In February 2018, a 41-day yatra was flagged off from the Vishva Hindu Parishad in Ayodhya, with the main agenda being to administer a pledge to the people for construction of the Ram temple and re-establishment of Ram Rajya in the country.

Now, after 71 years of Gandhiji’s martyrdom, the political atmosphere is again reverberating with demands for construction of a Ram temple in Ayodhya, converting it into a big political and legal issue, especially in the context of the coming general election. While construction of a Ram Temple in Ayodhya is a legitimate aspiration, the real question we need to ask ourselves is, whether mere construction of a temple or a murti of Rama will establish Ram Rajya as dreamt of by Gandhiji.

Religion

Two Attitudes

Arvind Sharma, MK Gandhi And Two Attitudes Of Religion, January 30, 2019: The Times of India

It seems that, when one comes in contact with a religion other than one’s own, one faces a basic choice: whether to accept it in some way or another, or to reject it all together. Gandhiji’s life provides illustrations of both. The following experience he had with Coates, a Quaker, is representative of the second attitude of rejection: ‘Mr Coates had great affection for me. He saw, round my neck, the Vaishnava necklace of Tulasi beads. He thought it to be superstition and was pained by it. “This superstition does not become you. Come, let me break the necklace.”

“No, you will not. It is a sacred gift from my mother.”

“But do you believe in it?”

“I do not know its mysterious significance. I do not think I should come to harm if I did not wear it. But I cannot, without sufficient reason, give up a necklace that she put round my neck out of love and in the conviction that it would be conducive to my welfare. When, with the passage of time, it wears away and breaks of its own accord, I shall have no desire to get a new one. But this necklace cannot be broken.”

Mr Coates could not appreciate my argument, as he had no regard for my religion. He was looking forward to delivering me from the abyss of ignorance. ... He wanted to convince me that, no matter whether there was some truth in other religions, salvation was impossible for me unless I accepted Christianity which represented the truth ...’ Gandhiji’s own attitude towards other religions, by contrast, seems to imply a kind of acceptance. This may be in part due to his family background, for, he informs us how, as a child, he was exposed to various religions in a hospitable way: ‘In Rajkot, however, I got an early grounding in toleration for all branches of Hinduism and sister religions.

For my father and mother would visit the Haveli as also Shiva’s and Rama’s temples, and would take or send us youngsters there. Jain monks also would pay frequent visits to my father, and would even go out of their way to accept food from us non-Jains. They would have talks with my father on subjects religious and mundane.

‘He had, besides, Musalman and Parsi friends, who would talk to him about their own faiths, and he would listen to them always with respect, and often with interest. Being his nurse, I often had a chance to be present at these talks. These many things combined to inculcate in me a toleration for all faiths.’ Gandhiji subsequently refers to reading the Bible ... of learning about “the Prophet’s greatness and bravery and austere living”, and reading Washington Irving’s Life of Mahomet and His Successors, and of also reading The Sayings of Zarathustra. Contact with Abdulla Sheth also gave Gandhi “a fair amount of practical knowledge of Islam.”

However, to describe one’s attitudes towards other religions only in terms of rejection and acceptance may be simplistic because both attitudes are capable of refinement.

The attitude of rejection for instance, may extend to an entire religious tradition or may be confined to those parts of it one considers objectionable ...

Similarly, the acceptance of another tradition is not such a straightforward matter as it might appear at first sight ...