Mahatma Gandhi Biography
Hello and welcome friends to this third and the concluding lecture on Mahatma Gandhi . In previous to lecture we have discussed his thought on nonviolence ah , Sarvoday, Satyagraha passive resistance and also his critic to a modern civilization . In this lecture on the first half we are going to discuss his dreams about future ah future of India or
Nathuram Godse - The Man Who Killed Mahatma Gandhi
what we can ah also called his vision of India or his dreams of future India. So, first ah ah, first part of today's lecture we will discuss his dreams of India his ah ah vision of
future India and in the second half of this lecture we will ah try to ah ah critic or try to critically evaluate some of his ah ah thought and ideas while looking at his debates with say Rabindranath Tagore or ah B. R. Ambedkar and many other ah ah contemporary modern Indian thinkers ah as well and what is the relevance of Gandhian thought and that is how we are going to conclude todays lecture . So, to begin with ah ah his views on ah ah and his dreams about future India for Gandhi, India was not something as a bhogabhumi or what we can also call a land for mere enjoyment, for Gandhi India was a karmabhoomi, a land of duty where it requires your contribution your activities your involvement in transforming India. So, for Gandhi hm India was not a land for mere
enjoyment, but a land of duty which requires a responsibility the commitment to the ah transformation of the degrading or the ah ah colonized status of our polity and its influence on our society or culture or the degrading status of different section of Indian society So, for Gandhi the goal the objective was not just to attain political freedom, but also transform India socially, politically, economically by empowering the marginalized the suppressed or the excluded communities ah of India . So, for Gandhi therefore, the whole idea of politics which for him was ah ah revolving around he ah truth or ah nonviolence was to transform the society to ah make it ah a better society for those who are marginalized suppressed and empower them to enable them to govern themselves. So, with that objective in mind Gandhi thought of India as a karmabhumi, as a ah ah land of duty and he all his life performed this duty through his practices of nonviolence. So, ah that is something very uniquely original in modern political
movement ah in any country and Gandhi ah Gandhi ah provided that moral and ethical leadership for ah freedom struggle and also for transforming society economics culture and polity by empowering the masses the marginalize . So, in his opinion ah India has something unique in its ah in its ah character, which it sustain or maintain by retaining the ancient institution. So, many ah civilization was destroyed, but India survived because of its capacity or withstand the shock which was coming in different forms of in vision and accommodate them in its on ah cultural civilizational ethos. So, India has that unique characteristic of retaining the ancient institutions, but also it is able to
accommodate or resolve or remove some of the superstitions, which were emerging or which came out of such ancient institution. So, certainly the practice of untouchability or caste discrimination gender discrimination and other kind of operations and ritualization of whole ah ah religion. So, Gandhi was ah ah ah aware of the capacity of India while retaining the ancient culture also to remove some of the [superti/superstitions] superstitions ah which was related to such institution . And ah the ah a spiritual purification which India underwent from time to time Gandhi thought will enable India to provide the leadership to the world in the fields of nonviolent struggle and the peaceful resolution of conflict. So, India's uniquely civilizational
strength or heritage of ah ah a spiritual purification will enable India and place it in a unique position where it can provide the leadership role in terms of resolving the conflict through nonviolent or peaceful mean and that way we see how Gandhi is applicable ah or relevant not just to India, but also to many other country certainly in Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King we have discussed in the previous ah previous lecture . So, ah if we look at the comparison between India and the West, we find that Rabindranath Tagore in his essay society and state makes a distinction between a state and society and considered the society which is associated with Indian civilization and a state which is a more kind of instrumental power, mechanical power or concentration of violence. He associated with a British civilization, Vivekananda too set forth similar arguments about society and state Gandhi accepted distinction between state and society and further elaborated it in the inherent dichotomy between a spiritual and the moral nature of Indian society on the one hand and the politically corrupt and violent manifestation of the European society. So, Gandhi also accepted along with Tagore or Vivekananda this distinction between state and society and formally exerted the moral and the ethical nature of Indian society on the one hand or politically corrupt and violent manifestation of ah European society and therefore, he makes a distinction between Indian civilization, Indian society, Indian moral ethical characteristic on the one hand and how it can help in regenerating India from the colonial rule or from other kind of operations and ah separation and how it can also lead in the moral and ethical regeneration of the humanity not just ah not just India also and there he wanted West or European society to learn from India that is the leadership position he wanted India to undertake . Ah he even described all Western political power resembling a brute force. So, I hope you remember the distinction we have made between brute force, which is physical force material force and the soul force and for Gandhi soul force is the
ultimate most powerful force on the ah on on the earth and he acquitted the western political power and the violence that it was or is capable of with a brute force and while depicting Indian society of ancient society of India he wrote that the political institution and power was inferior to the ethical principles and people had an independent life in village is free from the coercion of the state. So, the way Indian village society or Indian villages was able to govern itself in maintaining some kind of distance or autonomy from the government or the state or the or the political authority of the day Gandhi believed and rightly show that the basis of Indian ah rule or Indian hm ah system of governance is a the moral and the ethical principle, which binds both the ruler and the rule together. So, unlike Western, European ah society where state ah represents brute force, for Gandhi Indian society where ah the political institution and power was also subjected to or in others ah words inferior to the ethical principle. So, what we call the dharma the notion of dharma in India is not just about religion, but it religion about the ah ah righteousness or ah the ah duties and responsibility of different sections, different ah authorities, different institutions and they were all ah hm governed by that ah particular ethical moral responsibilities of ah ah the institution. So, in a sense their ah ethical principles were considered higher than the ah brute ah ah than these political institutions and the ah and the power and people then in that kind of scenario where able to lead a relatively independent and autonomous life unlike ah the modern state which tries to govern every sphere of individual life and Gandhi was very skeptical of that kind of state and he therefore, did not want India to follow or imitate the Western model of ah governance or state either . So, he continued to maintain his idea of the west as politically corrupt where concentration of power and violence Gandhi was ah very critical of and scared of such concentration as it leads to separation of individual and his or her creativity which for Gandhi was the basis of or progress or the development and therefore, he was very critical of ah the concentration of power at any level and talk about more decentralization of power village republics or Ramarajya bottom up flow of power rather than top down flow. So, for Gandhi the west ah remains a kind of politically corrupt civilization and this continuous in his letter writings as well and therefore, he was very critical of and skeptical of following the west in Indian [con/context] context also. So, while we discuss this critique of modern civilization we have discuss that capacity of modern civilization to ah harm the soul force or the spiritual side of humanity was tremendous even when ah even where it is originative that is in the west and European, but if it is blindly ah imitated and followed in Indian context then its capacity to do harm become far more worse and therefore, he always caste and reminded Indian ah ah leaders and his followers or ah his countrymen not to follow the ah ah or blindly follow the path of modern western civilization and he ah went on to argue that India we can adopt the brute force or the force of the weapon, but it will only offer a momentary victory . So, immediate victory can be achieved by adopting the brute force or the force of weapon. Then, there will be no pride of India left for Gandhi. In his opinion, the hour, when she adopts the path of violence, will be the hour of trial for him. So, the way Gandhi thought about and argued about the essential or the essential nature of Indian society and culture where he finds nonviolence or ah truth as the ah manifestation of such ah ah such character or it ah naturally ah fit with the Indian ah Indian ah context. So, he wanted India to follow the path of nonviolence in pursuit of truth and that is the ultimate objective of individual or the collectively life and that way he wanted India to provide the ah global leadership as well . So, as he was historically situated and there was argument for using ah violence certainly by many revolutionaries ah and justification of violence in the name of freedom ah freedom movement and struggle for independence ah Gandhi thought that India can attain that momentary or immediate victory by resorting or by adopting these brute force or the force of the weapon, but for him when ah India ah adopt such ah ah ah force that will be the hour of trial and he will have no pride in India. So, he take pride in India precisely because of its in inherent nonviolent nature and ah such after truth. And he further stated if India makes violence her creed and I have survived I would not care to live India. So, for him India is inherently a nonviolent country and that gives it a unique space. So, she will cease to evoke any pride in me, my patriotism is subservient to my religion I cling to India like a child to its mother breast because I feel that she gives me the spiritual nourishment I need. She has the environment that responds to my highest inspiration when that faith is gone I shall feel like an orphan without hope of ever finding a guardian. So, that is how he connect to India and think of India where the pride that he takes from India was because of its nonviolent creed and search after truth and ah this spiritual nourishment or ah condition to achieve the highest ambitions of ah life according to Gandhi is possible only in such condition, but if India adopt the violence path or that violence becomes its creed, then for Gandhi there is no place where he can get such a spiritual nourishment and attain the highest objective of nonviolence and truth. So, while speaking on the appropriateness of soul-force for India, Gandhi said, India is less in need of steel weapons, it has fought with divine weapons, it can a still do so. Other nations have been votaries of brute force mainly referring to European and modern states the terrible war going on in the Europe furnishes a forcible illustration of the truth. India can win all by soul force history supplies numerous instances to prove that brute force is as nothing before soul force, poets have sung about it and seers have described their experiences. So, Gandhi again justifying the use and the relevance of soul force not just for those who are using it as a tool for their ah attainment of objectives, but also against whom it is used and in that way it will transform the relationship between operator and the operates and there will be the possibility of ah compassion or mutual ah mutual cooperation and love between ah between the ah between the opposite. So, ah soul force ah for ah Gandhi was something which historically proved as everlasting more powerful than the brute force, which can lead to destruction and perhaps maybe immediate or momentary victories, but for the long turn or to have a kind of sustain influence or effect the soul force remains the supreme power for Gandhi and therefore, he wanted India to not to call in the trap of this brute force and in this ah accumulation or acquiring of the weapons or that can enable it militarily strengthen it militarily, but the soul force if it is lost then India can perhaps in according to Gandhi will never ah recover or cut itself off from its own strength or civilizational, civilizational heritage. So, Gandhi wanted India to be independent and strong . So, that she can engage herself in the mission of betterment of the worlds and that is the point we have discussed in previous lecture. So, unlike Tagore for whom the Indian nation national struggle or nationalism and he discarded all forms of nationalism including Indian form and yet he remained patriotic, for Gandhi if India has to play a role in the global community of nation it must attain independence. So, that is the political articulation of Indian context and why the struggle for freedom or political freedom from the British rule is immediate and necessary for India to play a larger ah larger role in the world to ah in its betterment and ah the justification of soul force is not the weapon of the weak or the covered as we have discussed the soul force is the weapon of the strongest or those who are willingly voluntarily ready to sacrifice their life for their cause and ah Satyagraha we have discussed. So, in that way ah he wanted India to be morally politically strong and independent to play the larger ah role in the betterment of the world. So; however, while glorifying India and its civilization Gandhi did not say that there is nothing to be learnt from the western countries and wisdom does not belong to a particular continent or race, but it also does not mean that the Asian countries need to imitate the west in every aspect Gandhiji believed in the inherent potential of India in offering an ideal of peace and progressed to the world. So, while he believed in the inherent a strength or the soul force or the ethical moral stand of India and that way he communicated the Indian position to the British opinion in the Britain and also in America or ah north America and mobilize the world opinion in support of liberation struggle of freedom ah freedom struggle ah freedom struggle in India. So, Gandhi a while acknowledging the ah ah the capacity of India also ah acknowledge the ah ah the requirement to learn from the other countries including the modern ah, modern west which is positive, but he was against the blind or the imitation of that civilization that practices of doctors, lawyers, parliament another things we have discussed in every aspect of Indian life or Asian, Asian country and that way Gandhi was the first anticolonial thinker as well. So, Gandhi was very confident about India's capacity or India's potential to offer the ideal of peace and progress to the world without resorting to violent of all kind that was happening during the twentieth century and first halve of the twentieth century we have seen two world war and the rise of nazism and fascism which lead to unimaginable organized destruction of human life and property . So, in that situation he thought India can provide a moral and ethical leadership for world progress through peaceful ah ah peaceful method. So, India's destiny is not with the western way of bloody war, but in living the peaceful path which emanates from a life of simplicity and divinity she must not lose her soul and resist any temptation to imitate the west. So, we have the modernizing leads in India which try to modernize Indian society politics and economy they were thinking of reconstructing in society and polity in a very ah different way ah then ah than Gandhi. Gandhi was a kind of reassertion of Indian ah ethos of simplicity and divinity and how that can help to retain the ah soul ah soul force and he questioned that one should resist any temptation to imitate the west because of the ah captivating force of modernity and the promises of civilization, but Gandhiji was very clear that modern civilization can at the best ah promise to ah provide bodily comfort, but even it fail there miserably it cannot solve all the problem of material ah material needs of all the ah sections of society, it can provide that too few. So, even ah ah it ah its promises to provide bodily comfort is miserably failed. So, ah he wanted ah Indain ah ah leaders and his countrymen to understand the trap of modern civilization and resist such temptation which ah compromises or which obstruct their connection with the soul force So, he said that the European civilization is suited to its people, but not to India and attempts to blindly copying it will result in its ruin so, but the same time one should be ready to adopt the good in it on the part of Europeans they should be opened to renounce the evils present in that is inherent corruption in there quality. So, Gandhiji criticize the west for its never ending search for material comforts which is making them mere slaves. Upholding the principle of plain living and high thinking he stated the necessity of Europeans to remodel their vision of constant pursuit of material benefits or to connect with the larger ideal of life to their soul to the highest ambitions in life. So, for Gandhi the vision of future India was a spiritually enlightened society through the process of self purification. So, the Swaraj is not just about political freedom, but also about developing the capacity to govern oneself the self is very crucial for Gandhi and the whole society can be a spiritually emancipated. So, this kind of society for Gandhi will be an egalitarian society without any discriminations based on either caste, class, gender, or any such divisions and all the persons regardless of their economic status will have an equal say in the polity. So, the participation in the decision which affects the collective life should be open to everyone and at the same time women and men will enjoy the equal status in the society and there should be the no practice of untouchability in future India. So, Gandhi envisioned a kind of egalitarian society and polity where there is no discrimination based on class caste or gender and there is no ah therefore, any practices of ah caste based discrimination such as untouchability or gender based discrimination. So, as a political system India will be decentralized to the utmost level villages will be, villages will work as independent self sufficient society to the overall progress of the country. So, the again the focus on individual the small and the autonomy of them to control their life and to participate in the decisions which affect their life is something which Gandhi define through this idea of decentralization . So, ah he envisioned his dream of India through this word that the Swaraj of my our dream recognizes no race or religious destinations nor is it to be monopoly of the lettered persons nor yet of moneyed man, Swaraj is to be for all including the farmer, but emphatically including the maimed, the blind the starving toiling millions. We should wipe away tears from every eye and that becomes the crucial objective when ah Jawaharlal Nehru presented his famous speech tryst with destiny. So, ah to wipe away tears from each eye becomes the national ah national objective of free India. So, the economy, so we attend the political freedom, but ah that was not sufficient. The next and necessary ah ah step after attainment of political freedom was too wipe away tears from every ah eye in other words social and economic regeneration and transformation of India. So, Swaraj again is not limit to the lettered class or those we have money, but it must be applicable to all including the farmers, the maimed, or suppressed the blind or the starving toiling million. So, for Gandhiji the criteria for judging the effectiveness or the necessity of any policy is that whether it is empowering the starving toiling millions of India or not that becomes the judgment that becomes the criteria to judge the effectiveness or the desirability of any public policy. So, Gandhi further rights that I shall strive for a constitution which will release India from all thralldom and patronage and give her if need be the right to sin thralldom or patronage something which he discarded criticized and wanted India to have the right even right to sin. So, I shall work for an India in which there shall be no high class and low class of people and India in which all communities shall live in perfect harmony. There can be no room in such an India for the curse of untouchability or the curse of intoxicating drinks and drugs. Women will enjoy the same rights as men . Since we shall not be at peace with all the rest of the world exploiting nor being exploited. We should have the smallest army imaginable all interest not in conflict with the interest of the dump millions will be scrupulously respected whether foreign or indigenous . Personally, I hate distinction between foreign and indigenous, this is the India of my dreams . I shall be satisfied with nothing less. So, the kind of India he dream was India where there is no high class or low class on the basis of their economic position and India all community live in perfect harmony and not in segmented classified status and in such India where communities live in perfect harmony there will be no curse of untouchability or the intoxicating effects of drinks and drugs and women and men will enjoy the same rights. Now he wanted India not to be part of exploiting or being exploited and hence maintain the smallest army. So, that is the practical part of Gandhian thinking where he was supported of nonviolent, but willing to have such measures such as understanding military to protect the national boundary or the nation from any invisions. So, he wanted ah a smallest army and the interest which is not in conflict with the interest of dumb millions should be respected, now it whether it is foreign and indigenous Gandhiji personally is not bother about such policies or practices and he wanted India to be such where there is this harmony and absence of sense of you. So, that is basically about his views on India of his dreams, now if you look at some of the ah criticism of Gandhi we find at the most renowned leader of national movement, Gandhiji worked equally for the social economic reforms in the country his spiritual effective and down to earth personality made him dear to all sections of society and this will discuss when we read a quote from Sarojini Naidu. So, after this famous trial speech of 1923 or 1922. I will just check yeah its 1922. So, ah ah after that trial speech the effect Gandhiji had not just on ah his ah followers, but also the country men or the judges or the adminis ah, administration. So, Gandhiji ah ah occupied the space in the hearts and minds of people because of his own personal life and simplicity and leading through is own examples and following intimately in his own personal life. So, Gandhi did play a very significant role in our freedom struggle and provided the moral and ethical leadership from 1920S still India attained independence, but Gandhiji was equally involved in the social and economic reforms in the society which he called positive ah ah or constructive programs in Gandhian ah Gandhian vocabulary especially from 1930S onwards ah charaka and disciplining and other things or parts of ah or a small ah industries are part of such ah social and economic ah ah reforms his ah ah living with the untouchables or the harijans is also a part of ah ah such such social reforms. So, Gandhiji was ah involved in the social and economic reforms including the political struggle for freedom. So, although being the most popular leaders of Indian national movement he was not the undisputed one and there is many differences and critic to his ideals and ah political method. So, his political vision was greatly challenged by many of his contemporary including Subhas Chandra Bose, M. N. Roy offered distinctive alternative to his ideals of Satyagraha and challenges to his ideas of Varnashrama came from B. R. Ambedkar which we will discuss in a minute and this ideals or critic of Gandhis ideal of Varnashram comes through his powerful book which is called What Congress and Gandhi have done to the untouchables and also The Annihilation of Caste. In these two books B. R. Ambedkar articulated his response to the Gandhian just ah Gandhiji justification of Varnashram dharma and also the politics of the congress. So, the freedom struggle in the beginning was divided into two direction, one was for the political reforms and the other was the social [so/social] social religious ah reforms and till 1920s ah these ah movements were ah held simultaneously this conferences for political freedom and also for social reforms were held simultaneously. In fact, the beginning of Indian renaissance, so called is ah ah to begin with the religious and the social reforms movement whether it is evolution of Sathi or the widow remarriage or the emancipation of women or ah Arya Samaj Brahmasamaj. So, they were all about social religious re ah ah ah reforms, reforms movement, but suddenly after 1930s political freedom took the priority offers. So, ah ah our social and religious reforms and ambedkar and many other thinkers where very critical of such positions. So, the other challenges to Gandhi ah Gandhiji ideal ah Gandhijis ideals of communal harmony comes from Muslim league, which continuously insisted on getting a separate nation for the Muslims in india and Hindu extremist groups equally stood against him which also let to his assassination by Nathuram Godse on thirteenth january nineteen forty eight. So, Gandhiji was very open to criticism and ah he was ah he was perhaps the greatest leader, but not the undisputed one and there was many many ah sets or many ah strands of opinions and alternatives to Gandhian ah Gandhian ideals when he was providing the ah moral leadership and of course, he remains the greatest and tallest of them yet there were many other ideals or ah political methods which were simultaneously in existence and they were very critical of many programs and ideals of ah Gandhiji. So, these responses to Gandhi varies from appreciative analysis to blatant condemnation; however, his ideas remains indispensible in any discussion on Indian politics that is the power and the relevance of Gandhiji and his thought and his political activities where ah you have a range of responses to his ideals and political activities which may be a appreciative in nature, but it may also are tried condemnation of the whole politics. So, we have seen Muslim League and extreme right wing thinkers like Savarkar and Nathuram ah activist like Nathuram Godse. So, ah they were ah having strong disagreements and condemnation of Gandhian ideals of ah Charaka or ah his ah politics of nonviolence. So, Gandhiji ah did ah ah face the criticism in his ah ah ah in his times when he was acting upon and thinking about some of these ideals ah itself. So, to begin with from appreciative then to the more critical responses to Gandhiji we can find Jawaharlal Nehru who was kind of very intimate and loyal supporter of Gandhiji and his programs and that comes with their bonding for political independence of India and compassion for the poor which bonds them together and the method of politics that Gandhiji articulated and projected ah Jawaharlal Nehru intimately associated himself with such politics. But in some other aspects they resemble polar opposites while for Gandhi religion meant everything Nehru did not give it such a dominant place in his life especially in the politics and the state he envisioned. So, for Gandhiji religion, ethics, morality is something which essential, but for ah Nehru such ah thing ah is not really as important in the kind of politics or the state for India he was envisioning. Nonviolent and simple living was for Gandhiji end in themselves, but Nehru considered them only as a practical means during freedom struggle to attain the freedom this means and ends the simplicity that Gandhiji promoted and envision was desirable for attending the political independence enthusing strength or mobilizing the suppressed or marginalized masses, but for ah Nehru India must ah must ah transformed itself militarily politically economically and also materially as much as perhaps spiritually. So, in the case of their imaging of future India too, they were very distinct. While Gandhiji envisioned a decentralized India of self-sufficient villages. Nehru hoped for a strong instrumental state to bring about social and economic transformations. Nehru was supportive of a centralized planning and mixed economy. So, after Gandhiji that Nehru did play very significant role in shaping the institutions and the politicals of modern India which we will discuss. When we will discuss Jawaharlal Nehru, but here one can also see the difference between ah two of the greatest leaders ah perhaps of modern India in their vision of polity, state and future ah future India now this is the quotation which I ah wanted to ah tell you about ah what was the place of Gandhiji in Indian saiky So, Sarojini Naidu had a lifetime association with Gandhiji and she joined in Satyagraha and shared with him the passion for communal
harmony. Gandhi for her was a mentor cum friend and when Gandhiji was imprisoned for 6 long years in 1922 she was present during that verdict describing the moment she later wrote in the midst of all this poignant scene of many voiced and myriad hearted grief he stood untroubled in all his transcendent simplicity the embodied symbol of the Indian nation, its living sacrifice and [sac/sacrament] sacrament in one they might take him to the utmost end of the earth, but his destination remains unchanged in the hearts of his people who are both the heirs and the stewards of his matchless dreams and his matchless deeds. So, the Gandhian status was deeply embedded in the hearts and minds of ah minds of Indian people and that cannot be taken away by in carnating the ah ah first person of ah ah Gandhiji ah. Similarly, Bal Gangadhar Tilak despite his admiration for Gandhiji and his deeds had disagreements with Gandhijis ideals of purity of means . Tilak argues "politics is a game of worldly people and not of sadhus and instead of the maxim overcome anger by loving kindness evil by good as preached by Buddha, I that we still have prefer to rely on the maxim of Shri Krishna, in what what isoever way any come to me in that same way I grant them favor." So, Bal Gangadhar Tilak the necessity of ends means is to attain the ends and ends justify the means and not the means we justify the ends as for ah for ah Gandhiji and Tilak wanted politics to be ah for the worldly people and not for the sadhus ah sadhus and their [ma/maxim] maxims like ah our coming ah anger with love and kindness or evil by good, but to attain something which will justify the means for such attainments. Similarly, Rabindranath Tagore too shared personal bond with Mahatma Gandhi at the same time he differed from Gandhiji on many issues such as basic education his defense of Varnashrama dharma and many of his spiritual administerious statement. So, Gandhi and Tagore both believed in the need of spiritual regeneration of India their differences where in the perception of power, Gandhiji regarded power being of two kinds brute force and the soul force and that we have discussed why he justify soul force over the brute force. So, he despised the former that is brute force and the later that his soul force is celebrated in his thought and politics, but for Tagore he was suspicious of any form of power in his own words power in all its form is irrational it is like the horse that drags the carriage blind folded. So, for Tagore the complete freedom or freedom from fear of all kind is necessary for individual creativity to grow and that can lead to a better society more ah more ah empowered ah ah society and the way his ah envision society, but for Gandhiji ah ah the power can be divided into two ah brute force and the soul force and soul force is ah ah desirable ah, soul force and the power of ah ah ah, soul force is desirable for Gandhiji ah mac ah techniques of politics and know the ah Tagore and Gandhi we have discussed in ah ah in ah our lecture on Tagore also which you can also refer to to understand some of them ah similarities and also the differences between the 2 greatest mind of modern india . Now, ah ah about Gandhiji, and Ambedkar, there is very strange relationship between these 2 thinker and they continue to safe the actual practical politics of our post independent time for and it will continue to be relevant in our political discourse. So, especially on this issue of caste, untouchablity and varnashrama dharma, these two leaders differ from each other and vehemently opposed each other and at the same time respecting each other also. So, one of the political ah history is that while ah Ambedkar critically ah ah ah challenged many of his ideas and ah articulation about untouchability and caste ah discrimination he was also respectful of Gandhijis and ah and his role and Gandhi when ah he was ah ah giving counsel to them ah ah forming of first interim government his supported to ah ah Ambedkars ah nomination as the first law minister and his role in the drafting of Indian constitution. So, both leaders while opposing each other critiquing each other also acknowledges the contribution and the expertise of ah each other also. So, here we will discuss only about their views on varnashrama dharma and the caste ah practices. So, in the context of varnashrama Ambedkar was the strongest critic of Gandhiji and the congress and Gandhiji regarded varnashrama as the essential system of social divisions of labour which helps in social functioning and stability. So, Gandhiji although he despised the practice of untouchability, he had no problem with the varnashrama system. So, Gandhiji in his understanding of Indian society thought of varnashrama dharma as a kind of system of division of labour. So, he was critical of untouchability he wanted to abolish untouchability or practices of untouchability, but he was ah justifying or ah ok with the continuance of [verna/varnashrama] varnashrama ah ah system. Ambedkar regarded the reorganization of Indain society on the principal of varnashrama as not only impossible, but also harmful and he considered the caste system as the factor which ruined Hindu or Hinduism and urged for a society based on the principle of liberty equality and fraternity a very modern ideas of living and egalitarian life or in a egalitarian society. Now criticizing Gandhi Ambedkar writes that as defined by mahatma, Varna becomes merely a different name for caste, for the simple reason that it is the same in the essence namely pursuit of ancestral calling, what what where I am sure that all his confusion a due to the fact that the mahatma has no definite and clear conception as to what is Varna and what is Caste and as to the necessity of either for the conservation of Hinduism he has said and one hopes that he will not find some mystic reasons to change his view that caste is not the essence of Hinduism does he regard Varna as the essence of Hinduism one cannot as yet give any categorical answer. So, how to abolish the caste and what is the relationship between caste and varnashram ah varnashram system and how it can ah how it is the basis of Hinduism and harming the Hindu ah Hindu religion ah, Ambedkar wanted the both ah ah this practices a varnashram dharma or castism to ah to be made unlawful and therefore, and that is also connected with the scriptural sanction of this practices of caste and varnashrama according to ah Ambedkar . Gandhiji thought of it as a practices which develop later and it has no sanction in the ah scriptures or an enceintes and varnashrama dharma therefore, is something which is justifiable which is ah based on the division of ah ah labour and it has nothing to do with the caste ah practice ah discrimination or untouchability, but for Ambedkar that ah both are ah same and without ah without abolishing the both one cannot really discriminate the other and it sustain each other ah each other even. So, he has very strong ah ah opposition to Gandhijis ah views on ah caste and in fact, he ah unwilling compromised ah with Gandhiji in Poona pact when there is shifted communal award to the operate caste ah caste of India and finally, he ah he ah we will discuss while will discuss Ambedkar finally, he ah change his region or converted from Hinduism to to Buddhism to create a society which is based on the principal of liberty equality and fraternity . So, now finally, ah if we ah look at the ah complicated relationship between Savarker and ah Gandhi you find this theory very complicated ah relationship and Savarkar writes that the exit from Indian world of a powerful personality like Lokamanya Tilak, he said in the mad intoxication of Khilafat agitation conspiring with cult of charkha as a way of Swaraj in one year it is to be won by the perverse doctrine of nonviolence and truth the noncooperation movement for Swaraj based on these twin principles was a movement without power and was bound to destroy the power of the country. It is an illusion, a hallucination not unlike the hurricane that sweeps over a land only to destroy it, it is a disease of insanity an epidemic and megalomania. So, Savarker was strongs critic of Gandhian principles which ah he considered as unmanly or which ah take away the power of ah hm, the power of the country in this illusionary hallucination kind of ideas about nonviolence ah and truth. So, ah we have seen different critic a starting from most appreciative yet ah ah difference ah differencing or distancing himself between Gandhi and Nehru to someone between ah Tagore and Gandhi, but also between Ambedkar, Gandhi and Savarkar and Gandhi. So, Gandhiji remains ah a kind of ah ah tallest leader and yet faced all the criticism ah ah during his ah lifetime and ah afterwards ah ah as well. So, Gandhiji was the ardent supporter of independence of India and he stresses social reforms as a means to achieve it, but his approach was essentially individualistic . So, the in Gandhian oceanic circle we have discussed how individual is at the center of all his philosophy he regarded individual transformation and while achieving Swaraj he said that Swaraj in our forms and you can have it as and when we want it and the way to have it or to achieve it is by stopping to corporate with the ah operator or with the ah ah ruler. So, the whole idea of noncooperation ah with the British and that way ah one can achieve ah achieve the Swaraj. So, he regarded the individual transformation as the basic prerequisite of the transformation in the nation and that he writes to related to his nephew which please do not carry unnecessary on your head the burden of emancipating India , emancipate your ownself even that burden is very great apply everything to yourself nobility of soul consist in realizing that you are yourself India, in your emancipation is the emancipation of India. So, Gandhiji very radically inverse the whole struggle for Swaraj which is not something as an objective out there and beyond the ah ah biological and the physical expense of individual. He ah ah he simultaneously associate the individual with India an India with the individual. So, with the with the emancipation of individualize the emancipation of India with the attainment of Swaraj to govern oneself lies the attainment of Swaraj ah Swaraj for India. So, for Gandhiji this ah individual remains at the center of his ah philosophy. So, ah finally, ah to conclude what we find is that Gandhi and his ideals where open to criticism in his lifetime and are so even in contemporary times. So, unlike many other thinkers and their followers you see famously Ramchandra Guha said that the followers or shiv followers of Shivaji will not listen to anything that is against or negative onward Shivaji followers of Ambedkar will not listen to anything that is a negative about Ambedkar, but ah Gandhiji has the follower is relevant for many movements and the leaders ah even in contemporary times and yet is open and subject to all kind of criticism that is ah perhaps the greatest ah ah ah greatest ah and unique characteristic of Gandhiji and his ideals and why it is difficult to fit him in any particular ism or ideology. So, he was ah open to criticism in his lifetime and also even in contemporary times and yet he remains perhaps one of the greatest leaders of modern India whose ideals have shaped not only the polities and society in India, but also many political leaders including Nelson Mandela and martin Luther King, we have seen and various social political movements including environmental movements in many countries in the world. So, Gandhiji and his ideals continue to be relevant and indispensable for any discourse on politics ah politics in even in contribute India. So, on this lecture you can refer to some of these books like India of My Dreams by Mahatma Gandhi and also the great trial speech by Mahatma Gandhi in 1922 and these other text you have seen in some of the previous lecture also, which you can refer to for this lecture. So, thank you very much for ah listening let us know what you think about ah this lecture and we will be happy to respond you. Thank you .
HILARIE BURTON BIOGRAPHY, LIFE ACHIEVEMENT AND SOME INTERESTING FACTS
harmony. Gandhi for her was a mentor cum friend and when Gandhiji was imprisoned for 6 long years in 1922 she was present during that verdict describing the moment she later wrote in the midst of all this poignant scene of many voiced and myriad hearted grief he stood untroubled in all his transcendent simplicity the embodied symbol of the Indian nation, its living sacrifice and [sac/sacrament] sacrament in one they might take him to the utmost end of the earth, but his destination remains unchanged in the hearts of his people who are both the heirs and the stewards of his matchless dreams and his matchless deeds. So, the Gandhian status was deeply embedded in the hearts and minds of ah minds of Indian people and that cannot be taken away by in carnating the ah ah first person of ah ah Gandhiji ah. Similarly, Bal Gangadhar Tilak despite his admiration for Gandhiji and his deeds had disagreements with Gandhijis ideals of purity of means . Tilak argues "politics is a game of worldly people and not of sadhus and instead of the maxim overcome anger by loving kindness evil by good as preached by Buddha, I that we still have prefer to rely on the maxim of Shri Krishna, in what what isoever way any come to me in that same way I grant them favor." So, Bal Gangadhar Tilak the necessity of ends means is to attain the ends and ends justify the means and not the means we justify the ends as for ah for ah Gandhiji and Tilak wanted politics to be ah for the worldly people and not for the sadhus ah sadhus and their [ma/maxim] maxims like ah our coming ah anger with love and kindness or evil by good, but to attain something which will justify the means for such attainments. Similarly, Rabindranath Tagore too shared personal bond with Mahatma Gandhi at the same time he differed from Gandhiji on many issues such as basic education his defense of Varnashrama dharma and many of his spiritual administerious statement. So, Gandhi and Tagore both believed in the need of spiritual regeneration of India their differences where in the perception of power, Gandhiji regarded power being of two kinds brute force and the soul force and that we have discussed why he justify soul force over the brute force. So, he despised the former that is brute force and the later that his soul force is celebrated in his thought and politics, but for Tagore he was suspicious of any form of power in his own words power in all its form is irrational it is like the horse that drags the carriage blind folded. So, for Tagore the complete freedom or freedom from fear of all kind is necessary for individual creativity to grow and that can lead to a better society more ah more ah empowered ah ah society and the way his ah envision society, but for Gandhiji ah ah the power can be divided into two ah brute force and the soul force and soul force is ah ah desirable ah, soul force and the power of ah ah ah, soul force is desirable for Gandhiji ah mac ah techniques of politics and know the ah Tagore and Gandhi we have discussed in ah ah in ah our lecture on Tagore also which you can also refer to to understand some of them ah similarities and also the differences between the 2 greatest mind of modern india . Now, ah ah about Gandhiji, and Ambedkar, there is very strange relationship between these 2 thinker and they continue to safe the actual practical politics of our post independent time for and it will continue to be relevant in our political discourse. So, especially on this issue of caste, untouchablity and varnashrama dharma, these two leaders differ from each other and vehemently opposed each other and at the same time respecting each other also. So, one of the political ah history is that while ah Ambedkar critically ah ah ah challenged many of his ideas and ah articulation about untouchability and caste ah discrimination he was also respectful of Gandhijis and ah and his role and Gandhi when ah he was ah ah giving counsel to them ah ah forming of first interim government his supported to ah ah Ambedkars ah nomination as the first law minister and his role in the drafting of Indian constitution. So, both leaders while opposing each other critiquing each other also acknowledges the contribution and the expertise of ah each other also. So, here we will discuss only about their views on varnashrama dharma and the caste ah practices. So, in the context of varnashrama Ambedkar was the strongest critic of Gandhiji and the congress and Gandhiji regarded varnashrama as the essential system of social divisions of labour which helps in social functioning and stability. So, Gandhiji although he despised the practice of untouchability, he had no problem with the varnashrama system. So, Gandhiji in his understanding of Indian society thought of varnashrama dharma as a kind of system of division of labour. So, he was critical of untouchability he wanted to abolish untouchability or practices of untouchability, but he was ah justifying or ah ok with the continuance of [verna/varnashrama] varnashrama ah ah system. Ambedkar regarded the reorganization of Indain society on the principal of varnashrama as not only impossible, but also harmful and he considered the caste system as the factor which ruined Hindu or Hinduism and urged for a society based on the principle of liberty equality and fraternity a very modern ideas of living and egalitarian life or in a egalitarian society. Now criticizing Gandhi Ambedkar writes that as defined by mahatma, Varna becomes merely a different name for caste, for the simple reason that it is the same in the essence namely pursuit of ancestral calling, what what where I am sure that all his confusion a due to the fact that the mahatma has no definite and clear conception as to what is Varna and what is Caste and as to the necessity of either for the conservation of Hinduism he has said and one hopes that he will not find some mystic reasons to change his view that caste is not the essence of Hinduism does he regard Varna as the essence of Hinduism one cannot as yet give any categorical answer. So, how to abolish the caste and what is the relationship between caste and varnashram ah varnashram system and how it can ah how it is the basis of Hinduism and harming the Hindu ah Hindu religion ah, Ambedkar wanted the both ah ah this practices a varnashram dharma or castism to ah to be made unlawful and therefore, and that is also connected with the scriptural sanction of this practices of caste and varnashrama according to ah Ambedkar . Gandhiji thought of it as a practices which develop later and it has no sanction in the ah scriptures or an enceintes and varnashrama dharma therefore, is something which is justifiable which is ah based on the division of ah ah labour and it has nothing to do with the caste ah practice ah discrimination or untouchability, but for Ambedkar that ah both are ah same and without ah without abolishing the both one cannot really discriminate the other and it sustain each other ah each other even. So, he has very strong ah ah opposition to Gandhijis ah views on ah caste and in fact, he ah unwilling compromised ah with Gandhiji in Poona pact when there is shifted communal award to the operate caste ah caste of India and finally, he ah he ah we will discuss while will discuss Ambedkar finally, he ah change his region or converted from Hinduism to to Buddhism to create a society which is based on the principal of liberty equality and fraternity . So, now finally, ah if we ah look at the ah complicated relationship between Savarker and ah Gandhi you find this theory very complicated ah relationship and Savarkar writes that the exit from Indian world of a powerful personality like Lokamanya Tilak, he said in the mad intoxication of Khilafat agitation conspiring with cult of charkha as a way of Swaraj in one year it is to be won by the perverse doctrine of nonviolence and truth the noncooperation movement for Swaraj based on these twin principles was a movement without power and was bound to destroy the power of the country. It is an illusion, a hallucination not unlike the hurricane that sweeps over a land only to destroy it, it is a disease of insanity an epidemic and megalomania. So, Savarker was strongs critic of Gandhian principles which ah he considered as unmanly or which ah take away the power of ah hm, the power of the country in this illusionary hallucination kind of ideas about nonviolence ah and truth. So, ah we have seen different critic a starting from most appreciative yet ah ah difference ah differencing or distancing himself between Gandhi and Nehru to someone between ah Tagore and Gandhi, but also between Ambedkar, Gandhi and Savarkar and Gandhi. So, Gandhiji remains ah a kind of ah ah tallest leader and yet faced all the criticism ah ah during his ah lifetime and ah afterwards ah ah as well. So, Gandhiji was the ardent supporter of independence of India and he stresses social reforms as a means to achieve it, but his approach was essentially individualistic . So, the in Gandhian oceanic circle we have discussed how individual is at the center of all his philosophy he regarded individual transformation and while achieving Swaraj he said that Swaraj in our forms and you can have it as and when we want it and the way to have it or to achieve it is by stopping to corporate with the ah operator or with the ah ah ruler. So, the whole idea of noncooperation ah with the British and that way ah one can achieve ah achieve the Swaraj. So, he regarded the individual transformation as the basic prerequisite of the transformation in the nation and that he writes to related to his nephew which please do not carry unnecessary on your head the burden of emancipating India , emancipate your ownself even that burden is very great apply everything to yourself nobility of soul consist in realizing that you are yourself India, in your emancipation is the emancipation of India. So, Gandhiji very radically inverse the whole struggle for Swaraj which is not something as an objective out there and beyond the ah ah biological and the physical expense of individual. He ah ah he simultaneously associate the individual with India an India with the individual. So, with the with the emancipation of individualize the emancipation of India with the attainment of Swaraj to govern oneself lies the attainment of Swaraj ah Swaraj for India. So, for Gandhiji this ah individual remains at the center of his ah philosophy. So, ah finally, ah to conclude what we find is that Gandhi and his ideals where open to criticism in his lifetime and are so even in contemporary times. So, unlike many other thinkers and their followers you see famously Ramchandra Guha said that the followers or shiv followers of Shivaji will not listen to anything that is against or negative onward Shivaji followers of Ambedkar will not listen to anything that is a negative about Ambedkar, but ah Gandhiji has the follower is relevant for many movements and the leaders ah even in contemporary times and yet is open and subject to all kind of criticism that is ah perhaps the greatest ah ah ah greatest ah and unique characteristic of Gandhiji and his ideals and why it is difficult to fit him in any particular ism or ideology. So, he was ah open to criticism in his lifetime and also even in contemporary times and yet he remains perhaps one of the greatest leaders of modern India whose ideals have shaped not only the polities and society in India, but also many political leaders including Nelson Mandela and martin Luther King, we have seen and various social political movements including environmental movements in many countries in the world. So, Gandhiji and his ideals continue to be relevant and indispensable for any discourse on politics ah politics in even in contribute India. So, on this lecture you can refer to some of these books like India of My Dreams by Mahatma Gandhi and also the great trial speech by Mahatma Gandhi in 1922 and these other text you have seen in some of the previous lecture also, which you can refer to for this lecture. So, thank you very much for ah listening let us know what you think about ah this lecture and we will be happy to respond you. Thank you .
