It would do Gandhi tremendous harm to view him through the lens of other philosophers as he had his own set of beliefs.
By Manish Narwade
When we look at Gandhi as an institution, we respect the freedom struggle he led. He began his Satyagraha journey in South Africa, a different country with a different culture. In actuality, some people continue to feel anxious about leaving their hometown. Gandhi demonstrates unstoppable strength, demonstrating the power of truth, which transcends cultures and traditions which is true everywhere in the world. With truth comes justice. Justice is the result of truth. Gandhi is the symbol and institution of justice and truth. But are Gandhi’s idea of justice and ethical practices justified and are they just to society?
The goal of the Satyagraha Gandhi led was to obtain justice. The pursuit of justice as a whole is guided by the concept of truth. He spearheaded protests in South Africa against registration certificates, restrictions on Indian immigration, poll taxes, and the invalidation of Indian marriages, as well as Transvaal immigration. Tolstoy proposed that the best way to combat evil was via nonviolent resistance, and Gandhi drew towards this idea.
In January 1915, Gandhi travelled back to India. He was already considered a “messiah” since South Africa gave his concept of enormous satyagraha backing. The first acts of civil disobedience, including the Champaran Satyagraha, the Ahmedabad Mill Strike of 1918, the first Hunger Strike and the Kheda Satyagraha, all had great success. With these, Gandhi successfully applied his nonviolent philosophy to illustrate the concepts of truth and justice. His leadership of the entire Satyagraha has had a profound effect on society.
Non-violent Philosophy
When Gandhi became the leader of the independence fight movement, things started to change. The Non-cooperation movement, civil disobedience, and Gandhi’s Quit India Movement were all founded on a non-violent philosophy. Gandhi was a living example of non-violence, as seen by the Non-cooperation movement’s withdrawal following the Chauri-Chaura violence. Gandhi stated that the general public still hadn’t learned or fully understood the nonviolent approach. His key argument was that a violent movement could be quickly put down by the colonial government, which would exploit the violent outbursts as justification for utilising the state’s military strength against the demonstrators.
Gandhi’s nonviolent approach was due to liberal British colonialism, but could he have applied it in a fascist-run country like Germany? In Nazi Germany, would Gandhi’s ideas have survived? Does Nazi Germany justify Gandhi’s moral maxim, “If one takes care of the means, the result will take care of itself?” Only in Plato’s “platonic world” it is conceivable. As long as both the means and the ends do not violate the rights of others, they are acceptable.
Fast for Goal
One of the most immoral ways to accomplish a goal is through fasting, as suggested by Gandhi. How can a threat to kill oneself be right, if a threat to murder someone else is wrong? If someone brandishes a gun and commands them to carry out particular actions, they would prefer to pass away with dignity rather than violate their moral convictions. However, it would be insulting to the person’s dignity if someone pointed a gun at his own head and threatened to take action. An individual would prefer to pass away than subscribe to an incorrect and unethical viewpoint since an ethical person would not want to be mean to his life. If it is wrong for someone to force someone to believe what they say by pointing a pistol at them, how can it become right if they force someone to believe what they say by turning the gun around to point it at themselves?
Gandhi once embarked on a fast till death to exert pressure on Dr BR Ambedkar, which is one example of how he achieved his purpose (Poona Pact). Ambedkar was forced to compromise, not because he agreed with the cause Gandhi was fighting for but rather because he did not want Gandhi to lose his life for it. Gandhi would be mistaken, according to Ambedkar, to believe that he had changed his heart. He was still confident that he was correct and Gandhi was mistaken, but he was unable to accept responsibility for the violence Gandhi insisted on inflicting upon himself through Gandhi’s idea of fasting.
Ambedkar demonstrated nonviolence, whereas Gandhi’s approach was manifestly violent. Gandhi threatened to commit himself to exert pressure on Ambedkar in a last-ditch effort. It simply means, “It doesn’t matter whether I threaten to kill you or commit suicide to convince you of my point of view.”
Buddha’s Philosophy
It would be a good idea to bring up the Buddha’s nonviolent philosophy in comparison to Gandhi’s. Angulimala, the robber in the realm of Pasendi, was converted by Buddha. However, Buddha did not threaten to commit suicide or go on fast if Angulimala did not accept his teachings. The good that is in you is still alive, Buddha said. It will change you if you only give it a chance. What if Gandhi had met Angulimala? Would his philosophy of nonviolence and abstaining from food have influenced Angulimala to take a particular course of action? Gandhi’s life might have been spared by Angulimala, but it doesn’t seem likely that he would change to stop doing what he had done.
Gandhi had his own set of beliefs. It would do Gandhi tremendous harm to view him through the lens of other philosophers. He had unconventional ideas, such as bringing Hindus and Muslims together in the Non-cooperation movement, which India needs in this day of radicalisation. People could be freed from injustice by taking inspiration from Dr BR Ambedkar and some of Gandhi’s ideas. The country needs Ambedkar’s intellectual and Gandhi’s concept of truth. Even Gandhi, who abhorred violence, met his demise at the hands of a violent technique, and he deeply felt sorry for those who used violence against a nonviolent person.