Gandhi s Views on Ahimsa and Muslim Hindu Relations

Reflection on Gandhi’s Autobiography

Gandhi begins his autobiography by describing the family of his origin and depicts his grandfather as a man of principle. His ancestors probably had humble origins but over time they became leaders, and his grandfather, who had been a prime minister of Porbandar but who had been forced to leave because of political intrigues, demonstrated the principle of loyalty when he saluted the Nawab in the place where he took refuge with his left hand instead of his right. The reason he did this was simple: “The right hand is already pledged to Porbandar” (Gandhi, n.d., p. 2). This striking opening is helpful in framing the autobiography as a whole because it puts front and center, first and foremost, the notion of principles and, moreover, the notion of loyalty. This loyalty to a homeland is what would compel Gandhi throughout his adult life, especially after returning to India from abroad. Likewise, the notion of having principles would be important to him as he would embark upon his journey of self-denial in order to gain mastery over himself and to purge the soul of the unruly passions.

Gandhi also describes himself as being in the “sleep of lust” during his younger years (p. 7). This spirit of lust prevented him from being a good teacher to others, and it was only later when he overcame this unhealthy spirit that he was able to reach his potential as a teacher and a leader in public life. This is another important aspect of the man that should be remembered, because it is often the case that heroic people have their histories white-washed and purified so that they appear as angelic beings in the public eye. But Gandhi says of himself that he was in the sleep of lust, and that this lust was a constraint on his activities. It is good to see someone admit one’s faults and handicaps, but also that he was able to overcome them as he grew in strength, self-control and in the spirit.

Gandhi describes some of his other sins and faults in his youth, such as smoking and stealing, but he describes these to help show how he learned from these experiences and grew from them. His aim is not just to be honest with the reader but also to be honest with himself. Unless a person is honest with himself he cannot really develop the spirit in the way it should be developed. The important lesson that Gandhi obtained from his experiences of thieving was that of forgiveness. When his father found out about the thieving, Gandhi expected him to be angry—but instead he saw that his father was “so wonderfully peaceful” that it stunned the young man (p. 15). At the same time, what prompted the peaceful forgiveness was likely also the fact that Gandhi made a “clean confession”—and this illustrated the need for one to be honest and forthright about one’s mistakes (p. 15). Gandhi did not try to hide what he had done but showed repentance and trusted in the justice and mercy of his father, and his father did not let him down. By confessing his crime to his father, his father’s faith and trust in his son was restored. I found this to be a great lesson that surely shaped Gandhi’s soul.

Gandhi also states that he was tolerant of religions but that in his youth he tended toward atheism, unable to have a living faith in God. He was actually troubled by this, to his credit, for he could not reconcile his beliefs without having a moral basis for them. Over time he reckoned that “morality is the basis of things, and that truth is the substance of morality” (p. 18). This is an important point to consider, because if truth is the substance of morality it stands to reason that one must arrive at the truth of things if one is to have a moral perspective. Gandhi would go on to reason that all religions had some truth in them but that none of them had all the truth. He arrived at this viewpoint after much consideration, but for a person who actually believes in a religion it can be disconcerting to hear, for one sees that religion as being true. This is one of Gandhi’s personal views that I have some trouble with because although I can understand it I also feel that he limited himself in terms of pursuing this matter of truth in relation to religion. However, as he shows during his time in London, he moved away from atheism toward a belief in God, and this is helpful in understanding his faith, his energy, and his passion. Still, he also points out that “it was in England that I first discovered the futility of mere religious knowledge” (p. 37). Although he was touched by the Sermon on the Mount, I wonder that he saw this as futile knowledge. Perhaps it has something to do with the mystery of faith. Yet, gradually I began to understand what Gandhi means by this “futile knowledge.” I think he means that God works in mysterious ways that go beyond mere knowledge of religious truths. There is an element of grace that works in the soul and in the world, and one must collaborate with that, and one does it in prayer through the spirit. This is actually an interesting insight that I observe upon reflection: it shows that Gandhi actually had a good sense of the mystery of faith and even if he did not settle upon any one religion in particular I think he had a deep love of God that cannot be described in mere words.

Gandhi describes this faith and trust in God later on the autobiography when he describes the sickness of his son. Gandhi was torn about whether to accept the treatments of others or to have faith in what he believed the right thing to be. He forced his son basically to sweat it out, and even though his son asked to be taken out of the treatment Gandhi persisted for he believed it would bring the fever down. However, he doubted whether he was right. In the end, the fever did come down and he notes that his son is the healthiest of all his boys. Yet, he states, “Who can say whether his recovery was due to God\\\\\\\'s grace, or to hydropathy, or to careful dietary and nursing? Let everyone decide according to his own faith. For my part I was sure that God had saved my honour, and that belief remains unaltered to this day.” I think this shows great humility on Gandhi’s part.

One other thing that I find interesting about Gandhi is that he changes his dress to reflect the rags of the indentured servants so as “to pass muster as a poor man” (p. 200). Gandhi is always focused on being open and honest, and yet in his outward appearance he is at pains to come across as something he is not—as belonging to a caste that he is not really part of. No indentured servant of the lower classes would have had the education or the opportunities that he had. Gandhi went to England, and he lived in South Africa, and yet he tried to pass himself off in his exterior clothing as a poor person of the lower castes. While I understand this intention, I feel that it is perhaps disingenuous on his part. Why not simply be who you are and present yourself as reflects your true standing in the social caste system? Would that not have been an even more powerful statement to others in the Hindu society?—to see a person of a noble position and bearing speaking kindly to all and showing camaraderie to all without discrimination? Gandhi states, for instance, that “no reform is possible unless some of the educated and the rich voluntarily accept the status of the poor, travel third, refuse to enjoy the amenities denied to the poor and, instead of taking avoidable hardships, discourtesies and injustice as a matter of course, fight for their removal” (p. 201). This makes sense, but what a picture it makes to see a man of an upper class position in his own clothes mixing with those of lower classes and showing them every kindness he would to a person of his own class standing. I do not think it makes Gandhi a hypocrite that he depicts himself in this manner, but it does give me pause and I am somewhat unconvinced that his approach was the best.