Mohandas Vs. The Mahatma

Gandhi continues to be remembered as a luminary -- an extraordinary, even holy, man. Saintliness indeed mayhave been something to which he himself aspired. Yet because his history is so recent, the humble, sometimesimperfect details of his life sell protrude through the myths. This allows us to see him as a person likeourselves in some ways, a person whose real and ideal selves differed and at times warred with each other.

In what follows, the ideal, theoretical Gandhi -- Gandhiji,the Mahatma -- is pitted against his historical half-brother, Mohandas. No doubtthey argued with one another frequently during Gandhi's lifetime. Here thedebate is continued through a series of imaginary letters; a troubled,occasionally pointed exchange.

October 18, 1901

Dear Mohandas:

It has come to my attention that you have forced your wife toreturn some gifts that she received as going-away presents when you and she left Durban -- some jewelry and the like. Apparently you and she had quite a verbalbrawl; my sympathies.

However much I may concur with your general sentiment in the matter -- that a public worker should, as a matter of principle, accept no costlygifts [9] -- something disturbs me about this incident. I think it has to dowith the way you have made Kasturbai comply.

As I recall, Kasturbai claimed not to want the ornaments forherself but for her future daughters-in-law, and as a sort of financial protection -- for you certainly have done little for your family in that regard.Besides, she said that the ornaments had been meant for her, not for you, andthat considering all that she had done for you -- she claimed to have "toiledand mailed for you day and night" -- she deserved them. [10]

You admitted that these were pointed thrusts, and that someof them struck home.[11] Yet you refused to budge, and the trinkets wereresumed to the giver, who sold them and put the profits into a trust fund onwhich you later were able to draw for public purposes [12] From your wife'spoint of view, this must have appeared as little more than a clever way ofappropriating her jewelry for your own purposes.

By the way, do you really think it wise to let people callyou Mahatma? It seems a bit, well, vaunted. Try reducing yourself to a zero.[13] 

Yours,
Gandhi

Dear Gandhiji:

I am flattered by the concern you have shown in your letter. But also a bitpuzzled.

Regarding those annoying gifts: surely you would not haveallowed me to keep them! The money they brought, after all, was used for verygood purposes.

And what sort of example would I have set for my wife andchildren, whom I am trying to train for a life of service? [14] Kasturbai issuch a simple woman, not at all educated, and I have had to teach hereverything, make her learn what I have leamed. [l5] Truly, I have had toserve as her moral guide.

Perhaps you wish people did not have to play such a role forothers, but sometimes it is simply necessary. It is not so odd, after all, inour culture.

Having a family has not always been an easy thing for me.Early in my youth I reamed that if I were to embrace the whole world I shouldhave to avoid exclusive intimacies.[l6] Family relationships, therefore,have always been something of a bother. I would like to regard all of India asmy family instead.[17]

I do hope that you will understand, and forgive my moralimpatience.

Respectfully,
Mohan (not Mahatma)

Dear Mohandas:

Whether you intended to gain from putting the gifts in trust is neither here northere. Rather, I think the issue is Kasturbai, and whether you really honoredher point of view.

If her points struck home, as you have said, wasn't itnecessary to incorporate them into the solution? You latched onto one principleand clung to it in your disagreement with her, but it was not the only principleinvolved. Some recognition of Kasturbai's contributions was also called for, andsome show of responsibility for your family.

I'm concerned about two things here, and they are linked toeach other. One is the way you rushed to conclusions about whatwas  truthful before taking Kasturbai's perspective into account,forgetting that what is truth for one person may be untruth for another.[18],The other is the way you bludgeoned her into submission with your heavy-handedinsistence on public morality. The golden rule of conduct, after all, is mutualtoleration. [l9] 

Yours,
Gandhi

Dear Gandhiji:

Just a note to thank you for your response. Don't you thinkit is necessary, however, to impress on others the importance of virtue? [20] 

Respectfully,
Mohan

Dear Mohandas:

Thanks for the note. I hate to harp on the point, but itseems to me that much of the luster of virtue is lost when you push it onothers. The imposition of your notion of truth on others is an insufferableinterference with their freedom of conscience. [21] Those closest to you arefrequently the greatest victims of this -- especially your own family.

This is not the first tame this has happened. I remember thatdreadful incident several years ago in Durban when Kasturbai drew the line atcleaning out the chamber pot of an Indian guest of Untouchable ancestry, eventhough you had done that sort of thing yourself. [22] She told you to keephouse for yourself, and you actually dragged her to the gate before she told youto stop making a fool of yourself, and you came to your senses. It was a simplehousehold quarrel, to be sure, but it indicates how your fearsome insistence onyour own way in moral matters can brutalize those around you.

Take your children -- what a peculiar and strict upbringing yougave them, even depriving them of a decent schooling. It's not their fault youhold modern education in contempt. No wonder Harilal rebelled, and lived, fromyour point of view, a life of profligacy. His goal, apparently, was to becomerich, and easily at that.[23] His was scarcely a laudable goal, I agree, but lookat what it signified. It appears that he wanted desperately to assert himself,and felt you had denied him that right.

I wouldn't want you to ignore issues affecting the moralityof others, especially those in your own family. But it is wrong to force yourview on them. That denies their own integrity; it violates their individuality.We must measure people with their own measure and see how far they come up toit.[24] 

Yours,
Gandhi

July 1, 1914

Dear Mohandas:

I see you have been at it again. Only now it's a politicalissue instead of a personal one.

Your victory over General Smuts in South Africa has beenwidely praised as an example of how one should defend the rights of people ofcolor in that nation -- an important principle, indeed. My only question is whetherit was the principle that triumphed, or you.

Smuts was hampered and hurt by your nonviolent campaigns, I'mafraid. He recalled the whole thing as a "trying situation," and aseveryone knows, he eventually capitulated. [25] But capitulated to what? Headmired you as a tactician, but there is no indication that he was ever won overto your view on the principle for which you fought. Should you ever leave SouthAfrica, the conditions of Indians and Blacks are liable to become as oppressiveas they were before.[26] 

Yours,
Gandhi

Dear Gandhiji:

It is a chilling prediction that you have made, especiallysince I am indeed about to leave. I will keep it in mind and continue tomaintain interest in the South African situation on my return to the homeland.[27]

I accept your view that the process of satyagraha is anongoing one, and that what seems a clear victory at the time may in hindsightseem like only a minor skirmish a protracted war. 

Respectfully,
Mohan

Dear Mohandas:

I'm afraid you may have missed the point. It is true that youhave sometimes proclaimed a victory prematurely, but that was not what reallytroubled me.

My concern was that Smuts seemed entirely unconverted to yourprinciple. Your nonviolence forced him to accede, but that is not satyagraha.Our motto must always be conversion by gentle persuasion.[28]

You have been so intent on getting a principle across that attimes you have become more coercive than persuasive. You have done so nonviolently, of course, but that is not the issue. What seems to be satyagrahacan sometimes be its opposite: duragraha, the force ofcoercion.[29] To practice true satyagraha is not to disavowjust physical violence, but mental violence as well. It is not right to assumethat real satyagraha has occurred when all one knows is that abloodless form of manipulation has succeeded. 

Yours,
Gandhi

JUNE 22 1918 KHEDA

JUST RECEIVED WORD THAT YOU ARE SUPPORTING BRITISH WAR EFFORTSTOP EVEN RECRUITING SOLDIERS STOP HAVE YOU ABANDONED YOUR MIND STOP 

SIGNED GANDHI

June 24, 1918

Dear Gandhiji,

I have received your telegram with sadness. It seems that noone is much in favor of this. Everyone thinks 'l am just deluding myself. [30] Eventhe villagers heckle me.

At the time it seemed a good idea to raise a large Indiancontingent to support the British war effort. I thought maybe it would bring usrespect, and cause the British to treat us like partners in the Empire.[31]Besides, we need to learn the use of weapons for self defense. There are timeswhen such weapons are required, as when one must kill a dog with rabies [32]or halt an invading foreign army. [33]

A time of war poses great problems for someone pledged tononviolence. If one's country is fighting, there is no way to escape from thewar effort. No choice is a good one.

In the Boer War, and earlier on in this one, I organized anambulance corps -- an acceptable alternative to combat, I'm sure you will agree.I've always respected the good things about British civilization and felt theywere worth fighting for. And it is not so odd for me to respect the military,now is it? Think of its discipline and bravery, its resolved.[34]

True nonviolence involves a paradox: we must have thestrength to kill before we have the ability to transcend killing.[35] Aweak and effeminate nation cannot perform this grand act of renunciation.[36] Soalthough I am recruiting soldiers for war, I am also recruiting for principles:the value of British civilization, and the strength necessary for nonviolence.These principles are worthy of support, I believe, and I hope you will feel thesame. 

Faithfully yours,
Mohandas

JUNE 27 1918
SUPPORT THE PRINCIPLES STOP NOT THE WAR STOP

SIGNED GANDHI

September 20, 1932 

Dear Mohandas:

I understand that today you are planning to "enter thefiery gate," as you put it [37] -- a fast unto death. This is a veryserious matter. Do you really think the issue warrants such extreme behavior?

The principle, that of making certain that Untouchables areincluded in Hindu society, is an important one. But I have heard no one espousethe contrary view. Your opposition -- the Untouchables themselves, at least thoseled by Dr. Ambedkar --  also hopes for a better role for the outcastes.[38] Itis true that some Untouchables regard Hinduism as oppressive, and want todisassociate themselves from it. But no one has suggested that they secede fromthe nation, which is what you appear to be struggling against.

Have you really waged a careful search for the truth in thismatter? Perhaps you should talk again with Dr. Ambedkar. 

Yours,
Gandhi

Dear Gandhiji:

With due respect, my real opposition is not Ambedkar but theprejudices of the upper castes. I understand why the Untouchable leadersdistrust me, since I am a member of a superior class, as it ismiscalled. [39]

But even though "touchable" by birth, I am anUntouchable by choice. and I think I qualify to represent them, even theirlowest strata, [40] as well as Dr. Ambedkar does. I would, however, bedelighted to talk with him and any other friends.[41] But let the fastcontinue.

Respectfully, 
Mohandas

Dear Mohandas:

I'm not sure which disturbs me more, the coercive tone ofyour approach or your obstinacy in refusing to see Ambedkar's point of view. Youseem to have missed my main point: fighting for the truth means fighting for thewhole truth, not just your portion of it. Truth always comes in fragments, fromdifferent angles of vision. [42]

I know you are in the midst of a struggle, and I know thatthere are times when one simply has to go ahead and take a stand, and defend theright as much as it is humanly possible to see it.[43] But you cannot stay contentwith that. You must continue to be willing to revise your goals.

I suppose what upsets me most is your plan to carry on thisfast "until the end." [44] Now really, how do you expect anyone torespond to that?

Fasting is the ultimate weapon, the most infallible device inthe armory of satyagraha.[45] To fast is to take the extreme violence of asituation and turn it toward oneself in the attempt to vindicate the principleat issue. But such an act violates life -- one's own life -- and can be justified onlyin the most unusual situations, and only as a last resort. [46]

I can imagine sacrificing oneself, but only if it would helpstop a terrible violence -- if, for example, it would bring peace to acatastrophic war. Has the issue for which you are fasting the clarity and theseverity to deserve such a response? 

Yours,
Gandhi

Dear Gandhiji:

I don't know. I may be wholly wrong; that is quite possible.[47]But it's also quite irrelevant to the present purpose. So long as I am as rightas is humanly possible, I must go on to the furthest end. [48]

But I can tell you this for certain. The principle underlyingthis fast -- my opposition to the oppression of Untouchables is worth staking therest of my life on. Nothing will satisfy me until the last vestige ofuntouchability is gone. [49] Already I have dedicated myself to just thisgoal. I intend to retire from politics and return to rural life and simplevalues, and see what can be done to lighten the wretched burden of these people.

Perhaps I have misused satyagraha. The approach is inits infancy, after all, and therefore not yet perfected. [50] But I stillregard it as a path worth taking not only for the resolution of politicalclashes but for overcoming the deep disharmonies of human existence. Ultimatelythe truth worth searching for is a transcendent truth, a pattern of love andreconciliation that knits together discordant lives, revolutionizes socialideals, and makes people, and the communities of which they are a part, whole. [51]

I don't pretend to have a grasp on all of this already. I am,after all, a mortal and a humble seeker.[52] My conviction that a truthsuch as this is actually obtainable is a conviction, nothing more. But I find itimpossible to escape my trust that in the struggle of life one actually canconquer hate by love, untruth by truth, and violence by self-suffering.[53] 

Respectfully,
Mohandas Gandhi

Extracted from Pg 140 - 148 from Gandhi's Way, A Handbook of Conflict Resolution by MarkJuergensmeyer

Notes

9. Autobiography, 222.
10. Autobiography, 221.
11. Autobiography, 221.
12. Autobiography, 222.
13. Quoted in U. S. Mohan Rao, ea., The Message of Mahatma Gandhi (NewDelhi, India: Publication Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,Govemment of India, 1968), l 15.
14. Autobiography, 220.
15. Autobiography, 12.
16. Autobiography, 19.
17. Quoted in Louis Fischer, The Essential Gandhi (New York: Vintage Books,1962), 179.
18. Yeravda Mandir, 1.
19. Young India, September 23, 1926.
20. Autobiography, 220.
21. Young India, September 23, 1926.
22. Ashe, Gandhi 90.
23. Young India, dune 18, 1925.
24. Collected Works, 33:102.
25. Quoted in Mahatma Gandhi, Essays and Reflections on His Life and Work,cited in Louis Fischer, The Life of Mahatma Gandhi (New York: Harper andBrothers, 1950), 125.
26. Ashe, Gandhi, 125.
27. For example, Gandhi's comments on South Africa on November 17, 1947, in his DelhiDiary (Ahmedabad, India: Navajivan Publishing House, 1948), 178.
28. Young India, September 29, 1921.
29. Delhi Diary, October 3, 1947.
30. Collectd Works 14:511.
31. Collected Works 14:440.
32. Collected Works, 14:505.
33. Collected Works, 14;436.
34. Harijan, June 10, 1939; Hanjan, May 12, 1946. See also Stephen Hay,"Gandhi's Views on Defensive Violence and Parhcipahon in War" (paper presentedat the meetings of the American Academy of Religion, Western Region, April 8,1983).
35. Collected Works 14:444.
36. Collected Works 14:485. The term effeminate is Gandhi's, and istypical of the gender imagery to which he often resorted in describing attitudesof weakness and strength. He frequently described an absence of courage ,forexample. as "a lack of manhood."
37. Collected Works, 51:101.
38. For Dr. B. R. Ambedkar's position, see Dr. Ambedkar on Poona Pact Jullundur, India: Bheem Patrika Publications, 1973) and What Gandhi andCongress Have Done to the Untouchables (Bombay, 1946).
39. Collected Works, 51:63.
40. Collected Works, 51:117.