Social Life and Mahatma Gandhi

[Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav]

Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav

Senior Gandhian Scholar, Professor, Editor and Linguist

Gandhi International Study and Research Institute, Jalgaon, Maharashtra, India

Contact No. – 09404955338, 09415777229

E-mail- [e-mail];

[e-mail]

Mailing Address- C- 29, Swaraj Nagar, Panki, Kanpur- 208020, Uttar Pradesh, India

 

 

Social Life and Mahatma Gandhi

 

 

The masses came to know of Gokhale’s efficiency in work. All know Gokhale’s life of action. But few know of his religious life. Truth was the spring of all his actions. This was behind all his works, even his politics. This was the reason he founded the Servants of India Society, the ideal of which was to spiritualize the political as well as the social life of the nation. 1 In social life, they are completely ostracized. They feel the ostracism, but they silently bear it. But the situation alters when the Government steps in and gives legal recognition to the anti-colour campaign. It is impossible for the Indian settlers to submit to an insulting restraint upon their movements. They will not allow booking clerks to decide as to whether they are becomingly dressed. They cannot allow a platform inspector to restrict them to a reserved part of the platform. They will not, as if they were ticket-of-leave men, produce their certificates in order to secure railway tickets. 2

If women go out to work, our social life will be ruined and moral standards will decline. To those who advance the example of Europe, asking how it is that thousands of women there do the work of men and that men and women work together, my reply is: 'I don't bother myself about Europe.' From what little insight into the laws of social life I have gained, I feel convinced that for men and women to go out for work together will mean the fall of both. Do not, therefore, send your women out to work; protect their honour; if you have any manliness in you, it is for you to see that no one casts an evil eye on them. Today the workers, in their helplessness, are forced to send their women and children out for work, much against their will. It is true, of course, that they should have better wages if they are not to be so obliged. All this could be easy to achieve through a union, if established. 3

As we all know, change comes very slowly in social life, and thus, as a matter of fact, caste has allowed new groupings to suit the changes in lives. But these changes are quiet and easy as a change in the shape of the clouds. It is difficult to imagine a better harmonious human adjustment. 4 In the social division of labour they do one of the most important duties to society, and they are deprived of the fruits of the great social life which is evolved by the family of castes. Untouchability has made the ‘depressed’ classes the Cinderella of Hindu society. The question of food and drink has or ought to have no social value. It is merely the satisfaction of physical wants. It is, on the other hand, an opportunity for the control of the senses. Interdining has never been known to promote brotherhood in any special sense. But the restraints about interdining have to a great extent helped the cultivation of will-power and the conservation of certain social virtues. 5 

Social morality will include such virtues as our capacity for organization, fearlessness in social life, and so on. When our people have these virtues we shall be able to secure the reins of government in our hands. Moreover, at present swaraj means the freedom of British India only. No doubt freedom will have the profoundest effect on Indian States, but their problem will remain a separate one and will in all probability solve itself when British India has won its freedom. How-ever evil the rule in Indian States, British India can be free today if it is strong enough. Hence, in judging what the country deserves, we should take into account the actions of the people in British India only. If we take into account the conditions in Indian States as well, our conclusion will go wrong. Really speaking, the Indian States represent British authority. They are subject to that authority, are responsible to it and yet are not. Their responsibility is limited to paying the tribute and remaining loyal to it. In regard to their relation with their subjects, they are almost independent. In any case, they are not responsible to the subjects. This makes them more susceptible to the evil influences in their environment. To put it in other words, they have many temptations to rule oppressively. If they respect justice as much as they do, it is because they still have some independent policy of their own. The wonder is that, though the Indian States are free from any control and though the British Government would welcome their following a policy of oppression, they manage to preserve the decency which they do. The credit for this goes to the ancient civilization of India. 6

And we can become true devotees of Tulsidas only when we assimilate his religious approach and with the advantage of our new experience, we introduce such changes in our social life as our times demand. Tulsidas, for instance, says that woman only deserves spanking. Now, do we believe this today? Marriage is intended to help us cultivate restraint and therefore, we should recall this implication of marriage from time to time. We omit to do this and so adultery, indulgence and the like are now on the increase. Marriage is thus reduced to mere gratification of animal desires. Thinking deeply over all this, we ought to get out of this state of things. 7 In the Ashram, social life and lessons in social service begin with these women’s classes. Therefore, just as we do not give up taking our daily food except when we are ill or because of some extraordinary circumstance, so also we may be absent from the classes only for unavoidable reasons. You have taken a vow to attend the classes regularly. Then how can you break that vow? As the body can be sustained only by observing the rules of bodily health, an institution or society can be sustained only by observing social rules. 8

Students should cultivate a family feeling towards one another, and the superintendent should take the place of a father. He should take an interest in them, take part in their social life, and also have his meals with them. 9 The bearing of this religion on social life is, or has to be, seen in one’s daily social contact. To be true to such religion one has to lose oneself in continuous and continuing service of all life. Realization of Truth is impossible without a complete merging of oneself in and identification with this limitless ocean of life. Hence, for me, there is no escape from social service; there is no happiness on earth beyond or apart from it. Social service here must be taken to include every department of life. In this scheme there is nothing low, nothing high. 10 If we are really dynamic, our power cannot be reduced; that is my faith. We will have our impact on social life all right. We will not succeed in carrying on our experiment through the Sangh as we have been doing till now. We do not get through the Sangh a full view of the potentialities of non-violence. Non-violence is self-generating energy. If it is not hampered by the label of the Sangh, it can do greater work. I have written: “Our objective will be fulfilled if India could produce even one perfect exponent of non-violence”; and this is a comprehensive statement. I do not suggest that he will do everything single-handed. Even God cannot do everything all by Himself. He has to assume many forms. This one exponent, I submit, will draw everyone to him. The organizational strength of the Sangh will weaken you. It thwarts the expression of your individuality.

You merely reflect the strength of the Sangh, not that of your own atman. The strength of the Sangh is only a sum of your individual strength. The growth of non-violence does not require an organization of such collective strength. I do not see the utility of external aids. If those who call themselves Gandhian carry hatred or cowardice in their hearts, they cannot add glory to any Sangh. Gandhism will not survive that way. I have made all India my field of activity, or, say, God has assigned to me this field. There is a sound reason behind this. I believe that non-violence dwells in every Indian home. In Europe, you cannot find a group of three hundred persons like you, before whom I can express the ideas I am putting before you. That is why God has given me this field for making my experiments. How can I choose my field? My powers are very limited. He has given it to me. Hence my definite advice to you that everything except non-violence is only a snare. My only reply to your question is that our independent nonviolent strength will continue to have an impact on social life even without the Sangh. 11

 

References:

 

1. Santiniketan on Gokhale’s Death, February 20, 1915
2. Letter to the Bombay Chronicle, June 2, 1918
3. Navajivan, 29-2-1920
4. Young India, 29-12-1920
5. Young India, 29-12-1920  
6. Navajivan, 19-7-1925
7. Letter to Dhanji, March 20, 1926
8. Letter to Ashram Women, July 25, 1927
9. Navajivan, 3-3-1929
10. Contemporary Indian Philosophy, p. 21  
11. Gandhi Seva Sangh ke Chhathe Adhiveshan (Malikanda-Bengal) ka Vivaran, pp. 6