Universal Love 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

 

 

 

Universal Love and Mahatma Gandhi 

 

 

Instead of talking of universal love, it would be enough if we give up the calico made in the mills of Ahmadabad, Japan or England and win instead the simple love of the poor by wearing cloth spun and woven by our own brothers and sisters. Shri Narayan Guru Swami has assured me that he will himself take up spinning and forbid his followers from approaching him unless they are clad in khadi. 1

Deshbandhu did not know Sanskrit and had not studied the scriptures. He merely followed the dharma of national service. He had made himself completely fearless. That is why even learned men bowed to him and, on that unforgettable day, they mingled their tears with the people. The dharma of national service means all-embracing love. It is not universal love, but it is an important facet of it. It is not the Dhavalgiri of love, but it’s Darjeeling. From Darjeeling, the visitor has a golden vision of Dhavalgiri and thinks to himself: ‘If the Darjeeling of love is as beautiful as this, how much more beautiful must be its Dhavalgiri, which shines in the distance before me.’ Love of one’s country is not opposed to love of mankind, but is a concrete instance of it. It ultimately lifts one to the highest peak of universal love. That is why people shower blessings on those who are filled with patriotic love. People know love of family, and are not, therefore, moved to admiration by it. To some extent they also understand love of the village. But love of the country only a Deshbandhu or a Lokamanya understands. People adore such men because they themselves want to be like them.  It ultimately lifts one to the highest peak of universal love. That is why people shower blessings on those who are filled with patriotic love. People know love of family, and are not, therefore, moved to admiration by it. To some extent they also understand love of the village. But love of the country only a Deshbandhu or a Lokamanya understands. People adore such men because they themselves want to be like them. 2

A great hero and patriot Swami Shradhanandji died for the sake of the untouchables. He loved them as dearly as his own life. He regarded them as his own children, and, if it was in his power, he would have banished untouchability from the shores of India. And what does that banishment mean? It means universal love. 3 The introductory part of the question shows that questions be betraying a narrow outlook are often put. By unnecessarily exercising ourselves over conundrums about the justifiability of man’s killing creatures and animals of a lower order, we often seem to forget our primary duties. Every one of us is not faced every day with the question of killing obnoxious animals. Most of us have not developed courage and love enough to practise ahimsa with regard to dangerous reptiles. We do not destroy the vipers of ill-will and anger in our own bosom, but we dare to raise futile discussions about the propriety of killing obnoxious creatures and we thus move in a vicious circle. We fail in the primary duty and lay the unction to our souls that we are refraining from killing obnoxious life. One who desires to practise ahimsa must for the time being forgotten all about snakes, etc. Let him not worry if he cannot avoid killing them, but try for all he is worth to overcome the anger and ill-will of men by his patient endeavour as a first step toward cultivating universal love. 4 

But dharma is not such a lifeless thing. Non-violence is a living force or power. No one has been or will ever be able to measure its limits or its extent. Non-violence means universal love; it implies compassion for all living beings and the resultant strength to sacrifice oneself. Since many mistakes may be made while this love expresses itself we cannot give up the quest for the whole of this dharma. Even the mistakes committed while seeking the pure path take us a step forward in the quest. 5 In the resolution Lalaji has been mentioned as the guardian of the poor and there is significance in it. His heart melted wherever he saw misery. His language was certainly strong, but there was no contempt in it. Lalaji’s heart was full of universal love. He concealed nothing from the people, why should he conceal anything from his co-workers? Lalaji was such a kindhearted person that his heart melted if he saw anyone unhappy either in India or abroad. He did not have the slightest enmity towards the Muslims. It was his innermost desire that the Hindus and the Muslims should live as brothers. He wanted that in India there should be neither Hindu rule nor Muslim rule but a rule of all the people. Lalaji’s life began with religious activity and social reforms but he felt that as long as India did not get independence, nothing could be done about religious or social reforms. Like Lokamanya Tilak, he was compelled to plunge into politics.  I made too an intensive study of Tolstoy’s books. The Gospels in Brief, What to do and other books made a deep impression on me. I began to realize more and more the infinite possibilities of universal love. 6

If we look at it from the standpoint of ahimsa, we find that the fulfillment of ahimsa is impossible without perfect brahmacharya. Ahimsa means universal love. If a man gives his love to one woman, or a woman to one man, what is there left for the entire world besides? It simply means, “we two first, and the devil take all the rest of them.” As a faithful wife must be prepared to sacrifice her all for the sake of her husband, and a faithful husband for the sake of his wife, it is clear that such persons cannot rise to the height of universal love, or look upon all mankind as kith and kin for they have created a boundary wall or one has been created round their love. The larger their family, the farther are they from universal love. We see this in the whole world. Hence one who would obey the law of ahimsa cannot marry, not to speak of gratification outside the marital bond.  7

As regards the motherland being considered as your mother there is a flaw in your thought. Just as loving one’s mother does not mean that one should not love another’s mother, so also loving one’s motherland does not mean hating other countries. Where there is no love for the motherland love of the world is an illusion. And since the motherland has a greater right over us, being proud of the motherland without any ill will for other countries is only proper. I cannot directly care for the children of the whole world. But if I care lovingly for the children who are in my keeping I shall to that extent be doing service to the children of the world. The case of the motherland is exactly similar. After all it does matter in which land and in which atmosphere we are born. Ahimsa has its origin in this thought. In so far as ahimsa means universal love it can have direct application in our serving the creatures that are nearest us. 8

The ideal that marriage aims at is that of spiritual union through the physical. The human love that it incarnates in intended to serve as a stepping-stone to the divine or universal love. That is why immortal Mira sang: “God alone is my husband none else.” 9 I hope you are now quite at peace with yourself and realized that the loved one lives more truly for the dissolution of the body and renders the love also truer because unselfish and also because it is transferred to all that lives. Every death of a friend or a relative should enrich universal love.  10 I cling to the Vaishnavite faith because it inculcates universal love and, therefore, brotherhood; it lays the greatest emphasis on meticulous observance of truth and non-violence and insists on unselfish devotion to God. In Hindu literature, religious and secular, the unadulterated condemnation of narrowness, intolerance and bigotry by Vaishnavite saints and other writers is not to be beaten by any other writing. I need not be disturbed, therefore, by ceremonial observances which are manifestly contrary to the spirit of Vaishnavism. 11

I claim to have been a lifelong and wholly disinterested friend of the British people. At one time I used to be also a lover of your empire. I thought that it was doing well to India. When I saw that in the nature of things it could do no good. I used, and am still using, the non-violent method to fight imperialism. Whatever the ultimate fate of my country, my love for you remains, and will remain, undiminished. My non-violence demands universal love and you are not a small part of it. It is that love which has prompted my appeal to you. 12 Yours is good question. The solitary satyagrahi has to examine him. If he has universal love and if he fulfills the conditions implied in such a state, it must find its expression in his daily conduct. He would be bound with the poorest in the village by ties of services. He would constitute himself the scavenger, the nurse, the arbitrator of disputes, and the teacher of the children of the village. Everyone, young and old, would know him; though a householder he would be leading a life of restrain the would make no distinction between his and his neighbour’s children; he would own nothing but would hold what wealth he has in trust for others, and would therefore spend out of it just sufficient of this barest needs. His needs would, as far as possible, approximate to those of the poor; he would harbour no untouchability, and would therefore inspire people of all castes and creeds to approach him with confidence.  Benares Hindu Vishwavidyalaya Rajat Jayanti Samaroh, pp. 41 People has great admiration for Malaviyaji Maharaj as you must have heard today. He deserves every word of it.

I know the Hindu University is a huge affair. There is no greater beggar than Malaviyaji on the face of the earth. He has never begged for himself; by the grace of God he has never been in want, but he became a voluntary beggar for causes he has made his own, and God has always filled his bowl in an overflowing measure. But he has an insatiable appetite, and although he got a crore and ten lacs instead of the crore he wanted he is still asking for more. Even at this moment he whispered into my ears that he had a good donation from the Maharaja of Darbhanga, our Chairman. I know how Malaviyaji leads his own life. It has been my privilege to be acquainted with every aspect of his life. It is a rare good fortune to have him still in our midst, a living example of a pure life of plain living and high thinking; the students particularly can draw many a lesson from his life but I have a fear that, though he is physically in your midst, many of you are untouched by his great example. The fault is wholly ours, not his. The sun radiates heat and light to all on earth, but how can even the sun help those who will shut themselves from him? But I am not here to sing Malaviyaji’s praises. Who can be more unfortunate than the one who in spite of being so near to him fails to imbibe his noble qualities such as his simplicity, sacrifice, patriotism, generosity and universal love? 13 

This is not your experience alone; it is almost universal. Love of power is usual in man and often it only dies with his death. Therefore, it is difficult for co-workers to keep him in check, if only because they are more likely than not to have the same human frailty; and so long as we do not know a single completely non-violent organization in the world, we cannot claim to know the utterly democratic character of an organization because, as can be definitely proved, no perfect democracy is possible without perfect non-violence at the back of it. The question would be proper if non-co-operation was violent as it often, if not invariably, is. Claiming to know somewhat from experience the non-violent character of non-cooperation, I suggest that given a good cause, non-violent non-cooperation must succeed and no organization can suffer through offering non-violent non-co-operation. The questioner labours under the difficulty of having experience of non-co-operation, at best partially non-violent, at its worst bare-faced violence sailing under the name of non-violence. The pages of the Harijan and Young India are filled with instances of abortive non-co-operation, because of these two vital defects, non-violence being partial or totally absent. During my long experience, I also noticed that those who complain of others being ambitious of holding power are no less ambitious themselves, and when it is a question of distinguishing between half a dozen and six, it becomes a thankless task. 14

 

References:

 

1. Navajivan, 5-4-1925
2. Navajivan, 28-6-1925
3. Amrita Bazar Patrika, 7-1-1927
4. Young India, 6-9-1928
5. Navajivan, 4-11-1928  
6. Prajabandhu, 25-11-1928
7. Letter to Narandas Gandhi, August 3/5, 1930
8. Letter to Jayaprakash Narayan, December 11, 1930
9. Young India, 21-5-1931
10. Letter to Mirabehn, July 19, 1931
11. Harijan, 13-4-1934
12. Harijan, 6-7-1940
13. Harijan, 4-8-1940
14. Harijan, 2-3-1947