Dharma or Adharma – 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

 

 

Dharma or Adharma – Mahatma Gandhi

 

I invariably start and prick up my ears when, at times, even well-wishers or others who believe in non-co-operation come out with difficult questions and tell of their bitter experience. What follows is the gist of a letter from a friend who has been moved to write out of love. He has the country’s good at heart, and is no coward. Dharma is dear to him, while his experience of human nature is considerable. I give here in my own words the substance of his letter as far as I can recollect it. While no one questions your intentions and your means too are clean, would you say that what you advocated with regard to students was altogether wise? Is it possible to be certain that your action will not have unhappy results? To me at any rate these results are visible even today. In trying to teach the spirit of freedom, we have lost domestic discipline. Filial regard on the part of children seems to have disappeared. What boots it to gain swaraj if domestic sanctities are to be its price? Is the spinning-wheel the proper thing for a child?

He may do as he pleases later in life. If children disobey their parents, they cannot but lose their dharma. It is understandable that you should have faith in your non-co-operators, but is it not likely that you are being deceived? Do you really believe that everyone is as sincere as you are? I for one see many around who are selfish, vain and hypocritical; I am sure you would not be happy to discover that you had lost the sincere men and retained only irresponsible people around you. How I wish I could lend you my eyes to see that all that glitters is not gold! It is in the hope that you may win in the end that I have voiced these misgivings and encroached upon your time. The original letter is even more simply and politely written than I have been able to suggest. Such letters, manifestly prompted by love, always make me wonder whether the ordinary restraints of civilized life are being violated. Some children have possibly become rude. But, then, if the Gita has been used to justify the throwing of bombs, why be surprised at misconstruction of my words? I am sure, however, that the movement of leaving schools has had on the whole happy results. The original idea was sound. I am firmly of the view that it is a sin to attend schools run by this Satanic Government. Children under the age of 16 were not called upon to join this movement, while those above 16, surely, have the necessary discretion to decide for themselves. But I always wonder if parents today have a proper understanding of their own duty. What would be the duty of children whose parents are morally depraved? When parents are dissolute and vice-ridden, what is the right course for growing sons and daughters to follow?

What course should the children of slaves adopt? We should not be surprised if in these matters the consequence of too narrow an interpretation of domestic sanctities is unfortunate. Should the children of parents subsisting on bribery agree to being supported with such riches or should they renounce them. Simply because some Hindu parents may have forsaken their dharma, should the children follow suit? We shall have, in this age, to set a limit to our filial devotion as much as we do to our loyalty to the State. In a place where the king is dissolute and harasses his subjects, where he enjoys all luxuries and comforts at the expense of the people, where, instead of being a protector of his subjects he has become a parasite on them if loyalty to such a king is not a sin, then what is called virtue must be a sin. In the past, devotion to a king meant devotion to a king like Rama, not to one like Ravana. It is understandable that at the instance of Dasharatha Rama should readily take himself to the wild forest, but Prahlad accepting the gift of kingship from Hiranyakashipu would mean the eclipse of dharma. You may swim in your father’s well but it does not mean you may also drown yourself in it. At no stage of our struggle has the youth of the country been encouraged to adopt an attitude of licence. Only those young men who were disciplined and could endure suffering were advised to leave Government schools and colleges even though they might be getting useful knowledge in them.

There are many who continue in schools to please their parents. Only a few have left schools in defiance of their parents’ wishes, and of these, fewer still have subsequently taken to undisciplined ways. There is in this world no dearth of men who in the name of conscience really gratify their selfish desires. Such men will of course bring discredit to dharma, but should that stop us from so much as talking about conscience? I am absolutely certain that by placing the spinning-wheel in children’s hands I have done the highest service to the country. I look upon the spinning-wheel movement as of lasting importance. In concentrating on the training of children’s minds to the exclusion of everything else, we have done them a great wrong. A considerable portion of our lives is taken up in trying to provide the body’s needs. We have committed a great sin in neglecting education in the use of the means which help us to meet these needs. The country will be happy only if this education is taken up again. By using the spinning-wheel as an instrument of vocational training, which in this case is our duty, we serve several purposes at the same time.

The second misgiving of our friend causes me concern. Dharma would get a bad name and people would come to harm if this sacred struggle is vitiated by hypocrisy. In that case people would fight shy of the very name of dharma or be content to accept orthodoxy as dharma. Some undesirable elements must admittedly have found their way into our struggle, and I know that there are hypocrites who, under the cover of non-co-operation, are out to serve their selfish ends. But I do not think that hypocrisy has taken possession of the movement should that happen, our condition would be even worse than it is today because it would nurse our cowardice. Hypocrisy flourishes only where there is fear. The fear of the consequences of sin tempts the cowardly sinner to resort to pretence of virtue and thus he becomes doubly a sinner. In order to hide his godlessness, so that he may fill his belly, he makes a big show of piety and not only wastes sandalwood but adds to his sins. Whatever is humanly possible to keep such persons out of the struggle has, I feel, been done, and it is with this consideration that I have retained my freedom to act as I think best in the last resort. The moment I see hypocrisy all round me, I shall unhesitatingly flee the struggle. Hypocrites cannot be non co-operators and it is the service of the latter I have accepted.  

Reference:

 Navajivan, 2-10-1921