Kripalani on Gandhian Thought

J. B. KRIPLANI ON GANDHIAN THOUGHTtc "J. B. KRIPLANI ON GANDHIAN THOUGHT"

Acharya J. B. Kripalani, in his “Gandhi-His Life and Thought” explained the diffulties in accepting Gandhi’s views as expressed in the “Hind-Swaraj”. In view of the great relevance of Kripalani’s observations on this matter, let us examine his following quotation.

“Yet another great difficulty in systematising Gandhiji’s thought arises from his making no distinction between the theoretically possible and what was practically so. In 1920, he talked of winning Swaraj in one year, provided the nation carried out the programmes he had placed before it. That a nation, with centuries of slavery behind it, would be able to fulfil the programmes was only a theoretical possibility. Practically it was not only not possible but not even probable.

“In his book Hind-Swaraj he has talked of machinery and the factories as if these could be altogether eliminated from the life of a nation. He also talks of doctors and drugs as if they could be entirely dispensed with. There are many institutions whose functioning can and should be modified for social health; but Gandhiji would talk as if he wanted their entire elimination and held that this was possible. It is a mercy, however inconsistent it may look, that he did make use of doctors and medicines whenever it became absolutely necessary.”

“Gandhiji’s habit of stating his propositions and plans as if they were practical, in any case in the near future, presents one more difficulty in interpreting his thought. He always said that the theoretically possible was also the practical. The difference between the possible and ideal must be clearly brought out to understand Gandhiji’s thought. It is this confusion of the ideal with the possible that provides a handle to the critics who speak of his being unpractical and utopian. It further makes his legalistic followers rigid and fanatical. He would claim that what he had written or said was practical.  When he asked people during the “Quit India” movement to “do or die”, he was asking masses of men to do the impossible. People do not do and die. But if the work they had undertaken does not succeed in the way designed, they live and try again. When in 1947 he said that “I, as the President of the Congress, must go and die in Noakhali and when some of his rigid followers thought I would do so, I could only smile. Not that I was afraid to die if the need arose, but to think that I was going to Noakhali merely to die was absurd. If I wanted to die, I would have chosen a more beautiful spot than East Bengal, say the Himalayas or Kashmir.” Of course, Gandhiji laid down certain conditions which would make the ideal the practical. But his critics and even some of his followers deliberately or unconsciously forget conditions and make him look absurd.

Gandhi devoted one full chapter of his book to “Education”. He was of the opinion that education must increase the moral fibre of the people. Education must develop character of the people.

In the chapter on “Machinery”, Gandhi regards “machinery as the chief symbol of modern civilisation”. He argues that “if machinery craze grows in our country, it will become an unhappy land”. He reiterates: “It would be folly to assume that an Indian Rockfeller would be better than the American Rockfeller”. Gandhi was opposed to machinery as it would open a pandora’s box and lead to grave consequences.

In the last chapter of his book he reiterated the demand for freedom from the British. “Anarchy under Home Rule is better than orderly foreign rule”, he stated.
Gandhi was of the firm opinion that “Indian civilization is the best and that the European is a nine days wonder”.

In conclusion Gandhi reemphasised his commitment for the attainment of “Swaraj”.

In the appendices to “Hind-Swaraj” Gandhi suggested some books for further reading. They included books of Tolstoy, two books each of Thoreau and Ruskin and one each of Shepard, Carpenter, Mazzini, Plato, Max Naordou and Maine. He also suggested Dada Bhai Nauroji’s “Poverty and Un-British Rule in India” and Dutt’s “Economic History of India”.

In order to prove his point that Indian civilization has little to learn from the modern, he included extracts from eminent men of the West. The authors included J. Seymore Keay. M.P. , Victor Cousin, Freidrich Max Muller, Frederick Von Schlegel, Abbe J.A.Dubois (missionary in Madras), J. Young, Colonel Thomas Munro and Sir William Wedderburn.

The influence of Hind Swaraj

“Hind-Swaraj” reflects the thinking pattern of Gandhi. However, in the freedom struggle, people from various grounds participated. Even some of his close political lieutenants like Jawaharlal Nehru did not share the enthusiasm of Gandhi as expressed in the book. Gandhi and Nehru differed with regard to the future course of India. Nehru preferred India should follow the path of industrialisation and modernization. The difference of opinion between Gandhi and Nehru over these matters came to the fore during 1930s and both of them exchanged a number of letters on this matter. They are available in Nehru’s book “A Bunch of Letters”.

The leaders of the freedom struggle accepted the political leadership of a Gandhi and it is important to note that not much discussion took place on Gandhi’s view as expressed in the Hindi-Swaraj.

“Gandhiji’s thought then must be judged and evaluated on the own merits and not always on Gandhiji’s arguments. The student must not content himself with Gandhiji’s reasoning and his style or the words and the expressions he used. Like every great reformer his thought is greater than his words and arguments. Often his conduct is more revealing and eloquent than the arguments he advances for a particular course of action. In studying him, therefore, note must be taken not only of the spoken or written word but also of his life, the way he faced and met critical situation, organised institutions and behaved towards friends and opponents. His public and private life were an open book. Therefore, his writings must be studied along with it. The writings alone may not bring out the full implications of his philosophy of life, individual and social. Further, the student must rely on his intelligence, knowledge and experience for a proper understanding of Gandhiji’s ideas, policies and programme”.

The relevance of Hind Swaraj and Gandhi

“Hind Swaraj” was written by Gandhi in 1909 before he entered into the political and national arena of India. Of course, Gandhi gained great experience in the West- first as a student in London and then as a barrister in South Africa and also as a relentless fighter for the freedom and dignity of the Indians and the coloured in South Africa. His struggle against Aparthied and the nonviolent satyagrahas he had organised in South Africa brought him laurels both in India and abroad.

During his stay in South Africa he visited India now then. But he formulated his views in “Hind swaraj”, primarily based on his experience in the West and particularly in the context of basic human rights and human dignity. His knowledge about the realities of India was minimal at that time.

That is why Gopal Krishna Gokhale, the nationalist leader and educationist whom Gandhi considered as his political guru, dismissed “Hind Swaraj” stating that Gandhi would likely to change his opinion after working in India for one year. But that did not happen with Gandhi. Till he breathed his last, Gandhi, more or less, followed the same stand as he enunciated in his books. They remained his views even though his views were not shared by the leaders of the political struggle.

Gandhi’s constructive programme reflects many of the ideas expressed in the “Hind Swaraj”. The constructive workers expressed their support to the views and followed Gandhi in this regard. The Sarvodaya and constructive workers even now express views which are similar to one in Gandhi’s book.