‘He saw himself as a sanatani Hindu’: Jyotirmaya Sharma on Gandhi’s life, work and philosophy of non-violence

When Nathuram Godse assassinated Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi on 30 January, 1948, shortly after India freed itself from colonial rule, and Pakistan was created, Albert Einstein said, “Everyone concerned in the better future of mankind must be deeply moved by the tragic death of Mahatma Gandhi. He died as the victim of his own principles, the principle of nonviolence.”

How did Gandhi articulate this principle? Why did he live and die for it?

Jyotirmaya Sharma’s book Elusive Non-Violence: The Making and Unmaking of Gandhi’s Religion of Ahimsa, published by Westland, might offer some answers for readers who are seriously interested.

In the introduction, Sharma writes, “Ahimsa in Gandhi emerges as a fundamentally religious idea, with all the limitations that intensely religious ideals inevitably encounter. To name only one, a concept so pre-eminently centred in religion demands extraordinary faith and resists compromise. It demands perfection among imperfect humans.”

Sharma is a professor of Political Science at the University of Hyderabad. He has written books on Swami Vivekananda, M.S. Golwalkar, and Hindu nationalism, apart from translating Sanskrit political satire into English.

On Gandhi’s death anniversary, we bring you an exclusive interview with Sharma, who speaks cogently and offers food for thought.

What inspired you to write this book?

It was part of a quartet of books that examine the question of the genealogy of Hindu identity and Hindu self-images. The first three examine the genealogy, politics and the normative foundations of Hindu identity and Hindu nationalism. Elusive Non-Violence is about violence and non-violence seen through the prism of one of the most audacious restatements of Hinduism ever.

When we look at Gandhi’s life and work, is it possible to separate non-violence as spiritual path from non-violence as political strategy? What are the tensions that arise when people draw selectively from his thought and practice?

Gandhi did not separate politics, spirituality, religion and strategy into separate realms. Everything in his life and work flows from a unity of thought and ideas. As for the selective use of his ideas goes, that cannot be helped. We live in an age where seriousness is the greatest casualty. It is a world that is driven by practicality and pragmatism.

To what extent was Gandhi drawing on Hindu, Jain, Buddhist, Christian, Jewish and Islamic teachings while formulating his idea of ahimsa?

Gandhi saw himself as a sanatani Hindu. In re-interpreting Hinduism, he insisted that ahimsa and truth were Hinduism’s central principles. There was to be no compromise on the inclusion of ahimsa as a central principle. While he respectfully read and tried to understand other religions, he saw Hinduism as the most perfect religion, one that contained the truths of all other religions. This is nothing new or surprising. It is part and parcel of the nineteenth century reformulation of Hinduism.

Does the term non-violence adequately capture the fullness of its meaning?

Gandhi thought that ahimsa did capture the meaning of the term he thought it was meant to incorporate. I try to show in the book the ways in which he struggles to impart philosophical and emotional content to the term and does not always succeed. This struggle to make ahimsa meaningful remains incomplete because of two reasons. The first is his quest to locate it within the Hindu religious tradition. Having done so, he wants this to encompass all imperfect realms of human thought and behaviour. But, the second and more compelling reason is Gandhi’s reading of the Hindu tradition itself in terms of what he includes and excludes in his version.

There is a more evocative term available within tradition that he never invokes. This is aanrsamshya (????????), which is not the literal opposite of nrshamshyam (?????????) or violence/cruelty. If the word nrshamsa means cruelty or absence of mercy, aanrshamsya means empathy, kindness, mercy and lack of cruelty. It attempts to transcend caste, class and gender. Ahimsa, on the contrary, is often invoked by Gandhi as a manly, even kshatriya, virtue.

This makes me think of maitri, karuna and anukampa. Did Gandhi use these?

He did not use them in any significant philosophical sense though the implications of these terms are inherent in his use of ahimsa.

Could you please throw some light on the metaphysical framework that Gandhi was operating with when he preached ahimsa as ethics?

It was part of his quest for moksha. He believed that as long as the body exists, there will be violence. But as long as one lives, one has to act in some way or the other. In order, then, to underwrite this insight, Gandhi turns to the Bhagavad Gita and its idea of dispassionate and disinterested action.

You have written books about M.S. Golwalkar and Swami Vivekananda before writing the new one on Gandhi. How would you describe what each one takes from their religious inheritance, and builds on?

They are all part of the same continuum of 19th Century ideas that developed as a result of Indian ideas of self, society and politics in their encounter with the West and with modern nationalism. There has been a longstanding trend to divide Indian nationalists into good and bad nationalists. In my view this binary does not exist. There are just ideas and their use can produce very different outcomes. Gandhi is very much part of the same imperium of ideas.

Gandhi seems to evoke extreme reactions in India today: unbridled devotion, and unabashed hostility. How do you make sense of this?

I am glad he produces extreme reactions. This means he has something significant to say. But it means that we are still relatively free and allowed to have opinions even though contrary opinions these days are met with violence, distrust and hostility. I am a votary of radical freedom of speech and expression. Having said that, I am less interested in perceptions and more in ideas.

How productive is it to pit Gandhi against Ambedkar?

It is often done ideologically and there is some justification for it because they stand for different modes of society and values. They are very different and both deserve serious attention. Both require deep and thorough attention depending on the questions being examined. Sometimes their differences – and the differences are profound – are characterized in the fashion of our silly television debates or reality shows.

How does vegetarianism fit into Gandhi’s idea of ahimsa? Do you wonder what he might have thought of mock meat and lab grown meat, the market for which seems to be growing?

The last word on vegetarianism should go to Bhishma in the Mahabharata. He tells his interlocutor: meat-eating may be bad, but moral pride is worse.

What makes people like Martin Luther King Jr, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan and the Dalai Lama appreciate Gandhian conception of non-violence? Would understanding that help Indians re-examine Gandhi for our times?

Myths are important in life and politics. Gandhi’s mystique as a proponent of non-violence is an important one even though it might be flawed in many respects. I am not sure if that alone will help us re-examine Gandhi. Rather, the best way to re-examine Gandhi is to introduce within our currently inflamed sense of nationalism a sense of modesty, self-examination, and recognition of the essentially flawed and imperfect nature of humankind.

Chintan Girish Modi is a freelance writer, journalist and book reviewer.