The whole gamut of man's
activities today constitutes an indivisible whole. You cannot divide social,
economic, political and purely religious work into watertight compartments. I
do not know any religion apart from human activity. It provides a moral basis
to all other activities which they would otherwise lack, reducing life to a
maze of sound and fury signifying nothing'.[1]
We have to make truth and
non-violence, not matters for mere individual practice but for practice by
groups and communities and nations. That at any rate is my dream. I shall live
and die in trying to realize it. My faith helps me to discover new truths every
day. Ahimsa is the attribute of the soul, and therefore, to be practised by
everybody in all the affairs of life. If it cannot be practised in all
departments, it has no practical value.[2]
All Men Are Equal
In my opinion there is no such
thing as inherited or acquired superiority. I believe in the rock-bottom
doctrine of advaita (non-duality or oneness) and my interpretation of advaita
excludes totally any idea of superiority at any stage whatsoever. I believe
implicitly that all men are born equal. All whether born in India or in England
or America or in any circumstances whatsoever have the same soul as any other.
And it is because I believe in this inherent equality of all men that I fight
the doctrine of superiority which many of our rulers arrogate to themselves. I
have fought this doctrine of superiority in South Africa inch by inch, and it
is because of that inherent belief, that I delight in calling myself a
scavenger, a spinner, a weaver, a farmer and a labourer. And I have fought
against the Brahmanas themselves wherever they have claimed any superiority for
themselves either by reason of their birth, or by reason of their subsequently
acquired knowledge. I consider that it is unmanly for any person to claim
superiority over a fellow-being. He who claims superiority at once forfeits his
claim to be called a man. That is my opinion.[3]
The forms are many, but the
informing spirit is one. How can there be room for distinctions of high and low
where there is this all-embracing fundamental unity underlying the outward
diversity? For that is a fact meeting you at every step in daily life. The
final goal of all religions is to realize this essential oneness.[4]
Individualism v. Social
Responsibility
I value individual freedom but
you must not forget that man is essentially a social being. He has risen to his
present status by learning to adjust his individualism to the requirements of
social progress. Unrestricted individualism is the law of the beast of the
jungle. We have to learn to strike the mean between individual freedom and
social restraint. Willing submission to social restraint for the sake of the
well-being of the whole society, enriches both the individual and the society
of which he is a member.[5]
There is not a single virtue
which aims at, or is content with, the welfare of the individual only.
Conversely, there is not a single moral offence which does not, directly or
indirectly, affect many others besides the actual offender. Hence, whether an
individual is good or bad is not merely his own concern, but really the concern
of the whole community, nay, of the whole world.[6]
I believe in the essential unity
of man and for that matter of all that lives. Therefore, I believe that if one
man gains spiritually, the whole world gains with him and, if one man falls,
the whole world falls to that extent.[7]
Love to be the Basis
Man is an engine whose motive
power is the soul. The largest quantity of work will not be done by this
curious engine for pay or under pressure. It will be done when the motive
force, that is to say, the will or spirit of the creature, is brought to its greatest
strength by its own proper fuel, namely by the affections. The universal law of
the matter is that, assuming any given quantity of energy and sense in master
and servant, the greatest material result obtainable by them will be not
through antagonism to each other, but through affection for each other.
Unselfish treatment will produce the most effective return. Treat the servant
kindly with the idea of turning his gratitude to account, and you will get, as
you deserve, no gratitude nor any value for your kindness; but treat him kindly
without any economical purpose, and all economical purposes will be answered;
here as elsewhere whoever will save his life shall lose it, who so loses it
shall find it. In most cases a youth entering a commercial establishment is
withdrawn altogether from home influence; his master must become his father;
else he has, for practical and constant help no father at hand. So that the
only means which the master has of doing justice to the men employed by him is
to ask himself sternly whether he is dealing with such subordinates as he would
with his own son, if compelled by circumstances to take such a position. And as
the captain of a ship is bound to be the last man to leave his ship in case of
wreck and to share his last crust with the sailors in case of famine, so the
manufacturer, in any commercial crisis, is bound to take the suffering of it
with his men, and even to take more of it for himself than he allows his men to
feel; as a father would in a famine, shipwreck or battle, sacrifice himself for
his son.
All this sounds very strange; the
only strangeness in the matter being, nevertheless, that it should so sound.
For all this is true everlastingly and practically.[8]
The Economics of Justice
True economics never militates
against the highest ethical standard, just as all true ethics to be worth its
name, must at the same time be also good economics. An economics that
inculcates Mammon worship, and enables the strong to amass wealth at the
expense of the weak, is a false and dismal science. It spells death. True
economics, on the other hand, stands for social justice, it promotes the good
of all equally including the weakest, and is indispensable for decent life.[9]
Under the new outlook we shall
cease to think of getting what we can, but we shall decline to receive what all
cannot get.[10]
If I pay due wages to a man, I
shall not be able to amass unnecessary riches, to waste money on luxuries and
to add to the mass of poverty in the world. The workman who receives due wages
from me will act justly to his I subordinates. Thus the stream of justice will
not dry up, but gather strength as it flows onward. And the nation with such a
sense of justice will be happy and prosperous.
We thus find that the economists
are wrong in thinking that competition is good for a nation. Competition only
enables the purchaser to obtain his labour unjustly cheap, with the result that
the rich grow richer and the poor poorer. In the long run it can only lead the
nation to ruin. A workman should receive a just wage according to his ability.
Even then there will be competition of a sort, but the people will be happy and
skilful, because they will not have to underbid one another, but to acquire new
skills in order to secure employment. This is the secret of Government services
in which salaries are fixed according to the gradation of posts. The candidate
for it does not offer to work on a lower salary but only claims that he is
abler than his competitors. But in trade and manufacture there is oppressive
competition, which results in fraud, chicanery and theft. Rotten goods are manufactured.
The manufacturer, the labourer, the consumer, each is mindful of his own
interest. This poisons all human intercourse.
Labourers starve and go on
strike. Manufacturers become rogues and consumers too neglect the ethical
aspect of their own conduct. One injustice leads to many others, and in the end
the employer, the operative and the customer are all unhappy and go to rack and
ruin. The very wealth of the people acts among them as a curse. True economics
is the economics of justice. People will be happy in so far as they learn to do
justice and be righteous. All else is not only vain but leads straight to
destruction. To teach the people to get rich by hook or by crook is to do them
an immense disservice.[11]
Economic Equality
My idea of society is that while
we are born equal, meaning that we have a right to equal opportunity, all have
not the same capacity. It is, in the nature of things, impossible. For
instance, all cannot have the same height or colour or degree of intelligence
etc.; therefore, in the nature of things, some will have ability to earn more
and others less. People with talents will have more and they will utilize their
talents for this purpose. If they utilize their talents kindly, they will be
performing the work of the State. Such people exist as trustees, on no other
terms. I would allow a man of intellect to earn more, I would not cramp his
talent. But the bulk of his greater earnings must be used for the good of the
State, just as the income of all earning sons of the father go to the common
family fund.[12]
The real implication of equal
distribution is that each man shall have the wherewithal to supply all his
natural wants and no more. For example, if one man has a weak digestion and
requires only a quarter of a pound of flour for his bread and another needs a
pound, both should be in a position to satisfy their wants. To bring this ideal
into being the entire social order has got to be reconstructed. A society based
on non-violence cannot nurture any other ideal. We may not perhaps be able to
realize the goal, but we must bear in mind and work unceasingly to near it. To
the same extent as we progress towards our goal we shall find contentment and
happiness, and to that extent too, shall we have contributed towards the
bringing into being of a non-violent society. Now let us consider how equal
distribution can be brought about through non-violence. The first step towards
it is for him who has made this ideal part of his being to bring about the
necessary changes in his personal life. He would reduce his wants to a minimum,
bearing in mind the poverty of India. His earnings would be free of dishonesty.
The desire for speculation would be renounced. His habitation would be in
keeping with the new mode of life. There would be self-restraint exercised in
every sphere of life. When he has done all that is possible in his own life,
then only will he be in a position to preach this ideal among his associates
and neighbours.
Indeed at the root of this
doctrine of equal distribution must lie that of the trusteeship of the wealthy
for superfluous wealth possessed by them. For according to the doctrine they
may not possess a rupee more than their neighbours. How is this to be brought
about? Non-violently? Or should the wealthy be dispossessed of their
possessions? To do this we would naturally have to resort to violence. This
violent action cannot benefit society. Society will be the poorer, for it will
lose the gifts of a man who knows how to accumulate wealth. Therefore the
nonviolent way is evidently superior. The rich man will be left in possession
of his wealth, of which he will use what he reasonably requires for his
personal needs and will act as a trustee for the remainder to be used for the
society. In this argument, honesty on the part of the trustee is assumed.
If, however, in spite of the
utmost effort, the rich do not become guardians of the poor in the true sense
of the term and the latter are more and more crushed and die of hunger, what is
to be done? In trying to find out the solution of this riddle I have lighted on
non-violent non-cooperation and civil disobedience as the right and infallible
means. The rich cannot accumulate wealth without the cooperation of the poor in
society. If this knowledge were to penetrate to and spread amongst the poor,
they would become strong and would learn how to free themselves by means of
non-violence, from the crushing inequalities which have brought them to the
verge of starvation.[13]
A Non-violent Economic Structure
I suggest that if India is to
evolve along non-violent lines, it will have to decentralize many things.
Centralization cannot be sustained and defended without adequate force.[14]
You cannot build non-violence on
a factory civilization, but it can be built on self-contained villages. Rural
economy, as I have conceived it, eschews exploitation altogether and
exploitation is the essence of violence. You have, therefore, to be
rural-minded before you can be nonviolent.[15]
Industrialization on a mass scale
will necessarily lead to passive or active exploitation of the villagers as the
problems of competition and marketing come in. Therefore we have to concentrate
on the village being self-contained, manufacturing mainly for use. Provided this
character of the village industry is maintained, there will be no objection to
villagers using even the modern machinery and tools that they can make and can
afford to use. Only they should not be used as a means of exploitation of
others.[16]
Industrialization and large scale
production are only of comparatively recent growth. We do not know how far they
have contributed to the development of our happiness, but we know this much
that they have brought in their wake the recent world wars (for raw materials
and markets).[17]
The Good of All, the Goal
A votary of Ahimsa cannot
subscribe to the utilitarian formula (of the greatest good of the greatest
number). He will strive for the greatest good of all and die in the attempt to
realize the ideal. He will therefore be willing to die, so that the others may
live. He will serve himself with the rest, by himself dying. The greatest good
of all inevitably includes the good of the greatest number, and therefore, he
and the utilitarian will converge in many points in their career, but there
does come a time when they must part company and even work in opposite
directions. The utilitarian to be logical will never sacrifice himself. The
absolutist will even sacrifice himself.[18]
Not the good of the few, not even the good of the many, but it is the good of
all that we are made to promote, if we are made in His own image'.[19]
Freedom through Love
In the democracy which I have
envisaged, a democracy established by non-violence, there will be equal freedom
for all. Everybody will be his own master.[20]
True democracy or the Swaraj of the masses can never come through untruthful
and violent means, for the simple reason that the natural corollary to their
use would be to remove all opposition through the suppression or extermination
of the antagonists. That does not make for individual freedom. Individual
freedom can have the fullest play only under a regime of unadulterated Ahimsa.[21]
No All-powerful State
Political power means capacity to
regulate national life through national representatives. If national life
becomes so perfect as to become self-regulated, no representation becomes
necessary. There is then a state of enlightened anarchy. In such a State
everyone is his own ruler. He rules himself in such a manner that he is never a
hindrance to his neighbour. In the ideal State, therefore, there is no
political power because there is no State. But the ideal is never fully
realized in life. Hence the classical statement of Thoreau that that government
is best which governs the least.[22]
I look upon an increase of the
power of the State with the greatest fear, because, although while apparently
doing good by minimizing exploitation, it does the greatest harm to mankind by
destroying individuality which lies at the root of all progress.[23]
I have therefore endeavoured to show both in word and deed, that political
self-government that is self-government for a large number of men and women is no
better than individual self-government, and therefore, it is to be attained by
precisely the same means that are required for individual self-government or
self-rule.[24]
A Non-violent Political Structure
True democracy cannot be worked
by twenty men sitting at the centre. It has to be worked from below by the
people of every village.[25]
In this structure composed of
innumerable villages, there will be ever widening, never ascending circles.
Life will not be a pyramid with the apex sustained by the bottom. But it will
be an oceanic circle whose centre will be the individual always ready to perish
for the village, the latter ready to perish for the circle of villages, till at
last the whole becomes one life composed of individuals never aggressive in
their arrogance but ever humble, sharing the majesty of the oceanic circle of
which they are integral units. Therefore, the outermost circumference will not
wield power to crush the inner circle but will give strength to all within and
derive its own strength from it. I may be taunted with the retort that this is
all Utopian and, therefore, not worth a single thought. If Euclid's point,
though incapable of being drawn by human agency, has an imperishable value, my
picture has its own for mankind to live. Let India live for this true picture,
though never realizable in its completeness. We must have a proper picture of
what we want, before we can have something approaching it. If there ever is to
be a republic of every village in India, then I claim verity for my picture in
which the last is equal to the first, or in other words, no one is to be the
first and none the last.[26]
Under Swaraj based on
non-violence nobody is anybody's enemy, everybody contributes his or her due
quota to the common good, all can read and write, and their knowledge keeps
growing from day to day. Sickness and disease are reduced to the minimum. No
one is a pauper and labour can always find employment. There is no place under
such a government for gambling, drinking and immorality or for class hatred.[27]
Nationalism and Internationalism
My patriotism is not exclusive;
it is calculated not only not to hurt another nation but to benefit all in the
true sense of the word. India's freedom as conceived by me can never be a
menace to the world.[28]
Just as the cult of patriotism teaches us today that the individual has to die
for the family, the family has to die for the village, the village for the
district, the district for the province and the province for the country, even
so, a country has to be free in order that it may die, if necessary, for the
benefit of the world. There is no room for race-hatred there.[29]
There is no limit to extending our services to our neighbours across State-made
frontiers. God never made those frontiers.[30]
I believe in absolute oneness of God and therefore also of humanity. What
though we have many bodies? We have but one soul. The rays of the sun are many
through refraction. But they have the same source.[31]
My religion and my patriotism derived from my religion embrace all life. I want
to realize brotherhood or identity not merely with the beings called human, but
I want to realize identity with all life, even with such things as crawl upon
earth. I want, if I don't give you a shock, to realize identity with even the
crawling things upon earth, because we claim descent from the same God, and
that being so, all life in whatever form it appears must be essentially one.[32]
Renunciation
[For the first time at the public
meeting in Quilon Gandhiji summed up the credal belief of Hinduism in an
Upanishadic mantra, and thereafter at every meeting gave lucid and simple
commentaries on the numerous implications of that all-comprehensive mantra. The
pure exposition without much of a commentary was given on the previous day at
Quilon and is reproduced below :]
I have fixed upon one mantra that
I am going to recite to you, as containing the whole essence of Hinduism. Many
of you, I think, know the Ishopanishad. I read it years ago with translation
and commentary. I learnt it by heart in Yeravda Jail. But it did not then
captivate me, as it has done during the past few months, and I have now come to
the final conclusion that if all the Upanishads and all the other scriptures
happened all of a sudden to be reduced to ashes, and if only the first verse in
the Ishopanishad were left in tact in the memory of Hindus, Hinduism would live
forever.
Now this mantra divides itself in
four parts. The first part is ईशावास्यमिदं
सर्वं | यत्किं च जगत्यां जगत
| It means, as I would translate, all I this that we see in this great Universe
is pervaded by God. Then come the second and third parts which read together,
as I read them : तेन
त्यक्तेन à¤ुंजीथा | I divide these
into two and translate them thus: Renounce it and enjoy it. There is another
rendering which means the same thing : Enjoy what He gives you. Even so you can
divide it into two parts. Then follows the final and most important part, मा गृध कस्यस्विद्
धनम् | which means:
Do not covet anybody's wealth or possession. All the other mantras of that
ancient Upanishad are a commentary or an attempt to give us the full meaning of
the first mantra.
It seems to me to satisfy the
craving of the socialist and the communist, of the philosopher and the
economist. I venture to suggest to all who do not belong to the Hindu faith
that it satisfies their cravings also. And if it is true- and I hold it to be
true-you need not take anything in Hinduism which is inconsistent with or
contrary to the meaning of this mantra. What more can a man in the street want
to learn than this, that the one God and Greator and Master of all that lives
pervades the Universe? The three other parts of the mantra follow directly from
the first. If you believe that God pervades everything that He has created, you
must believe that you cannot enjoy anything that is not given by Him. And
seeing that He is the Greator of His numberless-children, it follows that you
cannot covet anybody's possession. If you think that you are one of His
numerous creatures, it behoves you to renounce everything and lay it at His
feet. That means that the act of renunciation of everything is not a mere
physical renunciation but represents a second or new birth. It is deliberate
act, not done in ignorance. It is therefore a regeneration. And then since he
who holds the body must eat and drink and clothe himself, he must naturally
seek all that he needs from Him. And he gets it as a natural reward of that
renunciation. As if this was not enough the mantra closes with this magnificent
thought: Do not covet anybody's possession. The moment you carry out these precepts
you become a wise citizen of the world living at peace with all that lives. It
satisfies one's highest aspirations on this earth and hereafter.[33]
Remember that one verse of the
Ishopanishad and forget all about the other scriptures. You can of course drown
yourselves and be suffocated in the ocean of scriptures. They are good for the
learned if they will be humble and wise, but for the ordinary man in the street
nothing but this mantra is necessary to carry him across the ocean: "God
the Ruler pervades all there is in this Universe. Therefore renounce and
dedicate all to Him, and then enjoy or use the portion that may fall to thy
lot. Never covet anybody's possession."[34]
At this meeting1 I would love to
detain you for a few minutes on the message of Hinduism I gave to the meeting
in Quilon last night. In this verse the seer has chosen no other epithet for
the Deity but that of the Ruler, and he has excepted nothing from His
jurisdiction. He says everything that we see is pervaded by the Deity, and from
that naturally the other parts of the mantra follow. Thus he says, 'Renounce
everything', i.e. everything that is on this Universe, the whole of the
Universe, and not only this tiny globe of ours, renounce it. He asks us to
renounce it as we are such insignificant atoms that if we had any idea of
possession it would seem ludicrous. And then, says the Rishi, the reward of the
renunciation is à¤ुज्जीथा:
enjoyment of all you need. But there is a meaning in the word translated
'enjoy', which may as well be translated as 'use', 'eat', etc. It signifies,
therefore, that you may not take more than necessary for your growth. Hence
this enjoyment or use is limited by two conditions. One is the act of
renunciation or, as the author of the Bhagawat would say, enjoy in the spirit
of कृष्णार्पणमस्तु सर्वम् | (or offering all
to God). And every day in the morning everyone who believes in the Bhagawat
Dharma has to dedicate his thoughts, words and deeds to Krishna, and not until
he has performed that daily act of renunciation or dedication has he the right
of touching anything or drinking even a cup of water. And when a man has
performed that act of renunciation and dedication, he derives from that act the
right of eating, drinking, clothing and housing himself to the extent necessary
for his daily life. Therefore take it as you like, either in the sense that the
enjoyment or use is the reward of renunciation, or that the renunciation is the
condition of enjoyment, renunciation is essential for our very existence, for
our soul. And as if that condition given in the mantra was incomplete, the
Rishi hastened to complete by adding : 'Do not covet what belongs to another.
Now I suggest to you that the whole of the philosophy or religion found in any
part of the world is contained in this mantra.
Now I should like to apply this
mantra to present day conditions. If all that there is in the Universe is
pervaded by God, that is to say, if the Brahmana and the bhangi, the learned
man and scavenger, the Ezhava and the Pariah-no matter what caste they belong
to-if all these are pervaded by Lord God, in the light of this mantra, there is
none that is high and none that is low, all are absolutely equal, equal because
all are the creatures of that Creator. I would like the mantra I have recited
to be enshrined in the hearts of all our men and women and children, and if
this contains, as I hold, the essence of Hinduism, it should be inscribed on
the portals of every temple.[35]
The seer to whom this mantra or
verse was revealed was not satisfied with the magnificent statement that God
was to be found everywhere. But he went further and said: 'Since God pervades
everything nothing belongs to you, not even your own body. God is the
undisputed, unchallengeable Master of everything you possess.' And so when a
person who calls himself a Hindu goes through the process of regeneration or a
second birth, as Christians would call it, he has to perform a dedication or
renunciation of all that he has in ignorance called his own property. And then
when he has performed this act of dedication or renunciation, he is told that
he will win a reward in the shape of God taking good care of what he will
require for food, clothing or housing. Therefore the condition of enjoyment or
use of the necessaries of life is their dedication or renunciation. And that
dedication or renunciation has got to be done from day to day, lest we may in
this busy world forget the central fact of life. And to crown all, the seer
says: 'Covet not anybody's riches.' I suggest to you that the truth that is
embedded in this very short mantra is calculated to satisfy the highest
cravings of every human being - whether they have reference to this world or
the next. I have in my search of the scriptures of the world found nothing to add
to this mantra. Looking back upon all the little I have read of the
scriptures-it is precious little I confess-I feel that everything good in all
the scriptures is derived from this mantra. If it is universal brotherhood-not
only brotherhood of all human beings, but of all living beings-I find it in
this mantra. If it is unshakable faith in the Lord and Master-and all the
adjectives you can think of-I find it in this mantra. If it is the idea of
complete surrender to God and of the faith that He will supply all that I need
then again I say I find it in this mantra. Since He pervades every fibre of my
being and of all of you, I derive from it the doctrine of equality of all
creatures on earth and it should satisfy the cravings of all philosophical
communists. This mantra tells me that I cannot hold as mine anything that
belongs to God, and if my life and that of all who believe in this mantra has
to be a life of perfect dedication, it follows that it will have to be a life
of continual service of our fellow creatures.
This, I say, is my faith and
should be the faith of all who call themselves Hindus. And I venture to suggest
to my Christian and Mussalman friends that they will find nothing more in their
scriptures if they will search them. I do not wish to hide from you the fact
that I am not unaware of many superstitions that go under the name of Hinduism.
I am most painfully conscious of all the superstitions that are to be found
masquerading as Hinduism, and I have no hesitation to call a spade a spade. I
have not hesitated to describe untouchability as the greatest of these
superstitions. But in spite of them all, I remain a Hindu. For I do not believe
that these superstitions form part of Hinduism. The very canons of
interpretation laid down by Hinduism teach me that whatever is inconsistent
with the truth I have expounded to you, and which is hidden in the mantra I
have named, must be summarily rejected as not belonging to Hinduism.[36]
A follower of the Gita Dharma
trains himself to do without things with happiness called equanimity in the
Gita language, for happiness of the Gita is not the opposite of unhappiness. It
is superior to that state. The devotee of the Gita is neither happy nor
unhappy. And when that state is reached, there is no pain, no pleasure, no
defeat, no deprivation, no possession.[37] We must learn the art of never grieving over
death, no matter when and to whom it comes. I suppose that we shall do when we
have really learnt to be utterly indifferent to our own, and the indifference
will come when we are every moment conscious of having done the task to which
we are called.[38]
Ways and Means of Worship
An idol does not excite any
feeling of veneration in me. But I think that idol-worship is part of human
nature. We hanker after symbolism. Why should one be more composed in a church
than elsewhere? Images are an aid to worship. No Hindu considers an image to be
God. I do not consider idol-worship a sin. [39]
I am both an idolator and an iconoclast in what I conceive to be the true
senses of the terms. I value the spirit behind idol-worship. It plays a most
important part in the uplift of the human race. And I would like to possess the
ability to defend with my life the thousands of holy temples which sanctify
this land of ours. I am an iconoclast in the sense that I break down the subtle
form of idolatry in the shape of fanaticism that refuses to see any virtue in
any other form of worshipping the Deity save one's own. This form of idolatry
is more deadly for being more fine and evasive than the tangible and gross form
of worship that identifies the Deity with a little bit of a stone or a golden
image.[40]
Whether the temples should
contain images or not is a matter of temperament and taste. I do not regard a
Hindu or a Roman Catholic place of worship containing images as necessarily bad
or superstitious, and a mosque or a Protestant place of worship as good or free
of superstition merely because of their exclusion of images. A symbol such as a
Cross or a book may easily become idolatrous, and therefore superstitious. And
the worship of the image of Child Krishna or Virgin Mary may become ennobling
and free of all superstition. It depends upon the attitude of the heart of the
worshipper.[41]
'If Hinduism became
monotheistic,' suggested the Father, 'Christianity and Hinduism can serve India
in co-operation.'
'I would love to see the
co-operation happen', said Gandhiji. 'I have my own solution, but in the first
instance, I dispute the description that Hindus believe in many gods and are
idolators. I believe that I am a thorough Hindu but I never believe in many
gods. Never even in my childhood did I hold that belief, and no one ever taught
me to do so.'
'As for idol-worship, you cannot
do without it in some form or other. Why does a Mussalman give his life for
defending a mosque which he calls a house of God? And why does a Christian go
to a church, and when he is required to take an oath he swears by the Bible?
Not that I see any objection to it. And what is it if not idolatry to give
untold riches for building mosques and tombs? And what do the Roman Catholics
do when they kneel before Virgin Mary and before saints - quite imaginary
figures in stone or painted on canvas or glass?'
'But', objected the Catholic
Father, 'I keep my mother's photo and kiss it in veneration of her. But I do
not worship it, nor do I worship saints. When I worship God, I acknowledge Him
as Creator and greater than any human being.'
'Even so, it is not the stone we
worship, but it is God we worship in images of stone or metal however crude
they may be.'
'But villagers worship stones as
God.'
'No, I tell you they do not
worship anything that is less than God. When you kneel before Virgin Mary and
ask for her intercession, what do you do? You ask to establish contact with God
through her. Even so a Hindu seeks to establish contact with God through a
stone image. I can understand your asking for the Virgin's intercession. Why
are Mussalmans filled with awe and exultation when they enter a mosque? Why, is
not the whole universe a mosque? And what about the magnificent canopy of
heaven that spreads over you ? Is it any less than a mosque? But I understand
and sympathize with the Muslims. It is their way of approach to God. The Hindus
have their own way of approach to the same Eternal Being. Our media of approach
are different, but that does not make Him different.'[42]
Image-worship in the sense of
investing one's ideal with a concrete shape is inherent in man's nature, and
even valuable as an aid to devotion. Thus we worship an image when we offer
homage to a book which we regard as holy or sacred. We worship an image when we
visit a temple or a mosque with a feeling of sanctity or reverence. Nor do I
see any harm in all this. On the contrary endowed as man is with a finite,
limited understanding, he can hardly do otherwise. The offering of vows and
prayers for selfish ends, whether offered in churches, mosques, temples or
before trees and shrines, is a thing not to be encouraged. Making a selfish
request or offering of vows is not related to image worship as effect and
cause. A personal selfish prayer is bad whether made before an image or an
unseen God.[43]
Temple-worship
It is not necessary for any Hindu
to go to a temple to worship (the image of) Ramachandra. But it is for him who
cannot contemplate his Rama without looking at his image in a temple. It may be
unfortunate, but it is true that his Rama resides in that temple as nowhere
else. I would not disturb that simple faith.
Krishna of the Hindu devotee is a
perfect being. He is unconcerned with the harsh judgement of the critics.
Millions of devotees of Krishna and Rama have had their lives transformed
through their contemplation of God by these names. How this phenomenon happens
I do not know. It is a mystery. I have not attempted to prove it. Though my
reason and heart long ago realized the highest attribute and name of God as
Truth, I recognize Truth by the name of Rama. In the darkest hour of my trial,
that one name has saved me and is still saving me. It may be the association of
childhood, it may be the fascination that Tulsidas has wrought on me. But the
potent fact is there, and as I write these lines, ray memory revives the scenes
of my childhood when I used daily to visit the Ramji Mandir adjacent to my
ancestral home. My Rama then resided there. He saved me from many fears and
sins. It was no superstition for me. The custodian of the idol may have been a
bad man. I know nothing against him. Misdeeds might have gone on in the temple.
Again I know nothing of them. Therefore, they would not affect me. What was and
is true of me is true of millions of Hindus. Temple-worship supplies the felt
spiritual want of the human race. It admits of reform. But it will live as long
as man lives.[44] Temples
are to Hindus what churches are to Christians. Thousands of Hindus who visit
temples in simple faith derive precisely the same spiritual benefit that
Christians visiting churches in simple faith do. Deprive a Hindu of his temple,
and you deprive him of the thing he generally prizes most in life. That
superstition and even evil have grown round many Hindu temples is but too true.
That, however, is an argument for temple reform, not for lowering their value.[45]
I know of no religion or sect
that has done or is doing without its House of God, variously described as a
temple, a mosque, a church, a synagogue or an agiari. Nor is it certain that
any of the great reformers including Jesus destroyed or discarded temples
altogether. All of them sought to banish corruption from temples as well as
from society. Some of them, if not all, appear to have preached from temples. I
have ceased to visit temples for years, but I do not regard myself on that account
as a better person than before. My mother never missed going to the temple when
she was in a fit state to go there. Probably her faith was far greater than
mine, though I do not visit temples. There are millions whose faith is
sustained through these temples, churches and mosques. They are not all blind
followers of a superstition, nor are they fanatics. Superstition and fanaticism
are not their- monopoly. These vices have their root in our hearts and minds.
To reject the necessity of
temples is to reject the necessity of God, religion and earthly existence.[46]
What a reformer should be
concerned with is a radical change more in the inward spirit than in the
outward form. If the first is changed, the second will take care of itself. If
the first remains unchanged, the second, no matter how radically changed, will
be like a whited sepulchre. A mausoleum, however beautiful, is a tomb and not a
mosque, and a bare plot of consecrated ground may be a real Temple of God.[47]
She (Miss Mayo in her book Mother
India) says that the Vaishnava mark has an obscene meaning. I am a born
Vaishnavite. I have perfect recollection of my visits to Vaishnava temples.
Mine were orthodox people. I used to have the mark myself as a child, but
neither I nor anyone else in our family ever knew that this harmless and rather
elegant-looking mark had any obscene significance at all... I asked a party of
Vaishnavites in Madras where this article is being written. They knew nothing
about the alleged obscene significance. I do not therefore suggest that it
never had such significance. But I do suggest that millions are unaware of the
obscenity of many practices which we have hitherto innocently indulged in. It
was in a missionary book that I first learnt that Shivalingam had any obscene
significance at all, and even now when I see a Shivalingam neither the shape
nor the association in which I see it suggests any obscenity. It was again in a
missionary book that I learnt that the temples in Orissa were disfigured with
obscene statues. When I went to Puri it was not without an effort that I was
able to see those things. But I do know that the thousands who flock to the
temple know nothing about the obscenity surrounding these figures. The people are
unprepared and the figures do not obtrude themselves upon your gaze.[48]
[1] Harijan,
24-12-'38, p. 393
[2] Harijan,
2-3-'40, p. 23
[3] Young
India,29-9-'27, p. 329
[4] Harijan,15-12-'33,
p. 3
[5] Harijan,27-5-'39,
p. 144
[6] Ethical
Religion, By M. K. Gandhi, p. 55
[7] Young
India,4-12-'24 p. 398
[8] Gandhiji's
Paraphrase of Ruskin's Unto This Last, 1951 pp. 8-11, 21-23
[9] Harijan,
9-10-'37, p. 292
[10] Young
India, 3-9-'25, p. 304
[11] Gandhiji's
Paraphrase of Ruskin's Unto This Last, 1951, pp.50-53
[12] Young
India, 26-11-'31, p. 368
[13] Harijan,
25-8-'40, pp. 260-61
[14] Harijan,
30-12-'39, p. 391
[15] Harijan,
4-11-'39, p. 331
[16] Harijan<,
29-8-'36, p. 226
[17] The
Hindustan Standard, 6-12-'44
[18] Young
India, 9-12-'26, p. 432
[19] Speeches
and Writings of Mahatma Gandhi, 1933, p. 350
[20] Gandhiji's
Correspondence with the Government, 1942-44, p. 173
[21] Harijan,
27-5-'39, p. 143
[22] Taxing
India, 2-7-'31, p. 162
[23] The
Modern Review, 1935, p. 413
[24] With
Gandhiji in Ceylon, by Mahadev Desal, 1928, p. 93
[25] Harijan,18-1-'48,
p. 519
[26] Harijan,
28-7-'46, p. 236
[27] Harijan,
25-3-'39, p. 65
[28] Young
India, 3-4-'24 p. 109
[29] Gandhiji
in Indian Villages, by Mahadev Desai, 1927, p. 170
[30] Young
India, 31-12-'31, p. 427
[31] Young
India,25-9-'24, p. 313
[32] Young
India,4-4-'29, p. 107
[33] [It
is this mantra that Gandhiji described at another meeting as the golden key for
the solution of all the difficulties and doubts that may assail one's heart.]
[34] Harijan,
30-1-'37, p, 405
[35] Harijan,
30-1-'37, pp. 407-08
[36] Harijan,
30-1-'37, p. 410
[37] Bapu's
Letters to Mira, 1949, p. 250
[38] Bapu's
Letters to Mira, 1949, p. 301
[39] Young
India, 6-10-'21, p. 318
[40] Young
India, 28-8-'24, p. 284
[41] Young
India, 5-11-'25, p. 378
[42] Harijan,
13-3-'37, pp. 39-40
[43] Young
India, 26-9-'29, p. 320
[44] Harijan,
18-3-'33 p. 6
[45] Harijan,
11-2-'33, p. 2
[46] Harijan,
11-3-'33, p. 5
[47] Harijan,
29-4-'33, p. 6
[48] Young
India, 15-9-'27, p. 311
