UNIT 10 CRITICAL UNDERSTANDING OF

INDIAN CIVILISATION
Structure
10.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
10.2 The Idea of Civilisation
10.3 The Renaissance and Indian Intellectuals
10.4 Tradition and Reform: Social Reformers
10.5 Gandhi’s Reformist Programme
10.6 Critical Understanding of Indian Civilisation
10.6.1 Religion
10.6.2 Untouchability
10.6.3 Women’s Oppression
10.6.4 Modern Institutions

10.7 Summary
10.8 Terminal Questions
Suggested Readings

10.1 INTRODUCTION
It is good to swim in the waters of tradition, but to sink in them is suicide
- M. K. Gandhi, 28 June, 1925 (Collected Works, vol. 27, p.308)
Gandhi is a well-known critic of modern western civilisation. He saw modern colonialism
as an outgrowth of this modern civilisation. Through his writings, he examines the
‘civilisation’ out of which modernity has emerged. The western modernity mostly identified
with ‘bodily welfare as the object of life and the resource of entire civilisation are put in
the service of the good of ‘bodily happiness’. Its pillars are insatiable possessiveness,
machinery, mechanisation of every aspect of human life, rejection of virtue of religion, and
coercive power. Gandhi’s criticism of modern western civilisation is equally critical about
the science and technology, colonialism, capitalism, consumerism and market. The
propaganda of western mode of civilisation is carried with the power, dominance and
colonialism and market. Gandhi stands against it from the moral worthiness of human
beings.
At the same time, Gandhi is critical about Indian civilisation of contemporary times for
adopting modern western civilisation and its deviation from the glorious ancient Indian
civilisation. In this he is critical about Indian religious tradition on certain aspects. He
considers that a once creative and vibrant civilisation had become degenerated, diseased
and feeble, and fallen prey to foreign invasions of which British was the latest. Gandhi
reflected deeply on the nature and causes of its degeneration and concluded that, unless
radically revitalised and reconstituted on the foundation of a new yugadharma, it was
118 Philosophy of Gandhi

doomed. Gandhi’s project of regeneration of Indian civilisation brought him into conflict
with the Hindu tradition. Gandhi is critical of Hindu tradition on the issues pertaining to
women, untouchability, peasants, and poverty. Gandhi has creatively used the resources of
the Hindu tradition and also wielded a unique moral and political authority. Gandhi equates
religion with spirituality, spirituality with morality and defined morality in terms of self-
purification and social service.
Aims and Objectives
After reading this Unit, you would be able to understand:
 The idea of civilisation
 The ideas of tradition and reform and the role of social reformers
 The critical understanding of Indian civilisation with reference to its practices

10.2 THE IDEA OF CIVILISATION

As Mathew Arnold (1879) said, Civilisation is the humanisation of man in society. The
term denotes a ‘developed or advanced state of human society’. Raymond Williams
(1973) in his ‘Key words’ traces the association of civilisation with ‘the general spirit of
enlightenment, with its emphasis on secular and progressive human self-development’, as
well as its ‘associated sense of modernity’. According to the liberal thinker J. S. Mill,
civilisation stands for a ‘whole modern social process’, including an increase in knowledge
and physical comfort, the decline of superstition, the rise of forward moving nations, the
growth of freedom, and also ‘loss of independence, the creation of artificial wants,
monotony, narrow mechanical understanding, inequality and hopeless poverty.’ In the
discourse of anthropology, the concept is associated with evolutionary distinctions contrasting
civilisation with savagery and barbarism. Civilisation has an explicit influence in world-
making in the period when Europeans established world hegemony. European project
justified as a project of civilisation. European powers claimed civilisation as the reason for
their far-flung conquests. Non-European elite made civilisation their own, reshaping the
concept to forge anti-colonial and nationalist struggles. As written in the earlier Unit, the
defenders of modern civilisation include some brilliant and even some very good men,
who are not likely to write against it but support it.
The modern conception of life is based on the principle of scientific rationality by keeping
away from the religious world view. The 17th century conceptions of natural sciences and
fundamental philosophy are, through practice, associated with Newtonian physics, Descartes
philosophy and Hobbesian liberalism. By 18th century modern view of knowing and
knowledge helped to define what came to be known as enlightenment. Scientific reasoning
and scientific knowledge would increasingly displace religious thinking and spiritual
knowledge. Modernity as defined by 17th and 18th century lineage is epitomised by the
view that scientific thinking yields objective knowledge and universal truth. Gandhi is
critical of the trajectory of modern western civilisation, which often cuts off from the
religious tradition. Gandhi considers the western civilisation which is predominantly based
on technology, as the disease of civilisation. According to him, it was the very speed and
power of Western society that was at the root of its problem and these were all a sign
of its moral decay. The supporters of the west believed in illusion built on confusing
power with civilisation and biology with culture. For Gandhi, ‘the distinguishing characteristic
of modern civilisation is an indefinite multiplicity of wants’; where as ancient civilisations
Critical Understanding of Indian Civilisation 119

were marked by an ‘imperative restriction upon, and a strict regulating of these wants’
(Young India, 2 June 1927). Gandhi solemnly states, “If India copies England, it is my
firm conviction that she will be ruined”. Yet Gandhi does not damn England entirely
for her faulty government; it is modern civilisation that is to blame. “Civilisation is not
the infinite multiplication of human wants but their deliberate limitation to essentials
that can be equitably shared by”. Gandhi critically evaluates the idea of civilisation and
rejects this kind of western notion of civilisation. He argued that any civilisation has to be
flourished on the cultural life of its people. Gandhi’s civilisation is based on its moral
worthiness rather than material progress, and practical possibility of moral swaraj. Gandhi
argues for the moral possibility of Swaraj while addressing the British colonialism, violence
and modernisation. He projects the view point that “The tendency of the Indian civilisation
is to elevate the moral being that of western civilisation is to propagate immorality”
(Gandhi, 1908). Gandhi popularised the possibility of another civilisation-a non-Western,
non-technological civilisation.
Gandhi’s ideas on civilisation have to be understood in the context of the struggle for
‘Swaraj’ of India against the colonial western empire. For him, swaraj means individual
discipline, restraint from passion and indulgence and, acceptance of responsibility. He
considers modern Western civilisation as corrupt and weak that lacks morality; bodily
welfare is the object of British civilisation, where as Indian life is spiritual. England should
not be a model or source of inspiration to follow by the rest but be replaced by the pride
of tradition and spirit. At the same time, Gandhi is critical about the oppressive tradition,
social practices and religious dogmas. He argued for the reformation of tradition and
called for universal and humanistic religion.

10.3 THE RENAISSANCE AND INDIAN INTELLECTUALS

Modern way of life claims superiority over the ancient ways. It is believed that all the
material progress is possible only through modernity. It considers that the ancient thought
of India spiritually consisted in a destruction of desires, in the final realisation of a painless
self, of a pure consciousness for which all worldly prosperity has to be sacrificed. The
dominant thought of west discourages these as silly fancies and propagates the scientific
progress for the material good of the humanity.
In the early decades, the British contended that India was a great civilisation that had
fallen on bad times because of their despotic form of government, which denied its
subjects basic liberties. Therefore, the British engaged in the mission of civilising the
natives in the line of liberal rationalist views and justified their rule in terms of the
increasingly fashionable concept of civilisation. They believed that India lacks scientific and
rationalistic approach to life and needs civilising in the cultural and social practices.
Colonialism spawned intense rationalism and undermined tradition both as a mode of
discourse and as a form of knowledge. They engaged in the enterprise of initiating their
subjects into new ways of life and thought. The British approached Indians in an
aggressive and confrontational mood with a conviction of superiority of their civilisation.
They were convinced that they have nothing to learn from the natives. Responding to this
context, Indian intellectuals are constantly challenged to show what in their civilisation was
worth preserving.
At this historical juncture, the age old Indian philosophical traditions and the values
associated with civilisation are revisited in modern times by various scholars in the
backdrop of Western colonialism. The response may be broadly classified into three
120 Philosophy of Gandhi

categories- Sanskrit Punditic circle, anglicised circle and western educated Indian liberal
circle. The anglicised people are only nominally connected themselves with traditional
faiths, but the problems of religion and philosophy, which are so much valued by their
ancestors, have ceased to have any charm with them. The scholars in the punditic circle
are carrying on their work in a stereotyped fashion not for the intrinsic interest of
philosophy and religion but merely as a learned occupation or for living. The influence of
western education on some Indian people instilled new ideals of nationalism, politics and
patriotism; new goals and new interests of philosophy, life, social relations, social values
and religious values are now appearing before us which are submerging as it were all the
older, cultural and philosophical tendencies of the country.
The context explains that some of the Indian intellectuals are very strongly intoxicated with
western view of life, whereas others are strongly loyal to traditional faiths. There emerged
the new liberal intellectuals of western educated Indians, those who moved away from
both the positions. They were convinced that we cannot bind our faith to our traditional
past nor can we heartily welcome the western outlook of life. They had started
introspection of their tradition in a changed atmosphere. So it is believed that the bed-
rock of the old Indian culture and civilisation which formed the basis of our philosophy
is past slipping off our feet. Our real chance of life, therefore, is neither to hold fast to
the submerged rock, nor to allow ourselves to be washed away, but to build an edifice
of our own, high and secure enough to withstand the ravages of all inundations. They
proposed the greatness of their spiritual tradition against the modern western view. They
had interpreted spirituality with new meanings rather than carrying with typical traditional
view. For instance, they argue that it would be wrong to restrict the meaning of the word
spiritual merely to a sense of God-intoxication or an ethical or religious inspiration. By
spiritual therefore as determining the meaning of philosophy, it means the entire harmonious
assemblage of the inner life of man, as all that he thinks, feels, values and wishes to
create. They wish to keep away from the decayed and dead tradition and its values of
civilisation. Indeed, these English educated liberal intellectuals played a major role in
shaping the Indian culture, philosophy and history in modern times.

10.4 TRADITION AND REFORM: SOCIAL REFORMERS

Tradition and reform are the essential features of any human society. No society is
immune to change. At the same time every society finds ways of preserving, transmitting
and reforming its own traditions, of retaining its links with the past and getting ready to
respond to the future. Many of the 19th century Hindu leaders are able to successfully
challenge unacceptable social practices. Social reformers like Rajaram Mohan Roy argued
against sati and polytheism, K. C. Sen and Lala Lajpat Rai against child marriage, Ishwar
Chandra Vidya Sagar against kulinism and the ban on widow remarriages and Dayanand
Saraswati against image worship. Most of these are appealed to the scriptures, hospitable
to their cause, invoked universal principles of morality, the need to change in the changed
socio-cultural context, and warning the consequences of social practices that followed.
They invoked glorious past of the nation for a solution of the contemporary problems.
However, traditionalists and reformers have different view point on the Hindu tradition.
The Hindu leaders discussed colonial rule in the wider context of the betterment of their
society and civilisation. The response has been varied. As Bhikhu Parekh suggested, the
response may be broadly classified under the categories of traditionalists, modernists,
critical modernists and critical traditionalists. While the traditionalists viewed nothing wrong
with their cultural past and argued for upholding the tradition, others are disturbed by the
Critical Understanding of Indian Civilisation 121

state of their society and keen to find alternatives. Among them the modernists argued that
their salvation lay in radically restructuring it along modern or European lines. The critical
modernists pleaded for a creative synthesis of the two civilisations. And the critical
traditionalists preferred to mobilise their own indigenous resources, borrowing from Europe
whatever was likely to supplement and enrich them. Both traditionalists and modernists are
targeted for constant criticism. The critical modernists like Rammohan Roy, K.C.Sen and
Gokhale are popular among this section. They agreed with modernists that India needed
to modernise itself, but insisted that despite all its limitations, the central principles of
Indian civilisation were sound and worth preserving. Though they never specified these
principles, they had in mind such things as the spiritual view of the universe and the
doctrine of the unity of man and of life, the emphasis on duties rather than rights, on
altruism rather than self-interest, on society rather than the state, on the atmic rather than
atomic view of man and on self- sacrifice rather than self-indulgence; the centrality of the
family, the regulation of artha and kama by dharma. They pointed out that the Europeans
had made a mistake of indiscriminately modernising themselves and rejecting their Greco-
roman and especially Christian heritage. As a result their civilisation lacked moral and
religious depth and a sense of meaning and purpose. For India, it had an opportunity to
combine the old with the new, to integrate spirituality with modernity, and to undertake
a unique civilisational experiment capable of becoming a source of universal inspiration.
Unlike the traditionalists who were content to live by the values of their allegedly superior
civilisation and had no interest in turning India into a spiritual laboratory of the world, and
unlike the modernists who were content to adopt the superior European civilisation, the
critical modernists aspired to synthesise the two and become world teachers. Rajaram
Mohan Roy’s Brahmsamaj was intended to be a synthesis of the doctrines of the
European enlightenment with the philosophic views of Upanishads, for K.C. Sen for
reconciliation of ancient faith and modern science and asceticism and civilisation. Gokhale
pleaded for a harmonious blend of the European spirit of science and the Hindu science
of the spirit. These Hindu leaders had an imagination of the Indian civilisation, that was
to provide the foundation upon which was to be constructed the structure of eastern ideas
and institutions. Western natural sciences were to be combined or integrated with the
Hindu metaphysics, the western state with Hindu society, liberal-democratic ideas with
Hindu political philosophy, large-scale industrialisation with Hindu cultural values and
western moral values with the Hindu theory of purusharthas.
The traditionalists, the modernists and the critical modernists were convinced that civilisations
could be compared and assessed on the basis of some universal criteria. The critical
traditionalists including Bankimchandra, Vivekananda, B.C. Pal and Aurobindo rejected
this assumption. For them, civilisation was an organic whole and could not be judged in
terms of criteria derived from outside it. All such criteria were themselves ultimately
derived from another civilisation and thus lacked universality. Further, values and institutions
were an integral part of the way of life of a specific community. The critical modernist
aimed at preserving what was valuable in Indian civilisation; the critical traditionalists were
content to eliminate the evil.

10.5 GANDHI’S REFORMIST PROGRAMME

Gandhi’s reformist programme is more comprehensive and radical than that of his
predecessors. He argued for the moral regeneration of Hindu society based on new
system of ethics, and yugadharma. He defined Hindu tradition in his own way, by
borrowing moral insights from other religious traditions such as Buddhism, Jainism,
122 Philosophy of Gandhi

Judaism, Islam and Christianity. He was also influenced by the writers such as Tolstoy,
Ruskin and Thoreau. Gandhi’s philosophy both continued and broke with the tradition of
discourse developed by his predecessors. Unlike them, Gandhi’s explanation and critique
of colonial rule was essentially cultural. Gandhi insisted that the colonial encounter was not
between Indian and European but ancient and modern civilisations. Like his predecessors,
Gandhi considered Indian civilisation as spiritual and the European as materialist, but
defined the terms differently. Though Gandhi’s critique of modern materialist civilisation
was similar to that of his predecessors, it did contain novel elements. It had a strong
moralistic content. For Gandhi, Indian civilisation was essentially plural and non-dogmatic.
From the very beginning it had realised that the ultimate reality was infinite and
inexhaustible and that different individuals grasped different aspects of it. None was wholly
wrong and none wholly right. Indian civilisation was not only plural but pluralist, that is,
committed to plurality as a desirable value, not just a collection of different ethnic,
religious and cultural groups but a unity-in-diversity. In this sense, his conception of
Hinduism is more inclusive than sectarian.
In Gandhi’s view, every civilisation had its own distinctive natural and social basis.
Modern civilisation was born and could only survive in the cities, and carried all over the
world by the commercial class. Indian civilisation had, by contrast, been cradled and
nurtured in the villages, and only the rural masses were its natural custodians. So long as
their way of life was intact, its integrity and survival was guaranteed. Since the civilisations
that had so far come to India were all rural and thus posed no threat to it, it was easily
able to accommodate and enter a dialogue with them. For Gandhi, every tradition is a
resource, a source of valuable insights into human condition, and part of a common
human heritage. Gandhi considers that tradition has a source of values and provides moral
insights for humanity, rather than blindly negating the tradition. In that sense tradition is the
valid source of knowledge since it survives the test of collective social experience. He
argues that every tradition contained an internal principle of self-criticism in the form of
its constitutive values. He believes that India had a tradition of negotiating through
dialogue. Further he believed that dialogue between different traditions is both possible
and necessary. This may facilitate for the progress of mankind and it should be open
minded rather than imposing one over other. In this sense he opposed the values of the
western imposition on non-European traditions. As an Indian, he was proud of being an
inheritor of rich diverse religious and cultural traditions.
Gandhi made an attempt to reform Hindu tradition based on his conception of yugadharma.
He has concern for reinterpretation of central principles of Hinduism in the light of the
needs of the modern age. He challenges the orthodox Hindu conception of tradition and
sought to replace it with an alternative view of his own. As Bhikhu Parekh explains,
though Gandhi valued tradition, he was not a traditionalist. He reduced tradition to a
resource, located its essence in its general moral values which commanded respect but left
room for critical evaluation, and gave every individual the freedom to draw upon the
insights of other traditions. Similarly, though he stressed the role of reason, he was not
a rationalist. He respected ‘cultivated reason’, one ‘ripened’ by a deep acquaintance with
wisdom embodied in tradition, especially, but not exclusively, one’s own. And though an
individual remained free to revise traditional values, he was to do so only after making
a ‘respectful’ study of them and giving them the benefit of doubt (p.23). Gandhi saw no
hostility or contrast between reason and tradition. Reason was not a transcendental or
natural faculty, but a socially acquired capacity presupposing and constantly shaped and
nurtured by tradition. Tradition was not a mechanical accumulation of precedents but a
Critical Understanding of Indian Civilisation 123

product of countless conscious and semi-conscious experiments by rational men over

several generations. The reformer’s task was to elucidate the historical rationale of
unacceptable practices and to expose their irrationality. He required both sympathetic
understanding and critical spirit, both patience and indignation. This was how Gandhi went
about reforming the Hindu ways of thought and life.
Gandhi engages in a creative dialogue with tradition. He tries to find out truth in tradition
and emphasises it. He attached new meanings to traditional symbols. He believes that
religion and scriptures need to be understood in the light of conscience and morality.
Wherever scriptures contradict conscience, religion demands that conscience should be
followed. Gandhi’s critical dialogue with Hindu tradition and his struggle to reform Hindu
tradition occurred within the colonial context. Gandhi tries to uphold the authority of
Hindu tradition and protect it from the distortions of colonial rule. At the same time, he
was much aware of the uncritical and mindless traditionalism of the orthodox, both unwise
and impractical. Gandhi reconstructed the tradition in a creative mode to suit his context.

10.6 CRITICAL UNDERSTANDING OF INDIAN

CIVILISATION
Gandhi was proud of the great Indian civilisation but was also critical of some of its
dogmatic and inhuman practices in modern times. He questioned the immoral practices
tagged with the name of religion and tradition and relentlessly fought against such
practices. He points out the moral decay of Indian civilisation in contemporary times. He
argues that the British have conquered India not because of their strength, or superiority
but due to the moral failure of Indians. The modern civilisation of the British is responsible
for the sustenance of the British rule. The Indians simply carried with this without any
introspection. Gandhi argues that modern civilisation made man a prisoner of his craving
for luxury and self-indulgence, release the forces of unbridled competition, and thereby
bringing upon society the evils of poverty, disease, war and suffering. The modern
civilisation looks at human-being as mere consumers and opens up to the industrial
production and it becomes a source of inequality, oppression and violence. The idea of
civilisation is central to his philosophy and political struggles. On one hand, Gandhi finds
the problems with the very ideal of modern western civilisation and the Indian engagements
with it, and on the other he is critical of the Indians for deviating from the very moral
foundations of their age old civilisation. As a result one may find novel and pragmatic
interpretation of the Indian civilisation as propounded by Gandhi.
10.6.1 Religion
Gandhi’s idea of civilisation is spiritual and religious. He comments the modern western
civilisation as irreligion. In materialistic society, regardless of its religious or humanistic
professions, the entire system becomes corrupt. He aimed at spiritualising the political life
and political institutions. He insisted that politics cannot be isolated from the deepest things
of life. Gandhi was concerned more about religious values than religious beliefs. He
believes that religious dogmas are hurdles for religious experience. For him, religion does
not mean sectarianism. Sectarian religion is purely personal matter and has no place in
politics. Gandhi argues against the compartmentalisation of human life that had been
brought about in the name of segregation of politics from religion. Religion means a belief
in the ordered moral government of the universe.
Religion is central to Gandhi’s thought. He regarded politics as applied religion. His ideas
124 Philosophy of Gandhi

on religion are complex and varied from time to time. He derives all his moral resource
from Hinduism. His idea of Hinduism is different from the traditionalist view and is tolerant
of other faiths and assimilates the differences into its fold.
‘It (Hinduism) was the most tolerant of all religions. Its freedom from dogma gave
the votary the largest scope for self-expression. Not being an exclusive religion it
enabled the followers not merely to respect all the other religions, but admire and
assimilate whatever may be good in the other faiths. Non-violence (ahimsa) is
common to all religions, but it has found highest expression and application in
Hinduism. Hinduism believes in the oneness not only of merely all human life but
in the oneness of all other lives’ (Young India, October 21, 1927).
He was proud of Hinduism but it did not prevent him from rejecting and criticising several
institutions, ideas and beliefs which Hindus ordinarily regard as part of their religion. His
Hinduism is not the one conventionally practiced. He attacks what he considers to be
defective like the practice of untouchability. He views contemporary Hinduism as departing
from its core principles. ‘Gandhi’s attitude was liberal and radical rather than conservative
towards religious as well as political social and political institutions. He therefore invoked
religion against all authority and not in support of church or state. He combined an
absolutist sense of sanctity toward religious values with flexible and critical attitude toward
religious institutions, and he was wholly critical toward existing social ideals, though less
toward traditional social institutions’ (Iyer, p.44).
He condemns some of the texts of scriptures because they are contrary to universal truths
and morals or are in conflict with reason, such as child marriages sanctioned in the smritis.
He insists that the defective additions must be rejected as interpolations. On his account,
‘the texts of a tradition must be elastic and open to new readings today, just as they have
in the past.’ The interpretation of accepted texts has undergone evaluation and is capable
of indefinite evolution.
Gandhi condemns the discords that take place in the name of religion, for instance,
Hindus against Muslims. This kind of cruelty, he considers as irreligious. They are not part
of religion, although they have been practised in its name. However, Gandhi argues that
these hardships are far more bearable than those of civilisation. Gandhi writes, ‘when its
full effect is realized, we will see that religious superstition is harmless compared to
that of modern civilisation. I am not pleading for a continuance of religious
superstition. We will certainly fight them tooth and nail, but we can never do so by
disregarding religion. We can only do by appreciating and conserving later’ (Gandhi,
Hind Swaraj, p.43).
The higher religion was universal, and transcended particular religions. ‘Religion does not
mean sectarianism. It means belief in ordered moral government of the universe’. This
religion transcends Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, etc. Such universal religion was in
harmony with his ideas of truth and non-violence. Gandhi’s religion was simply an ethical
framework for the conduct of daily life. As a religious man, he aimed at perfection or
self-realisation.

10.6.2 Untouchability
“Untouchability is not only not a part and parcel of Hinduism, but a plague, which is the
burden of every Hindu to combat.” (Gandhi, From Yervada Mandir, 1935, p.47). The
issue of the caste system is central to Indian society and even a threat to the very idea
of civilisation. The practice of untouchability is very much embedded in the Hindu social
Critical Understanding of Indian Civilisation 125

structure and, has existed for several centuries. There are many interpretations of the caste
system, both from its supporters and its opponents. Since the caste system connected to
the Hinduism, there are various attempts to reform Hinduism. The practice of untouchability
is an important issue for both social reform and nationalist movements. Gandhi not only
brought this issue to the larger public but also fought against this inhuman practice in his
own style. He dared to fight against the orthodox Hindus and tried to convince them as
an internal critic. The sanatanists argued that untouchability was enjoined by the scriptures.
In response to this, Gandhi demanded for evidence. He insisted that a religious text was
not a theoretical treatise composed by a philosopher or a pundit given to weighing every
word, but the work of a spiritual explorer containing insights too deep and complex to
be adequately expressed in a discursive language. Gandhi believes that religious texts
propounded eternally valid and, values and principles and were intended to guide all men
everywhere. Religious text is both transcended and were conditioned by time. ‘Untouchability
as it is practiced today in Hinduism in my opinion, is a sin against God and man and is,
therefore like a poison slowly eating into the very vitals of Hinduism. There are
innumerable castes in India. They are social institutions and at one time they served a very
useful purpose, as perhaps, they are even doing now to a certain extent…there is nothing
sinful about them. They retard the material progress of those who are labouring under
them. They are no bar to the spiritual progress. The difference, therefore, between caste
system and untouchability is not one of degree, but of kind’ (Gandhi, Harijan, vol.1,
1933, p.2)
Gandhi argued that caste has nothing to do with Hindu religion. He focused on the
practice of untouchability rather than caste system. He reduced the problem of untouchability
to a matter of self-purification. He even supported varnashramadharma by providing
new interpretation. For him, it is the guna that matters than one’s caste/varna. Sudra
becomes a Brahmin based on guna or his/her worthiness. In varna system, people are
unequal only on functional terms. Gandhi thought that in principle, Sudras and Brahmins
are of equal status. The critics argue that caste practices are sanctioned by the shastras.
In response to this, he said, ‘nothing in the shastras which is manifestly contrary to
universal truths and morals can stand.’ For him, True principles of religion or morality
are universal and unchanging. ‘Caste has nothing to do with religion. It is a custom
whose origin I do not know and do not need to know for the satisfaction of my spiritual
hunger. But I do know that it is harmful both to spiritual and national growth.’ Further
he argues that, ‘The true dharma is unchanging, while tradition may change with time. If
we were to follow some of the tenets of manusmriti, there would be moral anarchy. We
have quietly discarded them altogether.’ For Gandhi the problem of untouchability was the
problem of the self, the collective Hindu self. He saw the movement to eradicate
untouchability as a sacred ritual of self-purification. ‘The movement for the removal of
untouchability is one of self-purification’ (Harijan, 15 April, 1933).
For Gandhi, Swaraj is unattainable without the removal of the sins of untouchability as it
is without Hindu-Muslim unity. Gandhi claimed that the heart of the caste Hindu could be
changed by applying moral pressures within the framework of the Hindu tradition. As
Bhikhu Parekh rightly pointed out, ‘Untouchability was both moral and political problem.
Gandhi’s campaign was conducted only at the moral and religious level. He concentrated
on caste Hindus rather than on untouchables, appealed to their feelings of shame and guilt,
and succeeded in achieving his initial objections of discrediting untouchability and raising
the level of Hindu and, to a limited extent, Harijan conscience. Since he did not organise
and politicise the untouchables, stress their rights and fight for a radical reconstruction of
126 Philosophy of Gandhi

the established social and economic order, Gandhi’s campaign was unable to go further.
It gave untouchables dignity but not power; moral and to some extent, social but not
political and economic equality; self respect but not self-confidence to organize and fight
their own battles. It integrated them into the Hindu social order but did little to release
them from the cumulative cycle of deprivation’.
10.6.3 Women’s Oppression
Women are often victims of religious tradition. It is argued that the practices of patriarchy
are internalised in the tradition. No civilised society sanctifies the oppression of women.
The issue of women’s oppression is central to the agenda of social reformers and the
leaders of later struggles. Against the age old tradition, Gandhi brought a large number of
women into the forefront of nationalistic struggle and provided courage and source of
inspiration for struggles of women emancipation. Of all the evils for which man has made
himself responsible, writes Gandhi, ‘none is so degrading, so shocking or so brutal as his
abuse of women’. Gandhi’s views on women are different from the earlier reformers. By
commenting on child marriage, widow remarriage, dowry, sati, he exposes and challenges
the Hindu orthodoxy while simultaneously reformulating and, thus, emphasising marriage as
the only regulator of man-woman relationship in the society. He considers these acts as
against swaraj. Gandhi links up the question of oppression to social and national health.
In Gandhi’s view the glaring abuse of Indian womanhood was the custom of childhood
marriages. He saw evil as intimately related to that of child widowhood. It is irreligion,
not religion. Gandhi saw education as an essential means for enabling women to uphold
their natural rights. Gandhi realised that the identification of manliness with violence was
likely to lead humanity to destruction. Men needed to emulate women’s quiet strength and
their resistance of injustice without resorting to violence. For Gandhi, the women who
have the strength, courage, patience and a capacity for suffering can become a symbol
of non-violence and peace. Women should be self-reliant. Gandhi often invoked the
traditional symbols to mark the strength of women. If women were to get justice,
scriptures needed to be revised and all religious texts biased against the rights and dignity
of women should be expurgated. For this Indian women had to produce from amongst
themselves new Sitas, Draupadis and Damyantis ‘pure, firm and self-controlled’. Their
words will have the same authority as the shastras, and command the same respect as
those of their prototype yore. Gandhi argues for the personal dignity and autonomy for
women in family and society. Rules of social conduct had to be framed by mutual
cooperation and consultation, and not forcibly imposed on women from outside.

10.6.4 Modern Institutions

Gandhi was not only critical towards traditional institutions and social practices, but also
critical of the modern institutions and its professional practices. For instance, railways,
lawyers and doctors have impoverished the country. Gandhi could foresee the effects of
these modern institutions and explained it in his Hind Swaraj. He finds the grip of
modern western civilisation through the institutions of railways, legal system and hospitals.
Gandhi explains that railways are a distributing agency for the evil one. It may be a matter
of debate whether railways spread famines, but it is beyond dispute that they propagate
evil. Railways increased the frequency of famines, because, owing to facility of means of
locomotion, people sell out their grains, and it is sent to the dearest markets. People
become careless, and so the pressure of famine increases. They accentuate the evil nature
of man. Bad men fulfil their evil designs with greater rapidity. The holy places of India
have become unholy.
Critical Understanding of Indian Civilisation 127

Gandhi was critical of the legal system which had become the handmaid of colonial rule.
The lawyers tightened the English grip. Gandhi argues thus, ‘do you think that it would
be possible for English to carry on their government without law courts? It is wrong to
consider that courts are established for the benefits of the people. Those who want to
perpetuate their power, do so through the courts. If people were to settle their own
quarrels, a third party would not be able to exercise any authority over them. Without
lawyers, courts could not have been established or conducted, and without the latter the
English could not rule.’
Gandhi considers hospitals as institutions for propagating sin. Men take less care of their
bodies, immorality increases. The moral basis of modern medicine is that it is taking a
purely bodily view of health, ignores need for the health of the soul, which is necessary
for the maintenance of even physical health. Men pretend to be civilised, call religious
prohibitions a superstition and wantonly indulge in what they like. The fact remains that
the doctors induce us to indulge, and the result is that we become deprived of self-
control. In these circumstances, we are unfit to serve the country. To study European
medicine is to deepen our slavery. Gandhi was critical of modern knowledge systems of
the west and its practices and argues for the indigenous knowledge systems and its
practices.

10.7 SUMMARY
Gandhi considers modern civilisation as a greater threat to Indians than colonialism.
Colonialism itself is a product of modern civilisation. Gandhi was critical of modern
civilisation from the religious and ethical point of view as it neither takes note of morality
nor religion. Through his writings, he made an attempt to redefine Hinduism and the
concept of dharma. In the past dharma was tied to a hierarchical system of duties and
obligations and to preservation of status. Gandhi was critical of Indian civilisation for its
deviance from the spirit of age old tradition. His criticism of Indian civilisation on the
issues of women, untouchability, and religious orthodoxy are in tune with the yugadhama.
In Hind Swaraj, he made a conscious attempt to actualise the real potential of Indian
civilisation. He believed that Indian society has not fully actualised its age old civilisation
in practice. Only an innovated Indian civilisation can help India to attain swaraj.

10.8 TERMINAL QUESTIONS

1. Critically analyse the Indian intellectuals’ response to western colonialism.
2. Discuss Gandhi’s critique of Indian civilisation in the back drop of British Colonialism.
3. How did Gandhi redefine Hindu tradition and its dharma?
4. How is the caste system a hindrance to the progress of civilisation?

SUGGESTED READINGS
1. Parel, Anthony J., Gandhi – Hind Swaraj and Other writings, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 2004.
2. Parekh, Bhikhu., Colonialism, Tradition, and Reform- An Analysis of Gandhi’s
Political Discourse, Sage, New Delhi, 1989.
128 Philosophy of Gandhi

3. Rudolph, Lloyd I., Post Modern Gandhi in Lloyd I. Rudolph and Susanne Hoeber
Rudolph., Post Modern Gandhi and Other Essays, Oxford University Press, New
Delhi, 2006, pp.1-59
4. Iyer, Raghavan N., ‘The Indictment of Modern Civilisation’, The Moral and Political
Writings of Mahatma Gandhi, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2000
5. Raghuramaraju, A., (ed.). Debating Gandhi –A Reader, Oxford University Press,
New Delhi, 2006 (Articles by Madhu Kishwar, Sujata Patel, D.R.Nagaraj and
Partha Chatterjee).