5TT5r T WT?^ srWT?

ER 3R>T^»fV ^
Lai Bahadur Shastric Aademy %
of Administration ^
g
MUSSOORIE
JPcRTTWJT
LIBRARY
1^82^1
Accession No... aa^'g '' «
5r>f #»sJTT !^
Class No .. ..5.2i0.:.5!5!. ^

flooit No.. GL 320.55

GAN

119982
LBSNAA
HINDU DHARMA

M. K. GANDHI

NAYAJIVAN PITBLISHING HOUSE

AHMEDABAD
 First Edition, 5,000 Copies, August, 1050

Rupees Four

Printed and Published by Jivanji Dahyabhal Deaat

Navajiyan Press, Kalupur, Ahmedabad
 PUBLISHERS' NOTE

Except on one occasion when he passingly thought

of changing the religion of his birth and entering the
Christian fold, Gandhiji passionately clung to Hinduism
as a child clings to its mother. He always claimed to be
a Hindu, and described himself as a Sanatani Hindu.
Apart from Gandhiji's own claim and in spite of the
fact that almost the whole of orthodox Hindu opinion was
at one time deadly opposed to him because he uncom¬
promisingly championed the cause of the untouchables,
barring a few who, out of their blind fanaticism and a
narrow view of the broad and catholic Hindu faith and
culture, would refuse to see, it is widely recognized in
India and abroad that Gandhiji is the greatest Hindu of
the modern age. Indeed, it may be said without fear of
contradiction that he earned this great name, because he
did not quit the faith of his forefathers, but boldly stood
for its essential truth and was therefore able to serve
Hindu society and protect it from violence and disruption
by his programme of self-purification for the touchable
Hindus through the service of the Harijans.
But it has also to be recognized that if Gandhiji was
a great Hindu it was because all through his life he strove
to be a zealous seeker of truth as he saw it. His relentless
search, pursuit and practice of Truth which he called God
made him what he claimed tb be — a Sanatani Hindu.
He minded the eternal verities of the faith of his birth,
which are generally speaking the common heritage of man
from all the chief religions of the world.
Gandhiji therefore never attempted to give a codified
form to the Hindu faith. In fact he recognized that
Hinduism had developed into a queer but ever evolving
mixture bf beliefs, practices and traditions. He also
iii
 IV

recognized that in the process of evolution many excrescen¬

ces like untouchability, animal sacrifices to gods, etc., had,
during the passage of time, clung to Hinduism and that
the faith had to be rid of all of them if it was to survive
and thrive. That according to him is in short the work
for those that profess that faith at present. In fact, he
believed that every religion, in the course of its history,
gets enmeshed into such excrescences, and therefore all
who belong to those religions must continually work and
assiduously strive to remove them frpm their respective
faiths. Thus only can religion as it is |iven to us by history
be turned into a living prescription for a good and noble life
for man, and mankind can save itself from the fanaticism
of a fratricidal war of religions which disfigures the history
of man on this earth.
Therefore, if Gandhiji did not give a codified view of
Hinduism like the ancient authors of the Smritis, it is all
the more necessary that v/hat he has said on and about
Hinduism, its various practices, traditions, blemishes and
its essentials should be more welcome to us. This is made
available by this book in a handy form to all its followers
and to all who care to study religion in its true meaning as
the way to a good and noble life. Fortunately for us, as was
his method and practice, whenever querries were addressed
to him and doubts raised, Gandhiji gave full and satis¬
factory answers to them either in speech or writing. The
replies and answers cover a large field and hardly leave
unanswered any question on Hindu religion, practice,
tradition, belief, and ideals in all fields of life and social
relationships.
As has been very aptly noted by the able editor of
this collection of Gandhiji’s writings and words on Hindu
Dharma, Gandhiji’s being shot dead by a Hindu specially
calls for a book of this kind, so that the world may have
in a book form all that Gandhiji had to say about the
faith which he loved so deeply and passionately and for
which he lived and died.
Hence this collection. In it is brought together under
one cover all that Gandhiji said regarding Hindu
Dharnia. The editor has also taken pains to collect
the writings which range over a fairly large period,
under such suitable heads as may be useful to a general
reader and to a serious student as well. We hope the
collection will be welcome as much to the one as to the
other.
August 1, 1950
 EDITOR^S NOTE
On the 30th of January, 1948, Gandhiji was shot dead
by a Hindu, who believed that if Hinduism and Hindu cul¬
ture were to be saved Gandhiji had to be sacrificed. This
fact in itself calls for a book of this kind, which seeks to
give in Gandhiji's own words his views in regard to
Hinduism.
Not only so, Gandhiji was born, brought up and lived
his entire life a Hindu. He called himself a Sanatanist
or orthodox Hindu, who based his beliefs on the ancient
Hindu scriptures. He drew freely, it is true, from other
religions also. But the main source of his religious life
came undoubtedly from the religion of his forefathers.
Hinduism was his life-breath, the very marrow of his
bones, and he clung to it through all his tempestuous
career as a child to its mother's arms. He looked to the
Bhagawadgita for inspiration and guidance, called it his
mother, and moulded his life on the Gita ideal of the
karmayogin who did his duty irrespective of pleasure and
pain, or the sthitaprajna who subdued his passions in self¬
less pursuit of the Divine. So much was this true of him
that one may rightly say that his life was nothing but the
Gita ideal in action. Next to the Gita, Tulsidas's Rama-
yana formed his meat and drink.
He tried to put into practice the Hindu ideal of
advaita or unity without difference, and so regarded all
men, without distinction of race, caste or creed, as one.
Not only men, but also all living beings as symbolized by
the cow were according to Hinduism to be treated with
sympathy and fellow-feeling. This, accordingly, formed
an essential part of Gandhiji's teaching and practice. Then
again he believed, as Hinduism always taught, that all
religions were equally ways of reaching God, and there¬
fore to be looked upon with friendliness and respect. He
lived a life of renunciation, austerity and self-control, so
vii
VUl

characteristic of Hinduism. Ramanama remained for him

a never-failing remedy for all ills, and he died with the
name of Rama on his lips.
If Gandhiji was thus in life as in death essentially a
Hindu and sought to put into practice the fundamental
teachings of Hinduism, why, it may be asked, did a sec¬
tion of Hindus think of him as an enemy of Hinduism
and encompass his murder ? The answer to this is to be
found in the history of religions. Religion, pure and un¬
defiled, as it is in the mouths of the great seers and pro¬
phets, degenerates in course of time, and becomes lost in
the dry sands of dead tradition and ritual. The devotee
clings to the outer forms of religion and becomes fanatic
in their observance, making true religion null and void.
When religion has thus degenerated, and righteousness
has consequently given place to unrighteousness, a great
prophet appears, even as the Gita tells us, to call people
back to true religion. This is what appears to have hap¬
pened in Hinduism in the person of Gandhiji. The pro¬
phet, however, is not liked by the orthodox — the high
priest, the scribe and the Pharisee — who seek how they
may slay him. They crucified Christ two thousand years
ago, and shot Gandhiji in our own day.
Even like the prophets of old, Gandhiji feared none
but God. He condemned uncompromisingly the evils that
had crept into Hinduism and sought to remove them. He
exhorted Hindus to live up to the best teachings of their
religion, and called on all to pursue truth, morality, and
love and service of fellow-beings. He would not allow
the scriptures to stifle mem's conscience. His ultimate
appeal was always to the still small voice* within, even
if its verdict was in conflict with the shastras, so long as
it was in conformity with truth and non-violence. His
religion was, therefore, a religion of freedom and growth,
not of bondage to tradition and authority, and therefore
of stagnation and decay. In him we have a great prophet
similar to the Buddha, Muhammad or Christ. His teach¬
ings come from the depths of his being. They were the
outpourings of a soul in living touch with its Maker. He
 IX

spoke with authority and conviction — an authority which

came from a realization that he spoke the word of God.
No Hindu, no student of Hinduism, indeed no individual
whatever his religion, can afford to ignore his teachings,
as they have a universal appeal. If Hinduism has a future
it is Hinduism, as presented by Gandhiji, that has it in
certain and abundant measure. Gandhiji’s Hinduism is
the Hinduism of old in all its pristine purity, reborn and
practised under modern conditions. Hindu doctrines and
terminology, which at times appear to us of today as
strange, outmoded and unintelligible, disclose new mea¬
ning and value as interpreted by Gandhiji. In him Hindu¬
ism speaks to modem man in his own language.
It has not been easy to do justice to Gandhiji’s teach¬
ings in regard to Hinduism, for he left practically no
aspect of Hindu life or conduct untouched by his searching
survey and criticism, and had much to say regarding each
of them. All that could be done here was to give just
sufficient extracts from his writings and speeches to con¬
vey a fairly comprehensive and adequate picture of his
teachings. He dealt, for example, with caste, untouch-
ability, fasts, brahmacharya, temple-worship, priests,
image-worship, vegetarianism, non-violence, prayer, God,
incarnations, Ramanama, cow-worship, sacrifice, the
shastras, faith, the Gita, attitude to other religions, child
marriage, women and so on. We have sought to group
his teachings under such topics so that the reader may
have all his thoughts on a particular subject together and
gain an uninterrupted presentation of it. Except for
slight editing and omissions, the texts as found in the
originals have been faithfully preserved, and only occa¬
sionally titles of articles have been altered to suit the
abridged matter.
Bombay, April, 1949 Bharatan Kumarappa
 NON-ENGLISH WORDS WITH THEIR MEANINGS
Abhyasa — repetition; practice; study
Adhikara — qualification or authority to do a certain thing
Adikarnatakas — aborigines of Karnataka
Adi Shankar — the first Shankaracharya
Ad'uaita — non-duality or identity of the soul with
Brahman
Advaitism — doctrine of non-duality
Advaitist — a believer in non-duality
Agiari — a place of fire-worship of the Parsees
Ahimsaist — a believer in non-violence
Akhada — a gymnasium
Ananda — joy
Anekantavadi — a beliver in many doctrines, a sceptic
(especially Jain)
Anugita — a religious discourse between Krishna and
Arjuna reported to have taken place after the
Bhagwadgita
Aparigraha — non-possession
Ashrama — one of the fbur stages of life according to
Hinduism : student, house-holder, hermit and ascetic ;
a hermitage
Ashwamedha Yajna — a horse-sacrifice
Asteya — non-stealing
Atman — a soul
Avarna — caste-les^ ; an untouchable
Armtara — an incarnation
Bhagawata — a Hindu mythological book depicting the life
of Krishna
Bhakta — a devotee
Bhakti — devotion
Bhaktiyoga — the path of devotion
Brahmacharya — celibacy ; continence
Chandala — an outcaste ; a member of a Hindu low caste
XI
 XI

Charkha — a spinning wheel

Chit — knowledge
Darshana — sight; view
Dasanudasa — a servant of a servant
Dharma — religion ; duty
Dharmakshetra — a land of religion
Dharmashala — a caravanserai
Dvaitism — doctrine of duality
Dvmdashakshara Mantra — a sacred text containing
twelve letters used for repetition and meditation
Gayatri — a vedic mantra used for repetition and medita¬
tion
Gopala — a cow-herd
Goshala — a cow-stall; a dairy
Guru — a teacher ; a religious preceptor
Ishopanishad — an upanishad of that name which is one
of the most important Hindu sacred philosophical
writings
Itihasa — history'
Janmashtami — the birth-day of Lord Krishna
Japa — repetition
Jnani — a man of knowledge
Jnanayoga — the path of knowledge
Raima — a Muslim formula of prayer
Kamadhenu — the cow of plenty, supposed to fulfil all
desires
Karma — action
Karmayoga — the path of action
Karmayogi — a follower of the path of action
Kanabi — the name of one of the agricultural classes
Katha-kirtan — narration of scriptural stories often in
accompaniment with music
Langoti — a loin-cloth
Lingayat — name of a Shaiva sect
Mahabharata — name of a Hindu Epic
Mahajan — elders of a caste pr guild
Mahayajna — a great sacrifice
Mandir — a temple
 XIU

Mantra — a sacred text used for repetition and meditation

Manusmriti — ancient Hindu law-book written by Manu
Moksha — emancipation ; freedom from birth
Mosque — a Muslim place of worship
Muni — a sage
Namaz — daily Muslim prayer
Padmanabhadasa — sen'^ant of Padmanabha or Vishnu
(i. e. God)
Pariah — an outcaste
Pinjrapole — an institution for sheltering crippled and
aged animals including cows
Pitriloka — the world of the manes
Puranas — books of Hindu mythology
Rajasuya Yajna — a great sacrifice performed by a uni¬
versal monarch at the time of his coronation as a mark
of his undisputed sovereignty
Ramanama — name of Rama (i. e. God)
Ramayana — name of a Hindu Epic
Rishi — a seer
Sanatana — ancient; eternal
Sanatani — a follower of the orthodox Hindu religion
Sandhya — a morning and evening prayer of a brahmana
Sannyasa — renunciation
Sannyasi — one who renounces the world
Sat — truth ; that which exists
Satya — truth
Satyagraha — clinging to truth; civil or non-violent
disobedience
Satyagrahi — a follower of satyagraha
Savama — a member of one of the first three classes of
Hindus
Shastra — a scripture
Shastri — one versed in Hindu scriptures
Shivalingam — Shiva, worshipped in the form of an idol
of a special form
Shraddha — a rite or ceremony performed in honour of
the departed spirits of dead relatives
Shrawaka — a member of Jain or Buddhist laity
Shruti — the Vedas
 XIV

Shuddhi — purification ; conversion, especially reconver¬

sion, to Hinduism
Shwapaka — one who eats the flesh of a dog ; an outcaste
Smriti — a code of laws ; a law-book
Sthitaprajna — a man of steady mind
Syadvada — an assertion of probability (in philosiphy) ;
a form of scepticism (especially Jain)
Syadvadi — a believer in Syadvada
Tabligh — religious propaganda and conversion
Tapas — penance ; religious austerity
Tapasya — see tapas
Tilak — a mark made on the fbrehead with sandal-wood
paste
Tulsi — the holy basil worshipped specially by Hindu
women
Upanishads — ancient philosophical writings of the
Hindus
Vairagya — aversion to the world ; passionlessness
Vaishnava — a devotee of Vishnu
Vajapeya Yajna — name of a sacrifice
Varna — a class ; a caste
Vamadharma — duty enjoined by caste rules
Vedas — scriptures of the Hindus
Vedic — belonging to the Vedas
Vishada — depression
Yajna — a sacrifice
Yajnopavita — the sacred thread worn by the members of
Hindu upper classes
Yogi — one practising religious discipline ; an ascetic
 CONTENTS i
SECTION ONE: HINDUISM (GENERAL)
Chapter Page
PUBLISHERS’ NOTE iii
EDITOR’S NOTE vii
NON-ENGLISH WORDS WITH THEIR MEANINGS xi
1 GANDHISM 3
2 WHAT IS HINDUISM? 4
3 HINDUISM ALI^INCLUSIVE 4
4 WHY I AM A HINDU 5
5 SANATANA HINDUISM 7
6 SANATANA HINDU 10
7 THE RELIGION OP SERVICE 11
8 HINDUISM NOT A MATTER OP OUTWARD
OBSERVANCES 13
9 MY MISSION 14
10 ARYA SAMAJ 15
11 CONVERSION MOVEMENT IN HINDUISM 16
12 WHAT MAY HINDUS DO ? 17
13 ORGANIZATION POR PROTECTING HINDUS 19
14 KRISHNA AND THE MAHABHARATA 19
15 HINDUISM AS EVER GROWING 20
16 THE AUTHORITY OP RELIGIOUS BOOKS 23
17 WHAT IS HINDUISM ? 24
18 TULSIDAS 24
19 HINDUISM AND OBSCENITY 27
20 COMMUNICATIONS WITH SPIRITS 28
21 TRUE SHRADDHA . 29
22 DIVALI HOLIDAYS 31
23 DUTY OP CEYLON HINDUS 32
24 HELPPUL SPIRITUAL PRACTICES AND
READINGS 37
25 EQUALITY IN HINDUISM 38
26 THE CHIEF VALUE OP HINDUISM 39
27 THE GOLDEN KEY 40
28 THE HARIPAD SPEECH 43
29 FROM THE KOTTAYAM SPEECH 46
30 LIVING UP TO 125 48
31 YAJNA OR SACRIFICE 49
32 PRAYER DISCOURSES 52
33 WHAT HINDUISM HAS DONE FOR US 54
34 NATIONHOOD THROUGH HINDUISM 66
35 INDIAN CIVILIZATION 67
36 THE LOIN-CLOTH 59

XV
XVI

SECTION TWO: GOD

37 GOD 61
38 ADVAITISM AND GOD 62
39 GOD IS 64
40 TRUTH AND GOD , 66
41 MEANING OF GOD 69
42 FINDING GOD 70
SECTION THREE: TEMPLE-WORSHIP
43 APPROACH TEMPLES IN FAITH 71
44 TEMPLES NECESSARY 72
45 IDOL-WORSHIP 73
46 TEMPLE-WORSHIP 73
47 GOD AND GODS 74
48 *‘A TEMPLE TO GANDHIJI ” 77
49 TREE-WORSHIP 78
50 TEMPLE-WORSHIP 80
51 ARE TEMPLES NECESSARY? 82
52 A MODEL TEMPLE 85
53 TEMPLE REFORM 88
54 TEMPLE-WORSHIP 89
55 PRIESTS AND UPANAYANAM 90
56 TRAINING SCHOOLS IN TEMPLES 92
57 ANIMAL SACRIFICES 93
58 TEMPLE PRIESTS AND ANIMAL SACRIFICE 94
59 ANIMAL SACRIFICE 96
60 AS OTHERS SEE US 97
SECTION FOUR: FASTS AND PRAYER-
61 FASTING AND PRAYER 102
62 FASTS • 103
63 HIS WILL BE DONE 105
64 FAST FOR PURIFICATION 106
65 ALL ABOUT THjP FAST 107
66 WAS IT COERCIVE? Ill
67 A PURIFICATORY CHAIN OF PASTS 115
68 PRAYER 116
69 WHAT IS PRAYER ? 118
70 THE ETERNAL DUEL 120
71 A DISCOURSE ON PRAYER 122
72 WHY PRAY? 125
73 A DIALOGUE WITH A BUDDHIST 126
74 IS NOT SERVICE WORSHIP ? 127
75 QUESTION-BOX 128
76 RAMANAMA, THE INFALLIBLE REMEDY 129
77 TOWARDS REALIZATION 130
78 IS RAMANAMA ANOTHER NAME FOR CHARMS ? 132
79 RAMA 1S3
 XVll

80 WHO IS RAMA ? 133

81 RAMA THE SON OF DASHARATHA 134
82 SILENCE DURING PRAYER 136

SECTION FIVE: BRAHMACHARYA

83 BRAHMACHARYA OR SELF-CONTROL 137
84 BIRTH-CONTROL 142
85 STEPS TO BRAHMACHARYA 143
86 BRAHMACHARYA 144
87 WALLS OF PROTECTION #146
88 BRAHMACHARYA IN RELATION TO GOD 148

SECTION SIX: THE GITA

89 GITA AND NON-VIOLENCE 150
90 KRISHNA AND THE GITA 157
91 THE MESSAGE OF THE GITA 158
92 DISCOURSES ON THE GITA 165
93 GITA RECITERS 170
94 THE GITA IDEAL 171
95 NOTHING WITHOUT GRACE 172
96 GOD OF LOVE, NOT WAR 174
97 THE GITA AND NON-VIOLENCE 175
98 TEACHING OP HINDUISM 177
99 THE TEACHING OF THE GITA 178
100 CENTRAL TEACHING OP THE GITA ^80
101 GITA JAYANTI 181
SECTION SEVEN: NON-VIOLENCE
102 THE DOCTRINE OF THE SWORD 183
103 SOCIAL BOYCOTT 184
104 NON-VIOLENCE 186
105 HINDUISM AND NON-VIOLENCE 187
106 THE HIGHEST BRAVERY 189
107 PURITY ESSENTIAL FOR NON-VIOLENCE 190
108 VEGETARIANISM 190
109 VEGETARIANISM 191
110 IS THIS HUMANITY ? 193
111 IS THIS HUMANITY ? 196
112 IS THIS HUMANITY ? 201
113 IS THIS HUMANITY ? 203
114 IS THIS HUMANITY ? 205
115 THE GREATEST GOOD OP ALL 207
116 “HAPPY DESPATCH”? 210
117 AHIMSA AGAIN 211
118 TORTURE OP BULLOCKS 214
119 THE FIERY ORDEAL 215
I WHEN KILLING MAY BE AHIMSA 215
11 WHEN KILLING IS HIMSA 219
XVlll

120 THE TANGLE OF AHIMSA 222

121 A CONUNDRUM 225
122 JAIN AHIMSA ? 227
123 MORE ABOUT AHIMSA 233
124 SOME POSERS IN AHIMSA 236
125 AHIMSA AND VEGETARIANISM 240
126 EATING NON-VEGETARIAN FOOD 241
127 NON-KILLING OF ANIMALS 242
128 HOW TO SPREAD VEGETARIANISM 242
129 HINDUISM AND NON-VIOLENCE 243
130 HINDUS TO EXPIATE 244
SECTION BIGHT: ASHRAM VOWS
131 ASHRAM VOWS 246
I TRUTH 247
II AHIMSA OR LOVE 249
III BRAHMACHARYA OR CHASTITY 251
IV NON-POSSESSION OR POVERTY 254
SECTION NINE: EQUAEITY OF RELIGIONS
132 “HINDU” AND "HINDUISM” 257
133 NO CONVERSION PERMISSIBLE 258
134 EQUALITY OF RELIGIONS 259
135 EQUALITY OF RELIGIONS 261
136 ATTITUDE OF CHRISTIAN MISSIONS TO
HINDUISM 262
137 EQUALITY OF RELIGIONS 263
138 EQUALITY OF RELIGIONS 264
139 CRIME OF READING THE BIBLE 266
140 A CATHOLIC FATHER’S FEARS 268
141 MESSAGE TO BUDDHISTS 270
142 MUSIC BEFORE MOSQUES 273
143 PARTIALITY FOR MUSSULMANS 274
144 ATTITUDE TO OTHER RELIGIONS 275
145 HINDU PANI AND MUSLIM PANI 276
146 HINDUISM AND THE QURAN 277
147 HINDUS t>. MUSLIMS 278
148 A TRUE HUmU 280
149 HINDUS DEMOftALIZED BY AHIMSA 280
150 A HINDU’S DUTY TOWARDS A MUSLIM 281
151 A PLEA FOR UNDERSTANDING 282
152 SCRIPTURES AND IDOLS 283
153 ACT OF UNGODLINESS 284
SEXmON TEN: REUBMMIB EDUCATION
154 RELIGIOUS EDUCATION 285
155 THE PRIVILEQB OF THE SHUDRAS 286
156 RELIGIOUS EDUCA-nON 287
 XIX

167 HINDU STUDENTS AND THE GITA 289

158 STUDENTS AND THE GITA 291
159 THE GITA IN NATIONAL SCHOOLS 293
160 THE STATE AND RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION 294
161 IMMORTAL MALAVIYAJI 295
SECTION ELEVEN: COW PnOTECTION
162 SAVE THE COW 297
163 COW PROTECTION 297
164 WHAT COW PROTECTION INVOLVES 299
165 COW PROTECTION 300
166 COW PROTECTION 303
167 MUSLIMS AND COW PROTECTION 305
168 ■ BEEP 308
169 THE COW MOTHER 309
170 THE BULLOCK’S FESTIVAL 310
171 HOW TO SAVE THE COW ? 312
SECTION TWELVE: UNTOUCHABILITT
172 UNTOUCHABILITY NOT A PART. OP HINDUISM 314
173 CONTRARY TO SPIRIT OP HINDUISM 316
174 UNTOUCHABILITY 315
175 UNTOUCHABILITY AND THE VEDAS 316
176 DR. AMBEDKAR’S INDICTMENT 317
177 FOR HINDUS ONLY 319
178 HOW TO FRATERNIZE THE HARIJANS 319
179 UNTOUCHABILITY AND INTERDINING 320
180 CASTE V. CLASS 322
181 TEMPLE-ENTRY 324
182 WHY TEMPLE-ENTRY LEGISLATION ? 327
183 THE WRONG WAY 32Q
184 GURUVAYUR SPEECH 330
185 RIGHT OP MINORITY 332
186 TEMPLE-ENTRY 334
187 AN EXAMPLE FOR HINDU PRINCES 335
188 THE PANDALAI SPEECH 337
189 THE VITHOBA TEMPLE 341
190 FROM THE VAIKOM SPEECH 342
191 A TALK TO EZHAVAS IN TRAVANCORE 343
192 THE INWARDNESS OP THE MOVEMENT 344
193 THE WIDER MESSAGE 345
194 WHY NOT SIMPLE ‘HINDU'? 346
195 , TRUE INWARDNESS 348
196 WHOSE IS THE HUMILIATION? 361
197 UNTOUCHABILITY AND CONVERSION 362
198 LIMITATION OP REFORMERS 353
199 . ON HARIJAN RECONVERSIONS 356
200 THE SACRED THREAD 356
XX

201 DR. AMBEDKAR AND CASTE 357

SECTION THIRTEEN: VARNA DHARHA
202 VARNASHRAMA 360
203 VARNA AND ASHRAMA 362
204 THE LAW OP VARNA 365
205 VARNASHRAMA AND INTERDINING 374
206 VARNASHRAMA 376
207 VARNA DHARMA 377
208 THE LAW OF VARNA AND ASHRAMA 378
209 VARNA 381
210 VARNASHRAMA OR VARNASANKARA ? 382
211 WOMEN AND VARNA 385
212 AN AMERICAN CLERGYMAN'S QUESTIONS 387
SECTION FOURTEEN: BRAHMANA-^NON-BRAHMANA
213 BRAHMANA-NON-BRAHMANA 389
214 THE MUCH-MALIGNED BRAHMANA 391
215 ANTI-BRAHMANISM 393
216 BRAHMANA MINORITY 394
SECTION FIFTEEN : WIDOWHOOD, MARRIAGE AND WOBfEN
217 ENFORCED WIDOWHOOD 396
218 GIRL WIDOWS 397
219 CURSE OF CHILD MARRIAGE 398
220 DEPENDING CHILD MARRIAGE 399
221 TOUGH QUESTIONS 404
222 REMARRIAGE OP CHILD WIDOWS 406
223 CORRESPONDENCE 408
224 WIDOWS AND WIDOWERS 410
225 BRAHMANISM OR ANIMALISM - 411
226 ''AN INDIGNANT PROTEST" 413
227 A YOUNG MAN'S DILEMMA 415
228 SIMPLIFYING MARRIAGE 417
229 INTER-COMMUNAL MARRIAGES 418
230 INVIDIOUS AND UNFAIR 419
231 THE HINDU WIFE 420
232 TEAR DOWN THE PURDAH 423
233 DEVADASIS 425
234 the DEVADASI 426
235 POSITION OP WOMEN 428
236 WOMAN IN THE SMRITIS 430*
237 ABDUCTED WOMEN 432
INDEX ^ 433
HINDU DHARMA
 SECTTION ONE: HINDUISM (GENERAL)

1
GANDHISM
[Addressing the members of the Gandhi Seva Sangh at Savh
Gandhiji said:]
There is no such thing as ‘ Gandhism and I do not
want to leave any sect after me. I do not claim to have
originated any new principle or doctrine. I have simply
tried in my own way to apply the eternal truths to our
daily life and problems. There is, therefore, no question
of my leaving any code hke the Code of Manu. There can
be no comparison between that great lawgiver and me.
The opinions I have formed and the conclusions I have
arrived at are not final, I may change them tomorrow..
I have nothing new to teach the world. Truth and non*
violence are as old as the hills. All I have done is to try
experiments in feothT on as "vast a scale as I could do. In
doing so I have sometimes erred and learnt by my errors.
Life and its problems have thus become to me so many
experiments in the practice of truth and non-violence. By
instinct I have been truthful, bp^ not non-viqlenL As a
Jain muni once rightly said I was not so much a votary
of ahimsa as I was of truth, and I put the latter in the
first place and the former in the second. For, as he put
it, I was capable of sacrificing non-violence for the sake of
truth. In fact it was in the course of my pursuit of truth
that I discovered non-violence. Our scriptures hav6 de¬
clared that there is no dharma (law) higher than Truth,
But non-violence they say is the highest duty. The word
dharma in my opinion has different connotations as used
in the two aphorisms. i-
3
 4 HINDU DHARMA

Well, all my philosophy, if it may be called by that

pretentious niime, is contained in what I have said. You
will not call it ‘ Gandhism ’; there is no ism about it. And
no elaborate literature or propaganda is needed about it.
Harijan, 28-3-’3e

2
' WHAT IS HINDUISM ?

It is the good fortune or the misfortune of Hinduism

that it has no official creed. In order therefore to protect
myself against any misunderstanding I have said Truth
and Non-violence is my creed. If I were asked to define
the Hindu creed I should simply say; search after Truth
through non-violent means. A man may not believe even
in God and still he may call himself a Hindu. Hinduism
is a relentless pursuit after truth and if today it has be¬
come moribund, inactive, irresponsive to growth, it is
because we are fatigued; and as soon as the fatigue is
over, Hinduism will burst forth upon the world with a
brilliance perhaps unknown before. Of course, therefore,
Hinduism is the most tolerant of all religions. Its creed
is all-embracing.
Young India, 24-4-'24

3
HINDUISM ALL INCLUSIVE

In my opinion the beauty of Hinduism lies in its. all-

embracing inclusiveness. What the divine author of the
Mahabharata said of his great creation is equally true of
Hinduism. What of substance is contained in any other
religion is always to be found in Hinduism. And what is
not contained in it is insubstantial or unnecessary.
Yoij,ng India, 17-9-*26
 4
WHY I AM A HINDU

An American friend who subscribes herself as a life¬

long friend of India writes:
“ As Hinduism is one of the prominent religions of the East^
and as you have made a study of Christianity and Hinduism*
and on the basis of that study have announced that you are a
Hindu, I beg leave to ask of you if you will do me the favour to
give me your reasons for that choice. Hindus and Christians
alike realize that man's chief need is to know God and to wor-
i^ip Him in spirit and in truth. Believing that Christ was a
revelation of God, Christians of America have sent to India
thousands of their sons and daughters to tell the people of
India about Christ. Will you in return kindly give us your
interpretation of Hinduism and make a comparison of Hinduism
with the teachings of Christ ? I will be deeply grateful for
this favour.”
I have ventured at several missionary meetings to
tell English and American missionaries that if they could
have refrained from ‘ telling ’ India about Christ and had
merely lived the life enjoined upon them by the Sermon
on the Mount, India instead of suspecting them would
have appreciated their living in the midst of her children
and directly profited by their presence. Holding this
view, I can ‘ tell ’ American friends nothing about
Hinduism by way of ‘ return I do not believe in people
telling others of their faith, especially with a view to con¬
version. Faith does not admit of telling. It has to be
lived and then it becomes self-propagating.
Nor do I consider myself fit to interpret Hinduism
except through my own life. And if I may not interpret
Hinduism through my written word, I may not compare
it with Christianity. The only thing it is possible for me
therefore to do is to say as briefly as I can, why I am a
Hindu.
Believing as I do in the influence of heredity, being
born in a Hindu family, I have remained a Hindu. I
5
 6 HINDU DHARMA

should reject it, if I found it inconsistent with my moral

sense or my spiritual growth. On examination I have
found it to be the most tolerant of all religions known to
me. Its freedom from dogma makes a forcible appeal to
me inasmuch as it gives the votary the largest scope for
self-expression. Not being an exclusive religion, it enables
the followers of that faith not merely to respect all the
other religions, but it also enables them to admire and
assimilate whatever may be good in the other faiths. Non¬
violence is common to all religions, but it has found the
highest expression and application in Hinduism. (I do
not regard Jainism or Buddhism as separate from Hin¬
duism.) Hinduism believes in the oneness not of merely
all human life but in the oneness of all that lives. Its
worship of the cow is, in my opinion, its unique contribu¬
tion to the evolution of humanitarianism. It is a practical
application of the belief in the oneness and, therefore,
sacredness, of all life. The great belief in transmigration
is a direct consequence of that belief. Finally the dis¬
covery of the law of vamashrama is a magnificent result
of the ceaseless search for truth. I must not burden this
article with definitions of the essentials sketched here,
except to say that the present ideas of cow-worship and
vamashrama are a caricature of what in my opinion the
originals are. In this all too brief a sketch I have men¬
tioned what occurs to me to be the outstanding features
of Hinduism that keep me in its fold.
Young India, 20-10-’27
 5
SANATANA HINDUISM
I have asserted my claim to being a Sanatani Hindu,
and yet there are things which are commonly done in the
name of Hinduism, which I disregard. I have no desire
to be called a Sanatani Hindu or any other if I am not
such. It is therefore necessary for me once for all dis¬
tinctly to giye my meaning of Sanatana Hinduism. The
■word Sanatana I use in its natural sense.
i call myself a Sanatani Hindu, because,
(1) I believe in the Vedas, the Upanishads, the
Puranas and all that goes by the name of Hindu scrip¬
tures, and therefore in avataras and rebirth ;
(2) I believe in the vamashrama dharma in a
sense, in my opinion, strictly Vedic but not in its pre¬
sent popular and crude sense;
(3) I believe in the protection of the cow in its
much larger sense than the popular;
(4) I do not disbelieve in idol-worship.
The reader will note that I have purposely refrained
from using the word divine origin in reference to the
Vedas or any other scriptures. For I do not believe in
the exclusive divinity of the Vedas. I believe the Bible,
the Quran, and the Zend Avesta to be as much divinely
inspired as the Vedas. My belief in the Hindu scriptures
does not require me to accept every word and every verse
as divinely inspired. Nor do I claim to have any first¬
hand knowledge of these wonderful books. But I do claim
to know and feel the truths of the essential teaching of
the scriptures. I decline to be bound by any interpreta¬
tion. however learned it may be, if it is repugnant to rea¬
son or moral sense. I do most emphatically repudiate the
•claim (if they advance any such) of the present Shankara-
aharyas and shastris to give a correct interpretation of the
Hindu scriptures. On the contrary I believe that our
7
 8 HINDU DHARMA

present knowledge of these books is in a most chaotic state.

I believe implicitly in the Hindu aphorism, that no one
truly knows the shastras who has not attained perfection
in Innocence (ahimsa), Truth (satya) and Self-control
ibrahmacharya) and who has not renounced all acquisition
or possession of wealth. I believe in the institution of
gurus, but in this age millions must go without a guru,
because it is a rare thing to find a combination of perfect
purity and perfect learning. But one need not despair
of ever knowing the truth of one’s religion, because the
fundamentals of Hinduism, as of every great religion, are
unchangeable, and easily understood. Every Hindu be¬
lieves in God and His oneness, in rebirth and salvation.
I can no more describe my feeling for Hinduism than
for my own wife. She moves me as no other woman in
the world can. Not that she has no faults. I dare say she
has many more than I see myself. But the feeling of an
indissoluble bond is there. Even so I feel for and about
Hinduism with all its faults and limitations. Nothing-
elates me so much as the music of the Gita or the Rama-
yana by Tulsidas, the only two books in Hinduism I may¬
be said to know. When I fancied I was taking my last
breath the Gita was my solace. I know the vice that is
going on today in all the great Hindu shrines, but I love
them in spite of their unspeakable failings. There is an
interest which I take in them and which I take in no other.
I am a reformer through and through. But my zeal never
takes me to the rejection of any of the essential things of
Hinduism. I have said I do not disbelieve in idol-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 com¬
posed in a church than elsewhere ? Images are an aid to
worship. No Hindu considers an image to be God. I da
not consider idol-worship a sin.
It is clear from the foregoing, that Hinduism is not
an exclusive religion. In it there is room for the worship'
of all the prophets of the world. It is not a missionary
 SANATANA HINDUISM 9
religion in the ordinary sense of the term. It has no doubt
absorbed many tribes in its fold, but thfe absorption has
been of an evolutionary imperceptible character. Hinduism
tells every one to worship God according to his own faith
or dharma, and so it lives at peace with all the religions.
That being my conception of Hinduism, I have never
been able to reconcile myself to untouchability. I have
always regarded it as an excrescence. It is true that it
has been handed down to us from generations, but so are
many evil practices even to this day. I should be ashamed
to think that dedication of girls to virtual prostitution was
a part of Hinduism. Yet it is practised by Hindus in
many parts of India. I consider it positive irreligion to
sacrifice goats to Kali and do not consider it a part of
Hinduism. Hinduism is a growth of ages. The very name,
Hinduism, was given to the religion of the people of
Hindustan by foreigners. There was no doubt at one
time sacrifice of animals offered in the name of religion.
But it is not religion, much less is it Hindu religion. And
so also it seems to me, that when cow-protection became
an article of faith with our ancestors, those who persisted
in eating beef were excommunicated. The civil strife
must have been fierce. Social boycott was applied not
only to the recalcitrants, but their sins were visited upon
their children also. The practice which had probably its
origin in good intentions hardened into usage, and even
verses crept into our sacred books giving the practice a
permanence wholly undeserved and still less justified.
Whether my theory is correct or not, untouchability is
repugnant to reason and to the instinct of mercy, pity or
love. A religion that establishes the worship of the cow
cannot possibly countenance or warrant a cruel .and in¬
human boycott of human beings. And I should be content
to be tom to pieces rather than disown the suppressed
classes. Hindus will certainly never deserve freedom, nor
get it, if they allow their noble religion to be disgraced
by the retention of the taint of untouchability. And as
I love Hinduism dearer than life itself, the taint has
 10 HINDU DHARMA

become for me an intolerable burden. Let us not deny God

by denying to a fifth of our race the right of association
on an equal footing.
Young India, 6-10-’21

6
SANATANA HINDU
[To a correspondent who criticized his interpretation of Hinduism
Gandhiji wrote:]
I am not a literalist. Therefore I try to understand
the spirit of the various scriptures of the world. I apply
the test of Truth and Ahimsa laid down by these very
scriptures for interpretation. I reject what is inconsistent
with that test, and I appropriate all that is consistent
with it. The story of a shvdra having been punished by
Ramachandra for daring to learn the Yedas I reject as an
interpolation. And in any event, I worship Rama, the
perfect being of my conception, not a historical person
facts about whose life may vary with the progress of new
historical discoveries and researches. Tulsidas had no¬
thing to do with the Rama of historj\ Judged by histo¬
rical test, his Ramayana would be fit for the scrap heap.
As a spiritual experience, his book is almost unrivalled
at least for me. And then, too, I do not swear by every
word that is to be found in so many editions published as
the Ramayana of Tulsidas. It is the spirit running
through the book that holds me spellbound. I cannot
myself subscribe to the prohibition against shudras learn¬
ing the Vedas. Indeed, in my opinion, at the present
moment, we are all predominantly shudras, so long as we
are serfs. Knowledge cannot be the prerogative of any
class or section. But I can conceive the impossibility of
people assimilating higher or subtler truths unless they
have undergone preliminary training, even as those who
have not made preliminary preparations are quite unfit
to breathe the rar^ed atmosphere in high altitudes, or
 THE RBUGION OF SERVICE 11
those who have no preliminary training in simple mathe¬
matics are unfit to understand or assimilate higher geo¬
metry or algebra. Lastly, I believe in certain healthy con¬
ventions. There is a convention surrounding the recita¬
tion of the Gayatri. The convention is that it should be
recited only at stated times and after ablutions performed
in the prescribed maimer. As I believe in those conven¬
tions, and as I am not able always to conform to them, for
years past I have followed the later Saints, and therefore
have satisfied myself with the Dwadashakshara Mantra
of the Bhagawata or the still simpler formula of Tulsidas
and a few selections from the Gita and other works, and
a few bhajanas in Prakrit. These are my daily spiritual
food — my Gayatri. They give me all the peace and solace
I need from day to day.
Young India, 27-8*'25

7
THE RELIGION OB^ SERVICE
I want to see the spinning wheel everywhere, because
1 see pauperism everywhere. Not until and unless we
have fed and clothed the skeletons of India, will religion
have any meaning for them. They are living the cattle-
life today, and we are responsible for it. The spinning
wheel is therefore a penance for us. Religion is service
of the helpless. God manifests Himself to us in the form
of the helpless and the stricken. But we in spite of our
forehead marks take no notice of them i.e. of God. God
is and is not in the Vedas. He who reads the spirit of the
Vedas sees God therein. Ble who clings to the letter of the
Vedas is a vedia — a literalist. Narasinha Mehta does
indeed sing the praise of the rosary, and the praise is well-
merited where it is given. But the same Narasinha has
sung:
‘ Of what avail is the tilaka and the tulsi, of what
avail is the rosary and the muttering of the Name, what
 12 HINDU DHARMA

avail is the grammatical interpretation of the Feda,

what avail is the mastery of the letters ? All these are
devices to fill the belly and nothing worth without their
helping to a realization of the Parabrahma.’
The Mussulman does count the beads of his tasbih,
and the Christian of the rosary. But both would think
themselves fallen from religion if their tasbih and rosary
prevented them from running to the succour of one who,
for instance, was lying stricken with a snake-bite. Mere
knowledge of the Vedas cannot make our brahmanas
spiritual preceptors. If it did, Max Muller would have
become one. The brahmana who has understood the
religion of today will certainly give Vedic learning a
secondary place and propagate the religion of the spin¬
ning wheel, "relieve the hunger of the millions of his star¬
ving countrymen and only then, and not until then, lose
himself in Vedic studies.
I have certainly regarded spinning superior to the
practice of denominational religions. But that does not
mean that the latter should be given up. I only mean
that a dharma which has to be observed by the followers
of all religions transcends them, and hence I say that a
brahmana is a better brahmana, a Mussulman a better
Mussulman, a Vaishnava a better Vaishnava, if he turns
the wheel in the spirit of service.
If it was possible for me to turn the wheel in my bed,
and if I felt that it would help me in concentrating my
mind on God, I would certainly leave the rosary aside and
turn the wheel. If I am strong enough to turn the wheel,
and I have to make a choice between counting beads or
turning the wheel, I would certainly decide in fa"vour of
the wheel, making it my rosary, so long as I found poverty
and starvation stalking the land. I do look forward to a
time when even repeating the name of Rama will become
a hindrance. When I have realized that Rama transcends
even speech, I shall have no need to repeat the name. The
spinning wheel, the rosary and the Ramanama are all the
same to me. They subserve the same end, they teach me
 HINDUISM NOT A MATTER OP OUTWARD OBSERVANCES I3

the religion of service. I cannot practise ahimsa without

practising the religion of service, and I cannot find the
truth without practising the religion of ahimsa. And
there is no religion other than truth. Truth is Rama,
Narayana, Ishwara, Khuda, Allah, God. As Narasinha
says, ‘ The different shapes into which gold is beaten gives
rise to different names and forms ; but ultimately it is all
gold.’
Young India, 14-8**24

8
HINDUISM NOT A MATTER OF OUTWARD
OBSERVANCES
In the name of religion we Hindus have made a fetish
of outward observances, and have degraded religion by
making it simply a question of eating and drinking. Brah¬
manism owes its unrivalled position to its self-abnegation,
its inward purity, its severe austerity, — all these illu¬
mined by knowledge. Hindus are doomed if they attach
undue importance to the spiritual effects of foods and
human contacts. Placed as we are in the midst of trials
and temptations from within, and touched and polluted as
we are by all the most untouchable and the vilest thought
currents, let us not, in our arrogance, exaggerate the in¬
fluence of contact with people whom we often ignorantly
and more often arrogantly consider to be our inferiors.
Before the Throne of the Almighty we shall be judged,
not by what we have eaten nor by whom we have been
touched by but by whom we have served and how. In¬
asmuch as we serve a single human being in distress, we
shall find favour in the sight of God. Bad and stimulating
or dirty foods we must avoid as we must avoid bad con¬
tact. But let us not give these observances a place out of
all proportion to their importance. We dare not use ab¬
stinence from certain foods as a cover for fraud, hypocrisy,
and worse vices. We dare not refuse to serve a fallen or
 14 HINDU DHAKMA

a dirty brother lest his contact should injure our spiritual

growth.
Young India, 5-l-’22

9
MY MISSION
I do not consider myself worthy to be mentioned in
the same breath with the race of prophets. I am a humble
seeker after truth. I am impatient to realize myself, to
attain moksha in this very existence. My national service
is part of my training for .freeing my soul from the
bondage of flesh. Thus considered, my service may be re¬
garded as purely selfish. I have no desire for the perish¬
able kingdom of earth. I am striving for the Kingdom
of Heaven which is moksha. To attain my end it is not
necessary for me to seek the shelter of a cave. I carry
one about me, if I would but know it. A cave-dweller can
build castles in the air whereas a dweller in a palace like
Janak has no castles to build. The cave-dweller who-
hovers round the world on the wings of thought ha."? no
peace. A Janak though living in the midst of ‘ pomp and
circumstance ’ may have peace that passeth understand¬
ing. For me the road to salvation lies through incessant
toil in the service of my country and therethrough of
humanity. I want to identify myself with everything that
lives. In the language of the Gita I want to live at peace
with both friend and foe. Though therefore a Mussulman
or a Christian or a Hindu may despise me and hate me,
I want to love him and serve him even as I would love
my wife or son though they hate me. So my patriotism is
for me a stage in my journey to the land of eternal free¬
dom and peace. Thus it will be seen that for me there-
are no politics devoid of religion., They subserve religion.
Politics bereft of religion are a death-trap because they
kill the soul.
Totcng India, 3-4-*24
 10
ARYA SAMAJ
I have profound respect for Dayananda Saraswati. 1
think that he has rendered great service to Hinduism. His
bravery was vuiquestioned. But he made his Hinduism
narrow. I have read the Satyarthaprakash, the Arya
Samaj Bible. Friends sent me three copies of it whilst I
was resting in the Yeravda Jail. I have not read a more
disappointing book from a reformer so. great. He heis
claimed to stand for truth and nothing less. But he has
unconsciously misrepresented Jainism, Islam, Christianity
and Hinduism itself. One having even a cursory acquain¬
tance with these faiths could easily discover the errors
into which the great reformer was betrayed. He has tried
to make narrow one of the most tolerant and liberal of
faiths on the face of the earth. And an iconoclast though
he was, he has succeeded in enthroning idolatry in the
subtlest form. For he has idolized the letter of the Vedas
and tried to prove the existence in the Vedas of everything
known to science. The Arya Samaj flourishes in my hum¬
ble opinion not because of the inherent merit of the teach¬
ings of the Satyarthaprakash, but because of the great and
lofty character of the founder. Wherever you find Arya
Samajists there is life and energy. But having a narrow
outlook and a pugnacious habit they either quarrel with
people of other denominations and failing them, with one
another. Shraddhanandaji has a fair share of that spirit.
But in spite of all these drawbacks, I do not regard him
as past praying for. It is possible that this sketch of the
Arya Samaj and the Swamiji will anger them. Needless
to say, I mean no offence. I love the Samajists for I have
many co-workers from among them. And I learnt to love
the Swamiji, even while I was in South Africa. And
though I know him better now, I love him no less. It is
my love that has spoken.
Young India, 29-IV24

15
 11
CONVERSION MOVEMENT IN HINDUISM

In my opinion there is no such thing as proselytism

in Hinduism as it is understood in Christianity or to a
lesser extent in Islam. The Arya Samaj has, I think,
copied the Christians in planning its propaganda. The
modern method does not appeal to me. It has done more
harm than good. Though regarded as a matter of the
heart purely and one between the Maker and oneself, it
has degenerated into an appeal to the selfish instinct. The
Arya Samaj preacher is never so happy as when he is
reviling other religions. My Hindu instinct tells me that
all religions are more or less true. All proceed from the
same God, but all are imperfect because they have come
down to us through imperfect human instrumentality.
The real shuddhi movement should consist in each one
trying to arrive at perfection in his or her own faith. In
such a plan character would be the only test. What is the
use of crossing from one compartment to another, if it
does not mean a moral rise ? What is the meaning of my
trying to convert to the service of God (for that must be
the implication of shvddhi or tabligh) when those who
are in my fold are every day denying God by their ac¬
tions ? ‘ Physician, heal thyself * is more true in matters
religious than mundane. But these are my views. If the
Arya Samajists think that they have a call from their
conscience, they have a perfect right to conduct the move¬
ment. Such a burning call recognizes no time limit, no
checks of experience. If Hindu-Muslim unity is endan¬
gered because an Arya Samaj preacher or a Mussulman
preacher preaches his faith in obedience to a call from
within, that unity is only skin-deep. Why should we be
ruffled by such movements ? Only they must be genuine.
If the Malkanas wanted to return to the Hindu fold, they
had a perfect right to do so whenever they liked. But no
propaganda can be allowed which reviles other religions.
16
 WHAT MAY HINDUS DO 7 17
For that would be negation of toleration. The best way
of dealing with such propaganda is to publicly condemn it.
Young India, 29-6-'24

12
WHAT MAY HINDUS DO ?
Though the majority of the Mussulmans of India and
the Hindus belong to the same ‘ stock the religious en¬
vironment has made them different. I beheve and I have
noticed too that thought transforms man’s features as well
as character. The Sikhs are the most recent illustration
of the fact. The Mussulman being generally in a minority
has as a class developed into a bully. Moreover, being
heir to fresh traditions he exhibits the virility of a com¬
paratively new system of life. Though in my opinion
non-violence has a predominant place in the Quran, the
thirteen hundred years of imperialistic expansion has
made the Mussulmans fighters as a body. They are there¬
fore aggressive. Bullying is the natural excrescence of an
aggressive spirit. The Hindu has an ages-old civilization.
He is essentially non-violent. His civilization has passed
through the experiences that the two recent ones are still
passing through. If Hinduism was ever imperialistic in
the modern sense of the term, it has outlived its imperial¬
ism and has either deliberately or as a matter of course
given it up. Predominance of the non-violent spirit has
restricted the use of arms to a small minority which must
always be subordinate to a civil power highly spiritual,
learned and selfless. The Hindus as a body are therefore
not equipped for fighting. But not having retained their
spiritual training, they have forgotten the use of an effect¬
ive substitute for arms, and not knowing their use nor
having an aptitude for them, they have become docile to
the point of timidity or cowardice. This vice is therefore
a natural excrescence of gentleness. Holding this view.
 18 HINDU DHARMA

I do not think that the Hindu exclusiveness, bad as it

undoubtedly is, has much to do with the Hindu timidity.
Hence also my disbelief in akhadas as a means of self-
defence. I prize them for physical culture but, for self-
defence, I would restore the spiritual culture. The best
and most lasting self-defence is self-purification. I refuse
to be lifted off my feet because of the scares that haunt
us today. If Hindus would but believe in themselves and
work in accordance with their traditions, they will have
no reason to fear bullying. The moment they recommence
the real spiritual training the Mussulman will respond.
He cannot help it. If I can get together a band of young
Hindus with faith in themselves and therefore faith in the
Mussulmans, the band will become a shield for the weaker
ones. They (the young Hindus) will teach how to die
without killing. I know no other way. When our ances¬
tors saw affliction surrounding them, they went in for
tapasya — purification. They realized the helplessness of
the flesh and in their helplessness they prayed till they
compelled the Maker to obey their call. ‘ O yes,' says my
Hindu friend, ‘ but then God sent some one to wield arms.*'
I am not concerned with denying the truth of the retort.
All I say to the friend is that as a Hindu he may not ignore
the cause and secure the result. It will be time to fight
when we have done enough tapasya. Are we purified
enough ? I ask. Have we even done willing penance for
the sin of untouchability, let alone the personal purity of
individuals ? Are our religious preceptors all that they
should be ? We are beating the air whilst we simply con¬
centrate our attention upon picking holes in the Mussul«
man conduct.
Young India, lM-*24
 13
ORGANIZATION FOR PROTECTING HINDUS

Q. Are not the Hindus justified in organizing them¬

selves, not for any aggressive action against Moslems or
others, but for safeguarding their religious rights and
stamping out such evils as kidnapping etc. as also for the
physical, social, moral and material advancement of the
Hindu community ?
A. I do not suppose anybody can possibly object to
the organization such as the question mentions. I cer¬
tainly do not object
Young India, 2n-10-’25

14
KRISHNA AND THE MAHABHARATA

Whilst I have dealt with the gurus as historical per¬

sonages about whose existence we have trustworthy re¬
cords, I have no knowledge that the Krishna of the
Mahabharata ever lived. My Krishna has nothing to do
with any historical person. I would refuse to bow my
head to the Krishna who would kill because his pride is
hurt, or the Krishna whom non-Hindus portray as a dis¬
solute youth. I believe in Elrishna of my imagination as
a perfect incarnation, spotless in every sense of the word,
the inspirer of the Gita and the inspirer of the lives of
millions of human beings. But if it was proved to me
that the Mahabharata is history in the same sense that
modern historical books are, that every word of the
Mahabharata is authentic and that the Krishna of the
Mahabharata actually did some of the acts attributed to
him, even at the risk of being banished from the Hindu
fold, I should not hesitate to reject that Krishna as God
incarnate. But to me, the Mahabharata is a profoundly
19
 20 HINDU DHARMA

religious book, largely allegorical, in no way meant to be

a historical record. It is the description of the eternal
duel going on within ourselves, given so vividly as to make
us think for the time being that the deeds described there¬
in were actually done by the human beings. Nor do I
regard the Mahabharata as we have it now as a faultless
copy of the original. On the contrary I consider that it
has undergone many emendations.
Young India, l-10-’25

15
HINDUISM AS EVER GROWING

Hinduism is a living organism liable to growth and

decay, and subject to the laws of Nature. One and in¬
divisible at the root it has grown into a vast tree with
innumerable branches. The changes in the seasons affect
it. It has its autumn and summer, its winter and spring.
The rains nourish and fructify it too. It is and is not
based on scriptures. It does not derive its authority from
one book. The Gita is universally accepted, but even then
it only shows the way. It has hardly any effect on custom.
Hinduism is like the Ganga pure and unsullied at its
source, but taking in its course the impurities in the way.
Even like the Ganga it is beneficent in'its total effect. It
takes a provincial form in every province, but the inner
substance is retained everywhere. Custom is not religion.
Custom may change, but religion will remain unaltered.
Purity of Hinduism depends on the self-restraint of
its votaries. Wheneve.r their religion has been in danger,
the Hindus have undergone rigorous penance, searched
the causes of the danger and devised means for combating
them. The shastras are ever growing. The Vedas, the
Upanishads, the Smritis, the Puranas, and the Itihasas
did not arise at one and the same time. Each grew out
of the necessities of particular periods, and therefore they
seem to conflict with one another. These books do not
enunciate anew the eternal truths but show how these
 HINDUISM AS EVER GROWING 21

were practised at the time to which the books belong. A

practice which was good enough in a particular period
would, if blindly repeated in another, land people into the
‘ slough of despond Because the practice of animal-sacri¬
fice obtained at one time, shall we revive it today ? Be¬
cause at one time we used to eat beef, shall we also do so
now ? Because at one time, we used to chop off the hands
and feet of thieves, shall we revive that barbarity today ?
Shall we revive polyandry ? Shall we revive child-mar¬
riage ? Because we discarded a section of humanity one
day, shall we brand their descendants today as outcastes ?
Hinduism abhors stagnation. Knowledge is limitless
and so also the application of truth. Everyday we add
to our knowledge of the power of Atman, and we shall
keep on doing so. New experience will teach us new
duties, but truth shall ever be the same. Who has ever
known it in its entirety ? The Vedas represent the truth,
they are infinite. But who has known them in their en¬
tirety ? What goes today by the name of the Vedas are
not even a millionth part of the real Veda — the Book of
Knowledge. And who knows the entire meaning of even
the few books that we have ? Rather than wade through
these infinite complications, our sages taught us to learn
one thing : ‘ As with the Self, so with the Universe ’. It
is not possible to scan the universe, as it is to scan the
self. Know the self and you know the universe. But
even knowledge of the self within presupposes ceeiseless
striving— not only ceaseless but pure, and pure striving
presupposes a pure heart, which in its turn depends on
the practice of yamas * and niyamas — the cardinal and
castial virtues.

* Yotiuu, the cardinal virtues, according to Yogaahastra, are

Ahimsa (non-violence), Satya (truth), Asteya (non-stealing), Brahma-
charya (celibacy), Aparigraha (non-possession). The Niyamas or the
casual virtues are, according to the same authority, Shaucha (bodily
purity), Santosha (contentment), Tapa (forbearance), Swadhyaya
(study of scriptures), Ishwarapranidhana (resignation to the ■will of
Ood). — M.D.
 22 HINDU DHARMA

This practice is not possible without God’s grace

which presupposes Faith and Devotion, This is why Tulsi¬
das sang of the glory of Ramanama, that is why the author
of the Bhagawata taught the Dwadashakshara Mantra
(Om Namo Bhagawate Vasudevaya). To my mind he is a
Sanatani Hindu who can repeat this mantra from the
heart. All else is a bottomle.ss pit, as the sage Akho * has
said.
Europeans study our manners and customs. But
theirs is the study of a critic not the study of a devotee.
Their ‘ study ’ cannot teach me religion.
Hinduism does not consist in eating and non-eating.
Its kernel consists in right conduct, in correct observance
of truth and non-violence. Many a man eating meat, but
observing the cardinal virtues of compassion and truth,
and living in the fear of God, is a better Hindu than a
hypocrite who abstains from meat. And he whose eyes
are opened to the truth of the violence in beef-eating or
meat-eating and who has therefore rejected them, who
loves ‘ both man and bird and beast ’ is worthy of our
adoration. He has seen and known God; he is His best
devotee. He is the teacher of mankind.
Hinduism and all other religions are being weighed
in the balance. Eternal truth is one. God also is one.
Let every one of us steer clear of conflicting creeds and
customs and follow the straight path of truth. Only then
shall we be true Hindus. Many styling themselves
sanatanis stalk the earth. Who knows how few of them
will be chosen by God ? God’s grace shall descend on
those who do His will and wait upon Him, not on those
who simply mutter ‘ Rama Rama '. *
Young India, 8-4-'26

»A poet-seer of Gujarat.
 16
THE AUTHORITY OF RELIGIOUS BOOKS
The stories told in the Puranas are some of them most
dangerous, if we do not know their bearing on the present
conditions. The shastras would be death-traps if we were
to regulate our conduct according to every detail given in
them or according to that of the characters therein des¬
cribed. They help us only to define and argue out funda¬
mental principles. If some well-known character in reli¬
gious books sinned against God or man, is that a warrant
for our repeating the sin ? It is enough for us to be told,
once for all, that Truth is the only thing that matters in
the world, that Truth is God. It is irrelevant to be told
that even Yudhishthira was betrayed into an untruth. It
is more relevant for us to know that when he spoke an
untruth, he had to suffer for it that very moment and that
his great name in no way protected him from punishment.
Similarly, it is irrelevant for us to be told that Adishan-
kara avoided a chandala. It is enough for us to know
that a religion that teaches us to treat all that lives as we
treat ourselves, cannot possibly countenance the inhuman
treatment of a single creature, let alone a whole class of
perfectly innocent human beings. Moreover we have not
even all the facts before us to judge what Adishankara
did or did not do. Still less, do we know the meaning
of the word chandala where it occurs. It has admittedly
many meanings, one of which is a sinner. But if all sin¬
ners are to be regarded as untouchables, it is very much
to be feared that we should all, not excluding the Pandit *
himself, be under the ban of untouchability. That un-
touchability is an old institution, nobody has ever denied.
But, if it is an evil, it cannot be defended on the ground
of its antiquity.
Young India, 29-7'*26

♦This article from which this excerpt is made was written in

answer to a plea for untouchability made by a Pandit from the South.
23
 17
WHAT IS HINDUISM ?
Hinduism is not a codified religion. W’e have in
Hinduism hundreds and thousands of books whose names
even we do not know, which go under the short name of
shastras. Now when we want to find out whether a thing
is good or bad, I do not go to a particular book, but I
look to the sum total of the effect of Hinduism. In Hin¬
duism we have got an admirable foot-rule to measure
every shastra and every rule of conduct, and that is truth.
Whatever falls from truth should be rejected, no^matter
where it comes from; therefore the burden lies on the
shoulders of that person who upholds a practice which is
inconsistent with truth; so that if a man wants to de¬
fend, for instance, untouchability, he has to ^K>w that it
is consistent with truth. Unless he shows that, all the
authorities that he may cite in support of it are to me
irrelevant.
Young India, 29-9-’27

18
TULSIDAS
Several friends on various occasions have addressed
to me criticisms regarding my attitude towards the Tulsi-
Ramayana. The substance of their criticisms is as follows :
You have described the Ramayana as the best of books, but
we have never been able to reconcile ourselves with your view.
Do not you see how Tulsidas has disparaged womankind, de¬
fended Plaina’s unchivalrous ambuscade on Vali, praised Vibhi-
Shan for betrayal of his country, and described Rama as an avofAra
in spite of his gross injustice to Sita ? What beauty do you find
in a book like this ? Or do you think that the poetic beauty of
the book compensates for everything else ? If it Is so then we
venture to suggest that you have no qualifications for the task/'
I admit that if we take the criticisms of every point
individually they will be found difficult to refute and the
24
 TULSIDAS 25
whole of the Ranmyana can, in this manner, be easily
condemned. But that can be said of almost everything
and everybody. There is a story related about a celebra¬
ted artist that in order to answer his critics he put his
picture in a show window and invited visitors to indicate
their opinion by marking the spot they did not like. The
result was that there was hardly any portion that was
not covered by the critics’ marks. As a matter of fact,
however, the picture was a masterpiece of art. Indeed
even the Vedas, the Bible and the Quran have not been
exempt from condemnation. In order to arrive at a pro¬
per estimate of a book it must be judged as a whole. So
much for external criticism. The internal test of a book
consists in finding out what effect it has produced on the
majority of its readers. Judged by either method the
position of the Ramayana as a book par excellence re¬
mains unassailable. This, however, does not mean that
it is absolutely faultless. But it is claimed on behalf of
the Ramayana that it has given peace to millions, has
given faith to those who had it not, and is even today
serving as a healing balm to thousands who are burnt by
the fire of unbelief. Every page of it is overflowing with
devotion. It is a veritable mine of spiritual experience.
It is true that the Ramayana is sometimes used by
evil-minded persons to support their evil practices. But
that is no proof of evil in the Ramayana. I admit that
Tulsidas has, unintentionally as I think, done injustice to
womankind. In this, as in several other respects also, he
has failed to rise above the prevailing notions of his age.
In other words Tulsidas was not a reformer ; he was only
a prince among devotees. The faults of the Ramayana
are less a reflection on Tulsidas than a reflection on the
age in which he lived.
What should be the attitude of the reformer regard¬
ing the position of women or towards Tulsidas under
such circumstances ? Can he derive no help whatever
from Tulsidas? The reply is emphatically ‘ he can ’. In spite
of disparaging remarks about women in the Ramayana
 26 HINDU DHARMA

it should not be forgotten that in it Tulsidas has

presented to the world his matchless picture of Sita. Where
would Rama be without Sita ? We find a host of other
ennobling figures like Kausalya, Sumitra etc. in the
Ramayana. We bow our head in reverence before the
faith and devotion of Shabari and Ahalya. Havana was
a monster but Mandodari was a sail. In my opinion these
instances go to prove that Tulsidas was no reviler of
women by conviction. On the contrary, so far as his con¬
victions went, he had only reverence for them. So much
for Tulsidas’s attitude towards women.
In the matter of the killing of Vali, however, there is
room for two opinions. In Vibhishan I can find no fault.
Vibhishan offered Satyagraha against his brother. His ex¬
ample teaches us that it is a travesty of patriotism to sym¬
pathize with or try to conceal the faults of one's rulers
or country, and to oppose them is the truest patriotism.
By helping Rama Vibhishan rendered the truest service
to his country. The treatment of Sita by Rama does not
denote heartlessness. It is a proof of a duel between king¬
ly duty and a husband’s love for wife.
To the sceptics who feel honest doubts in connection
with the Ramayana, I would suggest that they should not
accept anybody’s interpretations mechanically. They
should leave out such portions about which they feel
doubtful. Nothing contrary to truth and ahimsa need.be
condoned. It would be sheer perversity to argue that be¬
cause in our opinion Rama practised deception, we too
may do likewise. 'The proper thing to do would be to be¬
lieve that Rama was incapable of practising deception. As
the Gita says, ‘ There is nothing in the world that is en¬
tirely free from fault.’ Let us, therefore, like the fabled
swan who rejects the water and takes only the milk, learn
to treasure only the good and reject the evil in everything.
Nothing and no one is perfect but God.
Young India, 31-10-'29
 19
HINDUISM AND OBSCENITY
She (Miss Mayo in her book Mother India) says that
the Vaishnava mark has an obscene meaning. I am a bom
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 any
one else in our family ever knew that this harmless and
rather elegant-looking mark had any obscene significance
at all. 1 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 sug¬
gest that it never had such significance. But I do suggest
that millions are unaware of the obscenity of many practi¬
ces which we have hitherto innocently indulged in. It
was in a missionary book that I first learnt that shiva-
lingam had any obscene significance at all, and even
now when T 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 obtmde themselves upon your gaze.
Young India, 15-9-*27

27
 20
COMMUNICATIONS WITH SPIRITS
[In reply to a correspondent Gandbiji wrote:]
I never receive communications from the spirits of
the dead. I have no evidence warranting a disbelief in
the possibility of such communications. But I do strongly
disapprove of the practice of holding or attempting to
hold such communications. They are often deceptive and
are products of imagination. The practice is harmful both
to the medium and the spirits, assuming the possibility of
such communications. It attracts and ties to the earth the
spirit so invoked, whereas its effort should be to detach
itself from the earth, and rise higher. A spirit is not
necessarily purer because it is disembodied. It takes with
it most of the frailties to which it was liable when on
earth. Information or advice therefore given by it need
not be true or sound. That the spirit likes communica¬
tions with those on earth is no matter for pleasure. Oh
the contrary it should be weaned from such unlawful
attachment. So much for the harm done to the spirits.
As for the medium, it is a matter of positive know¬
ledge with me that all those within my experience have
been deranged or weak-brained and disabled for prac¬
tical work whilst they were holding, or thought they were
holding, such communications. I can recall no friend of
mine who having held such communication had benefitted
in any way.
Yonng India, 12-9-*29

28
 21
TRUE SHRADDHA
A friend sends from Rangoon rupees twenty-five as
donation for the propaganda of the spinning wheel, and
writes;
“ My father died on the 18th April 1927 at Tanjore (S. India)
while I was there on a short leave. When I was confronted
with the question of ‘ Sixteenth-Day Ceremonya slavish, mean¬
ingless imitation of shraddha, I resolutely refused to abide by
the desire of my relatives, simply because I have no belief in it
as it prevails today. I do not believe in a departed soul waiting
in pitriloka or some such other unseen places for water or rice-
balls. Nor can I see any reason to attach any importance to the
rites performed by a mercenary priest and in a language which is
Greek both to me and the officiating priest. In short the whole
affair seems to be a hoax designed to be practised on the reli¬
gious susceptibilities of the people. But I can believe in shraddha
as a thing offered in piety and devotion with a charitable in¬
tention. From a commonsense point of view the main principle
and the original purpose of this ceremony ought to be charity.
As you say in Young India dated 24-2-’27, *Only two classes of
people are entitled to charity and none else — the hrahmana who
possesses nothing and whose business it is to spread holy learn¬
ing, and the cripple and the blind.* Our great immortal sage
Thiruvalluvar has said: ‘A hrahmana is that sannyasi who
has an overflowing love towards all living creatures.' Because
I could not conceive of a man who has a better claim than you
and more charitable purpose than that of the spinning wheel,
I have sent you this amount. There Is also another way of
commemorating the memory of one's own parents. The same
sage Thiruvalluvar has again said: * The gratitude of a son to
his father must consist in the son conducting himself in the
world in such a way as to excite from the world the approba¬
tion that his father must have performed a great tapasya to
beget this son.’ T may add that I have this ideal at my heart.”

I have omitted from the letter several personal re¬

ferences. Though I have performed shraddha ceremonies
myself in my youth, I have not been able to understand
their religious usefulness. This letter is not the first of
its kind I have received. But not being able to understand
29
 30 HINDU DHARMA

the hidden meaning, if any, of the practices which are

almost universal in Hinduism, I have hitherto refrained
from dealing with them in these pages. The rule that
the correspondent has chosen has however appealed ta
me. We do very often meekly submit to many conven¬
tional ceremonies although we may have no faith in them,
and although they may have no meaning for us. Submis¬
sion to convention in trivial matters in which there is no
danger of deceiving others or oneself is often desirable
and even necessary. But submission in matters of reh-
gion, especially where there is a positive repugnance from
within and a. danger of deceiving our neighbours and our¬
selves, cannot but be debasing. There are today many
religious ceremonies which, whatever meaning and im¬
portance they might have had in ages gone by, have nei¬
ther importance nor meaning for the rising generation.
There can be no doubt that it is necessary for this gene¬
ration to strike out an original path by giving a new form
and even meaning to many old ceremonies. The idea of
keeping green and of respecting the memor}'^ of one’s
parents is not to be given up. But it is hardly necessary
on that account to retain the old conventions and forms,
which have lost their reality and therefore ceased to have
any influence on us. I therefore commend the example
of the correspondent to those who are anxious to do only
that which is right, and free themselves from self-decep¬
tion.
Towiff India, l-8-’27
 22
DIVALI HOLIDAYS

A correspondent invites me to warn those who care

against turning during the forthcoming Divali holidays
good money into fireworks, bad sweets and unhygienic
illuminations. I heartily respond. If I had my way I
should have people to do house cleaning and heart clean¬
ing, and provide innocent and instructive amusements for
children during these days. P'ireworks I know are the
delight of the children, but they are so because we the
elders have habituated them to fireworks. I have not
known the untutored African children wanting or appre¬
ciating fireworks. They have dances instead. What can
be better or healthier for children than sports and picnics
to which they will take not bazar-made sweets of doubtful
value but fresh and dried fruit ? Children both rich and
l>oor may also be trained to do house cleaning and white¬
washing themselves. It will be something if they are
{•oaxed to recognize the dignity of labour if only during
holidays to begin with. But the point I wish to empha¬
size is that at least a part, if not the whole, of the money
saved by doing away with fireworks etc. should be given
to the cause of khadi, or if that is anathema, then to any
other cause in which the poorest are served. There can¬
not be greater joy to men and women and young and old
than that they think of and associate the poorest of the
land with them in their holidays.
Young India, 25-10-'28

31
 23
DUTY OF CEYLON HINDUS *
My Credentials
I must speak to you Hindus as a Hindu. And it gives
me the greatest pleasure to have been invited to do so.
As you know, though my claim has not been accepted by
those who call themselves orthodox Hindus I persist in
calling myself an orthodox Hindu. But by making that
claim I, a votary of Truth, must not mislead you in any
way whatsoever. If orthodox Hinduism consists in dining
or not dining with this man or that, and touching this
man and not touching that man, or in quarrelling with
Mussulmans and Christians, then I am certainly not an
orthodox Hindu. But if orthodox Hinduism can mean an
incessant search after what Hinduism possibly can be, if
orthodox Hinduism can mean an incessant striving to
live Hinduism to the best of one’s lights, then I do claim
to be an orthodox Hindu. I am also an orthodox Hindu
in the sense in which the author of the Mahabharata, the
great Vyasa, would have it. He has said somewhere in the
Mahabharata to this effect: Put Truth in one scale and
all sacrifices whatever in the other, that scale which con¬
tains Truth will outweigh the one that contains alt the
sacrifices put together, not excluding Rajasuya and
Ashvamedha yajna. And if the Mahabharata may be
accepted as the fifth Veda, then I can claim to be an
orthodox Hindu, because every moment of the twenty-four
hours of my life I am endeavouring to follow truth count¬
ing no cost as too great.
Live Broadened Hinduism
Having thus registered my claim in the presence of
this audience, I now wish to tell you as an orthodox Hindu
what in my humble opinion your duty is in Jaffna and

* Gandhiji*s speech at a meeting of the Hindus of Jaffna.

32
 DUTY OF CEYLON HINDUS 33
in Ceylon. First of all, I want to speak to you about your
duty towards the predominant population in this island.
And I wish to suggest to you that they are your co-reli¬
gionists. They will, if they choose to, repudiate the claim.
For they will say that Buddhism is not Hinduism and
they will be partly right. Many Hindus certainly repu¬
diate the claim of Buddhism to be part and parcel of
Hinduism. On the contrary they delight in saying
that they successfully drove Buddhism out of India. But
I tell you that they did nothing of the kind. Buddha him¬
self was a Hindu. He endeavoured to reform Hinduism.
And he succeeded in his attempt to a very great extent,
and what Hinduism did at that time was to assimilate and
absorb all that was good and best in the teachings of the
Buddha. And on that account I venture to say that
Hinduism became broadened, and having assimilated the
best of Buddhism, it is true that Hinduism drove out from
India what might be termed excrescences that had gather¬
ed round the teachings of Gautama. And the way in
which you can demonstrate this to the Buddhists of Cey¬
lon is by living the broadened Hinduism in their midst.
The one thing that the Buddha showed India was that
God was not a God who can be appeased by sacrificing
innocent animals. On the contrary, he held that those
who sacrificed animals in the hope of pleasing God were
guilty of a double sin. So if you will be true to Hinduism,
you will take care that you will not defile a single temple
of yours by indulging in animal sacrifices. I am prepared
to declare against the whole of Hindu India that it is
wrong, sinful, and criminal to sacrifice a single animal
for the purpose of gaining any end whatsoever, or for the
purpose of propitiating God.
Varna Gives Life, Caste Kills
The second thing that Gautama taught was that all
that caste means today — as it meant in his time also —
was wholly wrong. That is to say, he abolished every
distinction of superiority and inferiority that was even in
his time eating into the vitals of Hinduism. But he did
3
 34 HINDU DHARMA

not abolish vamashrama dharma. Varna-dharma is not

caste. As I have said in so many sjjeeches in South India,
and as I have written fairly exhaustively on varna-dharma
in Young India, I hold that there is nothing in common
between caste and varna. Whilst varna gives life, caste
kills it, cuid untouchability is the hatefulest expression of
caste. You will therefore banish untouchability from your
midst. I make bold to say that there is no warrant what¬
soever in Hinduism for untouchability as it is practised
today. If therefore you want to live your Hinduism in
its purity in the midst of Buddhist countrymen, you will
take care that you will not consider a single human being
as an untouchable. Unfortunately the Buddhists in Cey¬
lon have themselves borrowed this curse from the Hindus.
They who should never have had this institution of caste
have caste in their midst. For heaven’s sake forget that
some are high and others are low; remember that you
are all Hindus — brothers in arms.

Purify Temples
1 have a letter from a Jaffna Hindu telling me that
there are some temples in this place where you have
dances by women of ill fame on certain occasions. If that
information is correct, then let me tell you that you are
converting temples of God into dens of prostitution. A
temple to be a house of worship, to be a temple of God, has
got to conform to certain well-defined limitations. A pro¬
stitute has as much right to go to a house of worship as a
saint. But she exercises that right when she enters the
temple to purify herself. But when the trustees of a
temple admit a prostitute under cover of religion or under
cover of embellishing the worship of God, then they con¬
vert a house of God into one of prostitution. And if any¬
body, no matter how high he may be, comes to you and
seeks to justify the admission of women of ill fame into
your temples for dancing or any such purpose, reject him
and agree to the proposal that I have made to you. If you
want to be good Hindus, if you want to worship God, and
if you are wise, you will fling the doors of all your temples
 DUTY OF CEYLON HINDUS 35

open to the so-called untouchables. God makes no distinc¬

tion between His worshippers. He accepts the worship of
these untouchables just as well and as much as that of the
so-called touchables, provided it comes from the bottom of
the heart.
Make Advances to Other Faiths
There are still certain things that demand your atten¬
tion. You have to live at the present moment in a world
which has Christians and Mussulmans, great communities
owning great faiths. In JaSna you have a very small
Mussulman population hardly two or three per cent. The
Christian population is ten per cent. But you have to live
your life in the midst of these whether they are two per
cent or twenty per cent. And if I know Hinduism aright,,
Hinduism is nothing if it is not tolerant and generous to
every other faith. And since they are also as much in¬
habitants of this peninsula and this island as you it is
your duty to regard them as your brothers. Unless you
do so, you will never evolve the truly national spirit that
is necessary, and therefore you will not evolve the neces¬
sary Hindu and the humanitarian spirit. You have a right
to control the education of your own children and I am
glad that you have got your own Board of Education. I
would like you to strengthen that Board in the right spirit
as much as you can, but that should mean no jar whatso¬
ever with the rival institutions of the Christian mission¬
aries. If you have got an ably manned staff of education¬
ists and provide the necessary facilities for the Hindu
children, naturally all the Hindu children will come to
your institutions. And I can see no reason whatsoever for
mutual jealousies in the matter of education as I under¬
stand there is somewhat. I was delighted to find that
only up to recent times, Hindus, Christians, and Mussul¬
mans were living in absolute friendship. A jar has been
created only recently as betAveen the Christians and
yourselves. And seeing that you are in a vast majority, it is
up to you to make advances and settle all your disputes.
And if you will get rid of the wretched caste-spirit which
 36 HINDU DHARMA

has crept into Hinduism, you will find that all the diffi¬
culties will disappear.
Encourage Sanskrit Studies
And remember that since you are in a very vast majo¬
rity, the responsibility rests on your shoulders to make
Jaffna, and through Jaffna, Ceylon also perfectly dry.
.Hinduism does not permit you drink. And if the Board
of Education will do its duty, you will encourage Sanskrit
study in your schools. I regard the education of any
Hindu child as incomplete unless he has some knowledge
of Sanskrit. And so far as I have been able to see we have
in Hinduism no book so compact and so acceptable all
round as the Bhagawadgita. If you will therefore saturate
your children and yourselves with the spirit of Hinduism,
you will endeavour to understand the spirit of the teach¬
ings of the Gita. You should also cultivate a common
knowledge of the Mahabharata and the Ramnyana.
Lastly I know no solution of the many difficulties
that face the whole of the human family except the two
things that I am saying everywhere. Speak the truth and
remain non-violent also at any cost. I know as certainly
as I know that I am sitting in front of you and speaking
to you, that if I could but persuade you to understand the
spirit of these two things and act up to them, every one of
our difficulties will disappear like straw before wind, and
God will desc!end from His Great White Throne and live
in your midst and He will say ' You Hindus have done
’weil.'
Tounq India. 15-12-’27
 24
HELPFUL SPIRITUAL PRACTICES AND READINGS
[Gandhiji's conversation with Mr. iiasil Mathews who was curious
to know if Gandhiji followed any spiritual practices and what special
reading he had found helpful;]

Gandhiji : I am a stranger to yogic practices. The

practice I follow is a practice I learnt in my childhood
from my nurse. I was afraid of ghosts. She used to say
to me : ' There are no ghosts, but if you are afraid, repeat
Ramanarna.’ What I learnt in my childhood has become
a huge thing in my mental firmament. It is a sun that
has brightened my darkest hour. A Christian may find
the same solace from the repetition of the name of Jesus
and a Muslim from the name of Allah. All these things
have the same implications and they produce identical
results under identical circumstances. Only the repetition
must not be a lip expression, but part of your verj' being.
About helpful readings, we have regular readings of
the Bhagawadgita and we have now reached a stage
when we finish the Gita every week by having readings
of appointed chapters every morning. Then we have
hymns from the various saints of India, and we therein,
include hymns from the Christian hymn-book. As
Khansaheb is with us, we have readings from the Quran
also. We believe in the equality of all religions. I derive
the greatest consolation from my reading of Tulsidas’s
Ramayana. I have also derived solace from the New Testa¬
ment and the Quran. I don’t approach them with a
critical mind. They are to me as important as the
Bhagawadgita, though everything in the former may
not appeal to me — everything in the Epistles of Paul for
instance,—^nor everything in Tulsidas. The Gita is a
pure religious discourse given without any embellishment.
It simply describes the progress of the pilgrim soul to¬
wards the Supreme Goal. Therefore there is no question
of selection.
37
 38 HINDV DHARMA

Mr. Mathews: You are really a Protestant.

Gandhiji: I do not know what I am or am not, Mr.
Hodge will call me a Presbyterian !
Mr. Mathews : Where do you find the seat of autho¬
rity ?
Gandhiji: It lies here (pointing to his breast). I
exercise my judgment about every scripture, including the
Gita. I cannot let a scriptural text supersede my reason.
Whilst I believe that the principal books are inspired, they
suffer from a process of double distillation. Firstly, they
come through a human prophet, and then through the
commentaries of interpreters. Nothing in them comes
from God directly. Mathew may give one version of one
text, and John may give another. I cannot surrender my
reason whilst I subscribe to divine revelation. And above
all, ‘ the letter killeth, the spirit giveth life.’ But you must
not misunderstand my position. I believe in Faith also,
in things where Reason has no place, e. g. the existence
of God. No argument can move me from that faith, and
like that little girl who repeated against all reason ‘yet
we are seven ’, I wnuld like to repeat, on being baffled in
argument by a very superior intellect, ‘ Yet there is God
Harijan, 5-12-’36

25
EQUALITY IN HINDUISM

In the purest type of Hinduism a brahmana, an ant,

an elephant and a dog-eater (shwapacha) are of the same
status. And because our philosophy is so high, and we
have failed to live up to it, that very philosophy today
stinks in our nostrils. Hinduism insists on the brother¬
hood not only of all mankind but of all that lives. It is
a conception which makes one giddy, but we have to work
up to it. The moment we have restored real living equa¬
lity between man and man, we shall be able to establish
 THE CHIEF VALUE OP HINDUISM
39

equality between man and the whole creation. When

that day comes we shall have peace on earth and goodwill
to men.
Harijan, 28-3-'36

26
THE CHIEF VALUE OF HINDUISM

An American professor in Comparative Theology on

a visit to India to study Indian religions intelligently,
asked Gandhiji to tell her in a nutshell the chief value of
Hinduism, as she had been told “ that Gandhiji was the
life and soul of Hinduism.” “ It is hardly wise,” she said,
" to rest content to teach what you can out of books. One
must meet the true representatives of these living reh-
gions.”
Replying to her Gandhiji said : “ The chief value of
Hinduism lies in holding the actual belief that ALL life
(not only human beings, but all sentient beings) is one, i.e.
ail life coming from the' One Universal Source, call it
Allah, God or Parameshwara. There is in Hinduism a
scripture called Vishnusahasranama which simply means
‘ one thousand names of God ’. These one thousand names
do not mean that God is limited to those names, but that
He has as many names as you can possibly give Him.
You may give , Him as many names as you like, provided
it is one God without a second, whose name you are in¬
voking. That also means that He is nameless too.
“ This unity of ALL life is a peculiarity of Hinduism
which confines salvation not to human beings alone but
says that it is possible for all CJod’s creatures. It may be
that it is hot possible, save through the human form, but
that does not make man the Lord of creation. It makes
him the servant of (jod’s creation. Now when we talk of
brotherhood of man, we stop there, and feel that all other
life is there for man to eiploit for his own purposes. But
 40 HINDU DHARMA

Hinduism excludes all exploitation. There is no limit

whatsoever to the measure of sacrifice that one may make
in order to realize this oneness with all life, but certainly
the immensity of the ideal sets a limit to your wants.
That, you will see, is the antithesis of the position of the
modem civilization which says: ‘ Increase your wants.”
Those who hold that belief think that increase of wants
means an increase of knowledge whereby you understand
the Infinite better. On the contrary Hinduism rules out
indulgence and multiplication of wants as these hamper
one’s growth to the ultimate identity with the Universal
Self.”
Harijan, 26-12-’36

27
THE GOLDEN KEY

Por the first time at the public meeting in Quilom

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 implica¬
tions of that all-comprehensive mantra. The pure exposi¬
tion without much of a commentary was given on the pre¬
vious day at Quilon and is reproduced below:
" Let me for a few moments consider what Hinduism
consists of, what it is that has fired so many saints about
whom we have historical record. Why has it contributed
so many philosophers to the world ? What is it in Hindu¬
ism that has so enthused its devotees for centuries ? Did
they see untouchability in Hinduism and still enthuse over
it? In the midst of my struggle against untouchability
I have been asked by several workers as to the essence of
Hinduism. We have no simple Raima, they said, that we
find in Islam, nor have we John 3.16 of the Bible. Have
we or have we not something that will answer the de¬
mands of the most philosophic among the Hindus or the
 THE GOLDEN KEY 41

most matter-of-fact among them ? Some have said, and

not without good reason, the Gayatri answers that pur¬
pose. I have perhaps recited the Gayatri mantra a thou¬
sand times, having understood the meaning of it. But
still it seems to me that it did not answer the whole of my
aspirations. Then as you are aware I have, for years past,
been swearing by the Bhagawadgita, and have said that it
answers all my difiiculties and has been my karnadhcnu,
my guide, my ‘ open sesame ', on hundreds of moments of
doubt and difficulty. 1 cannot recall a single occasion when
it has failed me. But it is not a book that I can place
before the whole of this audience. It requires a prayerful
.study before the kamadhenu yields the rich milk she holds
in her udders.
“ But 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 intact in the memory of Hindus,
Hinduism would live for ever.
“ Now this mantra divides itself in four parts. The
first part is sing; i It means, as
I would translate, all 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 :
11 divide these into two and translate them
thus : Renounce it and enjoy it. There is another ren¬
dering which means the same thing, though; Enjoy
what He gives you. Even so you can divide it into two
parts. Then follows the final and most important part,
>TT which means : Do not covet anybody’s
wealth or possession. All the other mantras of that an¬
cient Upanishad are a commentary or an attempt to give
 42 HINDU DHARMA

US the full meaning of the first mantra. As I read the

mantra in the light of the Gita or the Gita in the light
of the mantra I find that the Gita is a commentary on this
mantra. It seems to me to satisfy the cravings 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 con¬
trary to the meaning of this mantra. What more can a
man in the street want to learn than this, that the one
God and Creator 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 Creator 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 a 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 magni¬
ficent 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 here¬
after.”

It is this inantra that Gandhiji described at another

meeting as the golden key for the solution of all the diffi¬
culties and doubts that may assail one’s heart.
“ Remember that one verse of the Ishopanishad and
forget all about the other scriptures. You can of course
 THE HARIPAD SPEECH 43

drown yourselves and be suffocated in the ocean of scrip¬

tures. They are good for the learned if they will be hum¬
ble and wise, but for the ordinary man in the street no¬
thing but this mantra is necessary to carry him across the
ocean:
‘ God the Ruler pervades all there is in this Uni¬
verse. 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.' ”
Harijan, 30-l-’37

28
THE HARIPAD SPEECH •

Renunciation Essential
At this meeting I would love to detain you for a few
minutes on the message of Hinduism I gave to the meet¬
ing in Quilon last night. I ventured at that meeting to
say that the whole of Hinduism could be summed up in
the first verse of the Ishopanishad.

g3ft«iT »Ti uq: •

Those who know a little bit of Sanskrit will find that
there is nothing abstruse there that you find in other
Vedic mantras, and its meaning is simply this : All that
there is in this Universe, great or small, including the
tiniest atom, is pervaded by God, known as Creator or
Lord. Isha means the Ruler, and He who is the Creator
naturally by very right becomes the Ruler too. And here
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

•Pull text of speech delivered by Gandhlji at Harlpad In TTa-

Tancore on 17-1-1937.
 44 HINDU DHARMA

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 i- e. 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 re¬
nunciation or, as the author of the Bhagawata would say,
enjoy in the spirit of fwrmiRj (or offering all
to God). And every day in the morning every one who
believes in the Bhagawata 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 condi¬
tion given in the mantra was incomplete, the rishi hasten¬
ed to complete it 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, and it excludes everything con¬
trary to it. According to the canons of interpretation,
anything that is inconsistent with Shruti — and Ishopa-
nishad is a Shruti — is to be rejected altogether.
Temples Purified
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 HARIPAD SPEECH 45

the learned man and the 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. And this is not a philosophical thing to be
dished out to hrahmanas or kshatriyas, but it enunciates
an eternal truth which admits of no reduction, no pallia¬
tion. Therefore the Maharajah himself and the Maharani
are not one whit superior to the lowliest being in Travan-
core. We are all creatures and servants of one God. If
the Maharajah is the first among equals, as he is, he is
so not by right of overlordship, but by right of service.
And therefore how nice, how noble it is that every Maha¬
rajah is called Padmanabhadas ! * Therefore when 1 told
you that the Maharajah or the Maharani were not one
whit superior to any one of us, I told you what was the
actual truth accepted by their Highnesses themselves.
And if that is so, how can anyone here dare to arrogate
superiority to himself or herself over any other human
being ? I tell you, therefore, that if this mantra holds
good, if there is any man or woman here who believes
that the temples are defiled by those called avarnas, that
person I declare would be guilty of a grave sin. I tell you
that the Proclamation f has purified our temples of the
taint that had attached to them.
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 1 hold, the e.ssence of Hinduism, it
should be inscribed on the portals of evej y temple. Don’t
you then think that we should be belying that mantra at
every step if we excluded anyone from those temples ?
Therefore if you will prove yourself deserving of the
gracious Proclamation and if you will be loyal to
yourselves and to those who preside over your destinies,
you will carry out the letter and spirit of this Proclamation.

• Servant of Vishnu, the aU-i)ervadlng Gkxl.

t Temple Entry Proclamation.
 46 HINDU DHARMA

From the date of the Proclamation the Travancore tem¬

ples, which as I once said were not abodes of God, have
become abodes of God, since no one who used to be re¬
garded as untouchable is any more to be excluded from
them. I therefore hope and pray that throughout Tra¬
vancore there may be no man or woman who will absteiin
from going to the temples for the reason that they have
been opened to those who were regarded as pariahs of
society.
Harijan, 30-l-'37

29
FROM THE KOTTAYAM SPEECH
[Speaking again on the Ishopanishad mantra to a Christian
audience in Kottayam, Gandhiji said:]
The mantra describes God as the Creator, the Ruler,
and the Lord. 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 fur¬
ther and said : ‘ Since God pervades everything nothing
belongs to you, not even your own body. God is the un¬
disputed, unchallengeable Master of everything you
possess.’ And so when a i>erson who calls himself a
Hindu goes through the process of regeneration or a
second birth, as Christians would call it, he has to per¬
form 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 renuncia¬
tion. 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
 FROM THE KOTTAYAM SPEECH 47

is calculated to satisfy the highest cravings of every human

being — whether they have reference to this world or to
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 per¬
vades 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 sug¬
gest to my Christian and Mussulman 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 what¬
ever is inconsistent with the truth I have expounded to
48 HINDU DHARMA

you and which is hidden in the mantra I have named,

must be summarily rejected as not belonging to Hinduism.
Harijan, 30-l-’37

30
LIVING UP TO 125
I have not talked about wishing to live up to the age
of 125 years without thought. It has a deep significance.
The basis for my wish is the third mantra from Isho-
panishad which, literally rendered, means that a man
should desire to live for 100 years while serving with de¬
tachment. One commentary says that 100 really means
125.
Be that as it may, the meaning of ‘ hundred ’ is not
necessary for my argument. My sole purpose is to indi¬
cate the condition necessary' for the realization of the
desire. It is service in a spirit of detachment, which
means complete independence of the fruit of action.
Without it one should not desire to live for 125 years.
That is how I interpret the text. I have not the slightest
doubt that without attaining that st&te of detachment, it
is impossible to live to be 125 years old. Living to that
age must never mean a mere life like rmto death, like
that of an animated corpse, a burden on one’s relations
and society. In such circumstances one’s supreme duty'^
would be to pray to God for early' release and not for
prolongation of life anyhow.
The human body is meant Lsoielv for service, never
for indulgence. The secret of happy life lies in renuncia¬
tion. Renunciation is life. Indulgence spells death.
Therefore, every one has a right and should desire to live
125 years rohile performing service without an eye on
result. Such life must be wholly and solely dedicated to
service. Renunciation made for the sake of such service
is an ineffable joy of which none can deprive one, because
that nectar springs from within and sustains life. In this
 YAJNA OR SACRIFICE 49

there can be no room for worry or impatience. Without

this joy, long life is impossible and would not be worth
while even if possible.
Examination of the possibility of prolonging life to
125 years by outward means is outside the scope of this
argument.
Harijariy 24-2**46

31
YAJNA OR SACRIFICE
Yajna means an act directed to the welfare of others,
done without desiring any return for it, whether of a
temporal or spiritual nature, ‘ Act ’ here must be taken
in its widest sense, and includes thought and word, as
well as deed. ‘ Others ’ embraces not only humanity, but
all life. Therefore, and also from the standpoint of
ahimsa, it is not a yajna to sacrifice lower animals
even with a view to the service of humanity. It does not
matter that animal sacrifice is alleged to find a place in
the Vedas. It is enough for us that such sacrifice cannot
stand the fundamegtal tests of Truth and Non-violence.
I readily admit my incompetence in Vedic scholarship.
But the incompetence, so far as this subject is concerned,
does not worry me, because even if the practice of animal
sacrifice be proved to have been a feature of Vedic society,
it can form no precedent for a votary of ahimsa.
Again a primary sacrifice must be an act, which con¬
duces the most to the welfare of the greatest number in
the widest area, and which can be performed by the lar¬
gest number of men and women with the least trouble.
It Avill not therefore, be a yajna, much less a mahayajna,
to wish or to do ill to any one else, even in order to serve
a so-called higher interest. And the Gita teaches, and
experience testifies, that all action that cannot come under
the category of yajna promotes bondage.
The world cannot subsist for a single moment with¬
out yajnp, in this sense, and therefore the Gita, after
having dealt with true wisdom in the second chapter,
50 HINDU DHARMA

takes up in the third the means of attaining it, and de¬

clares in so many words, that yajna came with the Creat-
tion itself. This body, therefore, has been given us, only
in order that we may serve all creation with it. And,
therefore, says the Gita, he who eats without offering
yajna eats stolen food. Every single act of one who would
lead a life of purity should be in the nature of yajna.
Yajna having come to us with our birth, we are debtors
all our lives, and thus for ever bound to serve the uni¬
verse. And even as a bondslave receives food, clothing
and so on from the master whom he serves, so should we
gratefully accept such gifts as may be assigned to us by
the Lord of the universe. What we receive must be call¬
ed a gift; for as debtors we are entitled to no considera¬
tion for the discharge of our obligations. Therefore we
may not blame the Master, if we fail to get it. Our body
is His to be cherished or cast away according to His will.
This is not a matter for complaint or even pity; on the
contrary, it is natural and even a pleasant and desirable
state, if only we realize our proper place in God’s scheme.
We do indeed need strong faith, if we would experience
this supreme bliss. “Do not wor^^’’ in the least about
yourself, leave all worry to God,” — this appears to be the
commandment in all religions.
This need not frighten any one. He who devotes
himself to service with a clear conscience will day by day
grasp the necessity for it in greater measure, and will
continually grow richer in faith. The path of service can
hardly be trodden by one, who is not prepared to renounce
self-interest, and to recognize the conditions of his birth.
Consciously or unconsciously every one of us does render
some service or other. If we cultivate the habit of doing
this service deliberately, our desire for service will stea¬
dily grow stronger, and will make not only for our own
happiness, but that of the world at large.
* * ♦

Again, not only the good, but all of us are bound to

place our resources at the disposal of humanity. And if
such is the law, as evidently it is, indulgence cezuses to
 YAJNA OR SACRIFICE 51

hold a place in life and gives way to renunciation. The

duty of renunciation differentiates mankind from the
beast.
Some object, that liJe thus understood becomes dull
and devoid of art, and leaves no room for the householder.
But renunciation here does not mean abandoning the
world and retiring into the forest. The spirit of renun¬
ciation should rule all the activities of life. A householder
does not cease to be one if he regards life as a duty rather
than as an indulgence. A merchant, who operates in the
sacrificial spirit, will have crores passing through his
hands, but he will, if he follows the law, use his abilities
for service. He will therefore not cheat or speculate, will
lead a simple life, will not injure a living soul and will
lose millions rather than harm anybody. Let no one run
away with the idea that this type of merchant exists only
in my imagination. Fortunately for the world, it does
exist in the West as well as in the East. It is true, such
merchants may be counted on one's fingers’ ends, but the
type ceases to be imaginary, as soon as even one living
specimen can be found to answer to it. No doubt such
sacrificers obtain their livelihood by their work. But liveli¬
hood is not their objective, but only a by-product of their
vocation. 4 life of sacrifice is the pinnacle of art, and is
full of true joy. Yajna is not yajna if one feels it to be
burdensome or annoying. Self-indulgence leads to de¬
struction, and renunciation to immortality. Joy has no
independent existence. It depends upon our attitude to
life. One man will enjoy theatrical scenery, another the
ever new scenes which unfold themselves in the sky. Joy,
therefore, is a matter of individual and national educa¬
tion. We shall relish things which we have been taught
to relish as children. And illustrations can be easily cited
of different national tastes.
Again, many sacrificers imagine that they are free to
receive from the people everything they need, and many
things they do not need, because they are rendering disin¬
terested service. Directly this idea sways a man, he ceases
to be a servant, and becomes a tyrant over the people.
 52 HINDU DHARMA

One who would serve will not waste a thought upon

his own comforts, which he leaves to be attended to or
neglected by his Master on high. He will not therefore
encumber himself with everything that comes his way;
he will take only what he strictly needs and leave the
rest. He will be calm, free from anger and unruffled in
mind even if he finds himself inconvenienced. His ser¬
vice, like virtue, is its own reward, and he will rest con¬
tent with it.
Again, one dare not be negligent in service, or be be¬
hindhand with it. He, who thinks that one must be
diligent only in one’s personal business, and unpaid public
business may be done in any way and at any time one
chooses, has still to learn the very rudiments of the science
•of sacrifice. Voluntary service of others demands the
best of which one is capable, and must take precedence
over service of self. In fact, the pure devotee consecrates
himself to the service of humanity without any reserva¬
tion whatever.
'From. Yeravda Mandir, chap, xlv-xv

32
PRAYER DISCOURSES
Maya
Joy or what men call happiness may be, as it really
is, a dream in a fleeting and transitory world, where every¬
thing is like a dissolving phantasmagoria. But we cannot
dismiss the suffering of our fellow creatures as unreal and
thereby provide a moral alibi for ourselves. Even dreams
are true while they last, and to the sufferer his suffering
Is a grim reality. Anyway, whether the world be real
or unreal, we have certain duties in life which must be
faced, understood and duly performed while we are in
this world.
The Dignity of Poverty
The second day’s discourse turned on the ‘ dignity of
poverty In the song that had been sung it was said
 PRAYER DISCOURSES 53
that God is the friend of the poor. Poverty, remarked
Gandhiji, had a dignity in our country. The poor man
was not ashamed of his poverty. He preferred his hut to
the rich man’s palace. He even took pride in it. Though
poor in material goods, he was not poor in spirit. Con¬
tentment was his treasure. He might as well say to him¬
self, ' Since we cannot all become rich and own palaces,
let us at least pull down the palaces of the rich and bring
them down to our level’ That could bring no happiness
or peace either to the poor or anyone else, and God would
certainly be not the friend and helper of the poor of such
description. Poverty, in the sense of inequality of mate¬
rial possessions was there in every part of the world.
That was perhaps in a certain measure inevitable, for
all men are not equal either in their talents or the mea¬
sure of their needs. Even in America which was fabu¬
lously rich and where Mammon had taken the place of
God, there were many poor. In India, however, there
was a particular type of man who delighted in having
as few needs as possible. He carried with him only a little
flour and a pinch of salt and chillies tied in his napkin.
He had a lota and a string to draw water from the well.
He needed nothing else. He walked on foot covering
10-12 miles a daj\ He made the dough in his napkin,
collected a few twigs to make a fire and baked his dough
on the embers. It was called hati. Its relish did not lie
in itself but in the appetite that honest toil and content¬
ment of mind give. Such a man had God as his corn-
panion and friend and felt richer than any king or em¬
peror. God was not the friend of those who inwardly
coveted other’s riches. Everyone could copy that example
and enjoy ineffable peace and happiness himself and
radiate it to others. On the other hand, if one hankered
after riches, one had to resort to exploitation, by what¬
ever name it might be called. Even then the crores^
could not become millionaires. True happiness lay in
contentment and companionship with God only.
HaHjan, 21-7-’4C
 33
WHAT HINDUISM HAS DONE FOR US

What we see today is not pure Hinduism, but often

a parody of it. Otherwise it would require no pleading
from me in its behalf, but would speak for itself, even as
if I was absolutely pure I woul(!r’ not need to speak to you.
God does not speak with His tongue, and man in the mea¬
sure that he comes near God becomes like God. Hinduism
teaches me that my body is a limitation of the power of
the soul within.
Just as in the West they have made wonderful dis¬
coveries in things material, similarly Hinduism has made
still more marvellous discoveries in things of religion, of
the spirit, of the soul. But we have no eye for these great
and fine discoveries. We are dazzled by the material
progress that Western science has made. I am not ena¬
moured of that progress. In fact, it almost seems as though
God in His wisdom had prevented India from progressing
along those lines, so that it might fulfil its special mission
of resisting the onrush of materialism. After all, there is
something in Hinduism that has kept it alive up till now.
It has witnessed the fall of Babylonian, Syrian, Persian
and EgypticUi civilizations. Cast a look round you. Where
is Rome and Greece ? Can you find today anywhere the
Italy of Gibbon, or rather the ancient Rome, for Rome
was Italy ? Go to Greece. Where is the world-famous
Attic civilization ? Then come to India, let one go through
the most ancient records and then look round you and
you would be constrained to say, ‘ Yes, I see here ancient
India still living.’ True, there are dungheaps, too, here
and there, but there are rich treasures buried under them.
And the reason why it has survived is that the end which
Hinduism set before it was not development along mate¬
rial but spiritual lines.
Among its many contributions the idea of man’s
identity with the dumb creation is a unique one. To me
54
 WHAT HINDUISM HAS DONE FOR US 55
cow-worship is a great idea which is capable of expansion.
The freedom of Hinduism from |^e modem proselytiza-
tion is also to me a precious thing. It needs no preaching.
It says, ‘ Live the life.* It is my business, it is your busi¬
ness to live the life, and then we will leave its influence
on ages. Then take its contribution in men : Ramanuja,
Chaitanya, Ramakrishna, not to speak of the more modem
names, have left their impress on Hinduism. Hinduism
is by no means a spent force or a dead religion.
Then there is the contribution of the four ashramas,
again a unique contribution. There is nothing like it in
the whole world. The Catholics have the order of celi¬
bates corresponding to brahmacharis, but not as an in¬
stitution, whereas in India every boy had to go through
the first ashrama. What a grand conception it was ! To¬
day our eyes are dirty, thoughts dirtier and bodies dirtiest
of all, because we are denying Hinduism.
There is yet another thing I have not mentioned. Max
Muller said forty years ago that it was dawning on Europe
that transmigration is not a theory, but a fact. Well, it
is entirely the contribution of Hinduism.
Today varnashramadharma and Hinduism are mis¬
represented and denied by its votaries. The remedy is
not destruction,, but correction. Let us reproduce in our¬
selves the true Hindu spirit, and then ask whether it
satisfies the soul or not.
Young India, 24.11.’27
 34
NATIONHOOD THROUGH HINDUISM
The English have taught us that we were not one
nation before and that it will require centuries before
we become one nation. This is without foundation. We
were oile nation before they came to India. One thought
inspired us. Our mode of life was the same. It was
because we were one nation that they were able to esta¬
blish one kingdom. Subsequently they divided us.
I do not wish to suggest that because we were one
nation we had no differences, but it is submitted that our
leading men travelled throughout India either on foot or
in bullock-carts. They learned one another’s languages
and there was no aloofness between them. What do you
think could have been the intention of those far-seeing
ancestors of ours who established Setubandha (Ramesh-
war) in the South, Jagannath in the East and Hardwar
in the North as places of pilgrimage ? You will admit
they were no fools. They knew that worship of God
could have been performed just as well at home. They
taught us that those whose hearts were aglow with right¬
eousness had the Ganga in their own homes. But they
saw that India was one undivided land so made by nature.
They, therefore, argued that it must be one nation.
Arguing thus, they established holy places in various parts
of India, and fired the people with an idea of nationality in
a manner unknown in other parts of the world.
Hind Swaraj, chap, ix

56
 35
INDIAN CIVILIZATION

Freedom through Restraint

I believe that the civilization India has evolved is not
to be beaten in the world. Nothing can equal the seeds
sown by our ancestors. Rome went, Greece shared the
same fate ; the might of the Pharaohs was broken ; Japan
has become westernized ; of China nothing can be said;
but India is still, somehow or other, sound at the founda¬
tion. The people of Europe learn their lessons from the
w ritings of the men of Greece or Rome, which exist no
longer in their former glory. In trying to learn from
them, the Europeans imagine that they will avoid the
mistakes of Greece and Rome. Such is their pitiable
condition. In the midst of all this India remains immova¬
ble and that is her glory. It is a charge against India
that her people are so uncivilized, ignorant and stolid,
that it is not possible to induce them to adopt any
changes. It is a charge really against our merit. What
we have tested and found true on the anvil of experience,
we dare not change. Many thrust their advice upon India
and she remains steady. This is her beauty ; it is the sheet-
anchor of our hope.
Civilization is that mode of conduct which points out
to man the path of duty. Performance of duty and ob¬
servance of morality are convertible terms. To observe
morality is to attain mastery over our mind and our
passions.
We notice that the mind is a restless bird; the more
it gets the more it wants, and still remains unsatisfied.
The more we indulge our passions the more unbridled
they become. Our ancestors, therefore, set a limit to our
indulgences. They saw that happiness was largely a men¬
tal condition. A man is not necessarily happy because he
is rich, or unhappy because he is poor. The rich are often
seen to be unhappy, the poor to be happy. Millions will
57
 58 HINDU DHARMA

always remain poor. Observing all this, our ancestors

dissuaded us from luxuries and pleasures. We have
managed with the same kind of plough as existed thou¬
sands of years ago. We have retained the same kind of
cottages that we had in former times and our indigenous
education remains the same as before. We have had no
system of life-corroding competition. Each followed his
own occupation or trade and charged a regulation wage.
It was not that we did not know how to invent machi¬
nery, but our forefathers knew that, if we set our hearts
after such things, we would become slaves and lose
our moral fibre. They, therefore, after due deliberation
decided that we should only do what we could with our
hands and feet. They saw that our real happiness and
health consisted in a proper use of our hands and feet.
They further reasoned that large cities were a snare and
a useless encumbrance and that people would not be
happy in them, that there would be gangs of thieves and
robbers, prostitution and vice flourishing in them and that
poor men would be robbed by rich men. They were,
therefore, satisfied with small villages. They saw that
kings and their swords were inferior to the sword of
ethics, and they, therefore, held the sovereigns of the
earth to be inferior to the rishis and the fakirs. A nation
with a constitution like this is fitter to teach others than
to learn from others. This nation had courts, lawyers and
doctors, but they were all within bounds. Everybody
knew that these professions were not particularly supe¬
rior ; moreover, these vakils and voids did not rob people;
they were considered people’s dependants, not their mas¬
ters. Justice was tolerably fair. The "Ordinary rule was
to avoid courts. There were no touts to lure people into
them. This evil, too, was noticeable only in and around
capitals. The common people lived independently and
followed their agricultural occupation. They enjoyed true
Home Rule.
Hind Swaraj, chap, xill
 36
THE LOIN-CLOTH

A critic has fallen foul of my remark made before the

meeting of the Federation of Chambers of Commerce at
Delhi that Indian civilization must not be allowed to be
wiped out by the inroads from the West. The critic has
confused Indian civilization with the loin-cloth and then
condemned it.
Mr. Churchill has been kind enough gratuitously to
advertise my loin-cloth to the whole world. It has there¬
fore become the fashion to laugh at it as the said critic
has done. Let me then explain what it means.
In 1921 on the way to Madura I saw in our compart¬
ment crowds bedecked in foreign fineries. I entered into
conversation with some of them and pleaded for khadi.
They shook their heads as they said, " We are too poor to
buy khadi and it is so dear.” I realized the substratum of
truth behind the remark. I had my vest, cap, and full
dhoti on. When these uttered only partial truth, the mil¬
lions of compulsorily naked men, save for their langoti
four inches wide and nearly as many feet long, gave
through their bare limbs the naked truth. What effect¬
ive answer could I give them, if it was not to divest my¬
self of every inch of clothing I decently could, and thus
to a still greater extent, bring myself in line with the ill-
clad masses ? And this I did the very next morning after
the Madura meeting.
Here then there is no question of loin-cloth civiliza¬
tion. The adoption of the loin-cloth was for me a sheer
necessity. But in so far as the loin-cloth also spells sim¬
plicity, let it represent Indian civilization. It is a mingling
of the cultures represented by the different faiths and
influenced by the geographic and other environment in
which the cultures have met. Thus Islamic culture is not
the same in Arabia, Turkey, Egypt and India but it is it¬
self influenced by the conditions of the respective
59
 60 HINDU DHARMA

countries. Indian culture is therefore Indian. It is neither

Hindu, Islamic nor any other, wholly. It is a fusion of
all and essentially Eastern. I had in mind that culture.
And every one who calls himself or herself an Indian is
bound to treasure that culture, be its trustee and resist
any attack upon it.
European civilization is no doubt suited for the
Europeans, but it will mean ruin for India if we endeavour
to copy it. This is not to say that we may not adopt and
assimilate whatever may be good and capable of assimi¬
lation by us, as it does not also mean that even the
Europeans will not have to part with whatever evil might
have crept into it. The incessant search for material
comforts and their multiplication is such an evil, and I
make bold to say that the Europeans themselves will have
to remodel their outlook, if they ^re not to perish under
the weight of the comforts to which they are becoming
slaves. It may be that my reading is wrong, but I know
that for India to run after the Golden Fleece is to court
certain death. Let us engrave on our hearts the motto
of a Western philosopher ‘ Plain living and high think¬
ing’. Today it is certain that the millions cannot have
high living and we the few who profess to do the thinking
for the masses run the risk, in a vain search after high
living, of missing high thinking.
Young India, 30-4-’31
 SECTION TWO: GOD

37
GOD

To me God is Truth and Love ; God is ethicfe and

morality ; God is fearlessness. God is the source of Light
and Life and yet He is above and beyond all thesd. God
is conscience. He is- even the atheism of the atheist. For
in His boundless love God permits the atheist to live. He
is the searcher of hearts. He transcends speech and rea¬
son. He knows us and our hearts better than we do our¬
selves. He does not take us at our word for He knows
that we often do not mean it, some knowingly and others
unknowingly. He is a personal God to those who need
His personal presence. He is embodied to those who need
His touch. He is the purest essence. He simply Is to
those who have faith. He is all things to all men.
He is in us and yet above and beyond us. One
may banish the word ‘ God ’ from the Congress but one
has no power to banish the Thing itself. What is a solemn
affirmation, if it is not the same thing as in the name
of God ? And sUrely conscience is but a poor and labo¬
rious paraphrase of the simple combination of three let¬
ters called God. He cannot cease to be because hideous
immoralities or inhuman brutalities are committed in His
name. He is long suffering. He is patient but He is
also terrible. He is the most exacting personage in the
world and the world to come. He metes out the same
measure to us as we mete out to our neighbours — men
and brutes. Wit}»» Him ignorance is no excuse. And
withal He is ever forgiving for He always gives us the
chance to repent. He is the greatest democrat the world
knows, for He leaves us ‘ unfettered ’ to make our own
61
 62 HINDU DHARMA

choice between evil and good. He is the greatest tyrant

ever known, for He often dashes the cup from our lips
and under cover of free will leaves us a margin so wholly
inadequate as to provide only mirth for Himself at our
expense. Therefore it is that Hinduism calls it all His
sport — Lila, or calls it all an illusion — Maya. We are
not, He alone Is. And if we will be, we must eternally
sing His praise and do His will. Let us dance to the
tune of His bansi — flute, and all would be well.
Young India, 6-3-’25

38
ADVAITISM AND GOD
[In answer to a friend's questions, Gandhlji wrote:]
I am an advaitist and yet I can support dvaitism
(dualism). The world is changing every moment, and is
therefore unreal, it has no permanent existence. But
though it is constantly changing, it has a something
about it which persists and it is therefore to that extent
real. I have therefore no objection to calling it real and
unreal, and thus being called an anekantavadi or a
syadvadi. ‘ But my syadvada is not the syadvada of the
learned, it is peculiarly my own. I cannot engage in a de¬
bate with them. It has been my experience that I am
always true from my point of view, and am often wrong
from the point of view of my honest critics. I know that
we are both right from our respective points of view. And
this knowledge saves me from attributing motives to my
opponents or critics. The seven blind men who gave
seven different descriptions of the elephant were all right
from their respective points of view, and wrong from the
point of view of one another, and riglft and wrong from
the point of view of the man who knew the elephant. I
very much like this doctrine of the manyijess of reality.
It is this doctrine that has taught me to judge a Mussul¬
man from his own standpoint and a Christian from his.
 A0VAITISM AND GOD 63
Formerly 1 used to resent the ignorance of my opponents.
Today I can love them because I am gifted with the eye
to see myself as others see me and vice versa. I want
to take the whole world in the embrace of my love. My
anekantavada is the result of the twin doctrine of satya
and ahimsa.
I talk of God exactly as I believe Him to be. I be¬
lieve Him to be creative as well as non-creative. This
too is the result of my acceptance of the doctrine of the
many ness of reality. From the platform of the Jains I
prove the non-creative aspect of God, and from that of
Ramanuja the creative aspect. As a matter of fact we are
all thinldng of the Unthinkable, describing the Indes¬
cribable, seeking to know the Unknown, and that is why
our speech falters, is inadequate and even often contra¬
dictory. That is why the Vedas describe Brahman as
‘ not this', ‘ not this But if He or It is not this. He
or It is. If we exist, if our parents and their parents have
existed, then it is proper to believe in the Parent of the
whole creation. If He is not, we are nowhere. And that
is why all of us with one voice call one God differently as
Paramatma, Ishumra, Shiva, Vishnu, Rama, Allah, Khuda,
Dada Hormuzda, Jehova, God, and an infinite variety of
names.' He is one and yet many ; He is smaller than an
atom, and bigger than the Himalayas. He is contained
even in a drop of the ocean, and yet not even the seven
seas can compass Him. Reason is powerless to know Him.
He is beyond the reach or grasp of reason. But I need
not labour the point. Faith is essential in this matter.
My logic can make and unmake innumerable hypotheses.
An atheist might floor me in a debate. Bqt my faith
runs so very much faster than my reason that I can chal¬
lenge the whole world and say, ‘God is, was and ever
shall be.’
But those who want to deny His existence are at
liberty to do so. He is merciful and compassionate. He
is not an earthly king needing an army to make us ac¬
cept His sway. He allows us freedom, and yet His com¬
passion commands obedience to His will. But if any one
 64 HINDU DHARMA

of US disdain to bow to His will, He says : ‘ So be it. My

sun will shine no less for thee, my clouds will rain no less
for thee. I need not force thee to accept my sway.’ Of
such a God let the ignorant dispute the existence. I am
one of the millions of wise men who believe in Him and
am never tired of bowing to Him and singing His glory.
Young India, 21-l-’26

39
GOD IS
There is an indefinable mysterious Power that per¬
vades everything. I feel it, though I do not see it. It is
this unseen Power which makes itself felt and yet defies
all proof, because it is so unlike all that I perceive through
my senses. It transcends the senses.
But it is impossible to reason out the existence of
God to a limited extent. Even in ordinary affairs we
know that people do not know who rules or why, and how
he rules. And yet they know that there is a power that
certainly rules. In my tour last year in Mysore I met
many poor villagers and I found upon inquiry that they
did not know who ruled Mysore. They simply said some
god ruled it. If the knowledge of these poor people was
so limited about their ruler I who am infinitely lesser than
God, than they than their ruler, need not be surprised if
I do not realize the presence of God the King of kings.
Nevertheless I do feel as the poor villagers felt about
M3"sore that there is orderliness in the Universe, there is
an unalterable Law governing everything and every being
that exists or lives. It is not a blind law ; for no blind law
can govern the conduct of living beings, and thanks to
the mar\'ellous researches of Sir J. C. Bose, it can now
be proved that even matter is life. That Law then which
governs all life is God. Law and the Law-giver are one.
I may not deny the Law or the Law-giver, because I know
so little about It or Him. Even as my denial or ignorance
 GOD IS 65
of the existence of an earthly power will avail me nothing,
so will not my denial of God and His Law liberate me
from its operation ; whereas humble and mute acceptance
of divine authority makes life's journey easier even as the
acceptance of earthly rule makes life under it easier.
I do dimly perceive that whilst everything around
me is ever changing, ever dying, there is underlying all
that change a living power that is changeless, that holds
all together, that creates, dissolves and recreates. That
informing power or spirit is God. And since nothing else
I see merely through the senses can or will persist, He
alone is.
And is this power benevolent or malevolent ? I see
it is purely benevolent. For I can see that in the midst of
death life persists, in the midst of untruth truth persists,
in the midst of darkness light persists. Hence I gather
that God is Life, Truth, Light. Ho is Love. He is the
Supreme Good.
But lie is no God who merely satisfies the intellect,
if He ever does. God to be God must rule the heart and
transform it. He must express Himself in every smallest
act of His votary. This can only be done through a defi¬
nite realization more real than the five senses can ever
pix)duce. Sense perceptions can be, often are, false and
deceptive, however real they may appear to us. ^Vhere
there is realization outside the senses it is infallible. It is
proved not by extraneous evidence but in the transformed
conduct and character of those who have felt the real
presence of God within.
Such testimony is to be found in the experiences of
an unbroken line of prophets and sages in all countries
and climes. To reject this evidence is to deny myself.
This realization is preceded by an immovable faith.
He who would in his own person test the fact of God's
presence can do so by a living faith. And since faith itself
cannot be proved by extraneous evidence, the safest
course is to believe in the moral government of the world
and therefore in the supremacy of the moral law, the law
of truth and love. Exercise of faith will be the safest
5
 66 HINDU DHARMA

where there is a clear determination summarily to reject

all that is contrary to Truth and Love.
I cannot account for the existence of evil by any
rational method. To want to do so is to be coequal with
God. I am therefore humble enough to recognize evil as
such. And I call God long suffering and patient precisely
because He permits evil in the world. I know that He has
no evil. He is the author of it and yet imtouched by it.
I know too that I shall never know God if I do not
wrestle with and against evil even at the cost of life itself.
I am fortified in the belief by my own humble and limited
experience. The purer I try to become, the nearer I feel
to be to God. How much more should I be, when my faith
is not a mere apology as it is today but has become as im¬
movable as the Himalayas and as white and bright as the
snows on their peaks ? Meanwhile I invite the corres¬
pondent to pray with Newman who sang from experience :
Lead, kindly Light, amid the encircling gloom.
Lead Thou me on:
The night is dark and I am far from home.
Lead Thou me on.
Keep Thou my feet, I do not ask to see
The distant scene; one step enough for me.
Young India, ll-10-’28

40
TRUTH AND GOD
[Replying to a question asked of him at a meeting in Switzer¬
land on his way back from the Round Table Conference in London,
Gandhiji said:]
You have asked me why I consider that God is Truth.
In my early youth I was taught to repeat what in Hindu
scriptures are known as one thousand names of God. But
these one thousand names of God were by no means ex¬
haustive. We believe — and I think it is the truth — that
God has as many names as there are creatures and, there¬
fore, we also say that God is nameless and since God has
 TRUTH AND GOD 67
many forms we also consider Him formless, and since He
speaks to us through many tongues we consider Him to
be speechless and so on. And so when I came to study
Islam I found that Islam too had many names for God.
I would say with those who say God is Love, God is Love.
But deep down in me 1 used to say that though God may
be Love, God is Truth, above all. If it is possible for the
human tongue to give the fullest description of God, I
have come to the conclusion that for myself, God is Truth.
But two years ago I went a step further and said that
Truth is God. You will see the fine distinction between
the two statements, viz. that God is Truth and Truth is
God. And I came to that conclusion after a continuous
and relentless search after Truth which began nearly
fifty years ago. I then found that the nearest approach!
to Truth was through love. But I also found that love
has many meanings in the English language at least and
that human love in the sense of passion could become a
degrading thing also. I found too that love in the sense
of dhimsa had only a limited number of votaries in the
world. But I never found a double meaning in con¬
nection with truth and even atheists had not demurred
to the necessity or power of truth. But in their passion
for discovering truth the atheists have not hesitated to*
deny the very existence of God — from their own point
of view rightly. And it was because of this reasoning
that I saw that rather than say that God is Truth I should
say that Truth is God. I recall the name of Charles Brad-
laugh who delighted to call himself an atheist, but know¬
ing, as I do something of him, I would never regard him
as an atheist. I would call him a God-fearing man, though
I know that he would reject the claim. His face would'
redden if I would say “ Mr. Bradlaugh, you are a truth-
fearing man, and so a God-fearing man.” I would auto¬
matically disarm his criticism by saying that Truth is God',
as I have disarmed criticisms of many a young man. Add
to this the great difficulty that millions have taken the
name of God and in His name committed nameless atroci¬
ties. Not that scientists very often do not commit cruelties
 68 HINDU DHARMA

in the name of truth. I know how in the name of

trutii and science inhuman cruelties are perpetrated on
animals when men perform vivisection. There are thus
a number of difficulties in the way, no matter how you
describe God. But the human mind is a limited thing, and
you have to labour under limitations when you think of a
being or entity v ho is beyond the power of man to grasp.
And then we have another thing in Hindu philo¬
sophy, viz. God alone is and nothing else exists, and the
same truth you find emphasized and exemplified in the
Kalina of Islam. There you find it clearly stated — that
God alone is and nothing else exists. In fact the Sanskrit
word for Truth is a word which literally means that which
exists — Sat. For these and .several other reasons that I
can give you I have come to the conclusion that the defi¬
nition, ‘ Truth is God ’, gives me the greatest satisfaction.
And when you want to find Truth as God the only in¬
evitable means is Love, i.e. non-violence, and since I be¬
lieve that ultimately the means and the end are converti¬
ble terms, I should not hesitate to say that God is Love.
‘ What then is Truth ? ’
A difficult question, (said Gandhiji), but I have solved
it for myself by saying that it is what the voice within
tells you. How, then, you ask, different people think of
different and contrary truths ? Well, seeing that the
human mind works through innumerable media and that
the evolution of the human mind is not the .same for all,
it follows that what may be truth for one may be untruth
for another, and hence those who have made these experi¬
ments have come to the conclusion that there are certain
conditions to be observed in making those experiments.
Just as for conducting scientific experiments there is an
indispensable scientific course of instruction, in the same
way strict preliminary discipline is necessary to qualify
a person to make experiments in the spiritual realm.
Every one should, therefore, realize his limitations before
he speaks of his inner voice. Therefore we have the be¬
lief based upon experience, that those who would make
individual search after truth as God, must go through
 MEANINGLOF GOD 69
several vows, as for instance, the vow of truth, the vow of
hrdhmacharya (purity) — for you cannot possibly divide
your love for Truth and God with anything else —, the
vow of non-violence, of poverty and non-possession. Un¬
less you impose on yourselves the five vows you may not
embark on the experiment at all. There are several other
conditions prescribed, but I must not take you through
all of them. Suffice it to say that those who have made
these experiments know that it is not proper for every
one to claim to hear the voice of conscience, and it is be-
(‘ause we have at the present moment everybody claiming
the right of conscience without going through any disci¬
pline whatsoever and there is so much untruth being de¬
livered to a bewildered world, all that 1 can, in true humi¬
lity, present to 3^ou is that truth is not to be found by
anybodj^ who has not got an abundant sense of humility.
If you would swim on the bosom of the ocean of Truth
you must reduce yourself to a zero. Further than this
I cannot go along this fascinating path.
Young India, 31-12-’31

41
MEANING OF GOD
A correspondent writes :
** I am reading your GHabodh these days and trying to
understand it. I am puzzled by what Lord Krishna says in the
10th discourse : * In dicer’s play I am the conquering double eight.
Nothing either good or evil, can take place in this world without
my wdll.’ Does God then permit evil ? If so, how can He punish
the evil-doer ? Has God created the world for this purpose ?
Is it impossible then for mankind to live in peace ? ”
To say that God permits evil in this world may not
be pleasing to the ear. But if He is held responsible for
the good, it follows that He has to be responsible for the
evil too. Did not God permit Havana to exhibit unparal¬
leled strength ? Perhaps the root cause of the perplexity
arises from a lack of the real understanding'of what God
is. God is not a person. He transcends description. He
 HINDU PHARMA
70

is the Law-maker, the Law and the Executor. No human

being can well arrogate these powers to himself. If* he
did, he would be looj^ced upon as an unadulterated dicta¬
tor. They become only Him whom we worship as God,
This is the reality, a clear understanding of which will
answer the question raised by the correspondent.
The question whether it is impossible for mankind
ever to be at peace with one another does not arise from
the verse quoted. The world will live in peace only when
the individuafs composing it make up their minds to do
so. No one can deny the possibility nor say when that
will come to pass. Such questions are idle waste of time.
To a good man, the whole world is good. By following
this golden rule the correspondent can live in peace under
all circumstances, believing that what is possible for him
to be is also possible for others. To believe the contrary
connotes pride and arrogance.
Harijan, 24-2.»46

42
FINDING GOD

The bhajan of the evening said that man's highest

endeavour lay in trying to find God, said Gandhiji. He
could not be found in temples or idols or places of wor¬
ship built by man’s hands, nor could He be found by
abstinences. God could be found only through love, not
earthly, but divine. That love was lived by Mirabai who
saw God in everything. He was all in all to her.
Harijan, 23-ll-*47
 SECTION THREE: TEMPLE-WORSHIP

43
APPROACH TEMPLES IN FAITH
[During the course of his speech delivered at Trivendrum in
connection with Travancore Temple Entry Proclamation Celebrations,
Gandhiji said :]
In the days of my youth I went to many temples with
the faith and devotion with which my parents had fired
me. But of late years I have not been visiting temples,
and ever since I have been engaged in anti-untouchability
work, I have refrained from going to temples unless they
were open to every one called untouchable. So what I
saw this morning at the temple dawned upon me with
the same newness with which it must have dawned upon
so many avarna Hindus who must have gone to the temple
after the Proclamation. In imagination my mind travel¬
led back to the pre-historic centuries when temples began
to convey the message of God in stone and metal. I saw
quite clearly that the priest who was interpreting each
figure in his own choice Hindi did not want to tell me that
each of those figures was God. But without giving me
that particular interpretation he made me realize that
these temples were so many bridges between the Unseen,
Invisible and Indefinable God and ourselves who are infi¬
nitesimal drops in the Infinite Ocean, We the human
family are not all philosophers. We are of the earth very
earthy, and we are not satisfied with contemplating the
Invisible God. Somehow or other we want something
which we can touch, something which we can see, some¬
thing before which we can kneel down. It does not mat¬
ter whether it is a book, or an empty stone building, or a
stone building inhabited by numerous figures. A book will
satisfy some, an empty building will satisfy some others,
71
 HINDU DHARMA
72
and many others will not be satisfied unless they see
something inhabiting these empty buildings. Then 1 ask
you to approach these temples not as if they represented
a body of superstitions. If you will approach these tem¬
ples with faith in them, you will know that each time you
visit them you will come away from them purified, and
with your faith more and more in the living God.
Harijan, 23-1-’37

44
TEMPLES NECESSARY
Q. Why do you want temxile entry for Harijans ?
Are not temples the lowest thing in Hinduism ?
A. I do not think so for one moment. Temples are
to Hindus what churches are to Christians. In my opi¬
nion, we are all idolaters ; that in Hinduism we have
images of stone or metal inside temples makes to me no
difference. Thousands of Hindus who visit temples in
simple faith derive precisely the same spiritual benefit
that Christians visiting churches in simple faith do. De¬
prive 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. Tliat, however, is an argument for temple
reform, not for lowering their value for Harijans or any
Hindu. It is my certain conviction that temples are an
integral part of Hinduism.
Ilarijan, ll-2-*33
 45
IDOL-WORSHIP
I am both an idolater 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 shai)e of fanaticism that
refuses to see any virtue in any other form of worship¬
ping 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.
Young India, 28-8-’24

46
TEMPLE-WORSHIP

1 do not regard the existence of a temple as a sin or

superstition. Some form of common worship, and a com¬
mon place of worship appear to be a human, necessity.
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 super¬
stition 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 be¬
come ennobling and free of all superstition. It depends
upon the attitude of the heart of the worshipper.
Young India, S-ll-’ZS ’

73
 47
GOD AND GODS
“ If Hinduism become monotheistic,” suggested the
Father, “ Christianity and Hinduism can serve India in
co-operation.”
“ I would love to see the co-operation happen,” said
Gandhiji, “ but it cannot if the present day Christian Mis¬
sions persist in holding up Hinduism to ridicule and say¬
ing that no one can go to Heaven unless he renounces and
denounces Hinduism. But I can conceive a good Christian,
silently working away, and shedding the sweet aroma of
his life on Hindu communities, like the rose which does
not need any speech to spread its fragrance but spreads
it because it must. Even so a truly spiritual life. Then
surely there would be peace on earth and good will among
men. But not so long as there is militant or ‘ muscular ’
Christianity. This is not to be found in the Bible, but
you find it in Germany and other countries.”
“ But if Indians begin to believe in one God and give
up idolatry, don’t you think the whole difficulty will be
solved ? ”
“ Will the Christians be satisfied with it ? Are they
all united ? "
“Of course all the Christian sects are not united,”
said the Catholic Father.
" Then you are asking only a theoretical question. And
may I ask you, is there any amalgamation between Islam
and Christianity, though both are said to believe in one
God ? If these two have not amalgamated, there is less
hope of amalgamation of Christians and Hindus along the
lines you suggest, I have my own ‘ solution, but in the
first instance, I dispute the description that Hindus be¬
lieve in many Gods and are idolaters. They do say there
are many gods, but they also declare unmistakably that
there is ONE GOD, the GOD of gods. It is, therefore, not
proper to suggest that Hindus believe in many Gods.
74
 GOD AND GODS 75

They certainly believe in many worlds. Just as there is

a world inhabited by men, and another by beasts, so also
is there one inhabited by superior beings called gods
whom we do not see but who nevertheless exist. The
whole mischief is created by the English rendering of the
word or ^ri? {deva or devata) for which you have
not found a better term than ‘ God '. But God is Ishwara,
Devadhideva, God of gods. So you see it is the word
‘ god' used to describe different divine beings that has
given rise to such confusion. 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.
Idolatry
“ As for idol-worship, you cannot do without it in
some form or other. Why does a Mussulman 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 wor¬
ship 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 rude
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
 76 HINDU DHARMA

image. I can understand your asking for the Virgin’s

intercession. Why are Mussulmans filled with awe and
exultation when they enter a mosque ? Why, is not the
whole universe a mosque ? And what about the magni¬
ficent canopy of heaven that spreads over you ? Is it
any less than a mosque ? But I understand and sympa¬
thize with the Muslims. It is their way of approach to
God. The Hindus have their own way of approach to
the same p]ternal Being. Our media of approach are dif¬
ferent, but that does not make Him different.’’
'' But the Catholics believe that God revealed to them
the true way.”
“ But why do you say that the will of God is ex¬
pressed only in one book called the Bible and not in
others ? Why do you circumscribe the povrer of God ? ”
'' But Jesus proved that he had received the word
of God through miracles.”
” But that is Mahomed^s claim too. If you accept
Christian testimony you must accept' ^Muslim testimony
and Hindu testimony too.”
“ But Mahomed said he could not do miracles.”
” No. He did not want to prove the existence of God
by miracles. But he claimed to receive messages from
God.”
Harijan, 13‘3-*37
 48
A TEMPLE TO GANDHIJI

Under this strange heading I read a newspaper cut¬

ting sent by a correspondent to the effect that a temple
has been erected where my image is being worshipped.
This T consider to be a gross form of idolatry. The per¬
son who erected the temple has wasted his resources by
misusing them, the villagers who are drawn there are
misled and I am being insulted in that the whole of my
life has been caricatured in that temple. The meaning
that I have given to worship is distorted. Worship of
the charJcha lies in plying it for a living or as a sacrifice
for ushering in Swaraj. The Gita is worshipped not by
parrot-like recitation but by following its teaching. Reci¬
tation is good and proj^er only as an aid to action accord¬
ing to its teaching. A man is worshipped only to the
extent that he .is followed, not in his weaknesses but in
his strength. Hinduism is degraded when it is brought
<iown to the level of the w’^orship of the image of a living
being. No man can be said to be good before his death.
After death too he is good for the person who believes
him to have possessed certain qualities attributed to him.
As a matter of fact God alone knows a man’s heart. Hence
the safest thing is not to worship any person, living or
dead, but to worship perfection 'which resides only in
God known as Truth. The question then certainly arises
as to whether possession of photographs is not a form of
worship carrying no merit with it. I have said as much
before now in my writings. Nevertheless I have tolera¬
ted the practice as it has become an innocent though a
costly fashion. But this toleration will become ludicrous
and harmful if I were to give directly or indirectly the
slightest encouragement to the practice above described.
It would be a welcome relief if the owner of the temple
removed the image and converted the building into a
spinning centre where the poor will card and spin for
77
 78 HINDU DHARMA

wages, and others for sacrifice, and all will be wearers

of khaddar. This will be the teaching of the Gita in
action and true worship of it and me.
Harijan, 24-3-'46

49
TREE-WORSHIP
A correspondent writes:
*' It is a common enough sight in this country to see men
and women offering worship to stocks and stones and trees,
but I was surprised to find, that even educated women belong¬
ing to the families of enthusiastic social workers were not above
this practice. Some of these sisters and friends defend the prac¬
tice by saying, that since it is founded on pure reverence for
the divine in nature and no false beliefs, it cannot be classed as
superstition, and they cite the names of Satyavan and Savitrt
whose memory, they say, they commemorate in that way. The
argument does not convince me. May I request you to throw
some light on the matter ? ”
I like this question. It raises the old, old question of
image-worship. I am both a supporter and opponent of
image-worship. When image-worship degenerates into
idolatry and becomes encrusted with false beliefs and doc¬
trines, it becomes a necessity to combat it as a gross
social evil. On the other hand, 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. Even so far
from seeing anything inherently evil or harmful in tree-
worship, I find in it a thing instinct with a deep pathos
and poetic beauty. It symbolizes true reverence for the en¬
tire vegetable kingdom, which with its endless panorama
of beautiful shapes and forms, declares to us as it were
 TREE-WORSHIP 79
with a million tongues the greatness and glory of God.
Without vegetation our planet would not be able to sup¬
port life even fbr a moment. In such a country espe¬
cially, therefore, in which there is a scarcity of trees,
tree-worship assumes a profbund economic significance.
I therefore see no necessity for leading a crusade
against tree-worship. It is true, that the poor simple-
minded women who offer worship to trees have no rea¬
soned understanding of the implications of their act. Pos¬
sibly they would not be able to give any explanation as
to why they perform it. They act in the purity and utter
simplicity of their faith. Such faith is not a thing to be
despised ; it is a great and powerful force that we should
treasure.
Far different, however, is the case of vows and pray¬
ers which votaries offer before trees. 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 of selfish requests
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.
Let no one, however, from this understand me to
mean that I advocate tree-worship in general. I do not
defend tree-worship because I consider it to be a neces¬
sary aid to devotion, but only because I recognize that
God manifests Himself in innumerable forms in this uni¬
verse, and every such manifestation commands my spon¬
taneous reverence.
Young India, 26-9-*29
 50
TEMPLE-WORSHIP •

An iconoclast schoolmaster asks the following three

questions;
“1. Is it necessary for a Hindu, following the life of Shri
iiamachandra, also to go and see his image in the temple ? Is
darshan better than action ?
“ 2. If we bow our head or join our hands before a living
})erson, he replies in return, but the image does not. Then what
is the use of doing it ? What is the use of writing letters to
one w^ho never replies ?
• “ 3. The person, whose image a Hindu adores, might have
corrtmitted some wrongs in his lifetime. Will not the adorer be
harmed by copying those wrongs, which he is likely to copy
if he worships his image ? **
Questions like these have been asked and answered
often enough before now. But the temple entry question
has revived them and they torment honest doubters like
the correspondent, as if they had never been raised and
answered before. I must do the best I can, though I
doubt if doubters like the corresjDondent will be satisfied.
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.
The sub-question in the first question is badly put.
There is no question of comparison between the darshan
and the deed. If there was, I would unhesitatingly say
that the deed is better. But the function of darshan is to
enable the deed to be done, to steady and purify the soul.
Thus, darshan is not a substitute for right doing. It is
an encouragement for it.
In asking the second question, the schoolmaster has
missed the whole point of temple-worship. When I bow to
a living person and he returns it, it is a mutual exchange
80
 TEMPLE-WORSHIP 81

of courtesy and there is no particular merit about it. It

may be a sign of good breeding. Temple-going is for the
purification of the soul. The worshipper draws the best
out of himself. In greeting a living being, hefmay draw
the best out of the person greeted, if the greeting is selfless.
A living being is more or less fallible like oneself. But in
the ternple, one worships the living God, perfect beyond
imagination. Letters written to living persons often end
in heart-breaking, even when they are answered, and
there is no guarantee of their being always answered.
Letters to God who, according to the devotee's imagina¬
tion, resides in temples, require neither pen nor ink nor
paper, not even speech. Mere mute worship constitutes
the letter which brings its own unfailing answer. The
whole function is a beautiful exercise of faith. Here there
is no waste of effort, no heart-breaking, no danger of
being misunderstood. The writer must try to understand
the simple philosophy lying behind the worship in tem¬
ples or mosques or churches. He will understand my
meaning bettor if he will realize that I make no distinc¬
tion between these different abodes of God. They are
what faith has made them. They are an answer to man's
craving somehow to reach the UNSEEN,
The third question shows, perhaps, that the corres¬
pondent has not taken the trouble of understanding the
Hindu theory of incarnations. For the faithful Hindu,
his Incarnation is without blemish. Krishna of the Hindu
devotee is a perfect being. He is unconcerned with the
harsh judgment 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 nie. 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
6
 82 HINDU DHARMA

write these lines, my 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. Mis¬
deeds 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.
I want my Harijan brother, if he wishes, to share this
temple-worship with the millions of his co-religionists,
the so-called caste men. It is the latter’s duty to throw
open their temples to their Harijan brethren. Temple-
worship supplies the felt spiritual want of the human
race. It admits of reform. But it will live as long a.?
man lives.
Harijan, 18-3-’3,T

51
ARE TEMPLES NECESSARY ?
An American correspondent writes :
“ My reading of the history of religion is that every great
religious advance has been away from organized and formal
religion. The great religious ti'uths which the prophets of reli¬
gion have apprehended and proclaimed have always been lost
when their disciples have tried to localize them in priestcraft
and temples. Truth is too universal to be confined and made
sectarian. Therefore I consider temples, mosques and churches
to be a prostitution of religion. In every nation we have wit¬
nessed the degradation of truth and righteousness in the tem¬
ples ; and, in my opinion, in the very conception of organized
religion this is certain to follow as a natural consequence. When
religion is made a monopoly by the priesthood and temples
become vested interests, the great mass of mankind becomes
isolated from truth until some new prophets arise who break
the bonds of orthodoxy and release the spirits of men from
dependence upon the priests and temples.
“Buddha and Jesus, Chaitanya and Kabir realized and
taught Truth, which is universal in its character and helpful
to all men everywhere, but the isms which bear their names
 ARE TEMPLES NECESSARY? 83
are exclusive and divisive and, therefore, harmful to those who
acqept the priestly interpretations of these teachings. Religion
loses its human character and deserves its reputation of being
called an ‘ opiate
Therefore, I can see no advantage in gaining permission
for the Harijans to enter the temples. I know that justice de¬
mands thaCthey shall have the liberty even to do wrong. But
if they are to learn the lessons of self-respect which will enable
them to take an equal place with caste people in the develop-
I ment of the future of our civilization, I think they must learn
an independence of all priests and temples. They must attain
a self-realization, which is dependent upon inner rather than
outer forces. In the process there is likely to be some extrava¬
gance of defiance and bitterness before they actually find them-
i selves. When you said in Europe that you formerly considered
that ‘ God is Truthbut now you realized that * Truth is God
you struck a responsive chord in the hearts of all of us, what¬
ever our traditions may have been. But when you become a
defender of the faith of temple Hinduism, even though it be
a purified type, we feel that you have lost your universal appeal,
an appeal which I consider you to have made not as a Hindu,
but as one of that large body of spiritual-minded Hindus who
do not look to the temples for the spiritual sustenance of their
lives. I do not believe that such men are outside the best tradi¬
tions of Hinduism but are rather In the line of the creators of the
religious spirit which has made the spirituality of India her
greatest contribution to humanity.
“ Nor do I believe that this higher Hinduism is too hign
for the Harijans, whose spiritual intuitions have never been
dulled by our modern type of education. Buddha, Chaitanya
and Kabir, all made a large apj)eal to this class, and the teach¬
ings of Jesus were most appreciated, not by the high and mighty\
but by publicans and fishermen, w’ho were outside the pale of
respectable society. If you were to challenge the untouchables
to keep as before outside the temples and refuse to accept an
inferior status In society, by defying the caste leaders, and en¬
courage them to develop their inner resources, I think you would
have the support of just as large a community of Hindus as ymu
have in your present programme,”
This considered opinion representing a large body of
people throughout the world deserves respectful consi¬
deration. Such an opinion, however, does not appear
before me for the first time. I have had the privilege and
opportunity of discussing this subject with many friends
in the light It is presented. I can appreciate much of the
 84 HINDU DHARMA

argument, but I venture to think that it is inconclusive,

because it has omitted material facts. Some priests are
bad. Temples, churches and mosques very often show
corruption, more often deterioration. Nevertheless, it
would be impossible to prove that all priests are bad or
have been bad and that all churches, temples and mosques
are hot-beds of corruption and superstition. Nor does the
Jirgument take note of this fundamental fact that no Faith
-has done without a habitation; and I go further that in
the very nature of things it cannot exist, so long as man
remains as he is constituted. His very body has been
rightly called the temple of the Holy Ghost, though innu¬
merable such temples belie fact and are hot-beds of cor¬
ruption used for dissoluteness. And I presume that it
will be accepted as a conclusive answer to a sweeping
suggestion that all bodies should be destroyed for the cor¬
ruption of many, if it can be shown, as it can be, that
there are some bodies which are proper temples of ,,the
Holy Ghost. The cause for the corruption of many bodies
will have to be sought elsewhere. Temples of stone and
mortar are nothing else than a natural extension of these
human temples and though they were in their conception
undoubtedly habitations of God like human temples, they
have been subject to the same law of decay as the latter.
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. Pro¬
bably her faith was far greater than mine, though I do
not visit temples. There are millions whose faith is sus¬
tained through these temples, churches and mosques.
They are not all blind followers of a superstitioi^ nor are
 A MODEL TEMPLE 85
they fanatics. Superstition and fanaticism are not their
monopoly. These vices have their root in our hearts
and minds.
My advocacy of temple-entry I hold to be perfectly
coirsistent with the declaration which I often made in
Europe that Truth is God. It is that belief which makes
it possible, at the risk of losing friendships, popularity’
and prestige, to advocate temple-entry for Harijans. The
Truth that I know, or I feel I know, demands that advo¬
cacy from me. Hinduism loses its right to make a
universal appeal if it closes its temples to the Harijans.
That temples and temple-worship are in need of
radical leform must be admitted. But all reform without
temple-entiy will be to tamper with the disease. I apa
awaie that the American friend’s objection is not based
on the corruption or impurity of the temples. His objec¬
tion is much more radical. He does not believe in them
at all. I have endeavoured to show that his position is
untenable in the light of facts which can be verified from
everyday experience. To reject the necessity of temples
is to reject the necessity of God, religion, and earthly
existence.
Harijan, ll-3-’33

52'

* A MODEL .TEMPLE
It was impossible that side by side with the move¬
ment for temple-entry by Harijans there should not be
a demand for temple reform. The modern Hindu temple
is a hot-bed of superstition, as are more or less other
‘ Houses of God ’. I published the other day a letter from
an American friend, gently pleading with me not to have
anything to do with the temple-entry movement.* A
friend who is a devout follower of Islam has carried on
a long correspondence with me, trying to do with me in

• See preceding chapter. .

 86 HINDU DHARMA

his own way what the American friend did in his own.
There is undoubtedly a great deal of substance in what
they have said. But I have not been able to subscribe to
their corollary that the remedy for the abuse lies in the
destruction of temples.
But by far the largest number of persons believe in
the reform, not destruction, of temples. I mentioned only
the other day an ambitious scheme set on foot for a
model temple in Rajkot. Several correspondents have
taken me to task for advocating temple-entry for Harijans
without emphasizing the necessity of temple reform.
There is no doubt that temple reform is necessary. But
here, again, there is need for caution. Some of them
think that it is possible to replace all the existing temples
with new ones. 1 do not share that view. All temples
will never be alike. They will always vary, ds they have
done in the past, with the varying human needs. 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 mau¬
soleum, however beautiful, is a tomb and not a mosque,
and a bare plot of consecrated ground may be a real
Temple of God.
Therefore the first desideratum is the priest. My
ideal priest must be a man of God. He must be a true
servant of the people. He should have the qualifications
of a guide, friend and philosopher to those among whom
he is officiating. He must be a whole-timer with the least
possible needs and personal ties. He should be versed in
the shastras. His whole concern will be to look after the
welfare of his people. I have not drawn a fanciful pic¬
ture. It is almost true to life. It is based on the recol¬
lections of my childhood, 'fhe priest I am recalling was
looked up to by the prince and the people. They flocked
round him for advice and guidance in the time of their
need.
 A MODEL TEMPLE 87
If the sceptic says such a priest is hard to find now¬
adays, he would be partly right. But I would ask the
reformer to wait for building the temple of his ideal till
he finds his priest.
Meanwhile let him cultivate in hinxself the virtues
he will have m the priest of his imagination. Let him
oxpect these from the priests of existing temples. In other
w'ords, by his gentle and correct conduct, let him infect
his immediate surroundings with the need of the times
and let him have faith that his thought, surcharged with
his own correct conduct, will act more powerfully than
the mightiest dynamo. Let him not be impatient to see
the result in a day. A thought may take years of con¬
duct to evolve the requisite power. What are years or
generations in the life of a great reform ?
Now, perhaps, the reader will follow my view of a
model temple. I can present him with no architect’s
plan and specification. Time is not ripe for it. But that
does not baffle me and it need not baffle the reformer. He
can choose the site for his future temple. It must be as
extensive as he can get it. It need not be in the heart
•of a village or a city. It should be easily accessible to
the Harijans and the other jroor and yet it must not be
in insanitary surroundings. If possible, it should be
higher than its surroundings. In any case, I would aim
at making the plinth of the actual temple as high as possi¬
ble. And on this site I should select my plot for daily
worship. Round this will come into being a school, a
dispensary, a library, secular and religious. The school
may serve also as a meeting or debating hall. I should
have a dharmashala or guest-house connected with the
temple. Each one of these will be a separate institution
and yet subordinate to the temple and may be built simul¬
taneously or one after another as circumstances and funds
-may permit. The buildings may or may not be substan¬
tial. If labour is -voluntary, as it well may be, with mud
and straw a beginning may be made at once. But the
temple is not yet built. The foundation was laid when
the site was procured, the plot for the temple was selected
 HINDU DHARMA
88
and the first prayer was offered. For the Bhagawata
says, ‘ Wherever people meet and utter His name from
their hearts, there God dwells, there is Ilis temple.’ The
building, the deity, the consecration, is the province of
the priest. When he is found, he will set about his task,
but the temple began its existence from the time of the
first prayer. And if it was the prayer of true men and
women, its continuous piogress was assured.
So much for the temple of the future. The reader
who cares to study the Rajkot scheme will find that the
outward form of my model temple materially corresponds
to that in the scheme. Indeed, there is nothing new in
my idea or the Rajkot scheme. The village temples of
yore had almost all the adjuncts suggested b}’^ me.
But we must also deal with the existing temples.
They can become real Houses of God today, if the wor¬
shippers will insist on the priests conforming to the ideal
presented by me.
Harijan, 29-4-’.?3

53
TEMPLE REFORM
Here I cannot do better than quote from a long letter
from a Mussulman friend who believes in Hinduism as
much as he believes in Islam :
“ You will soon be going to Travancore to celebrate the entry
of Harijans into the temples thrown open to them. It is indeed
a step forward. But what we need most is the restoration of
the temples to their^ pristine purity and sanctity. The ideal
lying behind temples is most holy. In the temples of ancient
India resided great rishis who imparted divine w isdom. Today
the priest sits there barring the way to those who need instruc¬
tion and help to solve the problem of life. Alas ! the priests
of all religions are more in need of instruction than the poor
masses.”
These words are true. Never was the need for
temple reform more urgent than today. Fortunately in
Travancore the vast majority of temples belong to the
 TEMPLE-WORSHIP 89
Stale and are under special management. They are kept
clean and often undergo improvement and additidli.
They are never empty. They supply a felt want. If the
priests had better education and would be custodians of
the spirituality of the people, the temples would be
houses both of worship and spiritual instruction as they
were before^
Harijan, 2:j-l-’.S7

54
TEMPLE-W(3RSHIP
“ 1 have not been a temple-goer,” said Gandhiji to him,
“ but now that this liberty has come to me all of a sudden,
1 feel fascinated, and the divine stillness that surrounded
the prayer meeting under the ashicattha tree in the
temple-yard now stimulates me to find new ways and
means for attracting people to temples. My temple-going
is not an idle thing. It is a definitely sacred thing that
has come to me in my life at an opportune moment.”
‘‘ Would you say anything about the mode of wor¬
ship ? ”
“ I will not criticize it. The new thing has come
upon me with a newness which humbles me. I refuse to
look at it with the eye of a critic. One thing certainly I
have noticed, viz. the want of intelligence and devoutness
on the part of priests.”
Harijafiy 30-l-'37

♦From a conversation with a tempie trustee.

 55
PRIESTS AND UPANAYANAM
A Harijan sevak writes :
** You have stated in the Harijan No. 4 that reformers should
learn to dispense with the outward form. Will you not dispense
with the priest altogether ? The latter works only for money.
Many priests to my knowledge do not even pronounce the
mantras accurately; still fewer know their meaning. They trade
on the gullibility of the public. What merit can such officiating
carr^’’ -with it ? Such humbug is more rampant at places of pil¬
grimage than elsewhere. I am myself a brahmana. The
vpanayanam ceremony wa.s performed upon me when I was
13 years old. At the end of the ceremony, the priest said., I was
a shudra up to the time that I was without the sacred thread,
but that, having put on the sacred thread, I became a brahmana.
I had to repeat this formula before my parents when T went to
make obeisance to them. Here the idea given to me was that
after having taken the sacred thread I had risen to a higher
status. How do you reconcile this with your claim that there
is no high-and-low status in Hinduism ? ”
I have considerably abridged what is a long letter
from this correspondent. What he says about the igno¬
rance of many priests and the show that they make of
learning is unfortunately only too true. The remedy for
it is a general levelling up of the character of the people
and the spread of the right stamp of education, including
a workable knowledge of Sanskrit. I believe in the great
power which Vivekananda used to ascribe to Sanskrit.
We are unnecessarily frightened by the difficulty of learn¬
ing Sanskrit. For a persevering student it is no moi*e
difficult than any of the other languages. I do pot mean
that we can easily gain a knowledge of Sanskrit that
would enable us to understand the intricacies of ancient
texts, but I do suggest that to gain a workable knowledge
of Sanskrit, to acquire the correct pronunciation, so as
to be able to know whether the priest is performing his
task correctly or whether a pandit is misleading us, is
not a difficult task, ^certainly not one-tenth as difficult as
it is to acquire an equivalent knowledge of English. And
90
 PRIESTS AND VPANAYANAM 91

then it must not be forgotten that such a knowledge of

Sanskrit gives one a master key to the knowledge of the
majority of Indian languages, not excluding the Southern
group.
But I must not stray away from my subject. Till this
happy day arrives, we have to do the best we can with
the tools at our disposal. And if we cannot get a trust¬
worthy brahmana priest to officiate, the Bhagawuta and
the later saints have supplied us with an incredibly sim¬
ple solution. At every ceremony, whether it is in con¬
nection with marriage, birth or death or any other reli¬
gious function, the uttering of the Sacred Name from the
heart is enough to ensure the presence and benediction of
God at the ceremony. The fact is that God is there all the
time, only we do not realize it. The recitation of the
Sacred Name, hallowed by the practiqp of an unbroken
line of Saints, wakes us from our ignorance and works
as infallibly as an electric spark, and immediately makes
the presence of God felt in our midst. I say this only
for those who have faith. Those who have none should
dismiss it from their minds altogether. For them, even
the presence of the orthodox priest is a mere mechanical
act, an ignorant obedience to custom. They derive no
advantage, no merit from the act. An honest orthodox
priest has a place in the Hindu family. He is fast losing
it by his own folly. He may be safe if he sheds his lazi¬
ness, his ignorance, and, what is worse, his dishonesty.
The present movement is indirectly intended to effect that
reform. Seeing that the movement is one of internal
purification, we shall never achieve it, unless there is a
general sweeping up of all that is evil. Who can make
the real beginning, if not he who calls himself a brnh-
mana ?
As for the upanayanam ceremony, though I have dis¬
carded it myself, it has, there is no doubt, a deep mean¬
ing. The sacred thread is a sign of new birth, a regenera¬
tion. Before the adoption of the thread, there is but one
birth, that is the physical. The adoption of the thread
is a sign of the second birth, that is the spiritual. It is
 92 HINDU DHARALA.

a sign of initiation of a new life of dedication to God, It

is, therefore, a higher life in the sense of greater responsi¬
bility in relation to oneself, but it gives one no greater
status in relation to his neighbour. Indeed, at the time
of initiation, there ought to be a definite realiJzation that
from that date one becomes a servant of the poorest and
the lowliest. And to my mind, the thought that all are
shydras till the ceremony of initiation and dedication is
a beautiful and ennobling thought. Unfortunately, these
rites which were intended to emphasize human duties
ha\^e been abused for the sake of exploitation and usurpa¬
tion.
HaHjan, 22-l-’33

m 56
TRAINING SCHOOLS IN TEMPLES

The Thakoresaheb of Lathi is reported to have said

in his address that as soon as he gets suitable priests and
teachers he would like to open more temples and cover
them with schools for all classes of children. I would sug¬
gest to him the same remedy T put before the authorities
in Travancore. A small training school should be opened
in Lathi for giving practical training in conducting ser¬
vices and schools in temples. There is no reason why
both the offices should not be combined in one person. A
school master has as much need to be pure in heart as a
priest and vice versa. Nor need a priest be ignorant of
the art of teaching. At the present moment the most
deplorable thing is that the temple priests are as a rule
ignorant men often devoid of character. The training
course need not be long — not beyond six months. If the
salary offered is attractive, the school should draw well-
read youths of character beyond reproach.
Harijan, 29-5-*37
 57
ANIMAL SACRIFICES
The Secretary of the Youth League, Dharwad, writes ;
“ Though animal sacrifices in general were not in vogue in
the district for a long time, the brahmanas took to it once in
Ten years or so under the guise of performing yajnas for pro¬
pitiating the rain god. But since last year, the craze is becoming
stronger. While there was a yajna Jast year in which only 4
innocent goats weie sacrificed, this year they have gone up for
a wholesale slaughter of nearly 24 goats. They performed what
is called Vajapeya yajna as an act of great merit which was
not performed for the last hundred years and sacrificed about
24 innocent animals. The fact seems to be that it had fallen
into disrepute as an act of barbarism. And this cruel institu¬
tion has been revived after hundreds of years by the so-called
brahmanas of Dharwad, among whom are many -who had taken
prominent part during the non-co-operation days and who still
parade their hhadi dress and hawk it in your name. What
was still more i^itiful was that woihen and girls were made
accustomed to sights of cruelty. The method of killing the goats
was outrageous as it consisted in tightening their mouths and
then pounding by fists till they were dead. This method of
killing or torture which would be condemned as barbarous even
by butchers is justified on the ground that the shastras require
that bleating should not be heard!”
If what is stated in the letter is at all true it betrays a
shocking state of things and an undoubted reversion to
barbarism. It is a matter for deep sorrow and humiliation
that there should be educated men enough in the country
who believe that there are gods who can be appeased or
conciliated by the sacrifice of animals, and if the manner
of killing the innocent goats is correctly described by the
Secretary of the Youth League of Dharwad, it is an in¬
human act done in the name of religion. I should hope
that there is exaggeration in the statement made by the
Secretary. There is a similar letter from Bengal also in
which the writer asks me to condemn the animal sacrifices
that go on daily in the name of religion in that great pro¬
vince. If my condemnation of these sacrifices can save a
single animal from slaughter it is there with all the force
93
 94 HINDU DHARMA

I can command. But there seems to be just now the

fashion to encourage such sacrifices and to justify them.
A correspondent from Madras sends me papers containing
accounts of such slaughter done by learned brahmanas
in the Madras Presidency. I wish that Youth Leagues
all over the country will rise in I’evolt against these sacri¬
fices and cultivate public opinion so as to make them im¬
possible. I have heard it argued that since the stopping
of animal sacrifices people have lost the warlike spirit.
There were animal sacrifices enough in Europe before
Christianity. Europe does not seem to have lost its war¬
like spirit because of the stopping of degrading and de¬
basing animal sacrifices. I am no worshipper of war¬
like spirit, but I know that warlike spirit is not to be
cultivated by the slaughter in a terribly cruel manner, of
helpless, innocent, unresisting dumb fellow creatures.
Young India, 21-ll-’29

58
TEMPLE PRIESTS AND ANIMAL SACRIFICE
The following is from a letter from Sibsagar, Assam '
" On the day we visited the temple there were crowds of
worshippers clustering at the entrance — mostly tea-garden
labourers and Miris. Scenes such as are to be met with in a
bazar were going on in front of the temple. One devotee was
offering a pair of pigeons, and the priests were demanding 2
annas a.s the price of the offering. Another devotee, who had
a goat to offer, was being asked to pay 4 annas more, the rupee
he had laid before the priests being insufficient to make his
goat-offering acceptable to the deity. These simple, innocent
holders of the Hindu faith had evidently fallen among thievies.
They were squatting or kneeling outside the temple-door, their
envious glances following those walking freely into it, their
wonder-lit, sad eyes peering into the dark gloom inside in the
vain hope of catching a glimpse of the image.
“ I went away with a heavy heart from this scene of irreli-
gion and deception. My mind revolted, and I made up my mind
to give wide publicity to this crime as against God and humanity
and leave no stone unturned to have the temple thrown open to
Harijans.”
 TEMPLPJ PRIESTS AND ANIMAL SiACRIFICE 95

When I was touring in Assam last year in the Hari-

jan cause, 1 had understood that the tea-garden coolies
were regarded as untouchables and that the Miris were
also almost so regarded. Be that as it may, it is a serious
question whether, where the priests exploit the supersti¬
tion of the people and where innocent birds and animals
are offeied $is sacrifice, it is right to agitate for the entrj'
of Harijans to such a temple.
No doubt temple reform is a separate question. Entry
of Harijans into temples cannot await reform. But I
would draw the line at temples where animal sacrifices
are offered. I would not touch these temples till animal
sacrifices are stopped. Inward corruption in temples can¬
not affect the devotee who knows nothing about it. But
with animal sacrifice every worshipper is intimately con¬
nected. For, he or she has to offer such sacrifice. And
a Harijan admitted for the first time in such a temple
would naturally be expected to bring someypoor bird or
animal as sacrifice. He may or may not be a meat-eater,
but who will make himself responsible for the sin of teach¬
ing an unsophisticated Harijan that God expects His wor¬
shippers to propitiate Him with the blood of innocent
dumb animals who have never sinned, who have no sense
of sin ? I wish that the leaders of Assam will purge the
Dergaon temple of the stain of bloody sacrifice. Let no
one retort that the beginning should be made, not with
an unknown temple like that of Dergaon, but it should
begin with the temple of Kali. Most reforms have had
their origin in small beginnings. The citadel of Kali will
fall by its own weight, if the minor temples wash them¬
selves clean of innocent blood.
Harijan, 5-4-'36
 59
ANIMAL. SACRIFICE
A correspondent writes :
The Harijans of Mysore regularly offer animal sacrifice in
the temples there. In the Krishnarajanagar Taluka, pilgrimages
to chosen areas take place annually for this purpose. One such
took place from January 3rd to 25th this year, in which three
or four goats were sacrificed daily.
“ Another takes place every Saturday in the month of
Shravan. In this not only Harijans but priests, the self-styled
custodians of the Hindu religion, also take. part. The participants
indulge in drink too on these occasions.
“ The most painful thing is that beef is eaten. It is a matter
of utmost shame, too, for every Hindu that the killing of the
animals takes place right in front of the temple — the house of
Godr
If what the writer says is true, it is indeed, in one
sense, a matter of shame for every Hindu. But no sin
can be wipe^ out by mere condemnation by word of
mouth. Nor does the guilt of the whole body absolve the
individual from his duty. Therefore, in my opinion, the
responsibility of working for the reform rests, in the first
instance, on the correspondent, secondly on the people of
the place where the animal sacrifices are held, then on the
Ruler of the State and his people, and after them in turn
on Karnatak, Madras Presidency and the whole of India.
Only if all, in their respective places, take up the work
systematically — and systematic work can only succeed
if run on the basis of non-violence — can the evil that has
been handed down through the ages be wiped out of
existence.
Therefore, it is the correspondent who must make
the beginning. I have written enough previously as to
how the work of reform should be undertaken.
Harijan, 23-6.’46

%
 60
AS OTHERS SEE US
Here is a letter which has been lying on my file for
some time :
** Your attitude towards religious conversion and particularly
the hope you entertain for the Depressed Classes within the fold
of Hinduism, overlooks the prevalent practices of Hinduism as
it exists in India today. It is impossible not to acknowledge the
beauty and the sublimity of Hinduism expounded by Viveka-
nanda and Sir S. Radhakrishnan. But is that the Hinduism that
is taught to the mavises of India or practised by the heads of
Hindu religion ? What are the millions of the poor Indian people
— starving millions as you call them — living in seven lakhs of
villages seeking ? Their first need is proper food, shelter and
clothing so that they may be raised above the level of animals.
Are the Depressed Classes anxious for temple entry ?
“ Any religion is judged by its fruits. Here is a contrast. Take
the case of the Christian religion, whether Roman Catholic or
Protestant. The funds that are collected from the rich and poor
are carefully accounted for and repaid in the form of medical
and educational service. Religious worship is open to all alike.
The number of schools, colleges, dispensaries, hospitals and
orphanages admirably served by their religious institutions bear
eloquent testimony to the quality of faith that is in them. It is
not the theology and philosophy which they possess but the
self-sacrificing service which they render In abundant measure to¬
wards all that is a contrast to the service rendered by the temples
and muths. What are the uses of the wealth of temples and
muths ? Are not these weapons of superstition and oppression ?
The heads of these muths live princely lives with vast endow¬
ments, and when they care to stir out there is a huge retinue
of palanquins, cars, elephants, camels and a host of disciples,
descending on unhappy villages and towns, like locusts, for fur¬
ther collections. Their disciples who are priests are spread like
spies throughout the districts, to collect money from the follow¬
ers of various faiths, Madhvas, Lingayats, Shaivaits and so forth,
under pain of excommunication or ostracism. I am informed
that there are regular lawyers to collect dues and serve the
interests of these religious heads, swamis and gurus. This state
of‘affairs Is an oppression worse than Popery in Its worst days.
Not merely the accumulated wealth and the annual collections,
which In all tJhese rhuths must amount to several crores, are

97
7
98 HINDU DHAKMA

never properly accounted for, but this gigantic system of ghastly

exploitation continues to be supported by the most intellectual
leaders of the people as if Hindu society will break up by ques¬
tioning it. This is practical Hinduism. Why should there be
any surprise that the Depressed Classes alone should revolt
against a system which denies equal rights to worship the Deity
but keeps them also in perpetual social excommunication ? Why
is it that no one ventures to question the priestly oppression,
this draining away annually the wealth of the people without
any service whatever ? While the millions are hungry, ignorant
and illiterate, even a small proportion of the wealth of the muthB
and the temples is not turned to relieve human misery. Hindu¬
ism is so spiritual that it will not do it. Are the Hindu gods
so ravenous that they require such an annual collection with
complete indifference to those who give it ? I doubt!

** While the produce of the land is steadily drained away a«

land revenue on the one side by the State and religious extor¬
tion on the other, is it any wonder millions are underfed and
poverty-stricken ? Is it any relief to them to be told to work
harder and more systematically in their leisure months after
the harvest ? What is taken in money and kind should return
to them in the form of service they most need. If the poor
unfortunate masses of India are not supported by the wealth of
the Hindu muths to shake off their illiteracy, ignorance, hook¬
worm, malaria, leprosy, diarrhoea, dysentery, cholera and plague
— physical ills which they cannot at present get over without
relief — they will never be capable of bringing greater intelli¬
gence to bear upon the resources of Nature. It is exploitation
by religious heads that has crushed the people, and the money¬
lender and the State combined have finished the process. It is
not more work and harder work, and the variety of cottage in¬
dustries that these half-dead, half-living masses require, but more
vocational schools and dispensaries, maternity and child-welfare
centres and better food. They have paid for it in full and have
been cheated out of %he services they ought to get from religion
and the State. When will the children of the villages have the
light of morning in their eyes ? In the process of evolution, to
think that all that is dross in Hinduism will drop off like surface
excrescence is as much as hoping that all that is vile in the
present Government will also do the same by Just wishing for
it. If the State is not moved very easily by your Herculean
endeavours, Hinduism requires a far more drastic purge as it
has been established some thousands of years longer than this
alien Government. I would rather love the State that renders
services of all sorts for the revenue collected than this religion
which does nothing.
 AS OTHERS SEE US 99
Bishops and priests of the Christian religion, In spite of the
fierce criticism levelled against them in this land and every other
country, render humanitarian service unequalled by any other
class of human beings who follow any other faith or no faith,
and are approachable to all people. Christian missions, far from
being wealthy, have become poorer and lost all their western
supporters who today acknowledge the greatness of Hinduism
and challenge them to go forth and serve their fellowmen with
their own money. If the humanitarian service of the Christian
heads are acknowledged, it is far better to give to them some
of the resources that are now misused so that with their honest
and excellent organization they may expand their humane ser^
vice which the masses sorely need. What has Hinduism done
for the villages, the most depressing, morbid places under the
sun ? Nothing! Absolutely nothing! Government officials
require batta to visit these places, and no wonder. One would
welcome cheerfully the mechanical civilization of the West, but
even that under Hindu hands becomes as vile as Bombay chawls.
Any one with open unprejudiced eyes can see it. You have n«
objection to accept missionary humanitarian service, and yet wilt
not consider what form of service Hinduism renders with its.
accumulated wealth in temples and muths. When these reli¬
gious institutions serve the poor regardless of caste, creed or
community, Instead of exploiting their abysmal superstition,
Hinduism will really begin to live.”

It is good to see oureelves as others see us. Try as

we may, we are never able to know ourselves fully as we
are, especially the evil side of us. This we can do only
if we are not angry with bur critics but will take in good
part whatever they might have to say. Anyway I pro¬
pose to examine the foregoing criticism as dispassionately
as I can. The grave limitations of Hinduism as it is seen
today in practice must be admitted. Many muths and
their administration are undoubtedly a disgrace to Hindu¬
ism. The money that is poured into some of them does
not return to the worshippers in the form of service. This
state of things must be ended or mended.
Humanitarian work done by Christian missions must
also be admitted.
But these admissions of mine must not be interpreted
to mean endorsement of the deductions of the writer. Eco¬
nomic and educational relief is required by most poor
 100 HINDU DHARMA

Indians in common with the Harijans. But the latter

suffer from special disabilities. It is not a question of what
disabilities they resent. It is the duty of the so-called
superior Hindus to break the chains that bind the Harijans
even though they may hug them. The admission by the
writer of the sublimity of Hinduism as expounded by
Vivekananda and Radhakrishnan should have led to his
"tiiscovery of its percolation down to the masses. I make
‘tx)ld to say that in spite of the crudeness which one sees
Jamong the villagers, class considered, in all that is good
in human nature they compare favourably with any vil¬
lagers in the world. This testimony is borne out by the
majority of travellers who from the time of Huen Tsang
down to the present times have recorded their impres¬
sions. The innate culture that the villages of India show,
the art which one sees in the homes of the poor, the re¬
straint with which the villagers conduct themselves, are
surely due to the religion that has bound them together
from time immemorial.
In his zeal to belittle Hinduism, the writer ignores
the broad fact that Hinduism has produced a race of re¬
formers who have successfully combated prejudices,
superstitions and abuses. Without any drum-bating,
Hinduism has devised a system of relief of the poor which
has been the envy of many foreign admirers. I myself
feel that it leaves much to be desired. It has its evil side.
But from the philanthropic .standpoint it has wholly justi¬
fied itself. It is not the Indian habit to advertise charities
through printed reports and the like. But he who runs
may see the free kitchens and free medical relief given
along indigenous lines.
The writer belittles village work. It betrays gross
ignorance. If the muths and the revenue offices were ex¬
tinguished and free schools were opened, the people would
not be cured of their inertia. Muths must be reformed, the
revenue system must be overhauled, free primary schools
must be established in every village. But starvation will
not disappear because people pay no revenue and muths
are destroyed and schools spring up in every village. The
 AS OTHERS SEE US 101

greatest education in the villages consists in the villagers

being taught or induced to work methodically and pro¬
fitably all the year round whether it be on the land or at
industries connected with the villages.
Lastly, my correspondent seems to resent acceptance
by us of humanitarian services by missionaries. Will he
have an agitation led against these missionary institu¬
tions ? Why should they have non-Christian aid ? They
are established with the view of weaning Indians from
their ancestral faith even as expounded by Vivekananda
and Radhakrishnan. Let them isolate the institutions
from the double purpose. It will be time enough then
to expect non-Christian aid. The critic must be aware of
the fact that even as it is some of these institutions do
get non-Christian aid. My point is that there should be
no complaint if they do not receive such aid so long as
they have an aim which is repugnant to the non-Christian
sentiment.
Harijan, 6-3-*37
 SECTION FOUR : FASTS AND PRAYER

61
FASTING AND PRAYER
[While appealing to people to fast and pray during the National
Week, Gandhiji wrote:]
This is a hoary institution. A genuine fast cleanses
body, mind and soul. It crucifies the fiesh and to that ex¬
tent sets the soul free. A sincere prayer can work won¬
ders. It is an intense longing of the soul for its even
greater purity. Purity thus gained when it is utilized for
a noble purpose becomes a prayer. The mundane use of
the Gayatri, its repetition for healing the sick, illustrates
the meaning we have given to prayer. When the same
Gayatri japa is performed with a humble and concentrat¬
ed mind in an intelligent manner in times of national diffi¬
culties and calamities, it becomes a most potent instru¬
ment for warding off danger. There can be no greater
mistake than to suppose that the recitation of the Gayatri,
the namaz or the Qiristian prayer are superstitions fit
to be practised by the ignorant and the credulous. Fast¬
ing and prayer therefore are a most powerful process of
purification and that which purifies necessarily enables
us the better to do our duty and to attain our goal. If
therefore fasting and prayer seem at times not to answer,
it is not because there is nothing in them but because the
right spirit is not behind them.
A man who fasts and gambles away the whole of the
day as do so many on Janmashtami day, naturally, not
only obtains no result from the fast in the shape of greater
purity but such a dissolute fast leaves him on the contrary
degraded. A fast to be true must be accompanied by a
102
 PASTS 103
readiness to receive pure thoughts and determination to
resist all Satan’s temptations. Similarly a prayer to be
true has to be intelligible and definite. One has to identify
oneself with it. Counting beads with the name of Allah
on one’s lips whilst the mind wanders in all directions is
worse than useless. We therefore hope that the coming
week of dedication to national fasting and prayer will be¬
come a universal reality and not merely a formal observa¬
tion.
Young India, 24-3-’20

62
FASTS
[With reference to a letter from C.F. Andrews expressing moral
repulsion amongst Christians In England against * fasting unto death
Gandhiji wTote:]
Although the Sanatanists swear at me for the fast,
and Hindu co-workers may deplore it, they know that
fasting is an integral part of even the present day Hindu¬
ism. They cannot long affect to be horrified at it. Hindu
religious literature is replete with instances of fasting, and
thousands of Hindus fast even today on the slightest pre¬
text. It is the one thing that does the least harm. There
is no doubt that, like everything that is good, fasts are
abused. That is inevitable. One cannot forbear to do
good, because sometimes evil is done under its cover.
My real difficulty is with my Christian Protestant
friends, of whom I have so many and whose friendship I
value beyond measure. Let me confess to them that,
though from my very first contact with them I have known
their dislike for fasts, I have never been able to under¬
stand it.
Mortification of the flesh has been held all the world
over as a condition of spiritual progress. There is no
prayer without fasting, taking fasting in its widest sense.
A complete fast is a complete and literal denial of self.
It is the truest prayer. “ Take my life and let it be always,
 104 HINDU DHARMA

only, all for Thee ” is not, should not be, a mere lip or
figurative expression. It has to be a wreckless and joyous
giving without the least reservation. Abstention from
food and even water is but the mere beginning, the least
part of the surrender.
Whilst I was putting together my thoughts for this
article, a pamphlet written by Christians came into my
Ifiands wherein was a chapter on the necessity of example
rather than precept. In this occurs a quotation from the
3rd Chapter of Jonah. The prophet had foretold that
Nineveh, the great city, was to be destroyed on the
fortieth day of his entering it.
So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a
fast, and put on sack-cloth, from the greatest of them even to
the least of them. For word came unto the king of Nineveh^
and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him,
and covered him with sack-cloth, and sat in ashes. And he
caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by
the decree of the king and the nobles saying, ‘ Let neither man
nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything; let them not feed, nor
drink water. But let man and beast be covered with sack-cloth,
and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from
his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands. Who
can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his
fierce anger, that we perish not' ? * And God saw their works,
that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the
evil that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did
it not."
Thus this was a ‘ fast unto death ’. But every fast unto
death is not suicide. This fast of the king and the people
of Nineveh was a great and humble prayer to God for
deliverance. It was to be either deliverance or death.
Even so was my fast, if I may compare it to the Biblical
fast. This chapter from the book of Jonah reads like an
incident in the Ramayana.
It is only proper that friends should know my fun¬
damental position. I have a profound belief in the
method of the fast, both private and public. It may come
again any day without any warning even to me. If it
comes, I shall welcome it as a great privilege and a joy.
BaHjan, 154-'33
 63
HIS WILL BE DONE
[With reference to friends who tried to dissuade him from his
fast, Gandhiji wrote:]
My claim to hear the voice of God is no new claim. Un¬
fortunately there is no way that I know of proving the
claim except through results. God will not be God if He
allowed Himself to be an object of proof by His creatures.
But He does give His willing slave the power to pass
through the fieriest of ordeals. I have been a willing slave
to this most exacting Master for more than half a century.
His voice has been increasingly audible as years have
rolled by. He has never forsaken me even in my darkest
hour. He has saved me often against myself and left me
not a vestige of independence. The greater the surrender
to Him, the greater has been my joy.
I, therefore, feel confident that in the end these kind¬
est of friends will recognize the correctness of the action
I am about to take. And this whether I die or live. God’s
ways are inscrutable. And who knows that He may not
want my death during the fast to be more fruitful of bene¬
ficial results than my life ? Surely it is highly depressing
to think that a man’s ability to serve dies with the disso¬
lution of the body which for the moment he is inhabiting.
Who doubts that the spirits of Ramakrishna and Daya-
nanda, Vivekananda and Ramatirth are today working in
our midst ? It may be that they are more potent today
than when they were in our midst in the flesh. It is not
true that ' the good that men do is oft buried with them.'
We burn the evil that men do with their mortal remains.
We treasure the memory of the good they do, and dis¬
tance only magnifies it.
And why should exaggerated importance be given to
the services of one single person, however good or able he
may be ? The cause of the Harijans is God’s cause. He
will throw up men and women as they may. be required
to do His will.
Hartjan, e-5-’33

105
 64
FAST FOR PURIFICATION
A tempest has been raging within me for some days.
I have been struggling against it. On the eve of the ‘ Hari-
jan Day ’ the voice became insistent, and said “ Why
don’t you do it ? ” I resisted it. But the resistance was
vain. And the resolution was made to go on an uncondi¬
tional and irrevocable fast for twenty-one days, commen¬
cing from Monday noon the 8th May and ending on Mon¬
day noon the 29th May.
As I look back upon the immediate past, many are
the causes too sacred to mention that must have precipi¬
tated the fast. But they are all connected with the great
Harijan cause. The fast is against nobody in particular
and against everybody who wants to participate in the
joy of it, without for the time being having to fast him¬
self or herself. But it is particularly against myself. It
is a heart-prayer for the purification of self and associates,
for greater vigilance and watchfulness. But nobody who
appreciates the step about to be taken is to join me. Any
such fast will be a torture of themselves and of me.
Let this fast, however, be a preparation for many
such fasts to be taken by purer and more deserving per¬
sons than myself. During all these months since Septem¬
ber last, I have been studying the correspondence and
literature and holding prolonged discussions with men
and women, learned and ignorant, Harijans and non-
Harijans. The evil is far greater than even I had thought
it to be. It will not be eradicated by money, external
organization and even political power for Harijans, though
all these three are necessary. But to be effective, they
must follow or at least accompany inward wealth, inward
organization, and inward power, in other words, self-puri¬
fication. This can only come by fasting and prayer. We
may not approach the-God of Truth in the arrogance of
strength, but in the meekness of the weak and the helpless.
106
 ALL ABOUT THE FAST 107
But the mere fast of the body is nothing without the
will behind it. It must be a genuine confession of the
inner fast, an irrepressible longing to express truth and
nothing but truth. Therefore, those only are privileged
to fast for the cause of truth who have worked for it
and who have love in them even for opponents, who are
free from animal passion and who have abjured earthly
possessions and ambition. No one, therefore, may under¬
take, without previous preparation and discipline, the fast
I have foreshadowed.
Let there be no misunderstanding about the impend¬
ing fast. I have no desire to die. I want to*live for the
cause, though I hope I am equally prepared to die for it.
But I need for me and my fellow-workers greater purity,
greater application and dedication. I want more w'orkers
of unassailable purity. Shocking cases of impurity have
come under my notice. I would like my fast to be an
urgent appeal to such people to leave the cause alone.
I know that many of my Sanatanist friends and others
think that the movement is a deep political game. How
I wish this fast would convince them that it is purely
religious.
Harijan, 6-5-’33

65
ALL ABOUT THE FAST
The first question that has puzzled many is about
the Voice of God. What was it ? What did I hear ? Was
there any person I saw ? If not, how w?is the Voice con¬
veyed to me ? These are pertinent questions.
For me the Voice of God, of Conscience, of Truth or
the Inner Voice or ‘ the still small Voice ’ mean one and
the same thing. I saw no form. I have never tried, for I
have always believed God to be without form. But what
I did hear was like a Voice from afar and s^et quite near.
It was as unmistakable as some human voice definitely
speaking to me, and irresistible. I was not dreaming at the
 108 HINDU DHARMA

time 1 heard the Voice. The hearing of the Voice was

preceded by a terrific struggle within me. Suddenly the
Voice came upon me. I listened, made certain that it was
the Voice, and the struggle ceased. I was calm. The
determination was made accordingly, the date and the
hour of the fast were fixed. Joy came over me. This was
between 11 and 12 midnight. I felt refreshed and began
lo write the note about it which the reader must have
seen.
Could I give any further evidence that it was truly
the Voice that 1 heard and that it was not an echo of my
c wn heated- imagination ? I have no further evidence to
convince the sceptic. He is free to say that it was all
sei‘"-delusion or hallucination. It may well have been so.
I can offer no proof to the contrary. But I can say this —
that not the unanimous verdict of the whole world against
me could shake me from the belief that what I heard was
the true Voice of God.
But some think that God Himself is a creation of our
own imagination. If that view holds good, then nothing
is real, everything is of our own imagination. Even so,
whilst my imagination dominates me, I can only act under
its spell. Realest things are only relatively so. For me
the Voice was more real than my own existence. It has
never failed me, and for that matter, any one else.
And every one who wills' can hear the Voice. It is
within every one. But like everything else, it requires
previous and definite preparation.
The second question that has puzzled many is
whether a fast in which an army of doctors watch and
guide the fasting person, as they undoubtedly and with
extraordinary care and attention watched and guided me,
when he is coddled in various other ways as I was, could
be described as a fast in answer to the call of the Inner
Voice. Put thus, the objection seems valid. It would un¬
doubtedly have been more in keeping with the high claim
made for the fast, if it had been unattended with all the
extraordinary, external aids that it was my good fortune
or misfortune to receive.
 ALL ABOUT THE FAST 109
But I do not rei>ent of having gratefully accepted the
generous help that kind friends extended to me. I was bat^
tling against death. I accepted all the help that came to me
as God-sent, when It did not in any way affect my vow.
As I think over the pa.st, I am not sorry for having
taken the fast. Though I suffered bodily pain and dis¬
comfort, there was indescribable peace within. I have
enjoyed peace during all my fasts'but never so much as
in this. Perhaps, the reason was that there was nothing
to look forward to. In the previous fasts there was some
tangible expectation. In this there was nothing tangible
to expect. There was undoubtedly faith that it must lead
to purification of .self and others and that workers would
know that true Harijan service was impossible without
inward purity. This, however, is a result that could not
be measured or known in a tangible manner. I had,
therefore, withdrawn within myself.
The fast was an uninterrupted twenty-one days’
prayer whose effect I can feel even now. I know now
more fully than ever that there is no prayer without
fasting, be the latter ever so little. And this fasting relates
not merely to the palate, but all the senses and organs.
Complete absorption in prayer must mean complete ex¬
clusion of physical activities till prayer possesses the
whole of our being and we rise superior to, and are com¬
pletely detached from, all physical functions. That state
can only be reached after continual and voluntary cruci¬
fixion of the flesh. Thus all fasting, if it is a spiritual act,
is an intense prayer or a preparation for it. It is a yearn¬
ing of the soul to merge in the divine essence. My last
fast was intended to be such a preparation. How far I
have succeeded, how far I am in tune with the Infinite, I
do hot know. But I do know that the fast has made the
passion for such a state intenser than ever.
Looking back upon the fast, *1 feel it to have been as
necessary as I felt it was when I entered upon it. It had
resulted in some revelations of impurities among work¬
ers of which I had no knowledge whatsoever, and but for
the fast I would never have gained that knowledge.
 ID HINDU DHARMA

All the letters that have come under my notice go to show

that it has led to greater purification amongst the workers.
The fast was meant not for the purification of known
workers only who had been found wanting, but for all
the workers, known and unknown, in the Harijan cause.
Nothing probably could have brought home to the w'ork-
ers so well as this fast the fact that the movement is
purely religious in the highest sense of the term, to be
handled in a religious spirit by workers of character
above reproach.
The work of the removal of untouchability is not
merely a social or economic reform whose extent can be
measured by so much social amenities or economic relief
provided in so much time. Its goal is to touch the hearts
of the millions of Hindus who honestly believe in the
present day untouchability as a Gfod-made institution, aS*
old as the human race itself. This, it will be admitted,
is a task infinitely higher than mere social and economic
reform. Its accomplishment undoubtedly includes all
these and much more. For, it means nothing short of a
complete revolution in the Hindu thought and the dis¬
appearance of the horrible and terrible doctrine of inborn
inequality and high-and-lowness, which has poisoned
Hinduism and is slowly undermining its very existence.
Such a change can only be brought about by an appeal
to the highest in man. And I am more than ever con¬
vinced that that appeal can be made effective only by self¬
purification, i.e. by fasting conceived as the deepest prayer
coming from a lacerated heart.
I believe that the invisible effect of such fasting is
far greater and far more extensive than the visible effect.
The conviction has, therefore, gone deeper in me that my
fast is but the beginning of a chain of true voluntary fasts
by men and women who have qualified themselves by
previous preparation for them and who believe in prayer
as the most effective method of reaching the heart of
things. How that chain can be established I do not know
as yet. But I am striving after it. If it can be established,
I know that it will touch, as nothing else will, the hearts
 WAS IT CX>ERCIVE ? Ill
of Hindus, both the opponents of reform and the Hari-
jans. For the Harijans have also to play their part in
the movement no less than the reformers and the oppo¬
nents. And I am glad to be able to inform the reader that
the Harijans have not been untouched by the fast.
Barijan, 8-7-'33

66
WAS IT COERCIVE ?
In the current number of the Modem Review,
amongst the notes which are always worth reading, there
are some paragraphs on my most recent fast. The writer
of these notes quotes the following from my letter to the
authorities dated 14th August last:
“ That (viz. fasting) is the only way in which I
can fulfil my vow and also relieve myself somewhat of
the strain mentioned above (“ The strain of deprivation
of this work is becoming unbearable ”). I do not want
the suspension of nourishment in any way to act as
pressure on the Government. Life ceases to interest
me if I may not do Harijan service without let or
hindrance.I do indeed want permission (to do
Harijan work), but only if the Government believe that
justice demands it and not because I propose to deprive
myself of food if it is not granted. That deprivation is
intended purely for my consolation."
and then remarks
" As these words are the words of a truth-seeker and truth-
speaker of Mahatma Gandhi's eminence, one should believe that
he did not intend to put pressure on the Government by his
fast* Nevertheless one cannot help being curious as to whether
it never crossed Mahatmaji's mind that the fast would actually
put pressure, if only indirect pressure, on the Government.
"When Mahatmaji fasted before the Poona Pact relating to
depressed class seats in the Legislatures, etc., that fast did put
pressure on Indians, as Rabindranath Tagore has openly con¬
fessed, though such pressure might not have been intended by
the Mahatma,
 112 HINDU DHARMA

** The pressure felt by Indians Is direct. There are, we

believe, some Englishmen and other foreigners on whom Mahat-
maji’s fast puts direct pressure. But it may be said without
injustice to British politicians and bureaucrats that the pressure
which they feel, if and when they do so, is of the indirect sort
.But we.are constrained to observe that, though
fasts undertaken solely for one’s own purification and consola¬
tion are the exclusive concern of the individual fasting, fasts
undertaken directly or indirectly to bring about political or
social changes haw a coercive effect, even though coercion may
not be intended. Like other coercion, this sort of unintended
coercion is also undesirable and produces some harmful conse¬
quences. Under such coercion, some people may pretend to be
convinced or think they have been convinced when they are not
really convinced, and they may be hurried into agreeing to or
doing things which they would not have agreed to or done if
there had not been any pressure on their minds. Therefore,
such coercion does not lead to universally sincere conduct and
lasting reform."*
I propose to deal with this criticism because it affects
a matter that is by no means closed. Fastkig has been for
years past an integral part of my life and I may have to
resume it whether outside or inside prison walls. I can¬
not, therefore, write too often on the science of fasting,
if I may use the sacred word ‘ science ’ in connection with
my fasts. It is necessary to write on this matter as well
for those who would thoughtlessly imitate me, as for
those who criticize me sometimes without being in posses¬
sion of full data.
With much of what the writer says I can readily
agree. I do admit that my fast of September did un¬
fortunately coerce some people into action which they
would not have endorsed without my fast. I do admit
also that my last fast coerced the Government into re¬
leasing me. I admit, too, that such coercion can and does
sometimes lead to insincere conduct. This is about the
extent of my agreement.
These admissions do not cut at the very root of fasts.
They only show that there is great need for caution and
that special qualifications are necessary for those who
would resort to fasting as a method of reform or securing
justice.
 WAS IT COERCIVE ? 113

In any examination of moral conduct the intention is

the chief ingredient. Being concerned with the morality
of my action, I asserted that the intention behind the
fast was not to exert coercion or pressure upon the Gov¬
ernment. I wanted the Government to take me at my
word and let me die in peace, if they could not see the
justice of granting me the facilities I desired. The pro¬
duction of my letter would have absolved them from the
charge of heartlessness, if I had died in prison. I did,
indeed, know that my fast was likely, in spite of the de¬
claration of my intention to the contrary, to influence the
Government to some extent. But one may not be deflect¬
ed from the right course for fear of possible but unin¬
tended consequences. If one were to be so deterred, it
could be shown that hardly any great action could be
undertaken.
To make my meaning clearer, let me take the Sep¬
tember fast. It is a better illustration for examination,
seeing that it was unconnected with the Government. It
was intended to influence both the caste and the Harijan
Hindus. But there the intention was most decidedly not
to induce, irrespective of merits, the decision I desired,
but it teas to stir the Hindus to action on my submission.
That intention was completely fulfilled and to that extent
the fast was not therefore, from the practical standpoint,
open to objection. That it went beyond the intention and
coerced some people into giving a decision against their
conviction was unfortunate. But such conduct is of daily
occurrence in the ordinary affairs of life. People do not
always act independently of others or of surrounding cir¬
cumstances. But I am able to say that the vast majority
of people concerned with the Pact would not accept it
without a full and free discussion, and that what they
accepted was accepted because they considered it to be
on the whole just and fair. They did not sacrifice princi¬
ple for saving my life.
And now whilst I am on the Pact I may observe
parenthetically that, if any injustice was done, it is not
yet beyond repair. If injustice can be proved to the
8
 114 HINDU DHARMA

satisfaction of the parties concerned, it is not too late to re¬

dress it. And I need hardly give the assurance that I
should regard it my sacred duty to exert myself to the
best of my ability in helping to secure redress of any real
injustice.
To revert to the issue under examination, I may say
that I began my experiments in fasting on any large .scale
as an instrument of reform in 1913. I had fasted often
enough before, but not in the manner of 1913. My definite
opinion is that the general result of my numerous fasts
was without doubt beneficial. They invariably quickened
the conscience of the people interested in, and sought to be
influenced by those fasts. I am not aware of any injus¬
tice having been perpetrated through those fasts. If Ben¬
gal proves injustice, it will be an exception. In no case
was there any idea of exercising coercion on any one. In¬
deed, I think that the word coercion would be a misnomer
for the influence that was exerted by the fasts under criti¬
cism. Coercion means some harmful force used against
a person who is expected to do something desired by the .
user of the force. In the fasts in question, the force used
was against myself. Surely, force of self-suffering can¬
not be put in the same category as the force of suffering
caused to the party sought to be influenced. If I fast in
order to awaken the conscience of an erring friend whose*
error is beyond question, I am not coercing him in the
ordinary sense of the word.
The writer of the notes says that there can be fasts
that have no ‘ coercive effect ’, but if the expression ‘ coer¬
cive effect ’ can be lawfully used for my fasts, then in that
sense, all fasts can be proved to have that effect to a
greater or less extent. The fact is that all spiritual fasts
always influence those who come within the zone of their
influence. That is why spiritual fasting is described as
tapas. And all tapas invariably exerts purifying influence
on those in whose behalf it is undertaken.
Of course, it is not to be denied that fasts can be really
coercive. Such are fasts to attain a selfish object. A fast
undertaken to wring money from a person or for fulfilling
 A PURIFICATORY CHAIN OF FASTS 115

some such personal end would amount to the exercise of

coercion or undue influence. I would unhesitatingly ad¬
vocate resistance of such undue influence. I have myself
successfully fesisted it in the fasts that have been under¬
taken or threatened against me. And if it is argued that
the dividing line between a selfish and an unselfish end
is often very thin, I would urge that a person who regards
the end 6f a fast to be selfish or otherwise base should
resolutely refuse to yield to it, even though the refusal
may result in the death of the fasting person. If people
will cultivate the habit of disregarding fasts which in their
opinion are taken for unworthy ends, such fasts will be
robbed of the taint of coercion and undue influence. Like
all human institutions, fasting can be both legitimately
and illegitimately used. But as a great weapon in the
armoury of Satj^agraha, it cannot be given* up because
of its possible abuse. Satyagraha has been designed as
an effective substitute for violence. This use is in its in¬
fancy and, therefore, not yet perfected. But as the author
of modem Satyagraha I cannot give up any of its mani¬
fold uses without forfeiting my claim to handle it in the
spirit of a humble seeker.
Harijan, 9-9-’33 ,

67
A PURIFICATORY CHAIN OP FASTS
On discovering impurities amongst Harijan servants,
I saw that it was no use merely writing about impurities.
I was searching for a way out pf the difficulty. The reader
should believe me when I tell him that the fast was the
last thing-in the world that I was thinking of, but as I
have described in these pages, it came to jne all of a sud¬
den and gave me great relief. I know that it did much
good. But, how far could the fast of a single mortal go ?
Hence it was that I developed the idea of a chain of such
purificatory fasts. The idea has by no means been drop¬
ped. It comes to me again and again. But it does not
admit of a mechanical organization. Several co-workers
 116 HINDU DHARMA

are ready to inaugurate or take part in the chain after

it is inaugurated, but I have not yet found the way to
begin it. The proper way will have to come to me or to
the co-workers before the chain can be Ifegun. Mean¬
while I can only reiterate my conviction that untouch-
ability will not be removed root and branch except
through the service of men and women who take it up
for its own sake and in a religious spirit. Unless we have
a fair number of such servants throughout the length and
breadth of India, we will never succeed in changing the
hearts of millions of human beings.The vicarious
penance of the comparatively pure is needed to bring
about a change in the hearts of both Savarnas and Hari-
jans.
Harijan, 24-ll-’33
«
68
PRAYER
‘ Often, Sir, do you ask us to worship God, to pray
but never tell us how to and to whom to do so. Will you
kindly enlighten me ? ’ asks a reader of the Navajivan.
Worshipping God is singing the praise of God. Prayer is
a confession of one’s unworthiness and weakness. God
has a thousand names, or rather, He is Nameless. We
may worship or pray to Him by whichever name that
pleases us. Some call Him Rama, some Krishna, others
call Him Rahim, and yet others call Him God. All wor¬
ship the same spirit, but as all foods do not agree with'all,
all names do not appeal to all. Each chooses the name
according to his associations, and He being the In-Dwel¬
ler, All-Powerful and Omniscient knows our* innermost
feelings and responds to us according to our deserts.
Worship or prayer, therefore, is not to be performed
with the lips, but with the heart. And that is why it can
be performed equally by the dumb and the stammerer, by
the ignorant and the stupid. And the prayers of those
whose tongues are nectared but whose hearts are full of
poison are never heard. He, therefore, who would pray
 PKAYER 117
to God, must cleanse his heart. / Rama was not only on
the lips of Hanuman, He was enthroned in his heart. He
gave Hanuman exhaustless strength. In His strength he
lifted the mountain and crossed the ocean. It is faith
that steers us through stormy seas, faith that moves
mountains and faith that jumps across the ocean. That
faith is nothing but a living, wideawake consciousness of
God within. He who has achieved that faith wants no¬
thing. Bodily diseased he is spiritually healthy, physical¬
ly pure, he rolls in spiritual riches.
‘ But how is the heart to be cleansed to this extent ? ’
one might well ask. The language of the lips is easily
taught; but who can teach the language of the heart ?
Only the bhakta—the true devotee — knows it and can
teach it. The Gita has defined the bhakta in three places,
and talked of him generally everywhere. But a know¬
ledge of the definition of a bhakta is hardly a sufficient
guide. They are rare on this earth. I have therefore
suggested the Religion of Service as the means. God of
Himself seeks for His seat the heart of him who serves
his fellowmen. That is why Narasinha Mehta who ‘ saw
and knew ’ sang ‘ He is a true Vaishnava who knows to
melt at other’s woe.’ Such was Abu Ben Adhem. He
served his fellowmen, and therefore his name topped the
list of those who served God.
But who are the suffering and the woebegone ? The
suppressed and the poverty-stricken. He who would be
a bhakta therefore, must serve these by body, soul and
mind. How can he who regards the ‘ suppressed ’ classes
as untouchables serve them by the body ? He who does
not even condescend to exert his body to the extent of
spinning for the sake of the poor, and trots out lame ex¬
cuses, does not know the meaning of service. An able-
bodied wretch deserves no alms, but an appeal to work
for his bread. Alms debase him. He who spins before
the poor inviting them to do likewise serves God as no
one else does. ‘ He who gives Me even a trifle such as a
fruit or a flower or even a leaf in the spirit of bhakti is
my servant,' says the Lord in the Bhagawadgita. And
 118 HINDU DHARMA

he hath his footstool where live ‘ the humble, the lowUest

and the lost.’ Spinning, therefore, for such is the greatest
prayer, the greatest worship, the greatest sacrifice.
Prayer, therefore, may be done by any name. A
prayerful heart is the vehicle and service makes the heart
prayerful. Those Hindus who in this age serve the un¬
touchables from a full heart truly pray ; the Hindus and
those others who spin prayerfully for the poor and the
indigent truly pray.
Young India, 24-9-*25

69
WHAT IS PRAYER?
A medical graduate asks :
** What is the best form of prayer ? How much time should
be spent at it ? In my opinion, to do justice is the best form
of prayer, and one who is sincere about doing justice to all
does not need to do any more praying. Some people spend a
long time over sandhya and 95 per cent of them do not under¬
stand the meaning of what they say. In my opinion prayer
should be said in one’s mother-longue. It alone can affect the
soul best. I should say that a sincere prayer for one minute
is enough. It should suffice to promise God not to sin.’*
Prayer m«ans asking God for something in a reverent
attitude. But the word is used also to denote any devo¬
tional act. Worship is a better term to use for what the
correspondent has in mind. But definition apart, what is
it that millions of Hindus, Mussulmans, Christians and
Jews and others do everj'^day during the time set apart
for the adoration of the Maker? It seems to me that it
is a yearning of the heart to be one with the Maker, an
invocation for His blessing. It is in this case the attitude
that matters, not words uttered or muttered. And often
the association of words that have been handed down from
ancient times has an effect which in their rendering into
one’s mother-tongue they will lose altogether. Thus the
Gayatri translated and recited in, say, Gujarati, will not
have the same effect as the original. The utterance of the
word Rama will instantaneously affect millions of Hindus,
 WHAT IS PRAYER ? 119
when the word God, although they may understand the
meaning, will leave them untouched. Words after all ac¬
quire a power by long usage and sacredness associated
with their use. There is much therefore to be said for
the retention of the old Sanskrit formulae for the most
prevalent mantras or verses. That the meaning of them
should be properly understood goes without saying.
There can be no fixed rule laid down as to the time
these devotional acts should take. It depends upon in¬
dividual temperament. 'TThese are precious moments in
one’s daily life. The exercises are intended to sober and
humble us and enable us to realize that nothing happens
without His will and that we are but ‘ clay in the hands
of the Potter ’. These are moments when one reviews
one’s immediate past, confesses one’s weakness, asks for
forgiveness and strength to be and do better. One minute
may be enough for some, twenty-four hours may be too
little for others. For those who are filled with the pre¬
sence of God in them, to labour is to pray. Their life is
one continuous prayer or act of worship. For those others
who act only to sin, to indulge themselves, and live for
self, no time is too much. If they had patience and faith
and the will to be pure, they would pray till they feel the
definite purifying presence of God within them. For us
|0rdinary mortals there must be a middle path between
these two extremes. We are not so exalted as to be able
to say that all our acts are a dedication, nor perhaps are
we so far gone as to be living purely for self. Hence have
all religions set apart times for general devotion. Unfor¬
tunately these have nowadays become merely mechanical
and formal, where they are not hypocritical. What is
necessary therefore is the correct attitude to accompany
these devotions.
For definite personal prayer in the sense of asking
God for some thing, it should certainly be in one’s own
tongue. Nothing can be grander than to ask God to make
ns act justly towards everything that lives.
Young India, 10-6-'26
 70
THE ETERNAL DUEL
A friend writes:
*' In the article entitled * The Tangle of Ahimsa * appearing
in Young India of October 11th, you have stated most forcefully
that cowardice and ahimsa are incompatible. There is not an
ambiguous syllable in your statement. But may I request that
you tell us how cowardice can be exorcised from a man’s cha¬
racter ? I notice that all characters are but the sum total of
habits formed. How are we to undo our old habits and build
the new ones of courage. Intelligence, and action ? am con¬
vinced that habits can be destroyed and better and nobler habits
can be formed giving birth to a new character in a person. It
seems to me that you know prayers, discipline, and studies by
which man can attain a second birth. Won’t you kindly tell us
about them ? Do give us your knowledge and advice in one
of the numbers of Young India. Please help us by giving an
account of the method of praying and working by which a man
can recreate himself,”
The question refers to the eternal duel that is so gra¬
phically described in the Mahahharata under the cloak of
history and that is everyday going on in millions of
breasts. Man’s destined purpose is to conquer old habits,
to overcome the evil in him and tb restore good to its
rightful place. If religion does not teach us how to achieve
this conquest, it teaches us nothing. But there is no
royal road to success in this the truest enterprise in life.
Cowardice is perhaps the greatesst vice from which we
suffer and is also possibly the greatest violence, certainly
far greater than bloodshed and the like that generally go
under the name of violence. For it comes from want of
faith in God and ignorance of His attributes. But I am
sorry that I have not the ability to give ‘ the knowledge
and the advice' that the correspondent would have me
to give on how to dispel cowardice and other vices. But
I can give my own testimony and say tha,t a heartfelt
prayer is undoubtedly the most potent instrument that
man possesses for overcoming cowardice and all other
bad old habits. Prayer is an impossibility without a living
faith in the presence of God within.
120
 THE ETERNAL DUEL 121
Christianity and Islam describe the same process as
a duel between God and Satan, not outside but within;
Zorostrianism as a duel between Ahurmazd and Ahri-
man; Hinduism as a duel between forces of good and
forces of evil. We have to make our choice whether we
should ally ourselves with the forces of evil or with the
•forces of good. And to pray to God is nothing but that
sacred alliance between God and man whereby he attains
his deliverance from the clutches of the prince of dark¬
ness. But a heartfelt prayer is not/a recitation with the
lips. It is a yearning from within which expresses itself
in every word, every act, nay, every thought of man.
When an evil thought successfully assails him, he may
know that he has offered but a lip prayer and similarly
with regard to an evil word escaping his lips or an evil
act done by him. Real prayer is an absolute shield and
protection against this trinity of evils. Success does not
always attend the very first effort at such real living^
prayer. We have to strive against ourselves, we have
to believe in spite of ourselves, because months are as our
years. We have therefore to cultivate illimitable patience
if we will realize the efficacy of prayer. There will be
darkness, disappointment and even worse; but we must
have courage enough to battle against all these and not
succumb to cowardice. There is no such thing as retreat
for a man of prayer.
What I am relating is not a fairy tale. I have not
drawn an imaginary picture. I have summed up the testi¬
mony of men who have by prayer conquered every diffi¬
culty in their upward progress, and I have added my own
humble testimony that the more I live the more I realize
how much I owe to faith and prayer which is one and
the same thing for me. And I am quoting an experience
not limited to a few hours, or days or weeks, but extending
over an unbroken period of nearly 40 years. I have had
my share of disappointments, uttermost darkness, coun¬
sels of despair, counsels of caution, subtlest assaults of
pride, but I am able to Say that my faith, — and I know
that it is still little enough, by no means as great as I
 122 HINDU DHARMA

want it to be, — has ultimately conquered every one of

these difficulties up to now. If we have faith in us, if we
have a prayerful heart, we may not tempt God, may not
make terms with Him. We must reduce ourselves to a
cipher. Barodada sent me a precious Sanskrit verse not
long before his death. It means impliedly that a man of
-devotion reduces himself to zero. Not until we have re-'
duced ourselves to nothingness can we conquer the evil
in us. God demands uothing less than complete self-sur¬
render as the price for the only real freedom that is worth
having. And when a man thus loses himself, he imme¬
diately finds himself in the service of all that lives. It
becomes his delight and his recreation. He is a new man
never weary of spending himself in the service of God’s
creation.
Young India, 20-12-’28

71
A DISCOURSE ON PRAYER
[The following is a summary of the discourse given in Gujarati
fey Gandhiji at Sabarmati to a conference of hostel boys from
Crujarat:]
I am glad that you all want me to speak to you on the
meaning of and the necessity for prayer. I believe that
prayer is the very soul and essence of religion, and there¬
fore prayer must be the very core of the life of man,
for no man can live without religion. There are some
who in the egotism of their reason declare that they have
nothing to do with religion. But it is like a man saying
that he breathes but that he has no nose. Whether by
reason, or by instinct, or by superstition, man acknow¬
ledges some sort of relationship with the divine. The
rankest agnostic or atheist dofes acknowledge the need of
a moral principle, and associates something good with its
observance and something bad with its non-observance.
Bradlaugh, whose atheism is well known, always insisted
on proclaiming his innermost conviction. He had to suffer
a lot for thus speaking the truth, but he delighted in it
 A DISCOURSE ON PRAYER 123
and* said that truth is its own reward. Not that he was
quite insensible to the joy resulting from the observance
of truth. This joy however is not at all worldly,
but springs out of communion with the divine. That is
why I have said that even a man who disowns religion
cannot and does not live without religion.
Now I come to the next thing, viz. that prayer is the
very core of man’s life, as it is the most vital part of
religion. Prayer is either pctitional or in its wider sense
is inward communion. In either case the ultimate result
is the same. Even when it is petitional, the petition
should be for the cleansing and purification of the soul, for
freeing it from the layers of ignorance and darkness that
en velop it. He therefore who hungers for the awakening
of the divine in him must fall back on prayer. But prayer
is no mere exercise of words or of the ears, it is no mere
repetition of empty formula. Any amount of repetition
of Rartianama is futile if it fails to stir the soul. It is bet¬
ter in prayer to have a heart without words than words
without a heart. It must be in clear response to the spirit
which hungers for it. And even as a hungry man relishes
a hearty meal, a hungry soul will relish a heartfelt prayer.
And I am giving you a bit of my experience and that of
my companions when I say that he who has experienced
the magic of prayer may do without food for days to¬
gether but not a single moment without prayer. For with¬
out prayer there is no inward peace.
If that is the case, some one will say, we should be
offering our prayers every minute of our lives. There is
no doubt about it, but we erring mortals, who find it diffi¬
cult to retire within ourselves for inward communion even
for a single moment, will find it impossible to remain per¬
petually in communion with the divine. We therefore
fix some hours when we make a serious effort to throw
off the attachments of the world for a while, we make a
serious pndeavour to remain, so to say, out of the flesh.
You have heard Suradas’s hymn. It is the passionate cry
of a soul hungering for union with the divine. According
to our standards he wa^ a saint, but according to his own
 HINDU DHARMA
124
he was a proclaimed sinner. Spiritually he was miles
ahead of us, but he felt the separation from the divine so
keenly that he has uttered that anguished ciy in loathing
and despair.
I have talked of the necessity for prayer, and there¬
through I have dealt with the essence of prayer. We are
born to serve our fellowmen, and we cannot properly do
so unless we are wideawake. There is an eternal strug¬
gle raging in man’s breast between the powers of darkness
and of light, and he who has not the sheet-anchor of
prayer to rely upon will be a victim to the powers of
darkness. The man of prayer will be at peace with him¬
self and with the whole world; the man who goes about
the affairs of the world without a prayerful heart will be
miserable and will make the world also miserable. Apart
therefore from its bearing on man’s condition after death,
prayer has incalculable value for man in this world of
the living. Prayer is the only means of bringing about
orderliness and peace and repose in our daily acts. We
inmates of the Ashram came here in search of truth and
for insistence on truth professed to believe in the efficacy
of prayer, but had never up to now made it a matter of
vital concern. We did not bestow on it the care that we
did on other matters. I awoke from my slumbers one day
and realized that I had been woefully negligent of my
duty in the matter. I have therefore suggested measures
of stern discipline and far from being any the worse, I
hope we are the better for it. For it is so obvious. Take
care of the vital thing and other things will t^ke care of
-themselves. Rectify one angle of a square, and the other
angles will be automatically right.
Begin therefore your day with prayer, and make it so
soulful that it may remain with you until the evening.
Close the day with prayer so that you may have a peaceful
night free from dreams and nightmares. Do not worry
about the form of prayer. Let it be any form, it should
be such as can put us into communion with the divine.
Only, whatever be the form, let not the spirit wander
while the words of prayer run on out of your mouth.
 WHY PRAY ? 125

If what I have said has gone home to you, you will

not be at peace until you have compelled your hostel
superintendents to interest themselves in your prayer
and to make it obligatory. Restraint self-imposed is no
compulsion. A man, who chooses the path of freedom
from restraint, i. e. self-indulgence, will be a bondclave of
passions, whilst the man who binds himself to rules and
restraints releases himself. All things in the universe,
including the sun and the moon and the stars, obey
certain laws. Without the restraining influence of these
laws the world would not go on fpr a single moment. You,
whose mission in life is service of your fellowmen, will
go to pieces if you do not impose on yourselves some sort
of discipline, and prayer is a necessary spiritual discipline.
It is discipline and restraint that separates us from the
brute. If we will be men walking with our heads erect
and not walking on all fours, let us understand and put
ourselves under voluntary discipline and restraint.
Young India, 23-l-’30

72
WHY PRAY ?

Why pray at all ? Does not God, if there be One,

know what has happened ? Does He stand in need of
prayer to enable Him to do His duty ?
No, God needs no reminder. He is within every one.
Nothing happens without His permission. Our prayer is
a heart search. It is a reminder to ourselves that we are
helpless without His support. No effort is complete
without prayer,— without a definite recognition that the
best human endeavour is of no effect if it has not God's
blessing behind it. Prayer is a call to humility. It is a
call to self-purification, to inward search.
Harijan, 8-6-'35
 73
A DIALOGUE WITH A BUDDHIST
The Meaning of Prayer
Dr. Fabri, a follower of Buddha, called on Gandhiji
at Abbottabad, and enquired :
“Could the Divine Mind be changed by prayer?
Could one find it out by prayer ? ”
“ It is a difficult thing to explain fully what I do when
I pray,” said Gandhiji. “ But I must try to answer your
question. The Divine, Mind is unchangeable, but that
Divinity is in every one and everything — animate and
inanimate. The meaning of prayer is that I want to evoke
that Divinity within me. Now I may have that intellec¬
tual conviction, but not a living touch. And so when I
pray for Swaraj or Independence for India I pray or wish
for adequate power to gain that Swaraj or to make the
largest contribution I can towards winning it, and I main¬
tain that I can get that power in answer to prayer.”
“ Then you are not justified in calling it prayer. To
pray means to beg or demand,” said Dr. Fabri.
“ Yes, indeed. You may say I beg it of myself, of my
Higher self, the Real self with which I have not yet
achieved complete identification. You may, therefore,
describe it as a continual longing to lose oneself in the
Divinity which comprises all.”
Be Humble
“ What about the people who cannot pray ? ” asked
Dr. Fabri.
“ Be humble,” said Gandhiji, “ I would say to them,
and do not limit even the real Buddha by your own con¬
ception of Buddha. He could not have ruled the lives of
millions of men that he did and does today if he was not
humble enough to pray. There is something infinitely
higher than intellect that rules us and even the sceptics.
Their scepticism and philosophy does not help them in
critical periods of their lives. They need something better,
' 126
 IS NOT SERVICE WORSHIP ? 127

something outside them that can sustain them. Aiid

so if someone puts a conundrum before me, I say to him,
‘ You are not going fo know the meaning of God or prayer
unless you reduce yourself to a cipher. You must be hum¬
ble enough to see that in spite of your greatness and
gigantic intellect you are but a speck in the universe. A
merely intellectual conception of the things of life is not
enough. It is the spiritual conception which eludes the
intellect, and which alone can give one satisfaction. Even
moneyed men have critical periods in their lives. Though
they are surrounded by everything that money can buy
and affection can give, they find themselves at certain
moments in their lives utterly distracted. It is in these
moments that we have a glimpse of God, a vision of Him
who is guiding every one of our^teps in life. It is prayer.’ ”
“ You mean what we might call a true religious ex¬
perience which is stronger than intellectual conception,’'
said Dr. Fabri. “ Twice in life I had that experience, but
I have since lost it. But I now find great comfort in one
or two sayings of Buddha : ‘ Selfishness is the cause of
sorrow,’ and ‘ Remember, monks, everything is fleeting.'
To think of these takes almost the place of belief.”
“ That is prayer,” repeated Gandhiji with an insist¬
ence that could not but have gone home.
Harijan, 19-8-’39

74
IS NOT SERVICE WORSHIP ?
Q. Would it not be better for a man to give the time
he spends on the worship of God to the service of the
poor ? And should not true service make devotional wor¬
ship unnecessary for "such a man ?
A. I sense mental laziness as also agnosticism in
this question. The biggest of karmayogis never give up
devotional songs or worship. Idealistically it may be said
that true service of others is jtself worship and that such
devotees do not need to spend any time in songs etc. As
a matter of fact, bhajans etc. are a help to true service
 HINDU DHARMA
128

and keep the remembrance of God fresh in the heart of

the devotee.
Harijan, 13-10-’46

75
QUESTION BOX
Q. While in conversation or doing brain work or
when one is suddenly worried, can one recite Ramanama
(the name of God) in one’s heart ? Do people do so at
such times and, if so, how ?
A. Experience shows that man can do so at any
time, even in sleep, provided Ramanama is enshrined in
his heart. If the taking of the name has become a habit,
its recitation through the-heart becomes as natural as the
heart beat. Otherwise, Ramanama is a mere mechanical
performance or at best has touched the heart only on the
surface. When Ramanama has established its dominion
over the heart, the question of vocal recitation does not
arise. Because then it transcends speech. But it may
well be held that persons who have attained this state
are few and far between.
There is no doubt whatsoever that Ramanama con¬
tains all the power that is attributed to it. No one can,
by mere wishing, enshrine Ramanama in his heart. Un¬
tiring effort is required as also patience. What an amount
of labour and patience have been lavished by men to ac¬
quire the non-existent philosopher’s stone ? Surely, God’s
name is of infinitely richer value and always existent.
Q. Is it harmful if, owing to stress or exigencies of
work, one is unable to carry out daily devotions in the
prescribed manner ? Which of the two should be given
preference ? Service or the rosary ?
A. Whatever the exigencies of service or adverse
circumstances may be, Ramanama must not cease. The
outward form will vary according to the occasion. The
absence of the rosary does not interrupt Ramanama which
has found an abiding place in the heart.
Harijan, 17-2-’46
 76
RAMANAMA, THE INFALLIBLE REMEDY
Shri Ganeshshastri Joshi, Vaidya, tells me after read¬
ing my article on Nature Cure in the Harijan of 3rd
March, 1946, that in Ayurveda, too, there is ample testi¬
mony to the efficacy of Ramanama as a cure for all
disease. Nature Cure occupies the place of honour and in
it Ramauama is the most important. When Charaka,
Vagbhata and other giants of medicine in ancient India
wrote, the popular name for God was. not Rama but
Vishnu. I myself have been a devotee of Tulsidas from
my childhood and have, therefore, always worshipped
God as Rama. But I know that if, beginning with Omkar,
one goes through the entire gamut of God’s names cur¬
rent in all climes, all countries and all languages, the
result is the same. He and His Law are one. To observe
His Law is, therefore, the best form of worship. A man
who becomes one with the Law does not stand in need
of vocal recitation of the name. In other words, an in¬
dividual with whom contemplation on God has become as
natural as breathing is so filled with God’s spirit that
knowledge or observance of the Law becomes second
nature, as it were, with him. Such a one needs no other
treatment.
The question then arises as to why, in spite of having
this prince of remedies at hand, we know so little about
it and why even those who know, do not remember Him
or remember Him only by lip service, not from the heart.
Parrot-like repetition of God’s name signifies failure to
recognize Him as the panacea for all ills.
How can they ? This sovereign remedy is not ad¬
ministered by doctors, vaidyas, hakims or any other
medicinal practitioners. These have no faith in it. If
they were to admit that the spring of the Holy Ganga
could be found in every home their very occupation or
means of livelihood would go. Therefore, they must per¬
force rely on their powders and potions as infallible
129
9
 130 HINDU DHARMA.

remedies. Not only do these provide bread for the doctor

but the patient too seems to feel immediate relief. If a
medical practitioner can get a few persons to say “ so and
so gave me a powder and I was cured ”, his business is
established.
Nor, it must be borne in mind, would it really be of
any use for doctors to prescribe God’s name to patients
unless they themselves were conscious of its miraculous
powers. Ramanama is no copy-book maxim. It is some¬
thing that has to be realized through experience. One
who has had personal experience alone can prescribe it,
not any other.
The Vaidyaraj has copied out for me four verses. Out
of these Charaka’s is the simplest and most apt. It means
that if one were to obtain mastery over even one out of
the thousand names of Vishnu, all ailments would vanish.
Harijan, 24-3-*46

77
TOWARDS REALIZATION
What is the mark of him who has Rama enthroned in
his heart ? If we do not know this, there is danger of
Ramanama being much misinterpreted. Some misinter¬
pretation is already in existence. Many sport rosaries and
put the sacred mark on the forehead and vainly babble
His name. It may well be asked whether I am not adding
to the current hypocrisy by continued insistence on
Ramanama. I must not be deterred by such forebodings.
Silence thus brought about is harmful. The living voice
of silence needs to be backed by prolonged heartfelt prac¬
tice. In the absence of such natural silence, we must try
to know the marks of him who has Rama in his heart.
A devotee of Rama may be said to be the same as the
steadfast one (sthitaprajnya) of the Gita. If one goes a
little deeper It will be seen that a true devotee of God
faithfully obeys the five elemental forces of nature. If
he so obeys, he will not fall ill. If perchance he does.
 TOWARDS REALIZATION 131
he will cure himself with the aid of the elementals. It is
not for the dweller in the body to get the body cured any¬
how— he who believes that he is nothing but body will
naturally wander to the ends of the earth in order to cure
the body of its ills. But he who realizes that the soul is
something apart from, though in the body, that it is im¬
perishable in contrast to the perishable body, will not be-
perturbed nor mourn if the elementals fail. On the con¬
trary he will welcome death as a friend. He will become
his own healer instead of seeking for medical men. He
will live in the consciousness of the soul within and look
to the care, first and last, of the indweller.
Such a man will take God’s name with every breath.
His Rama will be awake even whilst the body is asleep.
Rama will always be with him in whatever he does. The
real death for such a devoted man will be the loss of this
sacred companionship.
As an aid to keeping his Rama with him, he will take
what the five elementals have to give him. That is to say
he will employ the simplest and easiest way of deriving
all the benefit he can from earth, air, water, sunlight and
ether. This aid is not complementary to Ramanarna. It
is but a means of its realization. Ramanarna does not in
fact require any aid. But to claim belief in Ramanarna
and at the same time to run to doctors do not go hand
in hand.
A friend versed in religious lore who read my re¬
marks on Ramanarna sometime ago wrote to say that
Ramanarna is an alchemy such as can transform the body.
The conservation of the vital energy has been likened to
accumulated wealth, but it is in the i)ower of Ramanarna
alone to make it a running stream of ever-increasing spi¬
ritual strength ultimately making a fall impossible.
Just as the body cannot exist without blood, so the
soul needs the matchless and pure strength of faith. This
strength can renovate the weakness of all man's physical
organs. That is why it is said that when Ramanarna is
enshrined in the heart, it means the rebirth of man. 'This
kw applies to the young, the old, man and woman alike.
 132 HINDU DHARMA

This belief is to be found in the West too. Christian

sciences give a glimpse of it. In this issue of the Harijan
Rajkumari has given apt illustrations culled from a book
written by Seventh Day Adventists.
India needs no outside support for a belief which has
been handed down to her people from time immemorial.
Harijan, 29-6-'47

78
IS RAMANAMA ANOTHER NAME FOR CHARMS ?
Q. My nephew was ill. His relations did not resort
to medicines but to spells and charms for his cure. It
cannot be said that these did any good. Your mother too
must have indulged in these things. Now you talk of
Ramanama. Is it not the same as spells and charms ?
A. I have, in one form or another, answered this
question before now. But it is as well to do so again. My
mother gave me medicines so far as I remember. But she
did believe in spells and charms. Learned friends have
faith in them. I have not. And because I have no belief
in such things, I cai;^ say fearlessly that there is no con¬
nection between Ramanama of my conception and jantar
mantar (magic). I have said that to take Ramanama
from the heart means deriving help from an incompara¬
ble power. The atom bomb is as nothing compared with
it. This power is capable of removing all pain. It must,
however, be admitted that it is easy to say that Rama¬
nama must come from the heart, but to attain the reality
is very difficult. Nevertheless, it is the biggest thing
man can possess.
HaHjan, 13-10-’4e
 79
RAMA

“ I laugh within myself,” replied Gandhiji, “ when

someone objects that Rama or the chanting of Ramanama
is for the Hindus only, how can Mussulmans therefore
take part in it ? Is there one God for the Mussulmans and
another for the Hindus, Parsis, or Christians ? No, there
is only one omnipotent and omnipresent God. He is
named variously and we remember Him by the name
which is most familiar to us.
” My Rama, the Rama of our prayers is not the
historical Rama, the son of Dasharatha the King of
Ayodhya. He is the eternal, the unborn, the one without
a second. Him alone I worship. His aid alone I seek,
and so should you. He belongs equally to all. I, there¬
fore, see no reason why a Mussulman or anybody should
object to taking His name. But he is in no way bound
to recognize God as Ramanama. He may utter to himself
Allah or Khuda so as not to mar the harmony of the
sound.”
Harijan, 28-4-*46

80
WHO IS RAMA?
Q. You have often said that when you talk of ‘ Rama'
you refer to the Ruler of the universe and not to Rama,
the son of Dasharatha. But we find that your Ramadhun
calls on * Sita-Rama', ‘ Raja Rama ’ and it ends with ‘ Vic¬
tory to Rama the Lord of Sita.’ Who is this Rama if not
the son of the King Dasharatha ?
A. I have answered such questions before. But
there is something new in this one. It demands a reply.
In Ramadhun * Raja Rama', ‘ Sita-Rama ' are undoubted¬
ly repeated. Is not this * Rama ’ the same as the son of
133
 134 HINDU DHARMA

Dasharatha ? Tulsidas has answered this question. But

let me put down my own view. More potent than Rama
is the Name. Hindu Dharma is like a boundless ocean
teeming with priceless gems. The deeper you dive the
more treasures you find. In Hindu religion God is known
by various names. Thousands of people look doubtless
upon Rama and Krishna as historical figures and literally
believe that God came down in person on earth in the
form of Rama the son of Dasharatha, and by worshipping
him one can attain salvation. The same thing holds
good about Krishna. History, imagination and truth have
got so inextricably mixed up. It is next to impossible to
disentangle them. I have accepted all the names and
forms attributed to God, as symbols connoting one formless
omnipresent Rama. To me, therefore, Rama described
as the Lord of Sita, son of Dasharatha, is the all-powerful
essence whose name inscribed in the heart, removes all
suffering mental, moral and physical.
Harijan, 2-6-’46

81
RAMA THE SON OF DASHARATHA
An Arya Samajist writes:
How can the Rama whom you believe to be Immortal, be
Rama, the son of Dasharatha and the husband of Sita ? I often
attend your prayer gathering with this dilemma always con¬
fronting me and because of it, I am unable to Join in the
Ramadhun. This hurts me for you are right when you say that
all should take part in it. Cannot you make the Ramadhun, such
that all can join in the recital ? '*
I have already explained what I mean by all. It
applies to all those who can join in it from the heart and
recite it in tune. The others should remain silent. But
this is a small matter. The important question is as to
how Rama, the son of Dasharatha, can be deemed immor¬
tal. This question was raised by Saint Tulsidas himself
and answered by him. The answer cannot in reality be
reasoned out. It does not lend itself to intellectual
 RAMA THE SON OP DASHARATHA 135

satisfaction. It is a matter of heart speaking to heart. I wor¬

shipped Rama as Sita’s husband in the first instance, but
as my knowledge and experience of Him grew, my Rama
became immortal and omnipresent. This does not mean
that Rama ceased to be Sita’s husband ; but the meaning
of Sita's husband expanded with the vision of Rama. This
is how the world evolves. Rama cannot become omni¬
present for the man who regards him merely as the son
of Dasharatha. But for the believer in Rama as God, the
father of the omnipresent Rama also becomes omnipre¬
sent— the father and son become one. It may be said
that this is all a matter of imagination. “ To each man
according to his faith,’’ is all that I can say. If all reli¬
gions are one at source, we have to synthesize them. To¬
day they are looked upon as separate and that is why we
kill each other. When we are tired of religion, we become
atheists and then, apart from the little self, nothing, not
even God, exists. But when we acquire true understand¬
ing, the little self perishes and God becomes all in alL
Rama then is and is not the son of Dasharatha, the hus¬
band of Sita, the brother of Bharata and Lakshmana and
yet is God, the unborn and eternal. All honour then to
those who not believing in Rama as the son of Dasharatha
still come to join in the collective prayers. This matter
of Rama is one which transcends reason. I have merely
tried to give to the reader my belief for what it is worth.
Harijan, 22-9-'46
 82
SILENCE DURING PRAYER

“True culture requires that there should be perfect

peace in the prayer ground at the time of the prayer.”
There should be an atmosphere of solemnity as in a
church, a mosque or a temple. He knew that many of
the temples were full of claimour. It had hurt him deeply.
“We go to the temple to worship not the stone or the
metal image but God who resides in it. The image be¬
comes what man makes of it. It has no power indepen¬
dently of the sanctity with which it is invested by the wor¬
shipper. Therefore every one, including children, should
observe perfect silence at the time of prayer.”
Harijan, 28-4-'46

136
 SECTION FIVE: BRAHMACHARVA

83
BRAHMACHARYA OR SELF-CONTROL

[The following is Mahadev Desai’s translation of an

article I wrote on this delicate subject in the Navajivan
of 25th May 1924. I gladly publish it in the Young India
as I have before me many letters from other parts of India
on the same subject. The stray thoughts collected toge¬
ther in the article might be of some help to those who are
earnestly striving for a pure life. My inquirers have been
all Hindus and naturally the article is addressed to them.
The last paragraph is the most important and operative
part. The nantes Allah or God carry with them the same
potency. The idea is to realize the presence of God in
us. All sins are committed in secrecy. The moment we
realize that God witnesses even our thoughts we shall be
free. — M.K.G.]
It is not easy to write on this subject. But the desire
has been uppermost in my mind to share with my readers
some grains out of the vast store of my experience. Some
letters I have received have whetted the desire.
A friend asks : ' What is brahmacharya ? Is it possi¬
ble to practise it to perfection ? If possible, do you do
so? ’
The full and proper meaning of brahmacharya is
search of Brahman. Brahman pervades every being and
can therefore be searched by diving into and realizing the
inner self. This realization is impossible without complete
control of the senses. Brahmacharya thus means control
in thought, word and action, of all the senses at all times
and in all places.
137
 138 HINDU DHARMA

A man or woman completely practising brahma^

charya is absolutely free from passion. Such a one there¬
fore lives nigh unto God, is Godlike.
1 have no doubt that it is possible to practise such
brahmacharya in thought, word and action to the fullest
extent. I cim sorry to say that I have not yet reached
that perfect state of brahmacharya, though I am every
moment of my life striving to reach it. I have not given
up hope of reaching that state in this very body. I have
gained control over the body. I can be master of myself
during my waking hours. I have fairly succeeded in
learning to control my tongue. But I have yet to cover
many stages in the control of my thoughts. They do not
come and go at my bidding. My mind is thus constantly
in a state of insurrection against itself.
In my waking moments, however, I can stop my
thoughts from colliding with one another. I may say
that in the waking state the mind is secure against the
approach of evil thoughts. But in the hojirs of sleep, con¬
trol over the thoughts is much less. When asleep, the
mind would be swayed by all sorts of thoughts, by un¬
expected dreams, and by desire for things done and en¬
joyed by the flesh before. Such thoughts or dreams when
unclean are followed by the usual consequences. Whilst
such experiences are possible a person cannot be said to
be free from all passion. The deviation is, however, dimi¬
nishing, but has not yet ceased. If I had complete mas¬
tery over my thoughts I should not have suffered from
the diseases of pleurisy, dysentery and appendicitis that
I did during the last ten years. I believe that a healthy
soul should inhabit a healthy body. To the extent, there¬
fore, that the soul grows into health and freedom from
passion, to that extent the body also grows into that state.
This does not mean that a healthy body should be neces¬
sarily strong in flesh. A brave soul often inhabits a lean
body. After a certain stage the flesh diminishes in pro¬
portion to the growrth of the soul. A body is often heir
to many an ill. Even if it is apparently free from disease,
it is not immune from infections, contagions and the like.
 BRAHMACEMRYA OR SELF-CONTROL 139

A perfectly healthy body, on the contrary, is proof against

all these. Incorruptible blood has the inherent virtue of
resisting all infections.
Such an equipoise is indeed difficult of attainment.
Otherwise I should have reached it, because my soul is
witness to the fact that I would spare no pains to attain
to this perfect state. No outward obstacle can stand be¬
tween me and that state. But it is not easy for all, at
least for me, to efface past sanskaras. But the delay has
not in the least dismayed me. For I have a mental pic¬
ture of that perfect state. I have even dim glimpses of it.
The progress achieved fills me with hope, rather than des¬
pair. But even if I depart from this body before the hope
is fulfilled, I would not think that I had failed. For I be¬
lieve in rebirth as much as I believe in the existence of
my present body. I therefore know that even a little
effort is not wasted.
I have said so much about myself for the simple rea¬
son that my correspondents and others like them may
have patience and self-confidence. The soul is one in alL
Its possibilities are therefore the same for every one. With
some, it has manifested itself, with others it has yet to do
so. Patient striving would carry every one through and
to the same experience.
I have heretofore discussed brahmacharya in its
wider meaning. The ordinary accepted sense of brahma¬
charya is the control in thought, word and action of ani¬
mal passion. And it is quite proper thus to restrict its
meaning. It has been thought to be very difficult to prac¬
tise this brahmacharya. This control of the carnal desire
has been so very difficult, has become nearly impossible,
because equal stress has not been laid on the control of
the palate. It is also the experience of our physicians that
a body enfeebled by disease is always a favourite abode
of carnal desire, and brahmacharya by an enfeebled race
is difficult to practise naturally.
I have talked above of a lean but healthy body. Let
no one understand me to have deprecated physical cul¬
ture. I have talked of brahmacharya in its perfect aspect
 140 HINDU DHARlAA

in my very crude language. It is likely therefore to be

misunderstood. But one who would practise complete
control of all the senses must needs welcome the waning
of the flesh. With the extinction of attachment to the
flesh, comes the extinction of the desire to have muscular
strength.
But the body of a true brahmachari is bound to be
exceptionally fresh and wiry. This brahmacharya is
something unearthy. He who is not swayed by carnal
desire even in his sleep is worthy of all adoration. The
control of every other sense shall be ‘ added unto ’ him.
With reference to this restricted brahmacharya, an¬
other friend writes : ' I am miserable. I am haunted by
carnal thoughts even whilst I am in my office, on the road,
by night and day, whilst reading and working, even whilst
I am praying. How is a wandering mind to be controlled ?
How is one to learn to look upon every woman as one's
mother ? How is the eye to radiate forth purest love ?
How can evil thoughts be eradicated ? I have before me
your article on brahmacharya (written years ago), but it
has failed to help me.’
This condition is heart-rending. Many suffer from
it. But so long as the mind is engaged in a perpetual
struggle against evil thoughts, there is no reason to des¬
pair. When the eye offends, it should be closed. When
the ears offend they should be stopped. It is best always
to walk with downcast eyes. They will then have no
occasion to go astray. All haunts of filthy talk or unclean
music should be avoided. There should be full control of
the palate. I know that he who has not mastered his
palate cannot master the carnal desire. It is very difficult
I know to master the palate. But mastery of the palate
means automatic mastery of the other senses. One of
the rules for control of the palate is to abjure completely
or, as much as possible, all condiments. A more difficult
rule is to cultivate the feeling that the food we eat is to
sustain the body, never to satisfy the palate. We take
air not for the pleasure of it but to breathe. We drink
water to quench our thirst; and so should we take fbod
 BRAHMACHARYA OR SEUf-CXDNTROL 141
to satisfy our hunger. But from childhood upwards we
are brought up to a different habit. Our parents make
us cultivate all sorts of tastes, not with a view to our nou¬
rishment, but for indulging their affection for us. We
thus get'spoiled. We have therefore Jto struggle against
the results of our own upbringing.
There is however a golden rule for gaining control of
the carnal desire. It is the repetition of the divine word
Rama or such other mantra. The Dwadashakshara
Mantra * also serves the same purpose. Every one must
select the mantra after his heart. I have suggested the
word Rama because I was brought up to repeat it in my
childhood and I have ever got strength and sustenance
out of it. Whichever mantra is selected, one should be
identified with it whilst repeating it. I have not the least
doubt of ultimate success as a result of repetition of some
such mantra in complete faith, even though other thoughts
distract the mind. The mantra will be the light of one’s
life and will keep one from all distress. Such holy
mantras should obviously never be used for material ends.
If their use is strictly restricted to the preservation of
morals, the results attained will be startling. Of course
a mere repetition of such a mantra parrot-wise would be
of no avail. One should throw his whole soul into it. The
parrot repeats it like a machine. We should repeat it
with a view to preventing the approach of unwelcome
thoughts and with full faith in the ef&cacy of the mantras
to that end.
Young India, 6-6-’24
 84
BIRTH-CONTROL
There can be no two opinions about the neqessity of
birth-control. But the only method handed down from
ages past is self-control or brahmacharya. It is an in¬
fallible sovereign remedy doing good to those who prac¬
tise it. And medical men will earn the gratitude of man¬
kind, if instead of devising artificial means of birth-con¬
trol they will find out the means of self-control. The
union is meant not for pleasure but for bringing forth
progeny. And union is a crime when the desire for
progeny is absent.
Artificial methods are like putting a premium upor
vice. They make man and woman reckless. And reS'
pectability that is being given to the methods must hasten
the dissolution of the restraints that public opinion puts
upon one. Adoption of artificial methods must result in
imbecility and nervous prostration. The remedy will be
found to be worse than the disease. It is wrong and im¬
moral to seek to escape the consequences of one's acts.
It is good for a person who overeats to have an ache and
a fast. It is bad for him to indulge his appetite and then
escape the consequence by taking tonics or other medi¬
cines, It is still worse for a person to indulge in his ani¬
mal passions and escape the consequences of his acts.
Nature is relentless and will have full revenge for any
such violation of her laws. Moral results.can only be pro¬
duced by moral restraints. All other restraints defeat the
very purpose for which they are intended. The reasoning
underlying the use of artificial methods is that indulgence
is a necessity of life. Nothing can be more fallacious. Let
those who are eager to see the births regulated explore the
lawful means, devised by the ancients and try to find out
how they can be revived. An enormous amount of spade¬
work lies in front of them. Early marriages are a fruitful
source of adding the population. The present mode of life
142
 STEPS TO BRAHMACHARYA 143

has also a great deal to do with the evil of imchecked pro¬

creation. If these causes are investigated and dealt with,
society will be morally elevated. If they are ignored by
impatient zealots and if artificial methods become the
order of the day, nothing but moral degradation can be
the result. A society that has already become enervated
through a variety of causes will become still further ener¬
vated by the adoption of artificial methods. Those men
therefore who are light-heartedly advocating artificial
methods cannot do better than study the subject afresh,
stay their injurious activity and popularize brahmacharya
both for the married and the unmarried. That is the only
noble and straight method of birth-control.
Young India, 12-3-'25

85
STEPS TO BRAHMACHARYA
The first step is the realization of its necessity.
The next is gradual control of the senses. A brahma-
chari must needs control his palate. He must eat to live,
and not for enjoyment. He must see only clean things
and close his eyes before anything unclean. It is thus a
sign of polite breeding to walk with one’s eyes towards
the ground and not wandering about from object to ob¬
ject. A brahmachari will likewise hear nothing obscene
or unclean, smell no strong, stimulating things. The
smell of clean earth is far sweeter than the fragrance of
artificial scents and essences. Let the aspirant to brahma¬
charya also keep his hands and feet engaged in all the
waking hours in healthful activity. Let him also fast
occasionally.
The third step is to have clean companions — clean
friends and clean books.
The last and not the least is prayer. Let him repeat
Ranuinama with all his heart regularly everyday, and ask
for divine grace.
 144 HINDU DHARMA

None of these things are difficult for an average man

or woman. They are simplicity itself. But their very
simplicity is embarrassing. Where there is a will, the
way is simple enough. Men have not the will for it and
hence vainly grope. The fact that the world rests on the
observance, more or less, of brahmacharya or restraint,
means that it is necessary and practicable.
Young India, 29-4-’26

86
BRAHMACHARYA
What is brahmacharya ? It is the way of life which
leads us to Brahma (God). It includes full control over
the process of reproduction. The control must be in
thought, word and deed. If the thought is not under con¬
trol, the other two have no value. There is a saying in
Hindustani: “ He whose heart is pure has the all purify¬
ing waters of the Ganga in his house.” For one whose
thought is under control, the other is mere child’s play.
The brahmachari of my conception will be healthy and
wiU easily live long. He will not even suffer from so much
as a headache. Mental and physical work will not cause
fatigue. He is ever bright, never slothful. Outward
neatness will be an exact reflection of the inner. He will
exhibit all the attributes of the steadfast one described in
the Gita. It need cause no worry if not one person is met
with answering the description.
Is it strange that one who is able completely to con¬
serve and sublimate the vital fluid which has the potentia¬
lity of creating human beings, should exhibit all the
attributes described above ? Who can measure the
creative strength of such sublimation, one drop of which
has the potentiality of bringing into being a human life ?
Patanjali has described five disciplines. It is not possible
to isolate any one of these and practise it. It may be
posited in the case of Truth, because it really includes the
other four. And for this age the five have been expanded
 BRAHMACHARTA 145
into eleven. Aehaiya Vinoba has put them in the form
of a Marathi verse. They are; non-violence, truth, non-
stealing, brahmacharya, non-possession, bread labour,
control of the palate, fearlessness, equal regard for all
religions, Swadeshi and removal of untouchability.
All these can be derived from Truth. But life is
complex. It is not jrassible to enunciate one grand princi¬
ple and leave the rest to follow of itself. Even when we
know a proposition, its corollaries have to be worked out.
It is well to bear in mind that all the disciplines are
of equal importance. If one is broken all are. There
seems to be a popular belief amongst us that breach of
truth or non-violence is pardonable. Non-stealing and
non-possession are rarely mentioned. We hardly recog¬
nize the necessity of observing them. But a fancied
breach of brahmacharya excites wrath and worse. There
must be something seriously wrong with a society in
which values are exaggerated and imdeiestimated. More¬
over, to use the word brahmacharya in a narrow sense is
to detract from its value. Such detraction increases the
difficulty of proper observance. When it is isolated, even
the elementary observance becomes difficult, if not im-
X>ossible. Therefore, it is essential that all the disciplines
should be taken as one. This enables one to realize the
full meaning and significance of brahmacharya.
BaHfan, 8^’47
 87
WALLS OP PROTECTION
Let us ask ourselves what walls should be erected to
protect brdhmacharya of which I wrote last week. The
answer seems clear. It is not brahmacharya that need*
walls of protection. To say this is easy enough and
sounds sweet. But it is difficult to understand the import
of the statement and more so to act accordingly.
It is true that he who has attained perfect brahma¬
charya does not stand in need of protecting walls. But
the aspirant undoubtedly needs them, even as a young
mango plant has need of a strong fence round it. A child
goes from its mother’s lap to the cradle and from the
cradle to the push-cart — till he becomes a man who has
learnt to walk without aid. To cling to the aid when it is
needless is surely harmful.
I made it clear last week that brahmacharya is one
out of the eleven observances. It follows, therefore, that
the real aid to brahmacharya are the remaining ten obser¬
vances. The difference between them and the walls of
protection is that the latter are temporary, the former per¬
manent. They are an integral part of brahmacharya.
Brahmacharya is a mental condition. The outward
behaviour of a man is at once the sign and proof of the
inner state. He who has killed the sexual urge in him
will never be guilty of it in any shape or form. However
attractive a woman may be, her attraction will produce
no effect on the man without the urge. The same rule
applies to woman. But he or she who has not conquered
lust should not turn the eyes even towards a sister or a
brother, or a daughter or a son. This advice I have given
to friends who have profited by it.
There are certain rules laid down in India for the
would-be brahmachari. Thus he may not live among
women, animals and eunuchs, he may not teach a woman
only or even a group, he may not sit on the same mat as
146
 WALLS OF PROTECTION 147
a woman, he may not look at any part of a woman’s body,
he may not take milk, curds, ghee or any fatty substance
nor indulge in baths and oily massages. I read about these
when I was in South Africa. There I came in touch with
some men and women who, while they observed brahma-
charya, never knew that any of the above-named re¬
straints were necessary. Nor did I observe them, and I
was none the worse for the non-observance. I did give
up milk, ghee and other animal substances but for dif¬
ferent reasons. I failed in this attempt after two or three
years after my return to India. But if today I could find:
any effective vegetable substitute for milk and ghee, 1
would gladly renounce all animal products. But this is
another story.
A perfect brahmachari never loses his vital fluid. On
the contrary, he is able to increase it day by day and,,
what is more, he conserves it; he will, therefore, never
become old in the accepted sense and his intellect will
never be dimmed.
It appears to me that even the true aspirant does not
need the above-mentioned restraints. Brahmacharya is
not a virtue that can be cultivated by outward restraints.
He who runs away from a necessary contact with a woman
does not understand the full meaning of brahmacharya.
Let not the reader imagine for one moment that what
I have written is to serve as the slightest encouragement
to life without the law of real restraint. Nor is there room
in any honest attempt for hypocrisy.
Self-indulgence and hypocrisy are sins to be avoided.
The true brahmachari will shun false restraints. He
must create his own fences according to his limitations,
breaking them down when he feels that they are unneces¬
sary. The first thing is to know what true brahmacharya
is, then to realize its value and lastly to try to cultivate
this priceless virtue. I hold that true service of the coun¬
try demands this observance.
Sarijan,
 88
BRAHMACHARYA IN RELATION TO GOD
1 have defined brahmacharya as that correct way of
life which leads to Brahma, i. e. God. Straightaway the
question arises : “ What or who is God ? ” If man knew
the answer, it would enable him to find the path that leads
to Him.
God is not a person. To afiirm that He descends to
earth every now and again in the form of a human being
is a partial truth which merely signifies that such a per¬
son fives near to God. Inasmuch as God is onmipresent,
He dwells within every human being and all may, there¬
fore, be said to be incarnations of Him. But this leads
us nowhere. Rama, Krishna, etc. are called incarnations
of God because we attribute divine qualities to them. In
truth they are creations of man’s imagination. Whether
they actually lived or not does not affect the picture of
them in men’s minds. The Rama and Krishna of history
often present difficulties which have to be overcome by
all manner of arguments.
The truth is that God is the force. He is the essence
of life. He is pure and undefiled consciousness. He is
eternal. And yet, strangely enough, all are not able to
derive either benefit from or shelter in the all-pervading
living presence.
Electricity is a powerful force. Not all can benefit
from it. It can only be produced by following certain
laws. It is a lifeless force. Man can utilize it if he labours
hard enough to acquire the knowledge of its laws.
The living force which we call God can similarly be
found if we know and follow His law leading to the dis¬
covery of Him in us. But it is self-evident that to find
out God’s law requires far harder labour. The law may,
in one word, be termed brahmacharya. The straight way
to cultivate brahmacharya is Ramanama. I can say this
from experience. Devotees and sages like Tulsidas have
 BRAHMACHAKTA IN RELATION TO GOD 149

shown US this royal path. No one need give undue im¬

portance to my own experience. Perhaps I am right in
saying that the potency of Rarnanama was brought vividly
home to me in Uruli-Kanchan. It was there that I
asserted that the surest remedy for all our ills was Ramor
nama. He who can make full use of it can show powerful
results with very little outside effort.
Following this line of thought I cein say with convic¬
tion that the orthodox aids to brahmacharya pale into
insignificance before Rarnanama, when this name is en¬
throned in the heart. Then and then only do we realize
its transcendent beauty and power. In the vigilant search
for this matchless 2ind unfeiiling weapon we find that it is
hard to differentiate between ends and means. Thus, the
eleven rules of conduct are the means to enable us to
reach God. Of the eleven rules Truth is the means and
God called Rama is the end. Is it not equally true that
Rarnanama is the means and Truth is the end ?
But let me revert to the original point. The accepted
meaning of brahmacharya is the attainment by man of
complete control over the sex organ. The golden means
to attain that end is Rarnanama.
Bartian, 2SS-’47
 SECTION SIX : THE GITA

89
GITA AND NON-VIOLENCE
A friend puts forward the following poser:
•* The controversy about the teaching of the Oita — whether
it is himsa (violence) or ahimsa (non-violence) — will, it seema,
go on for a long time. It is one thing what meaning we read in
the Oita, or rather we want to read in the Gita; it ia another
what meaning is furnished by an unbiased reading of it. The
question, therefore, does not present much difficulty to one who
implicitly accepts ahimsa as the eternal principle of life. He
will say that the Gita is acceptable to him only if it teaches
ahimsa, A grand book like the Gita could, for him, inculcate
nothing grander than the eternal religious principle of ahimsa.
If it did not it would cease to be his unerring guide. It would
still be worthy of his high regard, but not an infallible autho¬
rity.
** In the first chapter we find Arjuna laying down his wea¬
pons, under the infiuence of ahimsa, and ready to die at the
hands of the Kauravas. He conjures up a vision of the disaster
and the sin Involved in himsa. He is overcome with ennui and
In fear and trembling exclaims: * Oh what a mighty sin we
are up to!'
*' Shri Krishna catches him in that mood and tells him:
* enough of this high philosophy; No one kills or is killed. The
soul is immortal and the body must perish. Fight then the
fight that has come to thee as a matter of duty. Victory or
defeat is no concern of thine. Acquit thyself of thy task. ’
** In the eleventh chapter the Lord presents a panoramic
vision of the Universe and says: ‘ I am Kala, the Destroyer of
the worlds, the Ancient of Days; I am here engaged in My task
of destruction of the worlds. Kill thou those already killed
by Me. Give not thyself up to grief.*
** Himsa and ahimsa are equal before God. But for man
what is God’s message ? Is it this: • Fight; for thou art sure
to foil thy enemies in the field * ? If the CWfo teaches ahimsa
the first and the eleventh chapters are not consistent with the

150
 GITA AND NON-VIOLENCE 151

rest, at any rate do not support the ahimsa theory. 1 wish you
could find time to resolve my doubt.**
The question put is eternal and every one who has
studied the Gita must needs find out his own solution.
And although I am going to offer mine, I know that ulti¬
mately one is guided not by the intellect but by the heart.
The heart accepts a conclusion for which the intellect
subsequently finds the reasoning. Argument follows con¬
viction. Man often finds reasons in support of whatever
he does or wants to do.
I shall therefore appreciate the position of those who
are unable to accept my interpretation of the Gita. All
I need do is to indicate how I reached my meaning, and
what canons of interpretation I have followed in arriving
at it. Mine is but to fight for my meaning, no matter
whether I win or lose.
My first acquaintance with the Gita was in 1889,
when I was almost twenty. I had not then much of an
inkling of the principle of ahimsa. One of the lines of the
Gujarati poet, Shamalbhatta, had taught me the principle
of winning even the enemy with love, and that teaching
had gone deep into me. But I had not deduced the eternal
principle of non-violence from it. It did not, for instance,
cover all animal life. I had, before this, tasted meat whilst
in India. I thought it a duty to kill venomous reptiles
. like the snake. It is my conviction today that even veno¬
mous creatures may not be killed by a believer in ahimsa.
I believed in those days in preparing ourselves for a fight
with the English. I often repeated a Gujarati poet’s famous
doggerel: ‘ What wonder if Britain rules ! ’ etc. My meat-
eating was as a first step to qualify myself for the fight
with the English. Such was my position before I pro¬
ceeded to England, and there I escaped meat-eating etc.
because of my determination to follow unto death the pro¬
mises I had given to my mother. My love for truth has
saved me from many a pitfall.
Now whilst in England my contact with two English
friends made me read the Gita. I say ' made me read',
because it was not of my own desire that I read it. But
 152 HINDU DHARIIA

when these two friends asked me to read the Gita with

them, I was ashamed of my ignorance. The knowledge
of my totjil ignorance of my scripturels pained me. Pride,
I think, was at the bottom of this feeling. My knowledge
of Sanskrit was not enough to enable me to understand
all the verses of the Gita unaided. The friends, of course,
were quite innocent of Sanskrit. They placed before me
Sir Edwin Arnold’s magnificent rendering of the Gita. I
devoured the contents from cover to cover and was en¬
tranced by it. The last nineteen verses of the second
chapter have since been inscribed on the tablet of my
heart. They contain for me all knowledge. The truths
they teach are the ‘ eternal verities ’. There is reasoning
in them but they represent realized knowledge.
I have since read many translations and many com¬
mentaries, have cirgued and reasoned to my heart’s con¬
tent but the impression that the first reading gave me has
never been effaced. Those verses are the key to the
interpretation of the Gita. I would even advise rejection of
the verses that may seem to be in confiict with them. But
a humble student need reject nothing. He will simply
say : ‘ It is the limitation of my own intellect that I can¬
not resolve this inconsistency. I might be able to do sd
in the time to come ’. That is how he will plead with
himself and with others.
A prayerful study and experience are essential for a
correct interpretation of the scriptures. The injunction
that a shvdra may not study the scriptures is not entirely
without meaning. A shudra means a spiritually uncul¬
tured, ignorant man. He is more likely than not to mis¬
interpret the Vedas and other scriptures. Every one can¬
not solve an algebraical equation. Some preliminarjr
study is a sine qua non. How ill would the grand truth ‘ I
am Brahman' lie in the mouth of a man steeped in sin!
To what ignoble purposes would he turn it! What a dis¬
tortion it would suffer at his hands!
A man therefore who would interpret the scripture
must have the spiritual discipline. He must practise the
yamas and niyamas — the eternal guides of conduct. A
 GITA AND NON-VIOLENCE 153
superficial practice thereof is useless. The shastras have
enjoined the necessity of a guru. But a guru being rare
in these days, a studj^of modern books inculcating bhakti
has been suggested by the sages. Those who are lacking
in bhakti, lacking in faith, are ill-qualified to interpret the
scriptures. The learned may draw an elaborately learn¬
ed interpretation out of them, but that will not be the
true interpretation. Only the experienced will arrive at
the true interpretation of the scriptures.
But even for the inexperienced there are certain
canons. That interpretation is not true which conflicts
with Truth. To one who doubts even Truth, the scrip¬
tures have no meaning. No one can contend with him.
There is danger for the man who has failed to find ahimsa
in the scriptures, but he is not doomed. Truth — Sat —
is positive; non-violence is negative. Truth stands for
the fact, non-violence negatives the fact. And yet non¬
violence is the highest religion. Truth is self-evident;
non-violence is its maturest fruit. It is contained in
Truth, but as it is not self-evident a man may seek to
interpret the shastras without accepting it. But his ac¬
ceptance of Truth is sure to lead him to the acceptance of
non-violence.
Renunciation of the flesh is essential for realizing
Truth. The sage who realized Truth found non-violence
out of the violence raging all about him and said : ‘ Vio¬
lence is unreal, non-violence is real. Realization of Truth
is imi>ossible without non-violence. Brahmacharya (celi¬
bacy), asteya (non-stealing), aparigraha (non-possession)
are means to achieve ahimsa. Ahimsa is the soul of
Truth. Man is mere animal without it. A seeker after
Truth will realize all this in his search for Truth and he
will then have no difficulty in the interpretation of the
shastras.
Another canon of interpretation is to scan not the
letter but to examine the spirit. Tulsidas’s Ramayana is
a notable book because it is informed with the spirit of
purity, pity and piety. There is a verse in it which brac¬
kets drums, shudras, fools and women together as fit to
 154 HINDU DHARMA

be beaten. A man who cites that verse to beat his wife is

doomed to perdition. Rama did not only not beat his
wife, but never even sought to diisplease her. Tulsidas
simply inserted in his poem a proverb current in his days,
little dreaming that there would be brutes justifying beat¬
ing of their wives on the authority of the verse. But as¬
suming that Tulsidas himself followed a custom which
was prevalent in his days and beat his wife, what then ?
The beating was still wrong. But the Ramayana was not
written to justify beating of wives by their husbands. It
was written to depict Rama, the perfect man, and Sita
the ideal wife, and Bharata the ideal of a devoted brother.
Any justification incidentally met with therein of vicious
customs should therefore be rejected. Tulsidas did not
write his priceless epic to teach geography, and any wrong
geography that we happen to come across in Ramayana
should be summarily rejected.
Let us examine the Gita in the light of these obser¬
vations. Self-realization and its means is the theme of
the Gita, the fight between two armies being but the occa¬
sion to expound the theme. You might, if you like, say
that the Poet himself was not against war or violence and
hence he did not hesitate to press the occasion of a war
into service. But a reading of the Mahabharata has given
me an altogether different impression. The poet Vyasa
has demonstrated the futility of war by means of that
epic of wonderful beauty. What, he asks, if the Kauravas
were vanquished ? And what if the Pandavas won ? How
many were left of the victors and what was their lot?
What an end Mother Kunti came to ? And where are the
Tadawas today ?
Where the description of the fight and justification
of violence are not the subject-matter of the epic, it is
quite wrong to emphasize those aspects. And if it is diffi¬
cult to reconcile certain verses with the teaching of non¬
violence, it is far more difficult to set the whole of the
Gita in the framework of violence.
The poet when he writes is not conscious of all the
interpretations his composition is capable of. The beauty
 GITA AND NON-VIOIiENCB 155
of poetry is that the creation transcends the poet. The
Truth that he reaches in the highest flights of his fancy
is often not to be met with in his life. The life story of
many a poet thus belies his poetry. That the central
teaching of the Gita is not himsa but ahimsa is amply
demonstrated by the subject begun in the second chapter
and summarized in the concluding 18th chapter. The
treatment in the other chapters also supports the position.
Himsa is impossible without anger, without attachment,
without hatred, and the Gita strives to carry us to the
state beyond sattwa, rajas and tamos, a state that excludes
anger, hatred etc. But I can even now picture to my mind
Arjuna’s eyes red with anger everytime he drew the bow
to the end of his ear.
It was not in a spirit of ahimsa that Arjuna refused
to go to battle. He had fought many a battle before. Only
this time he was overcome with false pity. He fought shy
of killing his own kith and kin. Arjuna never discussed
the problem of killing as such. He did not say he would
kill no one, even if he regarded him as wicked. Shri
Krishna knows every one’s innermost thoughts and he
saw through the temporary infatuation of Arjuna. He
therefore told him : ‘ Thou hast already done the killing.
Thou canst not all at once argue thyself into non-vio¬
lence. Finish what thou hast already begun.’ If a pas¬
senger going in a Scotch Express gets suddenly sick of
travelling and jumps out of it, he is guilty of suicide. He
has not learnt the futility of travelling or travelling by
a railway train. Similar was the case with Arjuna. Non¬
violent Krishna could give Arjuna no other advice. But
to say that the Gita teaches violence or justifies war, be¬
cause advice to kill was given on a particular occasion,
is as wrong as to say that himsa is the law of life, because
a certain amount of it is inevitable in daily life. To one
who reads the spirit of the Gita, it teaches the secret of
non-violence, the secret of realizing the self through the
physical body.
And who are Dhritarashtra and Yudhishthira and
Ariuna ? Who is Krishna ? Were they all historical
 156 HINDU OHARMA

characters ? And does the Gita describe them as such ? Is

it true that Arjuna suddenly stops in the midst of the
fight and puts the question to Krishna, and Krishna re¬
peats the whole of the Gita before him ? And which is
that Gita — the Gita that Arjuna forgot after having ex¬
claimed that his infatuation was gone and which he re¬
quested Krishna to sing again, but which he could not,
and which therefore he gave in the form of Anugita ?
I regard Duryodhana and his party as the baser im¬
pulses in man, and Arjuna and his party as the higher
impulses. The field of battle is our own body. An eternal
battle is going on between the two camps and the Poet
Seer has vividly described it. Krishna is the Dweller
within, ever whispering in a pure heart. Like the watch
the heart needs the winding of purity, or the Dweller
ceases to speak.
Not that actual physical battle is out of the question.
To those who are innocent of non-violence, the Gita does
not teach a lesson of despair. He who fears, who saves
his skin, who yields to his passions, must fight the phy¬
sical battle whether he will or no; but that is not his
dkarma. Dharma is one and one only. Ahimsa means
moksha, and moksha is the realization of Truth. There is
no room here for cowardice. Himsa wlU go on eternally
in this strange world. The Gita shows the way out of
it. But it also shows that escape out of cowardice and
despair is not the way. Better far than cowardice is kill¬
ing and being killed in battle.
If the meaning of the verses quoted by the corres¬
pondent is not still clear, I must confess my inability to
make it so. Is it agreed that that the Almighty God is
the Creator, Protector and Destroyer and ought to be
such ? And if He creates. He has undoubtedly the right
to destroy. And yet He does not destroy because He does
not create. His law is that whatever is bom must die,
and in that lies His mercy. His laws are immutable.
Where should we all be if He changed them capriciously ?
Young India, 12*ll-’25
 90
KRISHNA AND THE GITA
tThe followliig is a summary of a speech delivered by Gandblji
at Arsikere In Mysore Stated
We do not know what Shri Krishna’s life means for
us, we do not read the Gita, we make no attempt to teach
it to our children. The Gita is such a transcendental book
that men of every creed, age and clime may read it with
respect, and find in it the principles of their respective
religions. If we thought of Krishna on every Janmash-
tami day and read the Gita and resolved to follow its
teachings, we should not be in our present sorry plight.
Shri Krishna served the people all his life, he was a real
servant of the people. He could have led the hosts at
Kurukshetra, but he preferred to be Arjuna’s charioteer.
His whole life was one unbroken Gita of karma. He
refused proud Duryodhana’s sweets and preferred humble
Vidura’s spinach. As a child he was a cowherd and we
still know him by the name of Gopala. But we, his wor¬
shippers, have neglected the cow today, the Adi-Kama-
takas slaughter cows and eat beef, and our infants and
invalids have to go without cow’s milk. Krishna knew no
sleep or idleness. He kept sleepless vigil of the world, we
his posterity have become indolent and forgotten the use
of Qur hands. In the Bhagawadgita Lord Krishna has
shown the path of bhgkti — which means the path of
karma. Lokamanya Tilak has shown that whether we
desire to be bhaktas or jnanis, karma is the only way;
but the karrrva should not be for self but for others.
Action for one’s own self binds, action for the sake of
others delivers from bondage. What can be the altruistic
action which can be universally done, by Hindus, Mussul¬
mans, Christians, by men, women and children ? I have
tried to demonstrate that spinning alone is that sacrificial
act, for that alone can make us do something in God’s
name, something for the poorest, something that can in¬
fuse activity in their idle limbs. Lord Krishna has also
157
 156 HINDU DHiJtlCA

taught that to be a true bhakta we should make no differ¬

ence between a brahmana and a scavenger. ' If that is
true there can be no place for untouchability in Hinduism.
If you are still hugging that superstition you can cleanse
yourself by getting rid of it on this the sacred day of
Krishna’s birth. He who swears by the Gita may know
no distinction between Hindu and Mussulman, for Lord
Krishna has declared that he who adores God in a true
spirit by whatsoever name adores Him. The path of
bhakti, karma, love as expounded in the Gita, leaves no
room for the despising of man by man.
Yotmg India,

91
THE MESSAGE OF THE GITA
1. Even in 1888-89, when I first became acquainted,
with the Gita, I felt that it was not a historical work, but
that under the guise of physical warfare, it described the
duel that perpetually went on in the hearts of mankind,
and that physical warfare was brought in merely to make
the description of the internal duel more alluring. This
preliminary intuition became more confirmed on a closer
study of religion and the Gita. A study of the Maha-
bharata gave it added confirmation. I do not regard the
Mahabharata as a historical work in the^ accepted sense.
The Adiparva contains powerful evidence in support of my
opinion. By ascribing to the chief actors superhuman or
subhuman origins, the great Vyasa made short work of the
history of kings and their peoples. The persons there¬
in described may be historical, but the author of the
Mahabharata has used them merely to drive home his
religious theme.
2. The author of the Mahabharata has not establish¬
ed the necessity of physical warfare; on the contrary he
has proved its futility. He has made the victors shed
tears of sorrow and repentance, and has left them nothing:
but a legacy of miseries.
 THS MESSAGS OF THE GITA 159
K. In this great work the Gita is the crown. Its
second chapter, instead of teaching the rules of physical
warfare, tells us how a perfected man is to be known. In
the characteristics of the perfected man of the Gita, I do
not see any to correspond to physical warfare. Its whole
design is inconsistent with the rules of conduct govern¬
ing the relations between warring parties.
4. Krishna of the Gita is perfection and right know¬
ledge personified; but the picture is imaginary. That
does not mean that Krishna, the adored of his people,
never lived. But perfection is imagined. The idea of a
perfect incarnation is an aftergrowth.
5. In Hinduism, incarnation is ascribed to one who
has performed some extraordinary service of mankind.
All embodied life is in reality an incarnation of God, but
it is not usual to consider every living being an incarna¬
tion. Future generations pay this homage to one who, in
his own generation, has been extraordinarily religious in
his conduct. I can see nothing wrong in this procedure;
it takes nothing from God’s greatness, and there is no
violence done to Truth. There is an Urdu saying which
means, “ Adam is not God but he is a spark of the Divine.”
And therefore he who is the most religiously behaved has
most of the divine spark in him. It is in accordance with
this train of thought that Krishna enjoys, in Hinduism,
the status of the most perfect incarnation.
6. This belief in incarnation is a testimony of man’s
lofty spiritual ambition. Man is not at peace with himself
till he has become like unto God. The endeavour to reach
this state is the supreme, the only ambition worth having.
And this is self-realization. This self-realization is the
subject of the Gita, as it is of all scriptures. But its
author surely did not write it to establish that doctrine.
The object of the Gita appears to me to be that of showing
the most excellent way to attain self-realization. That
which is to be found, more or less clearly, spread out here
and there in Hindu religious books, has been brought out
in the clearest possible language in the Gita even at the
risk of repetition.
 160 HINDU DHARMA

7. That matchless remedy is renunciation of the

fruits of action.
8. This is the centre round which the Gita is woven.
This renunciation is the central sun, round which devo¬
tion, knowledge and the rest revolve like planets. The
body has been likened to a prison. There must be action
where there is body. Not one embodied being is exempted
from labour. And yet all religions proclaim that it is
possible for man, by treating the body as the temple of
God, to attain freedom. Every action is tainted, be it ever
so trivial. How can the body be made the temple of God ?
In other words how can one be free from action, i. e. from
the taint of sin ? The Gita has answered the question in
decisive language : “ By desireless action ; by renouncing
the fruits of action; by dedicating all activities to God,
i.e. by surrendering oneself to Him body and soul.”
9. But desirelessness or renunciation does not come
for the mere talking about it. It is not attained by an
intellectual feat. It is attainable only by a constant heart-
chum. Right knowledge is necessary for attaining re¬
nunciation. Learned men possess a knowledge of a kind.
They may recite the Vedas from memory, yet they may
be steeped in self-indulgence. In order that knowledge
may not mn riot, the author of the Gita has insisted on
devotion accompanying it and has given it the first place.
Knowledge without devotion will be like a misfire. There¬
fore, says the Gita, “ Have devotion, and knowledge will
follow.” This devotion is not mere lip-worship, it is a
wrestling with death. Hence the Gita's assessment of the
devotee’s qualities is similar to that of the sage’s.
10. Thus the devotion required by the Gita is no
soft-hearted effusiveness. It certainly is not blind faith.
The devotion of the Gita has the least to do with exter¬
nals. A devotee may use, if he likes, rosaries, forehead
marks, make offerings, but these things are no test bf
his devotion. He is the devotee who is jealous of none,
who is a fount of mercy, who is without egotism, who is
selfless, who treats alike cold and heat, happiness and
misery, who is ever forgiving, who is always contented.
 THB MBSSAOE OF THE GITA 161
whose resolutions are firm, who has dedicated mind and
soul to God, who causes no dread, who is not afraid of
others, who is free from exultation, sorrow and fear, who
is pure, who is versed in action and yet remains unafiected
by it, who renoimces all fruit, good or bad, who treats
friend and foe alike, who is untouched by respect or dis¬
respect, who is not puffed up by praise, who does not go
under when people speak ill of him, who loves silence and
solitude, who has a disciplined reason. Such devotion is
inconsistent with the existence at the same time of strong
attachments.
11. We thus see, that to be a real devotee is to realize
oneself. Self-realization is not something apart. One
rupee can purchase for us poison or nectar, but knowledge
or devotion cannot buy us either salvation or bondage.
These are not media of exchange. They are themselves
the thing we want. In other words if the means and the
end are not identical, they are 2ilmost so. The extreme
of means is salvation. Salvation of the Gita is perfect
peace.
12. But such knowledge and devotion, to be true,
have to stand the test of renunciation of fruits of action.
Mere knowledge of right and wrong will not make one fit
for salvation. According to common notions, a mere
learned man will pass as a pandit. He need not perform
any service. He will regard it as bondage even to lift a
little lota. Where one test of knowledge is non-liability
for service, there Is no room for such mundane work as
the lifting of a lota.
13. Or take hhakti. The popular notion of bhakti is
soft-heartedness, telling beads and the like and disdaining
to do even a loving service, lest the telling of beads etc.
might be interrupted. This bhakta therefore leaves the
rosary only for eating, drinking and the like, never for
grinding com .or nursing patients.
14. But the Gita says: ** No one his attained his
goal without action. Even men like Janaka attained
salvation through action. If even I were lazily to cease
working, the world would perish. How much more
11
16 2 HINDU DHAKMA

necessary then for the people at large to engage in

action ? "
15. While on the one hand it is beyond dispute that
all action binds, on the other hand it is equally true that
all living beings have to do some work whether they will
or no. Here ail activity, whether mental or physical, is to
be included in the term action. Then how is one to be
free from the bondage of action, even though he may be
acting ? The manner in which the Gita has solved the
problem is, to my knowledge, unique. The Gita says;
“ Do your allotted work but renounce its fruit — be
detached and work — have no desire for reward and
work.”
This is the unmistakable teaching of the Gita. He
who gives up action falls. He who gives up only the
reward rises. But renunciation of fruit in no way mecins
indifference to the result. In regard to every action one
must know the result that is expected to follow, the
means thereto, and the capacity for it. He, who, being
thus equipped, is without desire for the result, and is yet
wholly engrossed in the due fulfilment of the task before
him, is said to have renounced the fruits of his action.
16. Again, let no one consider renunciation to mean
want of fruit for the renouncer. The Gita reading does
not warrant such a meaning. Renunciation means ab¬
sence of hankering after fruit. As a matter of fact, he who
renounces reaps a thousandfold. The renunciation of
the Gita is the acid test of faith. He who is ever brooding
over result often loses nerve in the performance of his
duty. He becomes impatient and then gives vent to
anger and begins to do unworthy things; he jumps from
action to action, never remaining faithful to any. He who
broods over results is like a man given to objects of sen¬
ses ; he is ever distracted, he says goodbye to all scruples,
everything is right in his estimation and—he therefore
resorts to means fair and foul to attain his end.
17. From the bitter experiences of desire for fruit
the author of the Gita discovered the path of renunciation
of fruit, and put it before the world in a most convincing
 THE MESSAGE OF THE GITA 163
manner. The common belief is that religion is always
opposed to material good. “One cannot act religiously
in mercantile and such other matters. There is no place
for religion in such pursuits; religion is only for attain¬
ment of salvation,” we hear many worldly-wise people
say. In my opinion the author of the Gita has dispelled
this delusion. He has drawn no line of demarcation .be¬
tween salvation and worldly pursuits. On the contrary,
he has shown that religion must rule even our worldly
pursuits. I have felt that the Gita teaches us that what
cannot be followed out in day-to-day practice cannot be
called religion. Thus, according to the Gita, all acts that
are incapable of being performed without attachment are
taboo. This golden rule saves mankind from many a
pitfall. According to this interpretation murder, lying,
dissoluteness and the like must be regarded as sinful and
therefore taboo. Man’s life then becomes simple, and
from that simpleness springs peace.
18. Thinking along these lines, I have felt that in
trying to enforce in one’s life the central teaching of the
Gita, one is bound to iollow truth and ahimsa. When
there is no desire for fruit, there is no temptation for un¬
truth or himsa. Take any instance of untruth or violence,
and it will be found that at its back was the desire to at¬
tain the cherished end. But it may be freely admitted
that the Gita was not written to establish ahimsa. It was
an accepted and primary duty even before the Gita age.
The Gita had to deliver the message of renunciation of
fruit. This is clearly brought out as early as the second
chapter.
19. But if the Gita believed in ahimsa or it was in¬
cluded in desirelessness, why did the author take a war¬
like illustration ? When the Gita was written, although
people believed in ahimsa, wars were not only not taboo,
but nobody observed the contradiction between them and
ahimsa.
20. In assessing the implications of renunciation of
fruit, we are not required to probe the mind of the author
of the Gita as to his limitations of ahimsa and the like.
 164 HINDU DHARMA

Because a poet puts a particular truth before the world,

it does not necessarily follow that he has known or work-
ed out all its great consequences, or that having done so,
he is able always to express them fully. In this perhaps
lies the greatness of the poem and the poet. A poet's
meaning is limitless. Like mcin, the meaning of great
writings suffers evolution. On examining the history of
languages, we notice that the meaning of importent words
has changed or expanded. This is true of the Gita. The
author has himself extended the meanings of some of the
current words. We are able to discover this even on a
superficial examination. It is possible, that in the age
prior to that of the Gita, offering of animals in sacrifice
was permissible. But there is not a trace of it in the sacri¬
fice in the Gita sense. In the Gita continuous concentra¬
tion on God is the king of sacrifices. The third chapter
seems to show that sacrifice chiefly means body-labour
for service. The third and the fourth chapters read toge¬
ther will give us other meanings for sacrifice but never
animal-sacrifice. Similarly has the meaning of the word
sannyasa undergone, in the Gita, a transformation. The
sannyasa of the Gita will not tolerate complete cessation
of all activity. The sannyasa of the Gita is all work and
yet no work. Thus the author of the Gita by extending
meanings of words has taught us to imitate him. Let it
be granted, that according to the letter pf the Cfita it is
Xxjssible to say that warfare is consistent with renuncia¬
tion of fruit. But after 40 years' unremitting endeavour
fully to enforce the teaching of the Gita in my own life,
I have, in all humility, felt that perfect renunciation is
impossible without perfect observance of ahimsa in every
shape and form.
21. The Gita is not an aphoristic work; it is a great
religious poem. The deeper you dive into it, the richer
the meanings you get. It being meant for the people at
large, there is pleasing repetition. With every age the im¬
portant words will carry new and expanding meanings.
But its central teaching will never vary. The seeker is at
liberty to extract from this treasure any meaning he likes
 DISCOURSES ON THE OITA 165

SO as to enable him to enforce in his life the central

teaching.
22. Nor is the Gita a collection of Do’s and Don’ts.
What is lawful for one may be unlawful for another. What
may be permissible at one time, or in one place, may
not be so at another time, and in another place. Desire
for fruit is the only universal prohibition. Desirelessness
is obligatory.
23. The Gita has sung the praises of knowledge, but
it is beyond the mere intellect; it is essentially addressed
to the heart and capable of being understood by the heart.
Therefore the Gita is not for those who have no faith. The
author makes Krishna say :
“ Do not entrust this treasure to him who is with¬
out sacrifice, without devotion, without the desire for
this teaching and who denies Me. On the other hand
those who will give this precious treasure to My devo¬
tees will by the fact of this service assuredly reach Me.
And those who, being free from malice, will with faith
absorb this teaching, shall, having attained freedom, live
where people of true merit go after death.”
Young Indian 6-8-’31

92
DISCOURSES ON THE GITA
[The following are the two discourses sent by Gandhiji to mem¬
bers of his.Ashram at Sabetrmatl, from Yeravda Jail:]

I
I run to my Mother Gita whenever I find myself in
difficulties, and up to now she has never failed to comfort
me*. It is possible that those, who are getting comfort
from the Gita, may get greater help, and see something
altogether new, if they come to know the way in which
I understand it from day to day.
 166 HINDU DHARMA

This day I feel like giving a summary of the twelfth

chapter. It is Bhaktiyoga — realization of Qod through
devotion. At the time of marriage we ask the bridal cou¬
ple to learn this chapter by heart and meditate upon it,
as one of the five sacrifices to be performed. Without
devotion, action and knowledge are cold and dry, and may
even become shackles. So, with the heart full of love, let
us approach this meditation on the Gita.
Arjuna asks of the Lord : “ Which is the better of
the two, the devotee who worships the Manifest or the
one who worships the Unmanifest ? ” The Lord says in
reply : “ Those who meditate on the Manifest in fuU
faith, and lose themselves in Me, those faithful ones are
My devotees. But those who worship the Unmanifest,
and who, in order to do so, restrain all their senses, look
upon and serve all alike, regarding none as high or low,
those also realize Me.”
So it cannot be affirmed that one is superior to the
other. But it may be counted as impossible for an embo¬
died being fully to comprehend and adore the Unraanifest.
The Unmanifest is attributeless, and is beyond the reach
of human vision. Therefore all embodied beings, con¬
sciously or unconsciously, are devotees of the Manifest.
“ So,” saith the Lord, “ let thy mind be merged in
My Universal Body, which has form. Offer thy all at His
feet. But if thou canst not do this, practise the restraint
of the passions of thy mind. By observing yama and
niyama with the help of prana/yama, asana and other
practices, bring the mind under control. If thou canst
not do thus, then perform all thy works with this in
mind : that whatever work thou undertakest, that thou
dost for My sake. Thus thy worldly infatuations and at¬
tachments will fade away, and gradually thou wilt be¬
come stainless and pure. The fountain of love will rise
in thee. But if thou canst not do even this, then renounce
the fruit of all thy actions ; yearn no more after the fruits
of thy work. Ever do that work which falls to thy lot.
Man cannot be master over the fruits of his work. The
 DISCOURSES ON THE GITA 167
fruit of work appears only after causes have combined
to form it. Therefore be thou only the instrument. Do
not regard as superior or inferior any of these four
methods which I have shown unto thee. Whatever, in
them, is suitable for thee, that make thou use of in thy
practice of devotion.
“ It seems that the path of hearing, meditating and
comprehending, may be easier than the path of yama,
niyania, pranayama and asana, to which I have referred;
easier than that may be concentration and worship; and
again easier than concentration may be renunciation of
the fruits of works. The same method cannot be equally
easy for every one ; some may have to turn for help to all
these methods. They are certainly intermixed. In any
case thou wishest to be a devotee. Achieve that goal by
whatever method thou canst. My part is simply to tell
thee whom to count a true devotee. A devotee hates no
one ; bears no grudge against any one ; befriends all crea¬
tures ; is merciful to all. To accomplish this he eliminates
all personal attachments ; his ego is dissolved and he be¬
comes as nothing; for him grief and happiness are one;
he forgives those who trespass against himself, as he hun¬
gers for forgiveness from the world for his own faults; he
dwells in contentment; he is firm in his good resolves;
he surrenders to Me his mind, his intellect, his all. He
never causes in other beings trouble or fear, himself
knowing no trouble or fear through others. My devotee
is free from joy and sorrow, pleasure and pain. He has
no desires, he is pure, skilful and wise. He has renounced
all ambitious undertakings. He stands by his resolves,
renouncing their good or bad fruit; he remains uncon¬
cerned. Such a one knows not enemies or friends, is be¬
yond honour or disgrace.
“ In peace and silence, contented with whatever may
come his way, he lives inwardly as if alone, and always
remains calm no matter what may be going on around
him. One who lives in this manner, full of faith, he is My
‘ beloved devotee .
Young India, 13-ll-’30
 265 HINDU DHAIUCA

n
The Gita is a small portion of the Mahabharata. The
Mahabharata is considered to be a historical work but, for
us, both the Mahabharata and the Ramayana are not his¬
torical works, but religious works, or rather, if we call
them histories, they are the histories of the soul. And
it is not the description of what happened thousands of
years ago, but it is the picture of what is going on in every
human breast today. In both the Ramayana and the
Mahabharata there is the description of the battle that is
daily going on between the Gods and the Demons, between
Rama and Havana. The dialogue in the Gita between
Shri Krishna and Arjuna is one such description. That
dialogue is recited by Sanjaya before the blind Dhrita-
rashtra. Gita means ‘ sung ’. Here the word Upanishad
is understood, so the complete meaning is, an ‘ Upanishad
that is sung ’. Upanishad means Knowledge — instruction.
Thus the Gita means the teachings of Shri Krishna to
Arjuna. We should read the Gita with the realization
that the Inward Seer, Lord Krishna, is ever present in
our breasts, and that, whenever we, becoming as Arjuna
in his desire for knowledge, turn to Him, He is ever ready
to shelter us. We are asleep, the Inward Seer is always
awake. He is awaiting the wakening of desire for
knowledge in us. We do not know how to ask. We are
not even inclined to ask. Therefore we daily contemplate
a book like the Gita. We wish to create in ourselves a
desire for religious knowledge — a desire to learn spirit¬
ual enquiry, while meditating on it. Whenever under
stress we hasten to the Gita for relief and obtain consola¬
tion, it is at once for us a Teacher — a Mother. And we
must have faith that with our head in her lap we shall
always remain safe. The Gita shall unravel all our spi¬
ritual tangles. Those who will meditate on the Gita in
this way will derive fresh joy and new meanings from it
every day. There is not a single spiritual tangle which
the Gita cannot unravel. It is a different thing, if, on
account of our insufficient faith, we do not know how to
 DISCOURSES ON THE GITA 169
read and understand it. We daily recite the Gfita in order
that our faith may continually increase and that we may
be ever wakeful. I am giving here the substance of what
meanings I have obtained, and am still obtaining, from
such meditations of the Gita, for the help of the inmates
of the Ashram.
When the Pandavas and the Kauravas, with their
armies, stand on the battlefield of Kurukshetra, then
Duryodhana, the leader of the Kauravas, describes to the
teacher Drona the principal warriors of both sides. As
both the armies prepare for the battle, their conches are
blown, and Lord Shri Krishna, who is Arjuna’s charioteer,
drives up their chariot between the two armies. On see¬
ing this Arjuna Tbecomes agitated, and says to Shri
Krishna : “ How can I fight these men ? Had they been
other persons I would have fought with them forthwith.
But these are my people, mine own! Where is the dif¬
ference between the Kauravas and the Pandavas ? They
are first cousins. We were brought up together. Drona
can hardly be called the teacher of the Kauravas alone.
It was he who taught us all the sciences. Bhishma is the
head of our whole family. How can there be a fight with
him ? True the Kauravas are murderous ; they have done
many evil deeds, many iniquities; they have deprived
the Pandavas of their land; they have insulted a great
and faithful woman like Draupadi. All this is their fault
indeed, but what good can come of killing them ? They
are without understanding. Why should I behave like
them ? I at least have some knowledge. I can discrimi-
nafte between good and evil; so I must know that to fight
one’s relatives is sinful. What does it matter that they
have swallowed up the family share of the Pandavas ? Let
them kill us. How can we raise our hands against them ?
Oh Krishna ! I will not fight these relatives of mine.” So
saying Arjuna collapses in his chariot.
In this way the first chapter closes. It is called Ariuna^
vishada^oga. Vishada means distress. We haye to ex¬
perience such distress as Arjuna experienced. Knowledge
cannot be obtained without spiritual anguish and thirst
 170 HINDU DHARMA

for knowledge. What good can religious discourses be to

a man who does not feel in his mind even so much as a
desire to know what is good and what is bad. T^ie battle¬
field of Kurukshetra is only by the way; the true Kuru-
kshetra is our body. It is at once the Kurukshetra and
Dharmakshetra. If we regard it as and make it, the abode
of God, it is the Dharmakshetra. In this battlefield lies
one battle dr another always before us, and most of such
battles arise out of the ideas, “ this is mine, this is thine.”
Such battles arise out of the difference between “ my
people and thy people ”. Hence the Lord will later on tell
Arjuna that the root of all irreligion is attachment and
aversion. Believe a thing to be ‘ mine ’, and attachment
is created for it. Believe a thing to be ‘ not mine ’, and
aversion is created — enmity is created. The Gita and all
the other religious books of the world proclaim to us that
the difference between mine and thine should be forgot¬
ten. That is to say attachment and aversion should be
relinquished. It is one thing to say this, and it is another
thing to act according to it. The Gita teaches us to act
according to it also.
Young India, 20-ll-’30

93
GITA RECITERS
The readers of the Harijan know what the Gita
means to me. I have always regarded the learning by
heart of such books as the Gita a very desirable thing.
But I was never able to learn all the chapters of the Gita
by heart myself though I made several attempts at it. I
know I am very stupid at memorizing. So whenever I
meet any one who knows the Gita by heart, he or she
commands my respect. I have already met two such dur¬
ing the Tamilnad tour — a gentleman at Madura and a
lady at Devakotta. The gentleman at Madura is a mer¬
chant unknown to fame; and the lady is Parvatibai, a
daughter of the late Justice Sadashiva Iyer, who during
 THE GITA IDEAL 171
his lifetime instituted an annual prize for the person who
could best recite the Gita from memory. I would like,
however, the reciters to realize that the mere recitation is
not an end in itself. It should be an aid to the contem¬
plation and assimilation of the meaning and the message
of the Gita. By patience even a parrot can be taught to
recite it by heart. But he would be no wiser for the reci¬
tation. The reciter of the Gita should be what its author
expects him to be — a yogi in its broad sense. It demands
from its votaries balance in every thought, word and deed
and a perfect correspondence between the three. He
whose speech and action do not accord with his thoughts
is a humbug or a hypocrite.
Harijan, 2-2-’34

94
THE GITA IDEAL
{Addressing the inmates of the Sabarmati Ashram, Gandhijl
said:]
I am a devotee of the Gita and a firm believer in the
inexorable law of karma. Even the least little tripping
or stumbling is not without its cause and I have wondered
why one who has tried to follow the Gita in thought, word
and deed should have any ailment. The doctors have as¬
sured me that this trouble of high blood-pressure is en¬
tirely the result of mental strain and •w'orry. If that is
true, it is likely that I have been unnecessarily worrying
myself, unnecessarily fretting and secretly harbouring
passions like anger, lust, etc. The fact that any event or
incident should disturb my mental equilibrium, in spite
of my serious efforts, means not that the Gita ideal is de¬
fective but that my devotion to it is defective. The Oita
ideal is true for all time, my understanding of it and ob¬
servance of it is full of flaws.
HaHjan, 29-2-’36
 95
NOTHING WITHOUT GRACE
The extraordinary precautions advised by the medi¬
cal friends and equally extraordinary care taken by the
two gaolers • enforced on me the exacting rest which I
would not have taken and which allowed ample time for
introspection. Not only have I profited by it but the
introspection has revealed vital defects in my following
out of the interpretation of the Gita as I have understood
it. I have discovered that 1 have not approached with
adequate detachment the innumerable problems that have
presented themselves for solution. It is clear that I have
taken many of them to heart and allowed them to rouse
my emotional being and thus affect my nerves. In other
words they have not, as they should have in a votary of
the Gita, left my body or mind untouched. I verily be¬
lieve that one who literally follows the prescription of
the eternal mother need never grow old in mind. Such
a one’s body will wither in due course like leaves of a
healthy tree, leaving the mind as jroung and as fresh as
ever. That seems to me to be the meaning of Bhishma
delivering his marvellous discourse to Yudhishthira
though he was on his deathbed. Medical friends were
never tired of warning me against being excited over or
affected by events happening around me. Extra precau¬
tions were taken, to keep from me news of a tragic cha¬
racter. Though I think, I was not quite so bad a devotee
of the Gita as their precautions lead me to suppose, there
was undoubtedly substance behind them. For I discover¬
ed with what a wrench I accepted JamnalaIji’s conditions
and demand that I should remove from Maganwadi to
Mahila Ashram. Any way I had lost credit with him for
detached action. The fact of the collapse was for him
eloquent enough testimony for discrediting my vaunted
detachment. I must plead guilty to the condemnation.
* Sardar TaUabhbhai Patel and Shrl Jamnalal BaJaJ.
172
 NOTHING WITHOUT GRACB 173
The worst however was to follow. I have been trying
to follow brahmacharya consciously and deliberately since
1899. My definition of it is purity not merely of body
but of both speech and thought also. With the exception
of what must be regarded as one lapse, 1 can recall no
instance during more than thirty six years' constant and
conscious effort, of mental disturbance such as 1 ex¬
perienced during this illness. 1 was disgusted with myself.
The moment lithe feeling came I acquainted my attend¬
ants and the medical friends with my condition. They
could give me no help. I expected none. I broke loose
after the experience from the rigid rest that was imposed
upon me. The confession of the wretched experience
brought much relief to me. I felt as if a great load had
been raised from over me. It enabled me to pull myself
together before any harm could be done. But what of
the Gita ? Its teaching is clear and precise. A mind that
is once hooked to the Star of Stars becomes incorruptible.
How far I must be from Him, He alone knows. Thank
God my much-vaxmted Mahatmaship has never fooled me.
But this enforced rest has humbled me as never before.
It has brought to the surface my limitations and imperfec¬
tions. But I am not so much ashamed of them, as I
should be of hiding them from the public. My faith in
the message of the Gita is as bright as ever. Unwearied
ceaseless effort is the price that must be paid for turning
that faith into rich infallible experience. But the same
Gita says without any equivocation that the experience is
not to be had without divine grace. We should develop
swelled heads if Divinity had not made that ample
reservation.
Harljan, 29-2-’38
 96
GOD OF LOVE, NOT WAR
The Statesman of Delhi has devoted four articles to
an unmeasured condemnation of the no-war movement
led by Canon Sheppard and other earnest Christians in
England. The paper has dragged into its support the
authority of the Bhagawadgita in these words ;
“ Indeed the true but difficult teaching of Christianity seems
to be that society must fight its enemies but love them.
“ Such, too, — will Mr. Gandhi please note — is the clear teach¬
ing of the Bhagawadgita, where Krishna tells Arjuna that victory
also goes to him who fights with complete fearlessness and is
utterly devoid of hatred. Indeed on the highest plane the argu¬
ment between the conscientious objector and the knightly war¬
rior is for ever settled in the second book of that great classic.
We have little space to quote and the whole poem deserves to
be read not once but many times.'*
The writer of the articles perhaps does not know
that the terrorist has also used in his defence the very
verses quoted by him. But the fact is that a dispassionate
reading of the Bhagawadgita has revealed to me a meaning
wholly contrary to the one given to it by the Statesman
writer. He has forgotten that Arjuna was no conscien¬
tious objector in the sense the Western war-resisters are.
Arjuna believed in war. He had fought the Kaurava
hosts many times before. But he was unnerved when the
two armies were drawn up in battle array and when he
suddenly realized that he had to fight his nearest kinsmen
and revered, teachers. It was not love of man or the
hatred of war that had actuated the questioner. Krishna
could give no other answer than he did. The immortal
author of the Mahabharata, of which the Gita is one — no
doubt the brightest — of the many gems contained in
that literary mine, has shown to the world the futility of
war by giving the victors an empty glory, leaving but seven
victors alive out of millions said to have been engaged
in the fight in which unnamable atrocities w^ere used on
either side. But the Mahabharata has a better message
174
 THE GITA AND NON-VIOLENCE I75

evert than the demonstration of war as a delusion and a

folly. It is the spiritual history of man considered as an
immortal being; and its author has used with a magnify¬
ing lens a historical episode considered in his times of
moment for the tiny world round him, but in terms of
present day values of no significance. In those days the
globe had not shrunk to a pinhead as it has today on
which the slightest movement on one spot affects the
whole. The Mahabharata depicts for all time the eternal
struggle that goes on daily between the .forces of good
and evil in the human breast and in which though good
is ever victorious evil does put up a brave show and baffles
even the keenest conscience. It shows also the only way
to right action.
Harijan, 5-9-’36

97
THE GITA AND NON-VIOLENCE
The Statesman has devoted a reasoned article to the
argument advanced by me in reply to its criticism of
Canon Sheppard’s war against war. In that article a very
clever attempt has been made to dispute the whole of the
position taken up by me.
The writer says that whilst the Bhagawadgita assists
him, it does not assist the terrorist. Once you admit the
lawfulness of the use of physical force for purposes other
than the benefit of the person against whom it is used,
as in the case of a surgeon against his patient, you cannot
draw an arbitrary line of distinction. The Mahabharata,
of which the Gita is only a tiny chapter, describes in grue¬
some detail a night slaughter of the innocents which, but
for our recent experiences of our civilized war, would be
considered unbelievable in actual practice. The grim fact
is that the terrorists have in absolute honesty, earnest¬
ness and with cogency used the Gita, which some of them
know by heart, in defence of their doctrine and policy.
Only they have no answer to my interpretation of the
 176 HINOU DHARMA

Gita, except to say that mine is wrong and theirs is right.

Time alone will show whose is right. The Gita is not a.
theoretical treatise. It is a living but silent guide whose
directions one has to imderstand by patient striving.
The Statesman vrriter next likens Canon Sheppard’s
position to that of Arjuna. Surely this is a faulty analogy,
hastily drawn. Arjuna was the Commander-in-Chief of
the Pandava forces. He became suddenly paralyzed when
he contemplated the awful scene before him. As general
he knew exactly what he had to do. He knew that he
had to war against his cousins. His paralysis was due to
momentary weakness. He could not have given up the
task before him without creating the utmost confusion and
disorder, and bringing disgrace on himself and his innu¬
merable friends and followers. He was bound to engage
himself and his followers in the terrible slaughter for
which he had trained himself and them. It is profitless
to conjecture what would have happened if non-violence
in thought, word and deed had suddenly but really pos¬
sessed him.
That rich possession, let us hope, has come to Dick
Sheppard and his companions. Anyway, so far as I know,
his position is wholly different from Arjuna’s. He is no
general of an army drawn up in battle array. He makes
no distinction between kinsmen and others. For him man
is man, no matter where he is bom or what his skin is,
or what he calls himself. After having prayerfully search¬
ed through the book which for him is the Book of Lifey
he has been driven to the conclusion that he may not hurt
his fellowmen for gain for himself or his country, and
that therefore he must himself abstain from participation,
direct or indirect, in war. He naturally takes the next
step of preaching to his.neighbours the doctrine of peace
or love and goodwill towards njen without exception. This
is a position which Arjuna never took up.
Harijan, 2e-9-’36
 98
TEACHING OP HINDUISM
Referring to my recent articles on the English peace
movement led by Canon Sheppard, a friend writes:
“I hold the view that Independently of the context of the
Gita and the preliminary conversation between Arjuna and Shri
Krishna, Hinduism does not stand decisively for non-violence in
regard to organized invasion. It would be straining too much
to interpret all our best scriptures in this way. Hinduism no
doubt holds the spirit of compassion and love as the very highest
duty for man. But it does not preach what you or the pacifists
preach, and it is no good straining everything into an allegory
for this object.”
I have admitted in my introduction to the Gita known
as Anasaktiyoga that it is not a treatise on non-violence
nor was it written to condemn war. Hinduism as it is
practised today, or has even been known to have ever
been practised, has certainly not condemned war as I do.
What, however, I have done is to put a new but natural
and logical interpretation upon the whole teaching of the
Gita and the spirit of Hinduism. Hinduism, not to speak
of other religions, is ever evolving. Jt has no one scrip¬
ture like the Quran or the Bible. Its scriptures are also
evolving and suffering addition. The Gita itself is an
instance in point. It has given a new meaning to karma,
sannyasa, yajna, etc. It has breathed new life into Hindu¬
ism. It has given an original rule of conduct. Not that
what the Gita has given was not implied in the previous
writings, but the Gita put these implications in a concrete
shape. I have endeavoured in the light of a prayerful
study ■'of the other faiths of the world and, what is more,
in the light of my own experiences in trying to live the
teaching of Hinduism as interpreted in the Gita, to give
an extended but in no way strained meaning to Hinduism,
not as buried in its ample scriptures, but as a living faith
speaking like a mother to her aching child. What I have
done is perfectly historical. I have followed in the foot¬
steps of our forefathers. At one time they sacrificed
177
12
 178 HINDU DHARMA

animals to propitiate angry gods. Their descendants, but

our less remote ancestors, read a different meaning into
the word ‘ sacrifice ’ and they taught that sacrifice was
meant to be of our baser self, to please not angry gods but
the one living God within. I hold that the logical out¬
come of the teaching of the Gita is decidedly for peace
at the price of life itself. It is the highest aspiration of
the human species.
The Mahabharata and the Ramayana, the two books
that millions of Hindus know and regard as their guides,
are undoubtedly allegories as the internal evidence
shows. That they most probably deal with historical
figures does not affect my proposition. Each epic describes
the eternal duel that goes on between the forces of dark¬
ness and of light. Anyway I must disclaim any intention
of straining the meaning of Hinduism or the Gita to suit
any preconceived notions of mine. My notions were an
outcome of a study of the Gita, the Ramayana, the Maha¬
bharata, the Upanishads, etc.
Harijan, 3-10-’36

99
THE TEACHING OF THE GITA
[Dr. Kagawa is a student of religions. He wanted to know how
Gandhiji’s ahimsa teaching could he reconciled with the Bhagawad-
gita. Gandhiji said it could not be discussed in a brief Interval, but
he would ask him to read his introduction to the Gita where he had
answered the question. The answer had come to him as part of
his experience, and the Interpretation was, as he thought, not^ labour¬
ed in any way. — M. D.]
Dr. Kagawa : I am told you recite the Bhagawadgita
daily ?
Gandhiji : Yes, we finish the entire Gita reading once
every week.
Dr. Kagawa : But at the end of the Gita Krishna re¬
commends violence.
Gandhiji: I do not think so. I am also fighting. I
should not be fighting effectively if I were fighting
 THE TEACHING OF THE GITA 179
•violently. The message of the Gita is to be found in the
second chapter of the Gita "where Krishna speaks of the
balanced state of mind, of mental equipoise. In 19 verses
at the close of the 2nd chapter of the Gita, Krishna ex¬
plains how this state can be achieved. It can be achieved,
he tells us, after killing all your passions. It is not possi¬
ble to kill your brother after having killed all your
passions. I should like to see that man dealing death —
who has no passions, who is indifferent to pleasure and
pain, who is undisturbed by the storms that trouble
mortal man. The whole thing is described in language of
beauty that is unsurpassed. These verses show that the
fight Krishna speaks of is a spiritual fight.
Dr. Kagawa : To the common mind it sounds as
though it was actual fighting.
Gandhiji: You must read the whole thing dispassion¬
ately in its true context. After the first mention of fight¬
ing, there is no mention of fighting at all. The rest is a
spiritual discourse.
Dr. Kagawa: Has anybody interpreted it like you ?
Gandhiji: Yes. The fight is there, but the fight as
it is going on within. The Pandavas and Kauravas are
the forces of good and evil within. The war is the war
between Jekyll and Hyde, God and Satan, going on in the
human breast. The internal evidence in support of this
interpretation is there in the work itself and in the Maha-
hharata of which the Gita is a minute part. It is not a
histoiy of war between two families, but the history of
man — the history of the spiritual struggle of man. I
have sound reasons for my interpretation.
Dr. Kagawa: That is why I say it is your inter¬
pretation.
Gandhiji: But that is nothing. The question is
whether it is a reasonable interpretation, whether it
carries conviction. If it does, it does not matter whether
it is mine or X. Y. Z.’s. If it does not, it has no value even,
if it is mine.
 180 HINDU DHARMA

Dr. Kagawa: To my mind Arjuna’s ideas are

wonderful. Krishna has found some excuse for him, and
it was natural and necessary before Christianity.
Gandhiji: This interpretation is even historically
wrong. For Buddha existed long before the Christian era,
and he preached the doctrine of non-violence.
Dr. Kagawa: But Arjuna’s views seem to me to be
superior to Krishna’s.
Gandhiji: Then according to you the disciple was
greater than the master !
Dr. Kagawa: But I agree with your teaching of
non-violence. I shall read the Gita again, bearing your
interpretation in mind.
Harijan, 21-l-’39

100
CENTRAL TEACHING OF THE GITA
“ Is the central teaching of the Gita selfless action or
non-violence ? ”
“ I have no doubt that it is anasakti — selfless acti^.
Indeed I have called my little translation of the Gita
Anasaktiyoga. And anasakti transcends ahimsa. He who
would be anasakta (selfless) has necessarily to practise
non-violence in order to attain the state of selflessness.
Ahimsa is, therefore, a necessary preliminary, it is in¬
cluded in anasakti, it does not go beyond it.”
" Then does the Gita teach himsa and ahimsa both ? ”
“ I do not read that meaning in the Gita. It is quite
likely that the author did not write it to inculcate ahimsa,
but as a commentator draws innumerable interpretations
from a poetic text, even so I interpret the Gita to mean
that if its central theme is anasakti, it also teaches ahimsa.
Whilst we are in the flesh and tread the solid earth, we
have to practise ahimsa. In the life beyond there is no
himsa or ahimsa.”
 GITA JAYANTt 181
“But,” said Balasaheb Kher, “Lord Krishna’actually
counters the doctrine of ahimsa. For Arjuna utters this
pacifist resolve:
' Better I deem it, if my kinsmen strike,
To face them weaponless, and bare my breast
To shaft and spear, than answer blow with blow.'
“ And Lord Krishna teaches him to ‘ answer blow
with blow
What to Do ?
“ There I join issue with you,” said Gandhiji. “ Those
words of Arjuna were words of pretentious wisdom.
‘ Until yesterday,’ says Krishna to him, ‘ you fought your
kinsmen with deadly weapons without the slightest com¬
punction. Even today you would strike if the enemy was
a stranger and not your own kith and kin ! ’ The ques¬
tion before him was not of non-violence, but whether he
should slay his nearest and dearest.”
Harijan, l-9-’40

101
GITA JAYANTI
Thus writes Shri G. V. Ketkar of the Kesari, Poona:
"This year the Oita Jayanti is on 22nd December, Friday.
I repeat the request, which I have been making for some years,
that you should write about the Gita and Oita Jayanti in the
Harijan, I also repeat another which was made last year. In.
one of your speeches on the Gita, you have said that for those
who have no time to go through the whole of the Gita <700
verses) it is sufficient to read the second and third chapters.
You have also said that these two chapters can be further epito¬
mized. If possible, you should explain why you regard the
second and third chapters as fundamental. I have tried to place
the same idea before the public by publishing the verses of the
second and third chapters as Gita Bija or the essence of Gita.
Your writing on the subject will naturally be more effective.”
I have hitherto resisted Shri Ketkar’s request. I do
not know that these jayantis serve the purpose for which
they are intended. Spiritual matters do not admit of the
 182 HINDU DHARMA

ordinary method of advertisement. The best advertise¬

ment of things spiritual is corresponding action. I believe
that all spiritual compositions owe their effect, first to
their being a faithful record of the experiences of their
authors, and secondly because of the life lived by the de¬
votees, as far as possible, in accordance with their teach¬
ings. Thus the composers breathe life into their composi¬
tions, and the votaries nurse them into robustness by
living them. That, to my mind, is the secret of the hold
of the Gita, Tulsidas’s Ramayana and such other works
on the millions. In yielding to Shri Ketkar’s pressure,
therefore, I entertain the hope that those who take part
in the forthcoming celebration will approach it in the pro¬
per spirit and with a fixed intention to live up to the mes¬
sage of the noble song. 1 have endeavoured to show that
its message consists in the performance of one’s duty with
detachment. The theme of the Gita is contained in the
second chapter, and the way to carry out the message is
to be found in the third chapter. This is not to say that
the other chapters have less merit. Indeed, every one of
them has a merit of its own. The Gita has been called
(Gitai) by Vinoba who has translated it verse for
^'e^se in very simple yet stately Marathi. The metre cor¬
responds with that of the original. To thousands it is
the real mother, for it yields the rich milk of consolation
in difficulties. I have called it my spiritual dictionary, for
it has never failed me in distress. It is, moreover, a book
which is free from sectarianism and dogma. Its appeal
is universal. I do not regard the Gita as. an abstruse book.
No doubt learned men can see 'abstruseness in everything
they come across. But in my opinion, a man with ordi¬
nary intelligence should find no difficulty in gatliering
the simple message of the Gita. Its Sanskrit is incredibly
simple. I have read many English translations, but there
is nothing to equal Edwin Arnold’s metrical translation
which he has beautifully and aptly called The Song
Celestial.
BaHjan, 18-12-’S9
 SECTION SEVEN: NON-VIOLENCE

102
THE DOCTRINE OP THE SWORD

I am not a visionary. I claim to be a practical idealist.

The religion of non-violence is not meant merely for the
rishis and saints. It is meant for the common people as
well. Non-violence is the law of our species as violence
is the law of the brute. The spirit lies dormant in the
brute and he knows no law but that of physical might.
The dignity of man requires obedience to a higher law —
to the strength of the spirit.
I have therefore ventured to place before India the
ancient law of self-sacrifice. For Satyagraha and its off¬
shoots, non-co-operation and civil resistance are nothing
but new names for the law of suffering. The rishis, who
discovered the law of non-violence in the midst of violence
were greater geniuses than Newton. They were them¬
selves greater warriors than Wellington. Having them¬
selves known the use of arms, they realized their useless¬
ness and taught a weary world that its salvation lay not
through violence but through non-violence.
Non-violence in its dynamic condition means con¬
scious suffering. It does not mean meek submission to
the will of the evil-doer, but it means the pitting of one's
whole soul against the will of the tyrant. Working under
this law of our being, it is possible for a single individual
to defy the whole might of an unjust empire to save his
honour, his religion, his soul and lay the foundation for
that empire's fall or its regeneration.
And so I am not pleading for India to practise non-
Adolence because it is weak. I want her to practise non¬
violence being conscious of her strength and power. No
183
 184 HINDU DHARMA

training in arms is required for realization of her strength.

We seem to need it because we seem to think that we are
but a Ixunp of flesh. I want India to recognize that she
has a soul that cannot perish and that can rise triumphant
above every physical weakness and defy the physical com¬
bination of a whole world. What is the meaning of Rama,
a mere human being, with his host of monkeys, pitting
himself against the insolent strength of ten-headed
Havana surrounded in supposed safety by the raging
waters .on all sides of Lanka ? Does it not mean the con¬
quest of physical might by spiritual strength ? If India
takes up the doctrine of the sword, she may gain momen¬
tary victory. Then India will cease to be the pride of
my heart. I am wedded to India because I owe my all to
her. I believe absolutely that she has a mission for the
world. She is not to copy Europe blindly. India's accept¬
ance of the doctrine of the sword will be the hour of my
trial. I hope I shall not be found wanting. My religion
has no geographical limits. If I have a living faith in it,
it will transcend my love for India herself. My life is de¬
dicated to the service of India through the religion of non¬
violence which I believe to be the root of Hinduism.
Young India, ll-8-*20

103
SOCIAL BOYCOTT
Non-co-operation being a movement of purification is
bringing to the surface all our weaknesses as also excesses
of even our strong points. Social boycott is an age-old
institution. It is coeval with caste. It is the one terrible
sanction exercised with great effect. It is based upon the
notion that a community is not bound to extend its hos¬
pitality or service to an excommunicate. It answered
when every village was a self-contained unit, and the occa¬
sions of recalcitrancy were rare. But when opinion is
divided as it is today, on the merits of non-co-operation,
when its new application is having a trial, a summary use
 SOCIAL BOTOOTT 185

of social boycott in order to bend a minority to the will

of the majority is a species of unpardonable violence. If
persisted in, such boycott is bound to destroy the move¬
ment. Social boycott is applicable and effective when it
is not felt as a punishment and accepted by the object of
boycott as a measure of discipline. Moreover, social boy¬
cott to be admissible in a campaign of non-violence must
never savour of inhumanity. It must be civilized. It
must cause pain to the party using it, if it cau§es incon¬
venience to its object. Thus, depriving a man of .the ser¬
vices of a medical man, as is reported to have been done-
in Jhansi, is an act of inhumanity tantamount in the moral’
code to an attempt to murder. I see no difference in mur¬
dering a man and withdrawing medical aid from a man
who is on the point of dying. Even the laws of war, I
apprehend, require the giving of medical relief to the
enemy in need of it. To deprive a man of the use of an
only village well is notice tp him to quit that village.
Surely, non-co-operators have acquired no right to use
that extreme pressure against those who do not see eye
to eye with them. Impatience and intolerance will surely
kill this great religious movement. We may not make
people pure by compulsion. Much less may we compel
them by violence to respect our opinion. It is utterly
against the spirit of democracy we want to cultivate.
I hope, therefore, that non-co-operation workers will
beware of the snares of social boycott. But the alterna¬
tive to social boycott is certainly not social intercourse.
A man who defies strong clear public opinion on vital'
matters is not entitled to social amenities and privileges.
We may not take part in his social functions such as mar¬
riage feasts, we may not receive gifts from him. But we
dare not deny social service. The latter is a duty. At¬
tendance at dinner parties and the like is a priidlege which
it is optional to •withhold or extend. But it would be wis¬
dom to err on the right side and to exercise the •weapon
even in the limited sense described by me on rare and
well-defined occasions. And in every case the user of the
weapon wrill use it at his O'wn risk. The use of it is not
 186 HINDU DHARMA

as yet in any form a duty. No one is entitled to its use

if there is any danger of hurting the movement.
Young India, 16-2-’21

104
NON-VIOLENCE
When a person claims to be non-violent, he is ex¬
pected not to be angry with one who has injured him. He
will not wish him harm ; he will wish him well; he will
not swear at him ; he will not cause him any physical hurt.
He will put up with all the injury to which he is subjected
by the wrongdoer. Thus non-violence is complete inno¬
cence. Complete non-violence is complete absence of ill-
will against all that lives. It therefore embraces even sub¬
human life not excluding noxious insects or beasts. They
have not been created to feed our destructive propensities.
If we only knew the mind of the Creator, we should find
their proper place in His creation. Non-violence is there¬
fore in its active form goodwill towards all life. It is pure
love. I read it in the Hindu Scriptures, in the Bible, in
the Quran.
Non-violence is a perfect state. It is a goal towards
which all mankind moves naturally l;hough unconscious¬
ly. Man does not become divine when he personifies in¬
nocence in himself. Only then does he become truly man.
In our present state we are partly men and partly beasts
and in our ignorance and even arrogance say that we truly
fulfil the purpose of our species, when we deliver blow
for blow and develop the measure of anger required for
the purpose. We pretend to believe that retaliation is the
law of our being, whereas in every scripture we find that
retaliation is nowhere obligatory but only permissible. It
is restraint that is obligatory. Retaliation is' indulgence
requiring elaborate regulating. Restraint is the law of
our being. For, highest perfection is unattainable without
highest restraint. Suffering is thus the badge of the
human tribe.
 HINDUISM AND NON-VIOLENCE 187
The goal ever recedes from us. The greater the pro¬
gress, the greater the recognition of our unworthiness.
Satisfaction lies in the effort, not in the attainment. Pull
effort is full victory.
Young India, 9-3-'22

105
HINDUISM AND NON-VIOLENCE
My claim to Hinduism has been rejected by some, be¬
cause I believe and advocate non-violence in its extreme
form. They say that I am a Christian in disguise. I have
been even seriously told that I am distorting the meaning
of the Gita, when I ascribe to that great poem the teaching
of unadulterated non-violence. Some of my Hindu friends
tell me that killing is a duty enjoined by the Gita under
certain circumstances. A very learned shastri only the
other day scornfully rejected my interpretation of the
Gita and said that there was no warrant for the opinion
held by some commentators that the Gita represented the
eternal duel between the forces of evil and good, and in¬
culcated the duty of eradicating evil within us without
hesitation, without tenderness.
I state these opinions against non-violence in detail,
because it is necessary to understand them, if we would
understand the solution I have to offer.
What I see around me today is, therefore, a reaction
against the spread of non-violence. I feel the wave of
violence coming. The Hindu-Muslim tension is an acute
phase of this tiredness.
I must be dismissed out of consideration. My reli¬
gion is a matter solely between my Maker and myself. If
I am a Hindu, I cannot cease to be one even though I may
be disowned by the whole of the Hindu population. I do
however suggest that non-violence is the end of all reli¬
gions.
But I have never presented to India that extreme
form of non-violence, if only because I do not regard
 188 HINDU DHAKMA

myself fit enough to redeliver that ancient message. Though

my intellect has fully understood and grasped it, it has
not as yet become part of my whole being. My strength
lies in my asking people to do nothing that I have not
tried repeatedly in my own life. I am then asking my
countrymen today to adopt non-violence as their final
creed, only for the purpose of regulating the relations
between the different races, and for the purpose of attain¬
ing Swaraj. Hindus and Mussulmans, Christians, Sikhs
and Parsis must not settle their differences by resort to
violence, and the means for the attainment of Swaraj
must be non-violent. This I venture to place before India,
not as a weapon of the weak, but of the strong. Hindus
and Mussulmans prate about no compulsion in religion.
What is it but compulsion, if Hindus will kill a Mussul¬
man for saving a cow ? It is like wanting to convert a
Mussulman to Hinduism by force. And similarly what
is it but compulsion, if Mussulmans seek to prevent by
force Hindus from playing music before mosques ? Vir¬
tue lies in being absorbed in one’s prayers in the presence
of din and noise. We shall both be voted irreligious sava¬
ges by posterity if we continue to make a futile attempt
to compel one another to respect our religious wishes.
Again, a nation of three hundred million people should
be ashamed to have to resort to force to bring to book
one hundred thousand Englishmen. To convert them,
or, if you will, even to drive them out of the country, we
need, not force of arms, but force of will. If we have
not the latter, we shall never get the former. If we deve¬
lop the force of will we shall find that we do not need the
force of arms.
Acceptance of non-violence, therefore, for the pur¬
poses mentioned by me, is the most natural and the most
necessary condition of our national existence. It will
teach us to husband our corporate physical strength for
a better purpose, instead of dissipating it# as now, in a
useless fratricidal strife, in which each party is exhau-sted
after the effort. And every armed rebellion must be an
insane act unless it is backed by the nation. But almost
 THS HIGHEST BRAVERY 189
any item of non-co-operation fully backed by the nation
can achieve the aim without shedding a single drop of
blood.
Young India, 29-5-*24

106
THE HIGHEST BRAVERY

Dussehra was the celebration of Rama's victory over

Havana but his victory was not achieved by violence.
When Vibhishana asked Shri Ramachandra how unarm¬
ed, unshod, without any armour, he was going to defeat
the heavily armed and mighty Havana with his chariots,
Rama’s reply was that it was faith and purity that were
going to win the battle. His bow was his self-control.
His victory was the victory of good over evil.
He was receiving, Gandhiji went on to say, letters
of abuse saying that his doctrine of non-violence was
emasculating the Hindus, that he was no Mahatma, that
he was injuring them and leading them astray. The
speaker said, he neyer laid claim to being a Mahatma.
He was an ordinary mortal as any one of them. He hoped
he had never injured any one. What he told them he
told them for their own and the universal good. He had
said that if they could not act non-violently they should
defend themselves violently rather than be cowards. But
the ability to die smiling at the hands of a brother with¬
out retaliation, physical or mental, was the highest bra¬
very.
nmrijan, 13-10-’46
 107
PURITY ESSENTIAL FOR NON-VIOLENCE
Speaking in the prayer meeting, Gandhiji said that
while he admitted his impotency regarding the spread of
the ahimsa of the brave and the strong as distinguished
from that of the weak, the admission was not meant to
imply that he did not know how that inestimable virtue
was to be cultivated. Consciousness of the living presence
of God within one was undoubtedly the first requisite.
Acquisition of this consciousness did not require or mean
temple-going. The daily recitation, however, carried with
it certain well-defined implications. Assuming that the
millions of India daily recited at a given time the name of
God as Rama, Allah, Khuda, Ahura Mazda and Jehovah
but the recitation was not free from drunkenness, de¬
bauchery, gambling on the market or in gambling dens,
black-marketing etc., the Ramadhun was a vain and in¬
glorious effort. One with a wicked heart could never be
conscious of the all-purifying presence of God.
HaHjan, 29-6-M7

108
VEGETARIANISM
I was told by all responsible leaders — both Hindu
and Mohammedan — who are not given to be panicky —
that it was taxing their resources to the utmost to avoid
a Hindu-Mussulman disturbance. They informed me
that certain Hindus, by name Gangaram Sharma, Bhuta-
nath and Vidyanand for instance, had told the people that
I had prohibited the use of meat to any Hindus or Mussul¬
mans and that meat and fish were even forcibly taken
away from people by overzealous Vegetarians. I know
that unlawful use is being made of my name in many
places, but this is the most novel method of misusing it.
It is generally known that I am a staunch vegetarian and
190
 VEGETARIANISM 191

food reformer. But it is not equally generally known that

ahimsa extends as much to human beings as to lower ani¬
mals and that I freely associate with meat-eaters.
Needless to say I have authorized no one to preach
vegetarianism as part of non-co-operation. I do not know
the persons named above. I am sure that our purpose
will be defeated if propaganda of any kind is accompanied
by violence. Hindus may not compel Mussulmans to
abstain from meat or even beef-eating. Vegetarian
Hindus may not compel other Hindus to abstain from fish,
flesh or fowl. I would not make India sober at the point
of the sword. Nothing has lowered the morale of the
nation so much as violence. Fear has become a part of
the national character. Non-co-operators will make a
serious mistake, if they seek to convert people to their
creed by violence.
Young India, 18-5'’21

109
VEGETARIANISM
A correspondent is bom in a meat-eating family. He
has successfully resisted the pressure from his parents to
return to the fish-pot. “ But,” he says, “ in a book I have
before me, I read the opinion of Swami Vivekananda on
the subject, and feel a good deal shaken in my belief. The
Swami holds that for Indians in their present state flesh-
diet is a necessity and he advises his friends to eat flesh,
freely. He even goes so far as to say, ‘ If you incur any sin
thereby throw it upon me ; I will bear it.’ I am now in a
fix whether to eat flesh or not.”
This blind worship of authority is a sign of weakness
of mind. If the correspondent has such a deep-seated
conviction that flesh-eating is not, right, why should he be
moved by the opinion to the contrary of the whole world ?
One needs to be slow to form convictions, but once form¬
ed they' must be defended against the heaviest odds.
 192 HINDU DHARMA

As for the opinion of the great Swami, I have not seen

the actual writing but I fear the correspondent has correct¬
ly quoted him. My opinion is well-known. I do not regard
flesh-food as necessary for us at any stage and under any
olime in which it is possible for human beings ordinarily
to live. I hold flesh-food to be unsuited to our species.
We err in copying the lower animal world if we are
superior to it. Experience teaches that animal food is
unsuited to those who would curb their passions.
But it is wrong to overestimate the importance of
food in the formation of character or in subjugating the
flesh. Diet is a powerful factor not to be neglected. But
to sum up all religion in terms of diet, as is often done
in India, is as wrong as it is to disregard all restraint in
regard to diet and to give full reins to one's appetite.
Vegetarianism is one of the priceless gifts of Hinduism. It
may not be lightly given up. It is necessary therefore to
correct the error that vegetarianism has made us weak
in mind or body, or passive or inert in action. The great¬
est Hindu reformers have been the activest in their gene¬
ration and they have invariably been vegetarians. Who
could show greater activity than say Shankara or Daya-
nanda in their times ?
But my correspondent must not accept me as his
authority. The choice of one's diet is not a thing to be
based on faith. It is a matter for every one to reason
out for himself. There has grown up especially in the
West an amount of literature on vegetarianism which any
seeker after truth may study with profit. Many eminent
medical men have contributed to this literature. Here, in
India, we have not needed any encouragement for vege¬
tarianism. For it has been hitherto accepted as the most
desirable and the most respectable thing. Those however
who like the correspondent feel ^shaken, may study the
growing movement towards vegetarianism in the West.
4
Young India, T-10-*26
 110
IS THIS HUMANITY ?
The Ahmedabad Humanitarian League has address¬
ed me a letter from which I take the relevant portions ;
“ The talk of the whole city of Ahmedabad is the destruction
of 60 dogs on his mill premises at the instance of Sheth.
Many a humanitarian heart is considerably agitated over the
Incident. When Hinduism forbids the taking of the life of any
living being, when it declares it to be a sin, do you think it
right to kill rabid dogs for the reason that they would bite
human beings and by biting other dogs make them also rabid ?
Are not the man who actually destroys the dogs as also the
man at whose Instance he does so both sinners ?
“ A deputation of three gentlemen from our Society waited
on the Sheth on the 28th ultimo. He confessed in the course
of the interview, that he had to take the course in question to
save human life. He also said: * I myself had no sleep on
the night I took that decision. I met Mahatmaji the next morn¬
ing and ascertained his view in the matter. He said, ** What
else could be done ? ** ’ Is that a fact ? And if so, what does it
mean ?
“ We hope you will express your views in the matter and
set the whole controversy at rest and prevent humanitarianism
from being endangered by the shocks given to it by distinguished
men like the Sheth. The Ahmedabad Municipality, we have
heard, is soon going to have before it a resolution for the castra¬
tion of stray dogs. Is it proper ? Does religion sanction the
castration of an animal ? We should be thankful if you would
give your opinion in this matter also.”
I gave the reply that the Society's letter attributes to
me.
I have since thought over the matter and feel that
my reply was quite proper.
Imperfect, erring mortals as we are, there is no course
open to us but the destruction of rabid dogs. At times
we may be faced with the unavoidable duty of killing a
man who is found in the act of killing people.
If we persist in keeping stray dogs undisturbed, we
shall soon be faced with the duty of either castrating them
or killing them. A third alternative is that of having a
193
13
 194 HINDU DHARBiA

special pinjrapole for dogs. But it is out of the question.

When we cannot cope with all the stray cattle in the city,
the very proposal of having a pinjrapole for dogs seems
to me to be chimerical.
There can be no two opinions on the fact that Hindu¬
ism regards killing a living being as sinful. I think all
religions are agreed on the principle. There is generally
no difficulty in determining a principle. The difficulty
comes in when one proceeds to put it into practice. A
principle is the expression of a perfection, and as imper¬
fect beings like us cannot practise perfection, we devise
every moment limits of its compromise in practice. So
Hinduism has laid down that killing for sacrifice is no
himsa (violence). This is only a half-truth. Violence
will be violence for all time, and all violence is sinful.
But what is inevitable is not regarded as a sin, so much
so that the science of daily practice has not only declared
the inevitable violence involved in killing for sacrifice as
permissible but even regarded it as meritorious.
But unavoidable violence cannot be defined. For it
changes with time, place, and person. What is regarded
as excusable at one time may be inexcusable at another.
The violence involved in burning fuel or coal in the depth
of winter to keep the body warm may be unavoidable and
therefore a duty, for a weak-bodied man, but fire un¬
necessarily lit in midsummer is clearly violence.
We recognize the duty of killing microbes by the use
of disinfectants. It is violence and yet a duty. But why
go even as far as that ? The air in a dark closed room is
full of little microbes, and the introduction of light and
air into it by opening it is destruction indeed. But it is
ever a duty to use that finest of disinfectants — pure air.
These instances can be multiplied. The principle
that applies in the instances cited applies in the matter of
killing rabid dogs. To destroy a rabid dog is to commit
the minimum amount of violence. A recluse, who is living
in a forest and is compassion incarnate, may not destroy
a rabid dog. For in his compassion he has the virtue <rf
making it whole. But a city-dweller who is responsible
 IS THIS HUMANITY? 195
for the protection of lives under his care and who does
not possess the virtues of the recluse, but is capable of
destroying a rabid dog, is faced with a conflict of duties.
If he kills the dog he commits a sin. If he does not kill it,
he commits a graver sin. So he prefers to commit the
lesser one and save himself from the graver.
I believe myself to be saturated with ahimsa — non¬
violence. Ahimsa and truth are as my two lungs. I can¬
not live without them. But I see every moment with more
and more clearness, the immense power of ahimsa and
the littleness of man. Even the forest-dweller cannot be
entirely free from violence, in spite of his limitless com¬
passion. With every breath he commits a certain amount
of violence. The body itself is a house of slaughter, and
therefore Moksha and Eternal Bliss consist in perfect
deliverance from the body, and therefore all pleasure,
save the joy of Moksha, is evanescent, imperfect.
That being the case, we have to drink, in daily life,
many a bitter draught of violence.
It is therefore a thousand pities that the question of
stray dogs etc. assumes such a monstrous proportion in
this sacred land of ahimsa. It is my firm conviction that
we are propagating himsa in the name of ahimsa owing to
our deep ignorance of the great principle. It may be a sin
to destroy rabid dogs and such others as are liable to
catch rabies. But we are responsible, the Mahajan is
responsible, for this state of things. The Mahajan may
not allow the dogs to stray. It is a sin, it should be a sin,
to feed stray dogfe, and we should save numerous dogs if
we had legislation making every stray dog liable to be
shot. Even if those who feed stray dogs consented to
pay a penalty for their misdirected compassion we should
be free from the curse of stray dogs.
Humanity is a noble attribute of the soul. It is not
exhausted with saving a few fish or a few dogs. Such
saving may even be sinful. If I have a swarm of ants in
my house, the man who proceeds to feed them will be
guilty of a sin. For God has provided their grain for the
ants, but the man who feeds them might destroy me and
 196 HINDU DHARMA

my family. The Mahajan may feel itself safe and believe

that it has saved their lives by dumping dogs near my
field, but it will have committed the greater sin of putting
my life in danger. Humaneness is impossible without
thought, discrimination, charity, fearlessness, humility
and clear vision. It is no easy thing to walk on the sharp
sword-edge of ahimsa in this world which is so full of
himsa. Wealth does not help; anger is the enemy of
ahimsa; and pride is a monster that swallows it up. In
this strait and narrow observance of this religion of
ahimsa one has often to know so-called himsa as the
-truest form of ahimsa.
Things in this world are not what they seem and do
not seem as they really are. Or if they are seen as they
are, they so appear only to a few who have perfected
themselves after ages of penance. But none has yet been
able to describe the reality, and no one can.
Young India, 21-10"’26

111
IS THIS HUMANITY?
We cast a morsel at the beggar come to our door, and
feel that we have earned some merit, but we really there¬
by add to the number of beggars, aggravate the evil of
beggary, encourage idleness and consetjuently promote
irreligion. This does not mean that we should starve the
really deserving beggars. It is the duty of society to
support the blind and the infirm, but eveiry one may not
take the task upon himself. The head of the society, i.e.,
the Mahajan or the State where it is well-organized,
should undertake the t£isk, and the philanthropically in¬
clined should subscribe funds to such an institution. If
the Mahajan is pure-minded and wise it will carefully in¬
vestigate the condition of beggars and protect the de¬
serving ones. When this does not happen, i. e., when
 IS THIS HUMANITY? 197
relief is indiscriminate, scoundrels disguised as beggars
get the benefit of it and the poverty of the land increases.
If it is thus a sin on the part of an individual to
undertake feeding beggars, it is no less a sin for him to
feed stray dogs. It is a false sense of compassion. It is
an insult to the starving dog to throw crumb at him.
Roving dogs do not indicate the civilization or compassion
of society, they betray on the contrary the ignorance and
lethargy of its members. The lower animals are our
brethren. I include among them the lion an§. the tiger.
We do not know how to live with these carnivorous beasts
and poisonous reptiles because of our ignorance. When
man knows himself better, he will learn to befriend even
these. Today he does not even know how to befriend a
man of a different religion or from a foreign country.
The dog is a faithful companion. There are nume¬
rous instances of the faithfulness of dogs and horses. But
that means that we should keep them and treat them with
respect as we do our companions and not allow them to
roam about. By aggravating the evil of stray dogs we
shall not be acquitting ourselves of our duty to them. But
if we regard the existence of stray dogs as a shame to us,
and therefore refuse to feed them, we shall be doing the
dogs as a class a real service and make them happy.
What then can a humane man do for stray dogs ? He
should set apart a portion of his income and send it on
to a society for the protection of those animals if there
be one. If such a society is impossible — and I know it is
very difficult even if it is not impossible — he should try
to own one or more dogs. If he cannot do so, he should
give up worrying about the question of dogs and direct
his humanity towards the service of other animals.
" But you are asking us to destroy them ? ” is the
question angrily or lovingly asked by others. Now, I have
not suggested the extirpation of dogs as an absolute duty.
I have suggested the killing of some dogs as a ‘duty in
distress ’ and under certain circumstances. When the
State does not care for stray dogs, nor does the Mahajan,
and when one is not prepared to take care of them onesefif,
 198 HINDU DHARMA

then, and if one regards them as a danger to society, he

should kill them and relieve them from a lingering death.
This is a bitter dose, I agree. But it is my innermost con¬
viction that true love and compassion consist in taking it.
Taking life may be a duty. Let us consider this posi¬
tion.
We do destroy as much life as we think is necessary
for sustaining the body. Thus for food we take life, vege¬
table and opier, and for health we destroy mosquitoes and
the like b^ the use of disinfectants etc. and we do not
think that we are guilty of irreligion in doing so.
This is as regards one’s own self. But for the sake
of others, i. e., for the benefit of the species we kill carni¬
vorous beasts. When lions and tigers pester their villa¬
ges, the villagers regard it a duty to kill them or have
them killed.
Even manslaughter may be necessary in certain
cases. Suppose a man runs amuck and goes furiously
about sword in hand, and killing any one that comes his
way, and no one dares to capture him alive. Any one
who despatches this lunatic will earn the gratitude of the
community and be regarded a benevolent man.
From the point of view of ahimsa it is the plain duty
of every one to kill such a man. There is indeed one ex¬
ception if it can be so-called. The yogi who can subdue
the fury of this dangerous man may not kill him. But
we are not here dealing with beings who have almost
reached perfection; we are considering the duty of a
society of ordinary erring human beings.
There may be a difference of opinion as regards the
appositeness of my illustrations. But if they are inade¬
quate, others can be easily imagined. What they are
meant to show is that refraining from taking life can in
no circumstances be an absolute duty.
The fact is that ahimsa does not simply mean non¬
killing. Himsa means causing pain to or killing any life
out of anger, or from a selfish purpose, or with the inten¬
tion of injuring it. Refraining from so doing is ahimsa.
 IS THIS HUlAANrrT? 199
The physician who prescribes bitter medicine causes
you pain but does no himsa. If he fails to prescribe bitter
medicine when it is necessary to do so, he fails in his duty
of ahimsa. The surgeon who, from fear of causing pain
to his patient, hesitates to amputate a rotten limb is guilty
of himsa. He who refrains from killing a murderer who
is about to kill his ward (when he cannot prevent him
otherwise) earns no merit, but commits a sin; he prac¬
tises no ahimsa but himsa out of a fatuous sense of
ahimsa.
Let us now examine the root of ahimsa. It is utter¬
most selflessness. Selflessness means complete freedom
from a regard for one’s body. When some sage observed
man killing numberless creatures, big and small, out of
a regard for his own body, he was shocked at his igno¬
rance. He pitied him for thus forgetting the deathless
soul, encased within the perishable body, and for thinking
of the ephemeral physical pleasure in preference to the
eternal bliss of the spirit. He therefrom deduced the duty
of complete self-effacement. He saw that if man desires
to realize himself, i. e. Truth, he could do so only by being
completely detached from the body, i. e. by making all
other beings feel safe from him. That is the way of
ahimsa.
A realization of this truth shows that the sin of
himsa consists not in merely taking life, but in taking
life for the sake of one’s perishable body. All destruction
therefore involved in the process of eating, drinking etc.
is selfish and therefore himsa. But man regards it to be
unavoidable and puts up with it. But the destruction of
bt^ies of tortured creatures being for their own peace
cannot be regarded as himsa, or the unavoidable destruc¬
tion caused for the purpose of protecting one’s wards
cannot be regarded as himsa.
This line of reasoning is liable to be most mischiev¬
ously used. But that is not because the reasoning is
faulty, but because of the inherent frailty of man to catch
at whatever pretexts he can get to deceive himself to
satisfy his selfishness or egoism. But that danger may not
 200 HINDU DHARMA

excuse one from defining the true nature of ahimsa. Thus

we arrive at the following result from the foregoing:
(1) It is impossible to sustain one’s body without
the destruction of other bodies to some extent.
(2) All have to destroy some life
(a) for sustaining their own bodies;
(b) for protecting those under their care ; or
(c) sometimes for the sake of those whose life
is taken.
(3) (a) and (b) in (2) mean himsa to a greater or
less extent, (c) means no himsa, and is therefore
ahimsa, Himsa in (a) and (b) is unavoidable.
(4) A progressive ahimsa-ist will therefore com¬
mit the himsa contained in (a) and (b) as little as
possible only when it is unavoidable, and after full and
mature deliberation and having exhausted all remedies
to avoid it.
The destruction of dogs that I have suggested comes
under (4) and can therefore be resorted to only when it
is unavoidable, when there is no other remedy and after
mature deliberation. But I have not the slightest doubt
that refraining from that destruction when it is unavoid¬
able is worse than destruction. And, therefore, although
there can be no absolute duty to kill dogs etc., it becomes
a necessary duty for certain people at certain times and
under certain circumstances.
Young India, 4-ll-*26
 112
IS THIS HUMANITY ?
A friend writes a long letter mentioning his difficul¬
ties and pointing out what Jainism has to say to him, a
shraioak, in the matter. One of his questions is :
“ You say that if we can neither take individual charge of
roving dogs nor have a pinjrapole for them, the only alternative
is to kill them. Does that mean that every roving dog should
be killed, although it may not be rabid ? Don't you agree that
we leave unmolested all harmful beasts, birds and reptiles, so
long as they do not actually harm us ? Why should the dogs
be an exception ? Where is the humanity of shooting innocent
dogs whenever they are found roving ? How can one wishing
well to all living beings do this ? "

The writer has misunderstood my meaning. I would

not suggest even the destruction of rabid dogs for the
sake of it, much less that of innocent roving dogs. Nor
have I said that these latter should be killed wherever
they are found. I have only suggested legislation to that
effect, so that as soon as the law is made, humane people
might wake up in the matter and devise measures for the
better management of stray dogs. Some of these might
be owned, some might be put in quarantine. The remedy,
when it is taken, will be once for all. Stray dogs do not
drop down from heaven. They are a sign of the idleness,
indifference, and ignorance of society. When they grow
into a nuisance, it is due to our ignorance and want of
compassion. A stray dog is bound to take to his heels if
you do not feed him. The measure that I have suggested
is actuated no less by a consideration of the welfare of
the dogs than by that of society. It is the duty of a
humanitarian to allow no living being aimlessly to roam
about. In performance of that duty it may be his duty
once in a way to kill some dogs.
Here is another question:
** I agree that the dogs are sure to be killed by man when¬
ever they become a menace to society. But you say, ‘To wait
201
 202 HINDU DHABMA

until they get rabid is not to be merciful to them.' This means

that every dog is potentially rabid and that therefore It shotild
be killed as a matter of precaution. I met a friend from the
Ashram who assured me that you did not mean this, and that
you had suggested it only as a last resource when dogs had be¬
come a menace. This is not clear from your articles. Will you
make It clear?”
My previous articles and my answer to the Jirst
question leave nothing to be cleared. I must explain what
I mean when I say that you cannot wait on until the dog
gets rabid. Every stray dog is harmful. The harm is
confined to cities alone and it must stop. We do not wait
until the serpent bites us. The rabies of the dog is con¬
cealed in its capacity to bite. A friend has sent me figures
of cases of hydrophobia treated in the Civil Hospital,
Ahmedabad :
Period Cases Cases Total
from the from the
city District
Jan. to Dec. '25 194 923 1.117
Jan. to Sept. '26 295 695 990
These figures must alarm every one who is interested in
the welfare of the community, especially if he is a huma¬
nitarian. I admit that all the cases may not have been of
hydrophobia. But it is difficult to say, whether a dog is
or is not rabid, and many run ip fear to the hospital be¬
cause most dogs are found to be rabid afterwards. There
is only one remedy to relieve them of this fear and it is
not to allow dogs to roam about.
I was in England 40 years ago when effective mea¬
sures were taken to stamp out rabies. There were of
course no stray dogs there. But even for the dogs which
had regular owners, an order was passed that dogs found
without collars with the name and address of the owner
thereon and without muzzles would be killed. The mea¬
sure was taken purely in the public interest. Practically
the next day all the dogs in London were found to be with
collars and muzzles. It was therefore necessary to kill
only a verj' few. If any one thinks that the people in
the West are innocent of humanity he is sadly mistaken.
 IS THIS HUMANITY T 203
The ideal of humanity in the West is perhaps lower, but
their practice of it is very much more thorough than ours.
We rest content with a lofty ideal and are slow or lazy
in its practice. We* are wrapped in deep darkness, as is
evident from our paupers, cattle and other animals. They
are eloquent of our irreligion rather than of religion.
Young India, ll-ll-’26

113
IS THIS HUMANITY ?
In the letter under consideration as also in many
others I see that there is an instinctive horror of killing
living beings under any circumstances whatsoever. For
instance, an alternative has been suggested in the shape
of confining even rabid dogs in a certain place and allow¬
ing them to die a slow death. Now my idea of compassion
makes this thing impossible for me. I cannot for a moment
bear to see a dog, or for that matter any other living being,
helplessly suffering the torture of a slow death. I do not
kill a human being thus circumstanced because I have
more hopeful remedies. I should kill a dog similarly
situated, because in its case I am without a remedy.
Should my child be attacked by rabies and there was no
hopeful remedy to relieve his agony, I should consider it
my duty to take his life. Fatalism has its limits. We
leave things to Fate after exhausting all the remedies.
One of the remedies and the final one to relieve the agony
of a tortured child is to take his life.
But I shall not labour this point. What to my mind
is impotence of the votaries of ahimsa is an obstacle to a
true understanding of this dharma. I hope therefore
that those who differ from me will for the present bear
with me.
So much about the thoughtful letter of a friend. I
shall now deal with an angry letter.
 204 HINDU DHARldA.

“ You have been '* (says the letter) ** so much under the
Western influence that you have learnt to think it proper to
kill lower beings for the sake of man. It is better for you to
confess your error and apologize to the world. You should have
made up your mind in this matter afte^ exhaustless sifting. In¬
stead, you have passionately taken sides and discredited yourself,"
This is the least offensive sentence I have picked up
from letters of this type. I submit I have not formed my
opinion without much deliberation. It is not an opinion
I have recently formed. Neither is it hasty. One should
not let his so-called greatness come in the way of the
formation of opinion, otherwise he cannot arrive at truth.
I do not think that everything Western is to be ‘reject¬
ed. I have condemned Western civilization in no measur¬
ed terms. I still do so, but it does not mean that every¬
thing Western should be rejected. I have learnt a great
deal from the West and I am grateful to it. I should
think myself unfortunate if contact with and the literature
of the West had no influence on me. But I do not think
I owe my opinion about the dogs .to my Western education
or Western influence. The West (with the exception of
a small school of thought) thinks that it is no sin to kill
the lower animals for what it regards to be the benefit of
man. It has therefore encouraged vivisection. The West
does not think it wrong to commit violence of all kinds
for the satisfaction of the palate. I do not subscribe to
these views. According to the Western standard, it is no
sin, on the contrary it is a merit, to kill animals that are
no longer useful. Whereas I recognize limits at every
step, I regard even the destruction of vegetable life as
himsa. It is not the teaching of the West.
Argumentum ad hominem has no place in a discussion
of principles and their practice. My opinions should be
considered as they are, irrespective of whether they are
derived from the West or the East. Whether they are
based on truth or untruth, himsa or ahimsa, is the only
thing to be considered. I firmly believe that they are
based on truth and ahimsa.
Young India, 18-ll-*26
 114
IS THIS HUMANITY ?
Some of my correspondents do not seem to realize the
fundamental consideration underlying my suggestion for
the destruction of dogs under certain circumstances.
Thus, for instance, I have not made the suggestion in a
purely utilitarian spirit. The utility to society incidentally
accrues from the act, but the principal consideration is
the relief of the long drawn-out agony of the creatures
whose present condition it is simply impossible for me to
tolerate. In the articles in this series there has not been
even the remotest suggestion that man has the right of
disposal over the lower animals and that he may there¬
fore kill them for his own comfort or pleasure. One of
the writers betrays a strange confusion of thought when
he says that the characteristic of an exalted soul is that
he remains unaffected by the misery around him. He is
callous, rather than exalted, who has not learnt to melt
at other’s woe, who has not learnt to see himself in others
and others in himself. Intense longing for the happiness
of .others was the mother of discovery of ahimsa. And
the sage who was the embodiment of compassion found
his soul’s delight in renouncing his own physical comfort
and stopped killing for his pleasure the dumb creation
about him.
A correspondent reminds me of the advice given me
by Shri Rajachandra when I approached him with a doubt
as to what I should do if a serpent threatened to bite me.
Certainly his advice was that rather than kill the serpent
I should allow myself to be killed by it. But the corres¬
pondent forgets that it is not myself that is the subject
matter of the present discussion, but the welfare of
society in general as also of the suffering animals. If I
had approached Raychandbhai with the question whether
I should or should not kill a serpent writhing in agony,
and whose pain I could not relieve otherwise, or whether
205
 206 HINDU DHARMA

I should or should not kill a serpent threatening to bite

a child under my protection if I could not otherwise turn
the reptile away, I do not know what answer he would
have given. For me the answer is clear as daylight and
I have given it.
A studious correspondent confronts me with some
verses from a Jain philosopher and asks if I agree with
the position taken up in them. One of the verses says:
‘ One should not kill even beasts of prey in the beUef
that by killing one such, he saves the lives of many.’
, Another says; ‘ Nor should one kill them out of a com¬
passionate feeling that if they were suffered to live longer,
they might sink deeper into sin.’ ‘ Nor,’ says the third
verse, ‘ should one kill distressed creatures presuming
that he would thereby shorten the length of their agony.’
To me the meaning of the verses is clear. And it is
this that a particular theory should not be the spring of
action in any case. You may commit himsa, not in order
that you thereby realize in practice a pet theory of yours,
but because you are driven to it as an imperative duty.
Work which spontaneously comes to one’s lot, or action
without attachment, in the words of the Gita, i^ the duty
of a seeker after moksha. Confine your energy to work
that comes your way, I conceive the Jain philosopher
to say, never seek fresh fields of activity. The verses, to
me, define the mental attitude of detachment that should
govern one’s action in cases where himsa seems to be im¬
perative and unavoidable.
But I have arrived at my present views independent¬
ly of any authority, though originally they may have
been drawn from various sources, and I submit that they
are in perfect consonance with ahimsa, even though they
may be proved to be contrary to the teaching of the
philosopher.
Young India, 25-ll-’26
 115
THE GREATEST GOOD OF ALL
A constant reader of Young India sends the follow¬
ing :
“ Here is news in a press-cutting of a year ago which would
seem to support your view regarding the duty of taking life
under certain circumstances, which you have been expounding
in the series of articles under the caption ‘ Is this Humanity ? %
particularly in the fourth of the series published in Young India
of November 4.
“ * Special to the Times of India
Littleton (Colorado), Nov. 13 (1925)
“ * Harold Blazer, a country doctor, aged 61, who chloro¬
formed his daughter because he felt that his own end was
near and there was no one to care for her when he was
gone, was fully acquitted when the prosecution moved the
dismissal of the case following the inability of the jury to
agree after fourteen hours, at the end of which eleven vrere
for an acquittal. Dr. Blazer's counsel, Mr. Howry, declared:
* Blazer did a right and moral thing by keeping the poor
girl for whom he had cared for thirty-two years from becom¬
ing a charge on others. This imbecile girl, gargoyle, without
arms, legs, speech or thought, whom it was necessary to
feed with food already masticated, could not have a soul.'
“ At about the same time last year I remember I read about
a Paris case in which an actress shot and killed her lover at
his own importunate request, as he was suffering excruciating
pain from a disease from which there was no hope of recovery.
The actress was tried for manslaughter, but acquitted on the
jury's verdict that no crime had been committed in view of the
circumstances. Though there appears to be n<r law in France
to justify such a verdict, I have read that in Denmark there
has been actually a law passed making it no crime for certain
authorized persons in cases like the above to put an end to a
human life with ^happy despatch*. I hope these cases may be
of interest to you and many of my fellow readers of Young
Indian
I reproduce this letter for it helps me to elucidate my
own position. If such a very careful reader of Young
India, as I know this correspondent is, misunderstands
my position as is evident from his letter, how many more
occasional readers must have done likewise ? Several
207
 208 HINDU DHARMA

readers did draw my attention to the danger of a misun¬

derstanding arising owing to the traditional hardness of
our hearts which makes us prone to seize every opportu¬
nity of doing violence. One can only be — one ought to
be — most careful in the handling of delicate problems;
but no fear of misuse of statements can be permitted to
stop a free and honest discussion of fundamental truths.
For me, I shall learn to be and do right only by prayerful
discussion, elucidation and interchange of views. This
letter I have quoted is an instance in point. The discus¬
sion has brought to light an honest misunderstanding of
difference between the correspondent and myself in the
interpretation of the same principle.
Whilst I am of opinion that Dr. Blazer was well ac¬
quitted, according to the test laid down by me, he was
wrong in taking the life of his daughter. It betrayed
want of faith in the humanity of those round him.
There was no warrant for him to suppose that the
daughter would not have been cared for by others. The
position in the case of dogs under the circumstances
assumed by me is materially different from the position
in which Dr. Blazer found himself. Nor am I able to
subscribe to the view that an idiot has no soul. I believe
that even the lower creation have souls.
Weightier still is the difficulty which another earnest
reader puts and which may be thus summarized;
“ I appreciate the position you have taken up. It is the only
true position. But does not your argument after all resolve
itself into the utilitarian doctrine of the greater good of the
greater number ? And if that is your position, wherein does
the doctrine of non-violence differ from the utilitarian which
makes no pretence to non-violence and which will not hesitate
to destroy life if the destruction would lead to the greater good
of the greater number ?
In the first place, even though the outward act may
be the same, its implications will vary according to the
motive prompting it. Thus as non-violence in the West
stops at man and, even then, only where possible, there
is no compunction felt either over subjecting aninials to
vivisection for the supposed greater good of mankind or
 THE GREATEST GOOD OF ALX. 209
over heaping up most destructive armaments also in
the name of the same doctrine of utility. A votary of
non-violence, on the other hand, might have done one
act of destruction in common with the utilitarian, but he
would prefer to die rather than make himself party to
vivisection or to an endless multiplication of armaments.
The fact is that a votary of ahimsa cannot subscribe
to the utilitarian formula. 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 greater number, and therefore he and the
utilitarian will converge at many points in their career
but there does come a time when they must part com¬
pany, and even work in opposite directions. The utili¬
tarian to be logical will never sacrifice himself. The
absolutist will even sacrifice himself. The absolutist,
when he kills a dog, does so either out of weakness or in
rare cases for the sake of the dog himself. That it is a
dangerous thing to decide what is or is not good for the
dog, and that he may therefore make grievous mistakes
is irrelevant to the fact of the motive prompting the act.
The absolutist’s sphere of destruction will be always the
narrowest possible. The utilitarian’s has no limit. Judged
by the standard of non-violence, the late war was wholly
wrong. Judged by the utilitarian standard, each party
has justified it according to its idea of utility. Even the
Jallianwalla Bagh massacre was justified by its perpetra¬
tors on the grounds of utility. And precisely on the same
ground the anarchist justifies his assassinations. But
none of these acts can possibly be justified on the greatest-
good-of-all principle.
Young India, 9-12-'26

14
 116
“ HAPPY DESPATCH ” ?
The esteemed correspondent whose letter evoked the
article, “ The Greatest Good of All ” (Young India,
9-12-'26) writes;
“ Of the three cases* you have dealt only with the first, that
of Dr. Blazer, and expressed no opinion on the merits of the
other two — the Paris case and the Danish law. I and many
others of your readers, I am sure, would be grateful if you
could enlighten us as to how you would judge these matters
also from your own ethical standpoint."
The cases referred to are :
"At about the same time last year I remember I read about
a Paris case in which an actress shot and killed her lover at
his own importunate request, as he was suffering excruciating
pain from a disease from which there was no hope of recovery.
The actress was tried for manslaughter, but acquitted on the
jury’s verdict that no crime had been committed in view of the
circumstances. Though there appears to be no law in France to
justify such a verdict, I have read that in Denmark there has been
actually a law passed making it no crime for certain autho¬
rized persons in cases like the above to put an end to a human
life with 'happy despatch’."
In my opinion, such killing, if it is done bona fide,
will certainly not count as himsa as understood and de¬
fined by me. But I could not take it upon my shoulders
to justify such action on the part of a third party, as I
would never have sufficient material to judge such a case.
The defence will rest solely upon the intention. And
since no one but God is the infallible judge of intentions,
every one must act on his own responsibility and take all
the consequences. It follows, therefore, that the Danish
law cannot be defended. And I should hold it to be most
dangerous to justify any act of killing on the ground of
the desire of the victim to be killed. There are many
cases in which a man may for the moment, being over¬
whelmed with pain, desire to be killed rather than live
in agony. But he would be most grateful upon recovery
to know that his wish was not complied with. The better
210
 AHIMSA AGAIN 211
thing would, in my opinion, be boldly to put an end to a
life which we may absolutely know to be past saving.
Such a case would be that of a comrade on the battle-field
who has received a fatal wound and who has no possi¬
bility of receiving any medical aid. In this case it will
not be his wish that would determine the act of killing
but the certain knowledge of a lingering death in utter
helplessness and without hope even of loving nursing.
For it is assumed that the soldier who ends the agony by
killing is not able even to nurse his wounded comrade.
Young India, 30-12-*26

117
AHIMSA AGAIN
An M. B. B. S. from Mandalay writes :
“ In the Young India for December 9, 1926, there appeared a
press-cutting that one doctor Harold Blazer, who chloroformed
his daughter because he felt that his own end was near and
there was no one to care for her when he was gone, was fully
acquitted. Dr. Blazer's counsel, Mr. Howry declared: * Blazer
did a right and moral thing by keeping the poor girl from be¬
coming a charge on others.' To this you expressed your opinion
that Dr. Blazer was wrong in taking the life of his daughter
because it betrayed want of faith in the humanity of those
round him and that there was no warrant for him to suppose
that the daughter would not have been cared for by others. I
would say that in expressing your opinion you have not pleaded
like a pleader. I would request you to think over it again, for
I think this is not an ordinary matter. For It is evident that
you have got no scruples to put a useless burden on society
simply because you have got enough faith in the society to
shoulder the burden. For God's sake please excuse us frgm
believing in that useless, nay, extremely harmful faith. Such
a faith of yours, I sincerely believe, is very harmful to the best
interests of India. Please see what did Dr. Blazer's counsel
plead. He declared that Dr. Blazer did a right and moral thing
by preventing the poor useless girl from becoming a burden on
society. The question whether society would have cared for
the child or not is beside the point. I would ask you one ques¬
tion : * If after many tmore years of faithful service of India, you
become blind, dumb and deaf, etc., or in other words become
 212 HINDU DHARMA

absolutely useless to society, will you like society to feed you

because you have got still life left in you or because you served
so well 7* I do not know what curious ideas you have got about
ahimsa but my answer is quite clear. If I were quite useless
for society even after many years of service, I should like to be
killed rather than become a burden on society, for I reasonably
believe that I shall be benefiting society by being killed, thus
removing the burden upon the society which I love. That it Is
the duty of society to care for all useful human beings and
animals is quite a different thing.”

I do believe that whilst the jury was right in acquit¬

ting Dr. Blazer, considered from the strictly moral point
of view, Dr. Blazer was wi'ong. My correspondent in his
utihtarian zeal has overlooked the frightful consequences
and implications of the doctrine he lays down. Indeed,
his doctrine would belie his own profession. What would
he say if a young practitioner chloroformed to death a
patient whom he the junior practitioner considered to be
incurable and therefore a useless burden to society and
whom another as a senior subsequently found to be a
case quite capable of cure ? Is it not the boast of medical
science to treat no case as finally incurable ? As for my¬
self, well, I do expect my countrymen to support me when
I become a useless and burdensome article, assuming of
course that I shall still want to live. What is more, I
have full faith in my countr3rmen supporting me if that
event comes to pass. I wonder whether my correspond¬
ent will have all the lepers, the blind, the deaf, one fine
night to be chloroformed to sweet everlasting sleep. And
yet Damien was a leper and Milton was a blind poet.
Man is not all body but he is something infinitely higher.
His next question is:
• “ In the same article, 1. e. ‘ The greatest good of aU you
wrote, that a votary of ahimsa cannot subscribe to the utilitarian
‘ formula. 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. May I conclude then that
you will prefer to be bitten by a poisonous snake and die rather
than kill the same in trying to save yourself ? If I am right in
my conclusion, I think that in allowing yourself to be bitten by
the snake rather than kill it, you will be committing the greatest
sin I can eVer think of. In that way you will be doing the
 AHIMSA AGAIN 213
greatest possible harm to India by trying to save a harmful
living creature and by dying willingly in trying to realize the
ideal of your so-called greatest good of all. Is it not clear to
you now ? Will you not change your opinion now about benefit*
ing all ? I fear you will harm India in trying to benefit the whole
world. You admit that you are an imperfect mortal. So it is
Impossible for you to benefit the whole world. It is even impos¬
sible for you to benefit the whole of India in all possible
ways. Therefore it is quite reasonable to be contented with the
greatest good of the greatest number rather than pretend to do
the greatest good to all without exception, — the good and the
wicked, the useful and the useless, man, animal etc. etc.”
This is a question I would fain avoid answering, not
because of want of faith but because of want of courage.
But I must not conceal my faith even though I may not
have the courage to act up to it when it is put on its trial.
Here then is my answer. I do not want to live at the cost
of the life even of a snake. I should let him bite me to
death rather than kill him. But it is likely that if God
puts me to that cruel test and permits a snake to assault
me, I may not have the courage to die, but that the beast
in me may assert itself and I may seek to kill the snake
in defending this perishable body. I admit that my belief
has not yet become so incarnate in me as to warrant my
stating emphatically that I have shed all fear of snakes
so as to befriend them as I would like to be able to. It is
my implicit belief that snakes, tigers etc. are God’s answer
to the poisonous wicked evil thoughts that we harbour.
Anna Kingsford saw in the streets of Paris tigers in men
already taking shape. I believe that all life is one.
Thoughts take definite forms. Tigers and snakes have
kinship with us. They are a warning to us to avoid har¬
bouring evil, wicked, lustful thoughts. If I want to rid
the earth of venomous beasts and reptiles, I must rid
myself of all venomous thoughts. I shall not do so if in
my impatient ignorance and in my desire to prolong the
existence of the body I seek to kill the so-called venomous
beasts and reptiles. If in not seeking to defend myself
against such noxious animals I die, I should die to rise
again a better and a fuller man. With that faith in me
how should I seek to kill a fellow-b«ng in a snake ? But
 214 HINDU DHARMA

this is philosophy. Let me pray and let my readers join

in the prayer to God that He may give me the strength
to live up to that philosophy. For philosophy without
life corresponding is like a body without life.
I know that in this land of ours we have enough
philosophy and but little life. But I know also that the
laws governing the conduct of man have still to be ex¬
plored and the condition of exploration is imperative and
unalterable. We shall explore them only by dying, never
by killing. We must become living embodiments of Truth
and Love, for God is Truth and Love.
Young India, 14-4-’27

118
TORTURE OF BULLOCKS
’ An English lady writes :
“ I am much distressed and perplexed by the habitual tor¬
ture of bullocks by the inhabitants of this country, chiefly
Hindus, who call themselves protectors of the cow! The sight
of the dislocated mutilated tail joints of the overburdened crea¬
tures toiling along roads is one never to be forgotten by a visitor
to this country. The way the hands of the drivers, made filthy
by cruelty, grasp and twitch the very backbone of the shrinking
creatures at the tail socket, when the tall itself is a broken
twisted abomination, is a sight which brings shame on the Hindu
i-ellgion. Can you do nothing through your paper the Young
India on behalf of these creatures, as also on behalf of the tor¬
mented fowls carried by the legs head down for miles to their
destruction ? I enclose a picture of English oxen at work. The
Indian has adopted the motor car for himself, why not the
harness for his bullocks ? "
Whilst it is true that this fair visitor to India has
indulged in a hasty generalization by accusing the in¬
habitants of India of habitual torture of bullocks,— for it
is not every inhabitant, not even every tenth man who
ill uses bullocks,— there is no doubt that some drivers
in the cities are guilty of the practice referred to in the
letter, and there is no doubt also that the passer-by goes
his way totally oblivious of the torture, and there is truth
 THE FIERY ORDEAL 205
too in the statement about the inhuman carrying of fowls.
It is possible to say of us who talk about ahimsa that we
strain at a gnat and easily swallow a camel. We would
be agitated if a rabid dog was shot, but we are indifferent,
if not willing witnesses to the cruelties such as are men¬
tioned in the letter I have produced. We seem to think
that we have fully carried out the doctrine of ahimsa so
long as we do not actually kill. In my opinion, this is a
travesty of ahimsa. Every act of injury to a living
creature and every endorsement of such act by refraining
from non-violent effort wherever possible to prevent it is a
breach of ahimsa. Here there is work for religious orga¬
nizations that would be faithful to their convictions to
conduct a crusade against cruelties to lower animals
practised in the cities. The change from the yoke to the
harness is undoubtedly desirable.
Young India, 30-8-’28

119
THE FIERY ORDEAL
[The killing of an ailing calf in the Ashram vinder circumstances
described below having caused a great conunotion in certain circles
in Ahmedabad and some angry letters having been addressed to
Gandhiji on the subject, he critically examined the question in the
light of the principle of non-violence in an arUcle in the Navajivan,
the substance of which is given below.]

I
When Killing may be Ahimsa
An attempt is being made at the Ashram to run a
small model dairy and tannery on behalf of the Go-seva
Sangh. Its work in this connection brings it up, at every
step, against intricate moral dilemmas that would not
arise but for the keenness to realize the Ashram ideal of
seeking Truth through the exclusive means of ahimsa.
For instance, some days back a calf having been
maimed lay in agony in the Ashram. Whatever treatment
and nursing was possible was given to it. The surgeon
 216 HINDU OHARMA

whose advice was sought in the matter declared the case

to be past help and past hope. The suffering of the animal
was so great that it could not even turn its side without
excruciating pain.
In these circumstances, I felt that humanity demand¬
ed that the agony should be ended by ending life itself.
I held a preliminary discussion with the Managing Com¬
mittee most of whom agreed with my view. The matter
was then placed before the whole Ashram. At the dis¬
cussion a worthy neighbour vehemently opposed the idea
of killing even to end pain and offered to nurse the dying
animal. The nursing consisted in co-operation with some
of the Ashram sisters in warding the flies off the animal
and trying to feed it. The ground of the friend’s opposi¬
tion was that one has no right to take away life which
on3 cannot create. His argument seemed to me to be
pointless here. It would have point if the taking of life
was actuated by self-interest, j^inally in all humility but
with the clearest of convictionk I got in my presence a
doctor kindly to administer the calf a quietus by means
of a poison injection. The whole thing was over in less
than two minutes.
I knew that public opinion especially in Ahmedabad
would not approve of my action and that it would read
nothing but himsa in it.
But I know too that performance of one's duty should
be independent of public opinion. I have all along held
that one is bound to act according to what, to one, appears
to be right even though it may appear wrong to others.
And experience has shewn that that is the only correct
course. I admit that there is always a possibility of one’s
mistaking right for wrong and vice versa but often one
learns to recognize wrong only through unconscious error.
On the other hand, if a man fails to follow the light within
for fear of public opinion or any other similar reason he
would never be able to know right from wrong and in the
end lose all sense of distinction between the two. That
is why the poet has sung:
 THE FIERY ORDEAL. 217
“ The pathway of love is the ordeal of fire,
. The shrinkers turn away from it.”
The pathway of ahimsa, that is, of love, one has often
to tread all alone.
But the question may very legitimately be put to me :
Would I apply to human beings the principle I have enun¬
ciated in connection with the calf ? Would I like it to be
applied in my own case ? My reply is, ‘ Yes; the same
law holds good in both the cases.’ The law of qur
(as with one, so with all) admits of no exceptions,
or the killing of the calf was wrong and violent. In
practice however we do not cut short the sufferings of our
ailing dear ones by death because as a rule we have always
means at our disposal to help them and because they have
the capacity to think and decide for themselves. But sup¬
posing that in the case of an ailing friend I am unable
to render any aid whatever and recovery is out of the
question and the patient is lying in an unconscious state
in the throes of fearful agony then I would not see any
himsa in putting an end to his suffering by death.
Just as a surgeon does not commit himsa but prac¬
tises the purest ahimsa when he wields his knife on his
patient’s body for the latter’s benefit, similarly one may
find it necessary under certain imperative circumstances
to go a step further and sever life from the body in the
interest of the sufferer. It may be objected that whereas
the surgeon performs his operation to save the life of the
patient, in the other case we do just the reverse. But on
a deeper analysis it will be found that the ultimate object
sought to be served in both the cases is the same, viz. to
relieve the suffering soul within from pain. In the one
case you do it by severing the diseased portion from the
body, in the other you do it by severing from the soul
the body that has become an instrument of torture to it.
In either case it is the relief of the soul within from pain
that is aimed at, the body without the life within being
incapable of feeling either pleasure or pain. Other cir¬
cumstances can be imagined in which not to kill would
 218 HINDU DHARMA

spell himsa, while killing would be ahimsa. Suppose for

instance, that I find my daughter — whose wish at the
moment I have no means of ascertaining — is threatened
with violation and there is no way by which I cem save
her, then it would be the purest form of ahimsa on my
part to put an end to her life and surrender myself to the
fury of the incensed ruffian.
But the trouble with our votaries of ahimsa is that
they have made of ahimsa a blind fetish and put the great¬
est obstacle in the way of the spread of true ahimsa in
our midst. The current (and, in my opinion, mistaken)
view of ahimsa has drugged our conscience and rendered
us insensible to a host of other and more insidious forms
of himsa like harsh words, harsh judgments, iU-will, anger
and spite, and lust of cruelty. It has made us forget that
there may be far more himsa in the slow torture of men
and animals, the starvation and exploitation to which
they are subjected out of selfish greed, the wanton humi¬
liation and oppression of the weak and the killing of their
self-respect that we witness all around us today than in
mere benevolent taking of life. Does any one doubt for
a moment that it would have been far more humane to
have summarily put to death those who in the infamous
lane of Amritsar were made by their torturers to crawl
on their bellies like worms ? If any one desires to retort
by saying that these people themselves today feel other¬
wise, that they are none the worse for their crawling, I
shall have no hesitation in telling him that he does not
know even the elements of ahimsa. There arise occasions
in a man’s life when it becomes his imperative duty to
meet them by laying down his life ; not to appreciate this
fundamental faqt of man's estate is to betray an ignorance
of the foundation of ahimsa. For instance, a votary of
truth would pray to God to give him death to save him
from a life of falsehood. Similarly a votary of ahimsa
would on bent knees implore enemy to put him to death
rather than humiliate him or make him do things un¬
becoming the dignity of a human being. As the poet has
sung:
 THE FIERY ORDEAL 219
“ The way of the Lord is meant for heroes,
Not for cowards.”
It is this fundamental misconception about the nature
and scope of ahimsa, this confusion about the relative
values, that is responsible for our mistaking mere non-
killing for ahimsa and for the fearful amount of himsa
that goes on in the name of ahimsa in our country. Let a
man contrast the sanctimonious horror that is affected by
the so-called votaries of ahimsa at the very idea of killing
an ailing animal to cut short its agony, with their utter
apathy and indifference to countless cruelties that are
practised on our dumb cattle world. And he will begin
to wonder whether he is living in the land of ahimsa or in
that of conscious or unconscious hypocrisy.
It is our spiritual inertia, lack of moral courage — the
courage to think boldly and look facts squarely in the face
that is responsible for this deplorable state of affairs. Look
at our pinjrapoles and goshalas ; many of them represent
today so many dens of torture to which as a sop to con¬
science we consign the hapless and helpless cattle. If
they could only speak they would cry out against us and
say, “ Rather than subject us to this slow torture give us
death.” I have often read this mute appeal in their eyes.
To conclude then, to cause pain or wish ill to or to
take the life of any living being out of anger or a selfish
intent is himsa. On the other hand, after a calm and
clear judgment to kill or cause pain to a living being with
a view to its spiritual or physical benefit from a pure,
selfiess intent may be the purest form of ahimsa. Each
such case must be judged individually and on its own
merits. The final test as to its violence or non-violence is
after all the intent underlying the act.
n
.. When Killing is Himsa
I now come to the other crying problem that is con¬
fronting the Ashram today. I’he monkey nuisance has
become very acute and an immediate solution has become
absolutely necessary. The growing vegetables and fruit
 220 HINDU DHARMA

trees have becom^ a special mark of attention of this

privileged fraternity and are now threatened with utter
destruction. In spite of aU our efforts we have not yet
been able to find an efficacious and at the same time non¬
violent remedy for the evil.
The matter has provoked a hot controversy in certain
circles and I have received some angry letters on the
subject. One of the correspondents has protested against
the ‘ killing of monkeys and wounding them by means of
arrows in the Ashram ’. Let me hasten to assure the
reader that no monkey has so far been killed in the
Ashram, nor has any monkey been wounded by means
of ‘ arrows ’ or otherwise, as imagined by the correspond¬
ent. Attempts are undoubtedly being made to drive them
away and harmless arrows have been used for the purpose.
The idea of wounding monkeys to frighten them
away seems to me unbearable though I am seriously con¬
sidering the question of killing them in case it should
become unavoidable. But this question is not so simple
or easy as the previous one.
I see a clear breach of ahimsa even in driving away
monkeys, the breach would be proportionately greater if
they have to be killed. For any act of injury done from
self-interest whether amounting to killing or not is doubt¬
less himsa.
All life in the flesh exists by some himsa. Hence the
highest religion has been defined by a negative word
ahimsa. The world is bound in a chain of destruction.
In other words himsa is an inherent necessity for life in
the body. That is why a votary of ahimsa always prays
for ultimate deliverance from the bondage of flesh.
None, while in the flesh, can thus be entirely free
from himsa because one never completely renounces the
will to live. Of what use is it to force the flesh merely if
the spirit refuses to co-operate ? You may starve even
unto death but if at the same time the mind continues tO’
hanker after objects of the sense, your fast is a sham and
a delusion. What then is the poor helpless slave to the
will to live to do ? How is he to determine the exact
 THE FIEKY ORDEAL 221
nature and the extent of himsa he must commit ? Society
has no doubt set down a standard and absolved the in¬
dividual from troubling himself about it to that extent.
But every seeker after truth has to adjust and vary the
standard according to his individual need and to make a
ceaseless endeavour to reduce the circle of himsa. But
the peasant is too much occupied with the burden of his
hard and precarious existence to have time or energy to
think out these problems for himself, and the cultured
class instead of helping him chooses to give him the cold
shoulder. Having become a peasant myself, I have no
clear-cut road to go by and must therefore chalk out a
path for myself and possibly for fellow peasants. And the
monkey nuisance being one of the multitude of ticklish
problems that stare the farmer in the face, I must find out
some means by which the peasants’ crops can be safe¬
guarded against it with the minimum amount of himsa.
I am told that the farmers of Gujarat employ special
watchman whose very presence scares away the monkeys
and saves the peasant from the necessity of killing them.
That may be, but it should not be forgotten that whatever
efficacy this method might have, it is clearly dependent
upon some measure of destruction at some time or other.
For these cousins of ours are wily and intelligent beings.
The moment they discover that there is no real danger
for them, they refuse to be frightened even by gun shots
and only gibber and howl the more when shots are fired.
Let nobody therefore imagine that the Ashram has not
considered or left any method of dealing with the nui¬
sance untried. But none of the methods that I have
known up to now is free ^rom himsa. Whilst therefore I
would welcome any practical suggestions from the
readers of the Navajivan for coping with this problem let
the intending advisers bear in mind what I have said
above and send only such solutions as they have them¬
selves successfully tried and cause the minimum amount
of injury.
Yotmg India, 4-10‘’28
 120
THE TANGLE OF AHIMSA
My article The Fiery Ordeal'' has brought down upon
me the ire of many an incensed critic. Some of them
seem to have made the violence of their invective against
me a measure of their solicitude for ahimsa. Others, as if
to test my capacity for ahimsa, have cast all decorum and
propriety to the winds and have poured upon me the lava
of their unmeasured and acrimonious criticism, while still
some others have felt genuinely grieved at what seems
to them a sad aberration on my part and have written to
me letters to unburden their grief to me. I have not the
time to reply to all the letters that have been sent to me^
nor do I feel it to be necessary. As for the acrimonious
letters, the only possible purpose that they can serve is
to provide me with some exercise in forbearance and non¬
violence. Leaving aside such letters therefore I shall here
try to examine some arguments that I have been able to
glean from other and soberly written communications.
I am always prepared to give my best consideration
to letters that are brief and to the point and are neatly
written out in ink in a clear legible hand. For I claim to
be a humble seeker after truth and am conducting the
Navajivan not merely to teach but also to learn.
To come now to the objections and the counsels ad¬
dressed to me by my correspondents. They may be sum¬
med up as follows :
1. You should now retire from the field of ahimsa.
2. You should confess that your views about
ahimsa are imported from the West.
3. You must not express views even when they
are correct if there is a possibility of their being mis¬
used.
4. If you believe in the law of karma then your
killing of the calf was a vain attempt to interfere with
the operation of that law.
222
 THE TANGLE OF AHIMSA 223

3. What warrant had you for toelieving that the

calf was bound not to recover ? Have you not heard
of oases of recovery after the doctors have pronounced
them to be hopeless ?
Whether I should retire or not from the field of
ahimsa, or for the matter of that from any other field, is
essentially and solely for me to judge. A man can give
up a right, but he may not give up a duty without being
guilty of a grave dereliction. Unpopularity and censure
are often the lot of a man who wants to speak and practise
the truth. I hold it to be the bounden duty of a satyagrahi
openly and freely to express his opinion which he holds to
be correct and of benefit to the public even at the risk of
incurring popular displeasure and worse. So long as I
believe my views on ahimsa to be correct, it would be a
sin of omission on my part not to give expression to them.
I have nothing to be ashamed of if my views on
ahimsa are the result of my Western education. I have
never tabooed all Western ideas, nor am I prepared to
anathematize everything that comes from the West as
inherently evil. I have learnt much from the West and
I should not be surprised to find that I had learnt some¬
thing about ahimsa too from the West. I am not concern¬
ed what ideas of mine are the result of my foreign
contacts. It is enough for me to know that my views
on ahimsa have now become a part and parcel of my
being.
I have publicly discussed my views in the matter of
the calf, not necessarily because I believe them to be cor¬
rect, but because they are to the best of my knowledge
based on pure ahimsa and as such likely to throw light
on the tangled problem of ahimsa.
As for the problem of the monkeys, I have discussed
it publicly, because I do not know my duty in the matter,
and I am anxious to be enlightened. IjCt me assure the
readers that my effort has not been in vain and I have
already received several helpful suggestions from my cor¬
respondents. Let me further assure them that I would
not proceed to the extreme length of Ttilling unless I am
224 HINDU DHARMA

absolutely driven to it. It is because I am anxious to be

spared this painfui necessity that I have invited sugges¬
tions for dealing with these persistent and unwelcome
guests.
I firmly believe in the law of karma, but I believe
too in human endeavour. I regard as the summum
bonum of life the attainment of salvation through karma
by annihilating its effects by detachment. If it is a vio¬
lation of the law of karma to cut short the agony of an
ailing animal by putting an end to its life, it is no less so
to minister to the sick or try to nurse them back to life.
And yet if a man were to refuse to give medicine to a
patient or to nurse him on the ground of karma, we would
hold him to be guilty of inhumanity and himsa. Without
therefore entering into a discussion about the eternal con¬
troversy regarding pre-destination and free-will I will
.simply say here that I deem it to be the highest duty of
man to render what little service he can.
I admit that there was no guarantee that the calf
would not recover. I have certainly known cases that
were pronounced by doctors to be hopeless and were cured
afterwards. But even so I hold that a man is bound to
make the utmost use of his reason, circumscribed and poor
as undoubtedly it is, and to try to penetrate the mists of
ignorance by its light and try to act accordingly. And
that is precisely what we do in countless cases in our
everyday life. But strangely paradoxical as it may seem,
it is nevertheless a fact that the moment we come to think
of death the very idea frightens us out of our wits and
entirely paralyzes our reasoning faculty, although as Hin¬
dus we ought to be the least affected by the thought of
death, since from the very cradle we are brought up on
the doctrines of the immortality of the spirit and the
transitoriness of the body. Even if it were found that my
decision to poison the calf was wrong, it qpuld have done
no harm to the soul of the animal. If I have erred I am
prepared to take the consequences of my error, but I re¬
fuse to go into hysterics because by my action I possibly
cut short the painful existence of a d3dng calf, say, by a
 A CONUNDRUM 225
couple of hours. And the rule that I have applied to the
calf I am prepared to apply in the case of my own dear
ones as well. Who knows how often we bring those we
love to a premature end by our coddling, infatuation,
wrong diagnosis or wrong treatment ? The letters that
I have received from my correspondents more than ever
confirm me in my conviction that in our effusiveness over
matters like this we forget the elementary duty of kind¬
ness, are led away from the path of true love, and dis¬
credit our ahimsa. The fear of death is thus the greatest
obstacle in the way of our realizing the true nature of
ahimsa.
Young India, n-10-’28

121
A CONUNDRUM
Some fiery champions of ahimsa, who seem bent upon
improving the finances of the Postal Department, inun¬
date me with letters full of abuse, and are practising himsa
in the name of ahimsa. They would if they could prolong
the calf controversy indefinitely. Some of them kindly
suggest that my intellect has suffered decay with the at¬
tainment of the sixtieth year. Some others have expressed
the regret that the doctors did not diagnose my case as
hopeless when I was sent to the Sassoon Hospital and cut
short my sinful career by giving me a poison injection in
which case the poor calf in the Ashram might have been
spared the poison injection and the race of monkeys saved
‘from the menace of destruction. These are only a few
characteristic samples from the sheaf-fuls of ‘ love letters ’
that I am receiving daily. The more I receive these letters
the more confirmed I feel in the correctness of my deci¬
sion to ventilate this thorny question in the columns of
the Navajivan. It never seems to have struck these good
people that by this unseemly exhibition of spleen they
merely prove their unfitness to be votaries or exponents
of ahimsa and strike it at the very root. I turn however
15 .
 226 HINDU DHARMA

from these fulminations to one from among a batch of let¬

ters of a different order that I have received and I take the
following from it:
“Your exposition of the ethics of the ‘calf-incident’ ha»
cleared up a lot of my doubts and shed valuable light on the
implications of ahimsa. But unfortunately it raises a fresh diffi¬
culty. Suppose, for instance, that a man begins to oppress a
whole people and there is no other way of putting a stop to his
oppression; then proceeding on the analogy of the calf, would
it not be an act of ahimsa to rid society of his presence by putting
him to death ? Would you not regard such an act as an un¬
avoidable necessity and therefore as one of ahimsa ? In your
discussion about the killing of the calf you have made the men¬
tal attitude the principal criterion of ahimsa. Would not, ac¬
cording to this principle, the destruction of proved tyrants be
counted as ahimsa, since the motive inspiring the act is of the
highest ? You say that there is no himsa in killing off animal
pests that destroy a farmer's crops; then why should it not be
ahimsa to kill human pests that threaten society with destruc¬
tion and worse ? "
The discerning reader will have already perceived
that this correspondent has altogether missed the point of
my argument. The definition of ahimsa that I have given
cannot by any stretch of meaning be made to cover a case
of manslaughter such as the correspondent in question
postulates. I have nowhere described the unavoidable
destruction of life that a farmer has to commit in pursuit
of his calling as ahimsa. One may regard such destruction
of life as unavoidable and condone it as such, but it can¬
not be spelt otherwise than as himsa. The underlying
motive with the farmer is to subserve his own interest
or, say that of society. Ahimsa on the other hand rules
out such interested destruction. But the killing of the calf
wa.s undertaken for the sake of the dumb animal itself.
Any way its good was the only motive.
The problem mentioned by the correspondent in
question may certainly be compared to that of the monkey
nuisance. But then there is a fundamental difference
between the monkey nuisance and the human nuisance.
Society as yet knows of no means by which to effect a
change of heart in the monkeys, and their killing may
 JAIN AHIMSA7 227

therefore be held as pardonable, but there is no evil-doer

or tyrant who need be considered beyond reform. That
is why the killing of a human being out of self-interest
can never find a place in the scheme of ahimsa.
To come now to the question of motive, whilst it is
true that mental attitude is the crucial test of ahimsa,
it is not the sole test. To kill any living being or thing
save for his or its own interest is himsa, however noble
the motive may otherwise be. And a man who harbours ill-
will towards another is no less guilty of himsa because
for fear of society or want of opportunity he is unable to
translate his ill-will into action. A reference to both
intent and deed is thus necessary in order finally to decide
whether a particular act or abstention can be classed as
ahimsa. After all intent has to be inferred from a bunch
of correlated acts.
Young India, 18-10-*28

122
JAIN AHIMSA ?
A Jain friend who is reputed to have made a fair
study of the Jain philosophy as also of the other systems
has addressed me a long letter on ahimsa. It deserves a
considered reply. He says in effect:
“ Your interpretation of ahimsa has caused confusion. In
the ordinary sense of the term himsa means to sever life from
body and not to do so Is ahimsa. Refraining from causing pain
to any living creature is only an extension of the original
meaning which cannot by any stretch of language be made to
t cover the taking of life. You would not understand me to mean
from this that I regard all taking of life as wrong in every
possible circumstance; for I do not think that there is any
^ ethical principle in this world that can be regarded as absolute
^ and admitting of no exception whatever. The maxim, * Ahimsa
is the highest or the supreme duty* embodies a great and caiv
dinal tru|^, but it does not cover the entire sum of human dutiesv
Whilst therefore what you have termed ‘non-violent killing
may be a right thing It cannot be described as ahimsa.**
I am of opinion that just as life is subject to constant
change ..and development, the meanings of terms too are
 228 HINDU DHARMA

constantly undergoing a process of evolution; this can be

amply proved by illustrations from the history of any re¬
ligion. The word yajna or sacrifice in the Hindu
religion, for instance, is an illustration in point.
Sir J. C. Bose’s discoveries are today revolutionizing
the accepted connotations of biological terms. Simi¬
larly if we will fully realize ahimsa we may not fight
shy of discovering fresh implications of the doctrine
of ahimsa. We cannot improve upon the celebrated
maxim, ‘ Ahimsa is the highest or the supreme duty but
we are bound, if we would retain our spiritual inheritance,
to explore the implications of this great and universal
doctrine. But I am not particular about names. I do
not mind whether the taking of life in the circumstances
I have mentioned is called ahimsa or not, so long as its
correctness is conceded.
Another jwser mentioned by this friend is as follows :
“ I have been unable to follow you in your description of
the Imaginary killing of your daughter In the hypothetic cir¬
cumstances described by you. It may be right to kill the ruffian
in such a case, but what fault has the poor daughter commit¬
ted ? Would you regard the pollution of the poor victim as a
disgrace to be avoided by death ? Don’t you think that in such
circumstances even if the poor girl for fear of public ignominy
and shame begs to be put out of life. It would be your duty to
dissuade her from her wishes ? As for me, I do not see the
slightest difference between a case of dishonour or rape and a
case in which one has had one’s limbs cut off by force.”
My reason for putting my daughter to death in cir¬
cumstances mentioned by me would not be that I feared
her being i>olluted but that she herself would have wished
death if she could express her desire. If my daughter
wanted to be put out of life because she was afraid of pub¬
lic scandal and criticism I would certainly try to dissuade
her from her wish. I would take her life only if I was
absolutely certain that she would wish it. I know that
Sita would have preferred death to dishonour*by Havana.
And that is also what, I believe, our shastras have
enjoined., I know that it is the daily prayer of thousands of
men and women that they might have death rather than
 JAIN AHIMSA? 229
dishonour. I deem it to be highly necessary that this feel¬
ing should be encouraged. I am not prepared to admit
that the loss of chastity stands on the same footing as the
loss of ailimb. But I can imagine circumstances in which
one would infinitely prefer death even to being maimed.
The third poser runs :
“ I cannot understand why the idea of wounding a few mon¬
keys in order to frighten away the rest instead of straightaway
proceeding to kill them off should be regarded as intolerable by
you. Don’t you feel that the longing for life is strong even
among the blind and the maimed animals ? Don’t you think
that the Impulse to kill a living creature because one cannot
bear to see its suffering is a kind of selfishness ? "
The idea of wounding monkeys is unbearable to me
because I know that a wounded monkey has to die a
lihgering death if left to itself. And if monkeys have to
die at all by any act of mine, I would far rather that they
were killed summarily than that they were left to die by
inches. Again it beats my comprehension how I am
practising ahimsa by thus wounding the monkeys instead
of killing them outright. It might be a different thing if
I was prepared to erect a hospital for wounded monkeys.
I concede that the maimed and the blind would evince a
longing for life if they have some hope of getting succour
or relief. But imagine a blind ignorant creature, with no
faith in God, marooned in a desert place beyond the reach
of any help and with a clear knowledge of his plight and
I cannot believe that such a creature would want to con¬
tinue its existence. Nor am I prepared to admit that it is
one’s duty to nurse the longing for life in all circum¬
stances.
The fourth poser is as follows :
" The Jain view of ahimsa rests on the following three prin¬
ciples :
‘No matter what the circumstances are or how great
the suffering, it is Impossible for any one deliberately to
renounce the will to live or to wish another to put him out
of pain. Therefore the taking of life cannot in any cir^
cumstances be morally Justified.
‘ 'In a world full of activities which necessitate himsa.
 230 HINDU DHARMA

an aspirant for salvation should try to follow ahitnsa by

engaging in the fewest possible activities.
‘There are two kinds of himsa — direct such as that
Involved in agriculture, and indirect as that involved in the
eating of agricultural produce. Where one cannot altogether
escape from either, a votary of ahimsa should try to avoid
[ direct himsa*
I would earnestly request you critically Ho examine and dis¬
cuss these three Jain principles of ahimsa in the Navajivan, I
notice that there is a vital difference between your view of
ahimsa and that of the Jains. Whereas your view of ahimsa
is based on the philosophy of action, that of the Jains is based
on that of renunciation of action. The present is an era of
action. If the principle of ahimsa be an eternal and universal
» principle untrammelled by time and place, it seems to me that
there is a great need to stimulate the people’s mind to think
out for themselves as to how the principle of ahimsa that has
so far been confined to the field of renunciation only can be
worked in present day life of action and what form it will take
when applied to this new environment."
It is with the utmost reluctance that I have to enter
into a discussion of these principles. 1 know the risks of
such discussion. But I see no escape from it. As for the first
principle I have already expressed my opinion on it in a
previous portion of this article. It is my firm conviction
that the principle of clinging to life in all circumstances
betrays cowardice and is the cause of much of the himsa
that goes on around us, and blind adherence to this
principle is bound to increase instead of reducing himsa.
It seems to me that if this Jain principle is really as it is
here enunciated, it is a hindrance to the attainment of
salvation. For instance, a person who is constantly praying
for salvation will never wish to continue his life at the
ex]:)ense of another’s. Only a person steeped in ignorance
who cannot even remotely understand what salvation
means would wish to continue life on any terms. The
sine qua non of salvation is a total annihilation of all
desire. How dare, then, an aspirant for salvation be
sordidly selfish or wish to preserve his perishable body at
aU costs ? Descending from the field of salvation to that of
the family, one’s country, or the world of humanity, we
again find innumerable instances of men and women who
 JAIN AHIMSA7 231
have dedicated themselves to the service of their family,
their country or the world at large in entire disregard of
their own life, and this ideal of utter self-sacrifice and self-
abnegation at present is being inculcated throughout the
world. To hang on to life at all costs seems to me the
very height of selfishness. Let however nobody under¬
stand me to mean that one may try to wean another even
from such sordid egoism by force. I am adducing the
argument merely to show the fallacy of the doctrine of
will to live at all costs.
As for the second, I do not know whether it can at all
be described as a principle. But be that as it may, to me
it represents a truism arid I heartily endorse it.
Coming to the third principle in the form in which it
is enunciated by the friend, it suffers from a grave defect.
The most terrible consequence of this principle to me
seems to be this that if we accept it, then a votary of
■chimsa must renounce agriculture although he knows
that he cannot renounce the fruits of agriculture, and that
agriculture is an indispensable condition for the existence
■of mankind. The very idea that millions of the sons of
the- soil should remain steeped in himsa in order that a
handful of men who live on the toil of these people might
be able to practise ahimsa seems to me to be unworthy
of and inconsistent with the supreme duty of ahimsa.
I feel that this betrays a lack of perception of the inward¬
ness of ahimsa. Let us see, for instance, to what it leads
to if pushed to its logical conclusion. You may not kill
a snake but if necessary, according to this principle, you
may get it killed by somebody else. You may not yourself
forcibly drive away a thief but you may employ another
person to do it for you. If you want to protect the life of
a child entrusted to your care from the fury of a tyrant,
•somebody else must bear the brunt of the tyrant’s fury
for you. And you thus refrain from direct action in the
sacred name of ahimsa! This, in my opinion, is neither
religion nor ahimsa. So long as one is not prepared to
take the risks mentioned and to face the consequences,
one cannot be free from fear, and so long as a man has not
 232 HINDU DHARMA

shed all fear he is ipso facto incapable of practising

ahimsa. Our scriptures tell us that ahimsa is all-conquer¬
ing. That before it even the wild beasts shed their
ferocity and the most hard-hearted of tyrants forget their
anger. Utterly inadequate and imperfect as my own
practice of ahimsa has been, it has enabled me to realize
the truth of this principle. I cannot once more help ex¬
pressing my doubt that Jainism subscribes to the third
principle of ahimsa as enunciated by this friend. But
even if the Jain doctrine is just as it is stated by the
friend, I must say, I for one cannot reconcile myself to it.
Now to come to the question of renunciation versus
action: I believe in the doctrine of renunciation but I
hold that renunciation should be sought for in and
through action. That action is the sine qua non of life
in the body, that the Wheel of Life cannot go on even for
a second without involving some sort of action goes
without saying. Renunciation can, therefore, in these
circumstances, only mean detachment or freedom of the
spirit from action, even while the body is engaged in
action. A follower of the path of renunciation seeks to
attain it not by refraining from all activity but by carrying
it on in a perfect spirit of detachment and altruism as a
pure trust. Thus a man may engage in farming, spinning,
or any other activity without departing from the path of
renunciation provided one does so merely for selfless
service and remains free from the taint of egoism or
attachment. It remains for those therefore who like my¬
self hold this view of renunciation to discover for them¬
selves how far the principle of ahimsa is compatible with
life in the body and how it can be applied to acts of every¬
day life. The very virtue of a dharma is that it is
universal, that its practice is not the monopoly of the
few, but must be the privilege of all. And it is my firm
belief that the scope of truth and ahimsa is world-wide.
Th.Ht is why I find an ineffable joy in dedicating my life
to researches in truth and ahimsa and I invite others to
share it with me by doing likewise.
Young India, 25-10-’28
 123
MORE ABOUT AHIMSA
I
j A correspondent writes :
“ I have read your article ‘ The Fiery Ordeal' over and over
again but it has failed to satisfy me. Your proposal about the
killing of monkeys has taken me aback. I believed that a per¬
son like you with his being steeped in ahimsa would never
swerve from the right path even though the heavens fell. And
now you say that you might kill off the monkeys to protect your
Ashram against their inroads. May be that my first impression
about you was wrong. But I cannot describe to you what a
shock your proposal about the killing of the monkeys has given
me, and may I also confess, how angry it has made me feel
against you ? Would you kindly help me out of my per¬
plexity ? **
I have received several other letters, too, in the same
strain. I am afraid people have formed an altogether
exaggerated estimate of me. These good people seem to
think that because I am trying to analyze and define the
ideal of ahimsa I must have fully attained that ideal. My
views regarding the calf and the monkeys seem happily
to have shattered this illusion of theirs. Truth to me is
infinitely dearer than the mahatmaship which is purely a
burden. It is my knowledge of my limitations and my
nothingness which has so far saved me from the oppres¬
siveness of the mahatmaship. I am painfully aware of
the fact that my desire to continue life in the body in¬
volves me in constant himsa, that is why I am becoming
growingly indifferent to this physical body of mine. For
instance, I know that in the act of respiration I destroy
innumerable invisible germs floating in the air. But I do
not stop breathing. The consumption of vegetables in¬
volves himsa, but I find that I cannot give them up.
Again, there is himsa in the use of antiseptics, yet I cannot
bring myself to discard the use of disinfectants like kero¬
sene etc. to rid myself of the mosquito pest smd the like,
r suffer snakes to be killed in the Ashram when it is
impossible to catch and put them out of harm’s way. I
233
 234 HINDU DHABMA

even tolerate the use of the stick to drive the bullocks in

the Ashram. Thus there is no end of himsa which I
directly and indirectly commit. And now I find myself
confronted with this monkey problem. Let me assure
the reader that I am in no hurry to take the extreme step
of killing them. In fact, I am not sure that I would at all
be able finally to make up my mind to kill them. As it is,
friends are helping me with useful suggestions and the
adoption of some of them may solve the difficulty at least
temporarily without our having to kill them. But I can¬
not today promise that I shall never kill the monkeys
even though they may destroy all the crop in the Ashram.
If as a result of this humble confession of mine, friends
choose to give me up as lost, I would be sorry, but nothing
will induce me to try to conceal my imperfections in the
practice of ahimsa. All I claim for myself is that I am
ceaselessly trying to understand the implications of great
ideals like ahimsa and to practise them in thought, word
and deed, and that not without a certain measure of
success as I think. But I know that I have a long distance
yet to cover in this direction. Unless therefore the cor¬
respondent in question can bring himself to bear with
my imperfections I am sorry I can offer him but little
consolation.
n
Another correspondent writes:
“ Supposing my elder brother is suffering from a terrible and
Iiainful malady and doctors have despaired of his life and I too
feel likewise, should I in the circumstances put him out of
life ?"
My reply is in the negative. I am afraid some of my
correspondents have not even taken the trouble to under¬
stand my article. In propounding their conundrums they
forget that whilst I have certainly compared the case of
an ailing human being with that of an ailing calf and
recommended the killing of the former in exactly similar
circumstances, in actual practice such a cqmplete analogy
Is hardly ever to be found. In the first place, the human
body being much more manageable in bulk is' always
 MORE ABOUT AHIMSA 235
easier to manipulate and nurse; secondly, man being
gifted with the power of speech, more often than not, is
in a position to express his wishes, and so the question
of taking his life without his consent cannot come within
the rule. For I have never suggested that the life of
another person can be taken against his will without vio¬
lating the principle of ahimsa. Again, we do not always
despair of the life of a person when he is reduced to a
comatose state and even when he is past all hope he is
not necessarily past all help. More often than not, it is
both possible and practicable to render service to a human
patient till the very end. Whilst, therefore, I would still
maintain that the principle enunciated regarding the calf
applies equally to ‘ man and bird and beast' I should
expect an intelligent person to know the obvious natural
difference between a man and an animal. To recapitulate
the conditions of the fulfilment of all of which alone can
warrant the taking of life from the point of view of
ahimsa:
1. The disease from which the patient is suffering
should be incurable.
2. All concerned have despaired of the life of the
patient.
3. The case should be beyond all help or service.
4. It should be impossible for the patient in ques¬
tion to express his or its wish.
So long as even one of these conditions remains un¬
fulfilled the tsiking of life from the point of view of
ahimsa cannot be justified.
m
A third correspondent writes :
" Well, the killing of the calf Is all right so far as It goes. But
have you considered that your example is likely to afford a
handle to those who Indulge In animal sacrifices and thus
accentuate the practice; do you not know that even those
who commit these deeds argue that the animals sacrificed gain
merit in the life to follow 7 "
Such abuse of my action is quite possible, and in¬
evitable so long as there are hypocri^ and ignorance in
this world. What crimes have not been committed in the
 236 HINDU DHARMA

world in the sacred name of religion ? One therefore need

not be deterred from doing what he considers to bq right
merely because one’s conduct may be misunderstood or
misinterpreted by others. And as for those who practise
animal sacrifice, surely they do not need the authority of
my example to defend their conduct since they profess
to take their stand on the authority of the shastras. My
feai’, however, is that proceeding on my analogy some
people might actually take it into their head summarily
to put to death those whom they might imagine to be their
enemies on the plea that it would serve both the interests
of society and the ‘ enemies ’ concerned, if the latter were
killed. In fact I have often heard people advance this
argument. But it is enough for my purpose to know that
my interpretation of ahimsa affords no basis whatever for
such an argument, for in the latter case there is no ques¬
tion of serving or anticipating the wishes of the victims
concerned. Finally, even if it were admitted that it was
in the interests of the animal or the enemy in question to
be summarily despatched, the act would still be spelt as
himsa because it would not be altogether disinterested.
The fallacy is so obvious. But who can help people who
seeing see not, or are bent upon deceiving themselves ?
Young India, l-ll-*28

124
SOME POSERS IN AHIMSA
I
A correspondent writes:
“ My baby Is four months old. It fell ill a fortnight after its
birth and there seems no end of Its ailment in sight. Several
vaidyas and doctors have tried their skill upon him, but in vain;
some of them now even decline to administer any medicine to
him. They feel, and I feel with them, that the fate of the poor
thing is sealed. I have a big family to maintain and I feel myself
reduced to sore straits as I have an accumulation of debts.
Nor can I any longer bear to see the terrible sufferings of the
baby. Would you kindly tell me what I should ^ do in the
circumstances ? '*
 SOME POSERS IN AHIMSA 237
It is clear that this friend has not been reading the
Navajivan carefully or he would not have asked this
question. There would be no warrant for taking the life
of the baby even if all the doctors in the world were to
pronounce the case to be hopeless because it would always
be possible for its father to nurse it. He can soothe the
baby in a variety of ways, its size unlike the calf’s being
manageable. It is only when every possible avenue of
service however small is closed and the last ray of hope
of the patient surviving seems extinct that one is justified
in putting him out of pain, and then too only if one is
completely free from the taint of selfish feeling. In the
present case, not only is the service of the ailing baby
possible, but the main consideration that, on the father’s
own admission, weighs^ with him is the personal incon¬
venience involved in nursing the baby. Largeness of the
family or one’s pecuniary difficulty can never serve as a
justification for putting an end to the life of an ailing
patient, and I have not the slightest doubt that in the
present instance it is the bounden duty of the father to
lavish all his love and care on his suffering baby. There
is however one thing more which he can do; if he has
.sense enough to see it, he should resolve forthwith to
lead a life of perfect self-restraint and further stop pro¬
creating irrespective of whether his present baby survives
or not.
n
Another friend writes in the course of a Hindi letter:
“I am the manager of.goshata. There are In my
charge some 500 head of cattle. They are all utterly useless
for any purpose and are simply eating their head off. Out of
these from 360 to 400 animals on the average are constantly at
death’s door, destined to die off one hy one in the long run every
year. Now teU me what am I to do 7 ”
As I have already-explained, giving the short shrift,
from considerations of financial expediency, can never be
compatible with non-violence. And if it is a fact that not
a day passes in this goshala without some animal or other
dyjjig painfully in the manner of that calf in the Ashram,
 238 HINDU DHARMA

it makes out a strong case for closing the goshala at once

for it betrays fearful mismanagement. The calf in the
Ashram was reduced to such piteous plight only as the
result of an accident but daily instances like this should
ipso facto be impossible in a well-managed institution.
The duty of the management in the present case is thus
clear. It is incumbent upon them and upon the orga¬
nizers of all similarly placed institutions to devise the
most effective means of nursing and ministering to the
needs of diseased and ailing cattle. I would also recom¬
mend to them for careful study and consideration my
description of an ideal pinjrapole and the way it ought
to be managed that I have given more than once in these
pages.
Ill
Writes a Kanabi friend :
** There is a grazing ground for the cattle near our village.
It is overrun by a herd of deer about five to seven hundred
strong. They work havoc upon all our cotton saplings. We
are in a fix. We can easily get rid of them by employing pro¬
fessional watchmen who would kill them for the venison they
would get. What would be your advice to a man In my condition ?
Again when insect pests attack our crops the only way to deal
with them is to light a fire of hay which means making a
holocaust of the Insect pests. What course would you suggest
in these circumstances ? ”
This question is of a different order from the other
two questions; it falls under the category of the monkey
question, not the calf question. I am unable to guide
any one in the path of himsa. In fact no person can
lay down for another the limit to which he may commit
himsa; this is a question which everybody must decide
for himself according to the measure of his capacity for
ahimsa. This much, however, I can say. vdthout any
hesitation that to use the analogy of the monkeys to
justify the killing of the deer would only betray a laziness
of thought and lack of discrimination. The two cases
are so dissimilar. Besides, I have not yet decided to kill
the monkeys, nor is there any likelihood of my doing so
presently. On the contrary it has been and shall be my
 SOME POSERS IN AHIMSA 239
ceaseless anxiety to be spared that painful necessity.
Moreover, there is quite a number of ways of keeping off
the deer from the fields which would be impossible in
the case of elusive creatures like monkeys. Whilst there¬
fore reiterating what every farmer knows from his daily
experience also to be true, viz., that destruction of small
insects and worms is inevitable in agriculture, I am unable
to proceed any further, but must content myself by
stating generally that it is sacred duty of everybody to
avoid committing himsa to the best of one’s power.
rv
Still another friend writes :
“You say that an absolute observance of ahimsa Is Incom¬
patible with life in the body, that so long as a man is in the
flesh he cannot escape the commission of himsa In some form
or other as the very process of our physical existence involves
himsa. How then can ahimsa be the highest virtue, the supreme
duty ? Would you set forth as the highest religious ideal a
code of conduct which is altogether impossible of being fulfilled
in its completeness by man ? And if you do, what would be the
practical worth of such an ideal ? “
My humble submission is, that contrary to what this
writer says, the very virtue of a religious ideal lies in the
fact that it cannot be completely realized in the flesh. For
a religious ideal must be proved by faith, and how can
faith have play if perfection could be attained by the
spirit while it was still surrounded by its * earthly vesture
of decay ’ ? Where would there be scope for its infinite
expansion which is its essential characteristic ? Where
would be room for that constaftt striving, that ceaseless
quest after the ideal that is the basis of all spiritual pro¬
gress, if mortals could reach the perfect state while still
in the body ? If such easy perfection in the body was
possible, all we would have to do would be simply to follow
a cut and dry model. Similarly if a perfect code of con¬
duct were possible for all there would be no room for a
diversity of faiths and religions because there would be
only one standard religion which everybody would have
to follow.
 240 HINDU DHARMA

The virtue of an ideal consists in its boundlessness.

But although religious ideals must thus, from their nature,
remain unattainable by imperfect human beings, although
by virtue of their boundlessness they may seem ever to
recede farther away from us, the nearer we go to them,
still they are closer to us than our very hands and feet
because we are more certain of their reality and truth than
even of our own physical being. This faith in one’s ideals
alone constitutes true life, in fact it is man’s all in all.
Young India, 22-ll-’2S ^

125
AHIMSA AND VEGETARIANISM
It should be remembered that mere jivadaya (kind¬
ness to animals) does not enable us to overcome the ‘ six
deadly enemies’ within us, namely lust, anger, greed,
infatuation, pride and falsehood. Give me the man who
has completely conquered self and is full of goodwill and
love towards all and is ruled by the law of love in all his
actions, and I for one will offer him my respectful homage
even though he be a meat-eater. On the other hand the
jivadaya of a person who is steeped in anger and lust but
daily feeds the ants and insects and refrains from killing
has hardly anything in it to recommend itself. It is a
mechanical performance without any spiritual value. It
may even be worse — a hypocritical screen for hiding the
corruption within,
Hartjan, 15-9-’40
 126
EATING NON-VEGETARIAN FOOD
Q. You say that those who eat fish should be pro¬
vided with the same. Does not this entail violence both
for him who eats and him who provides the fish ?
A. Both commit violence. So do those who eat vege¬
tables. This kind of violence is inherent in all embodied
life, therefore, in man too. It is in this condition and in
spite of it that we have to practise non-violence as a duty.
I have often indicated how we may do so. The man who
coerces another not to eat fish commits more violence
than he who eats it. Fishermen, fish-vendors and fish-
eaters are probably unaware of any violence in their ac¬
tion. Even if they were they might look upon it eis un¬
avoidable. But the man who uses coercion is guilty of
deliberate violence. Coercion is inhuman. Tho.se who
quarrel among themselves, those who will stoop to any¬
thing in order to amass wealth, those who exploit or in¬
dulge in forced human labour, those who overload or goad
or otherwise- torture animals, all these knowingly com¬
mit such violence as can easily be stopped. I do not con¬
sider it violence to permit the fish-eater to eat fish. It is
my duty to suffer it. Ahimsa is the highest duty. Even
if we carmot practise it in full, we must try to understand
its spirit and refrain as far as is humanly possible from
violence.
HaHjan, 24-3-’4e

241
16
 127
NON-KILLING OF ANIMALS
My afyimsa is my own. I am not able to accept in
its entirety the doctrine of non-killing of animals. I have
no feeling in me to save the life of these animals who
devour or cause hurt to man. I consider it wrong to help
in the increase of their progeny. Therefore, I will not
feed ants, monkeys, or dogs. I will never sacrifice a
man’s life in order to save theirs.
Thinking along these lines I have come to the conclu¬
sion that to do away with monkeys where they have be¬
come a menace to the well-being of man is pardonable.
Such killing becomes a duty. The question may arise as
to why this rule should not also apply to human beings.
It cannot because, however bad, they are as we are. Un¬
like the animal, God has given man the faculty of reason.
Hfirijan, 5-5-’46

128
HOW TO SPREAD VEGETARIANISM
A Muslim friend complained that in his part of the
Union vegetarian Hindus insisted upon the Muslims living
in their midst, abstaining even from fish and mutton.
Gandhiji said that he had no patience with such intole¬
rance and narrow-mindedness. Vegetarians in India,
from religious conviction, were said to be in a minority.
The vast majority of the Hindus throughout India when¬
ever they got an opportunity, did not hesitate to eat fish,
fowl 6r mutton. What right had vegetarians to impose
their cult on the Muslims ? They would not dare to im¬
pose it on their Hindu non-vegetarians. The whole thing
appeared to him to be ridiculous. The correct way for
people to spread vegetarianism was to reason out its beau¬
ties, which should be exhibited in their lives. There was
no other royal road to bringing others round to one’s view.
Harijan, 16-ll-'47

242
 129
HINDUISM AND NON-VIOLENCE
The lesson of non-violence was present in every reli¬
gion but Gandhiji fondly believed that perhaps it was here
in India that its practice had been reduced to a science.
Innumerable saints had laid down their lives in tapash-
charya until poets had felt that the Himalayas became
purified in their snowy whiteness by means of their sacri¬
fice. But all that practice of non-violence was nearly
dead toda3". It was necessary to revive the eternal law Of
answering anger by love and violence by non-violence ;
and where could this be more readily done than in this
land of King Janaka and Ramachandra ?
Should we forget our humanity and return a blow for
a blow ? If some misdirected individual took it into his
head to desecrate a temple or break idols, should a Hindu
in return desecrate a mosque on that account ? Did it
any way help to protect the temple or to save the cause
of Hinduism ? Personally, said Gandhiji, he was as much
an idol-worshipper as an idol-breaker, and he suggested
that the whole of the audience, whether Hindu, Muslim
or any other, were also so, whether they admitted it or
not. He knew that mankind thirsted for symbolism.
Were not masjids or churches in reality the same as
mandirs ? God resided everywhere, no less in stock or
stone than in a single hair on the body of man. But
men associated sacredhess with particular places and
things more than with others. Such sentiment was worthy
of respect when it did not mean restrictions on similar
freedom for others. To every Hindu and Mussulman,
Gandhiji's advice was that if there was compulsion any¬
where, they should gently but firmly refuse to submit to
it. Personally he himself would hug an idol and lay down
his life to protect it rather than brook any restriction upon
his freedom of worship.
243
 244 HINDU DHARMA

That required courage of a higher order than was

needed in violent resistance.
Harijan, 30-3-'47

130
HINDUS TO EXPIATE
Gandhiji commenced (his post-prayer discourse) with
a reference to Garahwan village where (Muslim) men,
women and children had been brutally done to death,
and asked those assembled before him to sit in mournful
silence in sympathy with the deceased. He asked them
to consider for themselves why innocent women and
children had been killed. Was it to save any religion ?
No religion, Gandhiji emphasized, taught any one to kill
his neighbours. What was done was nothing but wanton
destruction — he did not stop to think whether it was done
from motives of self-interest or any other.
The houses which a few months ago were full of life,
Gandhiji said, were now desolate and everyone knew
about it. But then what was to be done next ? People
went to bathe in the Ganga, believing that their sins
could thus be washed off. The ruins before them should
remind them of the sin they had committed on helpless
women and children and they should seek to expiate it by
considering in what way they could redeem themselves.
He told them that they should clean the ruined houses
and make them neat and habitable. They should also
express to their Muslim brethren their repentance for the
past occurrences and persuade them to return to their vil¬
lages, telling them that then alone they would have peace
of mind. It was possible that the Muslims might turn
round and ask how they could go back and live in the
houses where their kith and kin had been done to death.
The Muslims, Gandhiji said, would be justified in asking
so. But, if the guilty men or their relations could go to
the Muslims with truly penitent hearts and assure them
 HINDUS TO EXPIATE 245
that what Weis past was past and would never be repeated,
he was sure that even a stone heart would melt.
Continuing he said that if the Hindus realized the
error of their past conduct, then he would expect them
in the affected areas to contribute physical labour for the
renovation of damaged houses. That act performed volun¬
tarily, freely and sincerely would inspire lost confidence
as nothing else could.
Gandhiji mentioned that after his arrival at Masurhi
about fifty persons who were wanted in connection with
the riots had surrendered to the authorities. By this time
the number had probably gone up and he hoped many
more would come forward to acknowledge their guilt.
Confession of their guilt, Gandhiji concluded, not only
evoked respect for their courage but would ultimately en¬
hance the prestige of the province as a whole.
HorijaUt 6-4-'47
 SECTION EIGHT: ASHRAM VOWS

131
ASHRAM VOWS
L Gandhiji sent during 1930 a series of weekly discourses from
the Yeravda Jail (which he called majidir or temple) to members
of his Ashram at Sabarmati. Four of these, dealing with the Ashram
vows of Truth, Non-violence, Chastity and Non-possession are given
here. The remaining seven vows of the Ashram are: Control of the
Palate, Non-stealing, Fearlessness, Removal of Untouchability, Bread
Labour, Equality of Religions and Swadeshi. Gandhiji’s discourses
on these also will be found in the booklet From Yeravda Mandir
(published by the Navajivan Press, Ahmedabad).]
Importance of Vows
Taking vows is not a sign of weakness, but of
strength. To do at any cost something that one ought to
do constitutes a vow. It becomes a bulwark of strength.
One, who says that he will do something * as far as possi¬
ble *, betrays either his pride or his weakness. I have
noticed in my own case, as well as in the case of others,
that the limitation ‘ as far as possible' provides a fatal
loophole. To do something ‘ as far as possible ’ is to suc¬
cumb to the very first temptation. There is no sense in
saying that one would observe truth ‘ as far as possible \
Even as no businessman will look at a note in which a
man promises to pay a certain amount on a certain date
' as far as possible so will God refuse to accept a pro¬
missory note drawn by one, who would observe truth ' as
far as possible
God is the very image of the vow. God would cease
to be God if He swerved from His own laws even by a
hair’s breadth. The sun is a great keeper of obser¬
vances ; hence the possibility of measuring time and pub¬
lishing almanacs. All business depends upon men ful¬
filling their promises. Are such promises less necessary
246
 ASHRAM VOWS 247
in character-building or self-realization ? We should
therefore never doubt the necessity of vows for the pur¬
pose of self-purification and self-realization.

I
Truth
I deal with Truth first of all, as the Satyagraha Ash¬
ram owes its very existence to the pursuit and the attempt¬
ed practice of Truth.
The word Satya (Truth) is derived from Sat, which
means ‘ being ’. Nothing is or exists in reality except
Tmth. That is why Sat or Truth is perhaps the most
important name of God. In fact it is more correct to say
that Truth is God, than to say that God is Truth. But
as we cannot do without a ruler or a general, names of
God such as ‘ King of Kings ’ or ‘ the Almighty ’ are and
will remain generally current. On deeper thinking, how¬
ever, it will be realized, that Sat or Satya is the only cor¬
rect and fully significant name for God.
And where there is Truth, there also is knowledge
which is true. Where there is no Truth, there can be no
true knowledge. That is why the word Chit or know¬
ledge is associated with the name of God. And where
there is true knowledge, there is always bliss {Ananda).
There sorrow has no place. And even as Truth is eternal,
so is the bliss derived from it. Hence we know God as
Sat-chit-ananda, One who combines in Himself Truth,
Knowledge and Bliss. ' »
Devotion to this Truth is the sole justification for our
existence. All our activities should be centred in Truth.
Truth should be the very breath of our life. When once
this stage in the pilgrim’s progress is reached, all other
rules of correct living will come without effort, and obe¬
dience to them will be instinctive. But without Truth it
would be impossible to observe any principles or rules in
life.
Generally speaking, observation of the law of Truth
is understood merely to mean that we must speak the
 M
truth. But we in the Ashram shouJd understand £be worn
Satya or Truth in a much wider sense. There shouid be
Truth in thought, Truth in speech, and Truth in action.
To the man who has realized this Truth in its fulness,
nothing else remains to be known, because all knowledge
is necessarily included in it. What is not included in it
is not Truth, and so not true knowledge; and there can
be no inward peace without true knowledge. If we once
leam how to apply this never-failing test of Truth, we
will at once be able to find out what is worth doing, what
is worth seeing, what is worth reading.
But how is one to realize this Truth, which may be
likened to the philosopher’s stone or the cow of plenty ?
By single-minded devotion (abhyasa) and indifference to
all other interests in life (vairagya) — replies the Bhaga-
wadgita. In spite, however, of such devotion, what may
appear as truth to one person will often appear as untruth
to another person. But that need not worry the seeker.
Where there is honest effort, it will be realized that what
appear to be different truths are like the countless and
apparently different leaves of the same tree. Does not
God Himself appear to'different individuals in different
aspects ? Yet we know that He is one. But Truth is the
right designation of God. Hence there is nothing wrong
in every man following Truth according to his lights.
Indeed it is his duty to do so. Then if there is a mistake
on the part of any one so following Truth, it will be
automatically set right. For the quest of Truth involves
tapas*— self-suffering, sometimes even unto death. There
can be no place in it for even a trace of self-interest. In
such selfless search for Truth nobody can lose his bearings
for long. Directly he takes to the wrong path he stumbles,
and is thus redirected to the right path. Therefore the
pursuit of Truth is true bhakti (devotion). It is the path
that leads to God. There is no place in it for cowardice,
no place for defeat. It is the talisman by which death
itself becomes the portal to life eternal.
In this connection it would be well to ponder over
the lives and examples of Harishchandra, Prahlad,
 ASHRAM VOWS 249
Eamachandra, Imam Has2ux and Imam Hussain, the Chris¬
tian saints, etc. How beautiful it would be, if all of us,
young and old, men and women, devoted ourselves wholly
to Truth in all that we might do in our waking hours, whe¬
ther working, eating, drinking or playing, till dissolution
of the body makes us one with Truth ? God as Truth has
been for me a treasure beyond price; may He be so to
every one of us.
n
Ahimsa or Love
We saw last week how the path of Truth is as narrow
as it is straight. Even so is that of ahimsa. It is like
balancing oneself on the edge of a sword. By concentra¬
tion an acrobat can walk on a rope. But the concentration
I'equired to tread the path of Truth and ahimsa is far
greater. The slightest inattention brings one tumbling to
the ground. One can realize Truth and ahimsa only by
ceaseless striving.
But it is impossible for us to realize perfect Truth so
long as we are imprisoned in this mortal frame. We can
only visualize it in our imagination. We cannot, through
the instrumentality of this ephemeral body, see face to
face Truth which is eternal. That is why in the last resort
we must depend on faith.
It appears that the impossibility of full realization of
Truth in this mortal body led some ancient seeker after
Truth to the appreciation of ahimsa. The question which
confronted him was : “ Shall I bear with those who create
difficulties for me, or shall I destroy them ? ” The seeker
realized that he who went on destroying others did not
make headway but simply stayed where he was, while the
man who suffered those who created difficulties marched
ahead, and at times even took the others with him. The
first act of destruction taught him that the Truth which
was the object of his quest was not outside himself but
within. Hence the more he took to violence, the more he
receded from Truth. For in fighting the imagined enemy
without, he neglected the enemy within.
 250 HINDU DHARMA

We punish thieves, because we think they harass us.

They may leave us alone ; but they will only transfer their
attentions to another victim. This other victim however
is also a human being, ourselves in a different form, and so
we are caught in a vicious circle. The trouble from
thieves continues to increase, as they think it is their
business to steal. In the end we see that it is better to
endure the thieves than to punish them. The for¬
bearance may even bring them to their senses. By en¬
during them we realize that thieves are not different from
ourselves, they are our brethren, our friends, and may
not be punished. But whilst we may bear with the
thieves, we may not endure the infliction. That would
only induce cowardice. So we realize a further duty.
Since we regard the thieves as our kith and kin, they
must be made to realize the kinship. And so we must
take pains to devise ways and means of winning them
over. This is the path of ahimsa. It may entail conti¬
nuous suffering and the cultivating of endless patience.
Given these two conditions, the thief is bound in the end
to turn away from his evil ways. Thus step by step we
learn how to make friends with all the world ; we realize
the greatness of God — of Tfuth. Our peace of mind in¬
creases in spite of suffering; we become braver and more
enterprising; we understand more clearly the difference
between what is everlasting and what is not; we learn
how to distinguish between what is our duty and what is
not. Our pride melts away, and we become humble. Our
worldly attachments diminish, and the evil within us
diminishes from day to day.
Ahimsa is not the crude thing it has been made to
appear. Not to hurt any living thing is no doubt a part
of ahimsa. But it is its least expression. The principle
of ahimsa is hurt by every evil thought, by undue haste,
by lying, by hatred, by wishing ill to anybody. It is also
violated by our holding on to what the world needs. But
the world needs even what we eat day by day. In the
place where we stand there are millions of micro-orga¬
nisms to whom the place belongs, and who are hurt by our
 ASHRAM VOWS 251
presence there. What should we do then ? Should we
commit suicide ? Even that is no solution, if we believe, as
we do, that so long as the spirit is attached to the flesh,
on every destruction of the body it weaves for itself
another. The body will cease to be only when we give up
all attachment to it. This freedom from all attachment
is the realization of God as Truth. Such realization can¬
not be attained in a hurry. The body does not belong to
us. While it lasts, we must use it as a trust handed over
to our charge. Treating in this way the things of the
flesh, we may one day expect to become free from the
burden of the body. Realizing the limitations of the flesh,
we must strive day by day towards the ideal with what
strength we have in us.
It is perhaps clear from the foregoing, that without
nhimsa it is not possible to seek and find Truth. Ahimsa
and Truth are so intertwined that it is practically im¬
possible to disentangle and separate them. They are like
the two sides of a coin, or rather of a smooth unstamped
metallic disc. Who can say, which is the obverse, and
which is the reverse ? Nevertheless ahimsa is the means ;
Truth is the end. Means to be means must always be
within our reach, and so ahimsa is our supreme duty. If
we take care of the means, we are bound to reach the end
sooner or later. When once we have grasped this point,
final victory is beyond question. Whatever difficulties we
encounter, whatever apparent reverses we sustain, we may
not give up the quest for Truth which alone is, being God
Himself.
m
Brahmacharya or Chastity
The third among our observances is brahmacharya.
As a matter of fact all observances are deducible from
Truth, and are meant to subserve it. The man, who is
wedded to Truth and worships Truth alone, proves un¬
faithful to her, if he applies his talents to anything else.
How then can he minister to the senses ? A man, whose
activities are wholly consecrated to the realization of
 252 HINDU DHARMA

Truth, which requires utter selflessness, can have no time

for the selfish purpose of begetting children and running
a household. Realization of Truth through self-gratifica¬
tion should, after what has been said before, appear a con¬
tradiction in terms.
If we look at it from the standpoint of ahimsa (non¬
violence), we find that the fulfilment of ahimsa is impossi¬
ble without utter selflessness. Ahimsa means Universal
Love. If a man gives his love to one woman, or a woman
to one man, what is there left for all the world besides ?
It simply means, “We two first, and the devil take all
the rest of them.” As a faithful wife must be prepared
to sacrifice her all for the sake of her husband, and a
faithful husband for the sake of his wife, it is clear that
such persons cannot rise to the height of Universal Love,
or look upon all mankind as kith and kin. For they have
created a boundary wall round their love. The larger
their family, the farther are they from Universal Love.
Hence one who would obey the law of ahimsa cannot
marry, not to speak of gratification outside the marital
bond.
Then what about people who are already married ?
Will they never be able to realize Truth ? Can they never
offer up their all at the altar of humanity ? There is a
way out for them. They can behave as if they were not
married. Those who have enjoyed this happy condition
will be able to bear me out. Many have to my knowledge
successfully tried the experiment. If the married couple
can think of each other as brother and sister, they are
freed for universal service. The very thought that all the
women in the world are his sisters, mothers or daughters
will at once ennoble a man and snap his chains. The hus¬
band and wife do not lose anything here, but only add to
their resources and even to their family. Their love be¬
comes free from the impurity of lust and so grows
stronger. With the disappearance of this impurity, they
can serve each other better, and the occasions for quarrel
become fewer. There are more occasions for quarrelling
where the love is selfish and bounded.
 ASHRAM VOWS 253
If the foregoing argument is appreciated, a considera¬
tion of the physical benefits of chastity becomes a matter
of secondary importance. How foolish it is intentionally
to dissipate vital energy in sensual enjoyment! It is a
grave misuse to fritter away for physical gratification that
which is given to man and woman for the full develop¬
ment of their bodily and mental powers. Such misuse
is the root cause of many a disease.
Brahmacharya, like all other observances, must be
observed in thought, word and deed. We are told in the
Gita, and experience will corroborate the statement, that
the foolish man, who appears to control his body, but is
nursing evil thoughts in his mind, makes a vain effort.
It may be harmful to suppress the body, if the mind is
at the same time allowed to go astray. Where the mind
wanders, the body must follow sooner or later.
It is necessary here to appreciate a distinction. It is
one thing to allow the mind to harbour impure thoughts ;
it is a different thing altogether if it strays among them
in spite of ourselves. Victory will be ours in the end, if
we non-co-operate with the mind in its evil wanderings.
We experience every moment of our lives, that often
while the body is subject to our control, the mind is not.
This physical control should never be relaxed, and in
addition we must put forth a constant endeavour to bring
the mind under control. We can do nothing more, no¬
thing less. If we give way to the mind, the body and the
mind will pull different ways, and we shall be false to
ourselves. Body and mind may be said to go together,
so long as we continue to resist the approach of every evil
thought.
The observance of brahmacharya has been believed
to be very difficult, almost impossible. In trying to find
a reason for this belief, we see that the term brahmacharya
has been taken in a narrow sense. Mere control of animal
passion has been thought to be tantamount to observing
brahmacharya. I feel, that this conception is incomplete
and wrong. Brahmacharya means control of all the or¬
gans of sense. He who attempts to control only one organ.
 254 HINDU DHARMA

and allows all the others free play, is bound to find his
effort futile. To hear suggestive stories with the ears, to
see suggestive sights with the eyes, to taste stimulating
food with the tongue, to touch exciting things with the
hands, and then at the same time expect to control the
only remaining organ is like putting one’s hands in a fire,
and then expecting to escape being burnt. He therefore
who is resolved to control the one must be likewise deter¬
mined to control the rest. I have always felt, that much
harm has been done by the narrow definition of brahma-
charya. If we practise simultaneous self-control in all
directions, the attempt will be scientific and possible of
success. Perhaps the palate is the chief sinner. That is
why in the Ashram we have assigned to control of the
palate a separate place among our observances.
Let us remember the root meaning of brahmacharya.
Charya means course of conduct; brahma-charya conduct
adapted to the search of Brahma, i.e., Truth. From this
etymological meaning arises the special meaning, viz.,
control of all the senses. We must entirely forget the in¬
complete definition which restricts itself to the sexual
aspect only.
IV
Non-possession or Poverty
Possession implies provision for the future. A seeker
after Truth, a follower of the law of Love, cannot hold
anything against tomorrow. God never stores for the
morrow; He never creates more than what is strictly
needed for the moment. If therefore we repose faith in
His providence, we should rest assured, that He will give
us every day our daily bread, meaning everything that we
require. Saints and devotees, who have lived in such
faith, have always derived a justification for it from their
experience. Our ignorance or negligence of the Divine
Law, which gives to man from day to day his daily bread
and no more, has given rise to inequalities with all the
miseries attendant upon them. The rich have a super¬
fluous store of things which they do not need, and which
 ASHRAM VOWS 255
are therefore neglected and wasted; while millions are
starved to death for want of sustenance. If each retained
possession only of what he needed, no one would be in
want, and ail would live in contentment. As it is, the
rich are discontented no less than the poor. The poor
man would fain become a millionaire, and the millionaire
a multi-millionaire. The rich should take the initiative in
dispossession with a view to a universal diffusion of the
spirit of contentment. If only they keep their own pro¬
perty within moderate limits, the starving will be easily
fed, and will learn the lesson of contentment along with
the rich. Perfect fulfilment of the ideal of Non-possession
requires, that man should, like the birds, have no roof
over his head, no clothing and no stock of food for the
morrow. He will indeed need his daily bread, but it will
be God’s business, and not his, to provide it. Only the
fewest possible, if any at all, can reach this ideal. We
ordinary seekers may not be repelled by the seeming
impossibility. But we must keep the ideal constantly in
view, and in the light thereof, critically examine our
possessions, and try to reduce them. Civilization, in the
real sense of the term, consists not in the multiplication,
but in the deliberate and voluntary reduction of wants.
This alone promotes real happiness and contentment, and
increases the capacity for service. Judging by this
criterion, we find that in the Ashram we possess memy
things, the necessity for which cannot be proved, and we
Thus tempt our neighbours to thieve.
From the standpoint of pure Truth, the body too is a
possession. It has been truly said, that desire for enjoy¬
ment creates bodies for the soul. When this desire
vanishes, there remains no further need for the body,
and man is free from the vicious cycle of births and
deaths. The soul is omnipresent; why should she care
to be confined within the cagelike body, or do evil and
even kill for the sake of that cage ? We thus arrive at the
ideal of total renunciation, and learn to use the body for
the purpose of service so long as it exists, so much so that
service, and not bread, becomes with us the staff of life.
256 HINDU DHARMA

We eat and drink, sleep and wake, for service alone. Such
cin attitude of mind brings us real happiness, and the
beatific vision in the fulness of time. Let us all examine
ourselves from this standpoint.
We should remember, that Non-possession is a princi¬
ple applicable to thoughts, as well as to things. A man
who fills his brain with useless knowledge violates that
inestimable principle. Thoughts, which turn us away
from God, or do not turn us towards Him, constitute im-
pendiments in our way.
 SECTION NINE : EQUALITY OF RELIGIONS

132
HINDUAND “ HINDUISM
[Iteferring to a question that was sent by a member of the
audience, “ What is a Hindu ? What is the origin of the word ?
1^ there any Hinduism ? ** Gandhiji said:]

These were pertinent questions for the time. He was

no historian, he laid claim to no learning. But he had
read in some authentic book on Hinduism that the word
Hindu did not occur in the Vedas but when Alexander
the Great invaded India, the inhabitants of the country
to the east of the Sindhu, which is known by the English-
speaking Indians as the Indus, were described as Hindus.
The letter 5 had become H in Greek. The religion of these
inhabitants became Hinduism and as they knew it, it was
a most tolerant religion. It gave shelter to the early
Christians who had fled from persecution, also to the
Jews known as Beni-Israel as also to the Parsis. He was
proud to belong to that Hinduism which was all-inclusive,
and which stood for tolerance. Aryan scholars swore by
what they called the Vedic religion and Hindustan was
otherwise known as Aryavarta. He had no such aspira¬
tion. Hinduism of his conception was all-sufficing for
him. It certainly included the Vedas, but it included also
much more. He could detect no inconsistency in declaring
that he could, without in any way whatsoever impairing
the dignity of Hinduism, pay equal homage to the best
of Islam, Christianity, Zorostrianism, and Judaism. Such
Hinduism will live as long as the sun shines. Tulsidas
had summed it up in one doha: ” The root of religion is
embedded in mercy, whereas egotism is the root of sin.
257

17
 258 HINDU DHARMA

Tulsi says that ‘ Mercy' should never be abandoned, so

long as there is life in the body."
Harijan, 30-ll-’47

133
NO CONVERSION PERMISSIBLE

The English press cuttings contam among many

delightful items the news that Miss Slade, known in the
Ashram as Mirabai, has embraced Hinduism. I may say
that she has not. I hope that she is a better Christian
than when four years ago she came to the Ashram. She
is not a girl of tender age. She is past thirty and has
travelled all alone in Egypt, Persia and Europe befriend-
ing trees and animals. I have had the privilege of having
under me Mussulman, Parsi and Christian minors. Never
was Hinduism put before them for their acceptance. They
were encouraged and induced to respect and read their
own scriptures. It is with pleasure that I can recall
instances of men and women, boys and girls having been
induced., to know and love their faiths better than
they did before if they were also encouraged to study the
other faiths with sympathy and respect. We have in the
Ashram today several faiths represented. No proselytiz¬
ing is practised or permitted. We recognize that all these
faiths are true and divinely inspired, and all have suffered
through the necessarily imperfect handling of imperfect
men. Miss Slade bears not a Hindu name but an Indian
name. And this was done at her instance and for
convenience.
Young India, 20-2>’30
 134
EQUALITY OF RELIGIONS

C. F. Andrews: “ What would 3rou say to a man

who after considerable thought and prayer said that he
could not have his peace and salvation except by becoming
a Christian ? ”
Gandhiji: “ I would say if a non-Christian (say a
Hindu came to a Christian and made that statement, he
should ask him to become a good Hindu rather than find
goodness in change of faith.”
C. F. A. : “I cannot in this go the whole length with
you, though you know my own position. I discarded the
position that there is no salvation except through Christ
long ago. But supposing the Oxford Group Movement
people changed the life of your son, and he felt like being
converted, what would 3mu say ? ”
Gandhij-i: “1 would say that the Oxford Group may
change the lives of as many as they like, but not their
religion. They can draw their attention to the best in
their respective religions and change their lives by asking
them to live according to them. There came to me a man,
the son of brahmana parents, who said his reading
of your book had led him to embrace CJhristianity. I asked
him if he thought that the religion of his forefathers was
wrong. He said, ‘ No.’ Then I said ; ‘ Is there any diffi¬
culty about your accepting the Bible as one of the great
religious books of the world and Christ as one of the great
teachers ? ’ I said to him that you had never through
your books asked Indians to take up the Bible and em¬
brace Christianity, and that he had misread your book
— unless of course your position is like that of the late
M. Mahomed All’s, viz. that' a believing Mussulman, how¬
ever bad his life, is better than a good Hindu.’ ”
C.F.A.: “I do not accept M. Mahomed All’s posi¬
tion at all. But I do say that if a person really needs a
change of faith I should not stand in his way.”
259
 260 HINDU DHARMA

Gandhiji; " But don’t you see that you do not even
give him a chance ? You do not even cross-examine him.
Supposing a Christian came to me and said he Wcis capti¬
vated by a reading of the Bhagawata and so wanted to
declare himself a Hindu, I should say to him : ‘ No. What
the Bhagawata offers the Bible also offers. You have not
yet made the attempt to find it out. Make the attempt
and be a good Christian.’ ”
C.F.A.: “I don’t know. If someone earnestly says
that he will become a good Christian, I should say, ‘ You
may become one ’, though you know that I have in my
own life strongly dissuaded ardent enthusiasts who came
to me. I said to them, ‘ Certainly not on my account will
you do anything of the kind.’ But human nature does
require a concrete faith.”
Gandhiji: “ If a person wants to believe in the Bible
let him say so, but why should he discard his own reli¬
gion ? This proselytization will mean no peace in the
world. Religion is a very personal matter. We should by
living the life according to our lights share the best with
one another, thus adding to the sum total of human effort
to reach God.”
“ Consider,” continued Gandhiji, “ whether you are
going to accept the position of mutual toleration or of
equality of all religions. My position is that all the great
religions are fundamentally equal. We must have innate
respect for other religions as we have for our own. Mind
you, not mutual toleration, but equal respect.”
Harijan, 28-ll-*3e
 135
EQUALITY OP RELIGIONS

There is in Hinduism room enough for Jesus, as there

is for Mohammed, Zoroaster and Moses. For me the
different religions are beautiful flowers from the same
garden, or they are branches of the same majestic tree.
Therefore they are equally true, though being received
and interpreted through human instruments equally im¬
perfect. It is impossible for me to reconcile myself to the
idea of conversion after the style that goes on in India
and elsewhere today. It is an error which is perhaps the
greatest impediment to the world’s progress towards
peace. “ Warring creeds ” is a blasphemous expression.
And it fitly describes the state of things in India, the
mother, as I believe her to be, of Religion or religions. If
she is truly the mother, the motherhood is on trial. Why
should a Christian want to convert a Hindu to Christia¬
nity and vice versa ? Why should he’ not be satisfied if
the Hindu is a good or godly man ? If the morals of a
man are a matter of no concern, the form of worship in a
particular manner in a church, a mosque or a temple is
an empty formula; it may even be a hindrance to in¬
dividual or social growth, and insistence on a particular
form or repetition of a credo may be a potent cause of
violent quarrels leading to bloodshed and ending in utter
disbelief in Religion, i. e. God Himself.
Harijan, 30-l-’37

261
 136
ATTITUDE OF CHRISTIAN MISSIONS TO HINDUISM

My fear is that though Christian friends nowadays

do not say or admit that Hindu religion is untrue, they
must harbour in the breasts the belief that Hinduism is
an error and that Christianity as they believe it is the
only true religion. Without some such thing it is not
possible to understand, much less to appreciate, the
C. M. S. appeal * from which I reproduced in these
columns some revealing extracts the other day. One could
understand the attack on untouchability and many other
errors that have crept into Hindu life. And if they would
help us to get rid of the admitted abuses and purify our
religion, they would do helpful constructive wotk which
would be gratefully accepted. But so far as one can un¬
derstand the present effort, it is to uproot Hinduism from
the very foundation and replace it by another faith. It is
like an attempt to destroy a house which though badly in
want of repair appears to the dweller quite decent and
habitable. No wonder he welcomes those who show him
how to repair it and even offer to do so themselves. But
he would most decidedly resist those who sought to des¬
troy that house that had served well with him and his
ancestors for ages, unless he, the dweller, was convinced
that the house was beyond repair and unfit for human
habitation. If the Christian world entertains that opinion
about the Hindu house, ‘ Parliament of Religions ' and
‘ International Fellowship are empty phrases. For both
the terms presuppose equality of status, a common plat¬
form. There cannot be a common platform as between
inferiors and superiors, or the enlightened and unen¬
lightened, the regenerate and the unregenerate, the high-

♦ The appeal issued by the Church Missionary Society of England,

the extracts wherefrom were reproduced in the Harijan Issue of
2eth December, 193f>,

262
 EQUALITY OF RELIGIONS 263
born and the low-born, the caste-man and the outcaste. My
•comparison may be defective, may even sound offensive.
My reasoning may be unsound. But my proposition
stands.
Ilarijan, 13-3-’37

137
EQUALITY OF RELIGIONS

Mr. Keithahn who was here the other day was not
•quite sure what was at the back of Gandhiji’s mind when
he said that all religions were not only true but equal.
Scientifically, he felt, it was hardly correct to say that all
religions are equal. People would make comparisons
between animists and theists. “I would say,” said Mr.
Keithahn, “ it is no use comparing religions. They are
■different ways. Do you think we can explain the thing
in different terms ? ”
“ You are right when you say that it is impossible to
iompare them. But the deduction from it is that they
are equal. All men are born free and equal, but one is
much stronger or weaker than another physically and
mentally. Therefore, superficially there is no equality
between the two. But there is an essential equality. In
our nakedness God is not going to think of me as Gandhi
and you as Keithahn. And what are we in this mighty
universe ? We are less than atoms, and as between atoms
there is no use asking which is smaller and which is big¬
ger. Inherently we are equal. The differences of race
and skin, of mind and body, and of climate and nation
are transitory. In the same way, essentially, all religions
are equal. If you read the Quran, you must read it with
the eye of the Muslim; if you read the Bible, you must
read it with the eye of the CJhristian; if you read the
Gita, you must read it with the eye of a Hindu. Where
is the use of scanning details and then holding up a reli¬
gion to ridicule? Take the very first chapter of Genesis
264 HINDU DHARMA

or of Matthew. We read a long pedigree and then at the

end we are told Jesus was born of a virgin. You come up
against a blind wall. But I must read it all with the eye
of a Christian.”
“ Then,” said Mr. Keithahn, “ even in our Bible, there
is the question of Moses and Jesus. We must hold them
to be equal ? ”
" Yes,” said Gandhiji. “ All prophets are equal. It
is a horizontal plain.” ,
“If we think in terms of Einstein’s Relativity all are
equal. But I cannot happily express the equality.”
“ That is why I say they are equally true and equally
imperfect. The finer the line you draw, the nearer it^
approaches Euclid’s true straight line, but it never is the*
true straight line. The tree of Religion is the same, there
is not that physical equality between the branches. They
are all growing, and the person who belongs to the grow¬
ing branch must not gloat over it and say, ‘ Mine is the
superior one.’ None is superior, none is inferior, to the
other.”
Harijan, 13-3-’37

138
EQUALITY OF RELIGIONS
Kakasaheb Kalelkar, who presided over the third
day’s session of the Parliament of Religions which met in
Calcutta last week, carried a message from Gandhiji which,
was expressed in a question: “ What will the Pai-liament
of Religions say in respect of all religions ? Are all reli¬
gions equal, as we hold, or is any particular religion in
the sole possession of truth and the rest either untrue or
a mixture of truth and error as many believe ? The opi¬
nion of the Parliament in such matters must prove a
helpful guidance.” I do not know that the Parliament did
express any opinion on this crucial question, but as we-
saw in the last issue, Gurudeva Rabindranath Tagore’s-
 EQUALITY OF RELIGIONS 265
discourse left no doubt on the question. Kakasaheb in¬
vited the leaders present on the third day to express their
opinion, and Sir Francis Younghusband in response to
the invitation is reported to have said : “ To Mahatma
Gandhi’s question I would add another question : Are all
mothers equally good ? All mothers are not equally good,
but each would think his own mother as the be.st in the
world. Similarly, each one would regard his own religion
as the best in the world. At any rate, that was certainly
the impression that he gained at the World Congress of
Faiths last year. Each one did honestly believe that his
religion was the best. I have come in very close contact
with people of diverse faiths and have discovered a fun¬
damental unity among all these religions. It is this funda¬
mental unity which I desire this Congress to realize and
deepen and make it permanent and abiding.”
This was far from being a direct reply to the question
asked, for if each one regarded his own religion as the
best, there was hardly any possibility of ending religious
strife which should be the first object of a parliament of
religions. For if regarding one’s own religion as the best
means regarding other religions as inferior to one’s own,
therfe is an end to peace. Behind the desire to convert is
the belief that one’s religion is superior to that of the one
whom one seeks to convert.
So Kakasaheb invited Sir Francis to realize the full
implication of his simile, and said : “ Indeed every one
of us regards his own mother as the best, but does he,
therefore, expect or ask others to give up their own
mothers and adopt his own ? ” In other words, just as
one’s own mother is best for oneself, so is every one’s
religion the best, each for himself; just as one’s own coun¬
try is best for oneself, every one’s religion is best, each for
himself. The equality of all religions lies in each being
adequate or best for its respective adherents.
Harijan, 20-3-’37
 139
CRIME OF READING THE BIBLE
Several correspondents have written to me taking me
to task for reading the New Testament to the students
of the Gujarat National College. One of them asks:
Will you please say why you are reading the Bible to the
students of the Gujarat National College ? Is there nothing
useful In our literature ? Is the Gita less to you than the Bible ?
You are never tired of saying that you are a staunch Sanatani
Hindu. Have you not now been found out as a Christian in
secret ? You may say a man does not become a Christian by
reading the Bible. But is not reading the Bible to the boys a way
of converting them to Christianity ? Can the boys remain un¬
influenced by the Bible reading ? Are they not likely to be¬
come Christians by reading the Bible ? What is there specially
in the Bible that is not to be found in our sacred books ? I do
hope you will give an adequate reply and give preference to the
Vedas over the Bible.”
I am afraid I cannot comply with the last request of
my correspondent. I must give preference to that which
the boys lawfully want over what I or others may desire.
When they invited me to give them an hour per week, I
gave them the choice between reading the Gita, Tulsidas’s
Ramayana, and answering questions. By a majority of
votes, they decided to have the New Testament and ques¬
tions and answers. In my opinion, the boys were entitled
to make that choice. They have every right to read the
Bible or to have it read to them, I offered to read the
Gita or the Rarnayana as I am reading both at the Ashram
to the inmates and as therefore the reading of either at
the National College would have involved the least strain
and the least preparation. But the boys of the College
probably thought they could read the other books through
others but they would have from me my interpretation of
the New Testament as they knew that I had made a fair
study of it.
I hold that it is the duty of every cultured man or
woman to read sympathetically the scriptures of the
266
 CRIME OF READING THE BIBLE 267
world. If we are to respect others’ religions as we would
have them to respect our own, a friendly study of the
world’s religions is a sacred duty. We need not dread,
upon our grown up children, the influence of scriptures
other than our own. We liberalize their outlook upon life
by encouraging them to study freely all that is clean. Fear
there would be w'hen some one reads his own scriptures
to young people with the intention secretly or openly of
converting them. He must then be biassed in favour of
his own scriptures. For myself, I regard my study of and
reverence for the Bible, the Quran, and the other scrip¬
tures to be wholly consistent with my claim to be a
staunch Sanatani Hindu. He is no Sanatani Hindu who
is narrow, bigoted, and considers evil to be good if it has
the sanction of antiquity and is to be found supported in
any Sanskrit book. I claim to be a staunch Sanatani Hindu
because, though I reject all that offends my moral sense,
1 find the Hindu scriptures to satisfy the needs of the soul.
My respectful study of other religions has not abated my
reverence for or my faith in the Hindu scriptures. They
have indeed left their deep mark upon my understanding
of the Hindu scriptures. They have broadened iny view
of life. They have enabled me to understand more clearly
many an obscure passage in the Hindu scriptures.
The charge of being a Christian in secret is not new.
It is both a libel and a compliment— a libel because
there are men who can believe me to be capable of being
secretly anything, i. e. for fear of being that openly.
There is nothing in the world that would keep me from
professing Christianity or any other faith, the moment I
felt the truth of and the need for it. Where there is fear
there is no religion. The charge is a compliment in that
it is a reluctant acknowledgement of my capacity for ap¬
preciating the beauties of Christianity. Let me own this. If
1 could call myself, say, a Christian, or a Mussulman, with
my own interpretation of the Bible or the Quran, I should
not hesitate to call myself either. For then Hindu-,
Christian and Mussulman would be synonymous terms. I
do believe that in the other world there are neither
 268 HINDU DHARMA

Hindus, nor Christians nor Mussulmans. There all are

judged not according to their labels or professions but
according to their actions irrespective of their professions.
During our earthly existence there will always be these
labels. I therefore prefer to retain the label of my fore¬
fathers so long as it does not cramp my growth and does
not debar me from assimilating all that is good anywhere
else. I
The hyper-sensitiveness that my correspondents have
betrayed is but an indication of the intensity of the wave
of intoleration that is sweeping through this unhappy
land. Let those who can, remain unmoved by it.
Young India, 2-9-*26

140
A CATHOLIC FATHER’S FEARS
“ When Hinduism comes to power, will it not make
a united front against Christianity ? There are all signs
of Hinduism coming to power. And if it happens here,
as it is happening in Spain, Indian Christians will be des¬
pised and persecuted and swept off,” said the Catholic
Father from Germany.
“ It is an impossible picture,” said Gandhiji, reassur¬
ing him. “ There is no such thing as Hindu rule, there
will be no such thing. How can any one eradicate a
population of seven million Christians? And that pre¬
supposes the destruction of Mussuhnans too ! Let me tell
you that no Hindu in his wildest imagination ever thought
of this. Will the world tolerate any such thing? If
Hinduism ever sought to do it, it would be committing
suicide. But I tell you that has never been the desire of
the Hindus. Hinduism was well able to destroy the first
Christians that came. Why did it not do anything of the
kind ? Travancore is a brilliant example of toleration. I
was asked while I was there to see the most ancient
church where St. Thomas is said to have planted jthe first
Cross. Why should he have been allowed to plant it ? ”
 A CATHOIJC FATHER'S FEARS 269
‘‘ But in St. Francis Xavier’s time there came a time
when Christians were persecuted. But I do not know
history and my information may be incorrect. But what
makes me afraid is what I actually saw and heard in
Japan. There I heard in a public speech a responsible
man saying, ' Buddhism is the religion of Japan we must
consolidate ; all other religions should be destroyed.’ ”
Well, well, no Hindu dreams of such a thing. Even
if he dreamt it, it would be impossible.”
But now the Father revealed his bugbear — Arya
Samaj !
” I agree,” said Gandhiji laughing at the idea, ” that
the Arya Samaj represents a type of militant Hinduism,
but they never believed in the cult of the sword. The
worst thing they are capable of is to ask you to become a
Hindu if you went and spoke on their platform! ”
But I have heard Arya Samajists say that Christia¬
nity is a Western religion, and as everything that comes
from the West is to be discarded, Christianity must also
be discarded.”
” I have never heard of the talk of Christianity being
blotted out of India. The Arya Samaj is a community
that asks its followers to go to the ends of the earth to
preach Arya Dharma, but they have not yet done so. It
has a firm foothold in the Punjab. Arya supremacy in
the sense you dread is an inconceivable thing. The
Hindus are really not the major community if you put
the rest together. But why should I prolong the discus¬
sion ? It is not a practical proposition at aU.”
Harijan, 13-3-’37
 141
MESSAGE TO BUDDHISTS
[The following Is from a speech delivered by Gandhljl at Vidyo-
daya College, Colombo, in reply to an address presented to him by the
All-Ceylon Congress of Buddhist Associations.]
It is my deliberate opinion that the essential part of
the teachings of the Buddha now forms an integral part
of Hinduism. It is impossible for Hindu India today to
retrace her steps and go behind the great reformation that
Gautama effected in Hinduism. By his immediate sacri¬
fice, by his great renunciation and by the immaculate
purity of his life he left an indelible impress upon Hindu¬
ism, and Hinduism owes an eternal debt of gratitude to
that great teacher. And if you will forgive me for saying
so, and if you will also give me the permission to say so,
I would venture to tell you that what Hinduism did not
assimilate of what passes as Buddhism today was not an
essential part of Buddha’s life and his teachings.
It is my fixed opinion that Buddhism or rather the
teaching of Buddha found its full fruition in India, and it
could not be otherwise, for Gautama was himself a Hindu of
Hindus. He was saturated with the best that was in Hindu¬
ism, and he gave life to some of the teachings that were
buried in the Vedas and which were overgrown with
weeds. His great Hindu spirit cut its way through the
forest of words, meaningless words, which had overlaid
the golden truth that was in the Vedas. He made some
of t^}e words in the Vedas yield a meaning to which the
men of his generation were utter strangers, and he found
in India the most congenial soil. And wherever the
Buddha went, he was followed by and surrounded not by
non-Hindus but Hindus, those who were themselves satu¬
rated with the Vedic law. But the Buddha’s teaching like
his heart was all-expanding and all-embracing and so it
has survived his own body and swept across the face of
the earth. And at the risk of being called a follower of Bud¬
dha I claim this achievement as a triumph of Hinduism.
270
 MESSAGE TO BUDDHISTS 271
Buddha never rejected Hinduism, but he broadened
its base. He gave it a new life and a new interpretation.
But here comes the point where I shall need your forgive¬
ness and your generosity, and I want to submit to you
that the teaching of Buddha was not assimilated in its
fulness whether it was in Ceylon, or in Burma, or in China
or in Tibet. I know my own limitations. I lay no claim
to scholarship in Buddhistic law. Probably, a fifth form
boy from Nalanda Vidyalaya would plough me in a Bud¬
dhist catechism. I know that I speak in the presence of
very learned priests and equally learned laymen, but I
should be false to you and false to myself if I did not
declare what my heart believes.
Belief in God
You and those who call themseh es Buddhists out¬
side India have no doubt taken in a very large measure
the teaching of the Bqddha, but when I examine your life
and when I cross-question the friends from Ceylon,
Burma, China or Tibet, I feci confounded to find so many
inconsistencies between what I have come to under¬
stand as the central fact of Buddha’s life and your own
practice, and if I am not tiring you out, I would like hur¬
riedly to run through three prominent points that just
now occurred to me. The first is the belief in an all-per¬
vading Providence called God. I have heard it contended
times without number and I have read in books also claim¬
ing to express the spirit of Buddhism that Buddha did not
believe in God. In my humble opinion such a belief con¬
tradicts the very central fact of Buddha’s teaching. In
my humble opinion the confusion has arisen over his re¬
jection and just rejection of all the base things that peissed
in his generation under the name of God. ‘He undoubted¬
ly rejected the notion that a being called God was actuated
by malice, could repent of his actions, and like the kings
of the earth could possibly be open to temptations and
bribes and could jwssibly have favourites. His whole
soul rose in mighty indignation against the belief that
a being called God required for his satisfaction the living
272 HINDU DHARMA

blood of animals in order that he might be pleased, —

animals who were his own creation. He, therefore, re¬
instated Grod in the right place and dethroned the usurper
who for the time being seemed to occupy that White
Throne. He emphasized and redeclared the eternal and
unalterable existence of the moral government of this uni¬
verse. He unhesitatingly said that the Law was God Him¬
self.
What Is Nirvana ?
God’s laws are eternal and unalterable and not sepa¬
rable from God Himself. It is an indispensable condition
of His very perfection. And hence the great confusion
that Buddha disbelieved in God and simply believed in
the moral law, and because of this confusion about God
Himself, arose the confusion about the proper understand¬
ing of the great word nirvana. Nirvana is undoubtedly
not utter extinction. So far as I have been able to under¬
stand the central fact of Buddha’s life, nirvana is utter
extinction of all that is base in us, all that is vicious in
us, all that is corrupt and corruptible in us. Nirvana is
not like the black, dead peace of the grave, but the living
peace, the living happiness of a soul which is conscious
of itself, and conscious of having found its own abode in
the heart of the Eternal.
Buddha’s Greatest Contribution
The third point is the low estimation in which the
idea of sanctity of all life came to be held in its travels
outside India. Great as Buddha’s contribution to human¬
ity was in restoring God to His eternal place, in my
humble opinion greater still was his ■ contribution to
humanity in his exacting regard for all life, be it ever so
low. I am awal'e that his own India did not rise to the
height that he would fain have seen her occupy. But the
teaching of Buddha, when it became Buddhism and tra¬
velled outside, came to mean that sacredness of animal
life had not the ^ense that it had with an ordinary man.
I am not aware of the exact practice and belief of Cey¬
lonese Buddhism in this matter, but I am aware what
 MUSIC BEFORE MOSQUES 273
shape it has taken in Burma and China. In Burma espe¬
cially the Burmese Buddhists will not kill a single animal,
but do not mind others killing the animals for them and
dishing the carcasses for them for their food. Now, if there
was any teacher in the world who insisted upon the inex¬
orable law of cause and effect, it was inevitably Gautama,
and yet my friends, the Buddhists outside India, would,
if they could, avoid the effects of their own acts. But I
must not put an undue strain upon your patience. I have
but lightly touched upon some of the points which I think
it my duty to bring to your notice, and in all earnestness
and equal humility I present them for your serious
consideration.
Young India, 24-ll-'27

142
MUSIC BEFORE MOSQUES
Either continuous music, arati or the repeating of
Ramanama is a religious necessity or it is not. If it is a
religious necessity no prohibition order by a court of law
can be held obligatory. Music must be played, arati must
be made and Ramanama repeated, cost what it may. If
my formula were accepted a procession of the meekest
men and women, unarmed even with lathis, would march
with Ramanama on their lips, supposing that that was
the bone of contention and draw down on their heads the
whole of the Mussulman wrath. But if they would not
accept that formula they would still proceed with the
sacred name on their lips and fight every inch of the
ground. But to stop music for fear of a row or because of
an order of a court is to deny one’s religion.
But then there is the other side to the question. Is
continuous playing of. music even while passing mosques
at prayer time always a religious necessity ? Is repeating
of Ramanama similar necessity ? What about the charge
that the fashion nowadays is to organize processions pure¬
ly fbr the sake of irritating Mussulmans and to make arati
18
274 HINDU DHABMA

just at the time of prayer and to utter Ramanama not

because it is held religiously necessary but in order to
create an occasion for a fight ? If such be tfie case it will
defeat its own end and naturally the zest being wanting,
a court’s order, a military display or a shower of brick¬
bats would end the irreligious show.
A religious necessity must therefore be clearly esta¬
blished. Every semblance of irritation must be avoided.
A mutual understanding should be sincerely sought. And
where it is not possible, an irreducible minimum should be
fixed making due allowance for the opposite sentiment
and then without seeking the intervention of courts or in
spite of a prohibition order a fight must be put up for
that minimum. Let no one charge me with ever having
advised or encouraged weakness or surrender on matters
of principle. But I have said, as I say again, that every
trifle must not be dignified into a principle.
Young India, 22-10-’25

143
PARTIALITY FOR MUSSULMANS
In his speech at Sholapur Gandhiji referred to the
usual charge made against him of partiality for the
Mussulmans, and gave, if possible, a more vigorous
answer : “ You say I am partial to the Mussulmans. So
be it, though the Mussulmans do not admit it. But my
religion will not suffer even by an iota by reason of my
partiality. I shall have to answer my God and my Maker
if I give any one less than his due, but I am sure that He
will bless me if He knows that I gave some bne more than
his due. I ask you to understand me. If my heuid or
heart has done anything more than was any one's due,
you should be proud of it, rather than deplore it. It
should be a matter of pride to you as Hindus to think that
there was amongst you at least one mad Gandhi who was
not only just to the Mussulmans, but even went out of his
way in giving them more thjm their due. Hinduism is
 attitude to othee religions 275
replete with instances of tolerance, sacrifice and forgive¬
ness. Think Kif the sacrifice of the Pandavas, think of the
forgiveness of Yudhishthira. Should it be a matter of
sorrow for you, that there is at least one man who has
tried to carry out the precept of Hinduism to the letter ?
Young India, 10-3-*27

144
ATTITUDE TO OTHER RELIGIONS
A Mussulman friend writes :
**You regard Mohammed as a Prophet of God and hold him
in high regard. You have even publicly spoken of him in the
highest terms. I have heard and even seen reports in cold print
to the effect that you have studied the Quran itself. All this, I
must confess, has puzzled me. I am at a loss to understand how
a person like you, with all your passion for truth and justice,
who has never failed to gloze over a single fault in Hinduism
or to repudiate as unauthentic the numerous corruptions that
masquerade under it, can holus>bolus accept all that is in the
Quran. I am not aware of your ever having called into question
or denounced any iniquitous injunction of Islam. Against some
of these I learnt to revolt when I was scarcely 18 or 20 years old,
and time has since only strengthened that first feeling.**
I have nowhere said that I believe literally in every
word of the Qurem, or, for the matter of that, of any scrip¬
ture in the world. But it is no business of mine to criticize
the scriptures of other faiths, or to point out their defects.
It is and should be, however, my privilege to proclaim and
practise the truths that there may be in them. I may not,
therefore, criticize or condemn things in the Quran or the
life of the Prophet that I cannot understand. But I wel¬
come every opportunity to express my admiration for such
aspects of his life as I have been able to appreciate and
understand. As for things that present difficulties, I am
content to see them through the eyes of devout Mussulman
friends, while I try to understand them with the help of
the writings of eminent Muslim expounders of Islam. It
is only through such a reverential approach to faiths other
than mine that I can realize the principle of equality of all
 276 HINDU DHARMA

religions. But it is both my right and duty to point out

the defects in Hinduism in order to purify it and to keep
it pure. But when non-Hindu critics set about criticizing
Hinduism and cataloguing its faults they only blazon their
own ignorance of Hinduism and their incapacity to regard
it from the Hindu view point. It distorts their vision
and vitiates their judgment. Thus my own experience of
the non-Hindu critics of Hinduism brings home to me my
limitations and teaches me to be wary of launching on a
criticism of Islam or Christianity and their founders.
Harijan, 13-3-’37

145
HINDU PANI AND MUSLIM PANI
A stranger travelling in Indian trains may well have
a painful shock when he hears at railway stations for the
first time in his life ridiculous sounds about pani (water),
tea and the like being either Hindu or Muslim. It would
be repulsive how that the Government at the Centre is
wholly national. We have a right, therefore, to assume
that this unholy practice of having separate everything
for every community at railway stations will go. Scrupu¬
lous cleanliness is a desideratum for all. If taps are used
for all liquids there need be no compunction felt by the
most orthodox about helping themselves. A fastidious
person may keep his own lota and cup and receive his
milk, tea, coffee or water through a tap. In this there is
no interference with religion. No one is compelled to
buy anything at railway stations. As a matter of fact
many orthodox persons fast fOr water and food during
travel. Thanks we still breathe the same air, walk on
the same mother earth.
All communal cries at le2«it at railway stations should
be unlawful.
As I have often said in these columns, trains and
steaniers are the best media for the practical education of
the millions of travellers in spotless cleanliness, hygiene,
sanitation and camaraderie between different donununities
 HINDmSM AND THE QURAN 277
of India. Let us hope that the Cabinet will have the
courage to act up to their convictions and may confidently
expect the hearty co-operation of the Railway staff and
the public in making this much-needed reform a thorough
success.
Harijan, 20-10-’46

146
HINDUISM AND THE QURAN
With reference to objections raised by some against
recitation of verses from the Quran in his prayers held
at a Hindu temple in Delhi, Gandhiji said that the true
Hindu saw Truth in every religion. The Hindu religion
was a great religion and had infinite toleration in it and
powers of absorption. God was everywhere. He was the
ruler of men’s hearts. He only wanted single-minded
worship in whatsoever form it be and whatsoever lan¬
guage. It was, therefore, wholly un-Hindu and irreligious
to object to the great verse from the Quran Sharif being
recited.
How could it be a sin to chant God’s name in Arabic ?
Gandhiji implored them not to degrade Hinduism by not
understanding their immortal scriptures. Every one
should be at liberty to pray as he liked.
Gandhiji exhorted the audience to pause and think
where they were drifting. He begged of the Hindus not
to harbour anger in their hearts against the Muslims even
if the latter wanted to destroy them. None should fear
death. Death was inevitable for every human being. But
if they died smiling, they would enter into a new life —
they would create a new Hindustan. The second chapter
of the Gita described in its ending shlokas how the God¬
fearing man should live and move and have his being.
He wanted them to read, mark, learn and inwardly digest
the meaning of every one of those shlokas. They would
then realize what their ideals were and how far short of
them they had fallen today.
HarijaUf 20-4-’47
 147
HINDUS V. MUSLIMS
So bitter are the hearts of both the Hindus and the
Muslims today that on three consecutive days no prayers
were allowed to be held because some embittered persons,
objected to the recital of the verse from the Quran Sharif.
The crowds came daily, but had to go away disappointed
because Gandhiji would not have the prayers even if there
was one objector. If there had been none but objectors on
the prayer ground, he said, he would willingly have held
the prayer and hoped he would have had the courage to
die at their hands with the names of Rama and Rahim
on his lips if they wanted to kill him. But he wished to
avoid a clash on the prayer ground between those who
wanted the prayers to be held and those who objected.
In the end his non-violence prevailed and after three days
the objectors withdrew.
Questions poured in as did angry letters. Why did
he not call himself a Muslim ? Why did he consider that
there was no difference between Rama and Rahim ? Why
had he gone so far as to say that he had no objection to
reciting the Kalma ? Why did he not go to the Punjab ?
Was he not a bad Hindu ? Was he not a fifth columnist ?
Was not his non-violence making cowards of the Hindus ?
One envelope came to him addressed as Mohammed
Gandhi!
Quietly and patiently Gandhiji reasoned with them.
Why should and how could Islam be condemned for the
sins of a few ? He claimed to be a Sanatani Hindu and
because the essence of Hinduism, and indeed, all religions
was toleration he claimed that if he was a good Hindu, he
was also a good Muslim and a good Christian. It was
against the spirit of religion to claim superiority. Humility
was essential to non-violence. Had not the Hindu scrip¬
tures said that God had a thousand names ? Why may
278
 HINDUS V. MUSLIMS 279
not Rahim be one of them ? The Raima merely praised
God and acknowledged Mohammed as His Prophet. He
had no hesitation in praising God and acknowledging
Mohammed as a Prophet in the same way as he acknow¬
ledged Buddha and Zoroaster and Jesus. The fact that
he had come to Delhi and was having talks with the Vice¬
roy and the leaders did not mean that he was neglecting
his work in either Noakhali or Bihar or in the Punjab.
Nothing would stop him from going to the Punjab when
the call came. Today there was no Indian raj there. It
was the rule of a British Governor. In any event, he was
working for all these places wherever he was. How could
he be a fifth columnist ? He could not put his ahimsa in
cold storage because the Hindus and the Sikhs had been
butchered in the Punjab. The Hindus had done equally
savage things in Bihar and it was his duty to tell the
Hindus and the Muslims alike that they must put away
anger and malice from their hearts and realize that the
more they resorted to violence the more savagery would
ensue. He told them how he had to hang his head in
shame when the foreign delegates to the Inter-Asian Con¬
ference who came to see him asked him about the commu¬
nal strife. All he could say was that this madness had
seized a few of them, and he hoped and prayed and believ¬
ed that it would soon subside. Indians of whatever
religion, had to live together. They were of the same
soil, they were nursed by the self-same mother and they
could not go on killing each other if India was to live.
HaHjan, 27-4-’47
 148
A TRUE HINDU
[Addressing the gathering after prayer Gandhiji said:]
You may be astonished to learn that I continue to
receive letters charging me that I have compromised the
interests of the Hindus by acting as a friend of the
Muslims. How can I convince people by mere words if
the sixty years of my public life have failed to demonstrate
that by trying to befriend the Muslims I have only proved
myself a true Hindu And have rightly served the Hindus
and Hinduism ? The essence of true religious teaching
is that one should serve and befriend all. I learnt this in
my mother’s lap. You may refuse to call me a Hindu.
I know no defence except to quote a line from Iqbal's
famous song: Majhab nahin sikhata apasmen her rakhna
( i ) meaning religion does
not teach us tobear ill-will towards one another.
It is easy enough to be friendly to one’s friends. But to
befriend the one who regards himself as your enemy, is
the quintessence of true religion.
Harijan, ll-5-*47

149
HINDUS DEMORALIZED BY AHIMSA
Q. The Hindus being influenced by your preaching
of ahimsa may in the near future get beaten by the Muslim
League followers. This is the general feeling in view of
the belief that the Muslims are being secretly armed on a
wide scale,
A. The assumption is serious. If it is sound it
casts a grave reflection upon the Provincial Governments.
In any event, how, I wish the Hindus were influenced by
my teaching of ahimsa which is a force mightier than the
force of arms however powerful. No teacher can be held
respotfisible for a caricature of his teachings. Do we not
know how geometrical propositions are caricatured by in¬
different pupils ? Are the teachers to be blamed ? The
280
 A HINDU’S DUTY TOWARDS A MUSLIM 281
utmost that can be said against me is that I am an incom¬
petent teacher of ahimsa. If such be the case, let us pray
that my successor will be much more competent and
successful.
HaHjan, 25-5-’47

150
A HINDU’S DUTY TOWARDS A MUSLIM
What is the duty of the Hindu towards his Muslim
neighbour ? His duty is to befriend him as man, to share
his joys and sorrows and help him in distress. He will
then have the right to expect similar treatment from his
Muslim neighbour and will probably get the expected res¬
ponse. Supposing the Hindus are in a majority in a
village with a sprinkling of Muslims in their midst, the
duty of the majority towards the few Muslim neighbours
is increased manifold, so much so that the few will not
feel that their religion makes any difference in the behav¬
iour of the Hindus towards them. The Hindus will then
earn the right, not before, that the Muslims will be
natural friends with them and in times of danger both the
communities will act as one man. But suppose that the
few Muslims do not reciprocate the correct behaviour of
the many Hindus and show fight in every action, it will
be a sign of unmanliness. What is then the duty of the
many Hindus ? Certainly not to overpower them by the
brute strength of the many ; that will be usurpation of an
unearned right. Their duty will be to check their un¬
manly behaviour as they would that of their blood
brothers. It is unnecessary for me to dilate further upon
the illustration. I will close it by saying that the appli¬
cation will be exactly the same if the position is reversed.
From what I have said it is easy enough to extend the
application with profit to the whole of the present state
which has become baffling because people do not apply in
practise the doctrine of deriving every right from a prior
duty well performed.
HaHjan, e-7-’47
 151
A PLEA FOR UNDERSTANDING
In his post-prayer speech, Gandhiji referred to a
letter from a Muslim who described himself as a sufL Its
purport was that there was nothing common between
Hinduism and Islam and that the two could not be as if
they were one. For, the writer argued, the Hindus did not
believe in one and only God but held cows and goats as
superior to man, and believed in high and low, whereas
Islam was a brotherhood in which there was no hierarchy
and which believed in one God as Allah. In this, Gandhiji
argued, there was a caricature of Hinduism. There was
no Hindu who put animals, the cow and the goat, before
man. But he submitted that if any one like him believed
himself to be the lowest in God's creation, there was
nothing wrong. It Was a sign of true humility. He held
that every Hindu believed in one and only God. He admit-
ted that excrescences had grown round Hinduism and that
its votaries had not always been true to Hinduism un¬
defiled. It was, therefore, up to an impartial man to
understand Hinduism as its votaries like him understood
it, just as it was the duty of an impartial Hindu to under¬
stand Islam as a good Muslim understood it. That, he
held, was the safest rule of interpretation for any faith.
Then it would be found that all great religions sprang
from the same source and the fundamentals were common
to them all.
HaHjan, 7-9-'47

282
 152
SCRIPTURES AND IDOLS

In his post-prayer speech Gandhiji said that he would

advise the Hindus and the Sikhs to read the Quran as they
read the Gita and the Granthasaheb. To the Muslims he
would say that they should read the Gita and the Grantha¬
saheb with the same reverence with which they read the
Quran. They should understand the meaning of what
they read and have equal regard- for all .religions.
This was his life-long practice and ideal. He claimed to
be a Sanatani Hindu, though he was not an idolater in
the accepted sense. But he could not despise those who
worshipped idol. The idol-worshipper saw God in the
stone image. God was omnipresent. If it was wrong to
see God in a stone how was it right to seek Him in a
book called the Gita, the Granthasaheb or the Quran ?
Was not that also idol-worship ? By cultivating tolerance
and respect they would be able to learn from all. Then
they would forget the communal differences and live
together in peace and amity.
Harijan, 25-l-’48

283
 153
ACT OF UNGODLINESS
Gandhiji said that he could not help mentioning the
fact that according to his information about 137 mosques
in Delhi were more or less damaged during the recent dis¬
turbances. Some of them were converted into mandirs.
One such was near Connaught Place which nobody could
miss. There was a tricolour flying there. It was convert¬
ed into a mandir with the installation of an idol. He (the
speaker) considered all such desecration as a blot upon
Hinduism and Sikhism. It was, in his opinion, a wholly
ungodly act. That the Muslims in Pakistan had resorted
to such desecration could not be pleaded in extenuation
of the blot he had mentioned. Any such act, in his
opinion, constituted an act of destroying Hinduism, Sikh¬
ism or Islam as the case may be.
Harijan, 30-ll-’47

An idol had no value unless it was duly installed in

Si. consecrated place by duly qualified devotees. Forcible
possession of a mosque disgraced Hinduism and Sikhism.
It was the duty of the Hindus to remove the idols from
the mosques and repair the damage.
A Muslim had brought to him a half-burnt Quran.
He had wrapped it up in a piece of cloth, showed it to
him with tearful eyes and went away without speaking.
The man who had thus tried to insult the Quran had in¬
sulted his own religion. He appealed to the Hindus and
the Sikhs to desist from bringing ruin to their country
and religion.
Harijan, 7-12-’47

284
 SECTION TEN: RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

154
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION
Reader: The question of religious education is very-
difficult.
Gandhiji: Yet we cannot do without it. India will
never be godless. Rank atheism cannot flourish in this
land. The task is indeed difficult . My head begins to
turn as I think of religious education. Our religious
teachers are hypocritical and selfish; they will have to be
approached. The mullas, the dasturs and the brahmanas
hold the key in their hands, but if they will not have the
good sense, the energy that we have derived from English
education will have to be devoted to religious education.
This is not very difficult. Only the fringe of the ocean
has been polluted and it is those who are within the frings
who alone need cleansing. We who come under this
category can even cleanse ourselves because my remarks
do not apply to the millions. In order to restore India to
its pristine condition, we have to return to it. All else-
will follow.
Hind Swaraj^ chap. XVIII

285
 155
THE PRIVILEGE OP THE SHUDRAS

The visit to the Chamarajendra Sanskrit Pathashala

in Bangalore afforded Gandhiji the opportunity of giving
a frank talk to the Sanskrit pandits who had gathered
there, and who addressed him in a simple and easy
Sanskrit. He said; “ I hold that every Hindu boy and
girl must acquire a knowledge of Sanskrit, and that every
Hindu should have enough knowledge of Sanskrit to be
able to express himself in that language whenever an occa¬
sion arises. I am pained to hear that there are pandits
in the Mysore State who fight shy of teaching Sanskrit to
shudras and panctiamas. I do not know how far the conten¬
tion that the shudras have no right to learn Sanskrit and
hence to read the Vedas is supported by the authority of the
scriptures, but as a Sanatani Hindu I am firmly of opinion
that even if there is any authority, we must not kill the
spirit of our religion by a literal interpretation of the
Jexts. Words have, like man himself, an evolution, and
even Vedic texts must be rejected if it is repugnant to
reason and contrary to experience. Thus so far as I un¬
derstand the shastras I think that there is no authority in
them for untouchability as we understand it today, and
my experience of the so-called untouchables in different
parts of India has shown me that man to man the ‘ un¬
touchable ’ is in no way inferior to his touchable brother
either intellectually or morally. I know suppressed class
people who are leading as clean and moral lives as any
one of us. And I have seen Adi-Kamatak boys who read
and recite Sanskrit verses as well as any of the brahmana
boys and girls here. I am grateful therefore that you
should have thought it fit to invite a man of such radical
views in your midst, and even to vote an address to him,
and to approve of those views in the address. I am glad
to see so many brahmanas plying their taklis, but I want
you not to confine yourselves to making your sacred
286
 RELIGIOUS EDUCATION 287
threads out of the yam. The yajnopavitas of course will
continue to be of takli yam, but you will make your
clothes also from that yarn or charkha yam. I tell you I
was pained to see boys and girls dressed in foreign clothes
reciting verses from the scriptures. To say the least, it
struck me to be incongruous. The external is in no way
the essence of religion, but the external oft proclaims the
internal, and whenever, therefore, I go to a Sanskrit
college or an institution where Aryan culture is taught,
I look forward to being reminded of the simple and sacred
surroundings of our ancient rishis. I am sorry that you
have not fulfilled my expectation, and I appeal to the
teachers and the parents of these children to make the
children tme representatives of ancient culture.”
Young India, 18-8-*27

156
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION
The other day, in the course of a conversation, a
missionary friend asked me, if India was really a spiritual¬
ly advanced country, why it was that he found only a few
students having any knowledge of their own i-eligion,
•even of the Bhagawadgita. In support of the statement,
the friend who is himself an educationist, told me, that
he had made it a point to ask the students he met whether
they had any knowledge of their religion or of the
Bhagawadgita. A vast majority of them were found to
be innocent of any such knowledge.
I do not propose to take up at the present moment
the inference that because certain students had no know¬
ledge of their own religion, India was not a spiritually
advanced country, beyond saying that the ignorance on
the part of students of religious books did not necessarily
mean absence of all religious life or want of spirituality
among the people to which the students belonged. But
there is no doubt that the vast majority of students who
pass through the Government educational institutions are
 288 HINDU DHARHA

devoid of any religious instruction. The remark of the

missionary had reference to the Mysore students and I was-
somewhat pained to observe that even the students of
Mysore had no religious instruction in the State schools.
I know that there is a school of thought which believes
in only secular instruction being given in public schools.
I know also that in a country like India, where there are
most religions of the world represented and where there
are so many denominations in the same religion, there
must be difficulty about making provision for religious
instruction. But if India is not to declare spiritual bank¬
ruptcy, religious instruction of its youth must be held to
be at least as necessary as secular instruction. It is true
that knowledge of religious books is no equivalent of that
of religion. But if we cannot have religion we must be
satisfied with providing our boys and girls with what is
next best. And whether there is such instruction given
in the schools or not, grown up students must cultivate the
art of self-help about matters religious as about other.
They may start their own class just as they have their
debating and now spinners’ clubs.
Addressing the Collegiate High School students at
Shimoga, I found upon enquiry at the meeting that out
of a hundred or more Hindu boys, there were hardly
eight who had read the Bfiagawadgita. None raised his
hand in answer to the question, whether of the few who
had read the Gita there was zmy who understood it. Out
of five or six Mussulman boys all raised their hands as
having read the Quran. But only one could say that he
knew its meaning. The Gita is in my opinion, a very easy
book to understand. It does present some fundamental
problems which are no doubt difficult of solution. But
the general trend of the Gita is in my opinion unmistaka¬
ble. It is accepted by all Hindu sects as authoritative. It
is free from any form of dogma. In a short compass it
gives a complete reasoned moral code. It satisfies both
the intellect and the heart. It is thus both philosophical
and devotional. Its appeal is universal. The language is
incredibly simple. But I nevertheless think that there
 HINDU STUDENTS AND THE GITA 289
should be an authoritative version in each vernacular,
ana the translations should be so prepared as to avoid
technicalities and in a manner that woula make the teach¬
ing of the Gita intelligible to the average man. The
suggestion is not intended in any way to supplement the
original. For I reiterate my opinion that every Hindu
boy and girl should know Sanskrit. But for a long time
to come, there will be millions without any knowledge
of Sanskrit. It would be suicidal to keep them deprived
of the teachings of the Bhagawadgita because they do not
know Sanskrit.
Young India, 25-8-’27

157
HINDU STUDENTS AND THE GITA
[The following is taken from an address to students at Mannar*
gudi:]
You state in your address that you read the Gospels
daily even as I do. I cannot say that I read the Gospels
daily, but I can say that I have read the Gospels in a
humble and prayerful spirit, and it is well with you if
you are also reading the Gospels in that spirit. But I
expect that the vast majority of 3^00 are Hindu boys. I
wish that you could have said to me that at least your
Hindu boys were reading the Bhagawadgita daily to
derive inspiration. For I believe that aU the great reli¬
gions of the world are true more or less. I say ‘ more or
less ’ because I believe that everything that the humcin
hand touches, by reason of the very fact that human
beings are imperfect, becomes imperfect. Perfection is
the exclusive attribute of God and it is indescribable, un¬
translatable. I do believe that it is possible for every
human being to become perfect even as God is perfect.
It is necessary for us all to aspire after perfection, but
when that blessed state is attained, it becomes indescriba¬
ble, indefinable. And I therefore admit, in all humility, that
even the Vedas, the Quran and the Bible are imperfect
19
 290 HINDU DHARMA

word of God, and imperfect beings that we are, swayed to

and fro by a multitude of passions, it is impossible for us
even to understand this word of God in its fulness, and
S0 1 say to a Hindu boy, that he must not uproot the
traditions in which he has been brought up, as I say to a
Mussulman or a Christian boy that he must not uproot
his traditions. And so whilst I would welcome your
learning the Gospel and your learning the Quran, I would
certainly insist on all of you Hindu boys, if I had the
power of insistence, learning the Gita. It is my belief that
the impurity that we see about boys in schools, the care¬
lessness about things that matter in life, the levity with
which the student world deals with the greatest and
most fundamental questions of life is due to this uprooting
of tradition from which boys have hitherto derived their
sustenance.
But I must not be misunderstood. I do not hold that
everything ancient is good because it is ancient. I do
not advocate surrender of God-given reasoning faculty in
the face of ancient tradition. Any tradition, however
ancient, if inconsistent with morality, is fit to be banished
from the land. Untouchability may be considered to be
an ancient tradition, the institution of child-widowhood
and child-marriage may be considered to be ancient tradi¬
tion, and even so many an ancient horrible belief and
superstitious practice. I would sweep them out of exist¬
ence if I had the power. When, therefore, I talk of respect¬
ing the ancient tradition, you now understand what I
mean, and it is because I see the same God in the Bhaga-
wadgita as I see in the Bible and the Quran that I say to
the Hindu boys that they will derive greater inspiration
from the Bhagawadgita because they will be tuned to the
Gita more than to any other book.
Young India, 22^'27
 158
STUDENTS AND THE GITA
[A correspondent has been endeavouring with the help of the
head master of a High School to introduce the teaching of the Gita
among its boys. But at a recent meeting convened to organize Gita
readings a Bank Manager got up and disturbed the even tenor of the
proceedings by saying that students had not the adhikara (qualifica¬
tion) for studying the Gito; It was not a plaything to he placed before
students. With reference to this objection Gandhljt wrote:]
I had heard of adhikara in connection with the Vedas,
but I never knew that the Gita required the qualifications
that the Bank Manager had in mind. It would have been
better if he had stated the nature of the qualifications he
required. The Gita clearly states that it is meant for all
but scoffers. If Hindu students may not read the Gita
they may not read any religious works at all. Indeed the
original conception in Hinduism is that the student life
is the life of a brahmachari who should begin it with a
knowledge of religion coupled vnth practice so that he
may digest what he learns and weave religious conduct
into his life. The student of old began to live his religion
before he knew what it was, and this conduct was followed
by due enlightenment, so that he might know the reason
for the conduct prescribed for him.
Adhikara then there certainly was. But it was the
adhikara of right conduct known as the five yamas or
cardinal restraints — ahimsa (innocence), satya (truth),
asteya (non-stealing), aparigraha (non—possession), and
brahmacharya (celibacy). These were the rules that had
to be observed by anybody who wished to study religion.
He may not go to religious books for proving the neces¬
sity of these fundamentals of religion.
But today the word adhikara like many such potent
words has suffered distortion, and a dissolute manv
simply because he is called a brahmana, has adhikara to
read and expound the shastras to us, whereas a man, if he
Is labelled an untouchable because of his birth in a
291
 292 HINDU DHARMA

particular state, no matter how virtuous he may be, may

not read them.
But the author of the Mahabharata of which the
Gita is a part wrote his great work for the purpose of
meeting this insane objection, and made it accessible to
all irrespective of the so-called caste, provided, I presume,
that he complied with the observances I have described.
I add the qualifying expression ‘ I presume ’ for at the
time of writing I do not recall the observance of the
yamas as a condition precedent to a person studying the
Mahabharata. Experience however shows that purity of
heart and the devotional frame of mind are necessary for
a proper understanding of religious books.
The printing age has broken down all barriers and
scoffers read religious books with the same freedom (if not
greater) that the religiously minded have. But we are
here discussing the propriety of students reading the Gita
as part of religious instruction and devotional exercise.
Here I cannot imagine any class of persons more amenable
to the restraints and thus more fitted than students for
such instruction. Unfortunately, it is to be admitted that
neither the students nor the instructors in the majority of
cases think anything of the real adhikara of the five
restraints.
Young India, 8-12-’27
 159
THE GITA IN NATIONAL SCHOOLS
A correspondent asks whether the Gita may be com¬
pulsorily taught in national schools to all boys whether
Hindus or non-Hindus. When I was travelling in Mysore
two years ago I had occasion to express my sorrow that
the Hindu boys of a high school did not know the Gita.
I am thus partial to the teaching of the Gita not only in
national schools but in every educational institution.
It should be considered a shame for a Hindu boy or girl
not to know the Gita. But my insistence stops short at
compulsion, especially so for national schools. Whilst it
is true that the Gita is a book of universal religion, it is a
claim which cannot be forced upon any one. A Christian
or a Mussulman or a Parsi may reject the claim or
may advance the same claim for the Bible, the
Quran or the Avesta as the case may be. I fear'that the
Gita teaching cannot be made compulsory even regarding
all those who may choose to be classed as Hindus. Many
Sikhs and Jains regard themselves as Hindus but may
object to compulsory Gita teaching for their boys and
girls. The case will be different for sectional schools. I
should hold it quite appropriate for a Vaishnava school,
for instance, to lay down the Gita as part of religious
instruction. Every private school has the right to pres¬
cribe its own course of instruction. But a national school
has to act within well-defined limits. There is no compul¬
sion where there |s no interference with a right. No one
can claim the right to entej;_a private school, every member
of a nation has the right presumptively to enter a national
school. Hence what would be regarded in the one case
as a condition of entrance would in the other be regarded
as compulsion. The Gita will never be universal by com¬
pulsion from without. It will be so if its admirers will not
293
 294 HINDU DHARMA

seek to force it down the throats of others and if they

will illustrate its teachings in their own lives.
Young India, 20-6-’29

160
THE STATE AND RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION
“ Should religious instruction form part of the
school curriculum as approved by the State ? Do
you favour separate schools for children belonging
to different denominations for facility of religious
instruction ? Or, should religious instruction be left in
the hands of private bodies ? If so, do you think it is
right for the State to subsidize such bodies ? ” ^
As to this question Gandhiji said that he did not be¬
lieve in State religion even though the whole community
had one religion. State interference would probably
always be unwelcome. Religion was purely a personal
matter. There were in reality as many religions as minds.
Each mind had a different conception of God from that of
the other.
He was also opposed to State aid partly or wholly to
religious bodies. For he knew that an institution or
group, which did not manage to finance its own religious
teaching, was a stranger to true religion. This did not
mean that State schools would not give ethical teaching.
Fundamental ethics were common to all religions.
IJarijan, 16-3-M7
 161
IMMORTAL. MALAVIYAJI
There is a saying in English, “ The King is dead.
Long live the King Perhaps it can be said Awith greater
aptness though in a different setting of the great and good
Malaviyaji whom death has kindly delivered from physical
pain and to whom his body had ceased for some time to
give the work he would gladly have taken from it. Can
we not say of him “ Malaviyaji the adored of Bharata-
varsha is dead. Long live Malaviyaji ? ” His unremitting
toil from his early youth to ripe old age has made him
immortal. His services were many but the Banaras Hindu
University, styled in Hindi as Kashi Vishwavidyalaya
must for all time be counted as his greatest and best crea¬
tion. If it is more popularly known as the Banaras Hindu
University, the fault was not his, or, if it was, it was
due to his magnanimous nature. He was a servant of his
followers. He allowed them to do as they wished. I
happen to know personally that this spirit of accommoda¬
tion was part of his nature, so much so-that at times it
took the shape of weakness. Only he was a powerful
man. And has not his own special favourite Bhagawata
said that no fault accrues to the powerful? But it is a
defect which can easily be remedied now. Every stone
of that majestic structure should be a reflection of true
Hindu Dharma or culture. The institution must not in
any shape or form reflect the glory of materialism as of
the West that we are familiar with but it should be a true
reflection of the glory that is spiritualism. Is every pupil
a representative of pure undefiled religion ? If he is not,
why not ? This University will be judged, as all uni¬
versities should be, not by the number of pupils studying
at it at a given time but by their quality, however few
in numbers they may be. I know that this is easier said
than done. Nevertheless, it is the foundation of this
University. If it is not that, it is nothing. Hence it is
295
 296 HINDU DHARMA

the clear duty of the progeny of the deceased as also his

followers to give it that shape. It is essentially the func¬
tion of the University to assign Hindu religion its status
in the body of the religions of the world, as it is its
function to rid it of its defects and limitations. The
devotees of the deceased should regard it as their special
duty to shoulder this burden.
Malaviyaji has left an imperishable memorial of him¬
self in the Kashi^Vishwavidyalaya. To put it on a stable
foundation, to secure its evolutionary growth, will surely
be the most suitable memorial that can be erected by us
to the memory of the great patriot. He spared no pains
in making a big collection for his pet child. Every one
who reveres his memory can give a helping hand to the
labour of continuing the collection.
So far about his outward activity. His internal life
was purity exemplified. He was a repository of kindness
and gentleness. His knowledge of religious scriptures
was very great. He was by heredity a great religious
preacher. He had a marvellous memory and his life was
as clean as it was simple.
His politics I must leave alone as also his other
manifold activities. He, whose life was singled out for
selfless service and who had many gifts, would naturally
stand for limitless activities. I have ventured to single
out what has appealed to me as his most prominent ser¬
vice. And to give a real helping hand in making the insti¬
tution a living example of true Hinduism will only be done
by those who will try to imitate sincerely the purity and
simplicity of his life.
HaHjan, 8-12-’46
 SECTION ELEVEN: COW PROTECTION

162
SAVE THE COW
Cow protection is the dearest possession of the Hindu
heart. No one who does not believe in cow protection can
possibly be a Hindu. It is a noble belief. Cow worship
means to me worship of innocence. For me, the cow is
the personification of innocence. Cow protection means
the protection of the weak and the helpless. As Professor
Vaswani truly remarks, cow protection means brotherhood
between man and beast. It is a noble sentiment that must
grow by patient toil and tapasya.
Young India, 8-6-’21

163
COW PROTECTION
The central fact of Hinduism is cow protection. Cow
protection to me is one of the most wonderful phenomena
in human evolution. It takes the human being beyond
his species. The cow to me means the entire sub-human
world. Man through the cow is enjoined to realize his
identity with all that lives. Why the cow was selected for
apotheosis is obvious tp me. Th6 cow was in India the
best companion. She was the giver of plenty. Not only
did she give milk, but she also made agriculture possible.
The cow is a poem of pity. One reads pity in the gentle
animal. She is the mother to millions of Indian mankind.
Protection of the cow means protection of the whole dumb
creation of God. The ancient seer, whoever he was, began
with the cow. The appeal of the lower order of creation
« 297.
 298 HINDU DHARMA

is all the more forcible because it is speechless. Cow pro¬

tection is the gift of Hinduism to the world. And Hindu¬
ism will live so long as there are Hindus to protect the
eow.
The way to protect is to die for her. It is a denial of
Hinduism and ahimsa to kill a human being to protect a
■cow. Hindus are enjoined to protect the cow by their
tapasya, by self-purification, by self-sacrifice. The present-
•day cow protection has degenerated into a perpetual feud
with the Mussulmans, whereas cow protection means con-
•quering the Mussulmans by our love. A Mussulman friend
sent me some time ago a book detailing the inhumanities
practised by us on the cow and her progeny : How we
bleed her to take the last drop of milk from her, how we
starve her to emaciation, how we ill-treat the calves, how
we deprive them of their portion of milk, how cruelly we
treat the oxen, how we castrate them, how we beat them,
how we overload them. If they had speech, they would
bear witness to our crimes against them which would
stagger the world. By every act of cruelty to our cattle,
we disown God and Hinduism. I do not know that the
condition of the cattle in any other part of the world is so
bad as in unhappy India. We may not blame the English¬
man for this. We may not plead poverty in our defence.
Criminal negligence is the only cause of the miserable
condition of our cattle. Our pinjrapoles, though they are
an answer to our instinct of mercy, are a clumsy demon¬
stration of its execution. Instead of being model dairy
farms and great profitable national institutions, they are
merely depots for receiving decrepit cattle.
Hindus will be judged not by their tilaks, not by the
correct chanting of mantras, not by their pilgrimages,
not by their most punctilious observance of caste rules but
by their ability to protect the cow. Whilst professing the
religion of cow protection, we have enslaved the cow and
her progeny, and have become slaves ourselves.
It will now be understood why I consider myself a
■Sanatani Hindu. I yield to none in my regard for the
 WHAT COW PROTECTION INVOLVES 299
cow. I have made the Khilafat cause my own, because I
see that through its preservation full protection can be
, secured for the cow. I do not ask my Mussulman friends
to save the cow in consideration of my service. My prayer
ascends daily to God Almighty, that my service of a cause
I hold to be just may appear so pleasing to Him, that He
may change the hearts of the Mussulmans, and fill them
with pity for their Hindu neighbours and make them
save the animal the latter hold dear as life itself.
Young India, 6-10-’21

164
WHAT COW PROTECTION INVOLVES
Cow protection should commence with ourselves. In
no part of the world perhaps are cattle worse treated than
in India. I have wept to see Hindu drivers goading their
jaded oxen with the iron points of their cruel sticks. The
half-starved condition of the majority of our cattle is a
disgrace to us. The cows find their necks under the
butcher’s knife because Hindus sell them. Cow protection
societies must turn their attention to the feeding of cattle,
prevention of cruelty, preservation of the fast disappearing
pasture land, improving the breed of cattle, buying
from poor shepherds and turning pinjrapoles into model
self-supporting dairies. Hindus do sin against God and
man when they omit to do any of the things I have
described above.
Young India, 29-5-'24
 165
COW PROTECTION
[The following are extracts from Gandhiji's Presidential Speech
at the Cow Conference held at Belgaum :]
Let alone other provinces. Would you believe me if
I told you that the Hindus of Gujarat practise cow killing ?
You will wonder but let me tell you that in Gujarat the
bullocks employed for drawipg carts are goaded with
spiked rods till blood oozes from their bruised backs. You
may say that this is not cow killing but bullock killing.
But I see no difference between the two, the killing of the
cow and killing her male progeny. Again you may say
that this practice may be abominable and v»T>rthy of con¬
demnation but it hardly amounts to killing. But here,
again, I beg to differ. If the bullock in question had a
tongue to speak and were asked which fate he preferred,—
instantaneous death under the butcher’s knife or the long-
drawn agony to which he is subjected,— he would un¬
doubtedly prefer the former. At Calcutta a Sindhi gentle¬
man used to meet me often. He used always to tell* me
stories about the cruelty that was practised by milkmen
on cows in Calcutta. He asked me to see for myself the
process of milking the cows as carried on in the dairies.
The practice of blowing is loathsome. The people who
do this are ^Hindus. Again, nowhere in the world is the
condition of cattle so poor as in India. Nowhere in the
world would you find such skeletons of cows and bullocks
as you do in our cow-worshipping India. Nowhere are
bullocks worked so beyond their capacity as here. I con¬
tend that so long as these things continue we have no right
to ask anybody to stop cow-killing. In the Bhagawata,
in one place, the illustrious author describes the various
things which have been the cause of India’s downfall.
One of the causes mentioned is that we have given up
cow protection. Today I want to bring home to you if I
can, the close relation which exists between the present
300
 cow PROTECTION 301
poverty-stricken condition of India and our failure to pro¬
tect the cow. We, who live in cities, probably can have
no idea of the extent of the poverty of our poor folk.
Millions upon millions cannot afford to have two full meals
per day. Some live on rotten rice only. There are others
for whom salt and chillies are the only table luxuries.
Is it not a just nemesis for our belying of our religion ?
Then in India we have the system of pinjrapoles.
The way in which most of these are managed is far
from satisfactory. And yet, I am sorry to observe that
the people who are mostly responsible for them are Jains,
who are out and out believers in ahimsa. Well organized,
these pinjrapoles ought to be flourishing dairies supplying
pure good milk at a cheap rate to the poor. I am told
however that even in a rich city like Ahmedabad there
are cases of the wives of labourers feeding their babies on
flour dissolved in water. There cannot be a sadder com¬
mentary on the way in which we protect the cow than that
in a country which has such an extensive system of
pinjrapoles the poor should experience a famine of pure,
good milk. That I hope will serve to explain to you how
our failure to protect the cow at one end of the chain
results in our skin and bone starvings at the other.
If, therefore, I am asked to save the cow my first
advice will be, “ Dismiss from your minds the Mussulmans
and Christians altogether and mind your own duty first.”
Our rishis made the startling discovery (and everyday
I feel more and more convinced of its truth) that sacred
texts and inspired writings yield their truth only in pro¬
portion as one has advanced in the practice of ahimsa
and truUi. The greater the realization of truth and
ahimsa the greater the illumination. These same rishis
declared that cow protection was the supreme duty of a
Hindu and that its performance brought one moksha, i.e.
salvation. Now I fm not ready to believe that by merely
protecting the animal cow, one can attain moksha. For
moksha one must completely get rid of one’s lower
feelings like attachment, hatred, anger, jealousy, etc.
 302 HINDU DHARMA

It follows, therefore, that the meaning of cow protection

in terms of moksha must be much wider and far more
comprehensive than is commonly supposed. The cow
protection which can bring one moksha must, from its
very nature, include the protection of everything that
feels. Therefore, in my opinion, every little breach of
the dhimsa principle, like causing hurt by harsh speech
to any one, man, woman or child, to cause pain to the
weakest and the most insignificant creature on earth,
would be a breach of the principle of cow protection,
would be tantamount to the sin of beef-eating, differing
from it in degree, if at all, rather than in kind. That
being so, I hold that with all our passions let loose we
cannot today claim to be following the principle of cow
protection.
At Lahore I met Lala Dhanpatrai, somewhat of a
crank like myself. He told me that if I wanted to save the
cow I should wean the Hindus from their false notions.
He said it was the Hindus who sold cows to the Mussul¬
man butcher and but for them the latter would have no¬
cows to kill. The reason for this practice, he told me, was
economical. The village commons that served as grazing
grounds for the cattle had been enclosed by the Govern¬
ment and so people could not afford to keep cows. He
suggested a way out of the difficulty. It was no longer
necessary, he told me, to sell cows that had ceased to give
milk. He himself, he said, had tried the experiment of,
buying such cows. He then put them to the plough. After
some time, if proper care was taken, they put on flesh and
became fit to bear again. I cannot vouch for the truth of
this statement. But I see no reason why this practice
should not be generally adopted if the facts are as stated
by Lala Dhanpatrai. Our shastras certainly have nowhere
said that under no circumstances should the cow be used
for draught purposes. If w;e feed the cow properly, tend
it carefully and then use her for drawling carts or working
the plough, always taking care not to tax her beyond her
capacity, there can be nothing wrong in it. I therefore
commend the suggestion for consideration and adoption
 cow PROTECTION 303
if it is found to be workable. We may not look down
upon a person if he tries to protect the cow in this manner.
Young Judia^ 29-l-*25

166
COW-PROTECTION
A correspondent writes:
“ The Hindu scriptures alone seem to have enjoined cow
protection on its followers. I have been trying to understand
the philosophy of it. If the cow has to be protected purely
from selfish motives, on account of its continuous utility from
its birth till after its death, cow protection should have become
universal and not confined to the Hindus alone, for, mankind by
instinct is selfish. If on the other hand it has to be protected
on account of its meek and harmless nature, there are other
animals as the sheep and deer which also equally require human
protection. What then is the special virtue in the cow, exclu¬
sively known or useful to the Hindu, over other domestic
animals at any rate ? If the Hindus, not excluding the vegetarian
and orthodox sections, are entitled to kill buffaloes, goats, sheep,
etc. for purposes of food or sacrifice, what right have we to
resent the Mussulmans killing* the cow for sacrifice or food ?
Would not the appeal of the Hindus to the Mussulmans to
protect the cow be more reasonable and effective, if we Hindus
ourselves give up animal killing for food or sacrifice ? ”
There is much to be said in favour of the argument
adopted by the correspondent. But man does not govern
himself by logic. He is a complex being; therefore a
multiplicity of considerations act upon him and move him
to do or to refrain from doing things. Logically speaking,
therefore, a Hindu who protects the cow should protect
every animal. But taking all things into consideration,
we may not cavil at his protecting the cow because he
fails to protect the other animals. The only question
therefore to consider is whether he is right in protecting
the cow. And he cannot be wrong in so doing if non¬
killing of animals generally may be regarded as a duty for
one who believes in ahimsa. And every Hindu, and for
that matter every man of religion, does so. The duty
 304 HINDU DHARMA

of not killing animals generally and therefore protecting

them must be accepted as an indisputable fact. It is then
so much to the credit of Hinduism that it has taken up
cow protection as a duty. And he is a poor specimen of
Hinduism who stops merely at cow protection when he
can extend the arm of protection to other animals. The
cow merely stands as a symbol, and protection of the
cow is the least he is expected to undertake. But as I
have shown already in my previous writings he is failing
even in this elementary obligation.
The motive that actuates cow protection is not
‘ purely selfish though selfish consideration undoubtedly
enters into it. If it was purely selfish, the cow would
be killed as in other countries after it had ceased to give
full use. The Hindus will not kill the cow even though
she may be a heavy burden. The numberless goshalas
that have been established by charitably-minded people
for tending disabled and useless cows is in a way an
eloquent testimony of the effort that is being made in the
direction. Though they are today very poor institutions
for the object to be achieved the fact does not detract
from the value of the motive behind the act.
The philosophy of cow protection, therefore, is, in my
opinion, sublime. It immediately puts the animal creation
on the same level with man so far as the right to live is
concerned. But it is no part of Hinduism to prevent by
force cow slaughter by those who do not believe in cow
protection. The Hindus will bring the Mussulmans and
the rest of the world to their way of thinking only by
living the religion of ahimsa as fully as it is humanly
possible. They must rely upon the working of the great
principle in their own lives and making its effective
appeal to the outer world. They will not convert the
latter by force of arms. They certainly can by force of
ahimsa. We little realize the matchless potency of
ahimsa when it is thoroughly put in active operation.
Young India,
 167
MUSLIMS AND COW PROTECTION
[Extracts put together by M. D. to quote in essence Gandhiji's
vieAvs on cow protection in relation to the Muslims.]
The Hindus may not compel the Mussulmans to
abstain from meat or even beef-eating.To attempt
cow protection by violence is to reduce Hinduism to
Satanism and to prostitute to a base end the grand signi¬
ficance of cow protection.The Hindus can protect
the cow only by developing the faculty for dying, for
suffering. The only chance the Hindus have of saving
the cow in India from the butcher's knife, is by trying
to save Islam from the impending peril and trusting their
Mussulman countrymen to return nobility, i. e. volun¬
tarily to protect the cow out of regard fOr their Hindu
countrymen.I have heard that at big fairs if a
Mussulman is found in possession of cows or even goats,
he is at times forcibly dispossessed. Those who, claiming
to be Hindus, thus resort to violence, are enemies of the
cow and of Hinduism. {Young India, 18-5-'21.)
It must be an article of faith for every Hindu that
the cow can only be saved by Mussulman friendship. Let
us recognize frankly that complete protection of the cow
depends purely upon Mussulman goodwill. To carry
cow protection at the point of the sword is a contradiction
in terms. Rishis of old are said to have performed penance
for the sake of the cow. Let us follow in the footsteps of
the rishis, and ourselves do penance, so that we may be
pure enough to protect the cow and all that the doctrine
means and implies, {Young India, 8-6-’21.)
The way to save the cow is not to kill or quarrel with
the Mussulman. The way to save the cow is to die in
the act of saving the Khilafat without mentioning the
cow.I make bold to assert, without fear of contra¬
diction, that it is not Hinduism to kill a fellow-man even
to save the cow. Hinduism requires its votaries to
305
20
 306 HINDU DHABMA

immolate themselves lor the sake of their religion, i.e. for

the sake of saving the cow. {Young India, 28-7-’21,)
Cow protection means conquering the Mussulmans by
our love. {Young India, 6-10-’21.)
I am as eager to save the cow from the Mussulman’s
knife as any Hindu. But on that very account I refuse
to make my support of the Mussulman claim on the
Khilafat conditional upon his saving the cow. The Mus¬
sulman is my neighbour. He is in distress. His grievance
is legitimate, and it is my bounden duty to help him to
secure redress by every legitimate means in my power,
even to the extent of losing my life and property. That
is the way I can win permcinent friendship with the
Mussulmans.But one observes a spirit of impatience
on the part of the Hindus. In our eagerness to protect
the cow we seek to legislate through Municipalities and
get resolutions passed by Mussulman meetings. I would
urge my Hindu countrymen to be patient.We must
let the Mussulmans solve the problem in their own way.
My advice to my Hindu bi;ethren is, ‘Simply help the
Mussulmans in their sorrow in a generous and self-sacri¬
ficing spirit without counting the cost and you will auto¬
matically save the cow.’ {Young India, 4-8-’20.)
[The following occurs In Gandhiji's historical essay, Hindu-
Muslim Tension, Its Cause and Cure, written long after the Khilafat
had ceased to be a live issue:]

Hindus and Mussulmans prate about no compulsion

in religion. What is it but compulsion, if Hindus will kill
a Mussulman for saving a cow? It is like wanting to
convert a Mussulman by force.
Though I regard cow protection as the central fact
of Hinduism, central because it is common to classes as
well as masses, I have never been able to understand the
antipathy towards the Mussulmans on that score. We say
nothing about the slaughter that daily takes place on
behalf of Englishmen. Our anger becomes red-hot when
a Mussulman slaughters a cow. All the riots that have
taken place in the name of the cow have been an insane
 MUSLIMS AND COW PKOTECTION 307
Wciste of effort. They have not saved a single cow, but
they have on the contrary stiffened the backs of the
Mussulmans and resulted in more slaughter.The
Hindus commit no sin, if they cannot prevent cow slaugh¬
ter at the hands of Mussulmans, and they do sin grievous¬
ly when in order to save the cow they quarrel with the
Mussulmans. (Young India, 29-5-'24.)
[On the subject of legislation, Gandblji said:]
Even a Hindu State may not prohibit cow slaughter
for purposes considered to be religious by any of its sub¬
jects, without the consent of the intelligent majority of
such subjects, so long as such slaughter is conducted in
private and without any intention of provoking or giving
offence to Hindus.But in my opinion the economic
side of the cow question, if it is properly handled, auto¬
matically provides for the delicate religious side. Cfow
slaughter should be and can be made economically impos¬
sible, whereas unfortunately of all places in the world it
is the sacred animal for the Hindus which has become
the cheapest for slaughter. (Young India, 7-7-27.)
I know what would spare the Hindus’ feeling in the
matter of the cow. It is nothing short of complete
voluntary stoppage of cow slaughter by Mussulmans,
whether for sacrifice or for food. The Hindu Dharma
will not be satisfied if some tyrant secured by force of
arms immunity of the cow from the slaughter. (Young
India, l-l-’28.)
Harijan, 22-l-’38
 168
BEEF
Q. The Muslim public need to be satisfied on a
very important question. Will the Muslims be allowed to
eat their national food — beef — under a Hindu majority
Government ? If you can satisfy the Muslims on this all-
important question, a great deal of knots will be solved.
You should give a straight answer to this question in
your paper the Harijan.
A. I do not know how this question arises. For
whilst Congressmen were in office they are not known to
have interfered with the practice of beef-eating by Mus¬
lims. The question is also badly conceived. There is no
such thing as a Hindu majority Government. If a free
India is to live at peace with herself, religious divisions
must entirely give place to political divisions based on
considerations other than religious. Even as it is, though
unfortunately religious differences loom large, most
parties contain members drawn from all sects. It is
moreover not true to say that beef is the national food of
the Muslims. In the first place, the Muslims of India are
not as yet a separate nation. In the second, beef is not
their ordinary food. Their ordinary food is the same as
that of the millions. What is true is that there are very
few Muslims who are vegetarians from a religious motive.
Therefore they will take meat, including beef, when they
can get it. But during the greater part of the year mil¬
lions of Muslims, owing to poverty, go without meat of
any kind. These are facts. But the theoretical question
demands a clear answer. As a Hindu, a confirmed vege¬
tarian, and a worshipper of the cow whom I regard with
the same veneration as I regard my mother (alas no more
on this earth), I maintain that the Muslims should have full
freedom to slaughter cows, if they wish, subject of course
to hygienic restrictions and in a manner not to wound
the susceptibilities of their Hindu neighbours. Fullest
308
 THE COW MOTHER 309
recognition of freedom to the Muslims to slaughter cows is
indispensable for communal harmony, and is the only way
of saving the cow. In 1921 thousands of cows were saved
by the sole and willing effort of the Muslims themselves.
In spite of the black clouds hanging over our heads, I
refuse to give up the hope that they will disperse and
that we shall have communal peace in this unhappy land.
If I am asked for proof, I must answer that my hope is
based on faith and faith demands no proof.
Harijan, 27-4-’40

169
THE COW MOTHER
[The following Is taken from a discourse a Harijan boy from
Andhra named Prabhakar had with Gandhljl and reported by M. D.]
“I * said to Bapu that I had realized that the cow
was like our mother. ‘ Mother gives us milk for a couple
of years. Mother cow gives us milk the whole of our
life.’ But Bapu said : ‘ I am prepared to go one better
than you. Mother cow is in many ways better than the
mother who gave us birth. Our mother gives us milk
for a couple of years and then expects us to serve her
when we grow up. Mother cow expects from us nothing
but grass and grain. Our mother often falls ill and ex¬
pects service from us. Mother cow rarely falls ill. Here
is an unbroken record of service which does not end with
her death. Our mother when she dies means expenses of
burial or cremation. Mother cow is as useful dead as
when she is alive. We can make use of every part of her
body — her flesh, her bones, her intestines, her horns and
her skin. Well I say this not to disparage the mother who
gives us birth, but in order to show you the substantial
reasons for my worshipping the cow.’ ”
Harijan, 15-9-’40

•Prabhakar, the Harijan boy from Andhra.

 170
THE BULLOCK’S FESTIVAL
A group of villagers now comes every Sunday mor¬
ning to see Gandhiji who talks to them and answers any
questions they may have to ask. On the 1st of this month
they invited him to go and see their cattle parade, and
Gandhiji readily agreed. That one day is the only gala
day in the year for the poor beasts. No work is taken
from the bullocks that day, so much so that if there is
anything urgent to do the men will do it themselves. The
bullocks are garlanded and decorated, but I do not know
whether they are given any special feed that day.
Gandhiji gladly spent the evening with the villagers.
He told them how happy he was that they celebrated this
ancient custom of giving a holiday to their cows and
bullocks. In ancient India,” he said to them, ” a man’s
wealth was reckoned according to the number of cows he
possessed, not according to the gold and silver he owned.
The cow was worshipped as mother, for she sustained us
with milk and her male progeny helped us to carry on
agriculture which kept us alive. Cows are there in the
West also, and they are kept very well indeed. But their
male progeny is not used for agricultural purposes, it is
turned into beef. From time immemorial this idea has
been repugnant to us, and we have worshipped the cow
and her progeny. The bullocks are the means of trans¬
port ever3rwhere in our villages and have not ceased to
be such even in a place like Simla. The railway train
and the motor car go there, but all along the mountain
road I found bullocks trudging up and down dragging
heavily-laden carts. It seems as if this means of trans¬
port is part of our lives and our civilization. And the
bullock has to endure if our handicraft civilization is to
endure.
“ But we have fallen on evil days. Our idea of wealth
has changed, we reckon it in terms of hard cash, and have
310
 THE BUIXOCK^ FESTIVAL 311

come to neglect our cattle which have been progressively

deteriorating. I am glad that you are celebrating this
day, but you must know its implications. A day’s cele¬
bration would have no meaning if you neglected your
cattle the rest of the year. You have to find out whose
animals are the best and to discover how he manages to
keep them so well. You will find out whose cow gives
the largest amount of milk and discover how he keeps
her and feeds her. You riiay fix some prize for the best
bullock and the best cow in the village. We are here for
your service. Pamerkarji, who is a qualified dairyman,
and Balwantsing, known for his love and care of the ani¬
mals, are at your disposal. The stud-bull is being main¬
tained for the benefit of the village. You must make use
of all the facilities we have provided. But you can do
so only when you have a genuine love for your animals.”
” Here,” he said, showing a spiked stick that is used in
order to prod the bullocks, “ here is a thing of which you
and I should be ashamed. Supposing I were to prod one
of your children with this stick, would you let me do it ?
And if you will not, how dare you treat these useful
animals so ? Nowhere else in the world, to my knowledge,
is such an instrument of torture used. You should either
give this up or not invite me to these shows. You should
treat them so kindly and handle them so gently
that they will understand a word or a gesture from
you without the use of any stick at all. Address
yourselves to the task from today, and see what
progress you can make by the time we have the next
festival. Our aim is to make of Sevagram a model village.
I have on another occasion told you what to do in other
matters. Today I am telling you that without" model
cattle we cannot have a model village. Our service is at
your disposal, but our service too caimot be of much use
without your co-operation. I hope you will, therefore,
meet together at once and frame a programme of imme¬
diate action.”
Bartjan, 16-9-'40
 171
HOW TO SAVE THE COW ?
In so far as the pure economic necessity of cow protec¬
tion is concerned, it can be easily secured if the question
was considered on that ground alone. In that event all
the dry cattle, the cows who give less milk than their
keep and the aged and unfit cattle would be slaughtered
without a second thought. This soulless economy has no
place in India, although the inhabitants of this land of
paradoxes may be, indeed, are guilty of many soulless
acts.
Then how can the cow be saved without having to
kill her off when she ceases to give the economic quantity
of milk or when she becomes otherwise an uneconomic
burden ? The answer to the question can be summed up
as follows:
1. By the Hindus performing their duty towards
the cow and her progeny. If they did so, our cattle
would be the pride of India and the world. The con¬
trary is the case today.
2. By learning the science of cattle breeding. To¬
day there is perfect anarchy in this work.
3. By replacing the present cruel method of
castration by the humane method practised in the West.
4. By thorough reform of the pinjrapoles of India
which are today, as a rule, managed ignorantly and
without any plan by men who do not know their work.
5. When these primary things are done, it will
be found that the Muslims will, of their own accord,
recognize the necessity, if only for the sake of their
Hindu brethren, of not slaughtering cattle for beef or
otherwise.
The reader will observe that behind the foregoing
requirements lies one thing and that is ahimsa, otherwise
known as universal compassion. If that supreme thing is
realized, everything else becomes easy. Where there is
312
 HOW TO SAVE THE COW ? 313
ahimsa, there is infinite patience, inner calm, discrimina¬
tion, self-sacrifice and true knowledge. Cow protection is
not an easy thing. Much money is wasted in its name.
Nevertheless, in the absence of ahimsa the Hindus have
become destroyers instead of saviours of the cow. It is
even more difficult than the removal of foreign rule from
India.
[Note : The average quantity of milk that the cow in
India yields is said to be roughly 2 lb. per day, that of New
Zealand 14 lb., of England 15 lb., of HoUand 20 lb. The
index figure for health goes up in proportion to the in¬
crease in the yield of milk. — M. K. G.]
HarijaUt 31"8-*47
 SECTION TWELVE; UNTOUCHABIMTY

172
UNTOUCHABILITY NOT A PART OF HINDUISM
I have always claimed to be a Sanatani Hindu. It is
not that I am quite innocent of the scriptures. I am not
a profound scholar of Sanskrit. I have read the Vedas
and the Upanishads only in translation. Naturally there¬
fore mine is not a scholarly study of them. My know¬
ledge of them is in no way profound, but I have studied
them as I should do as a Hindu and I claim to have
grasped their true spirit. By the time I had reached the
age of 21, I had studied other religions also.
There was a time when I was wavering between
Hinduism and Christianity. When I recovered my
balance of mind, I felt that to me salvation was possible
only through the Hindu religion and my faith in Hindu¬
ism grew deei)er and more enlightened.
But even then I believed that untouchability was no
part of Hinduism ; and that, if it was, such Hinduism was
not for me.
True, Hinduism does not regard tmtouchability as a
sin. I do not want to enter into any controversy regard¬
ing the interpretation of the shastras. It might be difficult
for me to establish my point by quoting authorities from
the Bhagwata or the Manusmriti. But I claim to have
understood the spirit of Hinduism. Hinduism has sinned
in giving sanction to untouchability. It has degraded us,
made us the pariahs of the Empire. Even the Mussul¬
mans caught the sinful contagion from us, and in South
Africa, in East Africa and in Canada the Mussulmans no
less than the Hindus came to be regarded as pariahs. All
this evil has resulted from the sin of untouchability.
Young India, 27-4-’21

314
 173
CONTRAKY TO SPIRIT OF HINDUISM

Untouchability is not a sanction of religion, it is a

device of Satan. The devil has always quoted scriptures.
But scriptures cannot transcend reason and truth. They
are intended to purify reason and illuminate truth. I am
not going to burn a spotless horse because the Vedas are
reported to have advised, tolerated, or sanctioned the
sacrifice. For me the Vedas are divine and unwritten.
‘ The letter killeth.’ It is the spirit that giveth the light.
And the spirit of the Vedas is purity, truth, innocence,
chastity, humility, simplicity, forgiveness, godliness, and
all that makes a man or woman noble and brave. There is
neither nobility nor bravery in treating the great and un¬
complaining scavengers of the nation as worse than dogs
to be despised and spat upon.
Young India, '

174
UNTOUCHABILITY
{Speaking at a meeting in Akola Gandhiji remarked:]
My views on untouchability are not the product of
my Western education. I had formed them long before I
went to England, and long before I studied the scriptures,
and in an atmosphere which was by no means favourable
to those views. For I was bom in an orthodox Vaishnava
family and yet ever since I reached the year of discretion
I have firmly held my uncompromising views in the mat¬
ter, which later comparative study of Hinduism and ex¬
perience have only confirmed. How in face of the fact
that no scriptural text mentions a fifth vama, and in face
of the express injunction of the Gita to regard a brahmana
and a bhangi as equals, we persist in maintaining this
deep blot on Hinduism, I cannot understand. Regarding
315
 316 HINDU DHARMa

a brahmana and a bhangi as equals does not mean that

you will not accord to a true brahmana the reverence that
is due to him, but that the brahmana and the bhangi are
equally entitled to our seiwice, that we accord to the
bhangi the same rights of sending his children to public
schools, of visiting pubUc temples, of the use of public
wells, etc., on the same basis as these rights are enjoyed
by any other Hindu.
Young India, 1-2-21

175
UNTOUCHABILITY AND THE VEDAS
A correspondent asks : “ Do you think that sins of
touch and sight are of Vedic origin ? ”
Though I cannot speak with authority based on first¬
hand knowledge, I havfe full confidence in the purity of
the Vedas, and therefore have no hesitation in asserting
that the sins of touch and sight have no support in the
Vedas. I would however add, that no matter what is cre¬
dited with Vedic origin if it is repugnant to the moral
sense, it must be summarily rejected as contrary to the
spirit of the Vedas, and perhaps what is more, as contrary
to fundamental ethics.
The next four questions may be condensed as fol¬
lows ;
“Don't you think that the karmakanda is based upon a
knowledge of the laws of magnetism, and that the rules regard-
ing touch and sight, birth pollution and death pollution are in¬
tended for the purification of the mind ? "
In so far as they are so intended, they have a certain
relative value ; but the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Pura-
nas and all the other shastras as also the other religions
of the world proclaim in no uncertain terms, that purifi¬
cation of the mind is an inward process, and that the
magnetism produced by the inter-action of physical bodies
is nothing compared to the other subtle magnetism of
mind upon mind, and the outward purificatory rites
 DR. AMBEDKAR’S INDICTMENT 317

become soul-destroying, when they result in making man

arrogate to himself superiority over fellow human beings
and in making him treat them virtually as beasts or even
less.
♦ lie

Rules have to appeal to reason and must never be

allowed to crush the spirit within. The rules about un-
touchability have been demonstrated and can be demon¬
strated to be injurious to the growth of the spirit, and
they are wholly contrary to all that is best and noblest in
Hinduism.
Young India, 3-10-’29

176
DR. AMBEDKAR’S INDICTMENT
The readers will recall the fact that Dr. Ambedkar
was to have presided last May at the annual conference
of the Jat-Pat-Torak Mandal of Lahore. But the confer¬
ence itself was cancelled because Dr. Ambedkar’s address
was found by the Reception Committee to be unaccept¬
able.
Dr. Ambedkar was not going to be beaten by the Re¬
ception Committee. He has answered their rejection of
him by publishing the address at his own expense. He
has priced it at 8 annas. I would suggest a reduction to
2 annas or at least 4 annas.
No reformer can ignore the address. The orthodox
will gain by reading it. This is not to say that the address
is not open to objection. It has to be read if only because
it is open to serious objection. Dr. Ambedkar is a chal¬
lenge to Hinduism. Brought up as a Hindu, educated by
a Hindu potentate, he has become so disgusted with the
so-called savama Hindus for the treatment that he and
his have received at their hands that he proposes to leave
not only them but the very religion that is his and their
common heritage. He has transferred to that religion his
disgust against a part of its professors.
 318 HINDU DHABXIA

” • But this is not to be wondered at. After all one can

ohly judge a system or an institution by the conduct of
its representatives. What is more, Dr. Ambedkar found
that the vast majority of savarna Hindus had not only
conducted themselves inhumanly against those of their
fellow religionists whom they classed as untouchables,
but they had based their conduct on the authority of their
scriptures, and when he began to search them he had
found ample warrant for their belief in untouchability
and all its implications. The author of the address has
quoted chapter and verse in proof of his threefold indict¬
ment— inhuman conduct itself, the unabashed justifica¬
tion for it on the part of the perpetrators, and the subse¬
quent discovery that the justification was warranted by
their scriptures.
Harijan, ll-7-’36

* « *

In my opinion the profound mistake that Dr. Ambed¬

kar has made in his address is to pick out the texts of
doubtful authenticity and value, and the state of degraded
Hindus who are no fit specimens of the faith they so woe¬
fully misrepresent. Judged by the standard applied by
Dr. Ambedkar, every known living faith will probably
fail.
In his able address, the leeumed Doctor has over¬
proved his case. Can a religion that was professed by
Chaitanya, Jnyanadeva, Tukaram, Tiruvalluvar, Rama-
krishna Paramahamsa, Raja Rammohan Roy, Maharshi
Devendranath Tagore, Vivekananda and a host of others
who might be easily mentioned, be so utterly devoid of
merit as is made out in Dr. Ambedkar's address ? A
religion has to be judged not by its worst specimens but
by the best it might have produced. For that and that
alone can be used as the standard to aspire to, if not to
improve upon.
Harijan, 18-7-*36
 177
FOR HINDUS ONLY
Untouchability is the sin of the Hindus. They must
suffer for it, they must purify themselves, they must pay
the debt they owe to their suppressed brothers and sisters.
Theirs is the shame and theirs must be the glory when
they have purged themselves of the black sin. The silent
loving suffering of one single pure Hindu as such will be
enough to melt the hearts of millions of Hindus; but the
sufferings of thousands of non-Hindus on behalf of the
‘ untouchables ’ will leave the Hindus unmoved. Their
blind eyes will not be opened by outside interference, how¬
ever well-intentioned and generous it may be; fbr it will
not bring home to them the sense of guUt. On the con¬
trary, they would probably hug the sin all the more for
such interference. All reform to be sincere and lasting
must come from within.
Young India, l-5**24

178
HOW TO FRATERNIZE THE HARIJANS
How is this blot on Hinduism to be removed ?
It is necessary for us Hindus to repent of the wrong
we have done, to alter our behaviour towards those whom
we have ‘ suppressed ’ by a system as devilish as we be¬
lieve the English system of the Government of India to be.
We must not throw a few miserable schools at them : we
must not adopt the air of superiority towards them. We
must treat them as our blood-brothers as they are in fact.
We must return to them the inheritance of which we have
robbed them. And this must not be the act of a few
English-knowing reformers merely, but it must be a con¬
scious voluntary effort on the part of the masses. We
may not wait till eternity for this mdch-belated reforma¬
tion. We must aim at bringing it about within this year
of grace, probation, preparation, and tapasya. It is a
reform not to follow Swaraj but to precede it.
Young India,

319
 179
UNTOUCHABILITY AND INTERDINING
[The following are extracts from a free rendering of Gandhiji's
speech at the Untouchability Conference held at Belgaum during the
Congress Week:]

I do not regard interdining and intermarriage as

essential to the removal of untouchability. The religion to
which I belong prescribes for our observance Maryada
Dharma. The rishis of old carried on exhaustive re¬
searches through meditation, and as a result of the
researches they discovered some great truths, such as
have no parallel perhaps in any other religion. One of
these was that they regarded certain kinds of foods as
injurious for the spiritual wellbeing of man. So they
interdicted their use. Now suppose someone had to travel
abroad and live among strange people with different cus¬
toms and standards as regards their diet. Knowing as
they did how compelling sometimes the force of social
customs of the people among whom men lived was, they
promulgated Maryada Dharma to help one in such emer¬
gencies. Though, however, I believe in Maryada Dharmay
I do not regard it as an essential part of Hinduism. I can
even conceive a time when these restrictions might be
abolished with impunity. But the reform contemplated
in the untouchability movement does not obliterate the
restriction as to interdining and intermarrying. I cannot
recommend wholesale abolition of these restrictions to the
public, even at the risk of being charged with hypocrisy
and inconsistency. For instance, I let my son dine freely
in Mussulman households because I believe he can take
sufficient care as to what to take and what not to take. I
myself have no scruples in taking my food in Mussulman
households because I have my own strict rules about my
diet.
I have dwelt on this point at such great length,
because I want to be absolutely plain with you
320
 UNTOUCHABILITY AND INTERDINING 321

(‘ untouchables ’). I do not want to employ diplomacy in

my dealings with you or for that matter with any one. I do
not want to keep you under any false illusion or win your
support by holding out temptations.
The only means open to me are those of ahimsa and
truth. I have adopted an ‘ untouchable ’ child as my own.
I confess I have not been able to convert my wife complete¬
ly to my view. She cannot bring herself to love her as I
do. But I cannot convert my wife by anger; I can do so
only by love. If any of my people have done you wrong,
I ask your forgiveness for it. Some members of the
' untouchable ’ class said when I was at Poona that they
would resort to force if the Hindus did not alter their
attitude towards them. Can untouchability be removed
by force ? Can the amelioration of the ‘ untouchables ’
come through these niethods? The only way by which
you and I can wean orthodox Hindus from their bigotry
is by patient argument and correct conduct. So long as
they are not converted, I can only ask you to put up with
your lot with patience. I am willing to stand by you and
share your sufferings with you. You must have the right
of worship in any temple in which members of other
castes are admitted. You must have admission to schools
along with the children of other castes without any dis¬
tinction. You must be eligible to the highest office in the
land not excluding even that of the Viceroy’s. That is
my definition of the removal of untouchability.
But I can help 3mu in this only by following the way
indicated by my religion and not by following Western
methods. For that way I cannot save Hinduism. Yours
is a sacred cause. Can one serve a sacred cause by adopt¬
ing Satan’s methods ? I pray 3^u, therefore, to dismiss
from your mind the idea of ameliorating your condition
by brute force. The Gita tells us that by sincerely medi¬
tating on Him in one’s heart, one can attain moksha.
Meditation is waiting on God. If waiting on God brings
the highest bliss of salvation, how much quicker must it
bring removal of untouchability ? Waiting on God means
increasing purity. Let us by prayer purify our^lves and
21
 322 HINDU DHAKMA

we shall not only remove untouchability but shall also

hasten the advent of Swaraj.
Young India, 22-l-*25

180
CASTE V. CLASS
Man being a social being has to devise some method
of social organization. We in India have evolved caste:
they in Europe have organized class. Neither has the
solidarity and naturalness of a family which perhaps is a
God-ordained institution. If caste has produced certain
evils, class has not been productive of anything less.
If class helps to conserve certain social virtues, caste
does the same in equal, if not greater, degree. The beauty
of the caste system is that it does not base itself upon
distinctions of wealth possessions. Money, as history has
proved, is the greatest disruptive force in the world. Even
the sacredness of family ties is not safe against the pollu¬
tion of wealth,— says Shankaracharya. Caste is but an
extension of the principle of the family. Both are govern¬
ed by blood and heredity. Western scientists are busy
trying to prove that heredity is an illusion and that
milieu is everything. The solid experience of many lands
goes against the conclusion of these scientists; but even
accepting their doctrine of milieu, it is easy to prove that
milieu can be conserved and developed more through
caste than through class. The Anglo-Saxon is tempera¬
mentally incapable of appreciating any outlook but his
own. One can understand his violent opposition to
everything that goes against his grain. But Indians, whe¬
ther Hindus or Christians, ought to be able to see that
the spirit behind caste is not one of arrogant superiority;
it is the classification of different systems of self-culture.
It is the best possible adjustment of social stability and
progress. Just as the spirit of the family is inclusive of
those who love each other and are wedded to each other by
ties of blood and relation, caste also tries to include
families of a particular way of purity of life (not standard
 CASTE V. CLASS 323
Of life, meaning by this term, economic standard of life).
Only it does not leave the decision, whether a particular
'■"family belongs to a particular type, to the idiosyncracies
or interested judgement of a few individuals. It trusts to
the principle of heredity, and being only a system of cul¬
ture does not hold that any injustice is done if an indivi¬
dual or a family has to remain in a particular group in
spite of their decision to change their mode of life for
the better. As we all know, change comes very slowly
in social life, and thus, as a matter of fact, caste has allow¬
ed new groupings to suit the changes in lives. But these
changes are quiet and easy as a change in the shapes of
the clouds. It is difficult to imagine a better harmonious
human adjustment.
Caste does not connote superiority or inferiority. It
simply recognizes different outlooks and corresponding
modes of life. But it is no use denying the fact that a
sort of hierarchy has been evolved in the caste-system,
but it cannot be called the creation of the brahmanas.
When all castes accept a common goal of life a hierarchy
is inevitable, because all castes cannot realize the ideal
in equal degree. If all the castes belie'v-e that vegetarian
diet is superior to animal diet, the vegetarian caste will
naturally be looked up to. There are certain sub-castes
in India that have ever stood on a par with each other, and
yet have not interdined or intermarried. Just as a Hindu
or a Mohammedan does not think himself an inferior of
the other because of his differences of faith, or just as a
brahmana or a lingayat in Southern India mutually re¬
fuse to interdrink, all castes can confine their food and
drink to their own caste. Only by accepting the standard
of the brahmana or the Vaishnavas as the best, have the
other castes consented to dine at the hands of the ‘ purer'
castes.
Touch, drink, food and marriage are progressively
private affairs. But by refusing to touch a man, you
practically refuse all intercourse with him. He is thus
denied all the fruits of social development. The touchables,
for instance, can all attend the kathas, the kirtans
 324 HINDU DHAKMA

(religious sermons). They can enter temples and thus

get the jree education of religion; rituals and arts. In the
temple, all the touchables exchange their love and serviceT
and the fruits of civilization. The ‘ untouchables ’ are
automatically barred from all that. In many places being
required to live outside the village, they are deprived of
even the protection of their life and property. In the social
division of labour they do the utmost and one of the most
important duties to society, and they are deprived of the
fruits of the great social life which is evolved by the family
of castes. Untouchability has made the ‘ depressed ’
classes, the Cinderella of Hindu society. The question of
food and drink has or ought to have no social value. It is
merely the satisfaction of physical wants. It is, on the
other hand, an opportunity for the control of the senses.
Interdining heis never been known to promote brother¬
hood in any special sense. But the restraints about in¬
terdining have to a great extent helped the cultivation of
will-power and conservation of certain social virtues.
Young India^ 29-12-'20

181
TEMPLE-ENTRY
It was in last September that leading Hindus, claim¬
ing to represent the whole of Hindu India, met together
and unanimously passed a resolution, condemning un¬
touchability and pledging themselves to abolish it by law,
if possible even during the existing regime, and, failing
that, when India had a Parliament of her own.
Among the marks of untouchability to be removed
was the prohibition against temple-entry by Harijans.
In the course of the struggle, it was discovered that the
British Courts in India had recognized this evil custom, so
much so that certain acts done by ‘ untouchables ’ as such
came to be offences imder the British Indian Penal Code.
Thus, the entry by an ‘untouchable ’ into a Hindu temple
would be punishable as a crime under the I.P.C.
 TEMPLE-ENTRY 325
Before, therefore, the movement of temple-entry can
make headway, it has become imperative to have this
anomaly removed. It is for this purpose that Sjt. Ranga
Iyer has given notice of two Bills to be introduced in the
Central Legislature. After ascertaining the opinion of the
Provincial Governments, H. E. the Viceroy has sanctioned
the introduction of these Bills. But, being private Bills,
they have a poor chance of becoming the law of the land,
unless the Government and the members of the Assembly
refrain from obstructing its consideration. It may be
argued that, being pledged to neutrality in matters of reli¬
gion, the Government are bound to facilitate the passage
of the first Bill at any rate, inasmuch as it merely seeks
to undo the effect produced by the decisions of British
Indian Courts, and this it does by withdrawing legal re¬
cognition from untouchability.

There are practices in various religions professed by

the inhabitants of this land whose breach is not regarded
as criminal, though it would be regarded as very serious
by the respective religious codes. Thus beef-eating by a
Hindu is an offence in the eye of the Hindu religious code,
but rightly not punishable as a crime under the Indian
Penal Code. Is there, then, any reason why the common
law of India should punish a breach of the custom of un¬
touchability ? If there are many Hindus learned in the
Hindu scriptures who find support in them for the present
practice of untouchability, there are quite a number of
equally learned Hindus holding the opposite view. Though
this opinion of the pandits has already appeared in the
Press, it is reproduced elsewhere for ready reference. Let
it be noted that the signatories are all orthodox Hindus,
as much lovers of their faith as are the learned men of the
opposite school. On the 25th of January 1933 was held
the session of the All-India Sanatana Dharma Sabha, pre¬
sided over by Pandit Malaviyaji and attended by over one
hundred learned men. It passed a resolution to the effect
that Harijans were as much entitled to temple-entry as
the rest of the Hindus.
 326 HINDU DHARMA

If the Bills are not passed, it is obvious that the cen¬

tral part of the reform will be hung up almost indefinitely.
Neutrality in matters of religion ought not to mean reli¬
gious stagnation and hindrance to reform.
With due regard to the Sanatanists, it is difficult to
understand the cry of ‘ religion in danger Under nei¬
ther bill will a single temple be opened against the will
of the majority of temple-goers in question. The second
bill expressly says so. The first bill takes up a neutral
attitude. It does not help a Harijan to force his way into
a temple. The reformers do not seek to compel the oppo¬
nents to their will. They desire, by the fairest means
possible, to convert the majority or the minority, as the
case may be, to their view of untouchability.
It is said that the Harijans themselves do not want
temple-entry and that they want only betterment of their
economic and political condition. The reformer, too,
wants the latter, but he believes that this betterment will
be much quicker brought about, if religious equality is
attained. The reformer denies that the Harijans do not
want tepaple-entry. But it may be that they are so dis¬
gusted with caste Hindus and Hindu religion itself as to
want nothing from them. They may in sullen discontent
choose to remain outside the religious pale. Any penance
on the part of caste Hindus may be too late.
Nevertheless, the caste Hindus who recognize that
untouchability is a blot on Hinduism have to atone for
the sin of untouchability. Whether, therefore, Harijans
desire temple-entry or not, caste Hindus have to open
their temples to Harijans, precisely on the same terms
as other Hindus. For a caste Hindu with any sense of
honour, temple prohibition is a continuous breach of the
pledge taken at the Bombay meeting of September last.
Those, who gave their word to the world and to God that
they would have the temples opened for the Harijans,
have to sacrifice their all, If need be, for redeeming the
pledge. It may be that they did not represent the Hindu
mind. They have, then, to own defeat and do the proper
penance. Temple-entry is the one spiritual act that would
 WHT TBaiPLB-BSNTRT LEGISLATION T 327

constitute the message of freedom to the 'untouchables’

and assure them that they are not outcastes before God.
H^rijan, ll-2-’33

182
WHY TEMPLE-ENTRY LEGISLATION ?
There is a legal bar against temple-entry which can¬
not be removed by any agreement on the part of all the
Hindus combined. A legal bar can only be removed by
a legislative act. What an agreement amongst Hindus
can do is to move the Government to give effect to it as
was done in connection with the political part of the
Yeravda Pact. Those caste Hindus who strained them¬
selves to ensure recognition of the political part of the
Yeravda Pact are now doubly bound to give effect to the
other resolutions which were the direct and natural con¬
sequence of the Yeravda Pact; and since in the course of
complying with those resolutions it has been discovered
that there is a legal difficulty which was not foreseen then,
that difficulty has got to be removed at the earliest possi¬
ble moment. Hence the two Bills.
But, says Malaviyaji, temple-entry, the opening of
wells etc. had to be done by persuasion, not by compul¬
sion. I quite agree, but to remove a legal bar is not to dp
the desired thing by compulsion. There is the Madura
temple. If I am correctly informed, the trustees of that
temple are elected by the Hindu voters. They are pledged
to open the temple,, By an overwhelming majority, the
Hindu voters have desired the opening of the temple. But,
because of the legal bar, the trustees cannot oi)en the tem¬
ple to the Harijans. Will it be compulsion to have that
legal bar removed by law? I can cite several other in¬
stances where willing trustees of public temples are
powerless to give effect to the public demand and their
own wishes. I venture, therefore, to fiiink that there is
no escape from permissive and corrective legislation.
Harijan, 18-2-’33
 183
THE WRONG WAY
The following are extracts from a letter of a pi'ofessor
who claims to be a Sanatanist:
“I am an orthodox Sanatanist brahmana.Up till now, I
was also an opponent of temple-entry by Harijans, but my inner
voice today, all of a sudden, spoke to me that, unless the so-called
untouchables are given the right of having darshan of Patitpawa7i
Bhagwan in temples, Hinduism is doomed. Bitter experiences
of past months have compelled me to revolutionize my views
now.But, in order to persuade orthodox Sanatanists to
agree with me, 1 request you with all the emphasis at my com¬
mand to accept a condition that only those Harijans may be
freely allowed to enter a temple who have taken a solemn vow
to bathe daily, to wear clean clothes, and to discard beef and
carrion. Poor Sanatanists are also not to be blamed. It is these
unclean habits that are really responsible for the practice of
untouchability itself. Harijans are themselves to be blamed to
a great extent for the disabilities under which they are groan¬
ing. To ask Sanatanists to allow Harijans to enter temples
without, at the same time, rebuking them for their evil habits
is, I fear, tantamount to putting a premium on them (habits).
" So I entreat you to accept my suggestion, and I assure you
that I shall leave no stone unturned to see that it is consented
to by my orthodox Sanatanist friends too. I will also carry on
intense propaganda in its favour, and I am confident by grace of
Providence I will attain success.”
The position taken up by the professor is typical. It
is, therefore, necessary to show the fallacy underlying it.
Whilst I appreciate the conversion of the writer on the
temple-entry question, I cannot help saying that the con¬
dition he seeks to impose upon the Harijans will frustrate
the very end he has in view. He forgets that caste-
Hindus are responsible for the present condition of the
Harijans. We have, therefore, to receive them as they
are and have faith that our contact and love will, if we
are true, make them shed all those habits that may be
repugnant to decent society. To blame the Harijans for
their present condition is like a slave-holder blaming his
slave for the misery and squedor the latter may be living
328
 THE WRONG WAY 329
in. We would ridicule the slave-holder, perhaps even
accuse him of insincerity, if he made the removal of
squalor by the slave as a condition precedent to the grant
of freedom. It should also be borne in mind that the
Harijans will enter temples subject to the same condition
that is applicable to the rest of the Hindus. Nature has
not made of Harijans a separate species distinguished
from caste-Hindus by definite unmistakable signs. Hun¬
dreds, if not thousands, of Harijans enter temples without
being detected. The studies of Census reports published
in these columns must make it clear to anybody that those
who were not classified as ' untouchables' must have en¬
tered temples without let or hindrance. The mere fact of
a new enumeration, for the first time including certain
classes and excluding certain other classes from the
Harijan list, surely cannot ^be used as any test of
untouchability or touchability. Only Hindus can claim
no merit for the undetected entry of the so-called
State-made untouchables into temples. What is now
claimed is that caste-Hindus should seek merit, in other
words, purify themselves, by deliberately banishing un¬
touchability from their midst as a sin. I cannot repeat too
often that by untouchability I mean the thing as it is
practised today. Let the professor and those who think
like him remember that the reform the anti-untouchability
campaign stands for is no mere make-shift for placating
Harijans. It stands for a fundamental change in Hindu
practice, it stands for the total abolition of the practice
of high-and-lowness that has crept into Hinduism iii spite
of its lofty and unequivocal declaration that all life is one
and that differentiation is maya, is false. Practice of
equal treatment of all human beings should be the least
direct outcome of that belief not reserved for sannyasis
but for the ordinary man in his ordinary dealings with
fellowmen.
AarijaUt 15-7-’33
 184
GURUVAYUR SPEECH
Keenly and deeply as I feel the taint of untoucha-
bility, and deeply as I feel convinced that, if this un-
touchability is not removed root and branch from
Hinduism, Hinduism is bound to perish, I would not have
untouchability removed by force or show of force or com¬
pulsion of any kind whatsoever. Removal of untouch¬
ability is not a matter of law or of compulsion. Removal
of untouchability is a matter of change of heart, perfect
purification on the part of millions of Hindus. And that
can only be brought about by the sacrifice of thousands of
workers themselves, and not by causing injury to other
people. Hence has every scripture that I have read •pro¬
nounced from the housetops that religion can only be
defended by tapashcharya. I will, therefore, beseech
every one of you, who crowd round me wherever I go, to
remember that this movement is a movement of personal,
individual self-purification and self-conviction. And if
you cannot approach this question from that point of
view, I would far rather that I was deserted by you and
that all the meetings were deserted by you. And if any
man or woman is eager to come and listen to me or to
give me an ounce of milk, he or she should do so, pro¬
vided he or she has got that complete identification with
the cause and a perfect spirit of self-purification.
Having said this and having made this declaration of
my faith under the shadow of the great temple of Guru-
va5nir, I would like to make this appeal from the bottom
-of my heart to those who are organizing the activities of
the Varnashrama Swarajya Sangh, and kindred bodies
also, to understand that they will not defend what they
call Sanatana Dharma by staging demonstrations of the
character that they have been doing. They sent a body
of men throughout the tour in C. P. who wanted to fall
prostrate before the car and impede my progress at every
330
 GURUVAYUR SPEECH 331
Stage. There were often clashes between volunteers who
were looking after me and this body of six or seven young
men. Fortunately, no serious or imtoward event hap¬
pened, though scratches certainly were inflicted on either
side even during the C. P. tour. I quickly made friends
with those people who were staging those«. obstructive
demonstrations and told them as earnestly as I could that
that was not the way to protect Hinduism. Some of them
were youngsters who did not even know what they were
doing. With the exception of one, I doubt if any of them
had any idea of the elements of Hinduism. And I had
hoped here also that, if there were such men who wanted
to stage demonstrations, I should come in touch with
them, discuss with them, understand them and know who
they were. But I was sorry that hardly had I put my foot
in Malabar when I was faced with the scene that I wit¬
nessed here. It would have been better if I had been
able to make their acquaintance before and ascertained
what they wanted to do. But they chose to take a dif¬
ferent course. I still invite them to meet me and teU me
, what they would exactly want me to do; and, short of
stopping this tour, I would make every facility for them,
and every convenience for them to express their thoughts
or even to make whatever peaceful demonstrations that
they might want to stage. But what I am most anxious
to avoid is goondaism in every shape and form on the part
of either party. I give the same credit to those who call
themselves Sanatanists for honesty of purpose that I
would claim for myself, but both must have an equal right
to give expression to their views and mould public opi¬
nion, After all, Sanatana Dharma is not the prerogative
of one set of people. I claim myself to be a representative
of Sanatana Dharma in every sense of the term that they
claim. I base my vehement opposition to untouchability
upon the same shastras by which they swear, and I should
stand by my interpretation of the shastras even though I
were the solitary one amongst the millions of Hindus; be¬
cause the same shastras tell me that I may not resist the
inner call of my fundamental being. Thank God, however.
 332 HINDU DHARMA

that I do not stand alone in the interpretation that

I have been placing before you. On the contrary, there
are learned shastris who have just as much right to in¬
terpret the shastras as those who call themselves the ex¬
ponents of Sanatana Dharma. And they give precisely
the same interpretation that I have placed before tens of
thousands of men and women. And it is my settled con¬
viction, based upon an unbroken experience extending
over a period of nearly fifty years, that untouchability as
we practise it today has absolutely no warrant whatso¬
ever in the Hindu shastras.
Harijan, 26-l-’34

185
RIGHT OF MINORITY
A Sanatanist asks:
“ As a Sanatanist I have a difficulty about temple-entrj- by
Harljans. Supposing among temple-goers of a particular temple
there is a majority of 99 to 1 in favour of Harijans entering
the temple and the temple is opened. What about the minority
of one who has objection to worshipping in a temple visited
by Harijans ? If reformers have their way, will It not be an
undue interference with the right of worship which belongs tO'
the Sanatanists from time immemorial ?
" There may be a public Church of the Roman Catholics as
well as a public Church of Protestants in an English town.
Even if the Protestants be in a majority, they would not inter¬
fere with the conduct of affairs in the Roman Catholic Church.
Why, then, should the reformers (even though In the majorltyV
interfere with the conduct of affairs in a public temple belonging
to the Sanatanists ? ”
I should answer the questions by putting another. If
the one solitary Sanatanist has the right, as he undoubted¬
ly has, what about the majority ? Have they no rights ?
The parallel quoted does not apply. The questioner has
imagined the existence side by side of two churches be¬
longing to different denominations. It would be a mon¬
strous impertinence on the part of Protestants to interfere
with the rights of Roman Catholics or vice versa. But
 RIGHT OP MINORITY 333
suppose all the Protestants but one decided to admit to
their temple persons whom they had excommunicated for
ages. Surely, they would have every right to lift the ban.
Here there would be no question of changing one’s reli¬
gion, as there is in the case imagined by the questioner.
In the temple-entry movement, reformers do not seek to
alter their faith. If they did, in theory at least, not even
a unanimous decision of temple-goers of a temple should
entitle them to use a temple^for purposes never intended
by the founders. Here the reformers claim that the faith
they profess in common with the Sanatanists permits the
use of their temples by fellow-Hindus, the Harijans. It
is, therefore, a question of interpretation, and in such mat¬
ters, the opinion of a majority must prevail. If it did
not, it would amount to the coercion of a majority by a
minority, and there would be an end to all progress.
Indeed, the doctrine the questioner propounds would mean
decay and death to a society that subscribes to it. It
should be remembered that the minority is free to build
a temple for itself. And so far as I am concerned, I have
given my opinion that even a minority of one should have
its prejudices so far respected that a special hpur may be
set apart so as to enable it to offer worship free from the
intrusion, whether of reformers or of Harijans.
Harijan, 9-H-’34
 186
TEMPLE-ENTRY
The reader will recall the important resolution on
temple-entry passed recently by the Harijan Sevak Sangh.
The local Sanghs should make a sustained effort to have
the existing temples thrown open and even to build new
ones, not for Harijans only^but for all. If they are situa¬
ted in healthy localities and have a school, a meeting place
and a dharmashala attached to them, they must prove use¬
ful and popular among all classes of Hindus. There may
be public prayers held there every evening or at stated
periods and religious discourses may be occasionally
arranged. If these temples are properly conducted, they
would go a long way towards removing the prejudice
against the opening of existing temples to Harijans. Care
must be taken, where temples are opened to Harijans,
that no discrimination is made against them. They must
be opened on precisely the same terms as they are opened
to the other Hindus.
It is hardly necessary to state that in different locali¬
ties different methods may be adopted for securing the
desired end. Perfect non-violence must of course be main¬
tained in all cases. An all-India simultaneous movement
of the same type is not contemplated. It will vary in in¬
tensity and method according to the circumstances in each
locality. Nowhere should temples be opened where there
IS an active minority opposed to the opening. Practical
unanimity should be secured before any temple is opened.
Thus what is required is sustained effort to convert local
public opinion in favour of temple-entry.
HaHjan, 28-3-’3e

334
 187
AN EXAMPLE FOR HINDU PRINCES
The Travancore Durbar have earned the congratula¬
tions of the whcJfe Hindu world, and aU thoughtful men,
by issuing the following Proclamation :
“ Profoundly convinced of the truth and validity of our reli¬
gion, believing that it is based on divine guidance and on all-
comprehending toleration, knowing that In Its practice it has
throughout the centuries adapted itself to the need of the chan¬
ging times, solicitous that none of our Hindu subjects should,
by reason of birth, caste or community, be denied the consolation
and solace of the Hindu faith, we have decided and hereby de¬
clare, ordain and command that, subject to such rules and con¬
ditions as may be laid down and imposed by us for preserving
their proper atmosphere and maintaining their rituals and
observances, there should henceforth be no restriction placed
on any Hindu by birth or religion on entering or worshipping
at temples controlled by us and our Government.”
The action has been long overdue. But better late
than never.
Let us hope that no attempt will be made to whittle
away the hard-earned freedom of Harijans by hedging it
round by any the least distinction between one Hindu and
another. If the Proclamation means anything it means
that in the temples conducted under the State aegis Hari¬
jans will offer worship precisely on the same terms as the
highest caste Hindu so-called. In other words, in the
house of God in Travancore henceforth there will be no
distinction between man and man, there will be no Hari-
jan and no high caste, all will be Hari-jans — children Of
God. If these are not the implications of the great Procla¬
mation,, it is nothing but a mere scrap of paper. But we
have no reason to doubt its sincerity or suspect any men¬
tal reservations.
Travancore has a large and important Christian com¬
munity. Christian missions are flirting with Harijans,
rightly no doubt from their own standpoint, they are
spending money on them emd holding out hope of real
freedom and equality of social status. It is beside the
335
 336 HINDU DHARMA

present discussion that for Harijans there is no social

equality, no real freedom anywhere except when it is first
obtained in Hinduism. I am not thinking of individuals.
I am thinking of the whole mass. The latter are so inter¬
twined with the other Hindus that ufiless they become
brothers with them instead of remaining serfs, which they
are, no change of label can avail anything. But this apart,
let us realize that the working of the Proclamation will
be narrowly watched and criticized by the sister commu¬
nities. It therefore behoves the State authorities as well
as the caste Hindus to give full effect to the letter and the
spirit of the Proclamation.
The main duty of working the Proclamation, how¬
ever, devolves in a way upon the reformers and Harijans.
They should avail themselves of the freedom in a reli¬
gious, becoming and humble spirit. Reformers should see
to it that Harijans enter these temples after proper ablu¬
tions and in a clean condition. I know that this primary
rule is observed more in the breach than in the perform¬
ance by the vast majority of temple-going caste Hindus,
Harijans may not copy the bad manners of caste Hindus.
They should take pride in setting a good example in clean¬
liness both of body and heart.
The Proclamation should have no political signi¬
ficance, as it has none. I regard it as the performance of
a purely religious duty of the State. And it should be
so taken and so treated by all the Hindus of the State. To
give it any other colour will be to destroy its great
Spiritual purpose and effect.
Let us hope that the example of Travancore will prove
infectious and all the other Hindu States will follow suit.
There is no reason why they should not. It is the privilege
and duty of a Hindu prince to propound religious codes
which are not-inconsistent with the fundamental princi¬
ples of Hinduism as derived from the Vedas and which
are demanded by the spirit of the times. This" must be
true of all the progressive and living religions. This rule
accounts for apparent inconsistencies of the different
S’qiritis and also obvious departures from the original
 THE PANDAUU SPEECH 337
tenets, as even a careless student will detect even in the
same Smriti. If the Hindu princes do not perform this
primary function, it is not so much their fault as of the
lost brahmanhood. If the brahmanical spirit was restored,
princes would be rishis, who would take from the revenues
the honest minimum necessary to support them as a com¬
mission for their labours on behalf of the ryots, and hold
their revenues in trust for the ryots. They would not
have private property as they possess today and feel in¬
dependent of their ryots and their wishes.
But whether we reach the ideal state outlined here
during the pifesent generation or ever, surely there is
nothing to prevent the Hindu princes from following
the example set by Travancore and thus hastening the
day of the total removal of untouchability from Hinduism,
and helping to save it from certain destruction. I would
advise the responsible Hindus in every Hindu State to'
approach their princes and their advisers to initiate the
overdue reform.
BaHjan, 21-ll-’36

188
THE PANDALAI SPEECH
An Appeal to Their Highnesses
Great as this Proclamation is and great as is its reli¬
gious merit, greater still is the responsibility that His
Highness has taken upon his shoulders, and so also his
advisers. Whilst without the effort of every savama
Hindu the Proclamation can undoubtedly be rendered in¬
effective, I must also say that the Procleimation would not
have its full effect unless it is backed in an ample measure
by State action. So far as I can see the Proclamation
demands State activities in all departments of life. Of
these I propose to take the religious first; because from
it must follow activities in all the other departments.
Temples have been matters of indifference, except to
22
 338 HINDU DHARMA

women, who have no capital save divine faith, and to>

men who from many mixed motives have been going to-
them. They have been neglected by what may be called
the intelligentsia. The result has been that they have
almost ceased to be repositories of Hinduism and have
ceased to impart spiritual power to those who have follow¬
ed the faith. They have ceased to shed unmistakable
spiritual fragrance in and about and around them. Then,
I venture to suggest that it is the duty of the State,— or
of the Maharajah, if there is any distinction between the
two, for he is the custodian of the vast majority of Hindu
temples—,that he should see to it that the temples are
renovated spiritually, and have the authority and sanctity
that they used undoubtedly to have at one time. And I
believe that it can only be done if they are in charge of
priests who know what they have to do, who know some¬
thing of the sanctity of them, and of the duties to which
they are called. In other words, they should not be igno¬
rant people following their calling for a livelihood, but
they should be men who are proud of their privilege of
bringing the message of God to temple-goers, showing by
their own conduct and their life that these temples are-
abodes of Divinity.
Then there should be the correct kind of instruction
given in these temples. The Harijans will be taken by
the hand by someone in charge of temples and they will
be told what they are expected to gain by temple-worship.
This means undoubtedly, according to modem thought, a
revolution in the upkeep and conduct of these temples.
But the Proclamation itself is nothing short of a revo¬
lutionary document, and if that revolution is to touch, as
it ought to touch, the lives of all Hindus, naturally temples
have to be abodes of the living God, and not abodes of a
mere mass of gold or other metals worked into figures.
Then I should expect a history of these temples, under¬
standable by the common folk, to be distributed freely or
at a cheap price to all who want to know what these tem¬
ples are. That means a training school for training the
right kind of teachers who will be entrusted with the
 THE PANDALAI SPEECH 339
religious training of the people. If some such thing does not
happen, I fear that the purpose of the Proclamation, viz.
to expect and to induce lakhs and lakhs of Harijans to go
to these temples in a religious spirit, will fail.
So much for the religious department. Then I take
the economic. The economic life of the Harijans has got
to be lifted out of its miserable state. I venture to think
that by a judicious and thoughtful working out of the
programme, it can be prosecuted in a short time and with
a limited financial outlay, in such a manner that Harijans
may be easily able to hold their own by being taught to
turn an honest chakram. Nor can the State now dare
neglect the mental training — I mean literary — of these
people. I know to my cost that today it is very difficult
to carry on a connected conversation with Pulayas and
Pariahs so that you can get a ready response even about
simple facts of life.
Similarly, the State has to raise the social status of
these people. They should be invited to all State occa¬
sions and functions, as for instance Durbars. They must
not be allowed to feel that these functions are a sealed
book to them, and that they should have to have another
agitation before they can attain a social status entitling
them to be invited or allowed to take part in those func¬
tions. But if the Proclamation bears the meaning I have
given to it, then the social uplift of the Harijans has to
come as if by magic, as the religious status of going to
the temples has come.
In my humble opinion, in suggesting this four-fold
programme of the uplift of the Harijans in the State I
have not suggested any programme beyond the capacity
or resources of a State like Travancore.
But having addressed these few words to the State
in all humility, I want to come back to you. The State
may resolve to do all these things, but its resolution will
not mean the coming in of man-power in order to carry
out all these things. And if, from the few words I have
addressed to Their Highnesses and their advisers, you
think that after all it is Their Highnesses who have to do
 340 HINDU DHARMA

everything and you have to do nothing, then I am afraid

that my labours will have gone in vain. The requisite
man-power has got to be supphed by you, and as a mem
of experience I will tell you that man-power cannot come
by offers of money. Thus, for instance, men who are
capable of taking the management of temples cannot be
had by offering scholarships of hundreds of rupees. For
such people have got to be fired by a religious spirit, by
love of their own work, and should therefore be ready to
work for a bare maintenance. It should be their proud
privilege to take this training' and to fit themselves for
this highest task in life. Similarly, imless the State gets
men required for giving Harijans educational training, the
State can do nothing.
After all, there is a world of meaning about the title
that the Maharajahs of Travancore have adopted for
themselves, viz. Padmanabha-dasa. They pride them-
. selves in calling themselves servants of God, but that
means that they are also servants of their people. So,
as I said at one of these meetings, the Maharajahs are not
the first lords among the people of Travancore, but they
are the first servants among the people who are also ser¬
vants. But the first servants of the people will fare badly
unless they are ably assisted by the people who are their
fellow servants. Therefore, the meaning of His Highness
the Maharajah going to the temple every day and taking
Instructions as to his daily duties from Shri Padmanabha-
swami means nothing less than that he should be assisted
by his people for their own good — spiritual, religious,
social, economic.
Harijan, 6-2-*37
 189
THE VITHOBA TEMPLE
A telegram to Gandhiji stated that although the
trustees of the Vithoba temple of Pandharpur in Maha¬
rashtra had decided to throw it open to the Harijans, some
members of the priestly class — whose number was by no
means small — had taken exception and had even started
a hunger strike in protest. He would tell these friends,
remarked Gandhiji, that theirs was a very unbecoming
attitude. It was un-Hindu. The Vithoba temple was
one of the most sacred shrines in Maharashtra. The deci¬
sion to throw it open had been taken by the trustees after
due deliberation. Nobody had opposed it then. If his
voice could reach the hunger strikers, he would tell them
in all humility but with firmness that by what they were
doing they* were ill-serving Hinduism.' In the all-em¬
bracing shrine of Vishnu there was room for all. Even
the impure became pure in His sacred presence. How
could the admission of the Harijans defile it ? In his opi¬
nion it was a blasphemy to regard the Harijans as impure.
There were black sheep and white in all communities and
it was just the same with the Harijans. So long as a
single Hindu, irrespective of his caste or creed, was
excluded from the Vithoba temple, it was an inert, lifeless
shrine. The real pranapratishtha was performed only
when the temple was thrown open to all — including the
Harijans. The present hunger strike by the priestly
class, therefore, said Gandhiji, was not a pious act, but
an impious one — it was a sin. Gandhiji hoped that they
would realize their mistake and give up their hunger
strike.
Harijan, ll-l-’48

341
 190
PROM THE VAIKOM SPEECH
A Historical Fact
Some of you may remember that I had more than
one serious discussion with the shastris who were residing
within this temple precincts, and who were attached, if I
remember rightly, to the temple. In support of the pro¬
position that even roads leading to temples were barred
against avama Hindus although they were not barred
against non-Hindus, they produced a book called Shan-
karasmriti. I had never heard of such a Smriti before
I came to Vaikom and heard it quoted. You will be as¬
tonished to know that when I had that Smriti translated
for me, I could not find in it any authority fbr closing the
roads. But I grant that it was enough for them that they
believed that the Shankarasmriti supported their conten¬
tion. Then, as I was negotiating through the then Com¬
missioner of Police and with the Senior Maharani, I just
asked the question that supposing as a result of the nego¬
tiations the Maharani issued orders to open the roads to
the avama Hindus, what would be their attitude to them ?
Then withoift the slightest hesitation they said : ‘ Oh !
that is a different thing altogether; a Hindu Prince or
Princess has every right to issue an order which has the
authority of a Smriti ! ’ They said that was implied in
Hinduism as Hindu kings are repositories of Hindu faith
and they have every right to issue orders which are not
inconsistent with Shruti. I asked them whether the same
thing applied to the opening of the temples. They said,
‘ Most decidedly.’ Let me tell you that these shastris
were not the only shastris that gave this reply. I asked
the same question to shastris in Cochin and Tamilnad
and they gave the same answer. As a matter of fact that
is the historical evolution of Smritis and for that matter
of the eighteen Puranas. They were all produced or
inspired in response to the want of those times. They do
342
 A TALK TO EZHAVAS IN TRAVANCORE 343
mot always express eternal verities. The eternal verity
is sununed up in the first verse of the Ishopanishad as I
Jiave been saying.
Harijan, 6-2-’37

191
A TALK TO EZHAVAS IN TRAVANCORE
“ Last time,” said Gandhiji, “ when I passed through
■Cochin and Travancore, I had the pleasure of meeting
several Ezhava friends. Many of them were very bitter
against Hinduism and Hindus. They took pride in saying
that they were atheists and no Hindus. They would glad¬
ly burn the books which passed under the name of Hindu
scriptures. I know that this Proclamation has steadied
these unbelievers. I sympathized with them at that
moment, as those who discussed with me will bear testi¬
mony. They could not help ‘ being bitter and atheistic
when they saw that it was the hand of savamas that was
held against them. They were bound to take the savama
belief and ptactices as an index of true Hindu belief and
practices. But now they know that the savama
heart is changed. In passing through Travancore I have
found no opposition among the savamas I have met during
this pilgrimage. I have not discovered any distinction
between man and man, and if these crowds contained
thousands of erstwhile untouchables, they also contained
thousands of so-called savamas. But assume for one
moment that the savama heart is not changed. Why
:should your religion depend upon their change of heart ?
One's religion ought to be totally independent of the con-
•duct of other people towards us. Our religion has its
source from God within. And if we will be true to our
■God, we will never forsake the faith we derive from Him.
With God as our Guide, Master, Ruler, in everything that
■we may do, we can defy the whole world’s opposition and
stick to our faith.”
Harijan, 6-2-’37 '
 192
THE INWARDNESS OF THE MOVEMENT'
[Addressing a public meeting at Nagpur on 8th November 1933,
Candhlji said:]
It is my certain conviction that, if the Hindu heart is'
completely purged of the taint of untouchability, the event
will have its inevitable influence not only upon all the
communities in India but on the whole world. This belief
is daily becoming stronger. I cannot remove from my heart
untouchability regarding several millions of human beings
and harbour it towards some other millions. The very
act of the Hindu heart getting rid of distinctions of high
and low must cure us of mutual jealousies and distrust of
and among other communities. It is for that reason that
I have staked my life on this issue. In fighting this battle
against untouchability, I am fighting for unity not only
among Hindu ‘touchables’ and Hindu ‘untouchables’"
but among Hindus, Muslims, Christians and all other
different religious communities. Do not for one moment
believe that I am interested in the numerical strength of
Hindus. I have never, throughout my life, laid stress
upon quantity. I have ever insisted upon quality at the
sacrifice of quantity. If I collected a million false coins
they would be a worthless burden to me. One true' coin
would be worth its value. A religion cannot be sustained
by the number of its lip followers denying in their lives
its tenets. This great Hindu religion itself will perish in
spite of its so-called millions of followers, if its votaries
persist in harbouring the evil of untouchability. Not
because ‘untouchables’ can be counted by the millions.
It would perish even if they were a handful. Milk is
jraisoned and has to be thrown away whether you put a
little or much arsenic in it.
Barijan, 17-ll-'33

344
 193
THE WIDER MESSAGE
[The following is from Gandhijl’s speech before the students of
the Union Christian College, Alwaye, on 17-l-’34:]
My message is exceedingly simple. It is no new truth
that has dawned upon me today. I have to the best of
my ability striven to live up to it for the past fifty years.
And the more I have succeeded in living up to it, the
greater has been my inward joy. Nor is it for the first
time that I am delivering this message to India. But
because of some incidents in the recent past, it comes ta
the people as a new thing. My message is simply this that
savama Hindus, who have been considering themselves
superior to those whom they have called untouchables,
unapproachables, invisibles, or avama Hindus, should
realize that this arrogation of superiority has no sanction
whatsoever in the shastras. If I discovered that those
scriptures which are known as the Vedas, the Upanishads,
the Bhagawadgita, the Smritis, etc., clearly showed that
they claimed divine authority for untouchability as I have
described it to you, then nothing on this earth would hold
me to Hinduism. I should throw it overboard as I should
throw overboard a rotten apple. My reason is offended,
and my heart is wounded at the very thought that God
Himself who has created both savama Hindus and avama
Hindus, should impose this bar sinister between His chil¬
dren. The very thought that the rishis, who gave the
Vedas and the Upanishads and who in every mantra that
they pronounced taught the unity of God, could ever con¬
ceive of any such thing as untouchability as it is practised
today in Hinduism must be repugnant to every intelligent
person. But prejudices and superstitions die hard. They
cloud the reason, befog the intellect and harden the
heart. And so you find learned men defending ^lis
untouchability.
But you, students, should know that behind this mes¬
sage there lurks also a much greater message. This
345
 346 HINDU DHARMA

:monster of untouchability has invaded eveiy form of

society in India ; and the idea behind this message is that
there should be not only no untouchability as between
Hindus and Hindus, but that there should be no untoucha¬
bility whatsoever between Hindus, Christians, Mussul¬
mans, Parsis eind the rest. I am convinced that if this
great change of heart can be brought about among millions
•of savarna Hindus, and if their hearts can be purified — as
certainly they will be purified — we should live in India
as one people trusting each other and without any mutual
distrust or suspicion. It is untouchability with all its
subtle forms that separates us from one another and makes
life itself unlovely and difficult to live.
Harijan, 26-l-*34

194
WHY NOT SIMPLE ‘ HINDU ’ ?
In the course of a letter a caste Hindu correspondent
writes:
these depressed classes are jBnally to be merged in the
Hindus, was it not better that Instead of * Harijans' they should
have been given the name ‘Hindus’ which would have applied
to both the caste Hindus and the depressed classes ? It Is still
time that the word Harijan is given up In favour of the Hindu,
so that the caste Hindus and the Hindu depressed classes are
known in common parley as well as in Government papers as
only Hindus.”
The correspondent is too late with his suggestion. If
R separate register of ‘ untouchable ’ classes had not come
to stay, at least for the time being, the common name
might have answered the purpose. But the separate
register makes it absolutely necessary to know the ‘un¬
touchable ’ classes by some name, and if such is the case,
wlw not give them a name that truly befits them and has
nonll-fiavour about it? I regard ‘Harijan’ as a fitting
name, because the caste Hindus cannot be properly consi-
4ered God’s children, but the ‘untouchables’ certainly
«an.
 WHY NOT SIMPLE * HINDU ’ ? 347
I have suggested the real method of abolishing the
•distinction between caste Hindus and Harijans, namely,
by caste Hindus performing the purification ceremony of
ridding themselves of imtouchability and becoming Hari¬
jans themselves. And if it was open to any one to be
classified as ‘ untouchables ’ in the register for ‘ untouch¬
ables I should most decidedly advise caste Hindus to
declare themselves as such and to live also as such. That
will be a substantial and organic method of amalgamating
the two into one body.
This is the proper place for referring to the same
suggestion made by a Harijan friend but from a different
standpoint. He says that the best way of getting rid of
untouchability is to advise Harijans to adopt names that
will never signify an ‘ untouchable ’ and to declare them¬
selves also as mere Hindus or as brahmanas, kshatriyas
or vaishyas. This suggestion was made to me even as
early as 1915 when I began the crusade against untouch-
ability. This Harijan had his own experiences and told
me that he had travelled from one end of India to the
•other, that he had freely entered all the principal places
•of pilgrimage without let or hindrance, and that he had
taken with him a party.
When he was introduced to me, I saw no mark about
"him of being a Harijan. He was dressed like a brahmana,
had a tilak on his forehead, a mala of tulsi or rudraksh —
I forget which — and his speech was that of an ordinary
Gujarati. He and his party took up their abode in
■dharmashalas and never had the slightest difficulty,
Tiaving unhesitatingly proclaimed themselves as belonging
to one vama or the other.
My visitor told me that this practice of ‘untouch¬
ables’ hiding their identity was quite a common thing
amongst them and that it was growing. He unfortunately
received no encouragement from me. I told him that that
practice might be convenient for him and the few who
could afford the means and had sufficient training to be
able to shed some of the habits which marked out an ‘ un¬
touchable ' from the rest, but that the practice of a few.
348 HINDU DHARMA

apart from its being dishonest, and, therefore, tending to

deterioration of manhood, would make no impression
upon the tens of thousands of ‘ untouchables ’ who could
not even stir out of their villages.
The reply that I then gave applies with equal force
even today. The straightest and the quickest method,
therefore, is to conduct the movement oi)enly, to know the
untouchables as such and yet for caste Hindus to treat
them on terms of absolute equahty with themselves ; and
as the movement has begun on a very large scale and the
declaration was made on behalf of caste Hindus in Sep¬
tember last that untouchability was gone, it surely be¬
came necessary to know ‘ untouchables ’ by an inoffensive
name whilst the process of amalgamation was going on.
‘ Harijan ’ in my opinion was the best name to know them,
by.
Harijan, ll-3-’33

195
TRUE INWARDNESS
An Arya Samajist writes a long letter in Hindi. Here
is the gist:
1. Should Harijans in order to rise in the social scale re¬
main Hindus or will it serve the same purpose if they became
' Christians or Mussulmans ?
2. Is not untouchability determined merely by the name of
the caste to which one may belong ?
3. If untouchability is to be removed from Hinduism, why
not invite untouchables to join the Arya Samaj ?
4. What is the speciality of Hinduism for which a Hindu
need cling to it?
In my opinion these questions betray the ignorance
of the questioner about the true scoi)e of the reform that
is being attempted. The pages of the Harijan make it
clear from week to week that it is the so-called higher
classes that have to reform themselves by getting rid of
untouchability, of high-and-lowness. It is they who have
to repent and puri^ themselves. They have to come in
 TRUE INWARDNESS 349
contact with Harijans not for the sake of the latter, not
as their patrons but for the sake of themselves and as
the servants of Harijans. Therefore the object is not
served by Harijans forsaking Hinduism.
And in my opinion religion is a much deeper thing
than the questioner would allow. It is not a matter of
convenience or of bettering one’s social or material condi¬
tion. People have been known to cling to their religion
although they have had to face social ostracism, material
ruin and much worse. One’s religion keeps one true in
the face of the greatest adversity. It is the sheet-anchor
of one’s hope in this world and even after. It binds one to
one% God, to Truth as to nothing else. Therefore, whilst
Harijans must know best what is good for them, I, in
their place, could not be satisfied by change of religion.
From the practical point of view they seem to me to be so
inextricably mixed up with the so-called higher classes
that the vast majority simply cannot help remaining
Hindus. It is this helplessness which lays a burden upon
' the higher classes ’ of doing the much belated reparation
by regarding them as respected members of the Hindu
family in spite of some of their habits. Indeed, whatever
is evil in their habits is due to the criminal neglect of * the
higher classes ’. The quickest way to remove the evil
is to remove untouchability and receive them, as they
are, as full-fledged Hindus.
The answer to the second question is in the affir¬
mative. That just shows how precarious untouchability
is. If the Harijans would conceal their caste name and
simply declare themselves as Hindus they will, as in many
cases they do, pass muster except in their immediate
neighbourhood. But from the standpoint that I have
suggested; such subterfuge can only protract the agony.
It cannot cure ‘ the high classes ’ of the taint of superio¬
rity and touch-me-not-ism.
As to the third question, what I have said above
makes it clear that the admission of Harijans to the Arya
Samaj does not solve the difficulty. The hearts of millions
of non-Arya-Samajists will not be touched by the Harijans'
 350 HINDU DHARMA

acceptance of the Ary a Seimaj. It is the ‘ superior ’ Hindu

heart that has to melt. It is the whole of Hinduism that
has to be purified and purged. What I am aiming at, what
I hope the Servants of the Untouchables Society is aiming
at, is the greatest reform of the age. That it may take time
to achieve it, does not much matter. The reform is assured,
if there are reformers enough who will not be baffled by
any difficulty and will not lower the flag on any account
whatsoever. They will not, if the conviction has gone
home that for Hinduism to live, untouchability has got
to go.
The fourth is an invidious question. Perhaps it is
also profitless. But I must answer it, if only to show
what I mean by religion. The closest, though very in¬
complete, analogy for religion I can find is marriage. It
is or used to be an indissoluble tie. Much more so is the
tie of religion. And just as a husband does not remain
faithful to his wife, or wife to her husband, because either
is conscious of some exclusive superiority of the other
over the rest of his or her sex but because of some inde¬
finable but irresistible attraction, so does one remain irre¬
sistibly faithful to one’s own religion and find full
satisfaction in such adhesion. And just as a faithful
husband does not need in order to sustain his faithfulness,
to consider other women as inferior to his wife, so does
not a person belonging to one religion need to consider
others to be inferior to his own. To pursue the analogy
still further, even as faithfulness to one’s wife does not
presuppose blindness to her shortcomings, so does not
faithfulness to one’s religion presuppose blindness to the
shortcomings of that religion. Indeed, faithfulness, not
blind adherence, demands a keener perception of short¬
comings &nd therefore a livelier sense of the prop^ remedy
for their removal. Taking the view I do of religion, it is un¬
necessary for me, to examine the beauties of Hinduism.
The reader may rest assured that I am not likely to remain
Hindu if I was not conscious of its many beauties. Only
for my purpose they need not be exclusive. My approach
to other religions, therefore, is never as a fault-finding-
 WHOSE IS THE HUMILIATION? 351
critic but as a devotee hoping to find the like beauties itn
other religions and wishing to incorporate in my own the
good I may find in them and miss in mine.
Harijan, 12-8-'33

196
WHOSE IS THE HUMILIATION ?
From a long letter of a worker among Harijans I
take the following paragraph :
" There Is a growing discontent on the part of educated.
Harijans to call themselves Hindus. Because if they say they
are Hindus, they have to disclose their caste also, and the in¬
feriority complex makes this unpleasant. They would rather
call themselves Christians than undergo humiliation by calling'
themselves Hindus. Why may we not then ask them to become-
Sikhs or Buddhists and end the humiliation ? For Sikhs and
Buddhists are as good as Hindus.’’
The correspondent gives up his case when he says
that Sikhs and Buddhists are as good as Hindus. For if
that is so, there is no occasion to prompt Harijans or
any one else in the direction*. Any Hindu is free to call
himself a follower of any of the innumerable Hindu sects
and yet remain Hindu. And why should a Hindu disclose
his caste if he does not want to or if he has renounced
caste ? Many Hindus do hot believe in caste. I have
endeavoured to show that caste is no part of Hinduism.
Varna is not caste, it is class. A man may call himself a
brahmana, i.e. a teacher of religion if he is one in fact;
or a kshatriya, i.e. a soldier if he is one ; or a vaishya, i.e.
a merchant or a farmer if he is that; or a shudra, i.e. an.
employee if he is one. These divisions are not castes but
classes and have reference to callings. There is no such
class as untouchable. Hence an untouchable is not bound
to say he is one. He may say if he wishes that Hindu
society has regarded him as such but he does not recog¬
nize that distinction. I may say that though I havQ been
classified by Hindu society as belonging to the bania
caste, I am not that, as I do not believe in caste, but that
 352 HINDU DHARMA

if I must call myself anything more than mere Hindu, I

am a Harijan by choice, having made, so far as in me lies,
common cause with Harijans.
And why is there any humiliation in a Harijan dis¬
closing his classification made by Hindu society ? Surely
the humiliation is of the society that reduces its members
to the condition of helots, consigned to ghettoes and shun¬
ned by society. The very education of the Harijan should
make him proud of the fact that he can truthfully call
himself a Hindu even though so-called higher castes have
denied their religion in their lives and persecuted him in
a manner beyond description. , If untouchability is des¬
troyed root and branch and Hinduism lives, the future
historian will assign the place of honour to Harijans who
will have stood by their faith in spite of heartless perse¬
cution by their fellows. Each time, therefore, a Harijan
has to say what he is classed as in Hindu society, the
humiliation is not his but of his persecutors — the so-called
caste Hindus.
Harijan, 3M0-’36

197
UNTOUCHABILITY AND CONVERSION
Q. If the object of the Congress in the liquidation of
untouchability is to give Harijeins a status of equality with
the rest, is this not achieved by their conversion to Islam ?
Why does the Independence Pledge allocate the pro¬
gramme of the removal of untouchability to the Hindus
only ? Does this not show that the Congress is anxious
to maintain a Hindu majority and therefore denies to the
Mussulmans their right of conversion ?
A. Liquidation of untouchability cannot be attained
by the conversion of untouchables to Islam or ciny other
religion. For it is the so-called caste Hindu who has to
rid himself of the sin of untouchability. He can wash
away the stain only by doing justice, however tardy, to
 LIMITATION OF REFORMERS 353

the outcaste. You will thus see why Muslims are not in¬
vited by the Congress to share the burden with the Hindus.
They have committed no sin against the untouchables. I
cannot prevent you from looking at a simple but neces¬
sary social reform as a political dodge to maintain a
majority. Tens of thousands of Hindus who are doing
penance have no thought of majority. All they want is
to do justice to those whom, under the guise of religion,
caste Hindus have reduced to a state worse than slavery.
Lastly, you are hopelessly wrong in suggesting that the
Congress denies the right to Muslims to convert ‘ un¬
touchables The Congress cannot prevent anybody from
doing conversion work. Whether you will exercise the
right in the right manner or wrong is for you to consider.
Harljan, 20-4-’40

198
LIMITATION OF REFORMERS
Ever since Dr. Ambedkar has thrown his bombshell
in the midst of Hindu society in the shape of threatened
conversion, frantic efforts have been made to wean him
from the proposed step. Dr. Ambedkar’s threat has had
its repercussions on Harijans too, who are at all literate
and are able to read newspapers. They have begun to
approach Hindu institutions or reformers with a demand
for posts, scholarships, or the like, accompanying it with
the statement that the writer might, in the event of refu¬
sal, be obliged to change to another faith, aid having been
offered on behalf of the representatives of that faith.
Without a doubt these threats are a portent and a
matter of grave concern to those who care at all for the
religion of their forefathers. But it will not be served by
coming to terms with those who have lost faith in Hindu¬
ism or for that matter in any religion. Religion is not a
matter of barter. It is a matter fpr every individual to
decide for himself to which faith he will belong. It does
not lend itself to purchase in any shape or form. Or if
23
 354 HINDU DHARMA

such an expression can be used in connection with things

of the spirit, religion can only be purchased with one’s
own blood. If therefore any Harijan wants to give up
Hinduism, he should be entirely free to do so.
There must be a searching of heart for the reformer.
Has his practice or that of his neighbour’s caused the
defection? If it has and if it is found to be improper,
it must be changed.
It is an admitted fact that the conduct of a vast num¬
ber of Hindus who call themselves Sanatanists is such as
to cause the greatest inconvenience and irritation to the
Harijans all over India. The wonder is that many more
Harijans than already have, have not left Hinduism. It
speaks volumes for their loyalty or for the innate virtue
of Hinduism that millions of Harijans have clung to it
in spite of the inhumanities to which in the name of that
very faith they have been subjected.
This wonderful loyalty of Harijans and their unex¬
ampled patience render it imperative for every savama
Hindu to see that Harijans receive^ the same treatment
that every other Hindu does. The course before savarnas
is, therefore, on the one hand, not to interfere with Hari¬
jans wishing to leave the Hindu fold by trying to keep
them within it by the offer of bribes in the shape of find¬
ing employment or scholarships; and on the other hand,
to insist on full justice being done to Harijans in every
walk of life. Indeed reformers should anticipate the Hari¬
jans’ requirements and not wait till they begin to com¬
plain. The Harijan Sevak Sangh is the biggest institu¬
tion for the removal of untouchability. It has wisely
adopted a most liberal policy of giving scholarships to
deserving students. It employs as many Harijans as
possible. But it is in no sense a bureau for finding jobs
for unemployed Harijans. Glenerally speaking there is no
dearth of jobs for Harijans who are fit for the jobs for
which they offer themselves. The greatest hardship felt
by thousands of Harijafts is want of pure water for drink¬
ing and domestic use, denial of access to public schools
and other institutions, constant pin-pricks in villages, and
 LIMITATION OF REFORMERS 355
last but not least, denial of access to temples of worship.
These disabilities are stern realities in the lives of the
vast mass of Harijans. If they as a mass give up Hinduism
they will do so because of these common disabilities which
brand them as lepers of Hindu society. Hinduism is pass¬
ing through a fiery ordeal. It will perish not through
individual conversions, not even through mass conver¬
sions, but it will perish because of the sinful denied by
the so-called savarna Hindus of elementary justice to
Harijans. Every threat of conversion is, therefore, a
warning to the savarnas that if they do not wake up in
time, it may be too late!
One word to the impatient and needy Harijans. They
must not use threats when they approach Hindu institu¬
tions or individuals for help. They should rely upon the
strength of their case commanding a hearing. The majo¬
rity of Harijans do not know what change of religion can
mean. They mutely suffer the continuing degradations
to which savarnas in their selfishness have consigned
them. They must be the primary care of Hindu reformers
whether they complain or do not. Those who are en¬
lightened enough to know and feel the degradation and
know also what change of religion means are either too
good Hindus to desert their ancestral faith and deserve
every help they need, or being indifferent as to religion
may not claim help from savarna Hindus in exchange for
their condescending to remain in the Hindu fold. I would,
therefore, plead with enlightened Harijans for their own
sakes not to seek material betterment under threat of
conversion. And whilst reformers must on no account
yield to threats, they must ceaselessly strive to secure
justice for Harijans at the hands of savarna Hindus.
Hcrijan, 21-3^’36
 199
ON HARIJAN RECONVERSIONS
Q. What is to be our attitude to Harijans who want
to come back to Hinduism ?
A, We shall simply say to them : ‘You are per¬
fectly welcome,’ but you will offer no inducements to those
you expect to win back by doing so.
Q. Oh, no. That is out of the question. I was won¬
dering if you would approve of any purification ceremony.
A. No purification ceremony is necessary. If they
had become converts wantonly, they will regretfully come
back, in which case those who take them back may ask
them to do some shuddhi. I would simply ask them to
take Ramanarna a hundred times.
Q. Won’t you object to a Harijan-scuafc attending
a voluntary shuddhi ceremony of this character ?
A. I see no objection to his attending such a cere¬
mony, but let him be clear that shuddhi is no part of the
Harijan Sevak Sangh’s programme, and also he should
be sure that the man wanting to be reconverted was doing
so absolutely freely and without the offer of any induce¬
ment. The question is : Are you convinced of the down¬
right sincerity of the man wanting to be reconverted ?
If you are, do everything to befriend him.
Harijan, 4-7-’36

200
THE SACRED THREAD
Q. You desire ladies to sacrifice their jewels. Why
do you not ask the casteman to sacrifice his pride by
giving up his thread ?
A. There is no parallel between the two cases. The
thread is a symbol of consecration for those who believe
it. I do not wear it, because it has no meaning for me
356
 DR. AMBEDKAR AND CASTE 357
and I know that millions go without it. In so far as it is
used as a mark of superiority, it is worse than jewellery
and the mere discarding of the thread would be valueless
it pride, of which it is a symbol, is also not discarded.
There is nothing to prevent Harijans from adopting it if
they choose. But I should strongly discountenance the
practice, as it would be an imitation without the original
meaning behind it.
Harijan, 2-2-'34

201
DR. AMBEDKAR AND CASTE
The following has just been received from Dr.
Ambedkar:
“ At the end of our conversation on Saturday last you asked
me to send a message for insertion in the first issue of your
new weekly Harijan. I feel I cannot give a message. For I
believe it will be a most unwarranted presumption on my part
to suppose that I have sufficient worth In the eyes of the Hindus
which would make them treat any message from me with res¬
pect. I can only speak as man to man. As such It may be
desirable that the Hindus should know my views on the momen¬
tous issue of Hindu social organization with which you have
chosen to occupy yourself. I am therefore sending you the
accompanying statement for publication in your Harijan.**
Statement
“The outcaste is a bye-product of the caste system. There
will be outcastes as long as there arc castes. Nothing can eman¬
cipate the outcaste except the destruction of the caste system.
Nothing can help to save Hindus and ensure their survival in
the coming struggle except the purging of the Hindu faith of
this odious and vicious dogma.”
Damodar Hall, B. R. AMBEDKAR
Parel, Bombay 12,
7th February, 1933
Dr. Ambedkar is bitter. He has every reason to feel
so. He has received a liberal education. He has more
than the talents of the average educated Indian. Outside
India he is received with honour and affection, but, in
 358 HINDU DHARMA

India, among Hindus, at every step he is reminded that

he is one of the outcastes of Hindu society. It is nothing
to his shame, for, he has done no wrong to Hindu society.
His exterior is as clean as that of the cleanest and the
proudest brahmana. Of his interior, the world knows as
little as of that of any of us. In spite of all this, he “ be¬
lieves that it will be a most unwarranted presumption on
his part to suppose that he has sufficient worth in the
eyes of the Hindus which would make them treat any
message from him with respect ”. This is the caste Hin¬
dus’ shame, not his, but I would like him to feel that there
are today thousands of caste Hindus who would listen to
his message with the same respect and consideration that
they would give to that of any other leader, and that in
their estimation there is no person high and no person
low. I would like him, too, to know that the Harijan
is not my weekly. So far as the proprietory rights are
concerned, it belongs to the Servants of the Untouchables
Society and, therefore, I would like him to feel that it is
as much his as of any other Hindu.
As to the burden of his message, the opinion he holds
about the caste system is shared by many educated Hin¬
dus. I have not, however, been able to share that opi¬
nion. I do not believe the caste system, even as distin¬
guished from vamashrama, to be an ‘ odious and vicious
dogma ’. It has its limitations and its defects, but there
is nothing sinful about it, as there is about untouchability,
and, if it is a bye-product of the caste system it is only
in the same sense that an ugly growth is of a body, or
weeds of a crop. It is as wrong to destroy caste because
of the outcaste, as it would be to destroy a body because
of an ugly growth in it, or of a crop because of the weeds.
The outcaste-ness, in the sense we understand it, has,
therefore, to be destroyed altogether. It is an excess to
be removed, if the whole system is not to perish. Un¬
touchability is the product, therefore, not of the caste
system, but of the distinction of high an^ low that has
crept into Hinduism and is corroding it. The attack on un¬
touchability is thus an attack upon this ‘high-and-lowness.’
 DR, AMBEDKAR AND CASTE 359
The moment untouchability goes, the caste system
itself will be purified, that is to say, according to my
dream, it will resolve itself into the true Varna Dharma,
the four divisions of society, each complementary of the
other and none inferior or superior to any other, each as
necessary for the whole body of Hinduism as any other.
How it can be and what that varnashrama is, it is not
necessary to examine here. But, such being my faith, I
have always respectfully differed from those distinguished
■countrymen, Dr. Ambedkar among them, who have held
that untouchability will not go without the destruction of
Varnashrama Dharma. They have made no distinction
between caste and vama. But that is another story. At
the present moment, it is the ' untouchable ^ the outcaste,
with whom all Hindu reformers, whether they believe in
varnashrama or not, have agreed to deal. The opposition
to untouchability is common to both. Therefore, the pre^
.sent joint fight is restricted to the removal of untouch¬
ability, and I would invite Dr. Ambedkar and those who
think with him to throw themselves, heart and soul, into
the campaign against the monster of untouchability. It
is highly likely that at the end of it we shall all find that
there is nothing to fight against in varnashrama. If,
however, varnashrama even then looks an ugly thing, the
whole of Hindu society will fight it. For this campaign
against untouchability is not one of compulsion, but of
conversion. At the end of the chapter, I hope that we shall
all find ourselves in the same camp. Should it prove
•otherwise, it will be time enough to consider how and by
whom varnashrama is to be fought.
Harijan, ll-2-'33
 SECTION THIRTEEN: VARNA DHARMA

202
VARNASHRAMA
[The following Is from Gandhiji’s speech delivered on 16-9-’27 at
Tanjore.]
In my opinion there is no such thing as inherited or
acquired superiority. I believe in the rock-bottom doctrine
of advaita and my interpretation of advaita excludes
totally any idea of superiority at any stage whatsoever. I
believe implicitly that all men are bom equal. All — whe-
,ther 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 equa¬
lity of all men that I fight the doctrine of superiority which
many of our mlers 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 rea¬
son of their subsequently acquired knowledge. I consider
that it is unmanly for any person to claim superiority
over a fellow-being. And there is the amplest warrant for
the belief that I am enunciating in the Bhagawadgita,
and I am therefore through and through with every non-
brahmana when he fights this monster of superiority, whe¬
ther it is claimed by a brahmana or by anybody else. He
who claims superiority at once forfeits his claim to be
called a man. That is my opinion.
But in spite of all my beliefs, that I have explained to
3rou, I still believe in Vamashrama Dharma. Varnashrama
360
 VARNASHRAMA 361
Dhanm to my mind is a law which, however much
you and I may deny, cannot be abrogated. To admit the
working of that law is to free ourselves for the only pur¬
suit in life for which we are born. Vamashrama Dharma
is humility. Whilst I have said that 9II men and women
are born equal, I do not wish therefore to suggest that
qualities are not inherited; but on the contrary I believe
that just as every one inherits a particular form so does
he inherit the particular characteristics and qualities of
his progenitors, and to make this admission is to conserve
one’s energy. That frank admission, if he will act up-
to it, would put a legitimate curb upon our material sim-
bitions, and thereby our energy is set free for extending
the field of spiritual research and spiritual evolution. It
is this doctrine of Vamashrama Dharma which I have
always accepted. You would be entitled to say that this
is not how vamashrama is understood in these days. I
have myself said times without number that vamashrama
as it is at present understood and practised is a monstrous
parody of the original, but in order to demolish this dis¬
tortion let us not seek to demolish the original. And if
you say that the idealistic vamashrama which I have-
placed before you is quite all right you have admitted all
that I like you to admit. I would also urge on you to
believe with me that no nation, no individual, can possibly
live without proper ideals. And if you believe with me
in the idealistic vamashrama, you will also strive with me
to reach that ideal so far as may be. As a matter of fact
the world has not anywhere been able to fight against thi&
law. What has happened and what must happen in fight¬
ing against the law is to hurt ourselves and to engage in
a vain effort; and I suggest to you that your fight will be
all the more successful if you understand all that our
forefathers have bequeathed to us and engage in fighting-
all the evil excrescences that have grown round this great
bequest.
Young India, 29-9-*27
 203
VARNA AND ASHRAMA
[The following Is taken from a speech delivered on 9-10-’27 at
Trivandrum.]
So far as I know anything at all of Hinduism,
the meaning of varna is incredibly simple. It simply
means the following on the part of us all of the
hereditary and traditional calling of our forefathers,
in so far as the traditional calling is not incon¬
sistent with fundamental ethics, and this only for
the purpose of earning one's livelihood. I regard this
as the law of our being, if we would accept the definition
of man given in all religions. Of all the animal creation,
of God, man is the only animal who has been created in
order that he may know his Maker. Man's aim in life is
not therefore to add from day to day to his material
prospects and to his material possessions but his predomi¬
nant calling is from day to day to come nearer his own
Maker, and from this definition it was that the rishis of
old discovered this law of our being. You will realize
that if all of us follow this law of vama we would limit
our material ambition, and our energy would be set free
for exploring those vast fields whereby and wherethrough
we can know God. You will at once then see that nine-
tenths of the activities that are today going on throughout
the world and which are engrossing our attention would
fall into disuse. You would then be entitled to say that
varna as we observe it today is a travesty of the vama
that I have described to you. And so it undoubtedly is,
but just as we do not hate truth because untruth parades
itself as truth, but we sift untruth from truth and cling
to the latter, so also we can destroy the distortion that
passes as varna, and purify the state to which the Hindu
society has been reduced today.
Ashrama is a necessary corollary to what I have
stated to you, and if varna today has become distorted,
362
 VARNA AND ASHRAMA 363
ashrama has altogether disappeared. Ashrama means the
four stages in one’s life, and I wish the students who have
kindly presented their purses to me — the Arts and
Science students and the Law College students — were
able to assure me that they were living according to the
laws of the first ashrama, and that they were brahma-
charis in thought, word and deed. The brahmacharya
■tashrama enjoins that only those who live the life of a
brahmachari, at least up to 25 years, are entitled to enter
the second ashrama, i. e. the Grihasthashrma. And be¬
cause the whole conception of Hinduism is to make man
better than he is and draw him nearer to his Maker, the
rishis set a limit even to the grihasthashrama stage and
imposed on us the obligation of vanaprastha and
sannyasa. But today you will vainly search throughout
the length and breadth of India for a true brahmachari,
for a true grihastha, not to talk of a vanaprastha and
sannyasi. We may, in our elongated wisdom, laugh at this
scheme of life, if we wish to. But I have no doubt what¬
soever that this is the secret of the great success of Hindu¬
ism. The Hindu civilization has survived the Egyptian,
the Assyrian and the Babylonian. The Christian is but
two thousand years old. The Islamic is but of yesterday.
'Great as both these are they are still in my humble opinion
in the making. Christian Europe is not at all Christian,
but is groping, and so in my opinion is Islam still groping
for its great secret, and there is today a competition,
healthy as also extremely unhealthy and ugly, between
these three great religions.
As years go by, the conviction is daily growing upon
me that varna is the law of man’s being and therefore as
necessary for Christianity and Islam, as it has been neces¬
sary for Hinduism and has been its saving. I refuse,
therefore, to believe that varnashrama has been the curse
of Hinduism, as it is the fashion nowadays in the South
on the part of some Hindus to say. But that does not
mean that you and I may tolerate for one moment or be
gentle towards the hideous travesty of varnashrama that
we see about us today. There is nothing in common
 HINDU DHARMA
364
Isetween vamashrama and caste. Caste, if you will, is un¬
doubtedly a drag upon Hindu progress, and untouchability
is, as I have already called it or described it, an excre¬
scence upon varnashrarna. It is a weedy growth fit only
to be weeded out, as we weed out the weeds that we see
growing in wheat fields or rice fields. In this conception
of vama, there is absolutely no idea of superiority and
inferiority. If I again interpret the Hindu spirit rightly
all life is absolutely equal and one. It is therefore an
arrogant assumption on the part of the hrahmana when
he says, ‘ I am superior to the other three varnas.’ That
is not what the brahmanas of old said. They commanded
homage not because they claimed superiority, but because
they claimed the right of service through and through
without the slightest expectation of a reward. The priests,
who today arrogate to themselves the function of the
brahmana and distort religion, are no custodians of
Hinduism or brahmanism. Consciously or unconsciously
they are laying the axe at the root of the very tree on
which they are sitting, and when they tell you that the
shastras enjoin untouchability and when they talk of
pollution distance, I have no hesitation in saying that
they are belying their creed and that they are misinter¬
preting the spirit of Hinduism. You will now perhaps
understand why it is absolutely necessary for you Hindus
who are here and listening to me to enprgize yourselves
and rid yourselves of this curse. You should take pride
in leading the way of reform, belonging as you do to an
ancient Hindu State. So far as I can read the atmosphere
around jmu here, the moment is certainly propitious for
you if you will sincerely and energetically undertake this?
reform.
Young India, 20-10-’27
 204
THE LAW OF VARNA
Q. We do not understand your emphasis on Varna
Dharma. Can you justify the present caste system ?
What is your definition of varna ?
A. Varna means pre-determination of the choice of
man's profession. The law of varna is that a man shall
follow the profession of his ancestors for earning his liveli¬
hood. Every child naturally follows the ' colour' of his
father, or chooses his father's profession. Varna there¬
fore is in a way the law of heredity. Varna is not a thing
that is superimposed on Hindus, but men who were
trustees for their welfare discovered the law for them. It
is not a human invention, but an immutable law of nature
— the statement of a tendency that is ever present and at
work like Newton's law of gravitation. Just as the law
of gravitation existed even before it was discovered so did
the law of varna. It was given to the Hindus to discover
that law. By their discovery and application of certain
laws of nature, the peoples of the West have easily in¬
creased their material possessions. Similarly, Hindus by
their discovery of this irresistible social tendency have
been able to achieve in the spiritual field what no other
nation in the world has achieved.
Varna has nothing to do with caste. Down with the
monster of caste that masquerades in the guise of varna.
It is this travesty of varna that has degraded Hinduism
and India. Our failure to follow the law of varna is largely
responsible both for our economic and spiritual ruin. It
is one cause of unemployment and impoverishment, and
it is responsible for untouchability and defections from our
faith.
But in quarrelling with the present monstrous form,
and monstrous practices to which the original law has been
reduced, do not fight the law itself.
Q. How many varnas are there ?
365
 366 HINDU DHARMA

A. Four vamas, though it is not a rigid division in¬

herent in varna itself. The rishis after incessant experi¬
ment and research arrived at this fourfold division — the
four ways of earning one’s livelihood.
Q. Logically, therefore, there are as many vamas
as there are professions ?
A. Not necessarily. The different professions can
easily be brought under the four main divisions — that of
teaching, of defending, of wealth-producing, and of manual
service. So far as the world is concerned, the dominant
profession is the wealth-producing, just as grihastha-
shrama is the most dominant amongst all ashramas.
Vaishya is the keynote among the vamas. The defender
is not wanted if there is no wealth and property. The
first two and the fourth are necessary because of the third.
The first will always be very few because of the severe
discipline required for it, the second must be few in a
well-ordered society, and so the fourth.
Q. If a man practises a profession which does not
belong to him by birth, what varna does he belong to ?
A. According to the Hindu belief he belongs to the
varna in which he is bom, but by not living up to it he
will be doing violence to himself and becomes a degraded
being — a patita.
Q. A shudra does an act which belongs to a brah-
mana by birth. Does he become a patita ?
A. A shudra has as much right to knowledge as a
brahmana, but he falls from his estate if he tries to gain
his livelihood through teaching. In ancient times there
were automatic trade guilds, and it was an unwritten law
to support all the members of the profession. A hundred
years ago, a carpenter’s son never wanted to become a
lawyer. Today he does, because he finds the profession
the easiest way to steal money. The lawyer thinks that
he must charge Rs. 15,000 as fees for the exercise of his
brain, and a physician like Hakimsaheb * thinks that he
must charge Rs. 1,000 a day for his medical advice!
* Hakim AJmalkhan, a great nationalist Muslim who presided <
one of the sessions of the Indian National Congress.
 THE LAW OF VAHNA 367

Q. But may not a man follow a profession after his

heart ?
A. But the only profession after his heart'should
be the profession of his fathers. There is nothing wrong
in choosing that profession, on the contrary it is noble^
What we find today are freaks, and that is why there is
violence and disruption of society. Let us not confound
ourselves by superficial illustrations. There are thousands
of carpenters’ sons following their fathers’ calling, but not
even a hundred carpenters’ sons who are lawyers. In'
ages gone by there was not the ambition of encroaching
on others’ profession and amassing wealth. In Cicero’s
time, for instance, the lawyer’s was an honorary profes¬
sion. And it would be quite right for any brainy carpenter
to become a lawyer for service, not for money. Later,,
ambition for fame and wealth crept in. Physicians served
the society and rested content with what it gave them,
but now they have become traders and even a danger to-
society. The medical and the legal professions were de¬
servedly called liberal when the motive was purely philan¬
thropic.
Q. All that is under ideal conditions. But what do
you propose today when every one is hankering after
paying professions ?
A. It is a sweeping generalization. Put together the
number of boys studying in schools and colleges and de¬
termine the percentage of boys going in for the learned
professions. Highway robbery is not open to every one.
The present seems to be an agitation for highway robbery..
How many can become lawyers and Government ser¬
vants ? Those who can be legitimately occupied in earn¬
ing wealth are vaishyas. Even there, when their profes¬
sion becomes a highway robbery, it is hateful. There-
cannot be millions of millionaires.
Q. So far as'Tamilnad is concerned, all non-&rah-
manas, want to take up professions to which they were
not bom.
A. I reject your claim to speak on behalf of the 22
million Tamilians. I give you a formula : Let tis not want
 368 HINDU DHARMA

to be what every one else cannot be. And you can work
out this proposition only on the basis of vama as I have
defined it.
Q. You have been saying that the law of vama curbs
our worldly ambition. How ?
A. When I follow my father's profession, I need not
•even go to a school to learn it, and my mental energy is
set free for spiritual pursuits, because my money or rather
livelihood is ensured. Varna is the best form of insurance
for happiness and for real religious pursuit. When I con¬
centrate my energy on other pursuits, I sell away my
powers of self-realization or sell my soul for a mess of
pottage.
Q. You talk of releasing the energies for spiritual
pursuits. Today those who follow their fathers’ professions
have no spiritual culture at all — their very varna unfits
them for it.
A. We are talking with crooked notions of vama.
When varna was really practised, we had enough leisure
for spiritual training. Even now, you go to distant vil¬
lages and see what spiritual culture villagers have as
compared to the town-dwellers. These know no self-con¬
trol.
But you have spotted the mischief of the age. Let
us not try to be what others cannot be. I would not even
learn the Gita, if every one who wished could not do it.
That is why my whole soul rises against learning English
for making money. We have to re-arrange our lives so
that we ensure to the millions the leisure that a fraction
of us have today, and we cannot do it unless we follow
the law of vama.
Q. You will excuse us, if we go back to the same
question over and over again. We want to understand it
properly. What is the varna of a man practising different
professions at different times ?
A. It may not make any difference in his varna so
long as he gains his livelihood by following his father’s
profession. He may do anything he likes so long as he
does it for love of service. But he who changes profession
 THE LAW OF VAHNA 359

from time to time for the sake of gaining wealth degrades

himself and falls from vama.
Q. A shvdra may have all the qualities of a brah-
mana and yet may not be called a brahmana ?
A. He may not be called a brahmana in this birth.
And it is a good thing for him not to arrogate a vama to
which he is not bom. It is a sign of true humility.
Q. Do you believe that qualities attaching to vama
are inherited and not acquired ?
A. They can be acquired. The inherited qualities
can always be strengthened and new ones cultivated. But
we need not, ought not, to seek new avenues tor gaining
wealth. We should be satisfied with those we have in¬
herited from our forefathers so long as they are pure.
Q. Do you not find a man exhibiting qualities oppo¬
sed to his family character ?
A. That is a difficult question. We do not know all
our antecedents. But you and I do not need to go deeper
into this question fqr understanding the law of vama as
I have endeavoured to explain to you. If my father is a
trader and I exhibit the qualities of a soldier, I may with¬
out reward serve my country as a soldier but must be
content to earn my bread by trading.
Q. Caste, as we see it today, consists only in restric¬
tions about interdining and intermarriage. Does preser¬
vation of vama then mean keeping these restrictions ?
A. No, not at all. In its purest state, there can be’
no restrictions.
Q. Can they be omitted ?
A. They can be, and vama is preserved even by
marrying into other vamas. ■
Q. Then the mother’s vama will be affected.
A. A wife follows the varna pf her husband.
Q. Is the doctrine of Varna Dharma, as you have ex¬
pounded it, to be found in our shastras, or is it youf own ?
A. Not my own. I derive it from the Bhagawadgita.
Q. Do you approve of the doctrine as given in the
Manusmriti ?
24
 370 HINDU DHARMA

A. The principle is there. But the applications do

not appeal to me fully. There are parts of the book which
are open to grave objections. I hope that they are later
interpolations.
Q. Does not the Manusmriti contain a lot of injus¬
tice ?
A. Yes, a lot of injustice to women and the so-called
lower ‘ castes'. All is not shastra that goes by that name.
The shastras so called therefore need to be read with
much caution,
Q. But you go by the Bhagawadgita. It says varna
is according to guna and karma. How did you bring in
birth ?
A. I swear by the Bhagawadgita because it is the
only book in which I find nothing to cavil at. It lays
down principles and leaves you to find the application for
yourself. The Gita does talk of vama being according to
guna and karma, but guna and karma are inherited by
birth. Lord Krishna says, all vamas have been created
by me - fpjr i. e,, I suppose by birth. The
law of vama is nothing, if not by birth.
Q. But there is no superiority about vama ?
A. No, not at all, though I do say brahmanism is the
culmination of the other vamas, just as the head is the
culmination of the body. It means capacity for superior
service, but no superior status. The moment superior sta¬
tus is arrogated, it becomes worthy of being trampled
under foot.
Q. Rural you know. Do you know that the author
of that Tamil classic says there is no caste by birth ? At
birth, he says, all life is equal.
A. He says it as an answer to the present-day exag¬
gerations. When superiority was claimed by any vama,
he had to raise his voice against it. But that does not cut
at the root of vama by birth. It is only the reformer’s
attempt to cut at the root of inequality.
Q. The present practice is so distorted, that may it
not be the best thing to give it up altogether and begin
on a clean slate?
 THE LAW OF VARNA 371
A. Only if we were creators. We cannot by a stroke
of the pen alter Hindu nature. We can find out a method
of working the law, not destroying it.
Q. When authors of shastras created new smritis,
why not you ?
A. If I could create a new creation! My state then
would be far worse than Vishvamitra’s and he was far
greater than I.
Q. So long as you do not destroy vama, untouchabi-
lity cannot be destroyed.
A. I do not think so. But if vama goes to the dogs
in the removal of untouchability, I shall not shed a tear.
But what bearing has vama as defined by me on untouch¬
ability ?
Q. But the opponents of reform quote you in sup¬
port.
A. That is the lot of every reformer. He will be
misquoted by interested parties, but you also know that
some of them want me to relinquish Hinduism. Others
would banish me if they could from the Hindu fold. I
have come nowhere to defend Vama Dharma, though for
the removal of untouchability I went to Vaikom. I am
the author of a Congress resolution for propagation of
kliadi, establishment of Hindu-Muslim unity and removal
of untouchability, the three pillars of SwcU'aj. But I have
never placed establishment of Vamashrama Dharma as
the fourth pillar. You cannot therefore accuse me of pla¬
cing a wrong emphasis on Vamashrama Dharma.
Q. Do you know that many of your followers distort
your teaching?
A. Do I not know it ? I know that I have many fol¬
lowers only so called.
Q. Buddhism was driven out of India because brah-
manas dominated the organization. Similarly they will
drive Hinduism out, if it does not serve their end.
A. Let them dare. But I am certain that Buddhism
has not gone out of India. India is the country that im¬
bibed most of the spirit of the Buddha. Buddhism must
be distinguished from the spirit of the Buddha as well as
 372 HINDU DHARMA

'Christianity from the spirit of the Christ. They were suc¬

cessful in driving out Buddhism, because they had assi¬
milated the central teaching of the Buddha.
Q. The same brahmana who assimilated the good
things of Buddhism has committed the worst crimes, worse
than the Amritsar wrong, by not allowing untouchables
«ntry into temples and imposing on them cruel disabili¬
ties.
A. You are right to a certain extent. But you are
wrong in fixing the guilt on brahmanas. It is the whole
of Hinduism that is responsible. Vama Dharma having
become distorted gave rise to untouchability. There was
no deliberate wickedness, but the result was a human
tragedy.
Q. But so long as you use the word Vamashrama
Dharma, it brings in with it the evil associations of today.
A. The moral is, destroy the evil association and re¬
store Yama Dharma to its purity.
My Programme for Yon
Q. There is an utter state of confusion. How shall
we go back ?
A. All I have to say to you is, do not destroy the
foundation, let us try to purify. Instead, you are trying
to deliver a new religion to receive which no one is pre¬
pared. Brahmanism is ^smonymous with Hinduism. That
is to say, the only term we had for Hinduism was brah-
manism, i. e. Brahma-vidya, and in trying to destroy that,
you are trying to destroy Hinduism. Fight the brahmana
inch by inch, when he encroaches on your rights and try
to reform him. But it is no use blackguarding every
brahmana. There are brahmanas and brahmanas. One
is an out and out reformer, the other is an opponent of
reform. You must range the best of the reformer brah¬
manas on your side, and with their help carry out the
constructive part of jrour programme, which can bring
about the salvation both of brahmanas and non-brah-
manas.
Fight the opponents of reform and tell them, "We
shall not call you brahmanas if you pursue wealth and
 THE LAW OF VARNA 373
power, and if you are not learned and are not able tp
teach us the true religion.” Then you will not evoke
any opposition from them. You will carry on a fierce
agitation to bring about reform, you will boycott the
schools and temples which distinguish against any non-
brahmanas. You will insist upon priests of pure charac¬
ter, of learning and without worldly ambition. You may
build new temples if the old ones refuse to admit the so-
called untouchables.
Then there is the question of interdining. I should
not make that a ground for quarrel with anybody. But I
should boycott a function where there was a dividing line.
Then I would fraternize with ‘ untouchables' and try
to deal by them as I should with a blood-brother, and
break to pieces all little castes and sections. And there¬
fore when I marry my boy I will go out of my way and
seek a girl from other sub-sections. We are really so
hidebound today by wretched custom that you will not
give me a girl to domicile in Gujarat, and you will not
take a girl from Gujarat to settle in Tamilnad.
Then I would give the ‘ untouchables' religious edu¬
cation, a grounding in the principles of Hinduism and
morality. They are leading a purely animal life today.
I would induce them to refrain from eating forbidden food
and live a pure and clean life. You can easily expand
these questions and work out a big constructive pro¬
gramme.
Young India, 24-11-27
 205
VARNASHRAMA AND INTERDINING
Varnashrama is, in my opinion, inherent in human
nature, and Hinduism has simply reduced it to a science.
It does attach to birth. A man cannot change his varna
by choice. Not to abide by one's varna is to disregard the
law of heredity. The division, however, into innumera¬
ble castes is an unwarranted liberty taken with the doc¬
trine. The four divisions are all-sufficing.
I do not believe, that interdining or even intermar¬
riage necessarily deprives a man of his status that his
birth has given him. The four divisions define a man's
calling, they do not restrict or regulate social intercourse.
The divisions define duties, they confer no privileges. It
is, I hold, against the genius of Hinduism to arrogate
to oneself a higher status or assign to another a lower.
All are born to serve God's creation : a brahmana with
his knowledge, a kshatriya with his power of protection,
a vaishya with his commercial ability and a shudra with
bodily labour. This however does not mean, that a hrah-
inana, for instance, is absolved from bodily labour, or the
duty of protecting himself and others. His birth makes
a brahmana predominantly a man of knowledge, the fit¬
test by heredity and training to impart it to others. There
is nothing again, to prevent the shudra from acquiring all
the knowledge he wishes. Only, he will best serve with
his body and need not envy others their special qualities
for service. But a brahmana who claims superiority by
right of knowledge falls and has no knowledge. And so
with the others who pride themselves upon their special
qualities. Varnashrama is self-restraint and conservation
and economy of energy.
Though therefore varnashrama is not affected by in¬
terdining or intermarriage, Hinduism does most empha¬
tically discourage interdining and intermarriage between
divisions. Hinduism reached the highest limit of
374 n
 VARNASHRAMA AND INTERDININO 375
self-restraint. It undoubtedly is a religion of renunciation
of the flesh so that the spirit may be set free. It is no
part of a Hindu’s duty to dine with his son. And by
restricting his choice of a bride to a particular group, he
exercises rare self-restraint. Hinduism does not regard
a married state as by any means essential for salvation.
Marriage is a ‘ fall ’ even as birth is a ‘ fall ’. Salvation
is freedom from birth and hence death alpo. Prohibition
against intermarriage and interdining is essential for a
rapid evolution of the soul. But this self-denial is no test
of varna. A brahmana may remain a brahmana, though
he may dine with his shudra brother, if he has not left
off his duty of service by knowledge. It follows from what
I have said above, that restraint in matters of marriage
and dining is not based upon notions of superiority. A
Hindu who refuses to dine with another from a sense of
superiority misrepresents his dharma.
Unfortunately today Hinduism seems to consist mere¬
ly in eating and not eating. Once I horrified a pious Hindu
by taking toast at a Mussulman’s house. I saw that he
was pained to see me pouring milk into a cup handed by a
Mussulman friend, but his anguish knew no bounds when
he saw me taking toast at the Mussulman's hands. Hindu¬
ism is in danger of losing its substance if it resolves itself
into a matter of elaborate rules as to what and with whom
to eat. Abstemiousness from intoxicating drinks and
drugs, and from all kinds of foods, especially meat, is un¬
doubtedly a great aid to the evolution of the spirit, but
it is by no means an end in itself. Many a man eating
meat and with everybody but living in the fear of God is
nearer his freedom than a man religiously abstaining from
meat and many other things, but blaspheming God in
every one of his acts.
Young India, e-10-*21
 m
YARNASERAMA
Varnashrama, as I interpret it, satisfies the religious,
social and economic needs of a community. It satishes
the religious needs, because a whole community accepting
the law is free to devote ample time to spiritual perfection.
Observance of‘the law obviates social evils and entirely
prevents the killing economic competition. And if it is
regarded as a law laying dowji, not the rights or the privi¬
leges of the community governed by it, but their duties,
it ensures the fairest possible distribution of wealth,
though it may not be an ideal, i. e. strictly equal, distri¬
bution. Therefore, when people in disregard of the law
mistake duties for privileges and try to pick and choose
occupations for self-advancement, it leads to confusion of
vama and ultimate disruption of society. In this law,
there is no question of compelling any person to follow
the parental occupation against his or her aptitude; that
is to say, there can be no compulsion from without as
there was none for, perhaps, several thousand years,
during which the law of varnashrama worked without
interruption. By training, the people had recognized the
duty and the justice of the law, and they voluntarily lived
under it. Today, nations are livfhg in ignorance and
breach of that law and they are suffering for it. The so-
called civilized nations have by no means reached a state
which they can at all regard with equanimity and
satisfaction.
It is easy enough to see that this conception of
varnashrama has nothing to do with restrictions as to
interdining and intermarriage. The Vedas and the Maha-
bharata are filled with illustrations both of interdining
and intermarriage. But these are matters of choice, not a
matter of religious regulation. No one can be compelled
or required to dine with any other or contract marital
relations. No doubt social habits will grow up and
376
 VARNA DHARMA 377
regulate these things more or less rigidly. But it would be
wrong to dignify them by name of religious obser¬
vances. In so far as they are a matter for reform, they
must be treated, in my opinion, as an absolutely separate
subject, unconnected either with untouchability or evert
with varnashrama reform.
So far as the multiplicity of castes apart from Varna
Dharma is concerned, they are ess^entially trade guilds-
or societies, with intermarriage and interdining restric¬
tions of a more or less rigid character superimposed upon
them. Castes are as numerous as the leaves of the famous
banyan tree whose every branch becomes a trunk for
shooting out more branches. They are undergoing a per¬
petual transformation. Many have disappeared and new
ones are appearing. Surely, they have nothing to do with
varnashrama ; nor have they anything to do with religion.
That today they are regarded by Sanatanists as an inte¬
gral part of Hinduism arises, in my opinion, from an utter
ignorance of the working of these trade guilds. There
are undoubtedly many undesirable practices that have
crept into these corporations, but that is only because
Hinduism as a religion has ceased to be a living, vita¬
lizing force. We are today living upon capital which is
itself •being fast exhausted.
Harijan, 4-3-'33

207
VARNA DHARMA
As I have interpreted Varna Dharma, there is no bar
in any shape or form to the highest mental development.
The bar altogether normal is against change of hereditary
occupation for the sake of bettering one’s material condi¬
tion, and thus setting up a system of unhealthy and ruin¬
ous competition which is today robbing life of all its joy
an^i beauty,
Harijan, 29-7-’33
 208
THE LAW OF VARNA AND ASHRAMA
I
Every one will admit that Hinduism is nothing with¬
out the law of vama and ashrama. It would be impossi¬
ble to find any Smriti work of which a large part was not
devoted to Vamashrama Dharma, This law of varna and
ashrama is to be traced to our most ancient scriptures —
the Vedas, and so no one who calls himself a Hindu may
ignore it. It is his duty to study it in all its bearings, and
to reject it if it is an excrescence, and to foster it and
restore it to its pristine purity, if it represents a universal
law.
So far as the law of ashrama is. concerned, it is ex¬
tinct, alike in profession and observance. Hinduism lays
down four ashramas or stages — the life of a brahmachari
(continent student), the life of a grihastha (householder),
the life of a vanaprastha (who has retired) and the life of
a sannyasi (renunciator)—through which every Hindu
has to pass to fulfil his purpose in life. But the first and
the third are practically non-existent today, the fourth
may be said to be observed in name to a small extent. The
second is professed to be observed by all today, but it is
observed in name, not in spirit. Grihasthas or house¬
holders of a kind we are all, inasmuch as we eat and drink
and propagate our kind, like all created beings. But in
doing so, we fulfil the law of the flesh and not of the spirit.
Only those married couples who fulfil the law of the spirit
can be said to observe the law of grihasthashrama.
Those who live the mere animal life do not observe the
law. The life of householders of today is one of indul¬
gence. And as the four stages represent a ladder of growth
and are interdependent, one cannot leap to the stage of a
vanaprastha or a sannyasi, unless he or she fulfilled the
law of the first two ashramas — brahmacharya and
grihastha. The law of the ashrama, therefore, is a dead
378
 THE LAW OF VARNA AND ASHRAMA 379

letter today. It can be revived only if the law of varna,

with which it is intimately interlinked, is revived.
That brings us to a consideration of the law of varna.
Tama is intimately, if not indissolubly, connected with
birth, and the observance of the law of varna means the
following on the part of us all of the hereditary emd tra¬
ditional calling of our forefathers in a spirit of duty.
Those who thus fulfil the law of their varna can be count¬
ed on one’s fingers' ends. This performance of one’s here¬
ditary function is done as a matter of duty, though it
naturally carries with it the earning of one’s livelihood.
Thus, the function of a brahmana is to study and to teach
the science of Brahman (or spiritual truth). He performs
the function, as he cannot do otherwise, as it is the law
of his being. That secures him his livelihood, but he will
take it as a gift from God. A kshatriya will perform the
function of protecting the people in the same spirit, ac¬
cepting for his livelihood whatever the people can afford
to give him. A vaishya will pursue wealth-producing
occupations for the welfare of the community, keeping
for himself enough for his own maintenance and render¬
ing the balance to the community in one shape or other.
A shudra will perform physical labour in the same spirit
of service.
Varna is determined by birth, but can be retained
only by observing its obligations. One bom of brahmana
parents will be called a brahmana, but if his life fails to
reveal the attributes of a brahmana when he comes of
age, he cannot be called a brahmana. He will have fallen
from brahmanahood. On the other hand, one who is
born not a brahmana but reveals in his conduct the attri¬
butes of a brahmana will be regarded as a brahmana,
though he will himself disclaim the label.
Varna thus conceived is no man-made institution but
the law of life universally governing the human family.
Fulfilment of the law would make life livable, would
spread peace and content, end all clashes and conflicts,
put an end to starvation and pauperization, solve the pro¬
blem of population and even end disease and suffering.
 380 HINDU DHARMA

But if vama reveals the law of one’s being and thus

the duty one has to perform, it confers no right, and the
idea of superiority or inferiority is wholly repugnant to
it. All vamas are equal, for the community depends no
less on one than on another. Today varna means grada¬
tions of high and low. It is a hideous travesty of the
original. The laAV of vama was discovered by our ances¬
tors by stem austerities. They sought to live up to the
law to the best of their capacity. We have distorted it to¬
day and have made ourselves the laughing stock of the
•vwrld. No wonder that we have today amongst the
Hindus a section which is bending its energies to a de¬
struction of the institution which in their opinion spells
the min of the Hindus. And certainly one need have no
mercy for the hideous distortion, which means nothing
but destmction of Hinduism.
II
I do not for a moment suggest that there should be
no restrictions about food and drink or about marital re¬
lations.. I do not myself regard it a duty to eat whatever
is offered and in whatever company I should chance to
be, and I regard it as nothing short of self-indulgence to
marry according to one’s fancy. Strict restraint is the
law of life and must, therefore, govern these relations no
less than others. I hold that there are mles about diet.
Man is not a omnivorous animal, nor may he pick up his
mate wherever he likes. But restrictions on marital or
social relations have nothing to do with Vama Dharma,
which is a different thing altogether. I can conceive
blameless marital relations between different vamas, and
people of different varnas seated together to eat food per¬
missible to all. There is evidence enough to show that
in ancient times there were no watertight compartments
between vamas, so far as marital and social relations
went, and I have no doubt that, in making vama a mere
matter of restrictions about food and drink and marriage,
we have done Hinduism grave harm.
Though the law of varna is a special discovery of
some Hindu seer, it has universal application. Every
 VARNA 381
religion has some distinguishing characteristic, but if it
■expresses a principle or law, it ought to have universal
application. That is how I look at the law of varna. The
world may ignore it today but it will have to accept it in
the time to come.
The four vamas have been compared in the Vedas
to the four members of the body, and no simile could be
happier. If they are members of one body, how can one
be superior or inferior to another ? If the members of
the body had the power of expression and each of them
were to say that it was higher and better than the rest,
the body would go to pieces. Even so, our body politic,
the body of humanity, would go to pieces, if it were to
perpetuate the canker of superiority or inferiority. It is
this canker that is at the root of the various ills of our
time, especially class-wars and civil strife. It should not
be difficult for even the meanest understanding to see
that these wars and strifes could not be ended except by
the observance of the law of vama. For it ordains that
every one shall fulfil the law of one’s being by doing in a
spirit of duty and service that to which one is born.
Harijan, 28-9-’34

209
VARNA
If I had the power, I should declare that we are all
'Hindus, all of the same vama. As I have made it clear
over and over again there is no real vama today. When
we have come to our own, when we have cleansed our¬
selves, we may have the four vamas according to the way
in which we can express the best in us. But vama then
will invest no one with a superior status or right, it will
invest one with higher responsibility and duties. Those
who will impart knowledge in a spirit of service will be
called brahmanas. They will assume no superior airs but
will be true servants of society. When inequality of status
or rights is ended, every one of us will be equal. I do
 382 HINDU DHARMA

not know, however, when we shall be able to revive true

Varna Dharma. Its real revival would mean true demo¬
cracy.
Harijan, 4.4-’36

210
VARNASHRAMA OR VARNASANKARA ?
A fair friend writes :
“ In a place where the whole station was lined from one end
to the other with volunteers dressed in military style with
swords hanging at their sides, where ^the whole air was redolent
with reminiscences of bravery and chivalry of men of the mili¬
tary caste of India, was not your message urging them in a
way to substitute the music of your wheel for the music of
their sword a preaching of the dharma of your caste to all
castes ad absurdum like the Christian missionary ? Should you
not rather like, the sages of ancient India exhdrt a brahmana
to be a true brahmana, a kshatriya to be an ideal kshatriya,
and a vaishya to be a model vaishya ? The insignia of the
brahmana is the book or pen, of the kshatriya the sword, and
of the vaishya the wheel or the plough. You may well pride
yourself in being called a weaver or an agriculturist as thereby
you are true to the natural tendencies of your jati or to vaishya-
dharma. But why would you, a Hindu, a believer in varnash-
rama principles, help in the degradation of a brahmana or a
kshatriya by Insisting on their accepting vaishya-dharma and
rejecting or neglecting their respective jati-dharmas ? Can a
kshatriya not serve and protect the poor even in these days but
in the vaishya way 7
“ The great men of India have always upheld swadharma for
each individual temperament. You are the first of them to preach ^
the throwing in of the dharmas of all people into the same
melting pot and thereby vaishyaizing the whole nation. Uplift
the vaishya by all means but pray do not pull the brahmanas
and kshatriyas by their legs. Spiritualize your caste people but
do not materialize the men of other castes by turning them into
spinners and weavers with the spell of your personality. To*
my thinking a Vinoba and a Balkoba would have rendered more
potent service to the nation as pure brahmanas with their intel¬
lects fully developed rather than as spiritual weavers which you
have turned them Into.”
I have not reproduced the whole of the letter but I
have given the cream of it. The rest is a commentary
 VARNASHRAMA OR VARNASANKARA ? 383

on the extract quoted by me. The friend is bom and

claims to be a Hindu even as I claim to be one. As I have
regarded spinning to be superior to sectional religions, I
had hoped that I would not be misunderstood by cultured
friends. But it was not to be. The friend tells me she
is not the only one to oppose the charkha. I must there¬
fore endeavour patiently to examine the argument. I
have noted in the course of my journalistic experience
dating from 1904 that most of the criticism received by
editors is based upon an imperfect understanding of an
opponent’s statement. In the case in point if only the
friend had borne in mind that I had presented the mes¬
sage of the wheel not to the Hindus alone but to all
Indians without exception, to men and women, to Mus¬
sulmans, Parsis, Christians, Jews, Sikhs and all others-
who claimed to be Indians, she would have written dif¬
ferently. She would then have inferred that I had placed
before the people of India something which not only did
not come in conflict with the several religions but which
in so far as it was taken up added lustre to one’s own
religion and in Hinduism to one’s own vama or caste.
Mine therefore I claim to be a method not of confusion but
cleansing. I ask no one to forsake his own hereditary
dharma or occupation but I ask every one to add spinning
to his natural occupation. The Rajputs of Kathiawad
knew this. They asked me whether I wanted them to
give up their swords. I told them I wanted them to do-
no such thing. On the contrary, I added, I wanted each
one of them to possess a trusty sword so long as they
believed in it. But I certainly told them that my ideal
Rajput was he who defended without the sword and who
died at his post without killing. A sword may be snatch¬
ed from one, not so the bravery to die without striking.
But this is by the way. For my purpose, it is enough to
show that the Rajputs were not to give up their calling
of protecting the weak. Nor do I want the brahmanas to
give up their vocation as teachers. I have suggested to them
that they become better teachers for sacrificial spinning.
Vinoba and Balkoba are better brahmanas for having
 384 HINDU DHAKMA

Ijecome spinners and weavers and scavengers. Their know¬

ledge is more digested. A brahmana is one who knows
God. Both these fellow-workers are nearer God today by
reason of their having felt for and identified themselves
through spinning with the starving millions of India.
Divine knowledge is not borrowed from books. It has
to be realized in oneself. Books are at best an aid, often
■even a hindrance. A learned brahmana had to learn
■divine wisdom from a God-fearing butcher.
What is this vamashrama ? It is pot a system of
watertight compartments. It is a recogrfition to me of a
scientific fact whether we know it or not. A brahmana
is not only a teacher. He is only predominantly that. But
a brahmana who refuses to labour will be voted down as
an idiot. The rishis of old who lived in the forests cut and
fetched wood, tended cattle and even fought. But their
pursuit in life was pre-eminently search after Truth.
Similarly a Rajput without learning was good for nothing
no matter how well he wielded the sword. And a vaishya
■without divine knowledge sufficient for his O'wn growth
will be a veritable monster eating into the "vitals of society
as many modern vaishyas whether of the East or the West
have become. They are, according to the Gita ‘ incarna¬
tions of sin who live only for themselves ’. The spinning
wheel is designed to wake up every one to a sense of his
■duty. It enables every one better to fulfil his dharma or
duty. When a vessel is running on smooth •waters, work
■on board is exquisitely divided. But when it is caught in
the grip of a violent storm and is about to sink, every one
has to give a helping hand to the necessary work of life¬
saving.
Let us also bear in mind that with the rest of the
world India finds herself in the deadly coil of the mercan¬
tile cobra. It is a nation of shop-keeping soldiers that
claims to rule her. It will tax all the resources of all her
best brahmanas to unwind India from that coil. Her
learned men and her soldiers will therefore have to bring
their learning and their prowess to bear upon the mercan¬
tile requirements of India. They must therefore, in order
 WOMEN AND VARNA 385
to be able faithfully to carry out their dharma, learn and
practise spinning.
Nor have I the least hesitation in recommending
hand-weaving as a bread-winning occupation to all who
^’•e in need of an honest occupation. To the brahmanas,
the kshatriyas and others, who are at the present moment
not followiiig their hereditary occupation but are engaged
in the mad rush for riches, I present the honest and (for
them) selfless toil of the weaver and invite them with a
view to returning to their respective dharmas to he satis¬
fied with what little the handloom yields to them. Just
as eating, drinking, sleeping etc. are common to all castes
and all religions, so must spinning be common to all
without exception whilst the confusion, selfish greed amd
resulting pauperism persist. Mine therefore is a method
not of making varnasankara — confusion worse con¬
founded — but it is one of making varnashrama — clean¬
sing more secure.
Young India. 17-7-’24

211
WOMEN AND VARNA
An esteemed friend writes :
“ From your recent writing on varna in the Harijan it seems
that the principle of vama adumbrated by you is Intended to
apply only to men. What, then, about women ? What would
determine a woman's varna ? Perhaps you will answer that
before marriage a woman would take her vama from her father;
after marriage from her hCisband. Should one understand that you
support Manu's notorious dictum that there can be no inde¬
pendence for woman at any stage of her life, that before mar¬
riage she must remain under the tutelage of her parents, after
marriage under that of her husband and, in the event of her
widowhood, under that of her children ?
“ Be that as it may, the fact remains that ours is an era of
woman suffrage and that she has definitely entered the lists
with men in the pursuit of independent avocations. It is, thus,
the commonest thing now-a-days to find a woman serving as a
school-mistress, while her husband is doing business as a money¬
lender. To what vama w^ould the woman under these

25
 386 HINDU DHARMA

circumstances belong ? Under the vamashrama dispensation, a

man would normally take up the avocation and, therefore, also the
vama of his parents, while a woman would adopt that of her
parents; and they may well be expected to stick to their res¬
pective avocations after their marriage. To what vama between
these would their children belong ? Or would you leave the
question to be decided by the children themselves, by their
free, independent choice ? In the latter case, what becomes of
the heredity basis of vama which the Vamashrama Dharma, as
expounded by you, postulates ? **
In my opinion, the question raised is irrelevant in
the circumstances prevailing today. As I have pointed
out in the writing referred to, owing to the confusion of
the vamas, today there are in reality no vamas, the
varna principle has ceased to operate. The present
state of Hindu society may be described as that
of anarchy ; the four vamas today exist in name only. If
we must talk in terms of vama, there is only one vama
today for all, whether men or women ; we are all shudras.
In the resuscitated Vama Dharma, as I conceive it,
a girl before her marriage will belong to the vama of her
father, just like her brother. Intermarriages between dif¬
ferent vamas will be rare. A girl will, therefore, retain
her vama unimpaired even after her marriage. But should
the husband belong to a different vama, then, on marriage,
she would naturally adopt his vama and relinquish that
of her parents. Nor need such a change of vama be
understood to imply a slur against anybody or touch any¬
body’s susceptibilities since the institution of vama in
the age of resuscitation would imply absolute social equa¬
lity of all the four vamas.
I do not envisage the wife, as a rule, following an
avocation independently of her husband. The care of the
children and the upkeep of the household are quite enough
to fully engage all her energy. In a well-ordered society
the additional burden of maintaining the family ought not
to fall on her. The man should look to the maintenance
of the family, the woman to household management; the
two thus supplementing and complementing each other’s
labours.
 AN AMERICAN CLERGYMAN’S QUESTIONS 387
Nor do I see in this any invasion of woman’s rights
or suppression of her freedom. The saying attributed to
Manu that “ For woman there can be no freedom ” is not
to me sacrosanct. It only shows that, probably, at the time
when it was promulgated, women were kept in a state of
subjection. The epithets used in our literature to describe
a wife are ardhangna,' the better half ’, and sahadharmini,
‘ the help-mate The husband addressing the wife as
devi or ‘ goddess ’ does not show any disparagement. But,
unfortunately, a time came when the woman was divested
of many of her rights and privileges and was reduced to
a status of inferiority. But there could be no question of
depreciation of her varna. For, vama does not connote
a set of rights or privileges; it prescribes duties or obli¬
gations only. And no one can divest us of our duty, unless
we ourselves choose to shirk it. The woman who knows
and fulfils her duty realizes her dignified status. She is
the queen, not the slave, of the household over which she
presides.
I need hardly say after this that, if the position set
forth by me with regard to the role of the woman in
society is accepted, the question of the vama of the
children will cease to present any problem, as there will
be no more any discrepancy as between the vamas of the
husband and wife.
Harijan, 12-10-’34

212
AN AMERICAN CLERGYMAN’S QUESTIONS
Q. “ In your Hinduism do y6u basically include the
caste system ? ”
A. “ I do not. Hinduism does not believe in caste. I
would obliterate it at once. But I believe In Vama Dharma
which is the law of life. I believe that some people are
born to teach and some to defend and some to engage in
trade and agriculture and some to do manual labour, so
much so that these occupations become hereditary. The
388 HINDU DHARMA

law of varna is nothing but the law of conservation of

energy. Why should my son not be a scavenger if I am
one ? ”
“ Indeed ? Do you go so far ?”
“ I do, because I hold scavenger’s profession in no
way inferior to a clergyman’s.”
“ I grant that, but should Lincoln have been a wood-
chopper rather than President of the U. S. A. ? ”
“ But why should not a wood-chopper be a President
of the United States ? Gladstone used to chop wood.”
“ But he did not accept it as his calling.”
” He would not have been worse off if he had done so.
What I mean is, one born a scavenger must earn his liveli¬
hood by being a scavenger, and then do whatever else he
likes. For a scavenger is as worthy of his hire as a lawyer
or your President. That, according to me, is Hinduism.
There is no better communism on earth, and I have illus¬
trated it with one verse from the Upanishads which
means : ” God pervades all — animate and inanimate.
Therefore, renounce all and dedicate it to God and then
live.” The right of living is thus derived from renuncia¬
tion. It does not say, ‘ When all do their part of the work
I too will do it.' It says, “ Don’t bother about others, do
your job first and leave the rest to HIM.” Vama Dharma
acts even as the law of gravitation. I cannot cancel it or
its working by trying to jump higher and higher day by
day till gravitation ceases to work. That effort will be
vain. So is the effort to jump over one another. The
law of vama is the antithesis of competition which kills.”
Harijan, 6-3-’37 ^
 SECTION FOURTEEN:

BRAHMANA-NON-BRAHMANA

213
BRAHMANA-NON-BRAHMANA
[In his speech at Cuddalore, Gandhljl spoke at length on the
Brali7nana-No}i-Brahmana problem. The following Is a brief ex¬
tract from his speech:]
To the brahmanas I will say: “Seeing that you are
repositories of all knowledge and embodiments of sacri¬
fice and that you have chosen the life of mendicancy, give
up all that the non-brahmana wants and be satisfied with
what they may leave for you.” But the modern brah-
mana would, I know, summarily reject my non-brahmana
interpretation of his dharnia. To the non-brahmana I
say ; “ Seeing that you have got numbers on your side,
seeing that you have got wealth on your side, what is it
that you are worrying about ? Resisting as you are, and
as you must, untouchability, do not be guilty of creating
a new untouchability in your midst. In your haste, in
your blindness, in your anger against the brahmanas, you
are trying to trample under foot the whole of the culture
which you have inherited from ages past. With a stroke
of the pen, may be at the point of the sword, you are im¬
patient to rid Hinduism of its bed-rock. Being dissatis¬
fied and properly dissatisfied with the husk of Hinduism
you are in danger of losing even the kernel, life itself.
You in j-our impatience seem to think that there is abso¬
lutely nothing to be said about varnashrama. Fight by
all means the monster that passes for varnashrama today,
and you will find me working side by side with you. My
varnashrama enables me to dine with anybody who will
give me clean food, be he Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Parsi,
 390 HINDU DHARMA

whatever he is. My varnashrama accommodates a pariah

girl under ray own roof as my own daughter. My var¬
nashrama accommodates many panchama families with
whom I dine with the greatest pleasure, — to dine with
whom is a i^rivilege. My varnashrama refuses to bow
the head before the greatest ix)tentate on earth, but my
varnashrama compels me to bow down my head in all
humility before knowledge, before purity, before every
person, where I see God face to face. Do not therefore
swear by words that have, at the present moment, become
absolutely meaningless and obsolete. Swear all you are
worth, if you like, against hrahmanas but never against
Brahmanism. Even at the risk of being understood or
being mistaken by you to be a pvo-brahmana, I make bold
to declare to you that whilst hrahmanas have many sins
to atone for, and many for which they will receive exem¬
plary punishments, there are today hrahmanas living in
India who are watching the progress of Hinduism and
who are trying to protect it with all the piety and all the
austerity of which they are capable. Them you perhaps
do not even know. They do not care to be known. They
expect no reward ; they ask for none. Their work is its
own reward. They work in this fashion because they
must. It is their nature. You and I may swear against
them for all we are worth, but they are untouched. Do
not run away with the belief that I am putting in a plea
for the hrahmanas, the vakils and the Ministers and even
Justices of the High Courts in India. I do not have them
in my mind at all. What, therefore, both hrahmanas and
non-hrahmanas and for that matter everybody who wants
India to progress has to do, is to sweep his own house
clean. I therefore suggest to non-hrahmanas, who have
not yet lost their heads, to think out clearly what it is
that they are grieved over, and make up their minds and
fight for all they are worth to remove those grievances.
Young India, 22*9-'27
 214
THE MUCH-MALIGNED BRAHMANA
I believe Brahmanism to be unadulterated wisdom
leading one to the realization of Brahma, that is God. If
1 did not hold that view, I should no longer call myself a
Hindu. Brahmanas, however, like all the other members
of the human family, are not all true representatives of
Brahmanism, But I have to believe that, of all the classes
in the world, the brahmana will show the largest per¬
centage of those who have given up their all in search of
knowledge, that is Truth. I know of no system other
than Hinduism under which a class has been set apart
from generation to generation for the exclusive pursuit
of divine knowledge and consigned to voluntary poverty.
That brahmanas could not keep up the high standard that
they had imposed upon themselves is no special fault of
theirs. Their imperfection merely proves that they were
as fallible as the rest of mankind, and so corruption crept
into the so-called sacred books, and we have the spectacle
of the most selfless rules governing brahmanas side by
side with the selflsh rules also made by them in order to
help their breed. But it was the brahmanas who rose
against the corruptions and selfish interpolations into the
sacred texts. It was they who time and again strove to
purge themselves and society of evil. I confess that I
have the highest reverence for Brahmanism and a sneak¬
ing regard for brahmanas and that, in spite of what is
to me the sorrowful spectacle of brahmanas so called
making a frantic effort against the reform movement and
lending their undoubted ability to the opposition, I am
consoled, and let every unbiassed Hindu be consoled, by
the fact that the reform movement, too, is being led by
those who are born brahmanas but who today take no
pride in their birth. If a census was taken of all the
workers against untouchability, I think it will be found
that the majority of workers who are devoted to the cause
without any remuneration or with only just enough to
391
 392 HINDU DHARMA

keep body and soul together are hrahinanas. But I admit

that bmhmanas as a class have suffered degradation. If
they had not, if they had lived up to their profession,
Hinduism would not be in the degraded state in which it
is. It would be a contradiction in terms to suggest that
Hinduism is what it is, in spite of the correct life of the
hrahmanas. That could not be, because the brahmanas
themselves have taught us to believe that they are the
true custodians of the divine wisdom and that, where
there is divine wisdom, there is no fear, there is no grin¬
ding pauperism, there is no high and low state, there is
no greed, jealousy, war, plunder and the like. Because
Brahmanism went down, it drew down with it all the
other classes of Hindus, and I have not a shadow of doubt
in my mind that, if Brahmanism does not revive, Hindu¬
ism must perish, and for me the infallible test of the revi¬
val of Brahmanism, that is Hinduism, is the root and
branch removal of untouchability. Today brahmanas
and kshatriyasy vaishyas and shudras are mere labels.
There is utter confusion of varna as I understand it, and
I wish that all Hindus will voluntarily call themselves
shudras. That is the only way to demonstrate the truth
of Brahmanism and to revive Varna Dharma in its true
state. Because all Hindus may be classed as shudras^
wisdom and power and wealth will not disappear, but they
will all be used for the service of not a sectional religion
but the service of Truth and Humanity. Anyway, in bat¬
tling against untouchability and in dedicating myself to
that battle, I have no less an ambition than to see a com¬
plete regeneration of humanity. It may be a mere dream,
as unreal as the silver in the sea-shell. It is not so to me
while the dream lasts, and in the words of Remain Hol¬
land, “ Victory lies not in realization of the goal, but in a
relentless pursuit after it.''
HaHjan, 25-3-’33
 215
ANTI-BRAHMANISM
With reference to a suspicion that behind his Harijan
movement there was a design to undermine Brahmanism
Gandhiji said at Guruvayur :
I can only tell you that I cannot be guilty of any
such design; for, to me to undermine Brahmanism is to
undermine Hinduism. This does not mean endorsement
of the claim that the brahmanas, so called, may put forth
today. No man can be accepted as a brahmana by society
merely by reason of his birth. The shastras themselves
say that a born brahmana who does not act according to
the requirements of Brahmanism, will forfeit his right to
be called a brahmana by the people in general. There are
brahmanas themselves today in this very movement who
say that they cannot be called brahmanas unless they
carry out the precepts of the shastras referring to them.
I believe that the brahmana is the corner-stone of Hindu¬
ism, as of every other religion. But there you must under¬
stand the meaning of the word brahmana. The brahmana
is the person who has realized Brahma. If he has not that
realization in every act of his, he shows that he is ever
after it and nothing else. Such a brahmana demands my
ten thousand prostrations every morning, but not the
brahmana who is dictated to by self, who is multiplying
himself day after day and thinks mostly of himself, rarely
of others, nor even the brahmana who smears himself
with ashes from top to toe and can punctiliously and cor¬
rectly recite the Vedas. It may be necessary-for him to
smear himself with ashes. It is necessary for him to trans¬
late the Vedas in his own life. It is necessary for him to
exhibit Brahma in every act of his life. It is necessary
for him to be pure and to impart that purity to all his
surroundings. It is necessary for him to be ever ready
to die that others may live. Now you understand what
regard I have for the true brahmana and Brahmanism.
Harijan, 26-l-'34

393
 216
BRAHMANA MINORITY
•

Proceeding to the topic which he had intended to

deal with, Gandhiji referred to a letter he had received
complaining that the hopelessly insignificant minority of
the brahmanas was faring badly, in that the admission of
hrahnuina boys and girls to colleges and services was be¬
coming increasingly difficult because of the anii-brahmana
movement. He could sympathize with the complainant,
because hitherto being more receptive, more industrious
and more eager to gain knowledge the brahmanas seemed
to have a monopoly, not because of any brute force they
exercised but because of their superior qualities. But
though he sympathized with the brahmanas in their lot,
he did not share their grief or disappointment. In the first
instance, he could not appreciate their considering them¬
selves as a minority. If we were one nation, there could
be no question of minority and majority. He might as
well complain of being a minority and then imagine him¬
self to be hurt that he could not enjoy all the privileges
he might wish for. He would, therefore, advise his
brahmana friends to forget that they were a class or group
apart from the ocean of India’s humanity. Considering
them even as Hindus rather than Indians, sons of the
same soil, there was to be no high and low in the ocean
of Hinduism. If they ceased to consider themselves a
minority, tljey would be proud to share the majesty of the
ocean of Indian or Hindu humanity, and could feel with
a drop in the ocean, if it was not isolated from the latter,
the greatness of the ocean, which carried on its broad
bosom thousands of mighty steamships. After aU what
were the colleges and services in terms of the millions of
villagers living in the seven lakhs of India’s villages ? He
suggested that the brahmana friends should feel happy
that they were no longer exposed to the temptation of
having to go to colleges or to sendees under the
* 394
 BRAHMANA MINORITY 395
Government. Such persons could only be few and
far between. Those who refused to take part in
the unseemly struggle for entrance to colleges or
to services were the real servants of India. Knowledge
was not confined within the four walls of a school
or a college. It was open for every industrious
boy or girl to gather real knowledge outside schools
and colleges. And in this connection he would com¬
mend to them the Nai Talim and all it meant. He
further reminded them of what he had said about the vali¬
dity only of those rights which were directly derived from
duty well performed. They would then immediately rea¬
lize that there was no such inherent right for any one to
be admitted to Government colleges. But if there was
such a right belonging to any boy or girl, it was his or
hers who had hitherto been criminally neglected.
A hrahmana's duty was to know God and to enable
others to do likewise. And the right that was derived
from the duty would be to be fed and clothed decently
and honourably by the community which he served.
Harijan, 13-7-*47
 SECTION FIFTEEN :
WIDOWHOOD, MARRIAGE AND WOMEN

217
ENFORCED WIDOWHOOD
Sir Gangaram has published a valuable table giving
the number of widows throughout India, with subsidiary-
tables for each province. The tables should be in the
hands of every reformer.
The figures he has given us are truly appalling. “ Who
will not w’eep,” he asks, “over the figures which show
the misery caused by child marriages and enforced widow¬
hood ? ” Here are the figures of Hindu widows according
to the census of 1921 :
Widows of ages up to 5 11,892
,, from 5 up to 10 85,037
„ from 10 up to 15 232,147

329,076
^ _
The figures are also given for the t-wo previous cen¬
suses. The total of 1921 is a trifle higher than for the
two decades. The widows of the other classes are also
given. They only demonstrate still further the enoraaity
of the wrong done to the Hindu girl widows. We cry out
for cow protection in the name of religion, but we refuse
protection to the humam cow in the shape of the girl
■widow. We would not resort to force in religion.
But in the name of religion we force -widowhood
upon our three lacs of girl widows who could not
understand the import of the marriage ceremony.
To force widowhood upon little girls is a brutal
crime for which we Hindus are daily paying dearly.
If our conscience was truly aw'akened there would
396
 GIRL WIDOWS 397
be no marriage before 15, let alone widowhood, and we
would declcire that these three lacs of girls were never
religiously married. There is no warrant in any shastra
for such widowhood. Voluntary widowhood consciously
adopted by a woman who has felt the affection of a part¬
ner adds grace and dignity to life, sanctifies the home and
uplifts religion itself. Widowhood imposed by religion or
custom is an unbearable yoke and defiles the home by
secret vice, and degrades religion.
And does not this Hindu widowhood stink in one’s
nostrils when one thinks of old and diseased men over
50 taking or rather purchasing girl wives sometimes one
on the top of another ? So long as we have thousands of
widows in our midst we are sitting on a mine vfhich may
explode at any moment. If we would be pure, if we would
save Hinduism, we must rid ourselves of this poison of
enforced widowhood. The reform must begin by those
who have girl widows taking (»urage in both their hands
and seeing that the child widows in their charge are duly
and well married — not remarried. They were never
really married.
Young India, 5-8-’26

218
GIRL WIDOWS
The statistics collected by Sir Gangaram and summa¬
rized in these pages deal with widows up to 15 years only.
These poor, wretched beings know nothing of pativrata
dharma. They are strangers to love. The truer state¬
ment would be to say that these girls were never married
at all. If marriage is, as it ought to be, a sacrament, an
entrance into a new life, the girls to be married should
be fully developed, should have some hand in the choice
of companions for life, and should know the consequences
of their acts. It is a crime against God and man to call
the union of children a married state and then to decree
widowhood for a girl whose so-called husband is dead.
Young India, 19-8-*26
 219
CURSE OF CHILD MARRIAGE
Mrs. Margaret E. Cousins has sent me notes of a tra¬
gic case that appears to have just occurred in Madras and
has arisen out of a child marriage, the girl being 13 years
and the ‘ husband ’ 26. Hardly had the pair lived together
for 13 days when the girl died of burning. The jury have
found that she committed suicide owing to the unbearable
and inhuman solicitations of the so-called husband. The
dying deposition of the girl would go to show that the
‘ husband ’ had set fire to her clothes. Passion knows no
prudence, no pity.
But how the girl died is beside the point. The indis¬
putable facts are:
(1) that the girl was married when she was only
13;
(2) that she had no sexual desire inasmuch as
.she resisted the advances of the ‘ husband';
(3) that the ‘ husband ’ did make cruel advances;
(4) and that she is now no more.
It is irreligion, not religion, to give religious sanction
to a brutal custom. The Smritis bristle with contradic¬
tions. The only reasonable deduction to be drawn from
the contradictions is that the texts that may be contrary
to known and accepted morality, more especially, to the
moral precepts enjoined in the Smritis themselves, must
be rejected as interpolations. Inspiring verses on self-
restraint could not be written at the same time and by
the same pen that wrote the verses encouraging the brute
in man. Only a man innocent of self-restraint and steeped
in vice could call it a sin not to ttiarry a girl before she
reached the age of monthly periods. It should be held
sinful to marry a girl for several years after the periods
begin. There cannot be even the thought of marriage be¬
fore the periods begin. A girl is no more fit to bear child¬
ren on beginning the periods than a lad is to procreate
as soon as he grows the first hair on his upper lip.
398
 DEFENDING CHILD MARRIAGE 399
This custom of child marriage is both a moral as well
as a physical evil. For it undermines our morals and in¬
duces physical degeneration. By countenancing such
customs we recede from God as well as Swaraj. A man
who has no thought of the tender age of a girl has none
of God. And undergrown men have no capacity for fight¬
ing battles of freedom or having gained it, of retaining it.
Fight for Swaraj means not mere political awakening but
an all-round awakening — social, educational, moral, eco¬
nomic and political.
Legislation is being promoted to raise the age of
consent. It may be good for bringing a minority to book.
But it is not legislation that will cure a popular evil, it is
enlightened public opinion that can do it. I am not oppo¬
sed to legislation in such matters but I do lay greater
stress on cultivation of public opinion. The Madras case
would have been impossible if there had been a living
public opinion against child marriage. The young man in
question is not an illiterate labourer but an intelligent
educated typist. It would have been impossible for him
to marry or touch the girl if public opinion had been
against the marriage or the consummation of the marriage
of girls of tender age. Ordinarily a girl under 18 years
should never be given in marriage.
Young India, 26-8-'26

220
DEFENDING CHILD MARRIAGE

A reader of Young India writes :

“ I am very much pained to read the following sentence in
your article on ‘Curse of Child Marriage' published in the
Young India of the 26th August 1926: * Only a man innocent of
self-restraint and steeped in vice could call It a sin not to marry
a girl before she reached the age of monthly periods/
“I fall to understand why you could not take a charitable
view of those whose opinion differs from you. One can cer¬
tainly say that the Hindu law-giver was entirely wrong in pre¬
scribing child marriage. But I think it improper to say that
400 HINDU DHARMA

those who insist on child marriage are ‘ steeped in vice It

seems to go beyond the limits of politeness in controversy. In
fact this is the first time that I heard such an argument against
child marriage. Neither the Hindu social reformers nor the
Christian missionaries ever said so, so far as I am aware. Ima¬
gine therefore the shock which I received when I found this
argument in the writing of Mahatma Gandhi whom I believed
to be perfection itself, so far at least as charity towards oppo¬
nents is concerned.
“You have condemned not one or two but probably every
one of the Hindu law-givers. For so far as I know, every
Smritikara enjoins early marriage of girls. It is Impossible to
hold as you have suggested that the passages enjoining early
marriage are interpolations. The practice of early marriage is
not confined to any province or class of society, but is practi¬
cally a universal custom in India. It is ^so a very old practice
dating from the time of the Ramayana.
** I shall try to give briefly what I consider might have been
the reasons why the Hindu law-givers insisted upon early mar¬
riage of girls. They considered it very desirable that every girl
should have a husband as a rule. This is necessary no less for
the peace of mind and happiness of the girls themselves than
for the welfare of the society in general. If every girl has to he
provided with a husband the choice of husband should be made
by the parents of the girl and not by the girls themselves. If
the choice Is left to the girls themselves, it will result in many
girls not being married at all, not because they do not like mar¬
riage, but because it is very difficult for all girls to find out
suitable husbands. It is also dangerous, for it might lead to
flirtation and might cause looseness of morals. Youths who
appear to be good might ruin the virtue of simple girls. Again
if the choice is to be made by parents, the girls must be married
young. When they are grown up, they may fall in love and
may not like to marry the bridegroom selected by the parents.
When a girl is married young, she becomes one with her hus¬
band and his family. The union is more natural and more
perfect. It is sometimes difficult for grown up girls with fixed
ideas and habits to adapt themselves in a new home.
“The chief objection to early marriage is that it weakens
the health of the girl and her children. But this objection is
not very convincing for the following reasons. The age of mar¬
riage is now rising among the Hindus, but the race is becoming
weaker. Fifty or a hundred years ago the men and women
were generally stronger, healthier and more long-lived than now.
But early marriage was then more in vogue. The physique of
educated girls who are married late is not generally better than
the girls who receive less education and are married early.
 DEFENDING CHILD MARRIAGE 401
From these facts it appears probable that early marriage does
not cause as much physical deterioration as some people believe.
“You have good knowledge of both European society and
Indian society. You will be able to say whether on the whole
Indian wives are more devoted to their husbands than European
wives; whether among the poor people the Indian husbands
treat their wives more kindly than European husbands; whe¬
ther there are fewer cases of unhappy marriages among Indians
than among Europeans; whether sexual morality is higher In
Indian society than in European society. If in these respects
the Indian marriages are more successful than European mar¬
riages, then early marriage which is an essential feature of
Indian marriages should not be condemned.
“ I cannot believe that the Hindu law-givers were actuated
by any consideration except the true welfare of society in gene¬
ral (Including both the men and women) in laying down the
injunction of early marriage of girls. I believe that early mar¬
riage of girls is one of the features of Hindu society which
have maintained its purity and prevented its disruption in spite
of very hostile environments. You may not believe all this. But
may we not expect that you should discard your idea that all
the great Hindu law-givers who have insisted on early marriage
of girls were innocent of self-restraint and were ‘steeped in
vice' ?
“ The Madras case reported by you seems to be very peculiar.
The jury held that the girl committed suicide. But the girl
said that her husband set fire to her clothes. In these con¬
flicting circumstances it Is very dilHcult to hold that the facts
which you consider to be indisputable are really so. There have
been millions of cases of girl-wives below 13. Not one case of
suicide due to cruel advances of the husband has been heard
of before. Probably t^iere were peculiar features in the Madras
case and early marriage was not the principal cause of the
death.”
Well does the Poet say: " It costs very little to
fashion a suitable philosophy in order to mitigate the rude¬
ness of facts that secretly hurt one's conscienpe.” This
“ reader of Young India ” has gone a step further. He
has not only fashioned a suitable philosophy but ignored
facts and erected his argument on unsupported state¬
ments.
The charge of want of charity I must pass by, if only
because I have not accused the law-givers but I have ven¬
tured to impute vice to those who could insist on marriage

26
 402 HINDU DHARMA

at an age too tender for bearing the burden of mother¬

hood. Want of charity comes into being only when you
accuse a live person, not an imaginary being, and that
too without cause, of impure motives. But is there any
warrant for the writer saying that the original authors
of the several Smritis who preached self-restraint wrote
the verses enjoining marriage of little girls ? Is it not
more charitable to assume that the rishis could not be
guilty of impurity or gross ignorance of cardinal facts
concerning the growth of the human body ?
But even if the texts ordering child, as opposed ta
early—for early marriage means marriage well before 25—
marriage be found to be authoritative, we must reject them
in the light of positive experience and scientific knowledge.
I question the accuracy of the statement that child mar¬
riage is universal in Hindu society. I should be sorry to-
find that ‘ millions of girls' are married, i.e., live as
wives whilst they are yet children. The Hindus would
have died as a race long ago if ‘ millions of girls ’ had
their marriages consummated at, say, the age of eleven..
Nor does it follow that if the parents are to continue
to make the choice of husbands for their daughters, the
marriage must be contracted and consummated early. It
is still less true to maintain that if girls have to make
their choice, there must be courtship and flirtation. After
all courtship is not universal in Europe, and thousands of
Hindu girls are married after fifteen and yet have their
husbands selected by their parents. Mussulman parents
invariably select husbands for their grown-up daughters.
Whether the choice is to be made' by girls or their parents
is a separate question and is regulated by custom.
The correspondent has tendered no proof to support
the statement that children of grown-up wives are weaker
than those of child wives. In spite of my experience of
both Indian and European society, I must refuse to enter
into a comparison of their morals. Granting, however,
for the sake of argument that morals of European society
are lower than those of Hindu society, will it naturally
 DEFENDING CHILD MARRIAGE 403

follow that the lowness is due to the marriages taking

place after full maturity ?
Lastly, the Madras case does not help the correspon¬
dent, but his use of it betrays his hasty judgment based
upon a total disregard of facts. If he will refer to the
article again he will discover that I have drawn my con¬
clusion from proved facts. My conclusion is unaffected
by the cause of death. It was proved (1) that the girl
was of tender age; (2) that she had no sexual desire;
(3) that the ‘ husband ’ made cruel advances ; (4) that she
is no more. It was bad enough if the girl committed suicide,
it was v'orse if the husband murdered her because she
could not yield to his inhuman lust. The girl was fit only
to learn and play, not to play the wife and carry on her
tiny shoulders the weight of household cares or the yoke
of a lord and master.
My correspondent is a man occupying high position
in society. The nation exi)ects better things from those
of her sons and daughters who have received a liberal
education and who are expected to think and act in her
behalf. We have many abuses in our midst — moral, social,
economical, and political. They require patient study,
diligent research, delicate handling, accuracy of statement
and clear thinking on them, and sober impartial judgment.
We may then differ, if necessary, as poles asunder. But
we shall surely harm the country, our respective religions
and the national cause, if we do not toil to discover the
truth and adhere to it, cost what it may.
Young India, 9-9-’26
 221
TOUGH QUESTIONS
A fair friend who has some faith in my wisdom and
sincerity asks some knotty questions which I would fain
avoid for fear of raising an indignant controversy on the
part of some husbands jealous of their rights. But jealous
husbands would spare me, for they know that I happen
to be one myself having led a fairly happy married life
for the past forty years in spite of occasional jars.
The first question is apposite and timely. (The ori¬
ginal is in Marathi. I have given a free rendering.)
Can a man or woman attain self-realization by mere recita¬
tion of Ramanama and without taking part in national service ?
I ask this question because some of my sisters say that they
do not need to do anything beyond attending to family require¬
ments and occasionally showing kindness to the poor.
This question has puzzled not only women but many
men and has taxed me to the utmost. I know that there
is a school of philosophy which teaches complete inaction
and futility of all effort. I have not been able to appre¬
ciate that teaching, unless in order to secure verbal agree¬
ment I were to put my own interpretation on it. In my
humble opinion effort is necessary for one’s own growth.
It has to be irrespective of results. Ramanama or some
equivalent is necessary not for the sake of repetition but
ftor the sake of purification, as an aid to effort, for direct
guidance from above. It is therefore never a substitute
for effort. It is meant for intensifying and guiding it in
a proper channel. If all effort is vain, why family cares or
an occasional help to the poor ? In this very effort is con¬
tained the germ of national service. And national service,
to me, means service of humanity, even as disinterested
service of the family means the same thing. Disinterested
service of the family necessarily leads one to national
service. Ramanarrva gives one detachment and ballast and
never throws one off one’s balance at critical moments.
Self-realization I hold to be impossible without service of
and identification with the poorest.
404
 TOUGH QUESTIONS 405
‘ The second question is :
In Hinduism devotion of wife to her husband and her com¬
plete merger in him is the highest aim, never mind whether the
husband is a fiend or an embodiment of love. If this be the
correct conduct for a wife, may she in the teeth of opposition
by her husband undertake national service ? Or must she only
go as far as the husband will permit her to go ?
My ideal of a wife is Sita and of a husband Rama.
But Sita was no slave of Rama. Or each was slave of
the other. Rama is ever considerate to Sita. Where there
is true love, the question asked does not occur.. Where
there is no true love, the bond has never existed. But
the Hindu household of today is a conundrum. Husbands
and wives when they are married know nothing of one
another. Religious sanction fortified by custom and the
even flow of the lives of the married people keep the peace
in the vast majority of Hindu households. But when
either wife or husband holds views out of the ordinary,
there i.s danger of jars. In the case of the husband he
has no scruples. He does not consider himself under any
obligation to consult his partner’s wishes. He regards his
wife^as his property. And the poor wife who believes in
the husband’s claim often suppresses herself. I think there
is a way out. Mirabai has showed the way. The wife
has a perfect right to take her own course and meekly
brave the consequences when she knows herself to be in
the right and when her resistance is for a nobler purpose.
The third question is:
If a husband is, say, a meat-eater and the wife considers
meat-eating an evil, may she follow her own bent ? May she
even try by all loving ways to wean her husband from meat-
eating oi;* the like ? Or is she bound to ’cook meat for her hus¬
band or worse still, is she bound to eat it, if the husband re¬
quires her ? If you say that the wife may take her own course,
how can a Joint household be run v’:hcn the one compels and
the other rebels ?
This question is partly answered in the answer to the
second. A wife is not bound to be an accomplice in her
husband’s crimes. And when she holds anything to be
wrong she must dare to do the right. But seeing that the
wife’s function is to manage the household and thus to
 406 HINDU DHARMA

cook, as the husband’s is to earn for the family, she is

bound to cook meat for the family if both have been meat-
eaters before. If, on the other hand, in a vegetarian
family, the husband becomes a meat-eater and seeks to
compel the wife to cook for him, the wife is in no way
bound to cook what offends her sense of right. The peace
of a household is a most desirable thing. But it cannot
be an end in itself. For me, the married state is as much
a state of discipline as any other. Life is duty, a proba¬
tion. Married life is intended to promote mutual good
both here and hereafter. It is meant also to serve huma¬
nity. When one partner breaks the law of discipline, the
right accrues to the other of breaking the bond. The
breach here is moral and not physical. It precludes divorce.
The wife or the husband separates but to serve the end for
which they had united. Hinduism regards each as abso¬
lute equal of the other. No doubt a different practice has
grown up, no one knows since when. But so have many
other evils crept into it. This however I do know that
Hinduism leaves the individual absolutely free to do what
he or she likes for the sake of self-realization for which
and which alone he or she is born.
Young India, 2I-10-'26

222
REMARRIAGE OF CHILD WIDOWS
I extract the following from a letter on the remarriage
of child widows:
In your reply to B., Agra, in the Young India of September
23, you say that child widows should be remarried by their
parents. ITow can this be done by those parents who perform
kanyadana, i. e. who give their daughters in marriage according
to shastric injunctions ? Surely, It is impossible for parents who
have most solemnly and by religious rites renounced all claims
on their daughter ill favour of their son-in-law, to give her in
marriage after his death to another person. She may of her
own accord remarry if she will, but since she was given by
her parents as a gift or donation (dana) to her husband, no one
in the world after the death of her husband has any right to
give her in marriage. And for the same reason she herself does
 REMARRIAGE OF CHILD WIDOWS 407
iiot possess any right to remarry. She would, therefore, be
faithless and a traitress to her dead husband if she remarried
without his express consent given at the time of his death. From
a logical point of view, it Is thus impossible for a widow — be
she a child, young or old — who was married according to
kanyadana system which is prevalent amongst most Sariatanis,
to remarry unless her husband had given her permission to do
so. A true Sanatani husband cannot, however, brook the idea
of giving such permission. He will rather fain agree to his wife’s
becoming sati, if she can, or at any rate will like her to spend
the rest of her life in devotion to his memory or, which is the
same thing, in devotion to God. In this he will solely be ac¬
tuated by the desire or sense of duty to help the preservation
of the high ideals of Hindu marriage and widowhood which are
complimentary to and not independent of each other,”
I regard this kind of argument as prostitution of a
high ideal. No doubt the correspondent means well but
his over-anxiety about purity of women makes him lose
sight of elementary justice. What is kanyadana in the
case of little children ? Has a father any rights of pro-
perty over his children ? He is their protector, not owner.
And he forfeits the privilege of protection when he abuses
it by seeking to barter away the liberty of his ward.
Again how can a donation be made to a child who is in¬
capable of receiving a gift ? There is no gift where the
capacity to receive is lacking. Surely kanyadana is a
mystic, religious rite with a spiritual significance. To use
such terms in their literal sense is an abuse of language
and religion. One may as well take literally the mystic
language of the Puranas and believe in the earth being a
flat dish sustained on the hood of a thousand-headed snake
and Divinity lying in soft ease on an ocean of milk for
his bed.
The least that a parent, who has so abused his trust
as to give in marriage an infant to an old man in his dotage
or to a boy hardly out of his teens, can do, is to purge
himself of his sin by remarrying the daughter when ghe
becomes widowed. As I have said in a previous note such
marriages should be declared null and void from the
beginning.
Toung India, ll-ll-’26
 223
CORRESPONDENCE

A Catechism
To the Editor, Young India
Sir,
I have been following with keen interest your articles on
social reforms amongst the Hindus. I have however not been
able to follow the exact line of argument adopted by you on
some points, and the conclusions arrived at in some cases have,
in my opinion, some doubtful points which require further elu¬
cidation- I shall be glad if you will find space in Young India
to give your views on these points which I briefly mention below :
1. Concerning Widows
You have constantly been pleading widow-remarriage but
only for girls up to a limited age, probably 15. In Young India
dated August 19th, you wrote, * I have never advocated widow-
remarriage on a wholesale scale. The statistics by Sir Gangaram
summarized in these pages deal w'ith widov^ up to 15 years
only.’ I take these lines to mean that you advocate remarriage
of widows up to 16 years of age ? But what do you advocate
about widows of slightly bigger age than 15, say IG, 17, 18, 20
and 22 years of age 7 If your limit be accepted as any test of
fitness for remarriage, obviously the cases quoted shall have to
be termed ‘undeserving*, no matter even if the widow feels
unhappy and miserable at her lot and Is an object of persecution
(as I painfully realize she is in average Hindu family). Please
do let us know clearly, if knowing all this you really advocate
an age-limit. It were another thing if you were to advocate the
limited reform with a view to prevailing upon Hindus, the majo¬
rity of whom are dead against widow-remarriage. But my belief
is that you do not limit a good thing for fear of getting unpopular
or the reform getting unpopular and thus not having a fair
chance of success.
Whilst I think all reformers in this direction may have had
in their minds mostly the innocent child widows, when advocat¬
ing widow-remarriage, they did not (in my opinion wisely) fix
an age-limit for such remarriages, as that would have created a
really awkward barrier in a good many deserving cases as well.
Please do make clear what you have in your mind about such
widows.
Whilst replying to this, I hope you would not forget such a
case as that of a grlrl marrying at an advanced age, say, 20 or 22
408
 CORRESPONDENCE 409
years and becoming a widow the next day or three months after
marriage and the fact that such cases do occur. Would such girls*
lose the right of remarrying simply because they are above the
age limit and can understand the sanctity of marital relations T
At the same time if an age-limit for widow-remarriage is
really felt to be necessary in the welfare of society, should it not
be equally necessary to fix an age-limit for remarriage of widow^
ers ? Simply because man happens to be stronger than the
female sex, let him not always frame laws that may not be just
but suit his convenience. Besides the practice of old men’s mar-
I’iages to young girls In their teens is as much a cause of the
increasing number of widows in society and as horrible a practice
as that of child marriage. Why should you not advocate men not
being allowed to remarry beyond a certain age, say 30 ? Of
course such limits should not be necessary in case no limit is
fixed for widow-remarriage, for under such conditions an old
widower can marry an old widow without causing much loss to
* society.

Yours etc.,
“Assistant Executive Engineer."
I gladly publish this catechism. But I must not enter
into a long reply even though I should fail to satisfy the
able catechist.
1. What I have pleaded for is that parents who com¬
mit the sin of ‘ marrying ’ their daughters of tender age
should expiate for the sin by remarrying these daughters,
should they become widowed while they are yet in their
teens. If the girls become widowed at a ripe age, it is
their concern whether they would remarry or remain
widowed. If I were called upon to state what the rule
should be, I should say the same rule should apply to-
women as to men. If a fifty-year old widower may re¬
marry with impunity, it should be open to the widow of
that age to do likewise. That in my opinion both will be
sinning by remarriage is quite another matter. I should
any day subscribe to a reform in the Hindu Law making
sinful the remarriage of a widow or a widower who volun¬
tarily married after maturity.
Yovng India, 14-10-’26 ,
 224
WIDOWS AND WIDOWERS
A correspondent writes :
“ I have carefully read the correspondence * A Catechism * and
^ your replies published in the Young India dated 14th October
1926. While answering the first question of the correspondent
you say ‘ I should any day subscribe to a reform In the Hindu
Law making sinful the remarriage of a widow or a widower
who voluntarily married after maturity/
“ In my opinion a reform of this kind in the Hindu Law
will be disastrous and to a large extent affect the moral standard
of the society as a whole. For Instance if a man or a woman
married after maturity and unfortunately happens to lose either
his wife or her husband after some days of married life, do you
mean to say that the man or woman should not be allowed to
remarry even though a great desire of enjoying married life*is
left unfulfilled, for the only reason that the man or woman con¬
cerned married after maturity ? If a reform of this kind is
made in the Hindu Law I am afraid the man or the woman
will find out some immoral way of gratifying his or her un¬
satisfied desire, and there will be a wholesale moral corruption
in the society. I therefore think that this question should en¬
tirely be left to the discretion of the man or woman concerned.”
My reply to the catechist was a challenge to Man who
is the law-giver. He will not allow his liberty to be re¬
stricted. My reply, therefore, is an attempt to show that
what is considered desirable for man should be equally
so for Woman, and that therefore a widow should have
the same discretion as a widower about remarriage. More¬
over, the Hindu Law is not inelastic like the laws made
under the British constitution. It will be noticed that I
have deliberately used the word ‘ sinful * instead of crimi¬
nal. A crime carries with it punishment imposed by a
man-worked State. A sin is punishable only by God or
one’s conscience. And I do think if Hindu society would
rise to the level I have aimed at in my answer it will be
a great gain for it and humanity.
Young India, 18-11-^26

410
 225
BRAHMANISM OR ANIMALISM

A learned Tamilian has written to me to address stu¬

dents on child-widows. He has said that the hardships
of child-widows in this presidency cire far greater than
those of child-widows in other parts of India, I have not
been able to test the truth of this statement. You should
know that better than I do. But what I would like you,
young men around me, to do is that you should have a
touch of chivalry about you. If you have that, I have a
great suggestion to offer. I hope the majority of you are
unmarried and a fair number of 3^u are also brahma-
charts, I have to say ‘ a fair number' because I know
students ; a student who casts his lustful eyes upon his
sister is not a brahmachari, I want you to make this
sacred resolve that you are not going to marry a girl who
is not a widow, you will seek out a widow girl and if you
cannot get a widow girl you are not going to marry at all.
Make that determination, announce it to the world, an¬
nounce it to your parents if you have them, or to your
sisters. I call them widow-girls by way of correction be¬
cause I believe that a child ten or fifteen years old, who
was no consenting party to the so-called marriage, who
having married, having never lived with the so-called hus- ^
band is suddenly declared to be a widow, is not a widow.'
It is an abuse of the term, abuse of language and a sacri¬
lege, The word widow in Hinduism has a sacred odour
about it. I am a worshipper of a true widow like the
late Mrs. Ramabai Ranade who knew what it was to be a
widow. But a child 9 years old knows nothing of what a
husband should be. If it is not true that there are such
child-widows in the presidency, then my case falls to the
ground. But if there are such child-widows, it becomes
your sacred duty to make the determination to marry a
girl widow if you want to rid ourselves of tfiis curse. I
am superstitious enough to believe that all such sins that
a nation commits react upon it physically. I believe that
411
412 HINDU DHARMA

all these sins of ours have accumulated together to reduce

us to a state of slavery. You may get the finest consti¬
tution that is conceivable dropping upon you from the
House of Commons. It will be worthless if there are not
men and women fit enough to work that constitution. Do
you suppose that we can possibly call ourselves men
worthy of ruling ourselves or others or shaping the des¬
tiny of a nation containing 30 crores so long as there is
one single widow who wishes to fulfil her fundamental
wants but is violently prevented from doing so ? It is
not religion, but irreligion. I say that, saturated as I am
with the spirit of Hinduism. Do not make the mistake
that it is the Western spirit in me that is speaking, I
claipi to be full to overflowing with the spirit of India
undefiled. I have assimilated many things from the West
but not this. There is no warrant for this kind of widow¬
hood in Hinduism.
All I have said about child-widows necessarily applies
to child-wives. You must be able surely to control your
lust to this extent, that you are not going to marry a girl
that is under 16 years of age. If I could do so I would
lay down 20 as the minimum. Twenty years is early
enough even in India. It is we who are responsible for
the precocity of girls, not even the Indian climate, because
I know girls of the age of 20 whor are pure and undefiled
and able to stand the storm that may rage round. Let
us not hug that precocity to ourselves. Some brahmatia
students tell me that they cannot follow this principle,
that they cannot get brahmana girls sixteen years old,
very few brahmanas keep their daughters unmarried till
that age, the brahmana girls are married mostly before
10, 12 and 13 years. Then I say to the brahmana youth,
“ Cease to be a brahmana, if you cannot possibly control
yourself. Choose a grown up girl of 16 who ^came a
widow when she was a child. If you cannot get a brahmana
widow who has reached that age, then go and take any
girl you like. And I tell 3mu that the God of the Hindus
will pardon that boy who has preferred to marry out of
his caste rather than ravish a girl of twelve. When your
 "AN INDIGNANT PROTEST 413
heart is not pure and you cannot master your passions^
you cease to be an educated man. You have called your
institution a premier institution. I want you to live up
to the name of the premier institution which must pro-
<luce boys who will occupy the front rank in character.
And what is education without character, and what is
character without' elementary personal purity ? Brah¬
manism I adore. I have defended Varnashrama Dharma.
But Brahmanism that can tolerate untouchability, virgin
widowhood, spoliation of virgins, stinks in my nostrils. It
is a parody of Brahmanism. There is no knowledge of
Brahma therein. There is no true interpretation of the
scriptures. It is undiluted animalism. Brahmanism is
made of sterner stuff. I want these few remarks of mine
to go deep down into your hearts. I have hot come to
appeal to your intellects but to your hearts. You are the
hope of the country and what I have said is of primary
importance for you.
Young India, 15-9-’27

226
“ AN INDIGNANT PROTEST ”

The Pleadmaster of a Bengali school writes:

“Your advice and utterances to students at Madras, asking
ihem to marry widowed girls only, have horrified us, and I send
forth my humble but indignant protest.
“This kind of advice will tend to destroy the tendency of
/ihe widows to observe lifelong brahmacharya which has given
Indian womanhood the greatest or rather the highest place in
the world, and destroy their chances of attaining salvation
through brahmacharya in a single birth, throwing them on the
filthy path of worldly happiness. Thus this kind of keen sym¬
pathy for widows will do a great disservice to them and an
injustice to the maidens whose marriage problem has become
at present one of complexity and difficulty. Your theory of mar¬
riage will overturn the Hindu theory of transmigration, rebirth
and even mukti, and will bring down Hindu society on the same
level with other societies which we do not like. Our society
has been demoralized no doubt, but we must have our eyes
 414 HINDU DHARMA

open to Hindu ideals and try to go up as far as we can and

not be influenced by the examples of other societies and ideals.
Examples of Ahalyabai, Rani Bhavani, Behula, Sita» Savitri^
Damayanti will guide the Hindu society and we must direct
it according to their ideals. I beg most humbly, therefore, that
you will refrain from giving your opinions on these knotty ques¬
tions and allow the society to do what it thinks best.'*
This ‘ indignant protest ’ leaves me unconverted and
unrepentant. My advice will not wean from her purpose
a single widow who has a will of her own and who knows
brahmacharya and is bent upon observing it. But if the
advice is followed, it will certainly bring great relief to
those girls of tender age who knew not the meaning of
marriage when they were put through the ceremony. The
use of the term widow in their connection is a violent
abuse of a name with sacred associations. It is precisely
for the very object that my correspondent has in view
that I advise the youth of the country to marry these so-
called widows or not at all. The sacredness of the insti¬
tution can be preserved only when it is purged of the
curse of child widowhood.
The statement that the widows attain moksha if they
observe brahmacharya has no foundation whatsoever in
experience. More things are necessary than mere brahma¬
charya for the attainment of the final bliss. And brahma¬
charya that is superimposed carries no merit with it, and
often gives rise to secret vice that saps the morals of the
society in which that vice exists. Let the correspondent
know that I am writing from personal observation.
I should be glad indeed if my advice results in ele¬
mentary justice being done to the maiden widows, and
if for that reason the other maidens instead of being pre¬
maturely sold to man’s lust are given an opportunity of
waiting for maturity in age and wisdom.
I have no theory of marriage that is inconsistent with
a belief in transmigration, rebirth or mukti. The reader
should know that millions of Hindus whom we arrogantly
describe as belonging to the lower order have no ban on
widow-remarriage. And I do not see how if remarriage of
old widowers does not interfere with that belief, real
 A YOUNG MAN’S DILEMMA 415
marriage of girls wrongly described as widows can interfere
with that great belief. I may mention for the edification
of the correspondent that transmigration and rebirth are
not mere theories with me but facts as patent as the daily
rise of the sun. Mukti is a fact to realize which I am
striving with all my might. And it is the contemplation of
mukti which has given me a vivid consciousness of the
wrong that is being done to these maiden widows. Let
us not in our emasculation mention in the same breath,
as these modem injured maiden widows the immortal
names of Sita and others referred to by the correspondent.
Lastly, whilst there is, and very properly, glorifica¬
tion of real widowhood in Hinduism, there is so far as I
am aware, no warrant for the belief that in the Vedic
times there was any absolute ban upon remarriage of
widows. But my cmsade is not against real widowhood.
It is against its atrocious caricature. The better way is
not to regard as widows at all the girls I have in view and
whom every Hindu who has a spark of chivalry in him
is bound to relieve from their intolerable yoke. I there¬
fore humbly but emphatically repeat the advice to every
young Hindu to refuse to marry any but these maidens
miscalled widows.
Young India, 6-10-’27

227
A YOUNG MAN’S DILEMMA
A Patidar young man writes :
“ My parents want to be married this very year and
Insist on my obeying their wishes In this respect.In my
community no one can secure a bride without conforming ta
the condition of sata, i.e., without offering a girl of one’s family^
In exchange. Child marriage is the rule. In my case two girls^
of nine or ten years of age only are available and that too on
the condition that we conform to the conditions of sata. My
father says that even this may not be possible afterwards, if we
miss the opportunity this year. If I say * no ’ my mother weeps-
anc^ creates no end of trouble in the family, I am a Patidar
416 HIx\DU DHAllMA

young man of 22 years of age. My parents will not hear of my

marrying a widow or outside my caste. What am I to do in
the circumstances ?
I know many a young man who is in the same
dilemma as this Patidar youth. According to our shastras,
.a boy of 16 years and over should be regarded by his
parents as a friend whom they should take in their confi¬
dence and not as a child whom they can coerce. But some
parents in our country seem to think that even their
grown up children are bound to follow every wish of theirs
— especially when it relates to such things as marriage —
as if they could have no will of their own in the matter.
And if this is the attitude with regard to the sons, the
plight of the daughters may well be imagined. It seems
to me that in all such contingencies, it is not only the
right but the religious duty of young men and young girls
not to be afraid of the parents’ wrath. It has been my
experience that when a grown up boy or girl takes up a
just and right position and adheres to it with absolute
iirmness there is the least amount of difficulty created by
the parents. When once they realize that the resolution
of their children is absolutely unalterable, they get recon¬
ciled to it. For behind the parents’ insistence there is
always the ultimate hope that it would bring their children
to their viewpoint. But when this hope is destroyed fur¬
ther insistence becomes meaningless and is therefore given
up. My advice to the young man in question, therefore,
is to refuse to be party to the double sin of marrying a
•child girl and of conforming to the evil practice of sata.
He must not mind how much domestic trouble he has to
face as a result of his refusal. He should consider it a
wirtue to marry outside his subcaste or to marry a widow,
subject to the necessary limitations.
Yoxinrj Jndiaj ll-4-*29
 228
SIMPLIFYING MARRIAGE
A coi’respondent sends me an account of a mai'riage
ceremony performed in Karachi. At the time of the mar¬
riage of a girl 16 years old, the daughter of a moneyed man
Sheth Lalchand, the father is reported to have curtailed
the expenditure to a minimum and given the marriage
ceremonial a religious and dignified form. The report
before me shows that the whole ceremony did not take
more than two houi’s, whereas generally it involves a
wasteful expenditure spread over many days. The reli¬
gious ceremony was performed by a learned brahmana
who explained to the bride and the bridegroom the mean¬
ing of what they were called upon to recite. I congra¬
tulate Sheth Lalchand and his wife who actively support¬
ed her husband upon initiating this belated reform, and
hope that it will be copied largely by other moneyed men.
This marriage ceremony calls to my mind the scene I
witnessed at the Agra students’ meeting. They confirmed
the information that was given to me by a friend, that
in the United Provinces young men studying in the colle¬
ges and schools were themselves eager to be married early
and expected their parents to go in for lavish expenditure
involving costly gifts, and equally costly and sometimes
even more costly entertainments. My informant told me
that even highly educated parents were not free from the
pride of possession, and that so far as expenses went they
beat the comparatively uneducated wealthy merchants.
To all such the recent example of Sheth Lalchand and
the less recent example of Sheth Jamanalal Bajaj should
serve as a stimulus in cutting down expenditure. But
more than the parents it is the duty of young men firmly
to resist premature marriage, more especially marriage
during student life, and at all cost resist all expenditure.
Indeed not more than Rs. 10 should be required for the
performance of the religious ceremonial, and nothing
’ 417
27
 418 HINDU DHARMA

beyond the ceremonial should be considered a necessary

part of marriage rites. In this age of democracy, when
the distinction between the rich and the poor, the high
and the low, is sought to be abolished, it is for the rich
to lead the poor to a contented life by exercising self-
restraint in all their enjoyments and indulgences, and let
them remember the verse in the Bhagawadgita, “ What¬
ever leaders of society do, the others will follow.” The
truth of this statement we see daily verified in our expe¬
rience, and nowhere more vividly than in marriage cere¬
monies and rites in connection with the dead. Thousands
of poor people deprive themselves for this purpose of
necessaries of life, and burden themselves with debts
carrying ruinous rates of interest. This waste of national
resources can be easily stopped if the educated youths of
the country, especially sons of rich parents, will resolutely
set their faces against every form of wasteful expenditure
on their account.
Young India, 26-9-’29

229 ■
INTER-COMMUNAL MARRIAGES
Q. You say that you are in favour of inter-religious
marriages but at the same time you say that each party
should retain his or her own religion and, therefore, you
said, you tolerated even civil marriages. Are there any
instances of parties belonging to different religions keep¬
ing up their own religions to the end of their lives; and
is not the institution of civil marriage a negation of reli¬
gion and does it not tend towards laxity of religion ?
A. Gandhiji said that the questions were appropriate.
He had no instances in mind where the parties had clung
to their respective faiths up to death because these
friends whom he knew had not yet died. He had, how¬
ever, under his observation men and women professing
different religions and each clinging to his or her own
faith without abatement. But he would go so far as to
 INVIDIOUS AND UNFAIR 419
say that they need not wait for the discovery of past
instances. They should create new ones so that timid
ones may shed their timidity.
As to civil marriages he did not believe in them but
he welcomed the institution of civil marriage as a much-
needed reform for the sake of reform.
Harijan, 16-3-’47

230
INVIDIOUS AND UNFAIR
A correspondent writes:
** There are at present in Cutch in our midst several other¬
wise respectable gentlemen, upright, munificent, deeply religious
and high-minded but without any scruple about remarrying
merely for the sake of begetting male offspring. I would entreat
you to express your opinion as to whether you approve of this
practice among the Hindus of deploring the birth of a daughter.
Do you too hold with the orthodox that one cannot go to Heaven
without a son ?
“ A man noted for his charities has three wives. But he
has no male offspring. He has now married for the fourth time.
A few months ago he performed a yajna when five hundred brah-
manas were fed daily. Over a lakh of rupees were spent over
this ceremony. I can multiply such instances/'
Unfortunately this hankering for male ofifspring is
almost universally prevalent in Hindu society. It is not
necessary to trace its origin. It is enough that in the pre¬
sent age of sex equality, this sort of invidious discrimina¬
tion against the female sex is an anachronism. I fail to
see any reason for jubilation over the birth of a son and
for mourning over that of a daughter. Both are God’s
gifts. They have an equal right to live, and are equally
necessary to keep the world going. But such age-old and
deep-rooted practices cannot be eradicated all of a sudden.
They can be dealt with only by an awakening of the social
conscience, and a proper recognition of the true status
and dignity of woman. Today both husband and wife are
found to be equally agreeable to the former remarrying
when they cannot beget a male offspring. Reformers like
 HINDU DHARMA
420
my correspondent have to cultivate patience and' not be
angry over such unfortunate occurrences nor lose heart
They have to have faith in the cause and work away iri
the hope that society will one day realize the evil of mak¬
ing unmeaning and invidious distinction between male
and female offspring.
Harijan, 2S-5-’38

231
THE HINDU WIFE
The following is a summary of a long letter of a bro¬
ther describing the miseries of his married sister :
“ Some time ago my sister was married to a man whose
character was hidden from us. This man has been discovered
to be a rake, and no amount of dissipation and debauchery can
satiate him. He has no sense of honour. My unfortunate sister
found soon after her marriage that her ‘ lord * was sinking down
more and more deeply day by day. She remonstrated. The
man could not brook this, and in order to * teach her a lesson *
indulged in his excesses in front of her. He would also whip
her, make her stand, starve her etc. She was tied to a post to
compel her to witness his debaucheries. My sister is heart¬
broken. Her lamentations make us feel wretched. We are
helpless. What would you advise her and us to do ? This is
one of the most shameful aspects of Hinduism, where woman
is left entirely at the mercy of man and has no rights and privi¬
leges. If a man chooses to be cruel and heartless, there is no
remedy left to the unfortunate woman. The man may go on
making random alliances, and not a little finger can be raised
against him; but a woman once married is at the utter mercy of
her lord. Thousands of such women are groaning and weeping.
As long as Hinduism is not purged of these and such like evils,
can there be any hope of progress ?"
The writer is an educated man. His is a much more
graphic description than the summary is of his sister’s
distress. The correspondent has sent me his full name
and address. His condemnation of Hinduism, though par¬
donable under intense irritation, is based on a hysterical
generalization from an isolated instance. For millions of
Hindu wives live in perfect peace and are queens in their
 THE HINDU WIFE 421
own homes. They exercise an authority over their hus¬
bands which any woman would envy. It is an authority
which love gives. The case of cruelty brought to light
by the correspondent is an illustration not of the evil in
Hinduism, but of the evil in human nature which has been
known to express itself under all climes and among people
professing different faiths of the world. The facility for
divorce has proved no protection against a brutal husband
for a pliant wife incapable of asserting, and at times even
unwilling to assert, herself. It is therefore in the interest
of reform for reformers to avoid hysterics and exaggera¬
tions.
Nevertheless the occurrence to which this article
draws attention is not an altogether uncommon occurrence
in Hindu society. Hindu culture has erred on the side of
excessive subordination of the wife to ihe husband, and
has insisted on the complete merging of the wife in the
husband. This has resulted in the husband sometimes
usurping and exercising authority that reduces him to the
level of the brute. The remedy for such excesses there¬
fore lies not through the law but through the true educa¬
tion of women as distinguished from unmarried girls, and
through cultivating public opinion against unmanly con¬
duct on the part of husbands. In the case in point the
remedy is incredibly simple. Instead of the brother and
other relatives feeling helpless and weeping with the dis¬
tressed girl, they should clothe her with protection, edu¬
cate her to believe that it is no part of her duty to placate
a sinful husband or to seek his company. It is quite
evident that the husband himself does not care for the
wife. She may therefore without breaking the legal tie
live apart from her husband’s roof and feel as if she had
never been married. Of course there are two legal reme¬
dies open even to a Hindu wife for whom a divorce is
unobtainable, and that is to have the husband punished
for common assault and to ^insist upon his supporting the
wife. Experience tells me that this remedy is in most
cases if not in all worse than useless, and it never brings
any comfort to a virtuous woman and makes the question
 422 HINDU DHARMA

of husband’s reform more difficult if not impossible, which

after all should be the aim of society, more so of every
wife. In the present instance the girl’s parents are well
able to support her, but where it is not possible, the num¬
ber of institutions that would give shelter to such ill-
treated women is growing in the country.
There still remains the question of the satisfaction of
the sexual appetite on the part of young women thus
leaving the inhospitable roofs of their husbands or being
actually deserted by them when the relief given by divorce
is unobtainable. But this is really not a serious grievance
in „.oint of numbers, for in a society in which custom has
discountenanced divorce for ages, a woman whose mar¬
riage proves unhappy does not want to be remarried.
When public opinion in any social group requires that
particular form of relief, I have no doubt that it will be
forthcoming. So far as I understand the correspondent’s
letter, the grievance is not that the wife cannot satisfy
her sexual appetite. The grievance is the gross and de¬
fiant immorality on the part of the husband. For this,
as I have said, the remedy lies in a revision of the mental
attitude. The feeling of helplessness is imaginary as most
of our ills are. A fresh outlook, a little original thinking
is enough to dispel the grief brought about by defective
imagination. Nor should friends and relatives in such
cases be satisfied with the mere negative result of isolating
the victim from the zone of tyranny. She should be in¬
duced to qualify herself for public service. This kind of
training would be more than enough compensation for the
doubtful privilege of a husband’s bed.
Young India, 3-10-’29
 232
TEAR DOWN THE PURDAH
Whenever I have gone to Bengal, Bihar or the United
Provinces, I have observed the purdah system more strictly
followed than in the other provinces. But when I address¬
ed a meeting at Darbhanga late at night and amid calm
surroundings free from noise and bustle and unmanage¬
able crowds, I found in front of me men, but behind me
and behind the screen were women of whose presence I
knew nothing till my attention was drawn to it. The func¬
tion was in connection with the laying of the foundation-
stone of an orphanage, but I was called upon to address
the ladies behind the purdah. The sight of the screen
behind which my audience whose numbers I did not know
was seated made me sad. It pained and humiliated me
deeply. I thought of the wrong being done by men to the
women of India by clinging to a barbarous custom which,
whatever use it might have had when it was first intro¬
duced, had now become totally useless and was doing
incalculable harm to the country. All the education that
we have been receiving for the past 100 years seems to
have produced but little impression upon us, for I note
that the purdah is being retained even in educated house¬
holds net because the educated men believe in it them¬
selves but because they will not manfully resist the brutal
custom and sweep it away at a stroke. I have the privi¬
lege of addressing hundreds of meetings of women attend¬
ed by thousands. The din and the noise created at these
meetings make it impossible to speak with any effect to
the women who attend them. Nothing better is to be
expected so long as they are caged and confined in their
houses and little courtyards. When therefore they find
themselves congregated in a big room and are expected
all of a sudden to listen to some one, they dp not know
what to do with themselves or with the speaker. And
when silence is restored it becomes difficult to interest
423
424 HINDU DHARMA

them in many everyday topics, for they know nothing of

them having been never allowed to breathe the fresh air
of freedom. I know that this is a somewhat exaggerated
picture. I am quite aware of the very high culture of
these thousands of sisters whom I get the privilege of
addressing. I know that they are capable of rising to the
same height that men are capable of, and I know too that
they do have occasions to go out. But this is not to be
put down to the credit of the educated classes. The ques¬
tion is, why have they not gone further ? Why do not
our women enjoy the sa‘me freedom that men do ? Why
should they not be able to walk out and have fresh air ?
Chastity is not a hothou.se growth. It cannot be super¬
imposed. It cannot be protected by the surrounding wall
of the purdah. It must grow from within, and to be
worth anything it must be capable of withstanding every
unsought temptation. It must be as defiant as Sita’s. It
must be a very poor thing that cannot stand the gaze of
men. Men, to be men, must be able to trust their women¬
folk, even as the latter are compelled to trust them. Let
us not live with one limb completely or partially para¬
lyzed. Rama would be nowhere without Sita, free and
independent even as he was himself. But for robust in¬
dependence Draupadi is perhaps a better example. Sita
was gentleness incarnate. She was a delicate flower.
Draupadi was a giant oak. She bent mighty Bhima him¬
self to her imperious will. Bhima was terrible to every
one, but he was a lamb before Draupadi. She stood in no
need of protection from any one of the Pandavas, By
seeking today to interfere with the free growth of the-
womanhood of India we are interfering with the growth
of free and independent-spirited men. What we are doing
to our women and what we are doing to the ‘ untouch¬
ables ’ recoils upon our heads with a force thousand times
multiplied. It partly accounts for our weakness, indeci¬
sion, narrowness and helplessness. Let us then tear down
the purdah with one mighty effort.
Young Indian 3-2-’27
 233
DEVADASIS
After his talk with the devadasis at Mayavaram, Gan-
dhiji remarked :
As I was talking to them and understanding the hid¬
den meaning of the thing, my whole soul rose in rebellion
against the custom of dedicating minor girls for immoral
purposes. Calling them devadasis we insult God Himself
in the name of religion, and we commit a double crime
in that we use these sisters of ours to serve our lust and
take in the same breath the name of God. To think that
there should be a class of people given to this kind of
immoral service, and that there should be another class
who should tolerate their hideous immorality, makes one
despair of life itself. And I assure you that as I was
talking to them I saw that there was no evil in their eyes,
and they were as capable of fine feelings and fine character
as any other w'omen. What difference can there be
between them and our own blood-sisters ? And if we do*
not allow our own sisters to be used for immoral pur¬
poses, how dare we allow these to be so used ? Let
Hindus who are in any way whatsoever connected with
these things purge society of this pest. The majority of
them have promised to retrace their steps, if I fulfil the
promise I have made to them. But if they cannot, I shall
blame not them but the society in which they are passing
their lives. It is up to you to extend the hand of fellow¬
ship to these sisters, it is up to you to see that they are
reclaimed from their life of shame. I know that when
they are again face to fAce with temptation it will become
difficult for them to resist it. But if man will restrain
his lust and society stands up against the evil, it will be
easily possible to rid society of the evil.
Young India, 22-9-*27

425
 234
THE DEVADASI
The indefatigable Dr. S. Muthulakshmi Reddi writes :
“ As you have been openly denouncing the devadasi system
in the Hindu temples, I make bold to appeal to you for help
in the great task of getting rid of that evil. In this Presidency,
1 find it an uphill task, as the so-called educated men and even
some of the most prominent Congressmen oppose my reform
measures and defend that infamous institution.
“ My Devadasi Bill, which has now become an Act, deals
only with the Inam-holdlng devadasis, but there is a section
of that community which practise dedication under the cloak
of religion simply to make a living out of prostitution. This is
nothing but traffic in children; because children are even bought
and adopted (adoption by devadasi is allowed by our Hindu
Law), and at an age when they are innocent and cannot judge
or act for themselves, are led Into this abominable life from
which they rarely escape. I have had many memorials and
petitions from the enlightened section of that community asking
me to bring about legislation to punish such wicked people who
trade upon the children’s souls and bodies.
“ The Penal Code Sections 372 and 373 have proved ineffect¬
ive. Hence, I have given notice of another Bill for the success
of which I want your blessings. Some may argue that legisla¬
tion is no good so long as the people do not realize the evil in
that custom; but my contention is that a good section of our
people perceive the injustice. Now I myself feel that I could
rescue many of these girls if I had some legal power to take
away children from such criminal parents.
** Among the devadasi community Itself there is a great
awakening, and they have been doing propaganda on a large
scale, but I am pained to observe that the high-caste people do
not help them in that community’s efforts to reform themselves.
And further, our laws for the protection of children are almost
nil in this Presidency compared wi1*i the protection that exists
for the children of other countries and even the children of other
provinces such as Bombay and Bengal.
We know that in the advanced countries, health and moral
reform always preceded the formation of public opinion in their
favour as they were themselves educative factors. In this Pre¬
sidency, we cannot blame the Government so much as the high-
caste people who do not sufficiently realize that all children. Irres¬
pective of caste or creed, need our care and sympathy, and In
426
 THE DEVADASI 427
this matter of rescuing innocent children from the prospect of
a dreadful life, they should rise above their communal and caste
prejudices."
I heartily endorse the writer’s proposal. Indeed I do
not think that the proposed legislation will be in advance
of public opinion. The whole of the enlightened public
opinion that is vocal is against the retention of the system
in any shape or form. The opinion of the parties con¬
cerned in the immoral traffic cannot count, just as the
opinion of keepers of opium dens will not count in favour
of their retention, if public opinion is otherwise against
them. The devadasi system is a blot uiion those' who
countenance it. It would have died long ago but for the
supineness of the public. Public conscience in this country
somehow or other lies dormant. It often feels the awful¬
ness of many a wrong, but is too indifferent or too lazy
to move. But if some active spirit like Dr. Reddi moves,
that conscience is prepared to lend such support as indif¬
ference can summon up. I am therefore of opinion that
Dr. Reddi’s proposal is in no way premature. Such legis¬
lation might well have been brought earlier. In any case
I hope that she will receive the hearty support of all
lovers of purity in religious and general social life.
Young India, 29-8-’29
 235
POSITION OF WOlVIEN

I do not need to be a girl to be wild over man's atro¬

cities towards woman. I count the law of inheritance
among the least in the list. The Sarda Bill deals with an
evil far greater than the one which the law of inheritance
connotes. But I am uncompromising in the matter of
woman’s rights. In my opinion she should labour under
no legal disability not suffered by man. I should treat
the daughters and sons on a footing of perfect equality.
As women begin to realize their strength, as they must
in proportion to the education they receive, they will natu¬
rally resent the glaring inequalities to which they are sub¬
jected.
But to remove legal inequalities will be a mere pallia¬
tive. The root of the evil lies much deeper than most
people realize. It lies in man’s greed of power and fame
and deeper still in mutual lust. Man has always desired
power. Ownership of property gives this power. Man
hankers also after posthumous fame based on power. This
cannot be had, if property is progressively cut up in pieces
as it must be if all the posterity become equal co-sharers.
Hence the descent of property for the most part on the
eldest male issue. Most women are married. And they
are co-sharers, in spite of the law being against them, in
their husband’s power and privileges. They delight in
being ladies this and what not simply for the fact of being
the wives of particular lords. Though therefore they may
vote for radical reform in academic discussions over in¬
equalities, when it comes to acting up to their vote, they
will be found to be unwilling to part with the privileges.
Whilst therefore I would always advocate the repeal
of all legal disqualifications, I should have the enlightened
women of India to deal with the root cause. Woman is
the embodiment of sacrifice and suffering, and her advent
to public life should therefore result in purifying it, in
428
 POSITION OP WOMEN 429
restraining unbridled ambition and accumulation of pro¬
perty. Let them know that mi]j[ions of men have no pro¬
perty to transmit to posterity. Let us learn from them
that it is better for the few to have no ancestral property
at all. The real property that a parent can transmit to all
equally is his or her character and educational facilities.
Parents should seek to make their sons and daughters self-
reliant, well able to earn an honest livelihood by the sweat
of their brow. The upbringing of minor children will then
naturally devolve upon the major descendants. Much of
the present imbecility of the children of the wealthy will
go, if the latter could but substitute the wgrthy ambition
of educating their children to become independent for the
unworthy ambition of making them slaves of ancestral
property, which kills enterprise and feeds the passions
which accompany idleness and luxury. The privilege of
the awakened vromen should be to spot and eradicate
age-long evils.
That mutual lust too has played an important part
in bringing about the disqualifications of the fair sex hard¬
ly needs any demonstration. Woman has circumvented
man in a variety of w'ays in her unconsciously subtle ways,
as man has vainly and equally unconsciously struggled to
thwart woman in gaining ascendancy over him. The re¬
sult is a stalemate. Thus viewed, it is a serious problem
the enlightened daughters of Bharata Mata are called upon
to solve. They may not ape the manner of the West which
may be suited to' its environment. They must apply
methods suited to the Indian genius and Indian environ¬
ment. Theirs must be the strong controlling, purifying,
steadying hand, conserving what is best in our culture
and unhesitatingly rejecting what is base and degrading.
This is the work of Sitas, Draupadis, Savitris and Dama-
yantis, not of amazons and prudes.
Yoting India, 17-10-’29
 23G
WOMAN IN THE SMRITIS

A correspondent sends me an issue of Indian Swa-

rajya published at Bezwada. It contains an article on the
place of woman in the Smritis. Prom it I copy the fol¬
lowing few extracts without any alteration :
The wife should ever treat the husband as God, though he
be characterless, sensual and devoid of good qualities (Manu,
5-154).
Women should follow the word of their husbands. This is
their highest duty {Yajnavalkyat 1-18).
A woman has no separate sacrifice, ritual or fasting. She
gains a high place in heaven by serving the husband {Manu,
5-145).
She who fasts and performs rituals, while the husband lives,
cuts off the life of the husband. She goes to hell. A woman
who is after the sacred waters should wash the feet or the
whole body of the husband and drink the water; and she attains
the highest place {Atri» 136-37).
There is no higher world for the woman than that of the
husband. She who displeases the husband cannot go to his
world after death. So she should never displease the husband
iVasishtha, 21-14).
That woman who prides In her father's family and disobeys
the husband should be made by the king a prey to the dogs
in the presence of a big assembly of people (Manu, 8-371).
None should eat the food offered by a woman who disobeys
the husband. Such a woman is to be known as a sensualist
(Angiras, 69).
If the wife disobeys the husband when he is given to bad
habits or becomes a drunkard or Is suffering from physical ail¬
ment, then, for three months she should be deprived of her
valuable clothes and jewels and kept away {Manu, 10-78).
It is sad to think that the Smritis contain texts which
can command no respect from men who cherish the liberty
of woman as their own and who regard her as the mother
of the race ; sadder still to think that a newspaper publish¬
ed on behalf of orthodoxy should publish such texts as if
they were part of religion. Of course there are in the
430
 WOMAN IN THE SMRITIS 431
Smritis texts which give woman her due place and regard
her with deep veneration. The question arises as to what
to do with the Smritis that contain texts that are in con¬
flict with other texts in the same Smritis and that are re¬
pugnant to the moral sense. I have already suggested
often enough in these columns that all that is printed in
the name of scriptures need not be taken as the word
of God or the inspired word. But every one cannot decide
what is good and authentic and what is bad and interpo¬
lated. There should therefore be some authoritative body
that would revise all that passes under the name of scrip¬
tures, expurgate all the texts that have no moral value
or are contrary to the fundamentals of religion and mora¬
lity, and present such an edition for the guidance of
Hindus. The certainty that the whole mass of Hindus and
the persons accepted as religious leaders will not accept
the validity of such authority need not interfere with the
sacred enterprise. Work done sincerely and in the spirit
of service will have its effect on all in the long run and
will most assuredly help those who are badly in need of
such assistance.
Harijan, 28-ll-'36
 237
ABDUCTED WOMEN
Several thousand Hindu and Sikh girls had been
taken away by Muslims. The whereabouts of a few were
known, but there were large numbers about whom we
knew nothing. When contacted some were reported to
have said that they did not wish to return. They were
nfraid that they would not be accepted back by their
society. Their husbands, parents and friends would look
down upon them. Gandhiji wanted to say, with all the
emphasis at his command, that society should welcome
those girls back. Some of them were pregnant. It was
no fault of theirs. Their children, when born, should be
treated with the same regard and respect as any other
children. The religion of these children would be that
of the mother. On growing up they were to change it if
they wished. If any such girl came to him she would be
treated by him as any other girl in his party. To casti¬
gate these girls, for having fallen a victim to the lust of
^some monster, was less than human. No shame attached
to them.
Harijan, 4-l.’48

432
 INDEX

Adhikara, 291 Atom bomb, compared to Ramo-

Adi Shankara, avoids a chandala, 23 nama, 132
Advaitism, 62-4 Attachment, freedom from, is God-
Age of consent, legislation to raise, realization, 251
399 Authoritative body, should present
Ahimsa, all-conquering, 232, 280; a modern edition of Smriti for
and goshala, 237-8; and non¬ Hindus, 431
vegetarianism, 241; and vege¬ Ayurveda, gives ample testimony
tarianism, 240; becomes a part of Ramanama, 129
of Gandhiji’s life, 223; defined, Beef, 96, 308-9; not a national food
198-200; impossible If fear is of the Muslims, 308
not shed, 232; impossible with¬ Bhagawata, 22, 44
out utter unselfishness, 252; its Bhishma, delivering discourse from
breach when no non-violent his death-bed, 172
effort is made to prevent Birth-control, by artificial means
cruelty, 215; its pathway has must result in imbecility and
often to be treaded alone, 217; nervous prostration, 142; with
Its votaries made a fetish of, self-control, 142
218; motive is the crucial test Blazer, Dr., killing his imbecile
in, 227; regarding deer over¬ daughter, 207
running fields, 238; regarding Blowing, used in milking cows, 300
insect pests, 238; showing new Boycott, social, 184-6; is unpardon¬
implications, 228; some posers, able violence, 185
233-9; V. himsa, 217-21; v. utili¬ Bradlaugh, his atheism: 67, 122
tarianism, 209. See Non-violence Brahmacharya, 137, 251-4; its pro¬
Ambedkar, Dr., his challenge to tecting walls, 146; means con¬
Hinduism, 317; his indictment, trol of all senses 253; rules for,
317-8; on caste, 357-9; threaten¬ 146-7; steps to, 143-4
ed conversion, 353 Brahmanas, 364; calling themselves
Anasakti, transcends ahimsa, 180 a minority, 394-5; exhibiting
Animal sacrifice, 9, 21, 93-6, 235-6 Brahma in one's life, 393; not
Appeal, by self-purification i.e. by acting according to shastras are
fast, lio not brahmanas, 393; rose
Arjuna, his role In Mahabharata, against corruption and purged
176 society, 391; trying to protect
Arya Samaj, change to, by Hari- Hinduism, 390
jans, 349-50; copied Christianity Brahmana-non-Brahmana, 289-95
in planning propaganda, 16; re¬ Brahmanical spirit, 337
presents militant Hinduism, 269 Brahmanism, 392; culmination of
Ashrama, 362-3, 378-81; Hindus' other varnas, 370; synonymous
unique contribution, 55; secret with Hinduism, * 372; unadulte¬
of success of Hinduism, 363 rated wisdom, 391; virgin
Atheism, cannot flourish in India, widowhood is undiluted animal¬
285 ism in, 413
433
28
434 HINDU DHARMA

British Courts, in India had recog¬ Christian civilization, still groaping

nized untouchability, 324 for its great secret, 363
Buddha, broadened base of Hindu¬ Christian Missions, flirting with
ism, 271; followed by Hindus Harijans in Travancore, 335;
who were saturated with Vedic their attitude to Hinduism, 262
law, 270; his essential teachings Christianity, describes a duel be¬
form an integral part of Hindu¬ tween God and Satan within
ism, 270; his greatest contribu¬ man, 121; militant or muscular,
tion is regard for all life, 272; 74
insisted upon the law of cause Civilization, consists in voluntary
and effect, 273; reinstated God reduction of wants, 255; handi¬
in the right place, 272 craft, and bullocks, 310
Buddhism, found its full fruition in Clinging to life, in all circumstan¬
India, 270; has not gone out of ces is himsa and height of
lAdia, 371 selfishness, 230-1
Bullock, necessary for handicraft Collegians, from U. P. eager to
civilization, 310; part of our life marry lavishly, 417
and civilization, 310; its tor¬ Communism, in the first verse of
ture, 214-5 Ishopanishad, 388
Carnal desire, its control difficult Communists, philosophical, theih
without control of palate, 139 cravings, 47
Caste, best possible adjustment, Consciousness, of living presence
social stability and progress, of God is first requisite of non¬
322; does not base itself on violence, 190
wealth, 322; does not connote Conversion, error and greatest im¬
superiority or inferiority, 323; pediment to peace, 261; its
drag upon Hindu progress, 364; threats, 353; of Englishmen or
extension of the principle of driving them out of India, 188
family, 322; no part of Hindu¬
Cousins, Margaret E., 398
ism, 351; V, class, 322-4
Caste-Hindus, have to open tem¬ Cow, ceasing to give milk should
ples to Harijans, 326; responsi¬ be put to the plough, 302; has
ble for the present condition of become the cheapest for slaugh¬
the Harijans, 328; should be¬ ter, 307; how to save her ?
come Harijans, 347 312-3; killing, practised in
Cattle-breeding, 312 Gujarat, 300
Ceremonies, old, must be given new Cow-protection, 9, 297-313; and
forms, 30 Muslims, 305-7; by Muslim
Change, of life is not change of friendship only, 305; by tapasya
religion, 259 and self-purification, 298; cen¬
Charkha, added lustre to one’s own tral fact of Hinduism, 297; gift
religion, 383; is presented to all of Hinduism to the world, 298;
Indians irrespective of religion, not by killing human beings,
383 298; not purely out of selfish¬
Chastity, 229; not a hothouse ness, 304
growth, 424 Cow-slaughter, on behalf of
Child marriage, 21; should be de¬ Englishmen, 306; should be
clared null and void, 407 made economically Impossible,
Child widows, 411-3; should be 307
married, 396-7 Cow-worship, 55; unique contribu¬
Child wives, 412 tion of Hinduism, 6
 INDEX 435
Cowardice, comes from want of 115; hoary institution, 102; in¬
faith in God and ignorance of tegral part of Gandhiji’s life,
His attributes, 120; greatest vice 112; integral part of Hinduism,
and violence, 120 103; Intended to influence both
Cure, with the aid of the elemen- caste Hindus and Harijans, 113;
tals, 131 its chain would touch hearts of
Customs, vicious, though justified all Hindus. 110, 115-6; its in¬
in Ramayana, should be re¬ visible effect far greater than
jected, 154 visible one, 110; of Nineveh
Barshan, of idol, is encouragement people, 104 ; of 1933 meant for
to right doing, 80 purification of all Harijan work¬
Death, its fear is greatest obstacle ers, 110; spiritual, is tapas, 114;
to realizing true ahimsa, 225 unto death is not suicide, 104
Defence, through violence if neces¬ Feeding, beggars and stray dogs is
sary, 189 sin, 197
Depressed classes, their revolt Gandhiji, accepts all names conno¬
against prevalent Hinduism, 98 ting one formless God, 134;
Destruction, of rabid dog is mini¬ acknowledges Muhammad as
mum violence, 194; taught man one of the Prophets, 279;
that truth was within him, 249 advises brahmana youths to
Devadasi, 425-7; Bill, 426-7, is not marry out of caste, 412; advises
in advance of public opinion, patience to untouchables for
427 converting orthodox Hindus,
Diet, powerful factor In formulating 321; ’ against animal sacrifice,
character, 192 33; and Ahmedabad Humani¬
Discrimination, against female tarian League, 193-4; and the
birth is anachronism, 419 Statesman, 174-6; answers Jain
Divine grace, 172-3 questions, 229-32; appeals to
Draupadi, example of defiant chas¬ impure people to leave Harijan
tity, 424 work, 107; as an orthodox
Duty, of castrating stray dogs, 193; Hindu, 32; asks students to
of killing rabid dogs, 193; of marry only girl-widows, 411;
taking child's life if no hopeful aspires to see through the re¬
remedy is found, 203; to meet moval of untouchability a com¬
certain occasions by laying plete regeneration of humanity,
down life, 218 392; begins crusade against
Education, right. Including work¬ untouchability in 19l5, 347;
able knowledge of Sanskrit, 90 begins fast as an instrument of
Equality of all, 44-5, 47 reform in 1913, 114; believes all
Eternal verity, summed up in the men are born equal, 360; be¬
first verse of Isfyopanishad, 343 lieves himself saturated with
European civilization, its adoption ahimsa, 195; believes India has
would ruin India, 60 a mission for the world, 184;
Ezhavas, 343 believes in rebirth and transmi¬
Faith, becomes self-propagating, 5; gration as facts, 139, 415; be¬
living, wideawake consciousness lieves in the Institution of
of God within, 117 gurus, 8; believes in Var-
Family, God-ordained institution, nashrama Dharma, 360; believes
322 snakes and tigers are God's
Fast, and coercion, 112-5; and answers to man’s wicked
prayer, 102; great weapon in thoughts, 213; believes that
the armoury of Satyagraha, chain of fasts would touch
436 HINDU DHARMA

hearts of all Hindus, 110; be¬ hurt men, 242; has not con¬
lieves that sins committed by a trolled thought at all stages,
nation react upon* it physically, 138; his claim to Hinduism is
411; both an idol-worshipper rejected, 187; his conviction
and idol-breaker, 73, 243; called that even venomous creatures
a Christian in disguise, 187; may not be killed, 151; his fast
calls Gita his spiritual dic¬ for Harijans is purely religious,
tionary, 182; claims to be full 107; his national service part
with the spirit of India unde¬ of his spiritual training, 14; his
filed, 412; claims to have regard for others’ scriptures
applied eternal truths in life, 3; consistent with his claim to be
claims to have understood spirit a Sanatani Hindu, 267; his reli¬
of Hinduism, 314; claims to gion has no geographical limits,
hear God's voice, 105-8; claims 184; his spiritual food, 11; in
to represent Sanatana Hindu favour of using cows for
Dharma, 331; defines removal of draught purposes, 302; Invites
untouchability, 321; defines Dr. Ambedkar to join Harijan
Sanatana Hinduism, 7-10; de¬ movement, 359; is by instinct
rives Vama Dharma from Gita, truthful but not non-violent, 3;
369; develops chain of purifica¬ learnt a great deal from the
tory fasts, 115; discovers he has West, 204; on brahmacharya,
not adequate detachment. 172; 173; on chief value of Hindu¬
discovers non-violence j in his ism, 39-40; on Danish law re¬
pursuit of Truth, 3; does not garding killing, 210; on Daya-
believe in State religion, 294; nand Saraswati, 15; on faith,
does not envisage wife follow¬ 117; on Gita, 178-80, 288; on
ing independent avocation, 386; Hindus and Hinduism, 257; on
does not find in Shankarasmriti his mission, 14; on Ishopor
passages closing roads to nishad, 41-8; on Krishna’s life,
avama Hindus, 342; does not 157-8; on Malaviyaji, 295-6; on
share Dr. Ambedkar's opinion Manusmriti, 369-70; on model
regarding caste, 358; does not temple, 87-8; on prayer, 116-26;
subscribe to prohibition of on Shraddhanandjl, 15; on
shudras to learn Vedas, 10; does social boycott, 184-6; on upa-
not want to leave any sect after nayana, 91-2; on why he is a
him,, 3; encourages others to Hindu, 5-6; opines sins of touch
study more their and others’ and sight have no place in
faiths, 258; explains Inner Vedas, 316; opposed to State aid
Voice, 105-8; favours retention to religious bodies, 294; pleads
of old Sanskrit mantras, 119; for true understanding of
feels that perfect renunciation mutual religions, 282; pleads
is impossible without perfect inability to guide in himsa, 238;
ahimsa, 164; finds Hindu scrip¬ puts a logical interpretation on
tures satisfy needs of the soul, Gita, 177; puts 20 as marriage
267; finds it difficult to efface age for girls, 412; tquotes his
past sanskaras, 139; finds it im¬ experience of 40 years regard¬
possible to reconcile to idea of ing prayer, 121; realized potency
conversion, 261; freely asso- of Ramanama in Uruli-Kanchan,
cites with meat-eaters, 191; 149; recognized truth by the
Harijan by choice, 352; has no name of Hama, 81; refrains
feeling to save animals who from visiting temples not open
 INDEX 437
to Harijans, 71; says he Is an Grihasthashrama, dominant among
advaitist and also anekantavadi all ashramas, 366; its duties, 378
or syadvadi, 62; staunch vege¬ Guruvayur Temple, 330-2
tarian and food-reformer, 190; Hand-weaving, as a bread-winning
suggests schools for training occupation, 385
priests, 92, 339; tries to esta¬ Harijan, best name for untouch¬
blish a chain of fasts, 110; tries able, 348; movement led by
to live Hinduism as interpreted brahmanas, 391; reform should
in Gita, 176; uncompromising not follow but precede Swaraj,
regarding wmnen's rights, 428; 319; Sevak Sangh, 334, 354;
welcomes institution of civil workers, their majority are
marriage, 419; would not be brahmanas, 392
sorry If vama goes in the re¬ Harijans, how to fraternize with,
moval of untouchability, 371; 319; must not use threats, 355;
would not feed ants, monkeys shall enter temples subject to
or dogs, 242; would not touch the same conditions as other
temples till animal sacrifices are Hindus, 329; should be free to
stopped, 95; would restore spiri¬ give up Hinduism, 354; should
tual culture for self-defence, 18 be invited to State functions,
Gandhism, no such sect as, 3 339; should be lifted up econo¬
Gangaram, Sir, 396-7 mically, 339; should not seek
material ^ betterment under
Gayatri, 11, 41; its japa becomes
threat of conversion, 355; their
potent, 102
reconversions, 356; their won¬
Girl, under 18 should never be derful loyalty to Hinduism, 354
married, 399; widowed at a ripe
age is free to choose whether High-and-lowness, 329, 344, 348;
to remarry or not, 409 corroding Hinduism, 358
Gita, accepted by all Hindu sects Himsa, all life in flesh exists by,
as authoritative, 36, 288; and ac¬ 220; defined, 198-200, 220
tion, 161-2; and non-violence, Hindu, boy must have a workable
150-6, 178-80; and war, 163; knowledge of Sanskrit, 286; cul¬
book of universal religion, 293; ture has erred on the excessive
canons of its interpretation, subordination of the wife to the
151; has never failed to com¬ husband, 421; pani and Muslim
fort Gan4hi1i, 165; its appeal is pani, 276-7; States, may not
universal, 182; its central teach¬ prohibit xow-slaughter, 307,
ing is anasakti, 180; its ideal of must follow Travancore in
equality between a brahmana temple entry, 336
and a bhangi, 315-6; its mes¬ Hindus, in thousands doing
sage, 158-65, 182; its reciters, penance for removal of un¬
170-1; its teaching is peace at touchability, 353; non-violent
the price of life, 178; Jayanti, essentially, 17; organizing for
181-2; Ramadhenu to Gandhiji, self-protection, 19; ought to
41; not a theoretical treatise have been least affected by idea
but a living guide, 176-7; satis¬ of death, 224; will be judged by
fies socialist, communist, philo¬ their ability to protect the cow,
sopher and economist, 42; shows 298
way to ahimsa out of himsa, Hinduism, and Buddhism, 33; and
156; teaching cannot be made obscenity, 27; and other reli¬
compulsory for even Hindus, gions are being weighed in
293 balance, 22; as practised today
438 HINDU DHARMA

has not condemned war as Humanity, and beggary, 196

Gandhiji, 177; assimilated best Hunger strike, against opening of
of Buddhism, 33; bound to Vithoba temple to Harijans, 341
perish if untouchability is not Husband, and wife as equal, 406;
removed, 330; created a band of professing and clinging to their
reformers, 100; does not allow respective religions, 418
10 kill a fellowman even to save Hydrophobia, 202
a cow, 305; does not basically Ideal, its virtue consists in its
believe in caste, 387; does not boundlessness, 240
permit drink, 36; enables to Identity, with dumb creation Is
assimilate good of other reli¬ unique contribution of Hindu¬
gions, 6; excludes all exploitation, ism, 54 .
40; gives shelter to Christians, Idolatry, in form of fanaticism, 73
177; gives shelter to Christians, Idol-worship, 8; plays important
Jews and Parsees, 257; has de¬ part in the uplift of human race,
vised a sys;tem of relief to the
India, has a soul that can defy the
poor, 100; has no proselytism,
physical combination of a whole
16; has room for Jesus, Muham¬
world, 184; her special mission
mad. Zoroaster and Moses, 261;
is to resist materialism, 54;
insists on brotherhood of all
imbibed most of spirit of
that lives, 38; is ever-growing,
Buddha, 371; in deadly coil of
20-2, 177; its contributions,
mercantile cobra, 384; mother
54-5; its conversion movement,
of Religion or religions, 261;
16-7; its creed is search after
sound at the foundation, 57
Truth through non-violence, 4;
Indian civilization, 57-60
its theory of incarnation, 81;
Indian culture, neither Hindu nor
lays down four ashramas, 378;
Islamic nor any other but a
leaves individual free for self-
fusion of all, 60
realization, 406; loses universal
Indian villages, compare favourably
appeal if it closes temples to
with any villages of any
Harijans, 85: made marvellous
country, 100
discoveries in religion, spirit
Indians, content with a lofty ideal
and soul, 54; most tolerant, 4,
and are lazy in its practice, 203;
5, 257, 278; not a matter of out¬
of whatever religion are of the
ward observances, 13; not a mis¬
same soil, 279 #
sionary religion, 9; on unity of
Indulgence, has no place in life, 51
all life, 39; reasons of its sur¬
Intention, chief ingredient of moral
vival, 54; reduced varvashrama
conduct, 113
to science, 374; regards husband
Inter-dining, 373; and Inter-mar¬
and wife as equal, 406; sets
riage, their prohibition essential
apart a class for exclusive pur¬
for rapid evolution of soul, 375
suit of divine knowledge, 391;
Interpretation, of the scriptures
through, nationhood, 56; will
conflicting with Truth is not
not perish by mass conversions, right, 153
355; will perish by denying Irreducible minimum, of the com¬
justice to Harijans, 355; would munal demands, 274
commit suicide if it thinks of Irrellgipn, to sanction a brutal cus¬
eradicating other religions, 268; tom of child marriage, 398
would not hold Gandhiji if Islam, 60, 121, 275
found untouchability is support¬ Islamic civilization, groping for
ed by scriptures, 345 its great secret, 363
 INDEX 439
Iyer, Ranpfa, his antl-untouchabillty Mankind, its thirst for symbolism,
hills, 325 243
Jain ahimsa, 227-32 ^ Mantra, will light one's life, 141
Jainism, 201, 206, 227 Manu, his code, 3
Janaka, King, 243 Marriage, intercommunal, 418-9;
Kanyadana, mystic, religions rite like birth is a fall, 375; must
with a spiritual significance, 407 not be before 15 in case of girls,
Kashi Vishwavidyalaya, must re¬ 397; must take place several
flect true Hindu Dharma, 295 years after monthly periods
Kasturba, her attitude towards begin, 398; symplifying of,
‘untouchable* child adopted by 417-8 ^
Gandhiji, 321 Maryada^Dharma, 320
Killing, of an ailing calf at the Minority, its rights, 332-3; should
Sabarmati Ashram, 215-21 have special hours for worship
Koran, 7, 37, 277 in temples free from intrusion
Krishna, 19; of Gita is perfection of Harijans, 333
and right knowledge personi¬ Mirabai (Madeleine Slade), not
fied, 159; speaks in Gita of a embraced Hinduism, 258
spiritual fight, 179 Missionary institutions, having
Kurukshetra, is our body, 170 non-Christian aid, 101
Lawyer, his profession was hono¬ Missionary work, compared with
rary in Cicero’s time, 367 service by temples and muths,
Legislation, regarding temple-entry 97
is permissive and corrective, Modem Review, on Gandhiii's fast,
327 111-5
Life, all, is equal and one, 364 Money, disruptive force in the
Living, spiritual life Is best adver¬ world, 322; taken must be re¬
tisement, 182; up to 125, 48 turned in form of service, 98
Loin-cloth, 59-60 Monkey question, 219-21, 242
Mahabharata, 19-20, 36; desdribes Mortification of flesh, condition of
eternal duel between forces of spiritual progress, 103
light and darkness, 178; has Music, before mosques, 273-4
shown the futility of war, 174; Mussulman, has as a class deve¬
history of spiritual fight of loped into a bully, 17; should
man, 175, 179; religious work, have full freedom to slaughter
168 cows, 308
Mahajan, may undertake organi¬ Muths, their heads, 97
zing beggars, 196 Mutual lust, root of woman's dis¬
Malaviyjaji, his greatest creation is qualifications, 428
Kashi Vishwavidyalaya, 295 Nationality, which is in India un¬
Man, his greed of power and known in any other part of the
fame is root of woman's dis¬ world, 56
qualifications, 428; inherits Nature Cure, and Ramanama, 129
characteristics and qualities of New Testament, gives^ solace to
his progenitors, 361; must follow Gandhi ji, 37; Its reading In
profession of his father, 367; Gujarat National College, 266
will befriend lower animals ^irvana, utter extinction of the
when he knows himself better, base in us, 272
197 Non-co-operation, movement, highly
Manifest, and unmanifest, their religious, 185; with mind in its
worshippers, 166 evil wanderings, 253
440 HINDU DHARMA

Non-Hindus, their sufferings on Proclamation, of Travancore, 45;

behalf of ‘untouchables* would must be backed up by State
leave Hindus unmoved, 319 action, 337
Non-possession, or poverty, 254-6 Proselytization, Hinduism is free
Non-violence, end of all religions, from, 55; means no peace in the
187; goodwill towards all life, world, 260
186; in India dictates man to Prostitution, 9, 34
die for lower animals, 209; In Purdah, 423-4; retained because not
West stops at man, 208; its being manfully resisted, 423
practice in India reduced to a Purification of mind, an Inward
science, 243; law of our species, process, 316; and devotional
183; matured fruit of Truth, mind necessary for proper
153; means conscious suffering, understanding of religious
183; root of Hinduism, 184 books, 292
Non-violent person, his duties, Rajachandra, 205
186-7 Rama, his victory over Havana due
Obstructive demonstrations, in to faith and purity, 189; perfect
Gandhiji*s tour, 330-1 being of Gandhiji's conception.
Occupations, for self-advancement 9
lead to confusion of vamas, 376 Ramanama, 37; alchemy that
Tadmanabhadasat applied to the transforms body, 131; and
Maharajas of Travancore, 340 ayurveda, 129; and jantar
Palate, its control necessary for mantar, 132; cannot be a sub¬
brahmachdrya, 254 stitute for national service, 404;
Parents, get reconciled with reso¬ contains all power attributed to
lute children, 416; idea of res¬ it, 128; far superior to atom
pecting their memory should bomb, 132; gives detachment
not be given up, 30 and ballast, 404; golden means
Paris, actress killing her lover, 207 to attain brahmacharya, 149;
Penance, vicarious, 116 ‘ infallible remedy, 129-30; in
Persuasion v. compulsion, 327 Nature Cure, 129; more potent
Pinjrapoles, 298, 301, 312; and than Rama, 134; must become,
goshalas, proof of our spiritual as natural as heart-beat, 128
Inertia, 219 ^ Ramayana, of Tulsidas, 24-5, 37,
Politics, bereft of religion is a 153j of Valmiki, 36, 178
death-trap, 14 Reddf, Dr. Muthulakshmi, 426-7
Pollution distance, 364 Reformers, must insist on full jus¬
Polyandry, 21 tice being done to Harijans, 354;
Poverty, its dignity, 52-3 never discarded temples, 84
Prayer, 116-8; Inward communion Religion, can be defended by
with God, 123; its efficacy can tapashcharya, 330; compared to
be realized only after illimitable marriage tie, 350; does not
patience, 121; man of, is at teach to kill neighbours, 244;
peace with all, 124; most potent has source from God within,
for overcoming cowardice, 120; 343; is service of the helpless,
necessary spiritual discipline, 11, 17; its change would not
help Harijans, 349; its quintes¬
125; without fast is incomplete,
sence is to befriend one who
109; yearning of the heart to be
regards himself as your enemy,
one with the Maker, 118
280; must rule even worldly
Priest, Ideal, 86 pursuits, 163; not a matter of
 INDEX 441
barter, 353; teaches how to Satyagraha, designed as an effective
overcome evil by good, 120 substitute for violence, 115
Religions, all, have common funda¬ Satyarthaprakash, 15
mentals, 282; as many as minds, Savama Hindus, 343, 354
294; of the world must be stu¬ Self-purification, comes by fast and
died as a sacred duty, 267 prayer, 106
Religious education, 285 Self-realization, impossible without
Religious equality, 259-65; lies in service and Identification with
each being best for its respec¬ the poorest, 404
tive adherents, 265; of Harijans Service, 47, 50; becomes staff of
would bring economic and poli¬ life, 255
tical betterment, 326 Shastras, are ever-growing, 20;
Religious ideal, its value is in the have no authority in them for
fact that it cannot be completely untouchability, 286; measured
realized in flesh, 239 by truth, 24; on necessity of a
Religious neutrality, ought not to gurut 153; on shudras, 152
mean religious stagnation and Sheppard, Canon, 174, 176-7
hindrance to reform, 326 Shraddha, 29-30 ^
Renunciation, means detachment Shuddhi movement, 16, 356; with
from action, 160, 162, 232; of Ramanama, 356
flesh essential for realizing Smritis, and Puranas produced in
Truth, 153; secret of happy life, response to the want of those
48, 51 times, 342
Restraint, law of life, 380; v. reta¬ Social service, cannot be denied,
liation, 186 185
Rich people, should lead the way in Society, should welcome abducted
simplifying marriage, 418; women back, 423
should take initiative in dispos¬ Sons and daughters on footing of
session of wealth, 255 perfect equality, 428
RWiis, discovered law of non-vio¬ Spinning, 117, 157, 385
lence, 183; laboured in forests, Spirits, communication with, 28
384 State, may undertake organizing
Roads, leading to temples were beggars, 196; schools can give
barred against avama Hindus, ethical teaching, 294
342 Statesman, the, 174-5
Sacred name, its utterance is Sthitaprajna, verses, key to Gita
enough to ensure benediction of interpretation, 152
God, 91 Superstitions, 47
Sacred thread, symbol of consecra¬ Tabligh movement, 16
tion, 356 Temple entry, 72, 80, 324-7; and
Sacrifice, 49, 164, 178; of baser self, depressed classes, 97-101; mes¬
178; killing for, is himsa, 194; sage of freedom to Harijans,
undergoes a process of evolu¬ 327; resolution, 324
tion, 228 Temple, going for purification of
Sannyasa, 164 soul, 81; model, 86-8; of Gandhiji
Sanskrit, its knowledge necessary is gross idolatry, 77; of Kali,
for every Hindu boy or girl, 95; priest, 94-5; reform, 72,
286; study should be encourag¬ 85-9, 95-6; worship, 71-3, 80-2, 89
ed, 36 Temples, bridges between Unseen
SatyQf only correct and significant and ourselves, 71; have ceased
name of God, 247 * to be repositories of Hinduism,
442 HINDU DHARMA

338; integral part of Hinduism, Uruli-Kanchan, where Gandhiji

72; must be opened to Harijans realized potency of Ramanama,
on the same terms as caste 149
Hindus, 334 Vaishya, dominant varna today, 366
Terrorist, quotes Gita in defence, Varna, defined, 362, 365; dharma,
174 34, 359; does not connote rights
Thieves, as kith and kin, 250 but duties, 387; enabled Hindus
Thought, surcharged with correct to achieve in spiritual field what
conduct, more powerful than no nation could, 365; is class,
mightiest dynamo, 87 not caste, 351; its revival means
true democracy, 382; law of
Touch, drink, food and marriage conservation of energy, 388; law
are progressively private affairs, of heredity, 365; law of life, uni¬
323 versally governing human life,
Tradition, its uprooting brings 362, 379; necessary for Christia¬
impurity in life, 290 nity and Islam, 363; of shudra
Transmigration, 6; Hinduism’s con¬ alone exists at present, 386; v,
tribution, 55 caste, 34
Travaficore, 268; Its proclamation Vamas, compared to four members
on temple entry, 335 of the body, 381; had no water¬
Tree-worship, symbolizes true re¬ tight compartments in ancient
verence for entire vegetable times, 380, 384
kingdom, 78 Vamasankara, 382-5
Varnashrama, 362-4; and inter¬
Truth, impossible without ahimsa,
dining, 374-6; as practised today
251; is God, 66-8; way of its
is a monstrous parody, 361
realization, 248
Varnashrama Dharma, 55, 361,
Tulsidas, 24-6 389-90; law which cannot be
Unanimity, should be secured for abrogated, 361; magnificent re¬
temple-entry by Harijans, 334 sult of search of Truth, 6; ob¬
Untouchability, 9, 10, 40; and in¬ viates economic competition,
termarriage and interdining, 376-7; satisfies religious, social
320-2; as practised today has no and economic needs, 376
warrant in shastras, 332, 345; Vedas, 7, 11, 15, 21
blot on Hinduism, 326; ex¬ Vegetarian, has no right to impose
crescence upon varnashrama, «r his cult, 242
364; has invaded every form of Vegetarianism, its practice best
society, 346; hatefulest expres¬ way to spread it, 242; priceless
sion of caste, 34; its liquidation gift of Hinduism, 190-2
cannot be attained by conver¬ Vinoba, 145, 182, 384
sion, 352; its removal higher Violence, lowered India’s morale,
than social or economic reform, 191
110; its removal would influence Virtues, cardinal and casual, 21
the whole world, 344; its re¬ Vishnusahasranama, 39
moval would purify caste sys¬ Vithoba temple, opened for Hari¬
tem, 359; not a part of jans, 341
Hinduism, 314 Vows, 246
Untouchable, denied fruits of social Vyasa, proved futility of war in
life, 324; man to man is not in¬ Mahabharata, 154, 158
ferior to touchable, 286 Widow, in^ Hinduism has sacred
Upanayana, 91-2 odour, 411
 INDEX 443
Widowhood, enforced, 396-7 W'orship, blind, of authority, is a
Widows and widowers, 410 sign of mental weakness, 191;
Wife, has an independent right to mute, brings an jinfailing
take her course for a nobler answer, 81
purpose, 405 Yajna, 49-50; see Sacrifice
Woman, has circumvented man in Yamas, 291; and viyamas, 152
a variety of ways, 429; should
Yeravda Pact, 327
labour under no legal disability
not suffered by man, 428; Yudhishthira, had to suffer for un¬
Women, abducted, 432; in Smritis, truth, 23
430-1 Zorostrianism, 121
 5TT5T ST5TT?TfT ST^T^jft,
La! Bahadur ShastriNational Academy of Administration Library

MUSSOORIE
If? 5?TrsF ?nft^ cr^ ^Tf^r^r 11
This book is to be returned on the date last stamped.

g-tJTTspfft
^ETTT^^
®b'Y?r5JTT
Date Borrower's
No. Date Borrower.s
No.

i
1

!1 i1

1
j
i \

li
I

QL 320.55
GAN

119082
®OAtBAV400 0(^ *
I RAMAA
 im82.

ACC.

Class . Book No.

Author..u..jj.j.:j,.,...

Title.:t.:;.’,V.ri.. .:. L'.

'2»2o*5’S’ T’^. 2.068-
GoH. library
LAL BAHADUR 8HA8TRI
National Academy of Administration
MUSSOORIE

Accession J^o.
1. Books are Issued for 15 days only but
may have to be recalled earlier if urgen¬
tly required.
2» An over-due charge of 25 False per day
per volume will be charged.
8. Books may be renewed on request, at
the discretion of the Librarian.
4. Periodicals, Rare and Refrence books
may not be Issued and may be con**
suited only In the Llbraiy.
5. Books lost| defaced or Injured In any
way shall have to be replaced or its
double price shall be paid by the
111