Culture of Dialogue in Democracy: Revisiting Gandhi

- By Preeti Singh*

Abstract

A democratic system requires a set of structures and procedures, but it also needs a democratic culture. The vibrancy in democracy cannot be ensured by merely establishing new structures, a shift from subject political culture to participant political culture is essential for deepening democracy. A democratic society, further, needs an approach of ‘understanding, coping with and celebrating diversities’ and evolving such an inclusive notion of ‘we’ where there is no ‘other’. A democratic society, therefore, must be ‘dialogic’ and not merely ‘debating’ in nature. The present paper seeks to highlight the significance of ‘culture of dialogue’ in strengthening democracy and attempts to explore how Gandhi's vision and experiments can be helpful in evolving this ‘culture of dialogue’.

THE 21st CENTURY is the century of democracy; democratic form of the government is now accepted as the best form of government across the globe. But sill the concept of democracy is in the process of evolution.

There are several ways of defining and understanding democracy — from shallow to deep. At the shallow level, democracy is seen as a set of structural arrangements where people have right to vote and choose their representatives in a free and fair election; at the deeper level, democracy needs a spirit of inclusion and co-existence. One of the most profound features of democracy is its ability to allow the different view-points to co-exist and to resolve the differences between them peacefully.

But in the contemporary times, increasing number of conflicts often resulting in violent situations raises a series of questions: Where have we gone wrong in understanding the idea of democracy? What is the true meaning of democracy? Is it only a matter of adopting a particular form of government? Does democracy mean only procedural and structural democracy or something more than that? On the basis of International IDEA’s (International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance) experience in Nigeria, Guatemala, Romania, Indonesia and Burkina Faso where it extended support for democratic development, Carlos Santiso (Senior Programm Officer, International IDEA) said: ‘It was originally assumed that holding of relatively free and fair elections would naturally led to the gradual emergence of democratic institutions and the progressive consolidation of a democratic culture¹, However, the experiences of new emerging democratic states revealed that ‘democratization process adopt, more often than not, irregular, unpredictable and sometimes reversible routes in highly fluid and volatile political environments’.² ‘Elections do not equal democracy’ because the process of democratization involves establishment of democracy ‘in substance as well as in form’.³ Thus, along with the structures and procedures of democracy, what Roel Von Meijenfeldt (Executive Director, Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy) calls the ‘engineering part of democracy’, sustainability of democracy also depends on strengthening of ‘soft side of democracy’⁴ To strengthen the ‘soft side of democracy’, a society should have the capacities to:

• ‘Resolve conflicts peacefully’;
• 'Cooperate across political party lines’;
• ‘Develop an inclusive agenda for action’; and
• ‘The capacity for citizen participation’.⁵

Thus, a society can be called democratic in true sense only if it has the ability to accommodate the different perspectives, faiths and ideologies. Uniqueness of democracy lies in its capacity of consensus building, undoubtedly, this consensus should not and could not be reached upon through imposition of one view over the other. However, difference of opinion, sometime, may be so vast that it is difficult to have a consensus. But it is not a grave problem as long as the groups or individuals know the democratic method of disagreement and agree on the point that gradual effort needs to be made for reaching an agreement.

The effective method for this can be dialogue because the right/correct or true solution can be reached only through it. Therefore, the democratic space must be dialogical than merely debating. Where right to speak and express must be enjoyed by all but it must be accompanied by the duty to listen and to listen carefully. Careful listening aims at understanding the point of view of the others, it results in empathetic response not impulsive reaction. Art of active and empathetic listening is as important as the art of speaking for a vibrant democracy.

Often the terms debate and dialogue are used interchangeably, but these two differ in method, intention and spirit. In dialogue purpose is not ‘to win. Everybody wins if anybody wins. There is a different sort of spirit to it’.⁶ Dialogue, unlike debate, is a ‘cooperative search for truth'⁷ or right course of action. It is a process of genuine interaction in which dialogue partners listen deeply and respectfully to each other in such a way that they are ready to modify their position if the need for such revision is felt. Each participant in a dialogue strives to incorporate the concerns of the other participants into their own perspective, even when they continue to disagree. No participant gives up his/her identity, but each recognizes the human value of the claims of the others.⁸ Purpose of dialogue ‘is not to advocate but to inquire; not to argue but to explore; not to convince but to discover’.⁹ Contrary to this, in debate though participants may sit together and speak and listen to each-other, but the purpose behind listening is not to understand others’ viewpoints but to refute them. In the latter, the quest is not to find out the right/correct course of action but to prove one’s own position as correct or right.

‘Debate assumes only one right answer and invests in pressing and defending it; dialogue assumes the possibility of an answer better than any of the original points. Debate narrows views and closes minds; dialogue can build new relationship’.¹⁰ Dialogue is inclusive in nature; it does not suppress diversity of perspectives and approaches, but rather encourages it. ‘In the practice of dialogue, there is an agreement that one person’s concepts or beliefs should not take precedence over those of others.’¹¹

Thus, when democratic space is conceived merely as debating space, it leads to unending conflicts needing new structures to resolve them, which unfortunately fail to yield expected result in absence of a conducive environment. Any democratic structure may flourish only in a dialogical space. In last few decades, with the increasing incidences of intra and inter-state conflicts and their damaging effect on human capital, the significance of democratic dialogue is recognized worldwide. Many initiatives have been taken so that conflicting situation can be resolved through democratic dialogue. One of such initiatives was publication of Democratic Dialogue - A Handbook for Practitioners in 2007 with the joint efforts of United Nation Development Programme (UNDP), the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States (OAS), the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA) and Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). It provided a methodological tool to facilitate the work of institutions and practitioners in designing, facilitating and evaluating dialogue process in diverse contexts. It aimed at extending help to different stakeholders in society to understand the process of democratic dialogue. While defining democratic dialogue, it prescribed following conditions as essential for democratic dialogue:

• Participants should demonstrate respect for each-other.
• There should be empathy and openness to different points of view.
• Interaction should be transparent and actors with authenticity should avoid secrets and hidden agendas.
• Actors put the learning principle into action through inquiry and questions that not only promote their own objectives but also seek to better understand what others are thinking.
• Processes should be inclusive and flexible.”¹²

Further, referring to the qualities of dialogue participants, it suggested that they should:

• “Show empathy- that is, truly understanding the position of the other person instead of reacting to it;
• exhibit openness to expressing one’s point of view with respect for the rules of dialogue;
• maintain a respectful tone even in the most extreme conditions;
• have conversation about what truly matters- the real thing;
• assume responsibility, individually and collectively for both the problem and solution;
• unblock emotionally; ‘listening to the reasons of the heart that Reason often ignores’;
• have the courage to recognize differences and even more, to recognize common ground; and
• demonstrate the capacity to change”.¹³

The above essential conditions for democratic dialogue and qualities expected in dialogue participants reminds of Gandhian method of Satyagraha and Gandhi’s Satyagrahi. In Gandhi's Satyagraha there is no place for ill will, hatred, hidden motives and rigidity, what matters is unqualified commitment for truth and a transparent heart with unconditional love for those who are on the other side. A meticulous reading of Gandhi- philosophy and experiments - uncovers that in Gandhi we may find a blue print of a democratic society based on cultural of dialogue. Gandhi considers dialogical approach towards different perspectives and viewpoints as the key feature of ‘healthy public sphere” and Swaraj:

I have repeatedly observed that no school of thought can claim a monopoly of right judgment. We are all liable to err and are often obliged to revise our judgments. In a vast country like this, there must be room for all schools of honest thought. And the least, therefore, that we owe to ourselves as to others is to try to understand the opponent's view-point and if we cannot accept it, respect it as fully as we expect him to respect ours. It is one of the indispensable tests of a healthy public life and therefore fitness for Swaraj.¹⁴

Gandhi’s Dialogical Space

Gandhi's method of dealing with differences goes far beyond the liberal discourse of toleration.¹⁵ Gandhi’s method is not of ‘negative tolerance of distance and co-existence, but rather one of communication and enrichment’.¹⁶ Gandhi’s approach is neither of suppressing differences nor of tolerating differences, but rather of understanding it without any egoism.¹⁷ The relation between cultures and religions, according to Gandhi, should not be of hierarchy and competition but that of mutual learning, where they enrich ‘each-other without loosing their identity’.¹⁸ Gandhi’s method is unique due to its moral underpinnings, he insists on love, empathy and total elimination of ego as essential prerequisites for creating an inclusive public sphere ‘where meanings and symbols are jointly re-elaborated’. Gandhi's dialogical method goes far beyond Habermasian ‘discourse ethics’ in stressing the need for mutual love, reverence and care.¹⁹ In Gandhian dialogical space one finds a unique ‘ethics of listening’²⁰, here, listening to others with an open mind and transparent heart is more valued activity then rational argumentation. Love, trust, empathy and a transparent heart engaged in the search for truth are the distinct characteristics of Gandhi's dialogical space. Gandhi's dialogical space is inclusive - any viewpoint, faith, group or individual is not excluded or disallowed.

Gandhi's conversations and dialogues with his contemporaries- adversaries like V.D. Savarkar; critical admirers like Rabindranath Tagore and Jawaharlal Nehru and critics like Subhash Chandra Bose and B.R. Ambedkar - proves that for him, no one was beyond the ambit of dialogue. It is to be noted that Gandhi never gave uncritical acceptance to the views and ideas of even his beloved ones. Conversations between Gandhi and Rabindranath Tagore can be cited as one of the finest examples of such respectful disagreements. Both were critical admirers of each other, the way they responded to each other’s different view-points on various issues like Non-Cooperation Movement, machine and charkha, speaks of the unique art of listening. To quote Gandhi:

The Bard of Shantiniketan is Gurudev for me as he is for the inmates of that great institution. But Gurudev and I early discovered certain differences...He had perfect right to utter his protest when he believed I was in error. My profound regard for him would make me listen to him more readily than to any other critic.²¹

It is this art of listening that allowed them ‘to disagree with each-other with frankness’.²² Moreover, the careful listening also resulted in some transformation in their initial position.

Further, Gandhi never rejected any viewpoint or idea only because it is not in tune with his own ideas. In an interview to Goparaju Ramchandra Rao (Gora) - which can be called a conversation between a theist and atheist — Gandhi, despite his unshakable faith in God, did not hesitate a bit in appreciating Gora.²³ Following excerpt from Gandhi's conversation with Gora can be seen as a model of language and spirit of dialogue:

I see an ideal in your talk. I can neither say that my theism is right nor your atheism is wrong. We are seekers after truth. We change whenever we find ourselves in the wrong. I changed like that many times in my life. I see you are a worker. You are not a fanatic... There is no harm as long as you are not fanatical. Whether you are in the right or I am in the right, results will prove. Then I may go your way or you may come my way, or both of us may go a third way. So go ahead with your work. I will help you, though your method is against mine.²⁴

In the above lines, there is neither total rejection, nor contempt, nor surrender, there is only critical engagement with the perspective of the other as well as with one’s own perspective.

One of the major critics of Gandhi was B.R. Ambedkar, differences between the two especially on the issue of untouchability are often highlighted. Both of them wanted eradication of untouchability but were poles apart in their methods and approaches. For Gandhi, untouchability was primarily a social issue to be solved through social reforms, while Ambedkar considered political rights for untouchables as the only remedy.²⁵ Gandhi emphasized on the need for ‘change of heart on the part of caste Hindus’ but Ambedkar ‘believed in legal redress of grievances and guarantee of rights, backed up by political power on the part of the aggrieved’.²⁶ Differences between the two reached at its peak on the issue of separate electorate when Gandhi's fast against separate electorate compelled Ambedkar to sign Poona Pact. Ambedkar saw itas a historical defeat for the untouchables. ‘The communal Award’, according to Ambedkar, ‘was intended to free the untouchables from the thralldom of the Hindus. The Poona Pact is designed to place them under the domination of the Hindus.²⁷ However, despite chasm between two, Gandhi had an appreciation for Ambedkar’s concern for untouchables. It was Gandhi who insisted that Ambedkar should be made a member of the Constituent Assembly. Gradually Gandhi's approach towards untouchability had also undergone some changes, in contrast to his initial position on inter-caste marriage²⁸, he started supporting inter-caste marriage as one of the significant measures for removal of untouchability in 1940s. He also accepted that there is a need for legal measures to curb the evil of untouchability. Emphasizing the need for a proactive role of legislator to remove untouchability, Gandhi categorically said that ‘even if the whole body of Hindus opinion were to be against the removal of untouchability, he would still advise a secular legislature like the assembly not to tolerate that attitude.’²⁹

The above episodes of Gandhi’s dialogues with his contemporaries speak of his unique way of dealing with different viewpoints and prove that there is no difference-anxiety in Gandhi's dialogical space. He openly opposed them when he was not convinced with their position; appreciated them when found them on the right side and constantly kept scrutinizing his own positions and honestly accepted whenever realized the need for change in his position. Gandhi attempted to ‘turn his enemies in his friends, not to win but to win over’ and contributed to the dialogical construction of the Indian public sphere’.³⁰

Gandhi's philosophy presents a complete model of a dialogical society - the principles of truth and non-violence as its philosophical foundation; Satyagraha as the technique of dialogic resistance; education as the tool for creating dialogical mind and heart and peace brigade as the institutional mechanism to prevent and resolve conflicts through dialogue.

Concepts of Truth and Non-Violence: Philosophical Foundation for Dialogue

Gandhi's whole life and philosophy was a search for truth and ultimately, he reached the conclusion that ‘Truth is God’:

I used to say ‘God is truth’: But some men deny God. Some are forced by their passion for truth to say that there is no God, and in their own way they are right. So now I say, “Truth is God’. No one can say ‘Truth does not exist’ without removing all truth from his statement. Therefore, I prefer to say ‘Truth is God’. It has taken me fifty years of persevering meditation to prefer this way of putting it to the other.³¹

Gandhi's unmoving faith in truth taught him that rigidity of one’s approach and position can never take him/her to truth, a true seeker of truth should always be ready to modify his/her position if in the quest for truth he/she realizes the need for such modification:

I am not at all concerned with appearing to be consistent. In my pursuit after Truth, I have discarded many ideas and learnt many new things. Old as I am in age, I have no feeling that I have ceased to grow inwardly or that my growth will stop with the dissolution of the flesh. What I am concerned with is my readiness to obey the call of Truth, my God, from moment to moment.³²

Gandhi has full faith in the existence of a universal Truth which is never changing but this cannot be discerned by human beings due to limitation of their comprehension. Therefore, he believes that ‘we must be content with believing the truth as it appears to us’ and keep on moving in the search without clinging to our own view of truths as absolute because it will distance us from Truth. Truth can be reached upon only through dialogue and not through rigid claims of certainty. For Gandhi, ‘Human ‘truths’ were contingent and contextual, being reached through experience, praxis, debate and dialogue. His ‘truth’ was thus evolving and changing constantly; being in fact a series of ‘truth’ — with the ‘t’ in lower case — rather than ‘the Truth’...He abhorred certainties, preferring debates and honest disagreements to unthinking assent’.³³

In Gandhi's scheme, rigid claims about one’s own viewpoint as the Truthful viewpoint is not a wining position but a defeat; compromise and inconsistency are not weakness but strength. The seeker of truth and justice should never move with the motto of proving his idea of truth as the Truth, but rather with the unmoving will to search what is Truth. He prefers inconsistency over rigid claim of certainty: ‘I must admit my many inconsistencies. But since lam called “Mahatma”, [might well endorse Emerson’s saying that “foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” There is, I fancy, a method in my inconsistencies’.³⁴

Further, Gandhi’s philosophy of Truth believes that there is a universal Truth, but human beings are able to comprehend its different dimensions in bits and pieces resulting in different viewpoints. For him, presence of different viewpoints is essential for discovering the Truth. Engagement with different viewpoints with an open heart and mind enables the seeker of the Truth to look critically at his as well as other’s perspectives. Here, it is to be underlined that critical gaze of the seeker of Truth is both inward and outward. He engages in ‘dialogue with one’s own self and others’³⁵ and attempts to see his own position, perspective and viewpoint from distance without any egoistic attachment. Gandhi was firm in his belief that in dialogue, mutual criticism should be accompanied by the process of self-criticism.³⁶ Thus, in dialogue one is absolutely free from dogmatism, the biggest enemy of Truth.³⁷ Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj — ‘a dialogue between the editor and reader³⁸ - written in a dialogical style exemplifies the patience of a seeker of Truth who is never in hurry to justify his viewpoints, but rather he gives sufficient space to the opponent. Gandhi’s Hind Swoaraj, in fact, can be seen as a model text on dialogue.

In Gandhi, there is no difference anxiety because all diversities represent different aspects of Truth. Once the diversity is seen in the light of Jain principle of ‘Anekantonda’ (many sidedness of Truth), the relation between the different cultures or religions cannot be of antagonism, competition or hatred but of ‘communication and enrichment’.³⁹ Gandhi accepts that consensus is neither possible nor desirable always. Recollecting his discussions with Mr. Spencer Walton, the Head of the South African General Mission at Durban, Gandhi wrote that ‘we knew the fundamental differences between us. Any amount of discussion could not efface them. Yet even differences prove helpful, where there are tolerance, charity and truth.⁴⁰ Gandhi considers careful listening as the most valued method of understanding the viewpoints of others. Gandhi practiced this art of listening throughout his life. Referring to his interactions with his friends of Christian faith during his South African Days, Gandhi wrote that he was ‘humble and respectful listener with an open mind.⁴¹ For him, search for Truth is always a dispassionate search and therefore, there is no place for rigidity on this path:

I claim nothing than does a scientist who, though concludes his experiments with the utmost accuracy, forethought, and minuteness, never claims any finality about his conclusion, but keeps an open mind regarding them. I have gone through deep self-introspection, searched myself through and through, and examined and analysed every psychological situation. Yet I am far from claiming any finality or infallibility about my conclusions.⁴²

The dialogic nature of Gandhian concept of truth makes non-violence essential, and this two together gives a grammar to knit the language of democracy. Violence — mental, physical or verbal — and truth cannot go together. Violent means can never help one in getting ‘a more comprehensive grasp of absolute truth’.⁴³ Gandhi is firm in his belief that ‘only ahimsa, non-violence, could make the quest for such [comprehensive] truth viable’.⁴⁴ Quest for truth demands acceptance of others perspectives and viewpoints with openness. This requires infinite love, for Gandhi, non-violence in its positive sense is the largest love. ‘If | am a follower of ahimsa, I must love my enemy or a stranger to me as I would my wrong - doing father or son. This active ahimsa necessarily included truth and fearlessness’.⁴⁵ Gandhi rejects the Machiavellian view that end justifies the means. For him, “the goal did not exist at the end of a series of action designed to achieve it, it shadowed them from the very beginning’.⁴⁶

Satyagraha as the Technique for Dialogue

Non-violent quest for truth with unmoving faith in the latter is Satyagraha. Gandhi's Satyagraha is built on the foundations of truth, non-violence and love. Contemporary theories on democratic dialogue and deliberation consider rational argumentation, absence of ill will and distrust as the most essential prerequisites for democratic dialogue, but Satyagraha goes one step further and stresses the need for love. Satyagraha is a shared search for right course of action demanding unending patience which comes from love force. Gandhi’s Satyagraha is not merely a political tool to resolve conflicts but has a deep ethical dimension. It is ‘a combination of reason, morality and politics’.⁴⁷ In Satyagraha, appeal is made to ‘the opponent's head, heart and interests’⁴⁸. It goes far beyond argumentation and presents a synthesis of ‘cognition, empathy and agape.⁴⁹ Thus, the key characteristics of Satyagraha are “tolerance, civility, non-violence and the loving care of others including one’s opponents’⁵⁰. Satyagrahi does not want to harm the opponent, but rather believes in self-suffering. In Satyagraha, ‘the dichotomy between the oppressor and the oppressed is transcended.’⁵¹ Gandhi categorically writes:

It is a breach of Satyagraha to wish ill to an opponent or to say harsh word to him or of him with the intention of harming him... Satyagraha is gentle, it never wounds. It must not be the result of anger or malice because those who believe in the justice of their cause need to possess boundless patience.⁵²

This emphasis on patience and love liberates the Satyagrahi from any fear of failure or defeat. The process of reaching the agreement will be gradual because the change has to come from inside and not merely external. Further, in Satyagraha aim is not merely mutual agreement but ‘realization of a deeper truth together’.⁵³ Stressing the need for patience and indomitable faith in basic goodness of human heart in search of truth, Gandhi said:

I myself have always believed in the honesty of my enemies, and if one believes in it hard enough, one finds it. My enemies took advantage of my trust in them and deceived me. They deceived me eleven times running; and with stupid obstinacy, I went on believing in their honesty. With the result that, the twelfth time, they couldn’t help keeping their word. Discovering their own honesty was a happy surprise for them and for me too. That is why my enemies and I have always parted very pleased with each other.⁵⁴

In fact, in Satyagraha there is no ‘Other’ who is to be seen as morally wrong, Satyagraha cannot be initiated with this narrow feeling. In Satyagraha, listening to the other must not be seen as some kind of concession made out of mercy, but rather as an opportunity to check one’s own claim and to modify it, if required. Generally, dialogue initiatives fail because the participants feel that modification in their own position will be perceived as defeat, but in Satyagraha such modification, if required in the quest for truth, is one step towards victory. The nature of Satyagraha is opposite to debate where participants want to prove their point of view as the right point view. Here, the situation is entirely different because what is at stake is ‘not their reputation as persons of integrity or possessors of truth’ but truth itself.⁵⁵ Therefore, the Satyagrahi should be critical of his own as well as the others’ version of truth. Thus, Satyagraha ‘institutionalizes mutual respect, prohibits the construction of ‘otherness’, and neutralizes conflict which arises out of non-recognition in divided societies.⁵⁶

Gandhi's Education as Tool for Creating a Dialogic Self

Gandhi knows that Satyagraha is not possible without utmost conviction in truth, non-violence, unending love and faith in basic goodness of human nature. Therefore, what is needed is a mind and heart receptive to these principles. Injecting a bundle of rational instructions into mind cannot yield the expected outcome of Satyagraha, since it needs a heart which can love, trust, respect and empathize, and a mind which can reflect and understand. Gandhi believes that the right kind of education can be the only tool to produce such minds and hearts. The purpose of education is not merely producing intelligent brains but empathetic, sensitive and reflective beings. Therefore, he emphasizes:

True education of the intellect can only come through a proper exercise and training of the bodily organs ... But unless the development of the mind and body goes hand in hand with corresponding awakening of the soul, the former alone would prove to be poor lop-sided affair. By spiritual training I mean education of the heart.”⁵⁷

The Satyagrahi should have the ability to win the heart of opponent and this cannot be done with only reasoned arguments without soul force. For Gandhi, ‘a man is neither mere intellect, nor the gross animal body, nor the heart or soul alone. A proper and harmonious combination of all three is required for the making of whole man’.⁵⁸

If education has to be a means for evolving a dialogic self, it must move ahead of the project of producing merely rational beings who are trained to deal with all situations only with rational arguments. ‘Gandhi understood that truth/satya was reached through a complex dialogue⁵⁹ and ‘in many cases reason but itself would not win an argument.⁶⁰ When rational argument fails in convincing the other, appeal should be made to heart.

In this context, it seems essential to underline that despite his faith in secular nature of state, Gandhi insisted on the need for religious education in India. Though he is aware of the difficulty of making provisions for religious instructions in a country like India which represents a large number of religions, but still emphasized that ‘if India is not to declare spiritual bankruptcy, religious instruction of its youth must be held to be as necessary as secular instruction’.⁶¹

Religion has a broader meaning for Gandhi, religions are not rigid dogmatic beliefs, but rather ‘instruments to walk the path of truth’.⁶² The true understanding of religion will enable the followers of different faiths to engage in dialogue. Gandhi could understand that in India where people belonging to different religions live together and for many of whom religion is decisive of their way of life and thinking, understanding about different religions is essential for dialogue among religions. However, he takes enough precautions while stressing the need for religious education and firmly says that ‘I do not believe that the State can concern itself or cope with religious education’⁶³. State should stay out of religion and ‘religious education should be the sole concern of religious association’.⁶⁴

A curriculum of religious instruction should include a study of the tenets of faiths other than one’s own. For this purpose, the student should be trained to cultivate the habit of understanding and appreciating the doctrines of reverence and broad-minded tolerance... There is one rule, however, which should always be kept in mind while studying all great religions, that one should study them only through the writings of known votaries of the respective religions.⁶⁵

For religious harmony, dialogue among religions is required and for dialogue mutual respect is the prerequisite. Gandhi was firm in his belief that religious harmony cannot be ensured by merely creating a false image of secular society, where individuals are expected to keep their religious identity aside and interact with each other as abstract individuals. It is impossible to extract individual from constitutive attachments and construct them as abstract units of society. On the contrary, in order to be genuine dialogue partners, it is essential for them to understand their religious selves. This would help them in understanding each-others religious perspective. For Gandhi, right kind of religious education may help the individual to remain rooted in his/her own religions without being blind to it and to understand the religious space of others. Only such a trained heart can understand and comprehend Gandhi's emphasis on equality of religions:

If we had attained the full vision of Truth, we could no longer be mere seekers, but would have become one with God, for Truth is God. But being only seekers, we prosecute our quest, and are conscious of our imperfection. And if we are imperfect ourselves, religion as conceived by us must also be imperfect. We have not realized religion in its perfection, even as we have not realized God. Religion of our conception, being thus imperfect is always subject to a process of evolution and re-interpretation... All faith constitutes a revelation of Truth, but all are imperfect and liable to error. Reverence for other faiths need not blind us to their faults. We must be keenly alive to the defects of our own faiths also, yet not leave it on that account, but try to overcome those defects.⁶⁶

Gandhi's Peace Brigade as Dialogue Practitioners

Gandhi also thought of evolving an institutional mechanism for creation of a dialogical space. His idea of Peace Brigade, where he talks about resolving conflict situations through initiatives of people trained in non-violent resolution of conflict, can be highly effective in making of a dialogical public sphere. This peace brigade would have twin functions: first; to extend support to people under conflict situation including initial medical help; second; trust building between communities. ‘Peace Brigade need not to wait till conflagration breaks out but will try to handle the situation in anticipation’⁶⁷. The members of peace brigade should have equal respect for all faiths and, moreover, they must have knowledge of the basic principles of all religions. This would help them in understanding the nature of communal conflicts. Members of peace brigade should be local men so that they may be aware of complexities of the conflict situation but they must be impartial. Further, these messengers of peace must develop a good rapport with people through regular contact, so that people can rely on them on occurrence of conflict. Primary task of the peace brigade is to create an environment of dialogue to prevent conflict and thereafter to resolve conflict peacefully through dialogue. Through the mechanism of peace brigade Gandhi wanted creation of dialogical public space based on mutual trust.

The idea is to have as many good and true men and women as possible. These can be had only if volunteers are drawn from those who are engaged in various walks of life but have leisure enough to cultivate friendly relations with the people living in their circle... Non-violent corps must be small if they are to be efficient. Such brigade may be scattered all over, there may be one each for a village or a Mohalla.⁶⁸

Gandhi's peace brigade appears very close to contemporary dialogue practitioners who are ‘people actively or potentially engaged in doing dialogue work- organizing it, facilitating it and promoting it within their institutions and societies’.⁶⁹

To sum up, Gandhi’s philosophy and experiments present a systematic plan for establishing a sustainable democracy. Though he was also concerned with the procedural and structural aspect of democracy, what concerned him more was the ‘soft side of democracy’. Inclusion is the core value of a true democratic society, a society where there is no ‘Other’. In Gandhi, one finds the vision and method for establishing such an inclusive democratic society rooted in an inclusive notion of ‘We’ evolved through feelings of mutual trust, respect and love resulting in acceptance of different viewpoints and ways of living.

Notes and References:

1. Democratic Dialogue- A Handbook for Practitioners, (Stockholm: International IDEA, 2007), p.10.
2. ibid.
3. ibid.
4. ibid, p.11.
5. ibid.
6. David Bohm, On Dialogue, (London: Routledge, 1996), pp. 6-7.
7. Ananta Kumar Giri, Gandhi, Tagore and a New Ethics of Argumentation, Working Paper No. 161, (Chennai : Madras Institute of Development Studies, 2000), p.19.
8. Hal Saunders, A Public Peace Process: Sustained Dialogue to Transform Racial and Ethnic Conflict, (New York: Palgrave, 1999), p.22.
9. Democratic Dialogue- A Handbook for Practitioners, op.cit., p.20.
10. Hal Saunders, op.cit., pp. 82-83.
11. Roel Von Meijenfeldt, C.Santiso, & M.Angeby, Dialogue for Democratic Development: Policy Option (Stockholm: International IDEA, 1999), p. 8.
12. Democratic Dialogue- A Handbook for Practitioners, op.cit,, p.12.
13. ibid, p.30.
14. MK. Gandhi, India of My Dreams (Ahmadabad: Navajivan Publishing House, 1947), p.16.
15. Cristiano Gianolla, ‘Undermining populism through Gandhi’s intercultural democratic discourse’, Journal of Multicultural Discourses (Vol.15, No.1, 2020), pp.26-41.
16. Rudolph C. Heredia, ‘The Dialogues of Culture: From Paranoia to Metanoia’, Economic and Political Weekly (Volume 42, No.21, May 26-June 1, 2007) pp. 1982-89.
17. Cristiano Gianolla, op.cit.
18. ibid.
19. Anant Kumar Giri, op. cit,, p.18.
20. ibid.
21. Quoted in Anant Kumar Giri, op.cit., p.9.
22. ibid, p. 4.
23. Ghanshyam Shah, ‘Gandhi's Reflective and Dialogical Approach to Search for the Truth’, Economic and Political Weekly, Volume LV, No 19 (May 9, 2020), p.40.
24. Goparaju Ramchandra Rao, An Atheist with Gandhi, p.34 https://www.mkgandhi.org/ebks/an_atheist.pdf (accessed on 17/09/ 2021). Emphasis mine.
25. Bidyut Chakrabarty and Rajendra Kumar Pandey, Modern Indian Political Thought: Text and Context (Delhi: Sage Publications,2014), p.89.
26. Eleanor Zellot, ‘The Social and Political Thought of B.R.Ambedkar’ in Thomas Pantham and Kenneth L Deutsch (ed.) Political Thought in Modern India (Delhi: Sage Publications, 1986), p.165.
27. Vasant Moon, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, Volume 5 (Bombay: Government of Maharashtra, 1989), p. 355.
28. Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Volume 22 (New Delhi: Publication Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of India, 1969), p. 68.
29. Quoted in Anil Nauriya, ‘Gandhi on Secular Law and State’ https://hillele.org/2014/05 /26/gandhi-on-secular-law-and-state-anil-nauriya/ (accessed on 17/09/2021).
30. Cristiano Gianolla, op. cit.
31. quoted in David Hardiman, Gandhi in his time and ours (Delhi: Permanent Black, 2003), p.51.
32. M.K. Gandhi, ‘Fetish of Consistency ’, Harijan (29 April 1933), p. 2.
33. David Hardiman, op.cit, p. 9.
34. M.K. Gandhi, ‘My Inconsistencies’, Young India (13 February 1930), p.52.
35. Ghanshyam Shah, op. cit., p. 38.
36. Anant Kumar Giri, op. cit,, p. 17.
37. ibid.
38. Ghanshyam Shah, op. cit., p. 40.
39. Rudolph C. Heredia, op. cit., p.1500.
40. M.K. Gandhi, My Experiment with Truth (Ahmadabad: Navajivan Publishing House, 1927), p. 147.
41. ibid, p. 243.
42. ibid, p. xiii
43. Rudolph. C. Heredia, op. cit., p.1499.
44. ibid.
45. quoted in Bidyut Chakrabarty, & R.K. Pandey, Modern Indian Political Thought: Text and Context (New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2009), p. 44.
46. Bhikhu Parekh, Gandhi’s Political Philosophy: A Critical Appreciation (Delhi: Ajanta, 1995), p. 142.
47. ibid.
48. ibid, p. 156
49. Anant Kumar Giri, op. cit,, p. 1.
50. Thomas Pantham, ‘Habermas’ Practical Discourse and Gandhi's Satyagraha’ in Thomas Pantham and Bhikhu Parekh (eds.), Political Discourse: Explorations in Indian and Western Political Though (New Delhi: Sage, 1987), p.309.
51. Rudolph C. Heredia, op.cit., p. 1499.
52. M.K. Gandhi, India of My Dreams, op.cit, p. 84.
53. Rudolph. C. Heredia, op. cit., p. 1499.
54. Quoted in David Hardiman, op. cit., p.53.
55. Neera. Chandhoke, ‘The Quest for Justice: Evoking Gandhi’, in Aakash Singh & Silika Mohapatra (eds.), Indian Political Thought: A Reader, (New Delhi: Routledge, 2010), p. 49.
56. ibid, p. 44.
57. M.K. Gandhi, India of My Dreams, op.cit, p. 185.
58. ibid, p.186.
59. David Hardiman, op.cit., p.52.
60. ibid.
61. M.K. Gandhi, India of My Dreams, op.cit, p.194.
62. Cristiano Gianolla, op. cit.
63. M.K. Gandhi, India of My Dreams, op.cit, p.194.
64. ibid.
65. ibid, p.195.
66. M.K. Gandhi, From Yerwada Mandir, (Ahmadabad: Navjivan Trust, 1932), p.33.
67. M.K. Gandhi, India of My Dreams, op.cit, p.284.
68. ibid, pp. 284-85.
69. Democratic Dialogue- A Handbook for Practitioners, op.cit., p.1.

Gandhi Marg, Volume 43, Number 2, July-September 2021.

* Preeti Singh, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Vasanta College for Women, Krishnamurti Foundation India, Rajghat, Varanasi. | Email : psinghkfi@gmail.com