Gandhi: The Socialist with a Difference

- By Sadaf Bano

Abstract

"Owners and workers ought to be in a relationship of father to son." (quoted in Spodeck, Ahmedabad 94)

Mahatma Gandhi's word of advice in 1923 to the workers in the cotton mill industry of Ahmedabad, truly makes him a Socialist, with a difference. Perhaps many can take this statement as an expression of complicity with the colonial power, against his own men who faced a defeat after calling out a mass agitation over the decision of 25% wage cut.

After all, who could deny that Gandhi couldn't have acted any way, other than being an accomplice to the bourgeois thought, for he too was one of them-a bourgeois in every sense of the word.

To quote Ravi Mistry who in his article 'Gandhi: The Myths behind the Mahatma', strongly opines that "Gandhi's attitude to industrial workers was paternalistic and condescending at best" for he "himself was a representative of the Indian Bourgeois."

Although his involvement with the bourgeois cannot be proven in explicit terms, yet one cannot live in denial of it either. In fact one should not, if one has to know the flip side of the Mahatma that he eventually became. It is precisely this reason that sets him and his ideology apart, from what Communism and Marxism are popularly attached to- an ideology of force and violence, for indeed he was selective in choosing and adding his own interpretation to the socialist idea.

What needs to be understood is that subjectivity cannot be completely forsaken, even when considering a man like Gandhi who stood either, for or against a particular cause. Since it is quite an impossibility for any man in flesh and blood, to not be swayed from the position he speaks - a position that carries the influence of his social and family ties. Further, political consideration cannot be completely overlooked.

One should surely consider Hayden White's claim that the facts of History should not be considered as an impersonal rendition of man's praxis. He debunks complete objectivity in Historical Truth and thereby suggests that this recognition would serve as a potent antidote to the tendency of historians to become ensnared of ideological preconceptions which they are quite unaware of the acceptance of Historical facts as Absolute truth in the first place, is what Hayden has warned us against.

Therefore, the paper aims at unlocking a different side of the truth that Gandhi is lesser known and acknowledged for - a Socialist, yet with a difference. The paper takes the polemics of the debate whether it is proper to consider him a Marxist or a socialist, given the difference that is attached to the popular use of these terms.

The political awakening of newly independent India in 1947, to the form of "libertarian socialist" (49) nation (to use Jean Paul Sartre's term libertarian socialism), has much to do with Mahatma Gandhi's political dispensation.

A man who has lived the image of both, as a deliverer and that of a perpetrator, has still managed to secure a permanent place in the history of Indian freedom struggle against the British Raj.

As a matter of fact, his fight against social injustice, was not something which he naturally felt since his birth, instead was developed "over time" as Ravi Mistry in his article 'Gandhi: The Myths behind the Mahatma' claims to report'.

Before one actually moves ahead in decoding his political career, that has always remained the subject of numerous speculation and controversies, it is important to begin one's analysis from the genealogy that he belonged to.

The man in dhoti and shawl, wasn't actually meant to be one in his early days. Born on 2nd October 1869, in a class of a wealthy Gujarati family, in the then princely state of Porbandar, Gandhi had the fortune to receive his degree in law from London. His father a diwan to a local raja, surely indicates his noble lineage.

What occasioned this simple attire, is nothing less of a fortune, which he felt, needed a makeover, in order to identify with the local masses. Indeed, a conscious decision taken on 22nd September 1921 as reported by S.Balakrishnan in his article 'What Made Gandhiji wear only Loincloth and Dhoti':

On two earlier occasions, he had thought of donning the common man's clothes but it was ultimately in Madurai (Tamil Nadu) where he finally took the plunge of adopting the attire of a poor peasant. He remarked later that it was Madurai that gave him the necessary strength to take a decision on his clothing though, on a couple of occasions earlier, he came closer but could not fully adopt this attire. The Mahatma said, Madurai gave him necessary strength to shed his traditional attire for 'loin cloth' at last.

Giving up on bourgeois dressing and embracing the naked truth of his countrymen, Gandhi was quick in replying when asked on one occasion, whether he realizes that he was not wearing enough clothes to meet the King. Gandhiji is reported to have famously remarked, "The king had enough on for both of us".

Yet this sheer display of emotional connect with the working class, couldn't dodge the critical eyes for its political manoeuvring, since according to Ravi Mistry "What actually remained consistent were that his own views and actions were always distant and removed from the proletariat, whether they were indentured labourers, the industrial working class, untouchables, peasants, or Africans."(Mistry)

This might surprise many of us, when considering the popular episodes of racial prejudice faced by Gandhiji on his trip to South Africa, for according to Ravi Mistry, he still chose to "show loyalty to his oppressors, to be subservient to them, and play up to their white paternalism, rather than attacking these injustices outright in the hope of achieving equality with the white subjects of empire."

The logic surely goes for a toss, when history stands witness to the fact that the same man had "sought to set indentured Indians apart from the petit-bourgeois and bourgeois Indians such as himself, through the realm of the Empire's logic" as he wrote to the white imperialist, demanding "equal rights for civilized men", leaving his indentured countrymen, while calling the bourgeois natives as "non-indentured propertied Indians "(Mistry). Thus clearly segregating himself and others, from the majority of indentured population, working in South Africa.

This mode of separating himself from the interest of the working class gets even clearer, when considering the Royal Indian naval mutiny in February 1946, when "some 20,000 sailors went on strike, many raising the red flag. The Communist Party (CPI), backed by Congress Socialist leaders, called for a national strike, with a staggering 300,000 workers downing tools in solidarity in the city of Bombay itself." This only alarmed the already threatened native bourgeois Congress Party and the Muslim League who "worked hand-in-hand to crush this communal and class unity, just a year before the bloody partition." (Mistry)

Surely this necessitates a pause to think, as to what version of socialism Gandhi was following, where the sincerity of his intention could be doubted and questioned? Or was it mere political manipulation to achieve those ends, which couldn't have been made possible otherwise? Was Gandhi truly on the side of the native bourgeois, while equally deceiving the ones he professed to stand by?

For there could be no small reason behind the growing sense of contempt not only among the working class but also the peasants who were forced to form a separate organization- All India Kisan Sabha in 1936, as "Congress backed agitations had proven to those peasants that they and Gandhi were a landlord party - not fighting in the peasants' interests - many flocked to this movement". (Mistry)

Moreover one should not miss the fact that, it was Gandhi who in all possible terms had condemned Russian Revolution of 1917, addressing the event in the following words:

I do know in so far as it is based on violence and the denial of God, it repels me... I am an uncompromising opponent of violent methods even to serve the noblest of causes. (Parel, 70-71)

So what is it that makes him truly a socialist, without conforming to every principle Socialism stands for? According to Ravi Mistry who makes a significant take on Gandhi's idea of socialism:

Gandhi called himself a socialist, yet his actions and beliefs prove counter to everything modern socialism stands for. His philosophy, as set out in Hind Swaraj, calls for a return to a sort of primitive communism, yet in practice he was well and truly tied to the interests of the Indian bourgeoisie. Moreover Gandhi feared the working class and communists, and used the guise of his peaceful philosophy to discredit and denounce them.

Indeed, contradiction truly defines Mahatma's political socialism, for if on one hand he had lead peasant agitations amongst indigo workers in Champaran in 1916, and among the peasants in Kheda District, there on the other hand Gandhi openly sided with the interest of the zamindars and landlord over the question of private property. To make his class interest impeccably clear to the landlords, Gandhi once said:

You may be sure that I shall throw the whole weight of my influence in preventing class war. Supposing that there is an attempt unjustly to deprive you of your property, you will find me fighting on your side. (Bose, 115)

If one closely observe his idea of libertarian socialism, surprisingly it has no inclusion of by far the most quintessential need of the abolishment of private property. So much so, that according to Leon Trotsky, Gandhi always sought compromises while vacillating between his bourgeois comrades and his working compatriots. As Trotsky made clear to Indian workers in 1939:

The Indian bourgeoisie is incapable of leading a revolutionary struggle. They are closely bound up with and dependent upon British capitalism. They tremble for their own property. They stand in fear of the masses. They seek compromises with British imperialism no matter what the price and lull the Indian masses with hopes of reforms from above. The leader and prophet of this bourgeoisie is Gandhi. A fake leader and a false prophet!". (Trotsky 263-266)

This could only indicate, that Gandhi probably professed and practiced socialism that was not at all inspired by the Soviet version of communism. Since Gandhi avoided every possible chance that could trigger off class war as he felt that "class- struggle brought ruin to the country and it made the production of goods fall considerably. All propertied persons were not bad. There was an urgent need to change their minds." (Pooja)

This eventually came from Gandhi's non-conformism to the idea of "dictatorship of the proletariat" , which he felt was not desirable, given the status of his country which was still emerging from colonial leadership, unlike other communist nation like USSR and China.

More than establishing an egalitarian society in the first place, one should not miss the ultimate truth that, Gandhi's energy was exclusively directed in achieving Swaraj, which only compelled him to make a calculative move to strike a balance between the two most important factions, thereby sustaining the struggle for a longer duration. For this he felt that mutual support of both the wealthy land owners and the general masses could achieve what a single force couldn't. Speaking to peasants in Kheda district in 1918, he said:

Our struggle is not merely for securing suspension of land revenue...In truth, we are fighting for the sake of the important issue which is involved in it. That is the issue of democratic Government. The people have awakened and begun to understand their rights. A full understanding of these rights is what is meant by Swaraj. ('Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi' 55)

Certainly one can give him the benefit of doubt, for there is quite a possibility that he realized the distinct position of his nation, where abolishment of private property could only serve to weaken the already debilitating situation of the Indian freedom struggle. He was quite aware that they couldn't forge ahead without the monetary and logistic support of some powerful men in the hierarchy. Therefore the strategy of "protecting the private property of the native bourgeoisie, whilst also tamely mobilizing workers and peasants for the nationalist cause, characterized the nature of the Indian nationalist movement under Gandhi's leadership" (Mistry) was the need of the hour.

What further differentiates his socialist doctrine is the fact that even though he allowed the investment on private capital, yet he also maintained that exploitation shouldn't be ensuing through it. While he was not in favor of snatching land from the landlords by force, there on the other hand he is ready to give the power to the state to control the industries of the capitalists by using minimum force. (Pooja)

It can be accepted that since Socialism has inspired many Eastern European countries including China, to adopt some form of communism, its "dynamic social transformatics" has left the masses in an intellectually confused state. The reason for this is the head on collision of ideas between Marx and Engels, with that of the practices of Soviet Russia. (Varma 115)

Perhaps this subtle sub-conscious force, could be the reason behind Mahatma Gandhi's adherence to non-violence which made him completely repellent to Soviet's idea of revolutionary violence. This can be strongly gained from the fact that he had to face bitter anger of the entire nation, failing to secure the release of Indian revolutionaries:

Gandhi's dislike for communists went further than just words however, as seen with the Gandhi-Irwin pact in March 1931, signed to halt the civil disobedience campaign in exchange for talks of dominion status. In these talks tens of thousands of political prisoners were released. However, the Punjab Indian revolutionaries Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, Udham Singh and Shivaram Rajguru, who had been in jail as political prisoners, were sent to their deaths. Gandhi failed to even condemn these political murders by the colonial government, never mind fought for their release. (Mistry)

This distinction is not only confided to the abhorrence of violence, but is much deep seated in the very nature of revolutionary agency ie the role of proletariat. Where, unlike Marx, Gandhi does not seem to rest his case in exclusive favor of the proletariat, as the sole agent of political and social emancipation.

As a matter of fact, according to Peter Singer, Karl Marx had "scarcely noticed the existence of the proletariat". Quite until 1844, he "certainly never suggested they had a part to play in overcoming alienation" (30). However when asked: Where then, the positive possibility of German freedom to be found, he answered:

In the formation of a class with radical chains... a sphere of society having a universal character because of its universal suffering... a sphere, in short, that is the complete loss of humanity and can only redeem itself through the total redemption of humanity. This dissolution of society as a particular class is the proletariat. (Singer 29)

Mahatma Gandhi certainly didn't vision the formation of newly independent India as a nation solely guided by the material force of the working class, for he favored an inclusive policy for all, where every section becomes an active participant in both social and material production. Unlike Marx, establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat, was one rhetoric that he never identified with. The Chauri Chaura incident on February 4, 1922 is one such example when Mahatma Gandhi had staunchly condemned the militancy of the peasants and workers agitating who finally took "matters into their own hands", to fight against their own local oppressions, inevitably resulting in riots and thereby killing 22 policemen.

Since the difference between Gandhism and Communism are fundamental, Gandhiji's act of tolerance on such occasions, should not bruise the agitators, comprehending it as an act of abetment.

It is precisely this reason that has led to the enunciation of formulae like "Gandhism is Communism minus Violence" (Mashruwala 30), for Gandhi's version of socialism was anything but violence. His vision of socialism, was with a view that no single revolution can create a permanent order that can both survive and sustain it in for all times. He certainly was aware that violence is like "The artificial cultivation for a short period of a quality which is not natural to the masses... And, if you feel that it might be possible to bring about a permanent change in the nature of the people as a whole, I say, even if it were possible, it would be a great calamity. For, in that case, it means that mart is to be made a ferocious animal." (Mashruwala)

Who could deny that violence if made a norm to establish a new order, would lead to such a damage that would be highly irrevocable? Certainly Gandhiji was concerned of means, as much as he craved for the end. However, creating a permanent order, like the ones envisioned by the communist, according to him, is "only an opiating drug", that would create such a structure of chaos, violence and bloodshed in the agitating generation of their times, which would be difficult to contain.

To save himself, Gandhiji, on one occasion had stood in his own defence by making his position clear on Socialism and Communism, as reported by Pyarelal Nayyar:

Gandhiji has often claimed in the course of his discussions with Communist and Socialist friends that he is a better Communist or Socialist than they. Their goal is identical. The difference in regard to the means and technique employed is however fundamental. (Pyarelal, 31-3-'46)

His rationality surely needs to be understood, for he believed that Socialism can never occur at a rapid pace through violent takeover, rather can proceed only in stages that will allow a moral and psychological change in the mindset of people, to establish class harmony.

One can see a greater difference between the two, where Gandhiji advocated a structure of class harmony, rather than mutilating the social order to become classless in a manner similar that "We cannot do away with the different organs of a person and make him organless" (Mashruwala 56). For it is impossible to completely liquidate class division, given the variance in work and labor attached to the system of social contribution. So does the masses engaging differently, each according to one's capacity and calibre.

Antagonism according to Gandhiji, therefore originates in aberration of psychological and moral behaviour among men. Instead realistically doing away with functional divisions altogether, and thus depriving the system of its fundamental structure, he rather wanted to do away with the class system from the minds of the people.

To exonerate Mahatma Gandhi for the sin of being meaninglessly tolerant towards the colonial regime, one needs to take the following observation by K.G Mashruwala:

A careful examination of the theory of class-war will show that until the moral and psychological change on which Gandhiji lays stress takes place, the solution suggested by Marx to put an end to it will fail to achieve its end of establishing a classless society. It is like murdering or dethroning a king and placing the murderer in his place under the title of President, and calling the change a ' revolution ultimately the net result will be no more than a change of hands.(52)

This might come as a surprise but perhaps, it is the impracticality of Marx' concept of establishing a classless society, that in today's time, by definition, there is no true communist country. In fact it never had been! A report claimed by Now World.

So ideal and perfect was the concept of "elimination" (class, private property etc) that it never saw the light of the day and this could precisely be the reason that Gandhiji saw through it and therefore never doubted its failure.

Nonetheless, this could not mean that Marx should not be credited for what he truly intended to achieve, for if elimination is not possible, 'limitation' (of class war and private ownership) certainly is. As Gandhiji strongly held that this could go a long way in keeping the balance in social order. Gandhiji as a socialist with a difference, therefore can be firmly validated in this sense.

Work Cited

1. Balakrishnan, S. 'What Made Gandhiji wear only Loincloth or Dhoti'.
2. Bose, Nirmal Kumar. Selections From Gandhi. Nabu Press. 2011.
3. Mahatma Gandhi Media and Research Service. Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi Serve Foundation. Volume 14.
4. Mistry, Ravi. 'Gandhi: The Myths behind the Mahatma'.
5. Parel, Anthony. J. Gandhi, Freedom, and Self-rule. Lexington Books.
6. Pooja. 'Similarity and Dissimilarity between Gandhism and Marxism'. Political Science.
7. Singer, Peter. Marx. Oxford University Press, 2nd edition. 2018.
8. Spodeck, Howard. Ahmedabad: Shock City of Twentieth-Century India. Indiana University Press, 2011.
9. White, Hayden. 'The Historical Text as a Literary Artifact'.
10. Trotsky Leon, 'An Open Letter to the Workers of India'. New International, vol. 5, no 9, 1939.
11. Varma, Vishwanath Prasad. Gandhi and Marx: An Introduction of the Critique of Political Philosophies of Mohandas Gandhi and Karl Marx. The Indian Journal of Political Science Jstor, Vol 5 No 2.

*SADAF BANO is a young research scholar in the Department of English and Modern European Languages, University of Lucknow. | Email: sadafhoney.ali@gmail.com