An Essay on Gandhian Political Theory

- By Karunakar Patrar

Abstract

Gandhian political theory has been broadly debated from two important perspectives. One argument places Gandhian political theory as a relative or a reconciled pattern of both Western and Eastern traditions. The other argument suggests that Gandhi is an original thinker, in the sense that he is a unique innovator of political concepts, inherently based on Indian traditions. In this way, it can be argued that Gandhi developed a distinctive and an alternative version of political theory compared to Western notion of political theory. I shall argue in the same line. My concern is to emphasize an alternative version of political theory that Gandhi had dealt with; it is to stress the essential character of Gandhian thread running through the traditional thought developed in India.

Gandhian political theory has been broadly debated from two important perspectives. One argument places Gandhian political theory as a relative or a reconciled pattern of both western and eastern traditions. The other argument suggests that Gandhi is an original thinker, in the sense that he is a unique innovator of political concepts, inherently based on Indian traditions. In this way, it can be argued that Gandhi developed a distinctive as well as an alternative version of political theory compared to western notion of political theory. However, he himself did not believe in any such absolute predictions or prescriptive norms of truth. He believed in no permanent truth (except God) and discarded his own ideas by saying that they are as old as the Himalayas. He also nullified the fact that there is nothing specific about Gandhism. I shall argue in the same line. My concern is to emphasize an alternative vision of political theory that Gandhi had dealt with; it is to stress the essential character of Gandhian thread running through the traditional thought developed in India.

This paper is divided into three parts, involving three important aspects of political theory. The first part attempts an analysis of the idea of political theory. This part involves a very brief account of the nature and function of political theory. The second part tries to give at the outset what constitutes the essential elements of Gandhian political theory. It deals with the essential aspects and functions of political theory which, in a way, undertakes an analysis of human nature, politics, state, power and democracy. The third part focuses on conceptual analysis of Gandhian political theory: freedom, equality, justice, rights and duties. And finally, the conclusion focuses on the contemporary relevance of Gandhian political theory.

What is Political Theory?

Political theory analyses political life, nature of prevailing political behaviour and patterns of political system that provides a set of norms for good life. It also examines the interdependence and inter-linkage between various parts of political life which, in a sense, gives a wider meaning to society. Bernard Crick defined political theory as an "attempt to explain the attitudes and actions arising from ordinary political life and to generalize about them in a particular context; thus political theory is basically concerned with the relationships between concepts and circumstances."¹ For Goodwin political theory:

is a technique of analysis which can be used to overturn, as well as to uphold. Departing from fact and detail, it describes and explains politics in abstract and general terms, justify and criticize the disposition of power in the society, which allow scope for the critical imagination. Political theory may be defined as the discipline which aims to explain, justify or criticize the disposition of power in the society. It delineates the balance of power between states, groups and individuals.²

For Mackinnon, Political theory is the study of how we should live together in society.³ Political theory is a response to the questions arising out of the complexities of social life; the answers it seeks may not be agreed to by everybody. It may not have any particular answer that defines the meaning holistically. Weinstein explains:

Political theory is an activity that involves posing questions developing responses to those questions and creating imaginative perspective on the public life of human beings. Like all fields of intellectual endeavour, the subject of political theory can best be understood by associating the questions associated with its study. There is no correct definition of the scope of political theory. The scope of an intellectual activity is created by efforts to answer the questions that are posed within it.⁴

The great political theorists created their works in response to problems that they discovered in the realms of either practical affairs or speculative thought.⁵ The best way to become a political theorist or at least to appreciate the work of political theorists is to become seriously concerned about a problem in public life. Efforts to resolve that problem will lead to search for appropriate concepts through which public life can be described. Once the relationship between these concepts and their validity are recognized, one is engaged in the activity of political theory.⁶

Political theory undertakes three important dimensions of enquiry: normative, explanatory and contemplative. Normative political theory is also called prescriptive, justificatory and advocatory. Macpherson argues that a normative political theory is normative when it prescribes certain norms and justifies those norms for establishing a good society. He argues that a normative political theory can be justified only on a moral basis. For him, no political theory can be treated as sound unless it is guided both by explanatory as well as normative underpinnings. Further, he emphasizes that "every political theory is a product of its age and has a time-bound quality."⁷ Sheldon Wolin defines political theory in general terms as a tradition of discourse concerned about the present being and well-being of collectivities. It is primarily a civil and secondarily an academic activity. In my understanding this means that political theory is a critical engagement with collective existence and with the political experiences of power stemming from such engagement.⁸ According to Hannah Arendt, political theory is not reducible to its explanatory or normative functions, although clearly these functions are part of its defining features. Political theory, for her, continues to be what it was for classical thinkers - "a deeply contemplative enquiry into the general condition of human kind either over a very long period or at certain stage of their changing existence."⁹

What is Gandhian Political Theory?

Whether Gandhian political theory is essentialist or relativist is a moot question. The debate swings into both the directions. I argue that Gandhian political theory is essentialist in nature. In claiming Gandhian 'political theory essentialist in nature, I rely on the methodology of the intellectual tradition of India.

Essentialism searches for the intrinsic nature of things as they are in and of themselves. The opposite of essentialism is relationalism. In analytic philosophy, essences are called natural kinds. Natural kinds are those to which terms and classification refer when they are true and constant in all possible worlds. These terms became what Kripke calls - "rigid designators."¹⁰ Natural kinds are things-in-themselves, after they have reached their true state and unfolded their inherent potential. They cannot be imagined otherwise. The preferred logical mode on essentialism is necessity, worked in formal syllogisms, deductions, definitions, tautologies, and the like. Natural kinds always exist, or seem to exist, independent of relationships, context, time, or observer. The properties of natural kinds are those that make a thing what it essentially is; the rest is merely accidental, or contingent or historical. Essentialism makes either /or distinctions, rather than variable distinctions in degree. It posits polar opposites, instead of gradations and empirical continuity. Plenty of examples are available. Science is driven by either method or without it; action is either rational or interpretative; the nature of art is to express subjective experience; the nature of technology is impersonality; knowledge either corresponds to the world or is socially constructed; the mind is either a machine or a conscious; the nature of method in social science is ideographic hermeneutics; society is either Geminschaft or Gesellschaft, but not both at the same time.

In essentialism, the preferred mode of operation is static typologies and rigid classifications, whose grids separate things that are everywhere, and under all circumstances, really separate. Essentialism is often accompanied by a dualistic cosmology that draws deep distinctions between things natural and social, body and mind, behaviour and action, cause and intention.

Gandhian essentialism rests on the fact that he underlines the distinctive tradition of Indian life which has developed from a very long period of time. Modernity and its impact on society undermine the ancient virtues of good life both in the West and the East. Gandhi makes an essentialist judgement as to which yardsticks and principles should constitute the true and spirited life. He uses the political and moral concepts in a way to lead the virtues of good life free from the unending quest for materiality.

The distinctive features of Gandhian political theory, specifically the conceptual analysis of political and moral categories, presented as a separate entity in which one can recognize the specialty of Gandhi as a political thinker and a practitioner of intellectual history of Indian tradition. The distinctiveness of an idea of Indian political theory, like the British or American or African political theories, is inherently rooted in the distinctiveness of the social and cultural traditions of India. Indian civilization being one of the oldest civilizations of the world, stored many thought provoking ideas in its history. In course of the progress of civilization different religious creeds were also developed. The discourse in religions developed central ideas as to how human beings would pursue a good life, how they should behave in society and polity. From yuranic and vendantic traditions, monarchy was developed as mode of ruling in the society. Kautilya's Arthasastra gave a vivid description of India's past distinctive administrative mechanism. The establishment of the Mughal and British rule provided new dimensions to the cultural tradition of India. Colonial rule in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries inculcated western spirit and values to the traditions of India. The western ideas guided by the enlightenment influenced the pattern of British hegemony over non- western societies through colonial and imperial domination. And in this colonial and imperial context, started the nationalist movements - as liberatory movement - giving birth to many strands of indigenous thought processes as part of the rich historical and cultural tradition. During the nationalist movement in India, the social reformers took the lines of argument of British rationalists as well as reinvented ideas from the traditional Indian sources such as vedanta and purana. Thinkers like Dayananda, Vivekananda, Bankim Chandra and Gandhi developed an Indian nationalist consciousness from the vedantic and the Hinduistic perspectives. They tried to counter British rule and western ideas from the standpoint of Indian philosophical perspective. In this context, it is argued that "the Indian political thought as a field of study is a part of liberative knowledge. The study of how Indian thinkers have reflected upon issues of power and freedom is very significant to understand the history of institutions and movements in India"¹¹ In this context, it is very relevant to bring out the contribution Gandhi made to the great political canon of India. His leadership and personal charisma during the freedom struggle had impressed many people both inside and outside India. The sources of these ideas which he presented in Hind Swaraj and further writings demonstrated a distinctive Indian way of life.¹² Gandhian political theory's distinctiveness is emphasized by Bondurant:

Gandhi did not proceed from any specific political ideology, and yet the significance, for political theory, of his action on the practical field of politics, is inestimable. The contribution has been not alone to the development of a social and political method. It is extended further into the realm of political thought and challenges the substantial presuppositions of the mainstream of political theory.¹³

Prof. Charles Sisson of Elphinstone College, Bombay, was highly impressed by Gandhi's moral and political ideas. He had seriously discussed several issues of political implications in the 1920s with Gandhi, and finally reached the conclusion that "Gandhi was more of an Indian scholar”.¹⁴ The sources of religious and cultural tradition in India enriched his thought process. His experiment with religion and politics (spiritual and secular) is very much distinctive in the historical tradition of Indian political thought. His ideas on decentralized democracy, autonomous self, critique of modernity and modern industrialization and empowered self were to be sustained by self- control and self-development and overcoming weaknesses grounded in violence, anger, intolerance and hate. His acceptance of state-society separation (Ramarajya), individual freedom, sarvodaya, satyagraha and means-end relationship is quite remarkable and constitute his integrated version of a coherent and synthetic formulation of political theory. Mehta saw in Gandhi a synthetic vision that integrally linked the individual, community and the political order. It brings within its agenda the non-human world and the cosmos.¹⁵ In contrast to western political theory founded on the principles of modernity, rationalism, secularism, individualism and technocratism, Gandhi developed an alternative vision of good life based on Indian tradition.

The contemporary trends in political theory involve issues that truly concern the essentially pluralist nature of society across the world. The different societies have developed varieties of trends in political understanding of social, economic and cultural conditions. In the second half of the twentieth century, the works of Berlin and Rawls¹⁶ have emphatically laid down that the idea of pluralism is the most potential theoretical device that can produce authentic and pragmatic answers to most of the complex questions of society. Gandhian political theory also needs to be seen in the context of pluralism. He is no doubt, as Parel argues, a pluralist political thinker, who attached importance to the meaning of a good life in Indian society. He also suggests that Gandhi retained two important ideas from the old Indian cannons - the need for plurality of sciences and the need for a plurality of life-goals or the purusharthas. Indian theologies in this sense belonged to a broad field of the human sciences. Parel elaborates:

Gandhi viewed that the western notion of science that is alone sufficient for human well-being is something that emerged from a particular direction that modern western thought had taken. Such a notion does not apply elsewhere. The modern Indian political cannon stands squarely against the claim that modern science is the only knowledge sufficient for human well-being. This is monism in the disguise of science. Gandhi rejects monism in favour of a plurality of sciences. Two epistemologies would produce two types of knowledge - knowledge based on experience and knowledge based on positive reason.¹⁷

Gandhi's problem was not with modern science and its techniques or methods, but was more concerned with the ideology of science. This is an ideology that believes in the incompatibility between scientific truths and spiritual truths. He is disgusted with such a view of science adopted deeply by the West and its persuasiveness remains. This is spreading a culture or disbelief in the name of positive reason. Since western civilization is irreligious, it cannot make a bridge between the material and spiritual. The search for artha and kama lead to the demolition of other aspects of good life like dharma and moksha. This is very unpleasant and also a dangerous course of civilization. It can lead to self-destruction. Gandhi was very much interested in his own Indian tradition, which taught him to strike a balance between the material and the spiritual. In this way, Parel argued that Gandhi tried to bridge the gap between the secular and spiritual. This is Gandhi's unique and original contribution to political theory. He based his argument on the idea that the experience (anubhava) of seers like sages and saints can bring a new meaning to human life. Parel adds that the new cannon Gandhi introduced is a blend of modernity with spirituality, science with religion, and rational knowledge with spiritual experience. The following sections deal with the analysis of Gandhi's political concepts in terms of the alternative understanding that it sought to project.

Human Nature

All political theories must begin with some coherent view of the nature of man at least in so far as it affects his moral aims and conduct in society. Human nature, so to say, is not static, but always dynamic. Changes are unpredictable and empirical studies have failed to grasp them with any degree of precision. Raghavan Iyer writes:

Political theory which does not start from a human nature tends to become either pretentious or trivial. The choice between an optimistic conception (from Plato to Kant) and a pessimistic view (from St Augustine to Hobbes) of human nature is logically independent of the choice between an open and a closed view of human nature or again the choice between the acceptance and the rejection of the perfectibility of man, or finally, the degree of power and autonomy that is granted to man in relation to Nature (or God) and his material and social environment... Political philosophy involves a search for 'a definition of man' and the major political thinkers differ in the accounts they give of the powers essential to men. This means both description and prescription; the facts are verifiable but cannot be conclusively settled, the values and choices commanded may be defended or disputed in terms of moral principle and common experience, but must in the end be left for each individual to test for himself... In secular philosophies, the elevation of man is usually achieved through a mechanistic conception of nature and the belief that human reason is capable of comprehending and manipulating the world.¹⁸

Gandhi distinguishes humans from the brutes. The brute by nature knows no self-restraint and man is man because he is capable of self-restraint. Elsewhere, he suggests that "the duty of renunciation differentiates mankind from the beast. Man becomes great exactly to the degree to which he works for the welfare of his fellow men".¹⁹

Kant acknowledged the frailty, impurity and depravity of human nature. Gandhi, like Kant held that frailty was an inevitable result of the weakness of the will, which could in principle be remedied; impurity is the unfortunate consequence of the fact that even our purest motives are not wholly untainted by considerations other than the highest; while depravity points to corruption rather than the inherent evil of the human heart.

The moral culture of man must begin not with improvement of morals but with a transformation of the mind and the training of the mind. Gandhi said:

....man and his deed are two distinct things. Whereas a good deed should call forth appropriation and a wicked deed disapprobation, the doer of the deed, whether good or wicked always deserves respect or pity as the case may be.²⁰

Interpretation of History

The view of human nature propagated by Gandhi has a link with his interpretation of history as well as his view of cosmic evolution. Life is an inspiration and its mission is to strive after perfection and that is rationalisation. He believed in the power of the spirit of man to shape its environment to some extent and thus affect the course of history. Gandhi explicitly rejected the Marxist interpretation of history. He could not agree that our ideologies, ethical standards and values are altogether a product of our material environment. He added:

Marxist regards thought, as it were, a secretion of the brain and the mind, a reflex of the material environment. I cannot accept that .... If I have an awareness of that living principle within me, no one can fetter my mind. The body might be destroyed; the spirit will proclaim its freedom. This to me is not a theory; it is a fact of experience.²¹

When Gandhi said that he did not believe that it is prakriti (matter) which priginates and governs the thought-process of purusha (spirit), he was clearly enunciating a faith and a belief that are not susceptible to proof any more than is the opposite view. Gandhi was convinced that what was good in Marxism was not original or exclusive to it, and what was exclusive to it was not necessarily good. Gandhi, said:

..my quarrel with the Marxists is that even if the paradise of material satisfactions, which they envisage as their final goal, were realized on earth, it would not bring mankind either contentment or peace. But I was wondering whether we cannot take best out of Marxism and turn it to account for the realization of our social aims.²²

Gandhi believed that what had made the teaching of Marx dynamic was that he regarded mankind as a whole and identified himself with the cause of the poor oppressed toilers of the world. But in that he is not alone. Others besides him have done the same. While conceding the vision and dynamism of Marx, Gandhi explicitly rejected his reductionism. He said:

I do not consider economic factors to be the source of all the evils of the world. Nor is it correct to trace the origin of all wars to economic causes. What were the causes of the last war? (1914) ...Was not Helen the cause of the Trojan War? But why go so far? Rajput wars which belong to modern history had never their origin in economic causes.²³

Gandhi's criticism of Marxist interpretation of history was profound, but he put his finger on the basic weakness of Marxism: "these people have concentrated their study on the depth of degradation to which human nature can descend. What use have they for the study of the heights of which human nature can descend. What use have they for the study of the heights to which human nature could rise." The virtue of Gandhi's view of history lay for him in its being dynamic, hopeful and universal, but ultimately it is the 'Unseen Power' that governs the course of events even in the minds of men who made those events. He had a transcendentalist view of history. Human history is, for Gandhi, neither a unilinear trend of progress nor a static picture of eternal recurrence, but rather, a spiral-like movement that is determined by the power of spirit over the matter within the limits of the course plotted out by karma, the contemporary law of ethical causation. There is a divine guarantee that goodwill ultimately triumph over evil, but he explicitly rejected the unilinear view of human progress, individual or collective. Iyer explains:

Gandhi's political concepts possess a variety of meanings ranging from religious purity to political expediency, but he was neither a pure absolutist nor a mere opportunist. It would be a failure to grasp the man or his ethical preoccupations to explain away his concepts entirely in terms of political expediency. He certainly evolved his concepts and elaborated them in the context of practical problems that he faces as a politician and social worker. It is far more appropriate to consider his concepts in terms of their metaphysical and moral presuppositions than to regard them as techniques justified solely by their results. On the basis of his presuppositions, Gandhi was convinced that ahimsa would certainly triumph, but he would have held to it even if its immediate application was likely to meet with failure. Many of his followers, especially in the United States, have stressed the effectiveness rather than the righteousness of his concepts, whereas he himself was far more concerned with the latter although he had sanguine faith in the former.²⁴

Politics

Iyer argues distinctively about the unique Gandhian understanding of politics. His standpoint is neither similar to Augustine nor Aquinas nor Aristotle. He developed his ideas on politics from the traditional Indian doctrine of 'maya' or illusion and was emphatic on the notion of 'moha' or delusion or glamour. Modern conception of politics to him is delusive and ephemeral. It apparently stresses on evil and further leading to 'hypnotic and narcotic effect on the moral perception and will of man.'

Politics in its simplest meaning denotes human activity to exercise power. Power is perceived as the language of politics. The end of politics is to seek power. In politics, power is considered as an end. However, for Gandhi, power is a means to enable people to pursue their life in a better way by feasibly arranging conditions of good life. But Gandhi's indictment of modern civilization shows that he is keenly interested in a spiritual and moral politics inherently rooted in traditional Indian politics. The modern civilization is satanic civilization which is ultimately a soulless enterprise. In a material society the state and its agency is entirely corrupt. All the political institutions are instruments for multiplying wealth by coercive means and this provides a psychological incentive connected with power. The interplay of power and moral values is the central problem of politics. Gandhi repudiated the conventional meaning of politics and introduced a wider domain of power in which the dichotomies of private and public morals got diminished and religious values and political norms got shrunk. And ethical principles and political expediency got minimized.

Gandhi just after his arrival in India, as early as 1915, felt to declare his aim and, that is, to spiritualize political life and political institutions. Returning to the traditional source of society in India, Gandhi remarked that caste organization fulfilled not only religious want of the community but also its political needs. In his autobiography, he mentioned that he was attracted into politics for his devotion to truth and that his power in political field stemmed from his spiritual experiments with himself. He condemned those who say religion has nothing to do with politics. However, his mission of entering into politics was to purify it through the introduction of ashram or monastic ideal into politics. Gandhis most uncommon trait of entering into politics was by most important qualification of adopting voluntary poverty to do selfless service for wider society. There is close relationship between politics and social reform.

Gandhi approached politics imbibed with a religious spirit because he was fundamentally guided by the religious life. He addressed some missionaries thus:

I could be leading a religious life unless I identified myself with the whole of mankind and that I could not do unless I took part in politics. The whole gamut of man's activities today constitutes on indivisible whole .... I do not know of any religion part from activity. It provides a moral basis of all other activities without which life would be a maze of sound and fury signifying nothing.²⁵

Politics helps to build the society by reforming it. The prime task of political activities is to bring social and moral progress in society. Politics is by people through power but not by legislative assemblies. Politics helps people by taking care of people. So, it is an unavoidable end. Understanding Gandhian concept of politics leads us to see entirely both the narrower and wider connotations of it. Additionally, politics can be purified only when it is guided by religious spirit, not in the sense of sectarian values but in the sense of purified universal moral values. For Gandhi, power is not to be considered as the sole - end, rather it is a means to perform purified value of oriented goals for the broader society. Gandhi did not see any virtues in detaching religion from politics. The modern western politics founded on the strict separation of politics from religion in a strict compartmentalization sense. Religion was understood as private value strictly based on private notion of sectarian, belief. Politics, as such, is a matter of public virtue guided strictly by pure public reasoning. Gandhi's vision of religious politics is entirely different from theological politics. He simply meant by religious politics as a moral ground to attach values to life to give directions in right manner. Gandhi was not at all in favour of state religion, even if there is one religion in the society. "Politics is the art of doing on the large-scale what is right and as an affair of principle it touches eternal interests and religious sentiments."²⁶

Politics for Gandhi is an unavoidable task. No one can get rid of it because it pervades all forms of life. Therefore, the only way to make it purified and moral is through mixing it up with religion. Gandhi was much convinced that any movement even if it is purely political, for instance, struggle for civil rights in South Africa, is a religious movement. Gandhi says: "by religion I do not mean formal religion or customary religion but that religion which underlies all religions."²⁷ "Religion for Gandhi means a spiritual commitment which is total but intensely personal. He firmly believed in the fundamental unity of life, and rejected the distinction between public and private, secular and sacred."²⁸ Iyer again sincerely finds his views on religion as he put it: "Gandhi's view was the consequence of, and not independent of, his view of morality. He would have entirely agreed with Kant's essay: 'On the Discordance between Morals and Politics.' Kant argued that there could be a conflict between morals and politics if ethics is itself regarded as a general doctrine of prudence or expediency, a view that he wholly rejected in favour of the view that it was system of unconditionally authoritative laws in accordance with which we always ought to act. I can easily enough think of a moral politician as one who holds the principles of political expediency in such a way that they can coexist with morals: but I cannot conceive of a political moralist who fashions a system of moralist for himself so as to make it subordinated and subservient to the interest of the statesman."²⁹

In this Kantian sense, Gandhi could be seen as a political moralist, he was certainly not a moral politician. His moral standpoint was absolutist in all spheres and was based upon the conviction that true religion and true morality are inseparably bound up with each other that 'so long as the seed of morality is not watered by religion, it cannot sprout' and that if we take out the essence of all moral laws, we shall find that the attempt to do good to mankind is the highest morality.³⁰

Gandhi also believed, like Kant,

....that the seeming antagonism between political prudence and moral convictions arises only when moralists are deficient in practice and therefore inclined to despotism. A political good must not be desired for its own sake but as a political consequence of the realization and performance of one's primary moral obligations.³¹

Gandhi was not to be accurately considered as a student of Kant, but he derived his position from the Bhagvad Gita as well as his own experience of religious studies. He attempted a strand of Indian philosophy into his religious understanding of politics, that is, the path of Karma Yoga or spiritual realization through social action. He experiences in India that the politics has been corrupted and the time has come to purify it. Politics is dangerous but not sinful or beyond redemption. Now it can be performed as a spiritual perfection as legitimate and sacred as any other spiritual path. Politics though cannot be understood through spiritualism but it can be approached continuously through a process of spiritual self-purification. Gandhi followed, in fact, the thoughts of the Buddha in framing the link between service of suffering humanity and the process of self- purification. He erased the distinction between mundane and the ultra mundane, the natural and the supernatural. Neither artha (politics) nor moksnya (salvation) could be separated from dharma (social and personal morality). He recommended artha as an aspect of and politics as branch of ethics.

State

Gandhi visualized a limited state than a minimal state. He closely observed the nature of modern state and pointed out its coercive apparatus as harmful to individuals. As such, he was very critical about the dominant tendency of modern state: centralized, hierarchical and bureaucratic. These features do systematically constrain individual self-governance. He condemned state as a 'soulless machine.'³² Parekh suggests that Gandhi's ideas on state got changed from 1930s onward. Gandhi reframed his experiment with state and liked forward to it as vehicle of change. It is conceived between the public opinion and holds the remedial potential to eradicate institutional injustices like his untouchability. Terchek argues that "his move to accept state action discloses a Gandhi who is willing to tolerate coercion for limited specific goals; his circumscribed endorsement of state power is not meant to promote justice but to dismantle injustice."³³

Parel submits that "Gandhi wants a state that meets the requirements of artha and civic nationalism. Only in such a state can citizen and social groups live and flourish in peace and security."³⁴

As far as the functions of the state are concerned, Parel broadly outlines two major ones: securing the rights of the citizens and barricading external aggression. The function of the state in broader spectrum is understood as the role of the state above all is fixed with the adhesive of guaranteeing and securing the rights of citizens.³⁵ The second aspect of the state as defender of human rights is that it should be a constitutionally limited state. The state Gandhi 'defended was a limited liberal state. It is limited to the extent that it ensures its responsibility in protecting the rights of citizens. In case of violent and coercive operation of state, citizens must resist to it by the technique of satyagraha. It is a Gandhian principle of non-violent resistance of state abuses. Gandhi emphasized on the habitual obligation of individuals to the state. But in case of injustice, citizens should develop civil disobedience to protect their rights from the state encroachments.

Gandhi had a vision to build an ideal state in India by getting political freedom from the British. The state which he had dreamt of was expressed by the idealist term known as Ramarajya. Literally it means the rule by Rama, as one of the avatars of Vishnu, in Indian Puranic tradition. The term Ramarajya figuratively expresses "the reign of ideal justice, perfect democracy or the reign of self-imposed law of moral restraint."³⁶ Although Gandhi was vehemently criticized for using such a concept of Ramarajya, however, he made the meanings of the term very clear by simplifying it in terms of perfect rule by purity of heart and soul. This term has no relevance for theocratic understanding. Above all, Gandhian state was purely a secular state and he made it transparently clear when he said about purusarthas.

The debate among Gandhian thinkers in contemporary periods requires a brief mention. The heart of the debate lies with the argument - whether Gandhi's understanding of state can lead to reconciliation or opposition between the political and spiritual? Iyer among the earlier interpreters of Gandhian thought mentions that there is a paradox between non-violence on the one hand and the state on the other. State as soulless machine cannot accord with individuals with its very tendency of violence and coercion. Individuals with enlightened anarchism is purely a perfect condition to lead towards spiritualism. Gandhi was tilted towards the end to a stateless society. Iyer was not convinced with the argument that the pursuit of artha and dharma can go together. Parel discourages this position of Iyer and insists that this is a mistaken understanding which Gandhi wanted every one of his readers to avoid it. Parekh expresses an agonistic view of state held by Gandhi. Gandhi was not really a supporter of modern state. This is because of the alleged opposition between purusarthas. The state by its very nature is unparalleled with man's spiritual and moral quests. The incompatibility between state and individuals emerges due to soulless and soul. The abstraction of soulless machine hinders in the moral progress of spirituality. The ground was not fertile for individuals to attain mokshq within the domain of modern state. It is always in this regard urged to find an alternative space for the organized lives of individuals. Partha Chatterjee interpreted Gandhi's position from a Marxist viewpoint. He viewed that this state is Utopian in nature. A vision impossible for it constructed a position between two contradictory ideas: political swaraj and true swaraj.

Freedom

Gandhian theory of freedom is commonly rooted in Hind Swaraj. The idea of swaraj entails two important meanings - individual and collective. At the individual level, swaraj projects human being to be self-disciplinary as well as controlling the individual passions to build a good individual in the collective society; the collective meaning of swaraj comprises the freedom from colonial rule as the first priority of every Indian. It is the political freedom demanded from the British imperialism simply on the ground of self-determination. Being an advocate of civil liberties of individual persons he stated in 1917 that a person ca£V disobey governmental orders and declared that "the person of a citizen must be held inviolate. It can only be touched to arrest or to prevent violence."³⁷ He also admired most important freedom of individuals like freedom of speech and expression. Gandhi wrote:

Freedom of speech and corresponding action is the breadth of democratic life. Freedom of propagating non-violence as substitute for war is the most relevant when indecent savagery is being perpetrated by the warring nations of Europe.³⁸

In 1940, Gandhi pleaded for freedom of speech, a free press and pure justice, independence of judiciary and complete civil liberty, lie also included right to legal counsel and defence as part of civil rights. He believed in economic and spiritual freedoms. The economic freedom constitutes equal distribution, adequate wages for any labourer and most important thing for doing this was to bring the state into business. In other words, state must, intervene to produce an opportunity where saruodaya would be possible. Everybody's good is collective good and vice-versa.

Apart from these two important meanings of it, swaraj to Gandhi comprises many other things. It is a part of truth which is God.

Freedom is considered very sacrosanct. It is the essence of man's personality. The renunciation of freedom could be attained only through severe suffering and struggle. He simply suggested to the masses in India that freedom they quest for is not going to be easily obtained but to achieve at the cost of a serious struggle, hi the second Round Table Conference he said that 'the page of history is soiled red with the blood of those who have fought for freedom.'

Self-rule is the process of removing the infernal obstacles to freedom. When achieved it is nothing other than spiritual freedom. Self-rule is the unique quality of an individual and found in no other living beings or brutes. Self-rule presupposes the agency of the spirit (individual atman). The spirit exerts its influence on the empirical ego, on emotions, and intelligence. Under the influence of the spirit, the inner powers of the moral agent become integrated, such that he/she becomes a spiritually aware person, guided by the self-knowledge. The process by which the spirit integrates the inner faculties has a dynamic quality, which is suitably expressed by the concept of 'ruling.' Hence, the terminology of self-rule is swaraj. The spirit of higher self 'rules' the lower self of empirical ego.'³⁹

Self-rule/spiritual freedom is derived from Bhagavad Gita. Nineteen verses of the second chapter of this work draw the celebrated portrait of the person of steady wisdom, the sthitha-prajna. Sthiiha-prajna, for Gandhi, is a model of self-ruling, spiritually free person.

Self as a virtue directs the inner power of a person to their proper purposes. Gandhi draws it from the Indian tradition of Patanjali Yogasutras. Patanjali lists five virtues necessary for anyone contemplating the attainment of spiritual freedom. They are non-violence, truthfulness, non-stealing, chastity and greedlessness. Gandhi added six more virtues to the traditional list - swadeshi, removal of untouchability, bodily labour, control of palate, fearlessness, and respect for all religion.⁴⁰

Self-rule is self-transformative activity. A spiritually integrated person is no longer a slave of the passions but is able to go about his daily affairs in the light of true self-knowledge. Gandhi speaks of self conversion and mental revolution, and the experience of inner freedom. Swaraj is a state of mind.

Self-rule is not a Utopian dream but a real state of affairs of which a person can have experimental evidence. Experience of self-rule would make one aware of one's duties toward others, and above all, it would make one sensitive to social injustice. That is to say, self-rule leads to deeper self-knowledge, which in turn awakens one's social and political conscience. Self-rule bridges the internal world of spiritual freedom and the external world of political and economic freedoms. Self-rule of Gandhi is an innovative idea. Gandhi derived the idea of self-rule from the Indian tradition but he also renovated it in some other ways. He sought to make self-rule compatible with the modern ideas of independence, individual freedom, and economic freedom.⁴¹

The experience of self-rule brought with it a moral concern to persuade others to become fully free: after once we have realized it, we will endeavour to the end of our life time to persuade others to do likewise.

According to the Indian tradition spiritual freedom was supposed to be an apolitical and asocial state of affairs, requiring withdrawal from the socio-political world. But he reinterprets self-rule in such a way as to give spiritual freedom a social, political and economic profile. Gandhi's own life was an experimental in making spiritual freedom socially, politically, and economically dynamic. In his autobiography, he introduced that his life goal was the attainment of spiritual freedom, which he felt he could not attain unless he entered the world of social, if political, and economic action. Gandhi wrote 'All that I do by way of speaking and writing, and all my ventures in the political field are directed to this end. A person who aspires after spiritual freedom and self-rule cannot afford to keep out of any field of life. That is why my devotion to Truth hast drawn me into the field of politics'.⁴²

The self-rule ought to find expression in appropriate political and economic activities. The ability to act well in the socio-economic-political arena is the test of the new meaning of self-rule. Self-rule and the inner transformation and integration that go with it, prepare one to lead the life of an active citizen. That is he believed spiritual freedom cannot remain an asocial nor an apolitical nor an atemporal condition. 'Spiritual freedom, to be truly human, has to be socially and politically active. The defence of this view constitutes one of his major contributions to political philosophy.⁴³

Swaraj for Gandhi was an all-satisfying goal for all time. He wanted India to come to her own and he believed India could do so only if it realized swaraj in all its four aspects. Why did Gandhi feel compelled to bring the four disparate aspects of freedom together? For one thing, there was the context of history. History place before him two traditions - modern western and ancient Indian. There was also a moral imperative. For he felt that the modern west had ignored the truth that humans were body/spirit composites, and as such the desire for freedom could be fully satisfied only by means of self-rule. He strongly believed that bearing witness to this ignored truth was his life mission. Full human development, he insisted, called for the development of all aspects of freedom. To pursue one aspect of freedom without simultaneously pursuing the other aspects was to distort the meaning of freedom and to interfere with the process of human development.⁴⁴

Equality and Justice

Gandhi's notion of equality and justice is immensely radical. He argues that equality is most important for the reason that ensures the dignity of every individual person. It also abandons the idea of social discrimination in every society. For Gandhi, justice is the most necessary basic requirement for both individuals and society. Justice is understood as fair treatment. Justice is an ideal that empowers a person to enjoy certain natural rights like equality, equality of opportunity and liberty. Compassion is an important basis of justice. Justice is grounded on the theory of karma (based on the Gita). It is in this context an unconditional claim to some of the universal, natural, inherent and inalienable rights earned by duties.⁴⁵

The idea of sarvodaya is one of the important philosophical contributions of Gandhian political theory. Sarvodaya as a concept is very powerful in nature for its radical consequences. It has philosophical and psychological foundations and simultaneously it has political and social implications. As a vision, sarvodaya emphasizes on the building a new society based on spiritual and moral values of India to meet the mounting challenges of modern India. To contextualize the meaning of sarvodaya is to tell the fact that restructuring of the political and social institutions on the standards set by agrarian patterns as crucial for India as such.

The philosophy of sarvodaya is integral and synthetic in character. Sarvodaya, for Gandhi, is a synthetic process for creating social and political visions in India. Its philosophical foundation lies in the primacy and ultimatums of spirit. Gandhi's ultimate aim is to realize God as an all-pervasive truth. His political, economic and social endeavours are oriented towards progressive enlargement of human consciousness through the service of Daridra Narayan, into the intimate and intuitive realization of the divine spirit.

Sarvodaya as a philosophical and ethical concept stands for the emancipation of all. It traces its origin to the vedantic tradition that from a higher standpoint all men are participants in a super-material reality. Thus the good of all beings has to be positively fostered. It repudiates the limited idea of the greatest happiness of the greatest number. It aims to serve the good of all and not simply the numerical majority. It is not opposed to the social and economic equality.' Since all beings are reflections or manifestations of a supreme spiritual ultimate hence all have to be provided the opportunity for their greatest development and perfection. An ethical understanding of sarvodaya impels for the distribution of economic and social goods. It holds that all forms of wealth belong to society and need to be provided to all for everybody's supreme realization of purusharthas. In this regard, Gandhi towards the end of his life came up with an idea called trusteeship which he believed as a theory of spiritual socialism.

Rights

Gandhi was a champion of the individual rights in the society. The most important starting point for his is the political and civil rights from the British imperialism. He believed in universal human equality. He condemned imperialism and foreign exploitation. The idea of satyagraha is based on the notion of individual's inalienable right to resist a coercive social and political system. Against the claims of state omnipotence, Gandhi puts up the right of the internality of judgement. He was a political individualist, that is, equality in terms of rights and freedom. His South African experiences seem to have bitterness as far as individual rights are concerned. The experience of South Africa taught him lessons to demand for legal and political rights. He demanded social recognition of the inalienable moral worth of man as a spiritual being. For Gandhi, political rights of an individual are linked up with his moral stature and dignity. Swaraj, for Gandhi, is a highest form of individual right. It is an inalienable right of every Indian. Gandhi believed in rights and obligations as complementary to each other. So he claimed that moral and inalienable rights of man prevents all forms of coercion and strengthens individuals against untruth, injustice and wrong in any form. He was a sympathizer of special rights to the downtrodden and the oppressed ones. For him, rights are essential for the realization of good, provided moral obligations are fulfilled.

The idea of fundamental human rights, although imported from the west, got a new meaning in Indian political cannon. Gandhi calls it satyagraha. In Hind Swaraj, Gandhi defined satyagraha simply as a "method of securing rights by personal suffering: it is the reverse of resistance by arms."⁴⁶ The western tradition of rights believes in the use, of violence as a means to secure the rights of the individuals. However, Gandhian way of securing rights in India can be alternatively new that suggests that it can be done by 'personal suffering.' This is a technique of satyagraha what Parekh has called 'suffering love.' Joan Bondurant has argued that self-suffering can never be acceptable as a way of securing rights to western minds.⁴⁷ Gandhi transformed the western cannon of civil disobedience to the Indian cannon of satyagraha. In his initiative for introducing the 'Fundamental Rights and Economic Changes' with Nehru to the India Congress was phenomenal.

Conclusion

Gandhi is no doubt a theorist of modern Indian political cannon. His conceptual contributions include ideas such as swaraj, satyagraha, sarvodaya, swadeshi, ahimsa, nationalism, constitutionalism and dharma or selfless service. The development and reinvention of the concept of purushartha resembles the conciliation of different elements of human development.

An essentialist and cultural relativist vision of political theory offers an alternative to Anglo-American understanding of social and political realities. Gandhism in a way blends his thought by innovating the essentialist and cultural character of Indian society.

The greatest contribution, as Parel has suggested of Gandhi, to humanity is that he made a bridge between spiritual and secular which in a way something very unique of his style. Apart from all other innovations in political life like truth and non-violence, swaraj, satyagraha and religion and politics.

Notes and References

1. Bernard Crick, Political Theory and Practice, (New York: Basic Books, 1973).
2. Barbara Goodwin, Using Political Ideas, (Wiley, 2000).
3. Catrina Mackinnon, Issues in Political Theory, (New Delhi: Oxford University Press), p.2.
4. Michael A. Weinstein, Systematic Political Theory, (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill 1971), p.l.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. C. B. Macpherson, Possessive Individualism, p. 100, cited by Parekh, Contemporary Political Thinkers, London, 1982.
8. Wendy Brown, Edge Work: Critical Essays on Knowledge and Politics, (Princeton University Press, 2005), p. 72. cited in Bhargava and Acharya, Political Theory : An Introduction (New Delhi: Pearson, 2008).
9. Van Brakel, J, ""Natural Kinds and Manifest Forms of Life", Dialectica, No. 46 (1992) (pp. 243-259, 1992/255), Saul Kripke, Naming and Necessity, (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1980), p. 55.
10. M. Mohanty,'Contemporary Indian Political Theory, (Delhi: Samskriti, 1999), p.7.
11. See Raghavan Iyer, The Moral and Political Thought of Mahatma Gandhi, (Santa Barbara, CA: Concorde Groove Press, 1983); Bhikhu Parekh, Gandhi's Political Philosophy: A Critical Examination, (Delhi: Ajanta, 1995) and Colonialism, Tradition and Reform: An Analysis of Gandhi's Political Discourse, (New Delhi: Sage, 1999); Anthony Parel, Gandhi: Hind Swaraj and Other Writings, (New Delhi: Cambridge University Press, 1995), and Gandhi's Philosophy and Quest for Harmony, (New Delhi: Cambridge University Press, 2006) and Gandhi: Freedom and Self-Rule (ed.) (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2000).
12. J. Bondurant, The Conquest of Violence: The Gandhian Philosophy of Conflict, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967), p.189.
13. Quoted in R. Iyer, Moral and Political Thought of Mahatma Gandhi, (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1973), p. 14. 15 (Mehta, p. 274).
14. Isaiah Berlin, Two Concepts of Liberty: Four Essays, (Oxford University Press, 1969), and John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, (Oxford University Press, 1971).
15. Anthony Parel, "The Emergence of the Modern Indian Political Canon", The Review of Politics, No.70 (2008), p. 58.
16. R. Iyer, Moral and Political Thought of Mahatma Gandhi, (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1973), pp. 88-89.
17. Ibid., p. 90.
18. Ibid., p. 97.
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid., p. 102.
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid., p, 21.
23. Ibid.
24. Ibid., p. 39.
25. CW, 4: 387-88, cited in Iyer, p. 41.
26. R. Iyer, Moral and Political Thought of Mahatma Gandhi, (New Delhi:  Oxford University Press, 1973), p. 44.
27. J. J. Doke, M. K. Gandhi, Nateson, 1909: 7, cited in Iyer, p. 45.
28. R. Iyer, Moral and Political Thought of Mahatma Gandhi, (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1973), p. 45.
29. Immanuel Kant, Eternal Peace, Quoted in Iyer, p.48.
30. Quoted in Iyer, p. 48. Moral and Political Thought of Mahatma Gandhi, (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1973), pp. 88-89.
31. Ibid.
32. Bose, Selection from Gandhi, p.41.
33. Terchek, 1998:165.
34. Anthony Parel, Gandhi's Philosophy and Quest for Harmony, (Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. 52.
35. Quoted in Parel, (CW, 42: 384-85), p. 53, Gandhi wrote an article in 1930 'Declaration of Independence' echoing the same as 'American Declaration of Independence.' The preamble of Gandhi's Declaration of independence read as: we believe it is the inalienable rights of Indian people, as of any other people, to have freedom and to enjoy the fruit of their toil and have the necessities of life so that they may have full opportunities for growth. We believe also that if any government deprives a people of these rights and oppresses them the people have further right to alter it or to abolish it. The British government in India has not only deprived the Indian people of their freedom but has based itself on the exploitation of the masses and has ringed Indian economically, politically, culturally and spiritually. We believe, therefore, that India must attain purnaswaraj or complete independence
36. CW, (80: 300), Quoted in Parel, 2006: 63.
37. Young India, (April, 24, 1930).
38. Harijan, (22 September, 1940).
39. Anthony Parel. (Ed) Gandhi, Freedom and Self-Rule , p.16.
40. Ibid.
41. Ibid.
42. Ibid., p.17.
43. Ibid, pp.17-18.
44. Ibid, p, 18.
45. B.N. Ghosh, Beyond Gandhian Economics: Towards a Creative Deconstruction, (New Delhi: Sage, 2012), p.141.
46. Quoted in Anthony Parel, p. 53 HS, pp. 52-57.
47. J. Bondurant, Conquest of Violence: The Gandhian Philosophy of Conflict, (University of California Press, 1967), p. 29.

Source: Gandhi Marg, October-December 2016 & January-March 2017, Volume 38, Number 3 & 4.