If I am not mistaken, the first appearance of the phrase “Sanatan Dharma” occurs in the Manusmriti (2nd or 3rd CE). Initially, I believe “Sanatan Dharma” was used as an identifier to distinguish practices related to the Vedas, such as Srauta rituals and Yajnas/Yagas, from the practices of the Sramana tradition. The concept of “Sanatan” means “eternal” and it was associated with the presumption that those practices also have eternal significance because they are rooted in the eternal Vedas. I won’t delve deeper into the development of this identification tag here. By the time Gandhi was compelled to adopt it for self-identification, after his first visit to Kerala in August 1920, he aimed to counter the claims of Malayali Namboodiri Brahmins that untouchability was an integral part of Sanatan Dharma. However, by then, “Sanatan Dharma” had transformed into an ideology dominated by Brahmins.
In an article in Young India on October 6, 1921, Gandhi described himself as a Sanatani Hindu. This text later became a point of contention for the Dalit Panthers, who vehemently criticised Gandhi. In the beginning of the text, Gandhi states:
One, I believe in the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Puranas, and all that is considered Hindu scriptures, including avatars and rebirth.
Two, I believe in the varnashrama dharma in a sense that is strictly Vedic but not in its present popular and crude sense.
Three, I believe in the protection of cows in a much broader sense than what is popularly understood.
Four, I do not disbelieve in idol worship.
Upon closer examination of the five paragraphs that follow these assertions, one might conclude that Gandhi was not a Sanatani Hindu but, in the technical vocabulary of the Mimamsakas, a nastika — one who questioned the authority of the Vedas. He states, “My belief in the Hindu scriptures does not require me to accept every word and every verse as divinely inspired” and “I decline to be bound by any interpretation, however learned it may be if it is repugnant to reason or moral sense. I do most emphatically repudiate the claim (if they advance any such) of the present shankaracharyas and shastris to give a correct interpretation of the Hindu scripture”. These statements alone would have led the Mimamsakas to disqualify him as an astika and consider Gandhi a nastika, much like they referred to the Buddha.
Gandhi’s second point for self-describing as a Sanatan Hindu was his belief in “varnashram dharma in a sense.” Note the phrase “in a sense”. Gandhi was not a follower of Manu’s hierarchy-based varna system. In his version, there was no distinction between a Brahman and a Dalit in terms of purity. Initially, he advocated this somewhat unorthodox theory to convince the Sanatanis that the Bhagvad Gita allowed for a non-hierarchical varna system. In this claim, he was entirely correct, as the Gita speaks of Krishna engendering the varna system but does not specify a hierarchical order. Later on, Gandhi abandoned this model as well. However, this “Sanatan Hindu” never practised the varna system in his personal life or in his ashrams. Can a person truly be a Sanatan Hindu if they don’t adhere to the varna system prescribed by Manu and other dharma shastras?
The third point Gandhi made was significant. He stated that he believed in the protection of cows “in its much larger sense” than was popularly understood. What did he mean by this larger sense? In Young India on September 8, 1921, he wrote, “The cow, to me, means the entire sub-human world.” He saw the cow as a symbol of the sub-human world, and cow protection, to him, meant compassionate treatment of all living beings. He further emphasised, “I would not kill a human being to protect a cow, just as I would not kill a cow to save a human life, no matter how precious.” Let me add the following without comments: “My ahimsa is my own. I am not able to accept in its entirety the doctrine of non-killing of animals. I have no feeling in me to save the life of those animals who devour or cause hurt to man. I consider it wrong to help in the increase of their progeny. Therefore, I will not feed ants, monkeys, or dogs. I will never sacrifice a man’s life in order to save theirs.”
“Thinking along these lines I have come to the conclusion that to do away with monkeys, where they have become a menace to the well-being of man, is pardonable. Such killing becomes a duty. The question may arise as to why this rule should not also apply to human beings. It cannot because, however bad, they are as we are. Unlike the animal, God has given man the faculty of reason.” (Harijan, 5-5-’46, p. 123)
The last point is self-explanatory. Gandhi himself was not an idol (vigraha) worshipper, as he mentioned, “an idol does not excite any feeling of veneration in me.” But he did not have any objection if others worshipped idols.
The four points mentioned in the beginning get totally deconstructed if one reads Gandhi’s article carefully. The emphasis on a careful reading is intentional. Without such reading, most readers are likely to miss several key insights that Gandhi’s writings have to offer. Most of the people who talk about Gandhi do not either read Gandhi enough or only read him not with the aim of understanding him, but like the Dalit Panthers, to abuse him. We must also realise that Gandhi was, for a long time, the only non-Eurocentric writer. On the other hand, most of the once-colonised are Eurocentric. This dichotomy between Gandhi and his readers creates problems in understanding him.
It is my contention that by no stretch of imagination can one consider him a traditional “Hindu”. He was a nastika like the Buddha. He used the Sanatan Dharma/Brahminical/Hindu vocabulary largely because he believed he had a mission to ground the Sanatan Dharma/Brahminical religion and its affiliates in an ethical foundation. He knew from the very beginning that what was referred to as either Hinduism or Sanatan Dharma in his lifetime was an obnoxious manifestation of religious behaviour. Since he was born into this tradition, he tried to transform it into an ethical religion. Alas, he, like the Buddha, failed miserably.
This tragic failure of Gandhi to convert what is called Sanatan Dharma into an ethical religion is, in a significant sense, due to his colleagues’ failure to understand Gandhi. How many of us saw in Gandhi’s introduction to his translation of the Gita, titled ‘Anasaktiyoga’, his attempt to purify the Gita of its violent teachings? How many of us saw his shift from “God is Truth” to “Truth is God” as anything other than an eccentric slogan? How many of us recognised that Gandhi was fighting against the utterly unethical policy of the British government’s “divide and rule”? How many of us took him seriously when he expressed reservations about parliamentary democracy? He had warned against the dangers of substituting an Indian rule that was built on the edifice of the British system. The warnings went unheeded and the results are for everyone to see. Today we stand confronted by a majoritarian rule that is eroding the secular and federal fabric of our country.
The writer taught Philosophy at St Stephen’s College, Delhi University
