© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd
Journalism of Courage
— Dileep P Chandran
(The Indian Express has launched a new series of articles for UPSC aspirants written by seasoned writers and erudite scholars on issues and concepts spanning History, Polity, International Relations, Art, Culture and Heritage, Environment, Geography, Science and Technology, and so on. Read and reflect with subject experts and boost your chance of cracking the much-coveted UPSC CSE. In the following article, Dileep P Chandran looks at the divergence and convergence of thoughts between Gandhi and Guru.)
Ukraine’s former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dmytro Kuleba, invoked the legacy of Mahatma Gandhi in seeking India’s support for the “freedom and independence” of Ukraine. His resort to Gandhian ideals was part of the mission to gain India’s support for the peace summit held in June in Switzerland to resolve the two-year-long Russia-Ukraine war.
It shows that Gandhi’s philosophy and practice of ahimsa is insurmountable in any discourse of peace in a world in which countries are struggling hard to break out of the vicious cycle of conflicts. However, like any political philosophy, Gandhi’s idea of non-violence was not unchallenged. His conversation with his contemporary, Narayana Guru, helps elucidate the intricacies of Gandhi’s creed of ahimsa.
Let’s revisit Gandhi’s creed of non-violence and Guru’s God of compassion on the occasion of Gandhi Jayanti, which is celebrated every year on October 2 to commemorate the birth of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.
Being one of the most eminent Indian political leaders in the 20th century, Gandhi could not separate religion from politics. He cherished the religious doctrines of truth and non-violence in spiritualising his political mission. Similarly, Guru, the spiritual leader and social reformer in Kerala, could not detach his actions and thoughts from the issues of worldly life. For him, worldly life and its complexities were not mere illusions but an essential part of his spirituality. That is why he equated social discrimination against fellow human beings with the rejection of God.
Thus, both Gandhi and Guru set similar goals but walked through different paths to attain them. A careful analysis would reveal that the distinction between politics and religion is blurring between and within their thoughts. Despite differences on some social issues, both Gandhi and Guru agreed on the necessity of cherishing the value of non-violence for spiritual well-being and human welfare.
When Gandhi preaches values of truth, ahimsa, and love in politics, Guru’s notion of compassion assembles all these virtues in the duties of an Advaiti.
Story continues below this ad
Advaita is a Sanskrit word that means “not two” or “no second.” It refers to the philosophical concept in Advaita Vedanta.
However, a misunderstanding arose between Gandhi and Guru following the latter’s controversial interview on the Vaikom satyagraha. The Vaikom Satyagraha was the first among many temple entry movements in India, which foregrounded the issue of untouchability and caste oppression amidst the national movement.
Guru’s interview on the movement was published in Malayalam weekly Deshabhimani on May 31, 1924. In this interview, Guru was reportedly cited as saying, “[V]olunteers . . . should scale over the barricades, and not only walk along the prohibited roads but enter all temples including the Vaikom temple. It should be made practically impossible for anyone to observe untouchability.”
Although these statements of Guru reflect his moral outrage against social inequalities, the publication of his interview paved the way for a political controversy. Guru’s statements irked the staunch supporters of Gandhian non-violence, while Gandhi perceived these comments from the eminent figure in Kerala as a rejection of his most sacred method of ahimsa. He also thought that Guru refuted the Vaikom satyagraha and viewed his call to climb over the barricades and walk along the prohibited roads as support for ‘open violence’.
The person who informed about Guru’s comments to Gandhi also urged him to instruct the Indian National Congress to call off the Satyagraha immediately to avoid repeating events like Chouri Chaura. But Gandhi refused to intervene. Instead, he expressed his displeasure over Guru’s comments, labeling them as the ‘reverse of Satyagraha’, a call for ‘open violence’ and an example of ‘imposing force’ in his weekly journal, Young India, on June 19, 1924.
Guru wanted to resolve the misapprehension about his comments. Later, he wrote to Gandhi and informed him that the interview was prepared without correctly understanding the meaning of what Guru had said. Guru also categorically stated that ‘any method of work that may be adopted for eradicating the evil of untouchability must be strictly non-violent’. Gandhi published Guru’s letter in Young India on July 10, 1924.
Gandhi’s misapprehension about Guru’s belief in the method of non-violence came out of literal interpretations of his words. What Guru had expressed through his comments was not a call for physical force but his moral outrage and sarcastic contempt for social inequalities and discriminatory practices. It was not a refutation of the Vaikom Satyagraha or its non-violent methods. On the contrary, it rejected discriminatory thoughts through his unique means of sarcasm.
The debate on the method of non-violence did not end with Guru’s clarification letter to Gandhi. It continued when Gandhi met Guru in Kerala in March 1925. He sought Guru’s opinion on non-violent Satyagraha and the futility of using physical force in a movement to attain rights. Guru replied that he did not think that violent force was good.
Gandhi further asked whether the Hindu religion sanctioned violence. Guru replied, the use of physical force is permitted for kings, but it is not justifiable for ordinary people. In this conversation, Guru expressed no difference with Gandhi’s political means and rather unconditionally agreed with the method of non-violence.
Later, Gandhi wrote in Young India, “He (Narayana Guru) entirely approved of the satyagraha movement and said that violence would never succeed and that non-violence was the only method.”
Guru composed his seminal works on non-violence – Anukamba Dasakam, Jeevakarunya Panchakam and Ahimsa – during World War I. For Guru, non-violence is the fundamental nature of a follower of Advaita philosophy. In Atmopadesa Satakam, Guru writes that whatever one does for the happiness of oneself should cause happiness to others. If one’s action causes harm to others, it reflects a form of self-loathing. This is the rationale of Guru’s ahimsa.
He further articulates his idea of non-violence in the dialogue Sree Narayana Dharmam (Sree Naryana Smriti), which emphasises the importance of avoiding pain to others’ bodies, minds and souls by one’s words, deeds and thoughts.
Guru further explains that ultimate well-being is not attainable for those who kill living beings for their selfish needs. On the contrary, the practice of ahimsa leads one’s life to absolute wellness. His Jeevakarunya Panchakam echoes similar ideas on non-killing. Guru asks how we can kill and consume other living beings if they are our soul mates. He reasoned that since being killed is something we find unacceptable and undesirable for ourselves, we should not do the same to others.
Guru’s commitment to the principle of non-violence was made evident during a conversation he had with visitors at Advaita Ashram on his 50th birthday. When Guru asked them to cease the ritual of sacrificing living beings at their temple, one of them asked what could be sacrificed instead. An inmate of the monastery suggested using an ash gourd as a substitute. Guru condemned this in his natural style by saying that then kill the son of those who still want to do the ritual of sacrifice. Could a monk make his views on non-violence any clearer?
Compassion (anukampa) is the ultimate value that helps contain the potential for violence against others. For Guru, a religion sans compassion is not a religion at all. His philosophical teaching that views harm to others as a form of self-loathing constitutes the core of his ‘religion of compassion’. For Guru, God is the embodiment of compassion and a person without compassion is just a body.
Non-violence need not be referred to as an independent category – it is immanent in Guru’s philosophy, especially in the virtue of compassion.
Being a social reformer and sage, Guru saw no distinction between spiritual goals and social action aimed at the welfare of humanity. Similarly, in Gandhi’s political thought, religion and politics were inseparable entities.
Story continues below this ad
Gandhi disapproved of all the religious and political doctrines which conflicted with the ideas of truth and non-violence. For him, truth and non-violence were the litmus test of politics and religion. He evaluated political morality against his absolute doctrine of ahimsa (non-violence). This is how religion helped Gandhi to purify his approach to politics and morality. A ‘living faith in God’ was the essential part of Gandhi’s ahimsa, as he could not conceive of non-violence as a creed without this condition of indomitable faith in God.
However, like any religious doctrine, his formulation of ahimsa sought perfection as a principle. For Gandhi, violence was the negation of the highest spiritual force, and non-violence was a perfect path to God. This is how the human species takes part in the realm of the divine represented by God. This is where Guru’s idea of non-violence and non-dualism meet with Gandhi’s creed of ahimsa. Both have blurred the rigid boundaries between spiritual and temporal life, suggesting that rejecting non-violence in worldly life leads to the negation of God.
But Gandhi and Guru differed over the centrality of compassion in their idea of non-violence. For Guru, compassion was the essential virtue of an Advaiti, and it encompassed all duties and values, including non-violence. In his philosophy, non-violence was an integral part of his broader creed of compassion.
Gandhi, however, viewed compassion as just one of the many virtues associated with a practitioner of non-violence. For him, non-violence stood as an independent and ultimate virtue of ideal human beings. While Gandhi acknowledged that non-violence encompassed virtues of love, compassion, and forgiveness, he argued that compassion alone cannot qualify one to be a practitioner of non-violence.
What are the key principles of Gandhian philosophy, and how does his concept of non-violence (ahimsa) remain relevant in addressing the conflicts faced by the contemporary world?
How did Gandhi’s commitment to truth and non-violence serve as a litmus test for religious and political doctrines, and in what way did his faith in God influence his philosophy of ahimsa?
How did Mahatma Gandhi and Narayana Guru differ over the centrality of compassion in their idea of non-violence?
How did Mahatma Gandhi and Narayana Guru’s perspectives on non-violence blur the boundaries between spiritual and temporal life?
(Dileep P Chandran is an Assistant Professor at the department of Political Science in University of Calicut, Kerala.)
Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week.
Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.
Share your thoughts and ideas on UPSC Special articles with ashiya.parveen@indianexpress.com.
