Review by Zia Uddin Ahmed

Dear Friends!

You have asked my opinion about Gandhi’s life, his personality, his dilemmas, his dreams and his psychological methods to cope with his conflicts. You are quite aware that it is not easy to discuss Gandhi’s life and philosophy in an objective way as he has become a symbol of peace and non-violence and has inspired thousands of intellectuals and peace activists One can find his statues all over the world created and erected by his admirers and disciples. In my mind Mohandas Gandhi, Mohammad Iqbal, J. Krishnamurti and Rabindranath Tagore were some of the great minds of 20^th century who shaped the intellectual, political and spiritual lives of the East.

The first time I came across Gandhi’s autobiography was in 1976 in Iran when I was working in a Children’s Hospital in Hamadan. From my clinic’s window I could see the tomb of famous Muslim scholar Avicenna. One day when I went to visit the tomb, I discovered a small library and in that library the only book I was inspired to read was Gandhi’s autobiography. Even at that time I found some aspects of his personality and life-style confusing and disturbing. It appeared to me as if in spite of his message of peace and non-violence, Gandhi was quite a troubled soul who suffered a lot partly because of his family and social circumstances and partly because of his pervasive guilt. He tried different ways to resolve his conflicts between his emotional, social, political and spiritual lives but I do not think he was completely successful. At that time I was not a serious student of human psychology, and I used to believe that great men and women had fewer conflicts than ordinary people, but over the years I have realized that great people not only have greater conflicts but also they are able to do great work in spite of their conflicts. For ordinary people their conflicts become their obstacles in life but for great people their personal and social conflicts become sources of inspiration.

Now that I have read Gandhi’s autobiography the second time at the age of fifty, I am quite impressed by his truthfulness. I have not come across any other autobiography in which the writer was as open and honest about the dark side of his personality and lifestyle as Gandhi was. Many autobiographies I came across were so biased and prejudiced that I felt a need to read other biographies written by relatives, friends, critics and rivals to get a true picture of that person. But Gandhi has tried his best to share the views of his wife, children, friends and colleagues alongside sharing his own insights alongside his struggles. His autobiography is a living proof how someone can achieve so much and make such profound contributions in spite of his earlier limitations and insecurities.

Dear Friends! In this letter I am not going to focus on Gandhi’s social and political contributions, as all knows them. I am rather going to discuss those factors that contributed to my impression that he was a troubled and tormented soul and emotionally suffered all his life. I will focus on those family and social conditions that set a stage for the development of his unique personality and evolution of his emotional conflicts, dilemmas and dreams.

I believe that Gandhi all his life struggled with the conflicts between different aspects of his personality, between his traditions and his dreams, between his religious values and his political ideals.

Gandhi was very attached to his traditions as he was very close to his parents, caste, religion and culture. He had strongly internalised family values and acted on them even after the death of his parents. As a child he tried to be a ‘good little boy’ and never did all those things that ‘bad boys do’. Even after he became an adult he remained an ideal son of his mother and mother-land, and even now millions of Asians are proud of his character and contributions. But Gandhi also had another side of his personality that wanted to rebel against the traditions and discover new values and principles. There were times he rebelled but each time he broke the family, cultural and religious traditions, he felt guilty and remorseful.

Gandhi wanted to achieve multiple goals in his life and some of those goals were not compatible with each other. On one hand he wanted to be a mystic and discover his own truth and on the other hand he wanted to become a reformer and change his community. We all know that such goals are not easy to achieve simultaneously. That is why he had to walk on a tight rope all his life.

Gandhi describes in his autobiography how shy and withdrawn he was as a child. He was more interested in books than in people. He was nervous to join any group sports, as he was afraid to be ridiculed by other children. As a child he did not enjoy a lot of self-confidence. He was quite obedient and respected his parents and teachers, as he did not want to hurt their feelings. He wanted to be an ideal son and to acquire his parents’ blessings he sacrificed his desires and dreams. As a child he liked those stories that were very idealistic and identified with those characters, which sacrificed their wishes for others. Sacrificing one’s wishes and feelings for others became a major theme in his life. Gandhi was also influenced by Jainism, which like Catholicism, also promoted abstinence and sacrifice as a path to spiritual salvation. It is interesting that rather than following a more liberal tradition of Hindu religion, he chose to embrace the extreme version of Jain mythology.

While reading Gandhi’s autobiography, I came a cross a number of situations in which Gandhi found him in conflict. In this letter I will just share a few to give you a few glimpses of his struggles.

FAMILY DILEMMA

When Gandhi was only thirteen, his family arranged a marriage for him and found him a bride. Gandhi calls it a child marriage, a marriage between two innocent children. He is himself critical of his parents and family members for doing that. “In doing so there was no thought of our welfare, much less our wishes. It was purely a question of their own convenience and economy”.(Ref1) It is obvious Gandhi did not have an opportunity to date, meet different young girls and experiment with his sexuality that many teenagers do. Gandhi was also very dedicated to his parents. Gandhi spent a lot of time looking after his father and as his father’s health deteriorated, Gandhi’s commitment increased. As Gandhi reached his puberty and wanted to have regular sexual encounters with his wife, he found himself in a conflict. On one hand he wanted to nurse his ailing father and on the other hand wanted to spend private time with his wife. Gandhi describes those evenings when physically he was with his father but mentally he was with his wife. And finally one evening when he was making love to his wife, his father died in the next room. Gandhi was shocked. He believed he should have been with his father rather than his wife. He wrote, “ …if animal passion had not blinded me, I should have been spared the torture of separation from my father during his last moments” and mentions “shame of my carnal desire even at the critical hour of my father’s death”.(Ref1) Gandhi could not accept that it was quite normal and natural for a young groom to spend some time with his bride. But his conscience was full of shame and remorse and guilt. That significant experience set a stage for an ongoing conflict between Gandhi’s sexuality and morality, which bothered Gandhi for the rest of his life. Finally when he could not resolve that conflict and enjoy sex wholeheartedly, he found refuge in celibacy and stopped sleeping with his wife. Believers of Tantric Mythology believe that sexuality helps people discover their spirituality, while Gandhi, like many Hindu sadhus and Christian saints believed that sexuality was an obstacle in discovering spiritual enlightenment. He wrote, “It took me long to get free from the shackles of lust, and I had to pass through many ordeals before I could overcome it”.(Ref1)

COMMUNITY DILEMMA

Gandhi belonged to a community that was very traditional, conservative and religious. When his uncle suggested that he should go to England to become a lawyer, his community strongly opposed. They believed that if Gandhi went to England, he would leave his religious traditions behind and adopt European values and lifestyle. Gandhi was worried his mother would not give him the blessings to go to England. So he promised that he would abstain from alcohol, meat and women. He wrote, “ Becharji Swami…a Jain monk…came to my help, and said, ‘ I shall get the boy solemnly to take the three vows, and then he can be allowed to go.’ He administered the oath and I vowed not to touch wine, woman and meat. This done, my mother gave her permission.” (Ref1) Making such a vow reflects how committed Gandhi felt to his family and cultural values. Even getting his mother’s blessings did not stop his community to punish him. The community leader, the Sheth, was angry. Gandhi wrote, “ He swore at me. He pronounced his order. “This boy shall be treated as an outcaste from today. Whoever helps him or goes to see him off at the dock shall be punished…”

CULTURAL DILEMMA

W hen Gandhi arrived in England, he was offered meat and alcohol by his friends and neighbours but Gandhi refused. He had made a vow to his mother and as an honest and obedient and dedicated son he was going to respect that vow. There were times in England when he starved and suffered but he did not break his vow. Whenever he was challenged and invited to a rational and logical dialogue why he did not eat meat, he stated “ I have solemnly promised to my mother not to touch meat, and therefore I cannot think of taking it.”(Ref1)

In England Gandhi came across a book written by vegetarians and after reading that book he stated that he consciously chose that path of becoming a vegetarian. He wrote, “ I read Salt’s Plea for Vegetarianism from cover to cover and was very much impressed by it. From the date of reading this book I may claim to have become a vegetarian by choice. I blessed the day on which I had taken the vow before my mother.” (Ref1) But to me that statement seems like a rationalization. Gandhi’s relationship to meat, like his relationship to his mother, was far more emotional than rational, more sentimental than logical, He not only adopted a vegetarian lifestyle himself, he joined a group and made his cause, and like other religious preachers wanted to convert others. “The choice was now made in favour of vegetarianism, the spread of which henceforward became my mission.” (Ref1) He wanted the whole community and the whole world to become vegetarians. Such a strong stand not only created difficult situations for him but also for his family and friends. Gandhi’s rejection to eating meat went so far that once when his young son was on his deathbed and was offered a soup, which contained peaces of meat to give him nourishment and save his life, Gandhi refused that treatment and risked his son’s life.

POLITICAL DILEMMA

Gandhi struggled with his political views. On one hand he preached non-violence but on the other hand for a long time, felt very loyal to British Empire. So when the First World War broke, Gandhi went to different villages and cities to recruit soldiers for the war to fight for the British Empire. People were shocked by his request but he seemed to rationalize his behaviour. He shared his dilemma in these words, “I had hoped to improve my status and that of my people through the British Empire. Whilst in England I was enjoying the protection of the British Fleet, and taking shelter as I did under its armed might, I was directly participating in its potential violence. Therefore, if I desired to retain my connection with the Empire and to live under its banner, one of three courses was open to me:

I could declare open resistance to the war and, in accordance with the law of Satyagraha, boycott the Empire until it changed its military policy; or I could seek imprisonment by civil disobedience of such of its laws as were fit to be disobeyed; or I could participate in the war on the side of the Empire and thereby acquire the capacity and fitness for resisting the violence of war. I lacked this capacity and fitness, so I thought there was nothing for it but to serve in the war.” (Ref1)

Later on Gandhi felt so guilty that he turned against British Rule and adopted the philosophy of passive resistance and preached non-violence.

IDEALS AND DREAMS

As I was studying Gandhi’s autobiography, I felt that when Gandhi could not resolve his conflicts, he found refuge in avoidance. Gandhi finally adopted a philosophy and lifestyle of

NO SEX

NO MEAT

NO VIOLENCE

It was fine for Gandhi to adopt such lifestyle, but when he wanted to impose it on others, they found it hard to adopt such an idealistic philosophy. It was not only common people but also other intellectuals and philosophers brought to his attention that he was naïve to expect that masses would follow his philosophy but he seemed dedicated to his ideals.

Dear Friends!

Last week when I met Sohan Qadri in Denmark, who is a well respected poet, artist and mystic from India and goes all over the world to give lectures on aesthetics and metaphysics and asked him what he thought about Gandhi, I was quite surprised by his answer. He said, ‘ I think he was an angry man. He never touched the heart of peace.’ When I asked him the reasons he said, ‘ To be in peace with oneself, one has to leave the family and cultural traditions behind and follow one’s own heart. Gandhi could not do that. He wanted to be a reformer. He joined politics and politics and spirituality are two different roads going to two different destinations. They do not mix well together. I know Gandhi’s admirers and disciples may not agree with my views but that is my honest opinion.’

There is no doubt in my mind that Gandhi made some wonderful contributions to his community and to the world, but I feel that he suffered a lot. I am most impressed by his dedication to serve others especially the poor and the underprivileged including the untouchables. I have no doubt in my mind that Gandhi was a humanist who dedicated his life in serving humanity, I just feel that the road he chose for his struggles was not very realistic. Gandhi had difficulties accepting strong emotions of people. In many ways he was an idealistic person. He kept on hoping all his life that people would be able to control their negative feelings especially those of aggression. Rather than focusing on resolving conflicts he focused on controlling and suppressing feelings, not realizing that when feelings are suppressed and repressed they come back with more intensity. Such intensity was obvious when India and Pakistan got independence and thousands of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs were slaughtered and murdered. Rabindranath Tagore had warned him about such a major disaster nearly two decades before the incident but Gandhi would not accept that reality as he was dedicated to his idealism.

Eqbal Ahmad comments about the dialogue between Gandhi and Tagore in these words in one of his interviews,

“Tagore felt, for example, that Gandhi’s non-cooperation movement would also tend to divide the Hindus from the Muslims, that it would create deep fissures in Indian society.

In mid-July 1921, the two men met in Tagore’s house in Calcutta.

Gandhi says, “ But Gurudev, I have already achieved Hindu-Muslim unity.”

Tagore replies, ”When the British either walk out or are driven out by us nationalists, what will happen then?’

Gandhi: “But Gurudev, my program for winning swaraj [self-rule] is based on the principle of non-violence.”

Tagore: ”Come, Gandhiji, come. Look over the edge of my veranda. Look down there and see what your so-called non-violent followers are up to.” Then he shows him the bazaar where the non-cooperation activists are burning clothes. Tagore asks, “Do you think you can hold our violent emotions with your non-violent principles?” No, I don’t think so. You know you can’t.” On these themes he would go on arguing for the next two years with Gandhi.

What happened twenty-six years later, in 1947, did in some remarkably Tagore see prescient ways as coming? The poet knew better than the Mahatama.” (Ref 2 p 5)

When Gandhi witnessed thousands of innocent Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims slaughtered on the altar of freedom and independence, he felt remorseful and guilty and went on a hunger strike to relieve his guilt hoping that his fasting will stop people killing each other. Unfortunately his fasting and philosophy of non-violence could not stop wild emotions of common people or prevent the massacre of 1947.

It is also ironic that a prophet of peace died a violent death as he was murdered when he was offering prayers. He did not realize that religion and politics are a dangerous combination.

Affectionately

Sohail

April 2003