Albert Einstein once said about Mahatma Gandhi, "Generations to come will scarce believe that such a one as this ever in flesh and blood walked upon this earth." Indeed Gandhiji is celebrated across the world for not just leading a nonviolent struggle against British rule. He is considered an icon of political, social and personal morality that has inspired millions across the world. However, his legacy is also the subject of serious debate. Many Dalit activists, historians, and thinkers have called out Gandhiji for his earlier views on caste and his inconsistent actions. Some have accused him of being a casteist and a hypocrite.
Gandhiji and the Caste System
Early Views (1890s–1920s)
In his early writings, Gandhiji supported the varna system, which divides society into four broad occupational groups: Brahmins (priests), Kshatriyas (warriors), Vaishyas (traders), and Shudras (labourers). He believed that this system, if practised correctly, could provide social stability without creating inequality.
In 1921, Gandhiji wrote in his newspaper Navajivan, “If Hindu society has been able to stand, it is because it is founded on the caste system.” He also argued that varna was not meant to be based on hierarchy and that all occupations were equal in dignity—even those involving manual scavenging.
However, Gandhiji also believed that children should follow the occupation of their parents and supported restrictions on inter-caste marriage. Critics like B.R. Ambedkar saw this as reinforcing caste boundaries and social inequality.
Dalit writer Sujatha Gidla, at the 2018 Jaipur Literature Festival, claimed Gandhiji supported caste to keep Dalits within the Hindu fold and to maintain Hindu unity, especially during British rule. Arundhati Roy, in her 2014 essay and lectures, also criticised Gandhiji for defending a “brutal” caste system under the mask of nonviolence. She accused him of romanticising manual scavenging and failing to challenge caste hierarchies directly.
Evolution of Gandhiji’s Views (1930s–1940s)
Over time, Gandhiji's position began to change. The influence of Dalit leaders like B.R. Ambedkar and social reformers like Gokaraju Ramachandra Rao played a key role in shaping his thinking.
In the 1930s, Gandhiji started promoting inter-caste dining and marriages—something radical at that time. Between 1933 and 1934, he travelled over 20,000 kilometres in a campaign against untouchability. He raised money for the Harijan Sevak Sangh, which aimed to support Dalits (whom he called Harijans, or “children of God”).
In 1935, he clearly wrote in Harijan, “Caste has to go.” By 1945, he openly rejected the idea of hereditary occupations and encouraged inter-caste marriage. He even proposed that the first President of India after independence should be a Dalit—an idea meant to break caste hierarchies.
Gandhiji also supported the Vaikom Satyagraha (1924–25), a protest in Kerala demanding Dalits be allowed to walk on public roads near temples. He compared untouchability to the violence of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, showing how seriously he took the issue.
Gandhiji’s Actions Against Caste
Gandhiji tried to live out his anti-caste beliefs in his personal life. In his ashrams, caste barriers were removed. He ate with people from all castes and even did manual scavenging himself to show there was dignity in such work. He gave scholarships to Dalit students so they could study medicine, engineering, and other modern fields.
These were significant efforts for the time. Gandhiji's actions did not only target attitudes but also aimed to create practical change.
Criticisms of Gandhiji's Approach
B.R. Ambedkar's Critique
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who led the movement for Dalit rights in India, strongly disagreed with Gandhiji. In his 1945 book What Congress and Gandhiji Have Done to the Untouchables, Ambedkar said Gandhiji’s reforms were superficial and mainly focused on maintaining Hindu unity rather than empowering Dalits politically.
Ambedkar especially criticized Gandhiji for opposing separate electorates for Dalits in 1932. Ambedkar had negotiated with the British for a separate political representation for Dalits, but Gandhiji went on a fast-unto-death, leading to the Poona Pact, which replaced separate electorates with reserved seats within the general Hindu electorate. Ambedkar felt this robbed Dalits of independent political power.
Other Critics
Critics like Sujatha Gidla and Arundhati Roy argue that Gandhiji’s use of the term “Harijan” was patronising. They also say his focus on moral reform—like asking upper castes to share meals with Dalits—did not address deep economic and political inequalities. They claim Gandhiji’s push for cleaning and scavenging work to be seen as noble simply reinforced the traditional roles assigned to Dalits.
Scholar Vladan Lausevic argues that Gandhiji’s early support for varna reflected a collectivist worldview that went against the idea of individual rights and freedom. Gandhiji’s reluctance to break fully from Hindu orthodoxy, they say, limited the effectiveness of his reforms.
In Defence of Gandhiji
Evolution and Reform
Not all scholars agree with the view that Gandhiji was casteist. Historian Ramachandra Guha says Gandhiji changed over time through engagement with critics like Ambedkar. He points out that Gandhiji always opposed untouchability, even if he was slow to oppose caste more broadly.
Nishikant Kolge, in his book Gandhi Against Caste, argues that Gandhiji’s early views were tactical. Gandhiji, he says, was trying to win over conservative Hindus so he could push gradual reforms without splitting Hindu society. Kolge also highlights Gandhiji’s consistent support for Dalits' dignity and education.
Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister, said that Gandhiji focused on untouchability because it was the weakest and most inhumane part of the caste system. Gandhiji believed that breaking untouchability would eventually destroy caste itself.
Was Gandhiji a Hypocrite?
Gandhiji was full of contradictions. He preached nonviolence but supported the British war effort. He opposed caste but supported varna for many years. He claimed to treat women as equals but made choices that many today find troubling.
Critics like Justice Markandey Katju argue that Gandhiji’s position on caste was inconsistent. In the 1920s, he supported *varna* and hereditary jobs, yet in the 1930s, he claimed to oppose caste. Katju said this was deliberate obfuscation.
Gandhiji’s early writings from South Africa also raise questions. In the early 1900s, he referred to Black Africans using derogatory terms like kaffir, and he lobbied for Indian rights without defending African rights. Critics say this shows a racial bias and contradicts his later universalist views.
There are also questions about Gandhiji’s personal behaviour. His experiments with celibacy included sleeping next to young women without physical contact to “test” his self-control. While these were consensual within the ashram, many now view them as inappropriate and exploitative. His advice to women facing sexual violence—to rely on ahimsa (nonviolence)—has also been seen as unrealistic and patriarchal.
However, hypocrisy usually implies bad faith or deception. Gandhiji was open about his beliefs, his mistakes, and his evolving thoughts. He often acknowledged that he had changed his mind. He invited criticism and often responded to it publicly. That makes it hard to call him a hypocrite in the usual sense.
Gandhiji lived in a deeply divided society and tried to unite it while pushing for reform. His compromises were often strategic rather than dishonest. His actions were not always perfect, but they reflected a constant effort to balance ideals with reality.
In Defence of Gandhiji’s Actions
Historians like Rajmohan Gandhiji and Mridula Mukherjee argue that Gandhiji's contradictions should be seen as part of a learning journey. His early views were shaped by his time and upbringing in a conservative society. Over time, he changed because he listened to others and rethought his ideas.
Kolge and others say that Gandhiji’s compromises—such as the Poona Pact or support for World War I—were tactical choices. He was trying to achieve independence for India and make progress on social reform without dividing society further.
As for his personal conduct, defenders argue that Gandhiji lived a life of discipline and honesty. He did not hide his unusual practices; in fact, he wrote about them openly. His lifestyle was simple, and he tried to embody the values he preached.
Gandhiji’s global influence also supports his credibility. Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, and Barack Obama have all cited Gandhiji as an inspiration for their nonviolent struggles. Mandela once said Gandhiji’s early views should be judged in the context of colonial South Africa and acknowledged that Gandhiji eventually worked toward universal justice.
Conclusion
Nelson Mandela once said, we must judge Gandhiji in the context of his era, not ours. And when we do, we see a flawed reformer—not a saint, not a villain, but someone who struggled to align his ideals with his actions, and left behind a powerful legacy of change.
Mahatma Gandhi was not a perfect figure. His early views on caste and race were flawed and, by modern standards, deeply problematic. But over time, he learned, adapted, and took brave steps to fight inequality. He faced enormous social and political pressures and still managed to push boundaries through peaceful means.
The label of “casteist” applies to his early writings but not to his later life. The charge of hypocrisy oversimplifies a life full of inner struggle, public accountability, and genuine growth. Gandhiji’s legacy is complex—he was not just a man who evolved with time but who tried to change his time. And that requires robust moral calibre and unflagging courage of conviction.
Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr., Barack Obama, Mahatma Gandhi, South Africa, Poona Pact, World War 1, Rajmohan Gandhi, Mridula Mukherjee, Dalits, Harijans, Untouchability, Caste System, Justice Markandey Katju, Jawaharlal Nehru, Nishikant Kolge, Ramachandra Guha, Vladan Lausevic, Sujatha Gidla, Arundhati Roy
No comments:
Post a Comment