Hindu Tradition of Political Thought: Gandhi's Innovations & Subversions

Rebecca SE Tan

19 November 2022

Author's Note: This essay was first written on 19 November 2020 for a school paper, but I thought it'd be cool to post it to celebrate my first ever attempt at Political Theory today! Reading this paper again, I am happy for the improvement I've made in writing (and apologise beforehand that this paper may be a little difficult to digest especially with all the non-English terms). I hope that this helps me to track my progress, while also keeping a record of all the different topics I've delved into! Without further ado, here's the paper!

Innovation of Classical Hindu Political Thought

Gandhi retains several aspects of the classical Hindu tradition of political thought to innovate on, such as on the cosmic order of the universe, pluralistic ideas and on the concepts of artha and moksha [1].

[1] Artha refers to material well-being, while moksha refers to spiritual values (Parel 151).

Cosmic Order of the Universe

Gandhi retains the theological aspect of the universe in Indian metaphysical tradition and similarly stresses the maintenance of cosmic order. Just as the old canon sees the universe as “an ordered whole governed by fixed laws”, “characterised by Rta [2]”, which is replicated in society (Parekh 109), Gandhi also has a “theocentric conception of man and the universe” (Parel and Keith 175). Hence, Gandhi agrees with the “theistic view of man and nature” which he also believes essential in economics, politics, and other aspects (Parel and Keith 176). Gandhi then innovates on this by positing that being religious is about organising one’s life in relation to this cosmic power, or satya [3], rather than an adherence to a faith.

[2] Rta: refers to the inviolable order of things (Parekh 109) [3] Satya: refers to the ultimate reality of Truth of existence

Pluralist Ideas

Gandhi also builds upon the basis of pluralist ideas from Hindu traditional political thought. The old canon “recognised the autonomy of [different] social groups” (Parekh 114-115), meaning that it recognises the existence of diverse interests and values of different social groups. Similarly, Gandhi agrees with this autonomy of different social groups and extended this concept to assert an ethical demand to overcome hostility between religious groups. He believes that each religion allows one to grasp some part of the truth and “are different roads converging to the same point” (Parel and Keith 176).

Furthermore, the old canon believed that a “plurality of sciences (vidyas)” was needed for humans to prosper (Parel 147). The science of the Vedas (“revealed truth”) does not object to philosophy (“truths based on reason”), as Vedas may be justified from the internal spiritual experience (anubhava) of seers, but also subjected to human reasoning (Parel 149; 158). Gandhi also reflects this “[neutrality] between materialism and spiritualism” (Parel 149), and extends this concept to learn from past civilisations (Parel and Keith 179), and “reconcile aspects of modernity with spirituality” (Parel 159-160).

Artha and Moksha

Artha and moksha are two of the four purusharthas [4], and played an important role in the arthasastra [5] tradition (Parel 151). However, the moksha-sastra [6] tradition gave artha a meagre status, as it is seen to be incompatible with the pursuit of moksha (Parel 151). Gandhi retained and innovated on the original importance of artha and advocated for the compatibility of moksha with the political and economic fields (Parel 157, 162). Gandhi emphasised the significance of economic development through reinterpreting the Ishopanishad [7] (Parel 158) and connected economic and moral development (Parel 157). With this new dynamic relationship between moksha and artha (Parel 162), Gandhi advocated for the elimination of mass poverty and for private property to be respected “within the bounds of social responsibility” (Parel 158).

[4] Purusharthas: refers to the Hindu concept of the four proper goals in human life [5] Arthasastra: refers to The Kautiliya Arthasastra, an old canon which studies the principles and rules of government power and authority (Parel 163) [6] Moksha-sastra: the six systems of Indian philosophy (Parel 151) [7] Ishopanishad: a sacred Hindu text

Subversion of Classical Hindu Political Thought

Gandhi also subverts two singificant aspects of classical Hindu thought - the hierarchal order of things and the use of coercive force.

Hierarchical Order

In the traditional Hindu political thought, there is a hierarchal order of things. For example, the Laws of Manu justifies the lordship of the priests over the other classes because he “maintains the veda” and is “fit to become one with ultimate reality” (Doniger and Smith 52, 54), and even goes so far as to imply that priests should be revered even if they act unjustly (Doniger and Smith 185). The priest is higher than the ruler, followed by the commoner and then the servant (Doniger and Smith 51). This hierarchal order in traditional Hindu political thought also naturally gives rise to a “social, legal and political [inequality]”, and “subordinated the polity to the demands of a hierarchal social order” (Parekh 114). The caste system also maintains the social quo through grounding the hierarchal social order in an unchangeable metaphysical state (cosmic order of the universe), which formed the basis of society and polity (Parekh 114-115). The hierarchal order in the traditional Hindu political thought also naturally gave rise to monarchies, which re-enforced the hierarchical social order (Parel 147, 150).

Gandhi subverts this hierarchal “pyramid” structure to that of an “oceanic circle” (Parel 156). In his ideal world, Gandhi envisions concentric circles where individuals are held together by a “free and voluntary play of mutual forces” (Parel 156). Each circle will send a delegate to represent them in a higher circle and so on, and hence the “outermost circumference will not wield power to crush the inner circle” but rather “give strength to all within and derive its strength from it” (Parel 156). Gandhi envisions for all individuals to have a meaningful role in legislating and governing their affairs, as opposed to having the most knowledgeable people make all the decisions, as in federal decision making. This form of direct democracy is also justified by Gandhi using the same cosmic theory of metaphysics, as people know best of their own moral and cultural universe.

Furthermore, while Gandhi does not entirely leave the caste system behind, he rejects the reduction of politics to the right of the strongest and the strict identification of individuals with their predetermined and fixed caste social roles. Gandhi subverts classical Hindu tradition of thought by positing that castes are in fact egalitarian and that “its corruption into jati (the assignation of caste by birth) was a hideous travesty of the original” (Parel 154). He points to the existence of a multitude of classes, instead of the original four divisions, and argued that the castes system only has a “historical, not permanent, validity” (Parel 154). Gandhi further subverts the old canon by using Hindu scriptures, which he believes taught that “humans were capable of self-determination, self-development, and spiritual liberation”, which favours the evolution of an egalitarian society (Parel 154). Hence, Gandhi advocates for swaraj, which means self-rule (Parel and Keith 165), and again forms the basis for a democratic political order, instead of a monarchical one (Parel 154).

Coercive force

Gandhi also subverts the classical Hindu tradition of political thought on the use of coercive power. In the old canon, the key function of the ruler is the exercise of danda [8], which traditionally refers to “the punitive use of the coercive power of the government” (Parekh 107). The Laws of Manu urges rulers to use “The Rod” to inflict harsh punishments, as the “whole world is mastered by punishment” (Doniger and Smith 128). Rulers should be devoted in maintaining dharma [9] through the incessant use of danda and was “free to use all kinds of treachery, sacrilege, cruelty and immoral devices” to instil fear (Parekh 112-113). This reliance on methods like extensive espionage and harsh punishments made particular sense because traditional political thought ignored the whole area of social conflict (Parekh 115).

[8] Danda: refers to discipline, force, restraint, constraint, or punishment (Parekh 107). [9] Dharma: refers to morality; the cosmic law underlying social order and behaviour

While Gandhi does still believe that there are times where coercive force needs to be used, such as when the voluntary achievement of social peace fails, he believes that in the “majority of cases… the force of love and pity is infinitely greater than the force of arms”, and hence advocates for non-violence (Parel 180). Gandhi bases his argument of non-violence by referring back to the traditional idea of plurality and subverts it. He posits that since no one has a totality of truth, one cannot claim that he is dogmatically correct and the other is completely wrong, and even if one could, he cannot claim that the opponent is incapable of reason and self-development. Hence, Gandhi posits that in order to acknowledge the opponent’s place in the universe (which comes back to the cosmic order of the universe), one must practise non-violence and satyagraha, which is the struggle at the level of the soul Parel 156). Instead of using coercion, Gandhi believes in enlightening others and changing their values and habits (Parel 159; Parel and Keith 171-172). Hence, brute force is replaced by ahimsa [10], which is a force of mutuality that Gandhi believes to be more effective than coercive force (Parel and Keith 171).

[10] Ahimsa: otherwise known as truth-force, love-force, or soul-force (Parel and Keith 171)

This idea of ahimsa and satyagraha also leads to Gandhi’s conception of voluntary suffering, as ahimsa has aspects of agape love and satyagraha aims to secure rights through suffering (Parel and Keith 172, 174; Parel 156). Hence, courage is redefined as the capacity for endurance rather than the capacity for attack (Parel and Keith 174). This definition naturally leads Gandhi to challenge the traditional “antinomian [11] character of state power”, and further subvert the idea that coercive power should be used only for maintaining internal order and external security, instead of being used to expand, conquer and subdue other states, hence demanded the end of modern colonialism (Parel 153-155, 161).

[11] Antinomian: a “law unto itself, recognising no other law” (Parel 154)

Conclusion

Gandhi has innovated and subverted the classical Hindu tradition of political thought through deleting what was “obsolete” and adding modern concepts to it (Parel 147). Building upon the same concepts of plurality, the cosmic law of the universe, as well as various Hindu scriptures, Gandhi has retained defining traits of the Hindu tradition while reshaping the conceptions of the state and the use of coercive force.

References

Doniger, Wendy and Brian K. Smith. The Laws of Manu. London: Penguin Books, 1991.

Parekh, Bhikhu. “Some Reflections on the Hindu Traditions of Political Thought.” Dallmayr, Fred. Comparative Political Theory: An Introduction. New York: Pallgrave Macmillan, 2010. 107-116.

Parel, Anthony J. and Ronald C. Keith. Comparative Political Philosophy. Oxford: Lexington Books, 1992.

Parel, Anthony J. “Gandhi and the Emergence of the Modern Indian Political Canon.” Dallmayr, Fred. Comparative Political Theory: An Introduction. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. 147-165.