Professional Documents
Culture Documents
09 B. Sambasiva Prasad
09 B. Sambasiva Prasad
09 B. Sambasiva Prasad
S AMBASIVA P RASAD
K. Satchidananda Murty’s
Views on Gandhian Ideology
An analysis
B. Sambasiva Prasad
Abstract
K.S. Murty’s writings on Gandhian ideology are expounded and
examined in this paper. Murty wanted to critically examine Gandhian
thought, rather than merely glorifying it as is generally done in most of
the books on Gandhi. He is aware of the fact that Gandhi is not an
academic philosopher like Aristotle or Spinoza; the only philosophers
with whom he could be compared are St. Paul and St. Augustine. Murty
felt that the thinkers like Ruskin and Thoreau, and the celebrated work
the Gita shaped the Gandhian ideology. He opined that Gandhi is not a
consistent Advaitin because the impact of Vishishtadvaita on him is
visible. Murty felt that Gandhi’s standpoint on nonviolence is in between
the standpoints of Jainism and the Bhagava-Gita. He argued that to
Gandhi Truth and nonviolence are the bases for the establishment of
independent and united India. He had appreciated Gandhian theory
and praxis of satyagraha. However, he questioned Gandhi’s critic of
power politics. Murty is of the view that politics and power go together.
In this context he supported Nehru’s governance. Expounding the defect
in Gandhi’s philosophy of suffering, Murty argued that what Gandhi
found suitable to him was considered by him to be universally
applicable.
Murty is critical of Gandhi’s opposition to large-scale industries. He
viewed that unless consumption is Gandhian, our production structure
cannot be Gandhian. It is argued that along with increase of national
wealth, proper distribution is essential. Otherwise social justice cannot
be established. Murty was critical of Gandhi’s support for varna system.
In this regard he supported the views of Ambedkar and Nehru. Thus
Murty was critical of certain aspects of Gandhian ideology, though he
hailed Gandhi’s principles of Truth, nonviolence, trusteeship, and
satyagraha.
K. S ATCHIDANANDA M URTY ’ S VIEWS ON G ANDHIAN I DEOLOGY | 431
Gandhi meditated on the life of Christ and the life of the sthithaprajna,
the steadfast seer of the Gita. They opened up before him a new ideal
and dimension of reality. He beheld in them the true and the Good; . . .”
— ibid.: 65
Philosophy of Nonviolence
Nonviolence (ahimsa) is the basic value in Gandhian thought. To him ahimsa
is the means by which Truth (satya) can be realized. In the beginning,
Gandhi conceived ahimsa as not to kill anything and not to wish harm to
anything. But subsequently he changed this view. He admitted that
nobody could be free from violence, unless one renounces the will to live.
Life lives on life; even eating and drinking involve violence, because in
eating one has to kill at least vegetable life and in drinking and breathing
one involuntarily harms several invisible tiny organisms in water and air.
Therefore Gandhi comes to the conclusion that “no one can live without
committing outward violence; to be inwardly free from feelings of violence
is nonviolence” (ibid.: 71-72). Murty argues that Gandhi thus allowed a
certain amount of violence if it is inevitable. Thus he was prepared to kill
monkey hordes which invaded the garden and farm in his Ashram; he
allowed a frog to be dissected in his Ashram to teach anatomy to the
trainees of nursing. Therefore to Gandhi, what is important is the
“intention” of action. It is the intention, the purpose and the objective
that decides whether an act is violent or nonviolent. Apparently an act
like surgery may appear to be violent, however its objective is to increase
the longevity of the patient and hence it is to be judged as nonviolent. In
the light of these experiences, Gandhi gained a new insight and defined
violence as “to cause pain, wish ill, or kill life out of anger, selfishness or
out of intention to do so. It is ahimsa to kill or cause pain with a view to
its spiritual or physical benefit from a pure selfless intent” (ibid.: 72).
Gandhi justified his permission to kill the calf, when it is suffering from
an incurable disease and acute pain, as an instance of ahimsa. He cited
surgery as another instance of this kind. He even supported man-
slaughter when a person becomes a danger to the society. Yet he
maintained that violence cannot be used against a tyrant, because “in men
change of heart is possible and no evil doer need be considered beyond
reform” (ibid.).
To Gandhi, ahimsa is complete selflessness and that is not possible in
thought and deed as long as one wants to live. Therefore one should
attempt to adopt ahimsa in thought word and action in all cases, and where
unavoidable one may be forced to resort to violence in practice, as in the
cases of monkey menace, etc. Murty viewed that Gandhi’s position of
436 | B. S AMBASIVA P RASAD
Satyagraha
Murty observed that by the technique of satygraha, Gandhi had energized
the Indian masses. The theory underlying it was believed to be in tune
with Christianity and with some of the fundamental Indian beliefs.
Gandhi claimed that the Gita supported it. Thus Gandhi’s satyagraha
obtained support both in the West and in India. But the general criticism
is that it was impracticable. However after the Second World War when
K. S ATCHIDANANDA M URTY ’ S VIEWS ON G ANDHIAN I DEOLOGY | 437
Philosophy of Suffering
According to Murty, Gandhi believed in the philosophy of suffering. He
believed that Truth could be realized only when one is able to identify
oneself with everything. This he thought is not possible without self-
purification. According to him, one becomes pure when one is entirely
free from all passions in thought, speech, and actions. Gandhi’s objective
was to make oneself passion-free, i.e., “to reduce oneself to zero”.
Therefore he believed mortification of flesh to be a condition of spiritual
progress. He considered the moderate life in between sensuous
enjoyment and abnegation is the best to follow. Moreover, the Jaina and
the Christian influences made him think that “suffering is the mark of
the human tribe”. It is an eternal law and an indispensable condition of
human being. Gandhi wrote to the Viceroy Lord Chelmsford, that his
aim was to express in life the law of suffering (ibid.: 78).
“Part of this philosophy of suffering”, observed Murty, “is Gandhi’s
philosophy of sex” (ibid.: 79). Gandhi considered marriage as an obstacle
to liberation. For him, sex was not a human necessity. “Marriage” he
remarked, “is a fall” (ibid.). Even after marriage, Gandhi opined one
should not engage oneself in sexual union for pleasure. To Gandhi, the
union is not for pleasure but for bringing forth progeny.
“The great defect in Gandhi’s ethics”, wrote Murty, “seems to be that
what he found suitable for himself was deemed by him to be of universal
application. He was overwhelmed by the sense of sin and the need for
purification; he thought he could find God only though mortification and
suffering; and he exhorted everybody to adopt the same methods”(ibid.:
80).
Commenting upon Gandhian notion of brahmacharya, Murty said that
Gandhi forgot his own passionate youth and turbulent manhood when
he rejected sex as a human necessity and preached universal celibacy.
Having adopted brahmacharya by his own experience, Gandhi realized that
it is humanly impossible to achieve complete celibacy in thought as well
as in practice and he declared that only God’s grace enables men to be
virtuous (ibid.: 81).
Whatever might be the logic behind Murty’s argument, it should be
noted that without his vow of brahmacharya and associated austere
disciplines Gandhi would not be the man who awakened the Indian masses
K. S ATCHIDANANDA M URTY ’ S VIEWS ON G ANDHIAN I DEOLOGY | 439
correct his vision and he used the railways extensively during his non-
cooperation movement (ibid.: 64). Against all these objections of Murty,
I wish to submit that Gandhi opposed science and technology only when
they are utilized without “wisdom”. He opposed science and technology
when they lead to the destruction of human happiness and peace; when
they atrophied the limbs of man and cause unemployment to the millions
of the poor and the weak and widen the gulf between the rich and the
poor. When Gandhi was asked about his views on the modern machine,
he replied that he was not against the machine as such, but he was against
the “craze for machinery”.
Concluding Comments
From the above discussion, it is obvious that Murty did not accept
everything what Gandhi said. He was critical of certain aspects of
Gandhian thought. However he lauded Gandhi’s principles of Truth,
nonviolence, trusteeship, and care for the common good and common
man. While substantiating Gandhi on certain aspects, what Murty did
was a critical assessment of Gandhi’s theory and practices.
We find in Murty an inclination towards Nehru rather than to Gandhi
in certain aspects. For instance he is one with Nehru in the annihilation
of caste and in support of science, technology, and industrial
development. In the writings on Gandhi, we often find parallels between
Gandhi and thinkers like Tolstoy, Ruskin, and Thoreau. However in
addition to these thinkers, Murty has brought about the points of
comparison between Gandhi and great saints and thinkers like St.
Augustine, St. Paul, Jefferson, and Aldus Huxley. This is the unique
feature that we find in Murty’s writings on Gandhi.
Gandhian thought needs a thorough and critical study. One must not
blindly adore Gandhi, without questioning. In fact, Gandhi himself did
not like it. In this respect Murty’s work is laudable. However, everything
what Murty said against Gandhi, need not be taken for granted. We must
re-examine it. This is what is modestly attempted in this essay. In one of
his writings, Gopalakrishna Gandhi observed that what all Gandhi said
of his time and age need not be accepted and some of them may be
outdated. However the eternal values of satya and ahimsa are the need of
the hour. They are needed to the present time and age where we are
caught up in the ills of terrorism, bloodshed, corruption and violence of
all sorts — violence against the poor, the weak, and the women. Under
such circumstances, Gandhian principles and practices are needed for
peace, harmony, and tranquillity. Being alive to this fact, Murty himself
wrote that in this century “Mahatma Gandhi and Gandhians have made
important contributions to social and political thought” (Murty & Rao,
1972: XXXV). Quoting Albert Schweitzer, Murty wrote, Gandhian
philosophy “is a world in itself” (ibid.).
To conclude, Gandhi stands unique in that he taught us the philosophy
of resisting without physical force, transforming without disrespecting,
and subduing without humiliating. Every move he made was aimed at
the welfare of humanity, harmony in society, and a world free from
conflict and violence. No other Indian showed the formidable
commitment in extending succour to the underprivileged and the exploited
as did Gandhi. To quote Ramakrishna Rao, a distinguished Gandhian
scholar:
K. S ATCHIDANANDA M URTY ’ S VIEWS ON G ANDHIAN I DEOLOGY | 443
References
Howard, V.R. (2013). Gandhi’s Ascetic Activism: Renunciation and Social Action. New York:
Sunny Press.
Murty, K.S. (1982). Indian Philosophy Since 1498. Visakhapatnam: Andhra University
Press.
Murty, K.S. & Rao, K.R. (eds.). (1972). Current Trends in Indian Philosophy.
Visakhapatnam: Andhra University Press.
Rao, K.R. (2011). Gandhi and Applied Spirituality. New Delhi: Matrix Publishers.
——— (2012). Foreword. Proceedings of Gandhirama 2012. New Delhi: ICPR.
Narayan, S. (ed.). (1968). The Selected Works of Mahatma Gandhi. vol. VI: The Voice of
Truth. Ahmedabad: Navajivan.