Gandhi’s life and philosophy embody a blend of the prophetic and the strategic, sparking debates on which aspect dominated. While I won’t weigh in on the teacher versus strategist debate, I’ll focus on how both facets contribute to a Gandhian approach to global politics. Emphasising international relations sheds light on Gandhi’s impact beyond the subcontinent. First, I’ll outline key Gandhian teachings relevant to world affairs, and then delve into the application of a Gandhian strategy in international politics. Finally, I’ll assess the contemporary significance and utility of this model in today’s interstate landscape.
Since 1906, Gandhi’s pursuit of truth, evident in his varied concerns from vegetarianism to brahmacharya, centered around an activist search for proximate certainty. This quest, rooted in a confidence in a transcendent ground of being or God, differed from seeking temporal certainty. Gandhi’s approach transcended human affairs, defining an unchanging truth.
Commentators like E Stanley Jones and Dhirendra Mohan Datta, drawing on Paul Tillich’s ideas, underscore the significance of this theological realm. Today, there’s a broader acceptance of Gandhi’s “theism” when seen as a well of being rather than a personal guiding divinity. Gandhi’s Truth-God, shocking in the 1920s, paved the way for this reinterpretation, even if it appears too narrow for some contemporary perspectives.
Gandhi’s call for courageous, selfless actions and ahimsa finds widespread agreement, but interpretations diverge on whether he advocated absolute pacifism. I view ahimsa as a functional good on the path to ultimate truth, not an unconditional law in social and political realms. The Gandhian model for world politics, rooted in nationalism, acknowledges that national interest might, at times, necessitate accepting violence without endorsing it.
This isn’t escapism but a recognition of the hierarchy of values, where loyalty to the nation, while not the ultimate good, holds considerable significance. Gandhi’s nationalism isn’t just juridical or based on domestic social values; its strength lies in political ethics. The idealised nation in Gandhi’s vision protects its units without internal aggression. Gandhi’s preference against industrialisation and his call for self-sufficiency and non-injury imply a nation with limited military capacity, prioritising territorial integrity over aggressive power.
Gandhi’s teachings extend to interstate relations grounded in domestic values and institutions, shaping a Gandhian international community rooted in social harmony. Central to this harmony is the unity of social classes in recognising their “true” needs and aspirations, rejecting the inevitability of class warfare. Gandhi, in disagreement with Nehru’s Marxian analysis, believed in addressing exploitation through appeals to stewardship and inherent charity, avoiding excessive reliance on state power. While opposing certain institutional solutions, he acknowledged the need for governmental intervention to reform without escalating tensions.
Gandhian ideas in industrial relations, as seen in the works of Rabindra Nath Bose and V B Kher, reject Marxist-Leninist notions, proposing peaceful coexistence and unity instead of class struggle. This Gandhian theme resonates in today’s Arab and African “socialism,” emphasising unity and eschewing class warfare. Gandhian traditions advocate relationships based on ahimsa and oppose those that foster alienation or conflict, seeking reform rather than the preservation of injustices.
In the Gandhian model for world affairs, the clash of sovereignties differs from the traditional power-based understanding. While sovereignty, viewed as force resting on violence, appears incompatible with Gandhi’s ethics, his “India of His Dreams” envisions a nonviolent state with a distinct form of sovereignty.
This sovereignty, rooted in consent and legitimate power, shapes national identity and purpose. Gandhian states, guided by right conduct, aim to avoid an inter-sovereign system, steering clear of military alliances and international organisations. Instead, they prioritise interactions with fellow Gandhian states and traditional sovereign entities that may align with Gandhian principles through internal reorganisation. The absence of conventional international structures among Gandhian states fosters a growing fellowship of units based on shared values.
The United Nations, while commendable in many aspects, diverges significantly from Gandhian principles, hindering the creation, maintenance, or expansion of Gandhian states. Its stateness, non-observance of Swadeshi, and inclination towards exclusivist ideologies run counter to core tenets of Gandhian philosophy.
The prophetic aspect of the Gandhian paradigm emphasises a prevailing atmosphere of comity. While self-reliance in domestic matters is distinct, interstate relations prioritise dharmic responsibilities, discouraging military or economic expansionism and power-driven pursuits. Foreign policies align with national interest but are tempered by values, minimising the impact of capability in conventional power terms. Gandhian ethics acknowledge the uneven distribution of power but advocate that these gradations should play a lesser role in shaping interstate behaviour.
Gandhian prescriptions operate strategically through the dynamics of sacrifice and struggle. Sacrifice, deeply rooted in Indian and Western influences, involves cooperation with truth and endurance of losses, even to the point of sacrificing one’s life if necessary. While adjustments are permissible, there is a risk of inflexibility on non-negotiable positions. Gandhi’s conviction in the redeemability of opponents supports implicit endorsement of state negotiations, emphasising the adjustment of adjustable matters.
However, there are truths that demand uncompromising struggle, with no room for negotiation. The Gandhian strategy, while allowing negotiations on some issues, remains firm on fixed values, especially in matters like imperialism remnants and nuclear deterrence. The distinction between ends and means, traditional in Gandhian philosophy, guides Gandhian states to differentiate their techniques and principles, avoiding confusion and negotiations for their sake.
The Gandhian view emphasises the “purity of means” and recognises times when diplomatic silence or nonviolent action between states is necessary, but with the understanding that governments may not perform satyagraha. The Gandhian tradition, while open to nonviolent actions proposed by private citizens, maintains a commitment to principles even in the face of tragic outcomes, as seen in the Goan issue.
The Gandhian strategy contributes significantly to socialising dissent through group action and responsibility, marking a departure from isolated acts of disobedience. Unlike the Thoreauvian approach, Gandhian dissent emphasises collective engagement, as seen in movements like the Negro Revolt in the United States and nuclear pacifism demonstrations in the United Kingdom.
While the effectiveness of socialised dissent is debatable, it serves as a potent international tool to pressure governments for both domestic and interstate reasons. The Gandhian strike, bypassing legal channels, enables changes in foreign policies through service withdrawal and communication disruptions. For instance, an American Negro protest in support of Africans in South Africa is conceivable. However, impediments to interstate protests exist, often tied to cultural boundaries and limited visions. Yet, the potential for international race consciousness may transcend these limitations.
Satyagraha resistance against totalitarianism has garnered support from some Gandhians, but the associated human costs raise concerns. While debates around this usage often revolve around the “nature of the enemy” approach, it’s worth exploring the potential application of Gandhian-type resistance in post-nuclear-strike circumstances, specifically when the defeated nation faces occupation. This form of resistance differs from guerrilla struggle, passive resistance, and monastic disengagement.
Discussions on post-nuclear attack resistance typically focus on non-Gandhian paramilitary forces. True believers however, tend to avoid considering satyagraha after such a catastrophic event. While the political effectiveness and morale sufficiency of Gandhian resistance may be questioned, policymakers should at least consider the intersection of these “unthinkables” – nuclear conflict and satyagraha resistance. The Gandhian tradition invites a study of these possibilities, acknowledging the skepticism surrounding their viability.
The socialisation of dissent implies collaboration among Gandhian states when differing with other sovereignties. While alliances might seem inconsistent with the Gandhian model’s ideals, they can facilitate cooperation for shared principles and Indo-American-type interests. In prosecuting differences with other states, Gandhian nations would have mutual obligations, with a primary focus on maintaining ahimsatic struggle, minimising ethical costs compared to conventional coercion or violence.
Considering the relevance of Gandhian prescriptions for the contemporary world is no easy task. However, if we accept Diwakar’s teaching that satyagraha made Gandhi and would outlive him, the Gandhian model offers norms and techniques for our age. A noteworthy contribution is a nationalism of universal rules, a significant achievement in a time when new states often justify the creation of parochial standards for domestic and external behaviour. Actions like the play-off game of uncommitted states with superpowers, though understandable in terms of economic and military weakness, are deemed non-Gandhian in this context.
Both large and small powers can find value in the Gandhian lesson that correct relationships avoid violence, militarism, passivity, and appeasement. Specifically, in the arms control field, Western pacifism might benefit from re-examining unilateralism and the intricate dynamics of nuclear deterrence and peacekeeping, an area Gandhi’s model lacks but suggests a gradual exit from burdens without sacrificing honor. The current “mutual example” phase in American-Soviet disarmament efforts aligns with the Gandhian tradition, although it involves psychological bargaining concepts that may diverge from Gandhi’s trust in the opponent.
Scepticism about the Gandhian model is justified in various areas. When it comes to the complex challenges of reducing the defense segment of the American economy, Gandhian norms and methods seem irrelevant. The track record of transferring nonviolent resistance, especially beyond Western imperialism that Gandhi contributed to dismantling, is disheartening, considering events in Algerian nationalism, British Guiana, Central and Southern Africa, and Southeast Asia. Exceptions, like Chief John Luthuli, tend to be individuals rather than movements.
Responsibility for meagre results often lies with un-British Dutch, French, and Portuguese imperialists diverging from Gandhi’s thesis that satyagraha is not bound by English scruples. While satyagraha transferred to English-speaking democracies, reinforcing traditions of direct action, it has persisted as a disruptive force in India, challenging national regimes and feeding discontent. Despite its high norms, the Gandhian tactic of disobedience may have weakened rather than strengthened the world’s better, more democratic institutions, taking root where the need is less critical.
The question arises whether the Gandhian strategy truly avoids causing psychic, social, or political damage to the adversary – a complex and challenging issue I can only introduce in this essay. At a minimum, there’s a concern about unintended results that may contradict Gandhian ethics when a struggle over non-negotiable values or objectives inflicts harm on the opponent. While individuals and political parties may embrace Gandhian principles, states may need to adopt a modified policy recognising that the ethical costs of world politics may surpass those of internal affairs.
On the positive side, the Gandhian model underscores prioritising specific values over legal rituals, reinstating obligation and sacrifice as effective concepts, and elevating self-reliance from an individual to a collective norm. The contributions to peaceful change, anti-imperialism, and social justice stand as enduring elements of significant worth.
Karl Jaspers notes that the Gandhian way establishes supra politics through the renunciation of violence without rejecting politics itself. While he admires this dual ability, he doubts the transferability and exemplarity of Gandhian politics. I’ve expressed reservations about the first question. However, an alternative view is plausible.
Despite challenges in transference, the Gandhian model presents an international society of autocephalous units that doesn’t necessitate a world culture to transmit its outlook and methods. Emerging from the impact of certain prophecies on national institutions, this model is exemplary for bridging the gap between civic health and private charity, contributing to global stability through the encouragement of self-development under moral restraints.
The Gandhian model stands out for its liberating message of good news. Unlike unilinear progress, it breaks through cyclical theories of history found in both Western and Eastern traditions. Despite his Hinduism, Gandhi departed from traditions accepting recurrent patterns of life and thought. He proclaimed the freedom and power of humanity to reshape destiny, moving out of fatalism into a time of self-determination in both individual and collective affairs.
(The writer can be reached at dipaknewslive@gmail.com)
