One of the major difficulties in any analysis of Gandhi’s attitude towards untouchability, class and caste must be his inconsistency in many areas. However this is hardly surprising since Gandhi regarded consistency as the “refuge of fools.”1 For Gandhi it was adherence to’ Truth’ that was important, thus if one realised that ones held opinions were false then they should be dropped even at the expense of appearing foolish or inconsistent. In Gandhi’s history it is apparent that the attitudes that he publicly expressed towards class and caste changed radically between 1915, when he returned to India from South Africa and 1948 when he was shot.
 |
|
Gandhi age 7 |
Gandhi’s attitude towards untouchability appears to have been fairly consistent in that he rejected it from childhood. In a letter to Charles Freer Andrews he wrote “I used to laugh at my mother for making us bath when we brothers touched any pariah.”2 He continued to play with an untouchable boy even though his mother had forbidden it. Later in South Africa he associated with untouchables and had untouchable friends and clients. Gandhi even lodged an untouchable in his own home.
 |
| Gandhi 1915 |
On his return to India in 1915 he started an ashram called the Satyagraha Ashram. Right from the beginning Gandhi made it clear that if a suitable untouchable candidate came forward admission would be instant.3 An untouchable family was admitted to the ashram and Gandhi adopted their daughter Lakshmi as his own. He also began cleaning toilets which was the work of untouchables. His disciples voluntarily emulated him so there were no untouchables in the ashram since all did the work of untouchables. This disregard for traditional Hindu mores was reinforced by Gandhi’s rule that “food and water should always be handled and therefore polluted, by untouchables. Thus no one could live at the ashram who would not give way at least slightly on the orthodox taboo.”4
Gandhi said little publicly on untouchability until he had begun to take action against it himself. On 25th May 1921 in ‘Young India’ he wrote, “Swaraj is a meaningless term if we desire to keep a fifth of India under perpetual subjection… Inhuman ourselves we may not plead before the Throne for the deliverance from the inhumanity of others.” 5 In 1928 Gandhi urged untouchables to clean up their habits and to caste Hindus he asserted, “this blot (untouchability) poisons the whole (caste) system, even as a drop of arsenic would poison a tankful of milk.” Gandhi regarded untouchability as an “inhuman boycott of human beings” and thought that its removal was a prerequisite for the attainment of home-rule. He once said, “if it is proved to me that it, (untouchability) is an essential part of Hinduism I for one would declare myself an open rebel against Hinduism itself.”6 As far as Gandhi was concerned untouchability was not a part of early Hinduism and he regarded untouchability as a corruption of Hinduism.
Gandhi’s attitude to class and caste was more complex than his straightforward opposition to untouchability. Typically class is seen as being the four varnas (literally colours) these being the divisions of society outlined in the Vedic literature. Castes are usually understood as being the many divided social groups in Indian society often believed to be derived from sub-division of the four varnas, although it is questionable as to whether there was time when Indian society was actually divided into four sections. However Gandhi redefined his terms so that when he spoke of ‘caste’ he meant the traditional divisions of Brahmins, Ksatriyas, Vaisyas and Sudras. He saw the division of Indian society into inummerable subcastes as being a corruption of Hindu society.
 |
| Gandhi with Indira - fasting in the 1920's |
In 1920 Gandhi said, “I consider the four divisions to be fundamental, natural and essential.”6 At this time Gandhi envisaged an India with four castes of equal status separated only by their traditional occupations. In “Young India”6 October 1921 he wrote, “Hinduism does most emphatically discourage interdining and intermarriage between divisions… Prohibitions against intermarriage and interdining is essential for the rapid evolution of the soul.” At that time Gandhi’s position was a very orthodox one. Subsequently Gandhi’s attitude was to change completely.
In 1927 his son Devadas fell in love with the daughter of a Brahman and asked to marry her. At first Gandhi objected to the intercaste marriage eventually the two fathers agreed that iftheir two children still wished to marry after five years then they would allow them to marry. On Novemeber the 4th 1932, five years later, Gandhi said”Restriction on intercaste dining and intercaste marriage is no part of the Hindu religion. It crept into Hinduism when perhaps it was in decline…”7 His son married the Brahmans daughter Lakshmi on the 16th of June 1933 after waiting almost six years.
Gandhi went even further than this in his rejection of caste restrictions. In the Hindu Standard January 4th 1946 he wrote, “I therefore tell all the boys and girls who want to marry at Sevagram Ashram unless one of the parties is a Harijan (untouchable).”8 Finally we see in 1946 that Gandhi took his rejection of the orthodox view of caste to its logical conclusion when we read Louis Fisher’s report that, “He said that he was trying to create a classless and casteless India. He yearned for the day when there would only be one caste and Brahmans would marry Harijans.”9
It is clear that over the period of 1921-46 Gandhi’s public stance on caste and class was completely reversed. From acclaiming the caste system of the four varnas and stating that prohibitions against inter-dining and intermarriage were essential, he went on to completely reject any restrictions in inter-dining and intermarriage which he once believed had held Indian society together and prevented its disintegration.
 |
| Gandhi March 1930 |
Gandhi’s defence of caste restrictions, on inter-dining, in the twenties, is made all the more puzzling by the fact that he seems to have thought little of restrictions concerning inter-dining from his youth. Before leaving India for London, to study law, Gandhi’s caste told him they forbade him to go abroad, since in doing so he would have to eat and drink with Europeans. This they regarded as being against their religion. However even at the early age of nineteen Gandhi had sufficient conviction in his own beliefs to argue that he did not think that it was against his religion to go to England. In disregarding the orders of his caste he was made an outcaste. “He never sought readmission to his caste. This experience, he said, led him to a broader view of the system than most Hindus held. He was never ‘troubled by castes.’”10 William Shirer, a reporter who spent some time with Gandhi in the 1930’s, recounting his experiences of Gandhi in 1931 wrote, “In his ashrams, or on the road, he shared a meal with ‘any and everybody’ – Hindus of all castes, untouchables, Moselems, English, Americans, Europeans.”11
Clearly then for some time before 1932, when Gandhi said that restrictions on inter-dining and intermarriage were no part of Hinduism, He had in fact been ignoring the restrictions on inter-dining even before 1921when he said that such restrictions were essential for the evolution of the soul. What reasons could Gandhi have had for perpetrating this apparent hypocrisy?
It is possible that Gandhi kept quiet in public about his thoughts on caste and untouchability in order to consolidate his political strength. Certainly as he gained political influence he became much more outspoken about his controversial views on the unacceptability of untouchabilty and on caste with its concomitant restrictions on inter-dining and intermarriage. Conceivably Gandhi may have held these extreme views all along and may simply have been waiting for the right moment to be outspoken. This possibility is compromised to a certain extent in the light of his attempts to prevent the marriage of his son, which he eventually allowed. From his decisions about the marriage it would appear likely that Gandhi genuinely decided that caste restrictions on intermarriage were not a part of Hinduism between 1927 and 1932.
Gandhi was a curious mixture of politician and saint. These two aspects of his personality are highlighted in the way that he dealt with the issue of caste and class. Shrewd politician that he was, he carefully chose the times when he spoke out against something. Thus upon arriving in India in 1915 he did not start out immediately campaigning for untouchable rights or criticizing the caste system. Gandhi may well have refrained from such immediate action for political reasons, knowing that he was unlikely to achieve much success if he immediately started challenging the traditions of India before he had obtained the respect of the people of India.
Another possibility is that Gandhi may have felt unworthy in himself to criticize Indian society of that which he was guilty himself. He may well have been attempting to purify himself of prejudice towards untouchables before he spoke out against untouchability and the same may apply in the apparent change in his views towards caste. Rather that waiting for the politically correct moment to reveal his views Gandhi may well have been searching within himself to ensure that he was free from the faults that he was about to draw attention to in society.
There is something of a logical progression in Gandhi’s initial rejection of the contemporary caste system as a whole with his subsequent support of what he saw as the more egalitarian system of the four varnas. It is hardly surprising that from supporting mingling with untouchables Gandhi moved on to supporting inter-dining and intermarriage. The fact that Gandhi took such a long time to reject caste completely, indicates the extent to which he was influenced by tradition. Perhaps it is something of an indication of the mans devotion to the truth that he was able, near the end of his life, to turn around and refute all that he had said on the issue of caste and class.
On the issue of inter-dining Gandhi probably displayed political shrewdness in not being initially outspoken but as regards the issue of intermarriage it seems likely that he underwent a genuine change in his point of view. This may well have been due to events in his personal life, such as his sons wish to marry outside his caste.
Gandhi never tried to present a coherent philosophy of life, his was the way of action or Karma Yoga, his worship was the service of humanity and he believe himself to be guided by his pursuit of ‘Absolute Truth.’ It is due to this approach to life that we may perceive many inconsistencies in the things that Gandhi said and did. But to reiterate a point that I made earlier, Gandhi considered consistency to be the ‘refuge of fools’ and when making decisions he did what he felt to be right at that moment and strove to be free of the influence of what he had said and done in the past.
Somewhat paradoxically Gandhi’s inconsistencies regarding the matters of caste and class are consistent within the context of his approach to life. If we view Gandhi as being primarily a religious man with political leanings then his inconsistencies make sense. His changing opinions then, rather than showing political shrewdness, reflect Gandhi’s own attempts to free himself from ‘the canker of untruth.’ In his search for the pure essence of Hinduism, Gandhi seems to have concluded that class, caste and untouchability are in fact no part of Hinduism or were perhaps only temporary measures to prevent the disintegration of Hindu society.
 |
|
Gandhi 1944 |
By 1946 Gandhi was saying that he hoped for a classless and casteless India. At the time he said, “Violence is bred by inequality, non violence by equality.”12 From this it may be inferred that Gandhi had concluded that any divisions in society would lead to inequality and this inequality would in turn lead to violence. Gandhi’s final hope for a classless and casteless India reflected his religious strivings towards ahimsa and the realisation of unity, both of which he saw as being essential prerequisites for the realisation of ‘Truth.’
Footnotes
1 Wiliam Shirer – Gandhi a memoir pg 37 (Hereafter Shirer)
2 Louis Fischer – Gandhi – His life and message for the world pg 113
3 Geoffrey Ashe – Gandhi pg 148
4 Geoffrey Ashe – Gandhi pg 177
5 Shirer pg 117
6 Louis Fischer – The Life of mahatma Gandhi pg 185 (Hereafter Fischer)
7 Fischer pg 419
8 Fischer pg 420
9 Fischer pg 420
10 Fischer pg 528
11 Shirer pg 116
12 Shirer pg 118
Bibliography
M.K. Gandhi – An Autobiography
J M Brown – Gandhi and Civil Disobedience
Louis Fischer – Gandhi – His life and message for the world
Louis Fischer – the Life of mahatma Gandhi
G. Ashe – Gandhi.
B.R. Ambedkar – What Mr Gandhi and Congress have done to the Untouchables
W. H. Shirer – Gandhi, A Memoir
Images
Taken from the Mohandas K. Gandhi Archive of public domain images at WikiMedia Commons
12:56:02 AM 
|
Very sad news. Robin Cook has died aged 59. That's a tragic loss for British politics. He was one of the politicians here that I most respected. He worked long and hard to try and create a more ethical form of foreign policy. He didn't always succeed but he was a voice of reason in complicated times and his integrity was something to be admired. Robin will be greatly missed.
