Every Gandhi Jayanti, we recall his creed of truth and non-violence. Yet Gandhi was more than a saint of ahimsa—he was a prophet of simplicity, a defender of pluralism, and a critic of unbridled modernity. His spinning wheel symbolised the dignity of labour, his marches embodied humility and solidarity, and his forgiveness in the face of hatred set a rare moral example. From King to Mandela, leaders drew strength from his vision of justice, restraint, and care. In an age of division and greed, Gandhi’s flame endures, reminding us that progress must serve dignity, compassion, and freedom. This series traces that deeper Gandhi—how he grew from barrister to Mahatma, from guide to Bapu, carrying within him a flame eternal that still lights the way toward a more humane tomorrow.
“Unfortunately, we, who learn in colleges, forget that India lives in her villages and not in her towns. India has 700,000 villages, and you, who receive a liberal education, are expected to take that education or the fruits of that education to the villages. How will you infect the people of the villages with your scientific knowledge? Are you then learning science in terms of the villages, and will you be so handy and so practical that the knowledge that you derive in a college so magnificently built – and I believe equally magnificently equipped – you will be able to use for the benefit of the villagers?” – {Speech in reply to students’ address, Trivandrum, March 13, 1925; Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, vol. 26, pp. 299-303}
What would Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi have made of a society that so quickly turned its back on his efforts to instill progress, scientific temper, and tolerance in a social order where the traditionally disadvantaged endured lives that were, as Hobbes put it, “nasty, brutish, and short”? An extreme example is provided in Nisha Pahuja’s documentary The World Before Her, in which Prachi Trivedi, 24, a stocky Durga Vahini, women’s youth wing of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, activist fiercely trumpets: “Frankly, I hate Gandhi.” Gandhi’s lifelong embrace of the “turn the other cheek” ethic suggests he likely would have met such hostility with forbearance.
This culture of forgiving, which the Mahatma advocated, made him a moral exemplar for statesmen and world leaders, like Rev. Martin Luther King, Nelson ‘Madiba’ Mandela, Rev. Desmond Tutu, and Rev. Jesse Jackson. “Before reading Gandhi, I had concluded that the ethics of Jesus were only effective in individual relationships. The ‘turn the other cheek’ philosophy and the ‘love your enemies’ philosophy were only valid, I felt, when individuals conflicted with other individuals; when racial groups and nations conflicted, a more realistic approach seemed necessary.
But after reading Gandhi, I saw how utterly mistaken I was. Gandhi was probably the first person in history to lift the love ethic of Jesus above mere interaction between individuals to a powerful and effective social force on a large scale. Love for Gandhi was a potent instrument for social and collective transformation. It was in this Gandhian emphasis on love and nonviolence that I discovered the method for social reform that I had been seeking.” – Stride Toward Freedom {p.96-97}, Martin Luther King, who warmed to the Mahatma, post-Montgomery.
Decades later, at the unveiling of the Gandhi Memorial in Pietermaritzburg on June 6, 1993, Nelson Mandela declared: “He negotiated in good faith and without bitterness. But when the oppressor reneged, he returned to mass resistance. He combined negotiation and mass action and illustrated that the result through either means was effective. Gandhi is most revered for his commitment to non-violence, and the Congress Movement was strongly influenced by this Gandhian philosophy. It was a philosophy that achieved the mobilisation of millions of South Africans during the 1952 defiance campaign, which established the ANC as a mass-based organisation.”
In economics, where Gandhian ideas are often dismissed as antiquated or Luddite, a notable Western counterpoint exists. Delivering the Gandhi Memorial Lecture at the Gandhian Institute of Studies at Varanasi in 1973, Dr. E.F. Schumacher, the humane socialist economist, narrates this story: “A German conductor was asked who he considered the greatest of all composers. ‘Unquestionably Beethoven’ was his answer. He was then asked ‘Not even Mozart?’ He said ‘Forgive me. I thought you were referring to the others.’
Schumacher drew the parallel: ask most economists who the greatest is and they will say “Keynes.” Suggest Gandhi and you will often hear, “Forgive me; I thought you meant someone else.”
And in the Orient, Masanobu Fukuoka, the Japanese author of One Straw Revolution, which inspired many to convert to Natural Farming, was inspired by Gandhi. In his words: “I believe that Gandhi’s way, a methodless method, acting with a non-winning, non-opposing state of mind, is akin to natural farming. The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops, but the cultivation and perfection of human beings.”
Such striving towards ethical rectitude can be glimpsed from an episode from My Experiments with Truth. Gandhi mentions the bitter fight he had with Kasturba over her refusal to clean the latrine, wanting a ‘bhangi’ to do it instead. When Kasturba refused to give in, Gandhiji did the job himself. This brings to mind the anecdote of a chance visitor catching President Abraham Lincoln polishing his own shoes: “Mr. President, you are polishing shoes?” “Of course, I do my own,” answers Lincoln innocently, “So, whose do you polish?”
Gandhi’s commitment to secularism deserves special emphasis. Democratic secular humanism rests first on free inquiry — the refusal to allow ecclesiastical, political, or ideological institutions to shackle thought. Free inquiry entails recognition of civil liberties as integral to its pursuit, that is, a free press, freedom of communication, the right to organise opposition parties, and freedom to cultivate and publish the fruits of scientific, philosophical, artistic, literary, moral, and religious freedom. Free inquiry requires that we tolerate diversity of opinion and that we respect the right of individuals to express their beliefs, however unpopular they may be, without social or legal prohibition or fear of sanctions. The premise is simple: truth emerges more readily when opposing views can be freely exchanged; the deliberative process is as important as any single outcome. This applies not only to science and to everyday life, but to politics, economics, morality, and religion.
Because of their commitment to freedom, secular humanists believe in the principle of the separation of religion and state. The lessons of history are clear: wherever one religion or ideology is allowed dominant status, minority opinions are jeopardised. A pluralistic, open democratic society allows polyphony or multiplicity of voices. Compulsory religious oaths and prayers in public institutions (political or educational) are also a violation of the separation of powers principle.
A repeated usage of the term occurs in Gandhi’s writings and speeches in 1933. On January 27, 1935, addressing the Central Legislature, Gandhi said: “Even if the whole body of Hindu opinion were to be against the removal of untouchability, still I would advise a secular legislature like the Assembly not to tolerate that attitude.” {Collected Works}. On January 20, 1942, Gandhi remarked while discussing the Pakistan scheme: “What conflict of interest can there be between Hindus and Muslims in the matter of revenue, sanitation, police, justice, or the use of public conveniences? The difference can only be in religious usage and observance, with which a secular state has no concern.”
In September 1946, Gandhi told a Christian missionary, “If I were a dictator, religion and state would be separate. I swear by my religion. I will die for it. But it is my personal affair. The state has nothing to do with it. The state would look after your secular welfare, health, communications, foreign relations, currency, and so on, but not your or my religion. That is everybody’s personal concern!”
Excerpts of Gandhi’s conversation with Rev. Kellas (Scottish Church College, Calcutta, August 16, 1947) were reported in Harijan: “Gandhiji expressed the opinion that the state should undoubtedly be secular. It could never promote denominational education out of public funds. Everyone living in it should be entitled to profess his religion without let or hindrance, so long as the citizen obeys the common law of the land. There should be no interference with missionary effort, but no mission could enjoy the patronage of the state as it did during the foreign regime.” This was subsequently reflected in Articles 25, 26, and 27 of the Constitution.
Gandhi observed in a speech at Deshbandhu Park, Calcutta, on August 22, 1947: “Religion was a personal matter and if we succeeded in confining it to the personal plane, all would be well in our political life… If officers of Government as well as members of the public undertook the responsibility and worked wholeheartedly for the creation of a secular state, we could build a new India that would be the glory of the world.”
On Guru Nanak’s birthday (November 28, 1947), Gandhi opposed using state funds to renovate the Somnath temple, arguing that a government formed for all cannot allocate public money on a communal basis. He reasoned: “After all, we have formed the Government for all. It is a ‘secular’ government, that is, it is not a theocratic government; rather, it does not belong to any particular religion. Hence, it cannot spend money based on communities.”
Six days before Gandhi was martyred by a Chitpavan Brahmin, he presciently wrote: “A well-organised body of constructive workers will be needed. Their service to the people will be their sanction, and the merit of their work will be their charter. The ministers will draw their inspiration from such a body, which will advise and guide the secular government.”
Both Gandhi and Nehru favoured territorial nationalism, distancing themselves from the Hindu Mahasabha’s conception of nationhood defined by religion.
Perhaps Gandhi’s greatest achievement in the Non-cooperation movement (1920–22) was the remarkable participation of Muslims, which gave the campaign an inclusive, mass character and undermined British “divide-and-rule” tactics; in some districts, as records show, two-thirds of those arrested were Muslim.
This remarkable spirit of the man who could bend the societal arc of his time to the moral compass of his conscience was best grasped by a little-known Australian-born British classical scholar and public intellectual. “Persons in power,” Gilbert Murray prophetically wrote about Gandhi in the Hibbert Journal in 1918, “should be very careful how they deal with a man who cares nothing for sensual pleasure, nothing for riches, nothing for comfort or praise, or promotion, but is simply determined to do what he believes to be right. He is a dangerous and uncomfortable enemy, because his body, which you can always conquer, gives you so little purchase upon his soul.”
Recent events show why such reminders matter. On December 25, 2024, at a Patna function organised by a former Union minister, folk singer Devi was reportedly stopped from singing Gandhi’s favourite bhajan “Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram” when she reached the stanza “Ishwar Allah tero naam”; she was subsequently said to have apologised, and the audience reportedly responded with chants of “Jai Shri Ram.”
These bigoted hatemongers will yet come to realise that the syncretic teaching of Gandhi, mirroring the composite ethos of our accommodating shores, which still resonates in the hearts of his beloved daridra narayans and narayanis, will prevail eternally. For the tendrils of the flame from the funeral pyre of that never distant 1948 will forever be the lingering light that illumines innumerable flickering chirags brightening among the encircling gloom the lives and tomorrows of the weary, wretched of this earth.
