A legacy revisited | Ramachandra Guha's 'Arguments With Gandhi'

In the foreword of Ramachandra Guha’s excellent Arguments with Gandhi, the author notes that one of his motivations behind writing this book was to highlight just how controversial Mahatma Gandhi was for the eras he lived through. Today, Gandhian ideals are like axioms—everybody instinctively understands their truth. But with this widespread acceptance comes the danger of sycophancy, of ignoring the substance of Gandhi’s words. The mandate of Guha’s book is to show us how Gandhi continuously engaged with some of the burning socio-political questions of the day, and how his disagreements with various folks expanded his understanding of these questions.

Talking about the book, Guha says, “In it, I point out that during the freedom struggle and during the first two decades after Independence, the adoration of Gandhi was indeed excessive. But then we swung to the other extreme; it was claimed that Gandhi did absolutely nothing for Dalits. Today, Dalit scholars like Gopal Guru and Devanur Mahadeva are talking about the need to bring Gandhi and Ambedkar in conversation. Perhaps now we will reach some kind of judicious balance in India.”

Did the ‘Father of the Nation’ label end up blunting Gandhi’s impact on Indian society? While he was alive, Gandhi’s sheer political stature meant that he could weigh in on widow remarriage or mixed-caste dining halls or any other issue. After his passing, it was very easy for policymakers to garland Gandhi’s statues come October, and soundly ignore him.

Guha says, “The appellation ‘Father of the Nation’ elevates him as someone who birthed an independent country. However, it diminishes him by reducing him to a politician or a freedom fighter. The aspects of his work involving social reform, religious pluralism, et cetera, I see them as secondary to the task of winning political independence from the British. But, for Gandhi, these aspects were arguably even more important. Another thing that distinguishes him from de Gaulle or Churchill or Roosevelt is that Gandhi never held political office. He was always sceptical of using the State’s power to bring about social reform.”

Reading Arguments with Gandhi, it is tough not to notice the contrast between Gandhi’s mental make-up and that of today’s politicians. Gandhi changed his mind all the time, admitted his mistakes and became more progressive with age. Today, you cannot be seen changing your mind.

“I think it is part of the masculinity of today’s politics that you have to always be big and powerful and correct; you can never be in doubt, and you can never change your mind,” says Guha. “But as Gandhi interacted with more people who had a different perspective to his, he became more progressive and open-minded about societal questions involving caste, gender and so on. There were two things he remained absolutely consistent and steadfast on across his life—the commitment to non-violence...and the commitment to Hindu-Muslim harmony....”

In discussing Gandhi’s influence outside of India, Arguments with Gandhi asks a vital question: Does Gandhi ‘belong’ to India? If not, then who does he belong to, as a politician, as an ideologue? Are we as a society learning from Gandhi’s missteps, as he himself did? “Politically speaking, does Gandhi belong to the Congress? No. Does he belong to the so-called regional parties? Not really. Politically speaking, Gandhi belongs to no Indian and he belongs to every Indian, and that might be his biggest strength,” says Guha.