Reflections on Gandhi: A Critique by Orwell

Reading Time: 7 minutes

 

George Orwell, the British essayist and novelist, praises and critiques Mahatma Gandhi’s life and philosophy in the essay “Reflections on Gandhi.“ The essay was first published in the American magazine Partisan Review in 1949. It responds to Mahatma Gandhi’s autobiography, The Story of My Experiments with Truth. Orwell admires Gandhi’s principles of non-violence and strong moral codes. At the same time, he questions whether his philosophy and school of thought were humane and pragmatic. For example, he argues that Gandhi’s principle of non-violence, Satyagraha, worked against the British, but he doubts its effectiveness against dictators like Hitler or Stalin. Orwell could not agree with Gandhi’s excessive focus on self-discipline and, thereby, rejection of basic emotions like belongingness or attachment, which are important for being human. Although Gandhi helped India gain independence peacefully and significantly impacted the world, Orwell argues that his ideas were too idealistic. Despite these criticisms, Orwell recognises Gandhi as an influential figure who made a lasting moral and political impact on millions of people worldwide. It is believed to be the last of Orwell’s essays to be published in his lifetime and was not republished after his death.

ANALYSIS OF THE ESSAY

 The essay is divided into five parts for clarity.

 PART – I

 Orwell begins the essay with the statement, “Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent…” He adds that the criteria for judgment vary from person to person. He then asks some important questions about Gandhi’s character. They include: How much did vanity influence Gandhi, given his image as a humble figure with spiritual power? Did he compromise his principles by entering politics, a field tangled with bullying and trickery? Orwell feels it is not easy to answer these questions. One should study Gandhi’s life and teachings to get an answer, as his life was like a pilgrimage “in which every act was significant”. Although Gandhi’s autobiography ends in the 1920s, it provides valuable insight into his character and actions. It highlights his character’s evolution.

Reading it shows that, beyond his saintly qualities, he had the sharp skills to succeed in other professions, such as law, business, or administration. Orwell criticises Gandhi’s flagship ideas, such as vegetarianism and home-spun clothing. He finds it unrealistic in a country plagued by poverty. The British used Gandhi mainly because he discouraged violence, which in turn turned down violent nationalist uprisings, which could have been a headache for the British. They denoted him as “our man”, but British conservatives were upset with his use of non-violence against the empire in 1942. Wealthy Indians preferred him to Socialists and Communists, whom they feared would take away their wealth. For them, his call for repentance was less intimidating than other radical ideologies.

PART – II

 Orwell states, “British officials who spoke of him with a mixture of amusement and disapproval also genuinely liked and admired him”. No one ever accused him of corruption, vulgar ambition or malicious intent. He was always judged highly in moral terms, as his virtues stood out. His physical courage was extraordinary. To illustrate this, Orwell uses his own death as an example. He was unarmed and yet fearless in the face of death. Gandhi was free from the Indian vice of excessive suspicion and the British vice of hypocrisy, as Orwell quotes E. M. Forster: “he seems to have been quite free from that maniacal suspiciousness which, as E. M. Forster rightly says in A Passage to India, is the besetting Indian vice, as hypocrisy is the British vice”. Gandhi believed everyone had inherent goodness and approached people with trust and openness. He came from a poor, middle-class family. He started life at a disadvantage. Still, he was never envious or inferior. He fought against racial discrimination and class consciousness. His experiences in South Africa moulded him to see all human beings with dignity and equality, irrespective of their caste, creed, colour or social status.

As a young man, Gandhi was influenced by European ideals. Like other ambitious young gentlemen, he wore top hats, took dancing lessons, studied French and Latin, and even tried learning the violin. His extremist views came later, yet gradually. As Orwell remarks, “He was not one of those saints who are marked out by their phenomenal piety from childhood onwards, nor one of the other kind who forsake the world after sensational debaucheries.” Gandhi confesses his youthful mistakes in his autobiography. They were negligible, such as stealing small amounts of money or visiting a brothel. Orwell writes, “A few cigarettes, a few mouthfuls of meat, a few annas pilfered in childhood from the maidservant, two visits to a brothel (on each occasion he got away without ‘doing anything’), one narrowly escaped lapse with his landlady in Plymouth, one outburst of temper — that is about the whole collection.” His possessions at the time of his death were also minimal, like his sins – “As a frontispiece to the book, there is a photograph of Gandhi’s possessions at the time of his death. The whole outfit could be purchased for about £5.”

Orwell argues that Gandhi’s approach was not religious, as many think, but ethical. He came from a middle-class family, which contributed to his practical abilities as a lawyer and later as a political organiser. His sense of direction developed gradually. One may find his character complex and challenging to comprehend, “but there was almost nothing in it that you can put your finger on and call bad.” Even his harshest critics agree that he was an interesting man who enriched the world simply by being alive. Of all the things said, Orwell is uncertain about Gandhi’s religious teachings and lovability. Orwell is unsure whether Gandhi’s deep-rooted religious beliefs would matter to those who do not share them.

 PART – III

 The Western left wing, especially the pacifists and anarchists, often misinterpreted Gandhi as someone who opposed centralism and state violence. One cannot comprehend Gandhi’s teachings focusing on “the belief that Man is the measure of all things, and that our job is to make life worth living on this earth, which is the only earth we have.” He will make sense to us only if we accept God’s existence and see this world as an illusion/Maya to escape.

 Gandhi imposed strict discipline, which he believed was inevitable for himself and his followers who wanted to serve God or humanity. It included the following. No meat, animal food (except for milk for health reasons), alcohol, tobacco, or spices. Food should be consumed only to maintain strength. Sexual intercourse should only be for procreation, and that too at long intervals. He observed brahmacharya along with a special diet and fasting to eliminate sexual desire.

Gandhi believed close friendships were dangerous “because ‘friends react on one another’ and through loyalty to a friend one can be led into wrong-doing.” He added that preferential love for a single person may stand in the way of loving God or humanity. Orwell quotes an occasion when Gandhi was willing to let his wife and child die rather than administer animal food under medical advice. Orwell cannot see this as prioritising one’s principles, but he thinks it is inhuman. The author finds Gandhi’s asceticism to be inhuman. As human beings, we may go wrong at times, but we are also driven by loyalty and love. This humanistic ideal of imperfection is incompatible with Gandhi’s religious ideal of asceticism and non-attachment. Non-attachment often reflects a desire to escape life’s challenges. Many people do not wish to become saints. Orwell argues that sainthood is not an ultimate virtue but a choice. Many do not aspire to live a life of self-denial. There is always a conflict between religious and humanistic ideals. Sometimes, one has to choose between God and humanity. All progressive movements and radical groups believe in humanism over religious asceticism.

 PART – IV

 Gandhi’s notion of pacifism was different from Western pacifism. His pacifism focused on Satyagraha. Gandhi indeed took sides in the war. He worked as a stretcher-bearer in the Boer War and was willing to do the same in World War II. Like most Western pacifists, Gandhi did not believe all wars were unjust. For example, in an interview, “According to Mr Fischer, Gandhi’s view was that the German Jews ought to commit collective suicide, which ‘would have aroused the world and the people of Germany to Hitler’s violence’.” He admitted too that non-violence could result in the loss of life, and the death of millions during the Japanese invasion in 1942 is an example. Orwell reflects that Gandhi did not fully understand the nature of totalitarian regimes, as his experiences were rooted only in his struggle for freedom against colonialism. Gandhi “believed in  ‘arousing the world’, which is only possible if the world gets a chance to hear what you are doing.” This is something not possible in authoritarian/totalitarian regimes like Russia, where dissenters are silenced and where there is no free press and no right to assembly for civil disobedience movements. His belief that all humans are inherently approachable may not apply to irrational regimes like Nazi Germany. Orwell also questions the effectiveness of generosity in international politics.

 PART – V

 Towards the essay’s conclusion, Orwell highlights the need to discuss non-violence in the context of a civilisation that cannot survive another global war. Gandhi was open to complex issues and willing to answer questions or write articles on them, even when he didn’t have clear answers. Although Orwell did not particularly like Gandhi, he did not consider Gandhi’s life a failure and acknowledged that his political ideas were not wholly wrong. Upon his assassination, many felt that Gandhi had lived long enough to see the failure of his life’s work due to the civil war in India, a consequence of the transfer of power. However, Gandhi’s main political goal—peacefully ending British rule in India—was achieved, even though the process led to tensions like Hindu-Muslim rivalry. The Labour government under Clement Attlee was sympathetic to Indian independence. This might have been because of Gandhi’s persistent non-violent struggle. Orwell reflects that despite his personal distaste for, or rejection of, Gandhi’s saintly image, Gandhi’s political actions have significantly impacted the masses. His principles of non-violence stand in contrast to other political leaders of the time, and “how clean a smell he has managed to leave behind!”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WORKS CITED

The story of my Experiments with Truth by M. K. Gandhi, translated from the Gujarati by Mahadev Desai.

 Reflections on Gandhi, https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/reflections-on-gandhi/

Orwell, George. Reflections on Gandhi. The Orwell Foundation, 1949. https://www.orwellfoundation.com

Orwell, George. Reflections on Gandhi. Internet Archive, 1949. https://archive.org