What he calls soul-force is only a strong vital will

Thursday, January 05, 2006 Gandhi and his legacy posted by abhijeet roy at 9:19 AM

Back in India Gandhi was initially not able to make any impact whatsoever. In his first speech, most of the audience walked out. But by fortuitously for Gandhi many of the leaders of the Congress had passed away at the same time. And many people took sanyasin from politics like Sri Aurobindo Ghosh, Bipin Chandra Pal etc. So Gandhi was able to take advantage of the situation and take charge of the Congress leadership.

Sri Aurobindo on Gandhi

Sri Aurobindo was a political activist in his younger ages. He was arrested by the British and during his time in jail he became very spiritual. After his release he left for French ruled Pondicherry and retired from political life and completely immersed himself in spiritual activities. Since Sri Aurobindo himself was involved in politics it would be interesting to see what this seer had to say on Gandhi. Below are a few quotes from Sri Aurobindo's writings and letters.

June 23, 1926

When Gandhi's movement was started, I said that this movement would lead either to a fiasco or to a great confusion. And I see no reason to change my opinion. Only I would like to add that it has led to both.

June 2, 1924

Gandhi is wonderstruck that his interpretation of the Gita is seriously questioned by a Shastri. I am rather wonderstruck at his claim to an infallible interpretation of the Gita.(A disciple:) He has criticized the Arya Samaj also.Yes, he has criticized Dayananda Saraswati who has, according to him, abolished image-worship and set up the idolatry of the Vedas. He forgets, I am afraid, that he is doing the same in economics by his Charkha and Khaddar, and, if one may add, by his idolatry of non-violence in religion and philosophy.In that way every one has established idol-worship. He has criticized the Arya Samaj but why not criticize Mahomedanism? His statement is adulatory of the Koran and of Christianity, which is idolatry of the Bible, Christ and the Cross. Man is hardly able to do without externals and only a few will go to the kernel.

November 28, 1940

(After hearing the text of Gandhi’s recent “political will”.) Fast and satyagraha changing the heart of the opponent is absurd. What they can do is exert pressure and secure some concession.Something in him takes delight in suffering for its own sake. Even the prospect of suffering seems to please him. It is the Christian idea that has taken hold of him. Besides, he seems to think that after him his theory and creed of non-violence will continue. I don’t think so.

July 4, 1940

(A disciple:) Gandhi has offered his help through the Viceroy to the British government and asked the British to lay down their arms and practice non-violence.(Against the Nazis) He must be a little cracked. While asking them to lay down their arms, he wants them to keep up their spirit. And be subjected in practice!

May 28, 1940

Have you read what Gandhi has said in answer to a correspondent? He says that if eight crores of Muslims demand a separate State, what else are the twenty-five crores of Hindus to do but surrender? Otherwise there will be civil war.(A disciple:) I hope that is not the type of conciliation he is thinking of. Not thinking of it, you say? He has actually said that and almost yielded. If you yield to the opposite party beforehand, naturally they will stick strongly to their claims. It means that the minority will rule and the majority must submit. The minority is allowed its say, “We shall be the ruler and you our servants. Our harf [word] will be law; you will have to obey.” This shows a peculiar mind. I think this kind of people are a little cracked

May 21, 1940

(A disciple:) And he still believes that by non-violence we can defend our country. Non-violence can't defend. One can only die by it. He believes that by such a death a change of heart can take place in the enemy. If it does, it will be after two or three centuries.

May 5, 1940

(A disciple:) If Hitler invades India, Gandhi will declare we are all non-violent. Hitler will be delighted at it. Yes, he will sweep off everybody with machine guns. Gandhi believes he can be converted. It is a beautiful idea, but not credible. Does anybody really believe in his non-violence?... Will he face an army with his charkha?

January 16, 1939

(A disciple:) Nana Saheb Sinde of Baroda has spoken to a youth conference emphasizing the need of military training for the defense of the country. His speech was against the current vogue of non-violenceIt is good that someone raises his voice like that when efforts are being made to make non-violence the method of solving all problems. This non-violent resistance I have never been able to fathom. To change the opponent's heart by passive resistance is something I don't understand. I am afraid Gandhi has been trying to apply to ordinary life what belongs to spirituality. What a tremendous generalizer Gandhi is! Passive resistance, charkha and celibacy for all! One can't be a member of the Congress without oneself spinning!

January 8, 1939

(A disciple:) Gandhi writes that non-violence tried by some people in Germany has failed because it has not been so strong as to generate sufficient heat to melt Hitler's heartI am afraid it would require quite a furnace!. The trouble with Gandhi is that he had to deal only with Englishmen, and the English want to have their conscience at ease. Besides, the Englishman wants to satisfy his self-esteem and wants world-esteem. But if Gandhi had had to deal with the Russians or the German Nazis, they would have long ago put him out of their way.

December 27, 1938

The Congress at the present stage—what is it but a Fascist organization? Gandhi is the dictator like Stalin, I won't say like Hitler: what Gandhi says they accept and even the Working Committee follows him; then it goes to the All-India Congress Committee which adopts it, and then the Congress. There is no opportunity for any difference of opinion...Srinivas Iyengar retired from Congress because of his differences with GandhiHe made Charkha a religious article of faith and excluded all people from Congress membership who could not spin. How many even among his own followers believe in his gospel of Charkha? Such a tremendous waste of energy just for the sake of a few annas is most unreasonable.

July 31, 1932

As for Gandhi, why should you suppose that I am so tender for the faith of the Mahatma? I do not call it faith at all, but a rigid mental belief and what he calls soul-force is only a strong vital will which has taken a religious turn. That, of course, can be a tremendous force for action, but unfortunately Gandhi spoils it by his ambition to be a man of reason, while in fact he has no reason in him at all, never was reasonable at any moment in his life and, I suppose, never will be. What he has in its place is a remarkable type of unintentionally sophistic logic. Well, what this reason, this amazingly precisely unreliable logic brings about is that nobody is even sure and, I don't think, he is himself really sure what he will do next.

July 23, 1923

(A disciple:) The Mahatma believes that non-violence purifies the man who practices it.I believe Gandhi does not know what actually happens to the man's nature when he takes to Satyagraha or non-violence. He thinks that men get purified by it. But when men suffer, or subject themselves to voluntary suffering, what happens is that their vital being gets strengthened. When the man who has thus suffered gets power he becomes a worse oppressor....What one can do is to transform the spirit of violence. Purification can come by the transformation of the impulse of violence, as I said. In that respect the old system in India was much better: the man who had the fighting spirit became the Kshatriya and then the fighting spirit was raised above the ordinary vital influence. The attempt was to spiritualize it. It succeeded in doing what passive resistance cannot and will not achieve. The Kshatriya was the man who would not allow any oppression, who would fight it out and he was the man who would not oppress anybody. That was the ideal. There is also the question of Hindu-Muslim unity which the non-violence school is trying to solve on the basis of their theory. You can live amicably with a religion whose principle is toleration.

But how is it possible to live peacefully with a religion whose principle is “I will not tolerate you”? How are you going to have unity with these people? Certainly, Hindu-Muslim unity cannot be arrived at on the basis that the Muslims will go on converting Hindus while the Hindus shall not convert any Mahomedan. You can’t build unity on such a basis. Perhaps the only way of making the Mahomedans harmless is to make them lose their fanatic faith in their religion....Gandhi's position is that he does not care to remove violence from others; he wants to observe non-violence himself. That is one of the violences of the Satyagrahi that he does not care for the pressure which he brings on others. It is not non-violence—it is not “Ahimsa.” True Ahimsa is a state of mind and does not consist in physical or external action or in avoidance of action. Any pressure in the inner being is a breach of Ahimsa. For instance, when Gandhi fasted in the Ahmedabad mill-hands' strike to settle the question between mill-owners and workers, there was a kind of violence towards others. The mill-owners did not want to be responsible for his death and so they gave way, without, of course, being convinced of his position. It is a kind of violence on them. But as soon as they found the situation normal they reverted to their old ideas. The same thing happened in South Africa. He got some concessions there by passive resistance and when he came back to India it became worse than before.

August 29, 1926

(Sri Aurobindo refuted a criticism of birth control in an article.)The objects are twofold: first, the prevention of too many children; secondly, keeping the woman in good health, so that the few children she gives birth to may be healthy.Of course inner control is better. But can that be expected of the man?...(A disciple:) Gandhi has quoted all the doctors who oppose this method.But he has not quoted those who support it.One objection is that it will increase license.That again is the moralist idea. There are the two extremes: one extreme is inner control, the other is free indulgence; mid-between comes the system of birth control.

June 22, 1926

Many educated Indians consider Gandhi a spiritual man. Yes, because the Europeans call him spiritual. But what he preaches is not Indian spirituality but something derived from Russian Christianity, non-violence, suffering, etc. I am not right in saying that Gandhi is a Russian Christian, because he is so very dry. He has got the intellectual passion and a great moral will-force, but he is more dry than the Russians. The gospel of suffering that he is preaching has its root in Russia as nowhere else in Europe—other Christian nations don't believe in it. They commit a mistake in preaching the gospel of suffering, but we also commit in India a mistake in preaching the idea of vairagya [disgust with the world].