💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › josh-fattal-was-gandhi-an-anarchist.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 11:16:18. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Was Gandhi an Anarchist? Author: Josh Fattal Date: 2006 Language: en Topics: democracy, Mohandas Gandhi, nationalism, nonviolence Source: Retrieved on 16 December 2010 from http://www.calpeacepower.org/0201/gandhi_anarchist.htm Notes: From Peace Power volume 2, number 1, Winter 2006
Visionary promoted decentralized, direct democracy as key to peace;
power resides in the individual and in self-rule
Anarchy is about abolishing hierarchy. According to the original, Greek
meaning of the word, Anarchy stands to create a world where there is no
separation between the rulers and the ruled — a place where everyone
rules themselves. (An-archy in Greek means without rulers.) An anarchic
vision of society is nonviolent, self-managed and non-hierarchical, and
Anarchist thinkers hold dear to the ideal of democracy — rule by the
people. They suggest political confederations of local organizations; a
“commune of communes” was how the 19^(th) century Parisians Anarchists
articulated it. Anarchists seek to dissolve power instead of seize it.
Therefore, they seek a social revolution instead of a political one. The
social revolution throws into question all aspects of social life
including family organization, schooling, religion, crime and
punishment, technology, political organization, patriarchy,
environmental concerns as well as others. Anarchists are identified “as
enemies of the State,” because they do oppose the existence of a
hierarchical, top-down State.
Mohandas Gandhi opposed the State. The State is the military, police,
prisons, courts, tax collectors, and bureaucrats. He saw the State as
concentrated violence. “The State represents violence in a concentrated
and organized form. The individual has a soul, but as the State is a
soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes
its very existence.” Gandhi recognized that the State claims to serve
the nation, but he realized that this was a fallacy. “While apparently
doing good by minimizing exploitation, [the State] does the greatest
harm to mankind.” [1]
According to Dr. Dhawan, Gandhi was a philosophical Anarchist because he
believed that the “[the greatest good of all] can be realized only in
the classless, stateless democracy.” [2] While Gandhi advocated
democracy, he differentiated between direct democracy and western
democracy. Commenting on the parliamentary system, Gandhi says, “If
India copies England, it is my firm conviction that she will be ruined.
Parliaments are merely emblems of slavery.” [3] He had no more appetite
for majority democracy of America, “It is a superstition and an ungodly
thing to believe that an act of a majority binds a minority.” [4] By
centralizing power, western democracies feed into violence. Thus, he
thought decentralization was the key to world peace.
In Gandhi’s view all the political power that was concentrated in the
State apparatus could be dissolved down to every last individual. He
stated “Power resides in the people, they can use it at any time.” [5]
Reiterating the idea of Anarchy, Gandhi said, “In such a state (of
affairs), everyone is his own rulers. He rules himself in such a manner
that he is never a hindrance to his neighbor.” [6] Gandhi had no
illusions about the enormity of the task, but he took it on anyways. He
believed that by reforming enough individuals and communities, society
at large will change. Gandhi’s concept of swaraj elucidates the
connection between the individual and society.
Swaraj translates into “self-rule” or “autonomy”. For Gandhi, every
individual had to take steps towards self-rule in their lives; then
India would naturally move towards self-rule as a nation. Gandhi
insisted, “Everyone will have to take [swaraj] for himself.” [7] He
continued, “If we become free, India becomes free and in this thought
you have a definition of swaraj. It is swaraj when we learn to rule
ourselves.” [8]
Gandhi angered some of his cohorts by extending his notion of power and
swaraj to the history of colonization. While acknowledging the British
Empire’s cynical intentions in India, he places the responsibility of
the disaster of colonization on the Indian people. “It is truer to say
that we gave India to the English than that India was lost... to blame
them for this is to perpetuate their power.” [9] Because power resides
in the people and they can only lose it by relinquishing their own power
(often through coercion by others), petitions to the government get a
new meaning with Gandhi. “A petition of an equal is a sign of courtesy;
a petition from a slave is a symbol of his slavery.” Gandhi will
petition the government as an equal and he used love-force to back
himself up. “Love-force can thus be stated: ‘if you do not concede our
demand, we will be no longer your petitioner. You can govern us only so
long as we remain the governed; we shall no longer have any dealings
with you.’” [10]
The principle of swaraj ultimately leads to a grassroots, bottom-up,
“oceanic circle” of self-ruling communities. In 1946, Gandhi explained
this vision:
“Independence begins at the bottom... It follows, therefore, that every
village has to be self-sustained and capable of managing its own
affairs... It will be trained and prepared to perish in the attempt to
defend itself against any onslaught from without... This does not
exclude dependence on and willing help from neighbors or from the world.
It will be a free and voluntary play of mutual forces... In this
structure composed of innumerable villages, there will be
every-widening, never ascending circles. Life will not be a pyramid with
the apex sustained by the bottom. But it will be an oceanic circle whose
center will be the individual. Therefore, the outermost circumference
will not wield power to crush the inner circle but will give strength to
all within and derive its own strength from it.” [11]
In apparent contradiction to these ideals, Gandhi battled for national
liberation and he expressed a lot of patriotism towards Indian
civilization. He redefined the terms ‘nationalism’ and ‘patriotism’ to
fit his vision. Nationalism, for instance, meant many different things.
Gandhi said, “Every Indian whether he owns up to it or not, has national
aspirations — but there are as many opinions as there are Indian
Nationalists as to the exact meaning of that aspiration.” [12] Gandhi’s
nationalism stood to disband the Congress Party upon independence, “Its
task is done. The next task is to move into villages and revitalize life
there to build a new socio-economic structure from the bottom upwards.”
[13] He also understood patriotism differently than his contemporaries,
“by patriotism, I mean the welfare of the whole people.” [14]
But Congress did not disband after independence in 1947. Gandhi
recognized that there would be a national government, and his anarchic,
oceanic circle would not yet be possible. Nevertheless, he used the
terms of nationalism to move towards the ideal of Anarchy. He advocated
for a minimal level of State organization to fund some education
programs and to promote his economic concept of trusteeship. Hence,
Gandhi was a compromising Anarchist.
To Gandhi, ideas were worth having. He defended his vision of Anarchy in
India on this point, “It may be taunted with the retort that this is all
Utopian and, therefore, not worth a single thought... Let India live for
the true picture, though never realizable in its completeness. We must
have a proper picture of what we want, before we can have something
approaching it.” [15]
By trying to understand Gandhi’s worldview, certain questions jump out
with contemporary relevance. First off, what is our culturally
appropriate “utopian” picture of America or of the communities in which
we live? Secondly, what practical steps can we make towards swaraj
amidst the current global empire? Finally, if Gandhi is right that all
power resides in individuals, and that power is derived from an
“indomitable will” than how do we reclaim the latent power within us,
both individually and collectively?
Institute for Social Ecology: online library at
Guerin, Daniel. Anarchism.
Bhattacharyya, Buddhadeva. Evolution of the Political Philosophy of
Gandhi. Calcutta Book House: Calcutta, 1969.
Jesudasan, Ignatius. A Gandhian Theology of Liberation. Gujarat Sahitya
Prakash: Ananda India, 1987.
Murthy, Srinivasa. Mahatma Gandhi and Leo Tolstoy Letters. Long Beach
Publications: Long Beach, 1987
Parel, Anthony (ed.) Gandhi: Hind Swaraj and other writings. Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1997.
[1] Jesudasan, Ignatius. A Gandhian Theology of Liberation. Gujarat
Sahitya Prakash: Ananda India, 1987. pp. 236–237.
[2] Bhattacharyya, Buddhadeva. Evolution of the Political Philosophy of
Gandhi. Calcutta Book House: Calcutta, 1969. p.479
[3] Parel, Anthony (ed.) Hind Swaraj and other writings of M.K. Gandhi.
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1997. p. 38
[4] Ibid. p. 92
[5] Jesudasan, Ignatius. A Gandhian Theology of Liberation. Gujarat
Sahitya Prakash: Ananda India, 1987. pp. 251.
[6] Murthy, Srinivasa. Mahatma Gandhi and Leo Tolstoy Letters. Long
Beach Publications: Long Beach, 1987. p. 13.
[7] Ibid. p. 112.
[8] Ibid. p. 73.
[9] Ibid. p. 41.
[10] Ibid. p. 85.
[11] Ibid. p. 189.
[12] Murthy, Srinivasa. Mahatma Gandhi and Leo Tolstoy Letters. Long
Beach Publications: Long Beach, 1987. p. 40.
[13] Jesudasan, Ignatius. A Gandhian Theology of Liberation. Gujarat
Sahitya Prakash: Ananda India, 1987. p. 225.
[14] Parel, Anthony (ed.) Hind Swaraj and other writings of M.K. Gandhi.
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1997. p. 77.
[15] Ibid. p. 189.