Mahatma and EMS - Gandhi Still An Enigma To The Marxists

Subrata Mukherjee
The Statesman, Nvember 5, 2008

EMS Namboodiripad has provided a penetrating evaluation of Mahatma Gandhi in Mahatma and the Ism (1948). He wrote: “It is a measure of the enormous significance of the role played by Gandhiji in the history of our national movement that every trend and faction inside the Congress, and almost every political party barring the Communist Party, uses the name of Gandhiji and his teachings for justifying and defending its policies. Serious attempts to assess the role and significance of Gandhiji and his teachings should, therefore, be considered of enormous practical importance for the further development of the democratic movement”.

Namboodiripad has highlighted Gandhi’s ability to organise the masses against the forces of imperialism and feudalism. This was his major source of strength. His weakness was his firm belief in non-violence. “It served to restrain the mass of workers and peasants who want to shake off the triple yoke of imperialism, feudalism and capitalism”.

Three features

EMS has examined the three striking features of the Gandhian movement in South Africa: (1) it was a movement encompassing all classes; (2) even with the support of the richest sections of Indian society, the movement’s real strength came from the militant and the self-sacrificing spirit of the poor working class of Indians in South Africa; and (3) in spite of this, the course of the movement was decided by Gandhi rather than by the representatives of the working class. Arguably, the most important aspect was Gandhi’s general outlook and the gulf between his ideas and those of Marx, Engels and Lenin.

As Namboodiripad saw it, a person with such reactionary perceptions entered the Indian political scene towards the end of the First World War and became the undisputed leader of the national movement. On the face of it, this appears to be an extraordinary achievement especially when few people agreed with the basic principles of Gandhism. But a deeper analysis brought to the surface the reasons for Gandhi’s almost instant success. “For, all that was out of the ordinary, religious and spiritualistic in Gandhi’s social outlook, all that was unique in the tactics which he pursued in order to realise his political aims and objectives, had one peculiar quality ~ they were all perfectly suited to the requirement of the class (bourgeois class) that was daily growing in Indian society and was increasingly asserting itself in the country’s national-political life.”

In spite of this basic coherence, there were important differences between other leaders of the bourgeois-democratic movement and Gandhi. The others applied the political process of modern capitalistic countries, especially Great Britain to India. The “moderates’’ and the “extremists” were fashioned after the Tories or the Liberals. But Gandhi “based himself not on the philosophy, economics, sociology and political science of the modern bourgeoisie, but on Hinduism with a perceptible influence of Christianity”. Yet, the same group eventually accepted Gandhi’s leadership. Unlike the other leaders, “Gandhiji associated himself with the masses of the people, their likes, problems, sentiments and aspirations”.

In Namboodiripad’s reckoning, the non-cooperation movement failed because Gandhi and his advisers did not appreciate the militancy of the people and their participation. Gandhi’s doctrinal adherence to non-violence limited his leadership. The result was that, though Gandhi “spoke out so magnificently against exploitation of India’s masses, he largely did what the exploiting interests wanted. The people’s upsurge was like a pawn on the counter of bargaining with the British and when it threatened to go out of hand and smash Britain and Indian vested interests, the reins were tightly pulled back”. However, in this assertion there is no attempt to analyse the Indian situation in depth or give specific examples to substantiate the charges.

On the salt satyagraha, Namboodiripad remarks that “while the people were magnificently responding to the call of the Congress, its leadership headed by Gandhiji was doing its best to divert their enthusiasm and militancy to channels which were safe for the bourgeoisie”. This was done in a number of ways: (1) though the Congress leadership headed by Gandhi accepted on paper the immediate object of complete independence, this was not followed in actual practice. The 11-point demand, on the fulfillment of which he promised to call off the movement, had nothing to do with attaining the objective of complete independence; (2) The direct action was limited to a few satyagrahis even though there was talk of mass civil disobedience; (3) With the obvious intention of restricting the scope of the movement, the demands of workers and peasants were completely excluded.

However, in the subsequent Karachi session of the Congress, many demands of the working class were accepted and the resolution on fundamental rights was passed. However, this change was accepted not on a belated realisation of their problems, but as Namboodiripad contends, due to two political considerations: (1) to create an impression that the Congress was leading the fight for the realisation of workers’ and peasants’ demands; and (2) to secure the implementation of the 11-point demand from the British administration on the basis of popular strength.

In 1932, Gandhi was arrested. According to Namboodiripad, instead of leading massive political movements he was focused more on relatively minor issues of social reform. He has also raised the issue of why Gandhi changed his technique ~ especially when there were no signs of violence. His attention to such social issues as Harijan uplift was a well thought out tactic for meeting the challenge of the political situation. Otherwise, it would not have secured the unanimous support of the right-wing leadership of the Congress.

Namboodiripad ignores Gandhi’s political philosophy which, in passing, he refers to it as reactionary. He has acknowledged that in spite of his leadership of the bourgeoisie, he was not with this class on every issue. It is Gandhi’s idealism that made him the Father of the Nation. As evident from the Mahatma’s reference to the Italian example, he was not only concerned with the oppressed people under colonialism but also with the nature and content of freedom.

Unique role

The shortcoming in Namboodiripad’s analysis is his dismissal of Gandhi’s political theory which dealt with rural and urban differences and conflict, the need for labour intensive industry, the labour-capital relationship, the education system and the village as the basis of swaraj. He was focused on Gandhi the social activist.

There is no denying that Gandhi was essentially a political activist and any evaluation would have to deal primarily with that aspect. But this does not mean that the entire assessment should be confined exclusively to his role in the various movements in which he participated, especially when there existed a theoretical side of considerable importance.

Namboodiripad credits Gandhi for initiating mass movements and his unique role as an anti-imperialist fighter but ignores the Mahatma’s constructive programme, his assessment of the Indian situation as outlined in his Autobiography which largely reinforced belief in the policy of “one step at a time’’ and the compulsions to provide a united front to counter British Imperialism.

The inadequacy of Namboodiripad’s analysis, like that of Hiren Mukerjee’s critique of Gandhi, both written immediately after independence, is aptly reflected in Sardesai’s lament in the Mahatma’s birth centenary year. He continues to be an enigma to the Marxists even 60 years after the publication of Namboodiripad’s classic.

The writer is Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Delhi