River in India
American psychiatrist Dr Bandy Lee’s work is thought provoking and insightful. You can follow her newsletter here. But here I will present a critique of some of her assertions in her article. Dr Lee is a staunch proponent of non-violence. I think it wouldn’t be a mischaracterization to say that her thinking on (non)violence is closely aligned with Mohandas Gandhi.
Who was Gandhi? He was among the founding fathers of my nation - India - well known for Indian Independence movement against Colonial Britishers. I will talk about him in a bit. One of the central themes of Dr Lee is her unwavering belief in nonviolence as a solution to the greatest of problems. To demonstrate her viewpoint, Dr Lee cites some examples. In the article, Dr Lee talks about Gandhi and Indian Independence movement among other things like South African Apartheid, religion and various movements for Democracy.
I have authoritative knowledge about India and Gandhi. I live in India, have experienced and studied Indian society up close. One of the problem with many intellectuals is that they are static and mechanistic thinkers who base their analysis by narrowly focusing on a particular event of historical timeline. They ignore the systemic view of things and dynamic continuum (a wide timeline) of our reality. If you want to test universality of something (like an idea or a principle), you should check how it stands the test of time and space.
Our objective reality is a continuum - a long timeline - which should be analyzed by fully grasping the developments of past, present and future. Only then can one truly understand the meaning of events of our world. Static thinking is analyzing only few snapshots of timeline and trying to extrapolate findings to establish far reaching conclusions.
To understand India’s Independence movement and Gandhi’s principles, you need full perspective of the continuum. What was Colonization? What was India before Colonization? Why colonization came to an end in 20th century? What kind of India emerged after colonization? What impact did Gandhian teachings had on independent India? Only when you can understand these full range of questions and their answers, you can put India’s Independence struggle in proper light. Just taking small snapshots of history - the Satyagrah movement, the Dandi March etc and calling them great success of nonviolent struggle is uninformed outlook of history.
Myths about Gandhi
Gandhi is a mystical figure surrounded by many myths and misunderstandings about his methods and teachings. These myths and misunderstandings afflict both Indian and foreign thinkers. Why so? For Indian thinkers, they have little knowledge about objective reality of the world outside of India. Here I refer to assertion of great Historian Eric Hobsbawm. Hobsbawm explained how history of post colonial nations is invention out of political convenience. The point is quite simple. After colonial masters departed these nations, the local political elites constructed their historical narrative around the greatness of their Independence movements. These narrative are exaggerated, semi-fictional and inaccurate. India’s narrative about its Independence movement and Gandhian nonviolence has the same problem.
And why do foreign thinkers have misunderstandings about Gandhi and Gandhian myths? It’s because these foreign thinkers do not comprehend India, they haven’t lived their life in India to know how Gandhian principles actually played out in India. Much of the conventional wisdom on Gandhi which foreign intellectuals learn is actually second hand, for this comes from Indian intellectuals. You need to have historical insight of the world as well as knowledge of Indian society to dispel the myths about Gandhi and Indian Independence struggle.
In conventional wisdom, the Colonialists were great evil who plundered their colonies. The great founding fathers like Gandhi, Nehru and Ambedkar rescued India from the clutches of Colonial masters. This starting point of narrative on Independence movement is itself wrong. Colonization was a phase in technological determinism and political evolution, and it went away with passing of age in most parts of the world. Free trade, capitalism, globalization, technological transformation that came with it and changes in social temperaments paved way for end of colonization. It wasn’t Gandhi or some independence movement that was deciding factor in ending of Colonial age.
Civilizing mission was difficult task in socially backward colonies but Colonial powers did it - although minimally - just enough to extract resources from colonies. Empires became a drag. With advancement of technology, slave labor lost its value as production was increasingly mechanized. Acquiring raw materials, goods and supplies became easier through free trade rather than through military adventures. Historian Brad DeLong makes an interesting point on Colonialized nations. They were given freedom precisely at the time (after world war 2) when they didn’t deserve it. Meaning - the civilizing mission was not completed but colonial powers packed their bags and left these nations on their own mercy.
What happened to India after Britishers left the nation? In conventional opinion, India became a shinning country, free from colonial plunderers. In reality, India became a failed state. The political elites that emerged soon after departing of colonial masters were as worse as former foreign colonizers in terms of exploitation and oppression. What happened to founding fathers? Some of them were opportunist scoundrels who just wanted to replace colonial masters and rule the country for their own spoils. Others were just useful idiots who got swept aside and became irrelevant although their myth was invented to fool local population about greatness of Independence struggle.
Dr Lee gives great reverence to Gandhian teachings of non-violence. What happened when Colonial Britishers left India? The worst civil conflict and genocides broke out. The same masses who once peacefully marched with Gandhi against Colonial Britishers now turned against each other. Gandhian teachings were forgotten as mass murders, rapes and riots became the norm to settle disputes. It’s estimated that one million people died during the partition of India. Poor Gandhi tried to quell the ethnic massacres with his preaching of non-violence.
“Where could I have missed my way? There must be something terribly lacking in my Ahimsa and faith which is responsible for this”
(Gandhi in final days of his life)
Note the folly of Dr Lee when she praises the power of Gandhian teachings as a great success story during Satyagrah and Dandi March. Dr Lee only measures the ‘success’ of Gandhi by focusing on one snapshot of history and without putting that snapshot in proper context. If you look at continuum, you would know that Gandhian teachings failed and even Gandhi started to realize this in due course. Gandhi spent last days of his life as a depressed man even questioning the efficacy of his methods (1, 2). The post colonial India turned out to be opposite of what Gandhi wished for and it came as a horrific shock to him. It was not an India based on non-violence, compassion and love. It was India that began with a genocide and soon after it fell into the clutches of political elites which were oppressive and malignant just like Colonial predecessors.
Let’s take a step back. The post colonial India turned out to be a violent, regressive and a failed society. But what was India before Colonialism? It was always like that - a backward (socially & economically), regressive and a failed society marred by slavery, exploitation of women & minorities, a society based on superstition and religious oppression. Colonizers did bring British laws to India but they never cared to civilize Indian population. The colonizers main goal was plunder of colony’s resources and for that they only created a minimal degree of economic and governance infrastructure.
The post colonial India returned to its default state after Britishers departed. A nation where society got into eternal conflicts among various groups. Conflicts were based on religion, ethnicity, culture and social hierarchy, and they were violent and tragic. Gandhi only lived a few months after independence, just long enough to see the glimpse of ‘Independent’ Indian society after end of British rule. A nation with Potemkin Democracy that would turn out to be forever paralyzed and failing.
What is ahimsa / non-violence? It’s an Utopia, an abstract pipe-dream. Utopias and myths are drivers of society more than any kind of rational objectivity. Political elites invent these myths and utopias to give a sense of prestige to population. Ahimsa was a Gandhian myth which was savored by Indian society but this myth reached the end of its life cycle. Now new myth has been invented by Indian political elites by forging a Hindu identity of India nation.
Myths are drivers of societies. In America, it was ‘American exceptionalism’. US was exceptional from 1940s to 1960s but thereafter its exceptional character faded out yet the myth was kept alive. Soviet Union was based on myth of superiority of communism and great powers of central planning. Nazi Germany was based on myth of superiority of Aryan race. Pakistan was created based on myth of greatness of Islamic constitution. Israel was based on myth of greatness of Zionism.
To summarize everything. Colonialism was endogenous to historical age and it passed away with transformation of global economic and political systems. Technology was critical driver of this transformation. The independence movements in colonial nations hastened the passing of Colonial age but there was no panacea waiting for post colonial nations. The freedom fighters in these colonies were good in agitating against colonial powers but they had no capacity for governing their newly founded nations.
In my country India, independence came with a terrible cost - communal genocides, breakup of country and eternal civil conflicts. The so called Gandhian teachings turned out to be futile and even Gandhi was horrified by turn of events. With a million dead within few months of independence, the preaching of ahimsa turned out to be a bankrupt doctrine as it failed to bring peace and order to fragile nation. Things only got worse. The new political elites later turned out to be oppressive just like colonial predecessors. The country remained trapped in poverty, social backwardness and economic ruins.
Nations are founded on myths which act as tranquilizing force for the masses. Various nations have their own kinds of myths. For example, national identity of many middle east nations is based on Islamic faith. For post colonial India, the myths of sanctimonious freedom struggle and valor of founding fathers was invented. In India, slogans of ahimsa and Gandhian principles got mythologized as mystical instruments that drove out Colonial powers.
Dr Lee looks for spiritual solutions for problems of the world. Gandhi was a spiritual man but there were critical flaws in his thinking. I am not just talking about his teachings on ahimsa / non-violence. I am talking more practical side of things. India was a poor, unproductive and backward country (socially and economically). By early 20th century, the world was moving away from unproductive agrarian economy and towards industrialization. Solving problems of poverty, hunger, inequality and backwardness is the practical side of things. A country in gross poverty, hunger and inequality can never be peaceful and stable - Gandhi did not understand this.
Gandhi was a great agitator but never had any vision for modernization of India. Gandhi envisioned independent India as a rural village society but Democratic. You will be free of colonial plunderers, you will have democracy, you will have plenty of spiritual preaching - but you will be starving, your basic economic needs will remain unfulfilled, you won’t have a job & income, you won’t have security and order in society.
Back to Dr Lee’s essay. Dr Lee also talks about religion, American civil rights action and movements for Democracy in Europe. I will conclude the rest of my critique in part 2 of this article.
Suggested readings
The Great Transformation by Karl Polanyi
Slouching towards Utopia by Brad DeLong
On History by Eric Hobsbawm
Interesting rebuttal. Dr Lee is not seeking to build a new democracy, but to restore a sullied one through non-violent means, much *as Dr King sought to do sixty or seventy years ago.
Gandhi, I recall reading, argued against partition in favor of Hindus, Muslims, and, to a lesser *extent, Xians to sit down and work out a national modus vivendi for peaceful maturation.
That such reconciliation did not follow independence from the British Empire is not the fault of Gandhi but of his succeeding generation.