Recall the face of the poorest and weakest man you have seen and ask yourself if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him. Will he gain by it?

M.K. Gandhi

 

The world today is confronted with challenging prospects from the political, religious, economic and cultural spheres. The increase in political fanaticism, religious fundamentalism, economic deprivation and cultural homogenization cannot be wished away. They pose serious threats to the world at the beginning of this new millennium. Mahatma Gandhi offers an exceptionally valiant and outstanding ray of hope in such a situation. He confronted the political, religious, economic and cultural problems of his day and offers us today concrete suggestions and rays of hope. Here, scholars from different fields have come together to study the relevance of Gandhi for our world civilization.

Why another book on Gandhi? Not because enough is not written on and by Gandhi, but because the present authors are convinced that Gandhi’s relevance shines forth in new splendor when we are faced with the challenges of the new millennium. So this book does not claim to be a study on Gandhian thoughts, but an application of his vision and values for the changed circumstances of today. The authors take into special consideration the changed subaltern context where tribals and women are taken seriously. Economic globalization, technological domination and their symbolic significance are also considered. From these perspectives, the authors attempt to rediscover the significance of Gandhi for the contemporary world.

Three characteristics that run as a web all through these studies are critical, contextual and creative approaches to Gandhi. While drawing inspiration from Gandhi, the authors go beyond and reflect on the current situation of both India and the world. While admiring both the person and the message of Gandhi, they perceive how his relevance shines in the contemporary world.

Some of the authors take a critical stand against Gandhi. Pointing out some of the drawbacks of Gandhi does not belittle his person or message. For example, Kujur sees Gandhi’s forgetfulness of tribals as mysterious; Karuvelil looks into the Gandhian failure in ignoring the theoretical division between religions. In another way, almost all the articles are critical of the larger society in which we live: a culturally globalized and economically liberalized society where the individual person is not respected.

The articles are also contextual. Two deal from the context of the tribals and women. They view Gandhi’s contributions from these contexts. Other articles perceive Gandhi from the wider economic, political and religious contexts of India and of the world. One article that looks from the perspective of economic globalization, another from the view point of cultural homogenization, a third article draws inspiration from Gandhi based on the context of increasing communal tensions and religious fundamentalism.

All the articles try to create responses to the dilemma facing today’s world. These responses are based on the Gandhian principles of truth, simplicity and ahimsa. Radically new solutions are attempted, alternate visions are fostered, sustainable technology encouraged and viable life style nurtured. The dangers the world faces today are taken into account and radical answers are tried from a Gandhian spiritual perspective. While the difficulties confronting us are not ignored, the solutions proposed are seen also as extremely tedious, but not impossible. There is a general consensus that what is at stake is the very survival of the human family, and it is acknowledged that Gandhi with his spiritual basis and human vision does have something significant to contribute to fostering life for all.

This makes Gandhi a new symbol, metaphor or myth for humanity. These philosophical categories are used in an affirmative sense to denote Gandhi as a relevant and meaningful personality for the third millennium. He has a message to give us, a vision to guide us. He has already lived that message and it sparkles through his life.

Within the above background a brief account of each Part and chapter will enable us to grasp the total meaning of the book: to discover the relevance of Gandhi for the new millennium. For a logical classification, in Part I first chapters clarify some basic concepts in Gandhi: Truth (Satyagraha), Power (Hind Swaraj) and Religion. Part II deals specifically with two particular contemporary contexts (tribals and women) and Gandhi’s responses. Part III turns to a Gandhian critique of the technology, culture and religion of modern civilization and suggests a prospective paradigm in his spirit. Finally, Part IV elaborates on the symbolic significance of Gandhi as a myth for us we enter the new millennium. These aspects and more are developed in the overview that follows.

Part I deals primarily with Gandhi’s vision of truth, power and religion. This forms the basis for better understanding and appreciating him in the later chapters. Gandhi’s vision and method are intimately linked with the movement of Satyagraha, a term he has coined, a movement he has started and a vision he has fostered. These early experiments with truth continued through his London days and till his death. Professor George Pattery first traces the movement’s roots in South Africa and Gandhi’s experience there of this oppression of both of Indians and native Africans. Inspired by Tolstoy’s The Kingdom of God Is within You, this exploitation challenged his personal, social and economic outlook. Gandhi condensed these early experiences in these words: "Suffice to say, that all these experiences sank in me. I had gone there only for a single case, prompted by self-interest and curiosity. During the first year, therefore, I was merely the witness and the victim of these wrongs. I then woke to a sense of duty."

At the same time Gandhi’s phenomenal strength was never to despise anyone, including his enemies, in his quest for Satya. According to Gandhi, his war services taught him not to despise anyone however insignificant that person may be, and that every human being is capable of the loftiest heroism. Ruskin’s Unto This Last influenced his thinking. The pedagogy of satyagraha unfolded itself through the social struggles and through the personal quest and philosophy of Gandhi. At the formative level of satyagraha in South Africa, all means of protest were employed, mobilization was effected through religious faith, and action was taken with voluntary consent and a willingness to suffer.

The choice of the term is also crucial for our understanding. Originally ‘sadagraha’ meaning ‘firmness in good cause,’ was suggested to Gandhi as the name for the movement. Gandhi himself modified it into ‘satyagraha’: satya meaning truth, agraha meaning ‘force or holding firm’. The Indian South African movement thus meant to rely on ‘force born of truth,’ (the non-violent part of the movement would eventually gain much prominence) and gave up the phrase, ‘passive resistance’.

For Gandhi satyagraha and cowardice could not coexist. "A satyagrahi bids goodbye to fear. He is, therefore, never afraid of trusting the opponent. Even if the opponent plays him false twenty times, the satyagrahi is ready to trust him for the 21st time, for an implicit trust in human nature is the very essence of his creed." No matter how often a satyagraha is betrayed, he will repose his trust in the adversary, so long as there are not cogent grounds for mistrust. Pain to a satyagrahi is the same as pleasure. He will not, therefore, be misled by the mere fear of suffering into groundless distrust. Pattery goes on to describe some salient features and limitations of satyagraha.

Satyagraha is primarily a pedagogy of life, and its pertinence depends on one’s way and vision of life. In its inception, satyagraha was experimental in nature and visionary in outlook. Satyagraha both as a philosophy and as a method of conflict-resolution was perfected and personalized by Gandhi. It seeks an integral approach to life and the issues of conflicts. The utopian dimension of satyagraha is not its weakness. Rather, it enjoins the humans to work for a new and creative order in life without belittling the "other" and demonizing the oppressor. It stands out as a unique method for conflict resolution, as an integrated vision of life even for today’s civilization.

Friedrich Nietzsche asserted that will is power. Nietzsche holds that this power, bringing one’s potentialities into birth is the central dynamic and need of life. He was of the opinion that humans strive not so much for pleasure as they do for power. A society that tries to cater to the needs of its citizens cannot just ignore the fundamental aspect of power in human and social relations. Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj deals with the sharing of power from social and political perspectives. Hind Swaraj, the earliest of Gandhi’s books, termed his manifesto, has a pivotal position in the writings of Gandhi. Though a small booklet, it contained Gandhi’s seminal ideas and had a ‘chequered career’. Originally written in Gujarati in 1890 on his return voyage from London to South Africa, it was serialized in two installments in December 1890 in the Gujarati edition of Indian Opinion, the weekly published by Gandhi in South Africa. In January 1910, it was issued as a booklet in Gujarati and on 24 March 1910, the Government of India proscribed it along with other publications because they "contain matter declared to be seditious." The book soon attracted the attention of the European friends of Gandhi, one of whom, Mr. Kallenbach, wanted it to be translated into English. However, the proscription of the book ‘hastened’ its publication in 1910. Gandhi characterized it as a whole theory of life and defended it till death. T.K. Mahadevan said that one should read Hind Swaraj if one loves the human family and this earth which is our home. Scholar Davis George deals with this exciting and relevant topic in his chapter.

The book is a fundamental critique of the modern society characterized by the cult of violence and materialism. Gandhi’s alternative model for the society is studied by Davis in terms of: decentralization, structures not of hierarchical pyramid but oceanic circle; charkha as the hope for the rural masses; swadeshi as the antidote to modernization; soul force as the secret to success; and swaraj as the perennial challenge. Finally the author speaks of the perennial relevance of this small book for our contemporary culture.

Speaking of Hind Swaraj, Professor Frederick Soddy, a well known chemist and economist, felt that "any one who wishes to change the world would do well to study it." J.M. Murry, though not fully agreeing with Hind Swaraj, came to the conclusion that "the ultimate social goal of the spiritual leader in the modern world should be not to withdraw backwards to the pre-machine community, but to advance forward to the creation of a society capable of using machines without incurring material and spiritual self-devastation." He described the book as one of the "spiritual classics of the world" and "the greatest that has been written in modern times." Gandhi’s preoccupation was to provide the common people with the best possible tools to enable them to work with the maximum efficiency and thereby improve their material well-being and spiritual fulfillment. Exactly therein lies the relevance of the book for modern people.

Gandhi destroyed the dichotomy that existed between professional life and personal life, between precept and practice, and ushered in an era where greed for power and wealth should be replaced by the selfless desire for love and service, a liberative praxis of power. Hind Swaraj is still a Manifesto for the weaker section of society, so that India and her Praja may once again emerge as a great nation.

The philosopher George Karuvelil studies another crucial concept in Gandhi: his vision and praxis of religion in public life. Religion, for Gandhi, is so absolute that he would not hesitate to assert that he "could not live for a single second without religion." It is an insoluble aspect of his life which cannot be separated from other spheres of life. Gandhi is emphatic that one’s religion commands one’s absolute allegiance in every sphere of one’s activity. "I do not conceive religion as one of the many activities of mankind. For me even the tiniest activity is governed by what I consider to be my religion." It follows that his life and politics are extensions of his religion; which he goes on to affirm: "Many of my political friends despair of me because they say even my politics are derived from religion. And they are right. My politics and all other activities of mine are derived from my religion. I go further and say that every activity of a man of religion must be derived from his religion, because religion means being bound to God, that is to say God rules your every breath."

Although he is faced with a plurality of religions, most of his views on religion are not concerned primarily with such socio-cultural entities. For him, religion is a personal affair, entirely "a matter of the heart. It is between a man and his God." Gandhi adds: "I swear by my religion. I will die for it. But it is my personal affair" He would even go to the extent of saying that religions could be "as many as there are individuals." Since religion is a personal matter "if we succeeded in confining it to the personal plane, all would be well in our political life." Individual people are free to profess any religion, but the state is to be guided by its own laws and norms, and should treat all equally without any religious bias.

Put in terms of the Gandhian distinction between truth and Truth, we might say that a small fraction of true religion (a relative truth that is practiced in one’s life) is of greater worth than the whole of True religion that is believed but does not affect one’s life. Although Gandhi put it in terms of the Jain philosophy of syadavada, this insight seems more the result of the intensity of his personal life than that of any philosophy. This makes Gandhi capable of criticizing tradition without ceasing to be intensely religious. Even while being a great devotee of God Rama, it matters little to him if Rama is a historical person.

Karuvelil goes on to consider two cases of Gandhi’s praxis, the Khilafat and the Civil Disobedience Movements, two of his most prominent attempts to achieve Hindu-Muslim unity. The Khilafat movement was a failure; the Civil Disobedience Movement, launched after the Lahore Congress, offers a contrast to this. By then the communal problem had become acute on issues like cow slaughter and music before the mosques. But Gandhi did not attempt to deal directly with these divisive issues. He had come to realize, it would seem, that unity B like happiness B is not something that can be directly attained; rather it is a by-product of shared struggles. Therefore, Gandhi launched the campaign against the British to "take the attention of the nation off the communal problem and to rivet it on the things that are common to all Indians, no matter to what creed or sect they may belong." Unlike the Khilafat, the appeal to participate in the movement was not on the basis of religion; the attempt was to unite the people on the basis of a common concern, the salt tax. Many Muslims participated in it, and, to that extent, some sense of unity was achieved.

Karuvelil suggests that the problem lay in Gandhi’s theoretical unification of religions. It achieved too little and too much at the same time. It achieved too little because, by paying exclusive attention to the common features of religions, he was not able to give due place to the differences between religions as socio-culturally existing realities. There is a gap between Religion and religions.

His experiments for religious collaboration teach us that no common struggle can bring about the desired unity, unless these are struggles that maintain an uncompromising stand on certain moral principles that cut across religious boundaries. Here one cannot have a ‘confederation of religions’ that compromises their basic principles to please different constituencies. The author affirms that, if religion is to play a creative role in public life, it requires not only the interiorized religiosity of a saint, but also a public commitment to certain shared values such that these values can grow into the common consciousness of the people beyond religious boundaries. And he warns: "Contemporary India B and any pluralistic society for that matter B can neglect this lesson of history only at its own peril."

Anthropologist Marianus Kujur’s article is critical and exploratory from the context of the tribals. He first traces the history of Gandhi’s encounter with the tribals beginning with the Zulus, the Bachuanas, the Basutos and the Swazis, etc., in South Africa. He was shocked to see the plight of about five million natives politically controlled by a meager 2.5 million Europeans. To the question why Gandhi himself did not continue his interest in the tribals, his reply was: "I have entrusted that part of our work to A.V. Thakkar," who was a friend of the poor, the untouchables and the aboriginals. Still, the author finds the disinterested response of Gandhi regarding tribals as something mysterious.

Though Gandhi is said to be first one to use the term ‘Adivasi’ for indigenous people, like ‘Harijans’ for the untouchables, the author bemoans that we hear little about Gandhi’s involvement with the aboriginal, the native and the tribals who are the indigenous people of India. Speaking historically, the author claims that "to say that Gandhi was sympathetic to the tribals will be an exaggeration." In contrast, Verrier Elwin, a foreigner who had settled in India and married a tribal, was a real friend of the tribals.

If one tries to look into the Gandhian philosophy and indigenous ideology, one cannot but be amazed by the values, ethos and spirit that are common in the two traditions. For example, sarvodaya means ‘development of all’. Tribal society has evolved a socio-cultural mechanism to take care of the entire tribe. To take a simple example from the tribal tradition, Gola Dhan, for instance, is a system of ‘grain-bank,’ contributed by each family. In times of crises, people take loans from the ‘grain-bank’ and later return it, at a low interest rate. Similarly, the tribal villages have a system of madait or sangat which literally mean ‘co-operation’. The Gandhian dream of decentralization is much practiced in the original village, Panchayat, of the tribal setup.

Gandhi’s paradigm for society was in the pattern of family vasudhaiva kutumbakam B the idea that the whole world is one big family. To be precise, in such a network of systems, every unit of society is "governed by the principle of interdependence, complementarity, co-operation and dedication towards duty, and enjoys the same respect, social status and importance." Tribal values resonate with the Gandhian thought in the process of making this world a better place in which to live. The reverence for life, which Gandhi cherished and the tribals embody, can be seen in their myths, ritual practices and entire belief system. Similarly, the Gandhian model of reconciliation, forgiveness, hatred for the sin and not the sinner, etc., makes a lot of sense in a tribal context. Every one in the tribe is equal and treated equally. The welfare of the whole is the prime tribal concern . Further, Gandhi’s idea that we should free ourselves to serve society is nothing new to the tribals. So the author asserts that we do find in the Gandhian philosophy a space for indigenous Gandhian discourse and interaction.

Another context which is significant for us is that of women. Scholar Sebastian Vazhapilly addresses the phenomenon of male domination and violence from the feminine and the Gandhian perspective. He speaks of the Gandhian metaphor of the inversion of power and shows how Gandhian praxis has enabled the empowerment of women. Gandhi refused to play the same game of domination and counter-domination and, instead, brought in new parameters of power. Thereby, Gandhi was able to invert the value system and introduce the liberating and feminine aspects to the human civilization.

Gandhi firmly believed that any strategy of countering the overpowering male domination needs to begin from the horizon of human interiority. Gandhi responded to the question of domination and violence in a complex and original manner in the context of colonialism, and such a response may be of some relevance in the feminist strategy of countering male domination. Again, it is important to note the fact that colonialism is a mental state rooted in the consciousness of both the colonizers and the colonized. The colonizer and the colonized were bound in a symbiotic relationship which Gandhi inverted. The second Gandhian inversion consisted in Ahimsa, or non-violence, in neutralizing violence which was at the very basis of colonial domination. In Young India Gandhi wrote: "The only way to conquer violence is through non-violence, pure and undefiled." Finally Gandhi reversed the dynamics of power. He inverted the colonial order which equated power with masculinity. According to Gandhi, "Power can be acquired only through ceaseless, loving service, and waiting upon God." One can discern here what are usually termed as feminine qualities: `loving service’ and `waiting.’

The author then goes on to study the empowerment inherent in the Gandhian metaphor of power. If violence against women constitutes a negation of truth, then the recovery of truth requires a negation of negation. For this purpose ahimsa is the means; truth is the end. "In its positive form, Ahimsa means the largest love, greatest charity." And again: "The universe continues in spite of the destruction incessantly going on. Truth triumphs over untruth. Love conquers hate." This conquering does not come about by `fighting’ himsa with ahimsa, but by a new metaphor. Gandhi was keenly aware of the dimension of inferiority in the transformation of society: "All true change comes from within. Any change brought about by pressure, is worthless."

The Gandhian paradigm of non-violence or love stands as a viable alternative to the destructive side of humanity: he showed that masculine thanatos can be transcended by caritas, a feminine prerogative. Thus, the author shows the necessity of feminine power for the survival of the human race and Gandhiji’s relevance in this reversal of dynamics.

Criticizing society strongly and tenderly, fearlessly and lovingly, is typically Gandhian. Professor Joseph Isidore Fernando makes a critique of today’s technology based on the Gandhian paradigm and proposes an alternate and viable technology. He observes that technology today has entered every field of human activity. The immense benefits of technology have been a boon to humanity; the use of electricity, petrol and nuclear energy has been the soul of modern industry and technology. Advanced transportation and communication have accelerated the growth of technology; jet-age travel and satellite communications have made the world shrink.

But we have also to count the cost. In other words, what are the negative impacts of technology on human beings, nature and society? Therefore, the author turns his attention to the devastating effects of technology on human beings and the cosmos. He elaborates the impact of technology on environment and on the economic foundations of society, without neglecting the psychological influence of technology.

Then he proceeds to elaborate Gandhi’s views on technology: "Industrialism is, fear, going to be a curse for mankind. Industrialism depends entirely on one’s capacity to exploit, on foreign markets being open to one, and on the absence of competition." But Gandhi himself admits: "That use of machinery is lawful which subserves the interest of all." The basis for Gandhi’s opposition to technology is the good of the ordinary human person. "What I object to is the craze for machinery as such. The craze is for what they call labor-saving machinery. Men go on `saving labor’ till thousands are without work and thrown on the open streets to die of starvation. I want to save time and labor, not for a fraction of mankind, but for all; I want the concentration of wealth, not in the hands of a few, but in the hands of all. Today machinery merely helps a few to ride on the backs of millions. The impetus behind it all is not the philanthropy to save labor, but greed."

Resonating with Gandhian views and going beyond them, Fernando affirms that alternative technology cannot be dismissed as a mere fad or an impractical and impossible venture. Small is beautiful, especially when the local communities can look after and manage their needs on a co-operative basis rather than being recipients of consumer goods and services from a centralized body. This demands a new set of values. "Love is the ultimate force that makes for the saving choice of life and good against the damning choice of death and evil. Therefore, the first hope in our inventory must be the hope that love is going to have the last word."

Today, there is a tremendous sense of urgency for humanity to choose before it is too late between non-violent co-existence and violent co-annihilation. This may be humanity’s last chance to make a choice between destruction and community, because we know only too well what would happen to us in the event of human violence gaining the upper hand. This leads to the need for technology to be imbibed by non-violence. Only in a non-violent culture can technology be at the service of humans. In such a culture, technological enterprise has to recognize fundamental human rights and respect the dignity of the human person. Such is a viable culture, a culture where technology is for the good of the humans.

Doctor George Joseph in his "a Gandhian Prospective Paradigm for Culture," critiques the present culture and proposes another one based on the Gandhian model. First he tries to understand the meaning of culture. It may be considered as an equivalent of samskara in many of the Indian languages. It is regarded as a moral quality to be achieved through a process of purification. According to Gandhi, the members of a morally oriented society should consciously eliminate the evils and bring the society closer to goodness.

This calls for an understanding of the dynamics of cultural change. Gandhi understood human history and change as a movement from himsa to ahimsa. He referred to it as the great law of history. But it was considered not as a natural law, but as moral and spiritual law. The historical role of human beings, according to Gandhi, was to participate in the creation of a non-violent society with non-violent love.

Satyagraha is a method aimed at the elimination of violence from the society. The intention of satyagraha is to annihilate the evil only, and not the evil doer. Therefore, we should not use evil means to eliminate evil, otherwise evil would accumulate. Satyagraha could transform the society by gaining the evil doer as an activist of ahimsa. He goes on to study the basic principles of non-violent cultural order, like satya, celibacy.

Finally, he regards the village as the bedrock of Indian culture. Gandhi learned the possibility of a moral and happy life from the villagers’ way leading a contented life. His experience with the villagers helped him to derive the idea of simplicity as the essential feature of a contented life, which was an element of village life. Most of the villages, even in their poverty, try to be self-satisfied and self-dependent.

Then the author critiques today’s dominant culture of competition and exploitation, unemployment, centralization and concentration. Here urbanization leads to crises of values. This helps the author to posit an alternative way of life in terms of Gandhian swaraj. But such a social structure could be achieved only if we had perfect individuals in the society who would volunteer to work for the general welfare of the community. In this sense, swaraj is a process towards perfection for both individuals as well as the society. It seeks to build a non-violent social, economic and political order. As an alternative to a complex industrial culture, Gandhi proposed a simplified social structure wherein individuals could lead a simple life. From the present context, both a simplified social structure as well as a simple life are goals which are difficult to attain B but not impossible.

Scientist philosopher Kuruvilla Pandikattu’s article goes further with a critique of society. His article on Gandhian villages delves deeper into the theme of viability. Basically he compares and contrasts the Gandhian villages with the globalized village and proposes that the villages as proposed by Gandhi are far more viable and humane than the global village brought about by today’s economic development.

Borrowing insights from Daniel Quinn’s Ishmael, the writer compares the ‘Takers’ civilization of the globalized economy to the ‘Leavers’ civilization of the Gandhian vision. According to him, the way of the globalized homogenous village is both vicious and venal. It also brings the other cultures into its powerful grasp, whereas another community or culture that does not fit in with its goals is wiped out. Either one swims with it or one is forced to drown. To that extent it is also venal for it perpetuates a corrupt and self-destructive system on the assumption that if it does not work now, it will work later. The phenomenon of unlimited growth through which it attempts to achieve a harmonious society is based on a false or even sinister attempt to refuse to see the consequences of one’s way of life.

On the other hand, the Gandhian village is not that convenient and comfortable. Although vulnerable, it is obviously viable. The village set up where diversity and co-operation are stressed may not be able to provide all facilities. To that extent it is vulnerable to the temptations offered by the technological conveniences. But the village community as envisaged by Gandhi is life supporting, self-sustaining and community-fostering, and so is viable.

The writer argues that we simply cannot go back to the village or tribal culture advocated by Gandhi. But without giving serious thought to the concerns introduced by Gandhi for the poor, underprivileged "Leavers," no viable civilization can be created and sustained. The simple symbols of common salt, charkha and Sevagram may not evoke the profound impact today which they once did. But what they stand for can be ignored only at the risk of losing our human nature. The global village has to take a radically different turn in keeping with the Gandhian concerns of village life if it is to have any future existence.

Some of the cherished concerns of Gandhi that the author points out are: identification with the "least, lost and lowest," interest for the individual’s needs, priority to the basic needs of the people, respect for persons in the system even when opposing the system, simplicity of life, significance of symbols, need-based technology versus need-creating technology and realistic assessment of the human situation, without giving up hope. Further, he stressed socialistic economy, meeting the basic necessities of all, spontaneous, creative interaction and transforming village life, welfare for all, a religious basis for life, a holistic outlook on life and co-operation through networking. We further observe in Gandhian vision openness to change, joy in life, the conviction that truth is freedom and the integration of politics with religion. Only a village based on these concerns can be Gandhian and viable.

The symbolic significance of Gandhi is studied in the Part IV. The chapter of Indologist, Lazar G., is "only an incomplete attempt" to come to terms with the religious philosophy of Gandhi and to see further how this philosophy continues to serve as a symbol of peace. As is well known, Gandhi aimed at much more than winning political independence; he fought for the betterment of the people in every respect B ethically, economically and spiritually. Hence, one of our main concerns in this discussion is to view the relevance of the Gandhian vision for modern society. In this article the author has adopted a rather critical and "somewhat irreverent" attitude to Gandhi, in order to demystify him and enable him to shine forth as a symbol for contemporary India. It is evident that Gandhi tested and judged every aspect of human activity on a scale of certain values and ethical norms.

For the Mahatma, concepts and values became co-terminus through a dialectical process. Briefly, Gandhian concepts may be said to have the following characteristics: they are normative, they are dialectical, they are dynamic and evolutionary, they are relative, as well as correlative, and they are scientific. But the primary quest of Gandhi is truth. Gandhi affirmed: "I cannot consider anything dearer to me than Moksha. Yet even that Moksha I would renounce if it were to conflict with truth and non-violence. In all these three things, I only followed truth." Gandhi’s principal aim was to place humans at the center of all schemes of things, all values, all actions and all philosophies.

Gandhi’s actual significance for the political independence of India is ambiguous, but certainly he became a national symbol. The author studies Gandhi’s support to the Khilafat movement and Hindu response to it. Though Gandhi failed in bringing about a reconciliation between the Hindus and Muslims, his approach is praiseworthy.

Like the many symbols that unify Indians (e.g., Shivaji and Ganesh in Maharashtra), Gandhi himself could be regarded as a symbol for peace. His attempts to bring about unity between Hindus and Muslims stand out as a clarion call and a prophetic symbol for today’s India. One can aver that Gandhi’s religion transcended Hinduism, Islam or Christianity. The physical and the metaphysical benignly blended in his erudite expositions. "To see the all-pervading spirit of truth face to face, one must be able to love the meanest of creatures as oneself." That is exactly what Gandhi lived! And so he shines forth as a living symbol for peace for us today.

The symbolic dimension is extended to myths by scholar Pandikattu. After analyzing the person of Mahatma, the author goes on to study the modern creative and positive understanding of myth as a "spiritual metaphor." Myths create meaning for a community. Then he studies how Gandhi’s very life, based on fearlessness and inner peace is a critique of the prevalent civilization. Here Gandhi is viewed as a creator of a counter culture where the means is ahimsa and the goal is satyagraha. The author goes on to elaborate the positive and mythic dimension in Gandhi’s own life. With Gandhi’s personal charisma, he became a myth during his own life. At the same time he became too inconvenient for many of his companions. Still they respected his genuineness and sincerity. It is true that one can find inconsistencies in Gandhi’s life. But Gandhi’s mythic greatness lies in his consistent orientation to truth and to his vision even in its inconsistencies. He was open to criticism, self-inspection and to change. Gandhi assumed responsibility for his life and for his actions till the very end.

So Gandhi offers Indians a utopia. The indomitable will of the Indians, depicted and captured by the charisma of Gandhi, is still nurtured by the long-forgotten vision of Gandhi. His utopia will always motivate the millions of (even illiterate) Indians. He awakens even today a sense of wonder; Gandhi’s life both transparent and enigmatic, fills all corners or niches of the Indian life with an awareness of Mystery. Gandhi’s vision helps to validate the Indian social order. As a person Gandhi gives us some general guidelines to conduct ourselves during the stages of India’s growing political process. Further, the vision of Gandhi enables us to live the reality of the contradictions that is India and to be enriched by it. These factors make Gandhi a myth — a modern myth for the millennium!

Finally, my sense of gratitude has to be expressed. I thank the professors of the Jnana-Deepa Vidyapeeth who have made this volume possible. I am also grateful to Professor George F. McLean of The Council for Research in Values and Philosophy, Washington, for sponsoring this venture and Professor Anthony da Silva, then Principal of the Jnana-Deepa Vidyapeeth for actively supporting this project. I am specially grateful to C. McKee, World-Life-Web, and D. Antao for their stylistic correction and publication helps.We also remember gratefully, Dr. M. Gnanapragasam, who was part of our initial group and whom The Truth has called to Itself.