430 | B.

S AMBASIVA P RASAD

K. Satchidananda Murty’s
Views on Gandhian Ideology
An analysis

B. Sambasiva Prasad

Abstract
K.S. Murty’s writings on Gandhian ideology are expounded and
examined in this paper. Murty wanted to critically examine Gandhian
thought, rather than merely glorifying it as is generally done in most of
the books on Gandhi. He is aware of the fact that Gandhi is not an
academic philosopher like Aristotle or Spinoza; the only philosophers
with whom he could be compared are St. Paul and St. Augustine. Murty
felt that the thinkers like Ruskin and Thoreau, and the celebrated work
the Gita shaped the Gandhian ideology. He opined that Gandhi is not a
consistent Advaitin because the impact of Vishishtadvaita on him is
visible. Murty felt that Gandhi’s standpoint on nonviolence is in between
the standpoints of Jainism and the Bhagava-Gita. He argued that to
Gandhi Truth and nonviolence are the bases for the establishment of
independent and united India. He had appreciated Gandhian theory
and praxis of satyagraha. However, he questioned Gandhi’s critic of
power politics. Murty is of the view that politics and power go together.
In this context he supported Nehru’s governance. Expounding the defect
in Gandhi’s philosophy of suffering, Murty argued that what Gandhi
found suitable to him was considered by him to be universally
applicable.
Murty is critical of Gandhi’s opposition to large-scale industries. He
viewed that unless consumption is Gandhian, our production structure
cannot be Gandhian. It is argued that along with increase of national
wealth, proper distribution is essential. Otherwise social justice cannot
be established. Murty was critical of Gandhi’s support for varna system.
In this regard he supported the views of Ambedkar and Nehru. Thus
Murty was critical of certain aspects of Gandhian ideology, though he
hailed Gandhi’s principles of Truth, nonviolence, trusteeship, and
satyagraha.
 K. S ATCHIDANANDA M URTY ’ S VIEWS ON G ANDHIAN I DEOLOGY | 431

The objective of this paper is to state and examine K. Satchidananda

Murty’s views on Gandhian ideology. My discussion is primarily based
upon Murty’s three prominent chapters on Gandhi, published in one of
his celebrated works Indian Philosophy Since 1498. These chapters are
entitled “The Philosophy of Gandhi”, “A Critique of Satyagraha”, and
“Some Aspects of Gandhian Ideology”. The first of these chapters was
based on his lecture which he delivered to a class in the University of
Wisconsin in May 1956, and appeared in Andhra University Colleges
Magazine and Chronicle (vol. XVIII, nos. 34 & 35); the second chapter was
published in Gandhi: Theory & Practice, Social Impact & Contemporary
Relevance (IIAS, Shimla, 1969), and the third chapter is based on his lecture
that he delivered at Madras in the Gandhi Centenary Year, and was
subsequently published in Triveni, in October 1969.
In these scholarly writings Murty preferred to critically examine and
analyse Gandhian ideology, rather than merely glorifying what Gandhi
preached and practised. Murty wrote: “A chapter on Mahatma Gandhi
is found in every work on modern or contemporary Indian thought or
philosophy, and many doctoral theses on his philosophy have been
produced in Indian universities. But it is curious that all such chapters
and theses are expository and laudatory, and that so far there is no
systematic and comprehensive work on his philosophy by a prominent
Indian philosopher” except a few like that of D.M. Datta’s work The
Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi (Madison, 1961) which is excellent, but brief
(Murty, 1982: VII-VIII). “Justice is done to a philosophy”, felt Murty,
“only when it is analysed, evaluated and critically assimilated; deification
and eulogization of any thinker are not the best ways of paying tribute
to him” (ibid.: VIII). Murty’s contribution to Gandhian philosophy sticks
to the above remarks, in letter and spirit.
Murty observes:
Mahatma is not a philosopher in the sense in which Aristotle or Spinoza
is; nor is he a philosophical theologian like Sankara or Aquinas. The
two men whom he resembles most are St. Paul and St. Augustine.
—ibid.: 58 .
Comparing Augustine and Gandhi, Murty wrote,
Gandhi like Augustine was a passionate man driven by inner impulse
to search for truth and virtue. Both were obsessed by a sense of sin. Both
find a morbid satisfaction in dilating at length on certain acts of theirs
in childhood and youth . . . and in lacerating themselves in public for
these “sins”. Both seek to achieve righteousness through tribulation
432 | B. S AMBASIVA P RASAD

believing sin to be an imposition on soul. The mothers of both these men

with their child-like unshakable faith awakened in their sons a like faith.
From their childhood both these men found it an inner necessity to speak
truth and live in the open. — ibid.: 58
Murty felt that there are several forces that “shaped the mind of Gandhi”.
While discussing these forces he said that the nurse who first implanted
an idea of God in Gandhi, his reading of New Testament, and Edwin
Arnold’s translation of the Gita as a student in England, his studies of
Jainism which teaches non-injuring to all life deeply influenced him. The
person, who influenced Gandhi, was Raychand (ibid.: 59). It was he who
first put before Gandhi the notion of celibacy as a greater ideal than
monogamy, and freedom from lust as superior to faithfulness to one’s
wife. In course of time Gandhi realized these ideals (ibid.: 60).
Murty felt that the insult that Gandhi met at Maritzburg (Natal), South
Africa, where he was thrown out of the first class railway compartment,
in spite of he having a first class ticket, was the “most creative in his life”
(ibid.). This experience, according to Murty, stirred Gandhi
to his depths and brought home to him the physical weakness of himself
and his countrymen. It set him thinking to what he and they could do to
retrieve their self-respect and human dignity. The teachings he already
appropriated from Gujarati poems and the Sermon on the Mount
provided him the answer to the questions that arose in him as a result
of the Marit incident. — ibid.
Murty felt that Tolstoy, the Gita, and Ruskin are the three significant forces
that shaped Gandhian ideology. Tolstoy’s work The Kingdom of God Is
Within You overwhelmed Gandhi and left an “abiding impression” on
him. Tolstoy’s other books made him realize “infinite possibilities of
universal love” (ibid.: 61). Similarly the Gita’s concepts of aparigraha (non-
possession) and samabhava (equipoise and equality) gripped Gandhi.
Anasakti (non-attachment) and tyaga (renunciation) appeared to him as
the central teaching of the Gita. These, Gandhi thought, will not be possible
without ahimsa (ibid.). So also Ruskin’s book Unto This Last casted a magic
spell on Gandhi. Its significant ideas like “individual good is identical
with the good of all”, “any work is as good as any other work” and “a
life of labour is the only life worth living” had “crystallized Gandhi’s
determination to lead a simple life of nature by his own labour” (ibid.:
62). Murty felt that Gandhi was equally influenced by Thoreau’s essay
on “Civil Disobedience”. This essay laid profound influence on Gandhi
and his non-cooperation movement in India (ibid.: 63). He observed:
 K. S ATCHIDANANDA M URTY ’ S VIEWS ON G ANDHIAN I DEOLOGY | 433

Gandhi meditated on the life of Christ and the life of the sthithaprajna,
the steadfast seer of the Gita. They opened up before him a new ideal
and dimension of reality. He beheld in them the true and the Good; . . .”
— ibid.: 65

Gandhi and Advaita

Evaluating Gandhian ideology, Murty argued that the doctrinal elements
in Gandhi’s writings are neither well-developed nor wholly self-
consistent because “Gandhi was no system builder” (ibid.: 65). He wrote
that though Gandhi claims of himself as an Advaitin, he was not consistent
throughout. He usually speaks of God in personal terms, talks of his aim
being to “see God face to face” of “fear of God”, “grace of God”, and
“God saving his honour”. Murty held that an Advaitin of Sankara’s school
would not employ such terminology. All this may be acceptable even to
an Advaitin from the lower standpoint, however from the higher
standpoint there is no such difference between God and soul. Murty
viewed that he did not find in Gandhi any such distinction between para
and apara vidyas or higher and lower knowledges, nor does he appear to
have laid down brahmanusandhana (meditation on the oneness of Brahman
and soul) as the supreme sadhana. Murty felt that while Advaita perhaps
appealed to Gandhi’s reason, “his heart never accepted it and he remained
loyal to the faith of his birth, Vaishnavism, which teaches personal theism”
(ibid.: 66).
Murty observed that while claiming that he is an Advaitin, Gandhi
supported the view of Dvaita, i.e., the theory of duality. The Advaitin
calls the world mithya, because it is sublatable on the experience of
Brahman, the ultimate reality. However the Dvaitin recognizes no such
experience. Being alive to this point, Gandhi said that the world is real,
yet unreal. On the contrary, Advaitins of Sankara’s school claim that the
world is neither real nor unreal. It is not real as that of Brahman, nor is
unreal as a square-circle. According to Murty, Gandhi is an anekantavadi
and hence supported the views of both Advaita and Dvaita and held that
the world is real yet unreal. In this context Murty argues that no doubt
the Jainas profess anekantavada, according to which all statements are
relative and Reality is many sided, that which Gandhi accepted. However,
Gandhi forgot that in addition to it the Jainas also maintained that there
is an absolute truth (kevala-jnana) which was apprehended by tirthankaras
of the Jainism (ibid.: 67). Statements made by the tirthankaras cannot be
false. On the contrary, the statements of ordinary people, having no
integral vision of Truth, are relative. Murty observed that if this
characteristic feature of Jaina thought is not remembered, anekantavada
434 | B. S AMBASIVA P RASAD

differs very little from that of Protagorean scepticism. “If anekantavada is

final truth theism is as true as atheism and brahmacharya is as virtuous
as the grossest profligacy” (ibid.: 67).
Here I would like to say that Murty is right in his argument that
Gandhi is not a consistent Advaitin. In fact, Gandhi himself accepted it.
Gandhi said that he is both an Advaitin and a Vishishtadvatin. He held
that he is a Syadvadin, but not that of the scholarly persons. He wanted
to apply the logic of Syadvada in understanding the diversities of
religions. The following passage of Gandhi clearly indicates the force of
his argument.
I am an Advaitist and yet I can support Dvaitism (dualism). The world
is changing every moment and therefore unreal; it has no permanent
existence. But though it is constantly changing, it has something about
it which persists and it is therefore to that extent real. I have therefore no
objection to calling it real and unreal, and thus being called an
Anekantavadi or a Syadvadi. But my Syadvada is not the Syadvada of
the learned, it is peculiarly my own. I cannot engage in a debate with
them. It has been my experience that I am always true from my point of
view, and am often wrong from the point of view of my honest critics. I
know that we are both right from our respective points of view. And
this knowledge saves me from attributing motives to my opponents or
critics. The seven blind men who gave seven different descriptions of
the elephant were all right from their respective points of view, and
wrong from the point of view of one another, and right and wrong from
the point of view of the man who knew the elephant. I very much like
this doctrine of the manyness of reality. It is this doctrine that has taught
me to judge a Mussalman from his standpoint and a Christian from his.
— Narayan, 1968: 107-08
Truth Is God
Initially Gandhi used to say that God is Truth, but subsequently he
propounded that Truth is God. Gandhi had reformulated the statement
from “God is Truth” to “Truth is God” in view of his conviction that the
latter would be accepted both by the theists as well as atheists. The
atheists, though deny the existence of God, they do not deny Truth.
Therefore the standpoint that “Truth is God” is acceptable to both theists
and atheists. In this context it is pertinent to note that Gandhi’s revision
of the statement from “God is Truth” to “Truth is God” is a conclusion,
he derived after a “continuous and relentless search after Truth” over
for fifty years. His distinction between “God is Truth” and ”Truth is God”
marks a point of departure from his original theological position to
moralistic conception of God (Rao, 2011: 131).
 K. S ATCHIDANANDA M URTY ’ S VIEWS ON G ANDHIAN I DEOLOGY | 435

Gandhi’s identification of God with Truth, Murty argues, could be

compared with the view of St. Augustine. To Augustine, we are able to
judge because Truth is indwelling in us. He wrote in his Confessions that
“where he finds truth, there he may find God which is truth Itself”.

Philosophy of Nonviolence
Nonviolence (ahimsa) is the basic value in Gandhian thought. To him ahimsa
is the means by which Truth (satya) can be realized. In the beginning,
Gandhi conceived ahimsa as not to kill anything and not to wish harm to
anything. But subsequently he changed this view. He admitted that
nobody could be free from violence, unless one renounces the will to live.
Life lives on life; even eating and drinking involve violence, because in
eating one has to kill at least vegetable life and in drinking and breathing
one involuntarily harms several invisible tiny organisms in water and air.
Therefore Gandhi comes to the conclusion that “no one can live without
committing outward violence; to be inwardly free from feelings of violence
is nonviolence” (ibid.: 71-72). Murty argues that Gandhi thus allowed a
certain amount of violence if it is inevitable. Thus he was prepared to kill
monkey hordes which invaded the garden and farm in his Ashram; he
allowed a frog to be dissected in his Ashram to teach anatomy to the
trainees of nursing. Therefore to Gandhi, what is important is the
“intention” of action. It is the intention, the purpose and the objective
that decides whether an act is violent or nonviolent. Apparently an act
like surgery may appear to be violent, however its objective is to increase
the longevity of the patient and hence it is to be judged as nonviolent. In
the light of these experiences, Gandhi gained a new insight and defined
violence as “to cause pain, wish ill, or kill life out of anger, selfishness or
out of intention to do so. It is ahimsa to kill or cause pain with a view to
its spiritual or physical benefit from a pure selfless intent” (ibid.: 72).
Gandhi justified his permission to kill the calf, when it is suffering from
an incurable disease and acute pain, as an instance of ahimsa. He cited
surgery as another instance of this kind. He even supported man-
slaughter when a person becomes a danger to the society. Yet he
maintained that violence cannot be used against a tyrant, because “in men
change of heart is possible and no evil doer need be considered beyond
reform” (ibid.).
To Gandhi, ahimsa is complete selflessness and that is not possible in
thought and deed as long as one wants to live. Therefore one should
attempt to adopt ahimsa in thought word and action in all cases, and where
unavoidable one may be forced to resort to violence in practice, as in the
cases of monkey menace, etc. Murty viewed that Gandhi’s position of
436 | B. S AMBASIVA P RASAD

non-violence is in between the standpoints of Jainism and Bhagavad-Gita.

Jainism preached the sacredness of all life and non-injury of all life as an
absolute virtue. The perfect Jaina munis (saints), who believed this,
abandoned all will to live. That was the logical outcome of absolute
nonviolence. However Gandhi did not approve such complete ahimsa.
Reflection forced him to abandon this (ibid.: 72). He permitted violence
in certain situations as explained above. He even supported the British
in the First World War. In all these cases his philosophy is like that of the
Gita that allowed justified war in order to protect dharma. Thus Gandhi
“was contended to halt in a half-way house between the Jaina and the
Gita standpoints, while regarding nonviolence as an absolute value” (ibid.:
73).
The realistic component of Gandhian thought, says Murty, is that
Nonviolence is good. It is great. It is the highest law. If anyone practises
absolutely and rightly, by his soul-force, he would be able to prevail over
all evil, hatred and injustice. If a community of men were to cultivate it,
it would become the perfect society. But all this cannot be done, thought
Gandhi, by men unless they practise virtues like celibacy, manual labour,
non-possession, truth-speaking, etc. But no one has achieved this, and
no society or state constituted as it is present can, he realized, practise
such nonviolence. — ibid.: 99
According to Murty, Gandhi knew that a nationalist “cannot be a pacifist,
and politics based on patriotism and independent states is irreconcilable
with nonviolence in all situations. While he held that violence is preferable
to cowardice or passivity in the face of tyranny and injustice, he was
opposed to the use of force in any form and at anytime to serve the ends
of aggression or tyranny” (ibid.: 100). Murty continues that Gandhi
wanted Truth and nonviolence to be means and bases for the
establishment of an independent and united Indian state.
If, however, people were not prepared or qualified to achieve this through
nonviolence, they should secure it through courage, violence and even
a just war, if necessary, . . . — ibid.

Satyagraha
Murty observed that by the technique of satygraha, Gandhi had energized
the Indian masses. The theory underlying it was believed to be in tune
with Christianity and with some of the fundamental Indian beliefs.
Gandhi claimed that the Gita supported it. Thus Gandhi’s satyagraha
obtained support both in the West and in India. But the general criticism
is that it was impracticable. However after the Second World War when
 K. S ATCHIDANANDA M URTY ’ S VIEWS ON G ANDHIAN I DEOLOGY | 437

India became free without any revolution

the prestige of Gandhian ideology and technique went up very high.
The temper of the people of India, international public opinion and lack
of adequate power and resources to keep India within their empire made
the British withdraw from India. It was true that the influence of Gandhi
made Indians more or less fearless; made the educational and vocal
sections yearn for freedom, and made the British will power to weak
and waver. — ibid.: 87
Murty felt that the post-Partition massacres and riots in the Indo-Pakistan
subcontinent showed that satyagraha, was adopted by the majority of
Indians “as the only possible tactics to win independence” (ibid.: 87).

Gandhi on Power Politics

Gandhi sought to import ahimsa into social and political spheres. His
satyagraha movements and fasts were all based on his notion of introducing
ahimsa into politics. He wanted to moralize politics. In this context Murty
viewed that the ancient Indian writers on polity like Kautilya, Kamandaka,
and Sukra, had a more thorough knowledge of human nature and politics
than Gandhi. “Thorough-going nonviolence was in their opinion for those
who have renounced the world and are in search of liberation;
governments and societies cannot do without force” (ibid.: 77). The
followers of Gandhi talk of moralizing politics and bring religion into it,
and condemn “power politics”. However Murty is a critic of this view.
He agreed with the view of Jacques Barzun who opined that there cannot
be politics without power. Murty viewed that to conduct politics or
government on the basis of the Sermon on the Mount is an “alienation
from concrete experience and concrete imagination” (ibid.: 78). The
government of Nehru, he felt, was aware of this fact and acted
accordingly (ibid.). In this context we find that Murty’s conception of
politics is nearer to Nehru rather than to Gandhi.
Here I beg to differ with Murty’s view that politics and power are
inseparable. To Gandhi one should enter into politics not to secure power,
but serve the people. In a world, where people believe politics as an
occasion to secure power, power to bully their adversaries, power to
exploit others, Gandhi used it as an instrument of service. He hated
politics aimed at grabbing power and wealth and politics devoid of
morals. Had Gandhi wanted to secure power through politics, he would
have become either the Prime Minister or the President of independent
India in 1947. However, he declined it. On the eve of the first
Independence Day of India, Gandhi refused to participate in the
438 | B. S AMBASIVA P RASAD

celebrations at Delhi, and spent his time in Noakhali, a remote place in

Bengal, attending the victims of Hindu–Muslim riots. Such was the
personality of Gandhi. To him politics and power must be separated.

Philosophy of Suffering
According to Murty, Gandhi believed in the philosophy of suffering. He
believed that Truth could be realized only when one is able to identify
oneself with everything. This he thought is not possible without self-
purification. According to him, one becomes pure when one is entirely
free from all passions in thought, speech, and actions. Gandhi’s objective
was to make oneself passion-free, i.e., “to reduce oneself to zero”.
Therefore he believed mortification of flesh to be a condition of spiritual
progress. He considered the moderate life in between sensuous
enjoyment and abnegation is the best to follow. Moreover, the Jaina and
the Christian influences made him think that “suffering is the mark of
the human tribe”. It is an eternal law and an indispensable condition of
human being. Gandhi wrote to the Viceroy Lord Chelmsford, that his
aim was to express in life the law of suffering (ibid.: 78).
“Part of this philosophy of suffering”, observed Murty, “is Gandhi’s
philosophy of sex” (ibid.: 79). Gandhi considered marriage as an obstacle
to liberation. For him, sex was not a human necessity. “Marriage” he
remarked, “is a fall” (ibid.). Even after marriage, Gandhi opined one
should not engage oneself in sexual union for pleasure. To Gandhi, the
union is not for pleasure but for bringing forth progeny.
“The great defect in Gandhi’s ethics”, wrote Murty, “seems to be that
what he found suitable for himself was deemed by him to be of universal
application. He was overwhelmed by the sense of sin and the need for
purification; he thought he could find God only though mortification and
suffering; and he exhorted everybody to adopt the same methods”(ibid.:
80).
Commenting upon Gandhian notion of brahmacharya, Murty said that
Gandhi forgot his own passionate youth and turbulent manhood when
he rejected sex as a human necessity and preached universal celibacy.
Having adopted brahmacharya by his own experience, Gandhi realized that
it is humanly impossible to achieve complete celibacy in thought as well
as in practice and he declared that only God’s grace enables men to be
virtuous (ibid.: 81).
Whatever might be the logic behind Murty’s argument, it should be
noted that without his vow of brahmacharya and associated austere
disciplines Gandhi would not be the man who awakened the Indian masses
 K. S ATCHIDANANDA M URTY ’ S VIEWS ON G ANDHIAN I DEOLOGY | 439

for a successful nonviolent campaign against colonial oppression (Howard,

2013: xi). Through his innovative narrative of brahmacharya and performance
as an ascetic,
Gandhi was able to transform ascetic disciplines and vows of truth,
nonviolence, self-sacrifice, simplicity, and poverty into techniques of
nonviolent activism, including nonviolent resistance, noncooperation,
self-reliance, fearlessness the willingness to go to jail, and maintaining
commitment despite suffering. — ibid.: xii

Gandhi on Science and Technology

Murty observed that Gandhi
was always ready to take in from the West ideas that suited his own
temperament. Nonviolence, living a simple life in tune with nature,
nature cure all are ideas Gandhi borrowed from the West. But he was
always against that which is so undeniably Western-science and
technology. . . . He preferred village autonomy, village self-sufficiency
and cooperative living. — ibid.: 81-82
These ideas, said Murty, have a curiously Rousseau’s tinge. Jean-Jacques
Rousseau argued that science, arts and letters are man’s worst enemies,
because they create wants and are the sources of slavery (ibid.: 82). In
contrast to Gandhi, Murty felt that science and technology and large-scale
production could alone save India from the brink of poverty and
unemployment. He said that Nehru, with unerring insight, had realized
the importance of science, technology, and heavy industries in modern
India and saved it “from reaching its doom in medieval obscurantism”
(ibid.: 82).
According to Murty, this does not mean, Gandhian approach was
narrow. His was, as Romain Rolland put it, “an apostolic universalism”
(ibid.). He recognized Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism, as the ways to
reach Deity, provided human being accepts renunciation and simplicity.
Thus in matters of faith, Gandhi was a universalist, however he is not an
intellectual universalist. He “was not concerned with immediate things,
with preservation of society, the advancement of civilization, and material
progress. His teaching will always remain a beacon light luring humanity
and a driving force haunting mankind to lift itself up from the sordid
details of the present” (ibid.).
One of the criticisms of Murty against Gandhi is that though Gandhi
opposed science and technology, he welcomed them in his personal life.
For instance in 1924, he underwent a surgery; he had to wear glasses to
440 | B. S AMBASIVA P RASAD

correct his vision and he used the railways extensively during his non-
cooperation movement (ibid.: 64). Against all these objections of Murty,
I wish to submit that Gandhi opposed science and technology only when
they are utilized without “wisdom”. He opposed science and technology
when they lead to the destruction of human happiness and peace; when
they atrophied the limbs of man and cause unemployment to the millions
of the poor and the weak and widen the gulf between the rich and the
poor. When Gandhi was asked about his views on the modern machine,
he replied that he was not against the machine as such, but he was against
the “craze for machinery”.

Caste as a Varna Dharma

Murty was highly critical of Gandhian notion of caste. In this context, he
is one with Ambedkar. Murty said that Gandhi was a vigorous defender
of the caste system, though he opposed the untouchability of the lower
castes. He opposed all reformers that wanted to destroy the caste system.
In view of his strong commitment to the law of varna, Gandhi opposed
inter-caste marriages. However he relaxed his rigidity, in his later days.
Murty held:
Gandhi’s defence of caste system was based on his other-worldly
outlook and philosophy of negativism. According to Gandhi it is sin to
seek material advance and gain, for one should constantly have one’s
eyes fixed on God. Man is but a pilgrim in the world. All that he had to
do is to manage to keep alive till he is freed from the material coils of the
body; and this he can do by following the profession of his father’s; and
the mere humble and lowlier the better it is, for it teaches him self-
restraint and abnegation. — ibid.: 84
Criticizing upon Gandhi’s conception of caste, Murty said that “Gandhi
was a determinist; he allowed no freedom to the soul” (ibid.). According
to Gandhi we are mere playthings in the hands of God. Birth is not
accidental but is determined by God Himself. Therefore one should follow
the profession of the class of his birth.
Murty wrote that some of the best minds in modern India like
Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan have defended the caste system more or less
on the lines of Gandhi. On the contrary, thinkers like Tagore and Nehru
totally rejected the caste system. According to Nehru the salvation of
India is not possible without the destruction of the caste system. Murty
felt that “none knows what is good for India better than Nehru” (ibid.).

Political and Social Order

While discussing Gandhi’s views regarding the ideal political and social
 K. S ATCHIDANANDA M URTY ’ S VIEWS ON G ANDHIAN I DEOLOGY | 441

order, Murty quotes Jefferson, who planned to organize democracy in

America.
He wanted the country to be divided into thousands of self-governing
“wards”, “little republics”, each directly exercising all civil and military
functions as far as its affairs are concerned. According to what he called
the “mother principle”, “governments are republican in proportion as
they embody the will of their people and execute it”. — ibid.: 107
Agreeing with Jefferson’s view, Murty wrote that this was so with village
communities of Gandhi. According to him “self-sufficient and fully
employed village communities were the vital organic units of the
distinctive Indian civilization” (ibid.: 108).
“A reorganization of the political order” wrote Murty “requires a
reorganization of the economic order. Here too, Gandhi’s ideas have
heuristic relevance” (ibid.). Quoting Vinoba Bhave, Murty observed:
“Freedom from the lure of money and performance of body labour is
the acme of Gandhi’s philosophy” (ibid.: 110). Each village should become
self-sufficient through agriculture, use of hand tools, and rural industries.
If everyone works with his hands and tools, and if the land and materials
are made available to the workers, there would be no unemployment
(ibid.).
Gandhian economy not only shuns large-scale industries, but also
supports decentralization of village industries. In this context, Murty is
critical of Gandhi’s opposition to large-scale industries. He said that:
unless consumption is Gandhian, our production-structure cannot be
Gandhian. There is in India now such a mass hunger for food and
consumer goods that only large-scale production of them can satisfy it.
So, unless it is decided to content themselves with the fulfilment of bare
and simple necessities of life and minimum possible consumption,
Gandhian production-techniques need not be introduced. — ibid.: 111
Murty felt that increase in country’s productivity is not the real issue,
because scientific and technological skills may solve it to a maximum
extent. However the greater problem is that of “social justice” (ibid.: 111).
He argues that mere increase in national wealth is not sufficient, but it
should be properly distributed, otherwise the rich would become richer
and the poor, poorer. Here writes Murty, Gandhi provided a possible
solution. Whatever one has according to Gandhi, one should hold it as a
trust for the benefit of all. “Not only wealth, but one’s physical strength,
skills and intelligence must be for the services of all (ibid.).
442 | B. S AMBASIVA P RASAD

Concluding Comments
From the above discussion, it is obvious that Murty did not accept
everything what Gandhi said. He was critical of certain aspects of
Gandhian thought. However he lauded Gandhi’s principles of Truth,
nonviolence, trusteeship, and care for the common good and common
man. While substantiating Gandhi on certain aspects, what Murty did
was a critical assessment of Gandhi’s theory and practices.
We find in Murty an inclination towards Nehru rather than to Gandhi
in certain aspects. For instance he is one with Nehru in the annihilation
of caste and in support of science, technology, and industrial
development. In the writings on Gandhi, we often find parallels between
Gandhi and thinkers like Tolstoy, Ruskin, and Thoreau. However in
addition to these thinkers, Murty has brought about the points of
comparison between Gandhi and great saints and thinkers like St.
Augustine, St. Paul, Jefferson, and Aldus Huxley. This is the unique
feature that we find in Murty’s writings on Gandhi.
Gandhian thought needs a thorough and critical study. One must not
blindly adore Gandhi, without questioning. In fact, Gandhi himself did
not like it. In this respect Murty’s work is laudable. However, everything
what Murty said against Gandhi, need not be taken for granted. We must
re-examine it. This is what is modestly attempted in this essay. In one of
his writings, Gopalakrishna Gandhi observed that what all Gandhi said
of his time and age need not be accepted and some of them may be
outdated. However the eternal values of satya and ahimsa are the need of
the hour. They are needed to the present time and age where we are
caught up in the ills of terrorism, bloodshed, corruption and violence of
all sorts — violence against the poor, the weak, and the women. Under
such circumstances, Gandhian principles and practices are needed for
peace, harmony, and tranquillity. Being alive to this fact, Murty himself
wrote that in this century “Mahatma Gandhi and Gandhians have made
important contributions to social and political thought” (Murty & Rao,
1972: XXXV). Quoting Albert Schweitzer, Murty wrote, Gandhian
philosophy “is a world in itself” (ibid.).
To conclude, Gandhi stands unique in that he taught us the philosophy
of resisting without physical force, transforming without disrespecting,
and subduing without humiliating. Every move he made was aimed at
the welfare of humanity, harmony in society, and a world free from
conflict and violence. No other Indian showed the formidable
commitment in extending succour to the underprivileged and the exploited
as did Gandhi. To quote Ramakrishna Rao, a distinguished Gandhian
scholar:
 K. S ATCHIDANANDA M URTY ’ S VIEWS ON G ANDHIAN I DEOLOGY | 443

In today’s troubled world, Gandhian ideas singularly stand out as a

beacon of hope to find peace and tranquillity in the midst of current
socio-economic turbulence and to restore to the individual his personal
identity and face-to-face relations increasingly lost in the growing,
complex web of globalization. Gandhian philosophy and practices
could be the soothing syrup to the congested minds coughing abuse and
conflict and spitting terror and violence. — Rao, 2012: vii

References
Howard, V.R. (2013). Gandhi’s Ascetic Activism: Renunciation and Social Action. New York:
Sunny Press.
Murty, K.S. (1982). Indian Philosophy Since 1498. Visakhapatnam: Andhra University
Press.
Murty, K.S. & Rao, K.R. (eds.). (1972). Current Trends in Indian Philosophy.
Visakhapatnam: Andhra University Press.
Rao, K.R. (2011). Gandhi and Applied Spirituality. New Delhi: Matrix Publishers.
——— (2012). Foreword. Proceedings of Gandhirama 2012. New Delhi: ICPR.
Narayan, S. (ed.). (1968). The Selected Works of Mahatma Gandhi. vol. VI: The Voice of
Truth. Ahmedabad: Navajivan.