a Hindu and mentored by a Jain, encounters with Christians, Jews, Muslims and Parsis had encouraged him to see his faith in broader, more comparative terms.
These public talks reported the progress of his religious education. Gandhi began with Hinduism, which, he argued, rested on three pillars: the importance of caste in social matters; the importance of pantheism in religious matters; and the importance of self-denial in ethical matters. Gandhi referred in passing to the rise and fall of Buddhism in India, and also mentioned Jainism, whose ‘most remarkable characteristic was its scrupulous regard for all things that lived’.
Gandhi’s second lecture was on Islam, whose keynote was ‘its levelling spirit’. Its ‘doctrine of equality could not but appeal to the masses, who were caste-ridden. To this inherent strength was also added the power of the sword.’ It thus won many converts in India. However, ‘in keeping with the spirit of Hinduism’, attempts were made to ‘bring about reconciliation between the two faiths’. Among these reconcilers in medieval India were the poet Kabir and the emperor Akbar.
The third lecture dealt with the advent of Christianity in India. European missionaries, admitted Gandhi, had ‘pointed out some of the glaring defects in Hinduism’, such as caste discrimination and the subordination of women. The last talk observed that ‘there have been three assaults on Hinduism’, in the form of Buddhism, Islam and Christianity,yet ‘on the whole it came out of it unscathed. It has tried to imbibe whatever was good in each of these religions.’
The reaction of the white Theosophists in the audience is unrecorded. However, when the talks were printed, they provoked a torrent of criticism by Muslims, who said Gandhi had insulted Islam by suggesting its converts were of low caste origin. One critic claimed that the ancestors of the Bohras, a prominent community of Muslim traders in Gujarat, had been Brahmin priests. Another observed that ‘the statement that the lower classes of Hindus had been converted to Islam is not supported by any Urdu or Gujarati books on Indian history’ and are ‘figments of Hindu imagination’. A third charged Gandhi with laying excessive stress on the ‘bad deeds’ of Islam. His writings had ‘hurt the feelings of Muslims’; they were ‘unbecoming of a worthy person’.
At Gandhi’s initiative, the critics had their views aired in
Indian Opinion
. He pointed out in reply that ‘no stigma attaches to Islam if the Hindus of the lower castes became Muslims. On the contrary, it shows its excellence, of which the Muslims should be proud.’ He insisted that ‘to me, personally, there is no distinction between a Brahmin and a
bhangi
[low-caste scavenger]. And I consider it a merit of Islam that those who were dissatisfied with the social distinctions in Hinduism were able to better their condition by embracing Islam.’
The debate carried on for weeks, in public and in private. As the editor of
Indian Opinion
, Gandhi would have the last word. He had come across a piece in a journal called the
Christian World
, which argued that ‘religion, by a hundred different names and forms, has been dropping the one seed into the human heart, opening the one truth as the mind was able to receive it.’ Gandhi commented that this ‘growing spirit of toleration of all religions is a happy augury of the future’. To this spirit of ecumenism,
India, with its ancient religions, has much to give, and the bond of unity between us can best be fostered by a whole-hearted sympathy and appreciation of each other’s form of religion. A greater toleration on this important question would mean a wider charity in our everyday relations, and the existing misunderstandings would be swept away. Is it not also a fact that between Mahomedan and Hindu there is a great need for this toleration? Sometimes one is inclined to think it even greater than between East and West. Let not
These public talks reported the progress of his religious education. Gandhi began with Hinduism, which, he argued, rested on three pillars: the importance of caste in social matters; the importance of pantheism in religious matters; and the importance of self-denial in ethical matters. Gandhi referred in passing to the rise and fall of Buddhism in India, and also mentioned Jainism, whose ‘most remarkable characteristic was its scrupulous regard for all things that lived’.
Gandhi’s second lecture was on Islam, whose keynote was ‘its levelling spirit’. Its ‘doctrine of equality could not but appeal to the masses, who were caste-ridden. To this inherent strength was also added the power of the sword.’ It thus won many converts in India. However, ‘in keeping with the spirit of Hinduism’, attempts were made to ‘bring about reconciliation between the two faiths’. Among these reconcilers in medieval India were the poet Kabir and the emperor Akbar.
The third lecture dealt with the advent of Christianity in India. European missionaries, admitted Gandhi, had ‘pointed out some of the glaring defects in Hinduism’, such as caste discrimination and the subordination of women. The last talk observed that ‘there have been three assaults on Hinduism’, in the form of Buddhism, Islam and Christianity,yet ‘on the whole it came out of it unscathed. It has tried to imbibe whatever was good in each of these religions.’
The reaction of the white Theosophists in the audience is unrecorded. However, when the talks were printed, they provoked a torrent of criticism by Muslims, who said Gandhi had insulted Islam by suggesting its converts were of low caste origin. One critic claimed that the ancestors of the Bohras, a prominent community of Muslim traders in Gujarat, had been Brahmin priests. Another observed that ‘the statement that the lower classes of Hindus had been converted to Islam is not supported by any Urdu or Gujarati books on Indian history’ and are ‘figments of Hindu imagination’. A third charged Gandhi with laying excessive stress on the ‘bad deeds’ of Islam. His writings had ‘hurt the feelings of Muslims’; they were ‘unbecoming of a worthy person’.
At Gandhi’s initiative, the critics had their views aired in
Indian Opinion
. He pointed out in reply that ‘no stigma attaches to Islam if the Hindus of the lower castes became Muslims. On the contrary, it shows its excellence, of which the Muslims should be proud.’ He insisted that ‘to me, personally, there is no distinction between a Brahmin and a
bhangi
[low-caste scavenger]. And I consider it a merit of Islam that those who were dissatisfied with the social distinctions in Hinduism were able to better their condition by embracing Islam.’
The debate carried on for weeks, in public and in private. As the editor of
Indian Opinion
, Gandhi would have the last word. He had come across a piece in a journal called the
Christian World
, which argued that ‘religion, by a hundred different names and forms, has been dropping the one seed into the human heart, opening the one truth as the mind was able to receive it.’ Gandhi commented that this ‘growing spirit of toleration of all religions is a happy augury of the future’. To this spirit of ecumenism,
India, with its ancient religions, has much to give, and the bond of unity between us can best be fostered by a whole-hearted sympathy and appreciation of each other’s form of religion. A greater toleration on this important question would mean a wider charity in our everyday relations, and the existing misunderstandings would be swept away. Is it not also a fact that between Mahomedan and Hindu there is a great need for this toleration? Sometimes one is inclined to think it even greater than between East and West. Let not
Similar Books
