Mahatma Gandhi’s stance on Freedom of Expression offers valuable guidance: if our words or actions hurt the [religious] sentiments of others, we should refrain from making such comparisons. His approach promotes harmony and mutual respect in a diverse society. However, this raises an important question: can one still exercise personal freedom to hold and express views, even when doing so might hurt someone’s sentiments on matters like God, country, or language?
For example, my perspective on language sometimes conflicts with those who venerate their mother tongue as if it were divine. Take Tamil, for instance. As a Tamilian, I deeply love my mother tongue and cherish its richness across literature, culture, and beyond. However, I do not subscribe to the belief that Tamil holds a uniquely perfect status, untouched by external influences—a claim made by the so called ‘Pure Tamil Movement’ [or Only Tamil not mixing with words from other languages]. While I respect such sentiments and might keep my views private to avoid offending others, there are limits. When this veneration turns into fanaticism—degrading other languages and considering them inferior to Tamil—I feel compelled to voice my perspective. Respecting sentiments should not come at the cost of enabling intolerance or promoting falsehoods.
This dilemma also applies to my admiration for Mahatmaji. I revere him as one of my Gurujis, and I would not hesitate to compare him with prophets or even God. Such comparisons, however, may provoke discomfort in some communities. For instance, Muslims have exclusive beliefs about Prophet Muhammad and Allah, and I respect their sentiment. At the same time, as a Hindu, I see no reason why comparing Mahatmaji to Rama or Krishna should offend other Hindus. According to Hindu philosophy, parents come first, followed by gurus, and then God. This hierarchy does not mean that parents or gurus replace God, but rather acknowledges their role as guides who lead us to the divine.
That said, comparisons involving Mahatmaji and figures like Jesus Christ or Prophet Muhammad are made from my personal worldview. Others should respect this perspective, just as I respect theirs. Freedom of Expression is a two-way street—it requires mutual understanding and tolerance of diverse views.
The debate over Freedom of Expression often revolves around a critical balance: my right to express versus another’s right to not be offended. A useful principle is the golden rule: “My freedom ends where another person’s nose begins.” However, this works both ways. If someone deliberately intrudes into my legitimate space and then accuses me of infringing on their freedom, the issue lies with them, not me. Respecting boundaries is key to ensuring that everyone’s freedoms are upheld.
In expressing these views, I do so with the utmost respect for Mahatmaji. Despite his humility—he repeatedly discouraged people from equating him with prophets, deities, or even the title “Mahatma”—his towering personality naturally inspires reverence. For me, what Mahatmaji achieved through his life is far more significant than the specifics of his words, writings, or personal struggles within the context of his time.
I understand that others may hold opposing views, and I welcome them. My response is simple: let us agree to disagree. Freedom of Expression thrives on this principle. It allows each individual the space to express their views within their own domain, without unwarranted interference. As Indians—and particularly as Hindus—we hold to the timeless mantra: “Live and Let Live.” This principle, despite our limitations, offers a pathway to harmony in a diverse and dynamic society.
Gurukulam 18-12-2024
See below for the article Freedom of Expression by Mahatmaji
270. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
TO THE EDITOR, Young India
SIR,
While commenting on the Tibbya College incident in the Young India on the 10th April you write1 : “The Muslim student who took exception to the comparison was after all justified in so doing.” I do not know what exactly happened in the Tibbya College on the day of the celebration of Mr. Gandhi’s birthday, but accepting what Dr. Ansari writes as the true version of the incident, I feel it is difficult to agree with you in your comment. No harm seems to have been meant or done to anyone when. Mr. Gandhi was compared to Jesus Christ. It may not be necessary for the purpose of honouring a man, as you write, to compare him with revered prophets, but at times to bring home to the audience or the public the greatness of an individual, comparison with other honoured men or revered prophets is neither unnatural nor unbecoming. Mr. Andrews has on many occasions declared Mr. Gandhi to be a true picture of Jesus Christ. It is quite possible that the person compared may not be worthy of a place of equality with revered prophets. That is quite a different matter. But how can one justifiably take exception to the principle of comparison itself? The Muslim student in the Tibbya College might be considering Mr. Gandhi to be unworthy of comparison with Jesus Christ; if so, he was quiet welcome to hold his view and to declare it before the audience, as the Hindu student should have been welcome to hold his. We can understand such a difference of opinion. No one has a quarrel with it. But here the case was quite different. It was not that the Muslim student disagreed with the Hindu student in the latter’s estimate of Mr. Gandhi’s worth when he compared him with Jesus Christ, but that be objected to such a comparison itself, observing that no living person, however eminent in all respects, should be compared to prophets. One fails to understand how such an objection can be held to be justifiable. Previous prophets were human beings and the like of them may now be amongst us and are sure to come hereafter. What harm is there if comparisons are made of living saints or great men whom some may consider to be prophets with those that have gone before? Intellectually, ethically or spiritually, there is nothing wrong in doing so.
A person compared to previous prophets may out of modesty disclaim such a comparison, but that is beside the issue. I think, therefore, that to hold the Muslim student’s objection as justifiable is to curtail the freedom of expression and to indirectly encourage the prevailing spirit of intolerance
- Vide “Campaign of Misrepresentation”, 10-4-1924.
which, I am sure, is very far from what you desire.
I am, etc.,
GHANASHYAM JETHANAND
HIRABAD,
HYDERABAD (SIND)
I fear I must adhere to the opinion I have expressed to which Mr. Ghanashyam takes exception. It was not out of false modesty that I gave it. If I felt shy or awkward, I might not have noticed the incident, but I would not even out of modesty, false or otherwise, mislead the reader and thus deviate from the ethics of journalism which requires a fearless expression of true opinion. It will not be denied that to say what offends another is against ethics and certainly against spirituality if the saying is not required in the interest of truth. I hardly think it can be argued that it was in the interest of truth to make the comparison referred to. Whilst I think that such comparisons are undesirable, I admit that to object to them when they are actually made may be a mark of INTOLERANCE. But the Muslim student, knowing how it wounded many Mussalmans, rightly objected. He showed his good sense by apologizing when his objection offended the Hindu student. We would but feed the fire of intolerance if we insist, in the name of freedom of opinion, on expressing those opinions which are likely to wound some. I may inform Mr. Ghanashyam that, shortly before I was in prison, a devout Hindu wrote a letter strongly protesting against my being compared to Krishna and Rama. I certainly agreed with my correspondent that such comparisons should not be made. I can fully sympathize with orthodox Vaishnavas feeling offended at comparisons which outrage their religious sense. what I plead for is extreme and delicate consideration for the feelings and susceptibilities of others. If, in the name of tolerance, we began to swear at one another’s deities, we would be copying the fabled economist who killed the goose that laid the golden eggs. [emphasis added]
Young India, 24-4-1924
Leave a Reply