Many scholars have written about the “clashes of civilization.” But what Mahatma Gandhiji said, based on his personal experience and observation, continues to echo—especially today, in 2025, when those same clashes are still very much alive.
Once, when a Western reporter asked, “Mr. Gandhi, what do you think of Western civilization?” Gandhi famously replied, “I think it would be a good idea!”
Idea or not, the ongoing global actions of the West—particularly those shaped by American white supremacy—suggest that this “clash” is far from over.
And yet, there are cracks. There are signs of change. The spirit of the East—especially through the cultural resilience and entrepreneurial vigor of Indians—is quietly making inroads. Perhaps not to overthrow the West, but to bring balance, and to humanize what has long been dominated by brute power and material ambition. As the poet said, “Miles to go before we sleep”—and so, we stay awake and alert, striving to be the best antidote to a worldview that sees only conflict where others might hope for peace. I say this not with arrogance, hegemony, or a condescending attitude toward other civilizations, but in the spirit of the core value our civilization has long upheld—our maha mantra: “Live and Let Live.” It is in this spirit that I share these thoughts.
This ongoing conversation between civilizations isn’t frozen in Gandhi’s time. It continues, reshaped by new voices and new strategies. The same moral clarity that Gandhi carried into the courts and streets of South Africa is now carried into academic forums, diplomatic arenas, and international debates—not with bitterness, but with intelligence, irony, and dignity.
And at present, some Indian leaders like Dr. Shashi Tharoor [Congress M. P.] and Dr. S. Jaishankar (External Affairs Minister) are doing exactly that—not raising their voice merely from India, but going right into the heart of the West, and that too using the very same tool that the “white man’s burden” gave us in their attempt to civilize us: Western education in English. And several Indian writers like Manu S. Pillai, through their scholarly work, are exposing this as well. As a digression, I have to say this: though Manu’s title focuses more on The Making of the Modern Hindu Identity,2 he has done remarkable work showing how these “clashes of civilization” shaped our modern identity. Of course, we are doing this with the Gandhian spirit of reform—and not with Trump’s brand of triumphalism or better to call it: Trumpalism!!!
This is not just theory. Gandhiji confronted this worldview head-on during his struggle in South Africa. In his Satyagraha in South Africa, he recounts the arguments made by General Smuts and other European leaders who believed that Western and Eastern civilizations were fundamentally incompatible. They claimed that Indians, with their simplicity, frugality, and patience, threatened the Western way of life—one driven by materialism, impatience, and brute enterprise. These leaders painted the situation not as one of race or trade alone, but as a desperate act of “civilizational self-preservation.”
Gandhiji called these arguments pseudo-philosophical. They might have held practical weight from a position of self-interest, but from a moral or philosophical point of view, they were hollow and hypocritical.
To provide a fuller picture of what Gandhiji was responding to, let me summarize the argument he dealt with during his South African campaign:
Summary of Gandhi’s Analysis in Satyagraha in South Africa, pp. 89–91:
Gandhiji recounts how European leaders like General Smuts believed that Western and Eastern civilizations could not coexist peacefully. According to them, the West valued material expansion, comfort, and enterprise, while the East stood for simplicity, self-restraint, and patience. The argument wasn’t just about race or economics—it was framed as a civilizational crisis. They feared that if Orientals, especially Indians, settled in large numbers, the Western way of life would collapse.3
Gandhi challenged these fears, calling them “pseudo-philosophical”—motivated by self-interest rather than truth. He argued that while Westerners feared the East, the East was open to dialogue and contact. For Gandhi, a true civilization is not afraid of being tested or transformed. He exposed how Western civilization, in trying to preserve itself, became obsessed with power—”the predominance of might over right”—and warned against such a foundation. He called for a broader, more patient understanding of Satyagraha, rooted in humility, pluralism, and truth.
And yet, Gandhi was not bitter. He did not reduce his opponents to villains. Instead, he reminded us that arguments reflect mentality, and mentality reflects one’s position. “As is a man’s conduct, such is his understanding,” he said, echoing an ancient Tamil truth:
வெள்ளத் தனைய மலர்நீட்டம் மாந்தர்தம்
உள்ளத் தனையது உயர்வு.— குறள் 595
(“The water’s depth determines the lotus’s height; likewise, the elevation of a person’s thought mirrors the depth of their inner being.” — Thirukkural)
Even now, in the so-called civilized age, these age-old mentalities endure. The West still struggles to live up to the spiritual ideals it claims to uphold—ideals grounded in the teachings of love and peace found in its own Scriptures. If only it could awaken to them, rather than continue to assert dominance through political rhetoric and economic control.
To be clear, Gandhi never judged harshly. He reminded us: if we were in their shoes, we might behave the same way. As someone once said, “Whatever one may preach, when it comes to money, everybody has the same religion.” One could replace “money” with anything that becomes our personal religion—whether nation, race, economy, or ego.
It is tempting to gather historical excerpts about the white man’s burden—the arrogant mission to civilize “the Rest.” While I’m tempted to include more points, we live in an age where information is readily accessible. A simple search could keep one engaged for a lifetime on this topic. Still, I find it hard to resist the urge to write a separate article on it.
But the deeper question remains: Can we, as Easterners—or simply as human beings—offer a different response? Can we demonstrate that civilization is not measured by conquest, but by conscience? Not by power, but by peace?
That, perhaps, is the real work of those who walk the path of Satyagraha today.
Final Reflection
Perhaps, in the long arc of history, true civilization is not something to clash over, but something to be humbled into. For those of us who have inherited both wounds and wisdom, the calling is not revenge or superiority, but reform with grace. If the West listens, and if we speak without fear, maybe one day there will be no “Rest” left to civilize—only the shared work of rehumanizing what has been dehumanized. That would be Gandhi’s dream—and our unfinished task of Satyagraha today, embracing the world as one family – Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam – without triumphalism or TRUMPALISM”
Ashram, June 21, 2025
Notes
1— Krishna Dutta & Andrew Robinson, Rabindranath Tagore, The myriad-minded man, New Delhi, Rupa Paperback, 2000. p.237
3 Of course this actually happening as feared and resisted by people like Trump
Appendix: from Satyagraha in South Africa
…The human intellect delights in inventing specious arguments in order to support injustice itself, and the South African Europeans were no exception to this general rule. These were the arguments advanced by General Smuts and others: “South Africa is a representative of Western civilization while India is the centre of Oriental culture. Thinkers of the present generation hold that these two civilizations cannot go together. If nations representing these rival cultures meet even in small groups, the result will only be an explosion. The West is opposed to simplicity while Orientals consider that virtue to be of primary importance. How can these opposite views be reconciled? It is not the business of statesmen, practical men as they are, to adjudicate upon their relative merits. Western civilization may or may not be good, but Westerners wish to stick to it. They have made tireless endeavours to save that civilization. They have shed rivers of blood for its sake. They have suffered great hardships in its cause. It is therefore too late for them now to chalk out a new path for themselves. Thus considered, the Indian question cannot be resolved into one trade jealously or race hatred. The problem is simply one of preserving one’s own civilization, that is of enjoying the supreme right of self-preservation and discharging the corresponding duty. Some public speakers may like to inflame the Europeans by finding fault with Indians, but political thinkers believe and say that the very qualities of Indians count for defects in South Africa. The Indians are disliked in South Africa for their simplicity, patience, perseverance, frugality and other worldliness. Westerners are enterprising, impatient, engrossed in multiplying their material wants and in satisfying them, fond of good cheer, anxious to save physical labour and prodigal in habits. They are therefore afraid that if thousands of Orientals settled in South Africa, the Westerners must go to the wall. Westerners in South Africa are not prepared to (p. 89) commit suicide and their leaders will not permit them to be reduced to such straits.” I believe I have impartially recapitulated the arguments urged by men of the highest character among the Europeans. I have characterized their arguments as pseudo-philosophical, but I do not thereby wish to suggest that they are groundless. From a practical point of view, that is to say, from the standpoint of immediate self-interest they have much force. But from the philosophical point of view, they are hypocrisy pure and simple. In my humble opinion, no impartial person could accept such conclusions and no reformer would place his civilization in the position of helplessness in which those who urge these arguments have placed theirs. So far as I am aware, no Eastern thinker fears that if Western nations came in free contact with Orientals, Oriental culture would be swept away like sand by the onrushing tide of Western civilization. So far as I have a grasp of Eastern thought it seems to me that Oriental civilization not only does not fear but would positively welcome free contact with Western civilization. If contrary instances can be met with in the East, they do not affect the principle I have laid down, for a number of illustrations can be cited in its support. However that may be, Western thinkers claim that the foundation of Western civilization is the predominance of might over right. Therefore it is that the protagonists of that civilization devote most of their time to the conservation of brute force. These thinkers likewise assert that the nations which do not increase their material wants are doomed to destruction. It is in pursuance of these principles that Western nations have settled in South Africa and subdued the numerically overwhelmingly superior races of South Africa….Thousands of Europeans have admitted in their writings that trade by Indians hits petty (p.89) British traders hard, and that the dislike of the brown races has at present become part and parcel of the mentality of Europeans…..(p.90) The reader will thus see that there is not much substance in the ‘philosophical’ arguments discussed above. But he must not therefore conclude that all those who urge them do so in a hypocritical spirit. Many of them honestly hold these views to be sound. It is possible that if we were placed in their position, we too would advance similar arguments. We have a saying in India that as is a man’s conduct, such is his understanding.[வெள்ளத்து அணையது மலர் நீட்டம்; மாந்தர் தம் உள்ளத்து அணையது உயர்வு –குறள்]] Who is there but has observed that our arguments are but a reflection of our mentality, and that if they do not commend themselves to others, we become dissatisfied, impatient and even indignant? I have deliberately discussed this question with much minuteness, as I wish the reader to understand different points of view and in order that the ; reader, who has so far not done so, may acquire the habit of appreciating and respecting varieties of standpoint. Such large-mindedness and such patience are essential to the understanding of Satyagraha and above all to its practice. Satyagraha is impossible in the absence of these qualities.(p. 91)— M. K. Gandhi , Satyagraha in South Africa, THE SELECTED WORKS OF MAHATMA GANDHI, VOLUME TWO, TRANSLATED FROM THE GUJARATI BY VALJI GOVINDJI DESAI. From
www.mkgandhi.org pp. 89-91
Appendix Two
I have collected extensive notes from scholarly works on civilization, particularly Western civilization. Compiling and presenting even a small portion of them would require considerable space. Since much of this information is now readily available online, I turned to ChatGPT for a brief summary, which is presented below. This summary was generated entirely by ChatGPT, accessed on June 21, 2025. The study of civilization is both important and fascinating, as it not only shapes our identity but continues to sustain the way we live today.Although I sought assistance from ChatGPT for this summary, I cross-verified all the points using reliable websites and also integrated my own notes and insights.
Appendix Two: The Civilizing Mission – British and Western Ideologies
1. The “White Man’s Burden”
The phrase “white man’s burden” comes from the title of a poem by Rudyard Kipling (1899), written during the American annexation of the Philippines. Though aimed at the U.S., it became a slogan for British imperialism as well. The idea was that it was the moral duty of the Western (especially Anglo-Saxon) race to civilize, educate, and govern “lesser” peoples around the world.
“Take up the White Man’s burden—
Send forth the best ye breed—
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives’ need;”
— Rudyard Kipling, 1899
The poem is steeped in paternalism and racial superiority. It portrays imperial domination as a selfless, sacrificial duty—when in fact it masked exploitation and domination behind a moral veil.
2. British Imperial Civilization
British colonial ideology justified its global empire through a narrative of civilizing the uncivilized. This was closely tied to Victorian ideals of progress, rationality, Christianity, and industrialization. Education, law, railways, and bureaucracy were framed not only as tools of governance but also as signs of British benevolence. However, beneath these structures lay violence, cultural erasure, and economic control.
Famous figures like Lord Macaulay, in his infamous Minute on Indian Education (1835), dismissed Indian knowledge systems and proposed replacing them with English education to create a class of Indians who would be “Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect.”
“We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern…”
— T. B. Macaulay, 1835&
This was the heart of the colonial civilizing project: to replace, assimilate, and dominate—not out of barbarism, but in the name of progress.
3. Western Civilization and the Huntington Thesis
In modern political discourse, Samuel P. Huntington’s book,
The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (1996, Simon & Schuster), revived the idea that civilizations have fundamental, often irreconcilable, differences.
“The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.”
— Huntington, p. 28
According to Huntington, the West’s values—liberalism, secularism, individualism—are not universal but reflect a specific historical trajectory. He warned that conflicts with Islamic, Sinic (Chinese), and other civilizations were not just political or economic, but civilizational. His work, though controversial, echoes the earlier fears Gandhi exposed: that cultural contact is not always embraced with humility or curiosity, but with defensiveness and fear.
Notes
&…Thomas Babington Macaulay (scion of a famous Evangelical family) in his well-know Minute on Indian education of 1835. It aimed, in Macaulay’s words, through English-medium instruction in the arts and sciences of Europe, to form an elite class that we “Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect” (Macaulay, Minute on Indian education. Reprinted in Selected writings, ed. John Clive and Thomas Pinnery, 237-251. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1972 1835:249), what [George] Smith (India and comparative philology. Calcutta review 29: 229-279. 1857:251)… called the “middle the Anglicised class” of Indians. The government of India, unable to educate the mass of Indians directly, would do so indirectly through this class; by a process of “filtration” or interpretation, European learning would be conveyed to the Indian masses by their Anglicized betters (Macaulay 1835:249). English not only is the language of India’s rulers but has become a repository of the best of European thought….—— Thomas R. Trautmann, Aryans and British India, New Delhi, Yoda Press, 2004, p.111
Leave a Reply