It is surprising to learn that Mahatma Gandhi, despite his extensive reading and engagement with Indians of various religious communities in South Africa and later in India, was unaware of the presence of untouchability among Christians in India. Before joining the Freedom Movement, he travelled extensively across India, as advised by his mentor, Gopal Krishna Gokhale.
What Gandhi wrote a century ago still holds true—not only within Hinduism but also among non-Hindus, including para-Hindu traditions like Buddhism and Sikhism
This reflects the pervasive Dharmic influence on Indian society, which is rooted more in sociology than theology. While it may seem like a bold assertion, my understanding is that most religions with a theological foundation shaped their societies after their emergence. In contrast, Indian society—particularly Hinduism—evolved first and accommodated various faith expressions. It neither compromised doctrinal differences nor ignored the Dharmic values that underpin this civilization. Though some attempt to trace the origins of varna and jati (social divisions) to Hindu religious scriptures like the Vedasnd Dharma Shastras, it is widely recognized that these social divisions predated their theological codification—whether for good or ill.
Even later sampradayas like Srivaishnavism and Bhakti movementssuch as the Kabir Panth, which sought to address caste discrimination, could not entirely escape the sociological influence of the Dharmic order. Kabir, for example, vehemently opposed caste, yet caste divisions persist among his followers. Similarly, while Ramanuja of the Srivaishnava tradition is credited with integrating shudras into his fold, caste distinctions are often more rigidly enforced there than in broader Hindu society. The same can be observed in Sikhism, which, despite its emphasis on equality, reflects elements of the Dharmic sociological framework in practice.
Understanding this distinction is crucial. Religions like Christianity typically form societies based on their theological tenets, whereas Indian society comprises diverse sampradayas (traditions) shaped by sociological frameworks. A comparable analogy might be Pakistan, where the military governs the state, unlike other countries where the military serves the state. This Dharmic influence, including issues like untouchability, persists and adapts in various forms. Today, wealth, status, and education are gradually replacing traditional forms of discrimination. As long as human value is assessed by comparison with others, such inequities will remain, despite reformers like Mahatma Gandhi dedicating their lives to eradicating them.
Hinduism, with its unique nature, has long demonstrated an openness to reformers from outside its fold. Unlike many Abrahamic faiths, where reform efforts from outsiders might be met with resistance or viewed as interference, Hinduism has consistently welcomed those from different religious or non-religious backgrounds who seek to address its social issues. Mahatma Gandhi’s approach to the Vaikom Satyagraha, while emphasizing the need for internal reform by Hindus themselves, also revealed the capacity of Hindus to cooperate with reformers such as Sri George Joseph, a Christian, despite Gandhi’s reservations. This highlights an important truth: Hinduism’s inclusive spirit allows for collaboration across faiths in addressing social injustices, as long as the reform serves the collective good of society.
The contrast with Abrahamic traditions is striking. In those faiths, the idea of external reformers playing a central role is often seen with suspicion or resistance, as religious purity and doctrinal adherence are paramount. However, Hinduism’s more fluid, sociological approach to religious expression makes room for outside involvement in its reform movements, without requiring uniformity in belief. This openness has allowed reformers from all walks of life—whether Hindu or not—to play a crucial role in shaping the trajectory of Indian society, as seen in the Vaikom Satyagraha, where even an atheist like Periyar E. V. Ramasamy worked toward the common goal of ending untouchability.
Reform, in the context of Hinduism, is not confined to doctrinal boundaries but extends to a broader, collective responsibility. Whether a reformer is Hindu, Christian, or from a completely different background, the focus remains on the greater cause of justice and equality. This inclusivity and openness to reform, regardless of religious affiliation, is what makes Hinduism a living, evolving tradition—one that continually adapts to societal needs and welcomes the participation of all who seek to improve it.
288. VAIKOM SATYAGRAHA
Vaikom Satyagraha has attracted such wide public attention and, though restricted to a small area, presents so many problems for solution that I offer no apology to the reader for constantly engaging his attention for it.
- have received several important and well-thought-out letters protesting against my countenancing it in any way whatsoever. One such letter even urges me to use whatever influence I may have for stopping it altogether. I am sorry that I am unable to publish all these letters. But I hope to cover all the points raised in these letters or otherwise brought to my notice.
The first may be cleared at once. Exception has been taken to Mr. George Joseph¾a Christian¾having been allowed to replace Mr. Menon as leader and organiser. In my humble opinion the exception is perfectly valid. As soon as I heard that Mr. Joseph was ‘invited to take the lead’ and he contemplated taking it, I wrote to him as follows on 6th April:
As to Vaikom, I think that you shall let the Hindus do the work. It is they who have to purify themselves. You can help by your sympathy and by your pen, but not by organizing the movement and certainly not by offering satyagraha. If you refer to the Congress resolution of Nagpur, it calls upon the Hindu members to remove the curse of untouchability. I was surprised to learn from Mr. Andrews that the disease had infected even the Syrian Christians.1
Unfortunately, before the letter could reach him, Mr. Menon was arrested and Mr. George Joseph had taken his place. But he had nothing to expiate, as every Hindu has in the matter of untouchability as countenanced by the Hindus. His sacrifice cannot be appropriated by the Hindus in general as expiation made, say, by Malaviyaji would be. Untouchability is the sin of the Hindus. They must suffer for it, they must purify themselves, they must pay the debt they owe their suppressed brothers and sisters. Theirs is the shame and theirs must be the glory when they have purged themselves of the black sin. The silent, loving suffering of one single pure Hindu as such will be enough to melt the hearts of millions of Hindus; but the sufferings of thousands of non-Hindus in behalf of the untouchables will leave the Hindus unmoved. Their blind eyes will not be opened by outside (p. 321)interference, however well-intentioned and generous it may be; for it will not bring home to them the sense of guilt. On the contrary, they would probably hug the sin all the more for such interference. All reform to be sincere and lasting must come from within….
Young India, 1-5-1924, CWMG, Vol. 27, pp. 321-322
Leave a Reply