In Young India (January 21, 1926), Mahatma Gandhi responded to three probing questions that challenged the consistency of his beliefs on caste, philosophical diversity, and God. His replies, found in the Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol. 29, pp. 410–412, reflect not only his personal convictions but also the broader spirit of Hinduism—a tradition known more for its elasticity and accommodation than for strict doctrinal coherence. Though one is free to disagree with him—or even with oneself—his answers remain deeply instructive.
Though I provide only a summary of these three points, it is best to read Mahatmaji’s full response to the original questions in CWMG, Vol. 29, pp. 410–412.
- On Caste and the Fourfold Order
Gandhi affirms the traditional fourfold varna system (Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Sudra) as a law of nature, rooted in heredity and human disposition. While he acknowledges the present-day caste system as a distortion of its original intent, he resists discarding the concept altogether. In his view, one’s caste identity is shaped by birth and past actions, but moral conduct can transcend these limits. A true Brahmin, for example, must embody the virtues of all varnas, particularly divine knowledge and selfless service. Though controversial, Gandhi’s defense of the system is grounded in a desire to uphold what he sees as an organic, though corrupted, social order.
- On Advaita and Plural Perspectives
While professing Advaita Vedanta (non-dualism), Gandhi also embraces other perspectives, including Dvaita (dualism). For him, the world is simultaneously real and unreal—real because it persists, unreal because it is ever-changing. This openness is not the product of formal philosophical training but of lived experience. His personal form of anekantavada—the doctrine of the manyness of reality—enables him to see the partial truth in all viewpoints. He compares this to the parable of the blind men and the elephant: each perspective is valid from its own angle. This humility allows him to respect critics and love opponents, recognizing their vision as sincere even when it differs from his own.
- On the Nature of God
Gandhi’s understanding of God draws from the same pluralistic impulse. He sees God as both creative and non-creative, shaped by different theological traditions—from the impersonal Absolute of Jainism to the personal Creator of Ramanuja’s Vishishtadvaita. For Gandhi, all descriptions of God fall short, as humans are bound to speak inadequately about the Unspeakable. Faith, not reason, is the bridge to the Divine. His belief is rooted in experience, not debate, and he affirms that God “is, was, and ever shall be.” Yet he also defends the freedom of those who deny God’s existence, trusting in the compassion of a God who does not coerce belief. Such freedom, he believes, is the truest sign of Divine majesty.
Ashram, July 21, 2025
From CWMG. This is only the response given by Mahatmaji:
1In accepting the fourfold division, I am simply accepting the laws of Nature, taking for granted what is inherent in human nature, and the law of heredity. We are born with some of the traits of our parents. The fact that a human being is born only in the human species shows that some characteristics, i.e., caste is determined by birth. There is scope enough for freedom of the will inasmuch as we can to a certain extent reform some of our inherited characteristics. It is not possible in one birth entirely to undo the results of our past doings, and in the light of it, it is in every way right and proper to regard him as a Brahmin who is born of Brahmin parents. A Brahmin may by doing the deeds of a Sudra become a Sudra in this very (p. 410) birth, but the world loves nothing in continuing to treat him as a Brahmin. Caste as it exists today is no doubt a travesty of the original fourfold division which only defined men’s different callings. And this trifling with it has been its undoing. But how can I, for that reason, discard the law of Nature which I see being fulfilled at every step? I know that if I discard it, I would be rid of a lot of trouble. But that would be an idle short-cut. I have declared from the house-tops that a man’s caste is no matter for pride, that no superiority attaches to any of the four divisions. A true Brahmin will feel it an honour to serve the lowliest of Sudras. In fact, a Brahmin, to be a Brahmin, should have the qualities of a Kshatriya, a Vaishya, and a Sudra plus his own. Only he should predominantly be a man of divine knowledge. But caste today is in the crucible, and only heaven knows, or perhaps the Brahmins know, the final result.
2I am an advaitist and yet I can support dvaitism (dualism). The world is changing every moment, and is therefore unreal, it has no permanent existence. But though it is constantly changing, it has something about it which persists and it is therefore in that extent real. I have therefore no objection to calling it real and unreal, and thus being called an anekantvadi 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 Musalman from his own standpoint and a Christian from his. Formerly I used to resent the ignorance of my opponents. Today I can love them because I am gifted with the eye to see myself as others see me and vice versa. I want to take the whole world in the embrace of my love. My anekantavada is the result of the twin doctrine of Satya and Ahimsa.
3I talk of God exactly as I believe Him to be. I beguile people into error and work my own perdition. I seek no reward from them. I believe God to be creative and non-creative. This too is the result of my acceptance of the doctrine (p.411) of the manyness of reality. From the platform of the Jains, I prove the non-creative aspect of God, and from that of Ramanuja the creative aspect. As a matter of fact, we are all thinking of the Unthinkable, describing the Indescribable, seeking to know the Unknown, and that is why our speech falters, is inadequate and even often contradictory. Then why do the Vedas describe Brahman as “not this”, “not this”? But if He or It is not this, He or It is. If we exist, if our parents and their parents have existed, then it is proper to believe in the Parent of the whole creation. If He is not, we are nowhere. And that is why all of us with one voice call one God differently as Paramatma, Ishwara, Shiva, Vishnu, Rama, Allah, Khuda, Dada Hormuzda, Jehovah, God, and an infinite variety of names. He is one and yet many; He is smaller than an atom, and bigger than the Himalayas; He is contained even in a drop of the ocean, and yet not even the seven seas can compass Him. Reason is powerless to know Him. He is beyond the reach or grasp of reason. But I need not labour the point. Faith is essential in this matter. My logic can make and unmake innumerable hypotheses. An atheist might floor me in a debate. But my faith runs so very much faster than my reason that I can challenge the whole world and say, “God is, was and ever shall be.”
But those who want to deny His existence are at liberty to do so. He is merciful and compassionate. He is not an earthly king needing an army to make us accept His sway. He allows us freedom, and yet His compassion commands obedience to His will. But if any one of us disdains to bow to His will, He says: ‘So be it. My sun will shine no less for thee, my clouds will rain no less for thee. I need not force thee to accept my sway.’ Of such a God let the ignorant dispute the existence. I am one of the millions of wise men who believe in Him and am never tired of bowing to Him and singing His glory.
Young India, 21-1-1926, 142. THREE VITAL QUESTIONS, in CWMG, vol. 29, pp. 410-412, www.mkgandhi.org
Leave a Reply