A Brahmin Reformer, Gandhiji’s Response, and the Unmasking of Pseudo-Intolerance
The Brahmin correspondent who wrote to Young India—claiming to represent the voice of Hindu reform—ended up exposing more of his own hypocrisy than achieving any genuine reformative insight. While he began his letter in the name of Reason and Reform, he ultimately descended into a tirade that reeked not of introspective conviction but of veiled communal incitement.
The author, identifying himself as a Hindu of the highest Brahmin caste, criticizes his own community for its moral decay, ritualism, and hypocrisy. Yet his concluding appeal—to take up arms and abandon what he sees as cowardly ahimsa—makes one question his true intentions. Was this truly a call to moral regeneration? Or was it a cleverly disguised instigation to provoke educated Hindus toward intolerance—first against their own kind, and then, more dangerously, against other faith communities?
Mahatma Gandhi, with his characteristic grace and insight, offered a response that didn’t just rebut the letter—it dismantled its entire spirit. He neither denied the reality of internal problems within Hindu society nor the failures of some Hindus in living up to the ideals of their own tradition. But Gandhi made it abundantly clear that such failings cannot and must not be met with violence.
He reminded the writer that true reform begins with the self: “Physician, heal thyself,” he said, is a sound and necessary doctrine. Resorting to arms, Gandhi warned, would not purify the Hindu conscience, abolish untouchability, or heal the fracture of countless sub-castes. It would only deepen the wounds under the guise of healing them.
If, as the writer claimed, “God is Reason,” then surely the appeal must be to reason, not to the sword. Gandhi suspected that the writer’s frustration had less to do with internal reform and more to do with the rising Hindu-Muslim tensions of the time. In that light, the call to “take up arms” sounded eerily like a justification for communal violence.
Gandhi did not flinch from calling out cowardice masquerading as ahimsa. But he also didn’t hesitate to call out false bravery dressed in the robes of reform. Those who avoid violence out of fear, he said, do not represent ahimsa at all. At the same time, those who promote violence to assert moral superiority only succeed in corrupting the deepest truths of spiritual life.
The Brahmin reformer may have intended to strike at Hindu hypocrisy, but in the process, he scored a goal against his own side. His rhetoric began with the spirit of reform but ended in the flesh of intolerance. That is the tragedy of many would-be reformers who fail to recognize that the line between reform and provocation is thin—and dangerous.
We have seen such pseudo-reformers emerge in every generation. Some succeed briefly in agitating sections of society, but ultimately, they either disappear or come to realize that in a pluralistic, deeply rooted civilization like India, such ideologies are self-defeating. And thankfully, from time to time, true Mahatmas arise—not to silence these voices, but to unmask them with truth and humility.
It is no shame to begin as an innocent fool. But to be persuaded to remain one—while others feed your pride and provoke your passions—is among life’s cruelest deceptions. It is far better to accept correction and become wise than to be flattered into permanent foolishness.
So the question that remains is not the one posed by the Brahmin reformer—“Shall educated Hindus end this game of humbuggism by taking up arms?”—but rather the one Gandhi leaves us with:
Shall we dare to reform ourselves, or shall we, under the illusion of boldness, destroy the very truths we claim to defend?
Conclusion:
What began as a reformist critique ended up, in Gandhi’s eyes, as a self-goal—a misdirected attack from within that did more harm than good. The reformer’s harsh rhetoric, laced with sectarianism and a call to arms, betrayed the very ideals he claimed to uphold.
Gandhi’s reply remains a timeless call for self-examination, moral courage, and principled resistance. In a religiously diverse nation like India, Gandhi warned, intolerance—whether intra-religious or inter-religious—is not only self-defeating but a betrayal of our living civilization.
Ashram, May 22, 2025
Appendix
Notes 245
‘Low Moral Tone’?
A correspondent writes:
I am myself a Hindu and belong to the highest Brahmin class. But I belong to the advanced party. I believe in Reason, for Reason is God and God is Reason. The philosophy of the Hindus which emphasizes the Soham — I am He — doctrine has today built up a barrier which is more impenetrable than the Mt. Everest. The religion that built up its shrine on Mind-Purity is so obscured by the weed growths of ritualism that the real light is hidden from view. The culture that emphasized ‘universal brotherhood under the fatherhood of God’ stands today for the trading of the millions by Brahma’s offspring who have nothing in common but the archaic mythological derivation from the common stock. The ahimsa doctrine has made us sneaking, snivelling cowards. A Hindu never plays fair with a Hindu; a Mohammedan plays fair with a Mohammedan and so does a Christian with a Christian.
A Hindu is more tolerant of other customs outside the Hindu fold — another instance of downright cowardice — a Mohammedan is never tolerant and a Christian seldom. Shall educated Hindus continue this game of humbuggism or by taking up arms end it?
Mahatmaji’s response:
I can throw little light on what the correspondent says but I can advise. Reform must begin with ourselves. ‘Physician heal thyself’ is a sound doctrine. Those who realize the lowness of the moral tone and the presence of cowardice among Hindus may at least begin with themselves. The truth of the charge (p.456) may be generally admitted though not without reservations. But will resort to arms end the evil ? How is the low moral tone to be remedied by the brandishing of the sword ? Can the innumerable sub-castes or untouchability or the often meaningless ritual be removed by force? Will it not be introducing religion by compulsion? If God is reason, then the appeal must be not to the sword but to reason.
Or does the writer refer to the Hindu-Muslim tension and want the Hindus to resort to force of arms? On a close examination, it will be discovered that in a vast majority of cases, resort to arms is not only not necessary but harmful. What is wanted is the art of suffering. I hold that it is not ahimsa that has made of us cowards but the loss of it. Surely it is not ahimsa that makes us wish ill to people that oppose us but our utter ignorance of it. Those who do not take up arms refrain not because they are deterred by any notion of ahimsa but because they are afraid to die. I have often wished that those who have no scruples about arms will dare to take them up. Then shall we be free of the burden of so-called ahimsaists who being afraid of injury seek to cover their cowardice under the name of ahimsa and corrupt the greatest truth of life. The same may be said of Soham. It is a scientific truth which we belie in our treatment of the untouchables. The charges recited in the last paragraph cannot be sustained. What is true of Hindus is also largely true of the other sects. Human nature works in the same manner in the same circumstances. Is a Mussalman never tolerant? I see hundreds in my peregrinations who are as tolerant as Hindus. I have seen Christians, too, not seldom but frequently tolerant. The writer will also find upon observation that those who are intolerant towards other sects are no less intolerant among themselves. —Young India, 19-11-1925, CWMG, Vol. 28, pp. 456-457
Leave a Reply