CHANGES IN MAHATMA GANDHI’S VIEWS ON CASTE AND INTERMARRIAGE Mark Lindley ABSTRACT: Gandhi’s views in regard to basic aspects of the caste system changed in the last years of his life. In the 1920s he had held that every Hindu “must follow the hereditary profession” and that “prohibition of intermarriage” between people of different varnas was “necessary for a rapid evolution of the soul.” But later he gradually became “a social revolu- tionist,” advocating intermarriage between Brahmins and Untouchables in order to dismantle the caste system “root and branch,” and acknowledging that “When all become casteless, monopoly of occupations would go.” The changes were due in part to the influence of two opponents of the caste system whose integrity he held in high regard: Ambedkar and Gora. His view of marriage between people of different religious affiliations underwent a similar change. Key words: Mahatma Gandhi, caste, varna, Untouchability, intermarriage, Ambedkar, Gora, Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal. OBJECTIVES AND METHODS: Toward the end of his life (1869-1948) Gandhi said that he had, many times, found him- self in the wrong and therefore changed his mind,1 and that his writings should be destroyed along with his body when it was cremated, because there was a risk that people would conform mistakenly to something he had written. 2 The main purpose of this article is to trace in detail the remarkable changes between ca.1920 and 1946 in his views about the caste system and about intermarriage between people of different castes. (This will entail giving some account of two men, Ambedkar and Gora, who influenced him in this regard.) An ancillary purpose is to show that his views about intermarriage between people of different religious affiliations underwent a somewhat similar change. The methods mainly used in preparing this article have been (1) to gather and analyze more than sixty relevant citations from the writings and recorded speeches of Gandhi, Ambedkar and Gora, and (2) to gather fresh evidence from people who knew him personally. (This latter evidence is mainly about specific matches in regard to which Gandhi expressed privately an opinion.) The use of a fairly large number of citations from Gandhi has been deemed worthwhile because his attitude evolved in a complex way that could easily be misconstrued by examining only a few of them. The following material is divided into sections as follows: 1a. Gandhi’s views in the 1920s in regard to caste 1b. Developments in this regard in the 1930s 1c. Further changes in this regard in the 1940s 2a. His views in the early-to-mid-1920s in regard to intercaste marriages 2b. Developments in this regard between the mid-1920s and 1940 2c. Further changes in this regard in the 1940s 3. His views in regard to inter-religious marriages 4. Concluding remarks. 1a. Gandhi’s views in the 1920s in regard to caste In the early 1920s Gandhi held that the hundreds of castes should be reduced in number, but that “inherited vocation” and the four basic “varnas” (this is the relevant Sanskrit term) into which the castes were classified should be maintained: [Citation 1] 1920: I believe that caste has saved Hinduism from disintegration. But like every other institution it has suffered from excrescences. I consider the four divisions alone to be fundamental, natural and essential. The innumerable subcastes are sometimes a convenience, often a hindrance. The sooner there is fusion, the better.... One of my correspondents suggests that we should abolish the caste [system] but adopt the class system of Europe – meaning thereby, I suppose, that the idea of heredity in caste should be rejected. I am inclined to think that the law of heredity is an eternal law and any attempt to alter that law must lead us, as it has before led [others], to utter confusion.... If Hindus believe, as they must believe, in reincarnation [and] transmigration, they must know that Nature will, without any possibility of mistake, adjust the balance by degrading a Brahmin, if he misbehaves himself, by reincarnating him in a lower division, and translating one who lives the life of a Brahmin in his present incarnation to Brahminhood in his next.3 Here the phrase “lives the life of a Brahmin” means: “behaves with a degree of moral purity worthy of a good Brahmin.” A Brahmin is a member of a caste in the highest, originally priestly varna. The other three varnas – Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra – are analogous mutatis mutandis to the Western concepts of aristocracy, bourgeoisie and workers. The first paragraph of the next citation shows that Gandhi took just as dim a view of social inequality due to unequal dis- tribution of money (even though his own varna was Vaishya) as he did of violent revolution. [Citation 2] 1920: The beauty of the caste system is that it does not base itself upon distinctions of wealth-possessions.* Money, as history has proved, is the greatest disruptive force in the world.... Caste is but an extension of the principle of the family. Both are governed by blood and heredity. Western scientists are busy trying to prove that heredity is an illusion and that milieu is everything. The... experience of many lands goes against the conclusions of these scientists; but even accepting their doctrine of milieu, it is easy to prove that milieu can be conserved and developed more through caste than through class.... As we all know, change comes very slowly in social life, and thus, as a matter of fact, caste has allowed new group- ings to suit the changes in lives. But these changes are [as] quiet and easy as a change in the shape of the clouds. It is difficult to imagine a better harmonious human adjustment. Caste does not connote superiority or inferiority. It simply recognizes different outlooks and corresponding modes of life. But it is no use denying the fact that a sort of hierarchy has been evolved in the caste system, but it cannot be called the cre- ation of the Brahmins. When all castes accept a common [religiously determined] goal of life, a hierarchy is inevitable, be- cause all castes cannot realize the ideal in equal degree.4 [Citation 3] 1921: “I believe that if Hindu society has been able to stand, it is because it is founded on the caste system.... A community which can create the caste system must be said to possess unique power of organization.... “To destroy the caste system and adopt the Western European social system means that Hindus must give up the principle of hereditary occupation which is the soul of the caste system.... [The] hereditary principle is an eternal principle. To change it is to create disorder.... It will be a chaos if every day a Brahmin is to be changed into a Shudra [a member of a caste in the lowest varna] and a Shudra is to be changed into a Brahmin. The caste system is a natural order of society.... I am opposed to all those who are out to destroy the caste system.”5 [Citation 4] 1926: In accepting the fourfold division I am simply accepting the laws of Nature, taking for granted what is in- herent in human nature and the law of heredity.... It is not possible in one birth entirely to undo the results of our past doings.6 In the mid-1920s he began to downplay the idea (set out at the end of Citation 2) that “a hierarchy is inevitable.” He would now say that no one should have a superior status merely by virtue of the caste he was born into: [Citation 5] 1925: For me there is no question of superiority or inferiority. A Brahmin who regards himself as a superior being born to look down upon the other castes is not a Brahmin. If he is first [in status] he is so by right of [spiritual] service.7 —and that performers of any and all good services all deserved the same status: [Citation 6] 1927: In [my] conception of the law of varna, no one is superior to any other.... A scavenger [e.g. a rubbish- collector or a latrine- or street-sweeper] has the same status as a Brahmin.8 According to traditional Hindu doctrine, however, the “scavenger” castes are, along with those of tanners, weavers, etc., even lower than the Shudra varna. Their political spokesmen might sometimes call themselves “Panchama,” i.e. members of an alleged “fifth varna,” but an equivalent term for them among high-caste people was “Ati-Shudra” (meaning “beyond the boundaries of the Shudras”). Traditional Hindu doctrine is unequivocal that no member of any of the four varnas should ever touch such people (they amount to about 20% of the Hindus). The normal English-language term for them was “Un- touchable” (which I capitalize in deference to the fact that the term entailed sacred obligations). Gandhi’s consistent opposition to the doctrine and practice of Untouchability is so well known9 that I needn’t give a series of citations to prove it. The following will suffice: * According to the classical Hindu Ordinances of Manu (O, 318), “If any man low in birth should, through greed, live by the occu- pations of the exalted, the king should banish him at once, after depriving him of his property” – and as for high-caste people: “Better one’s own duties incomplete than those of another well performed, for he who lives by the duties of another falls from caste at once.” Medieval societies in some other parts of the world had traditional occupations and social regulations without limiting categoric- ally a youngster’s vocational choice. In neo-Confucian China he would enter government service by doing well in written examina- tions in which the candidates’ identities were concealed from the evaluators. In Medieval and Renaissance Europe he could be appren- ticed to someone in a different occupation from that of his father.  [Citation 7] 1924: Supposing swaraj [self-rule] was a gift descending from Downing Street to India, that gift would be a curse upon the land, if we do not get rid of this curse of Untouchability.10 He wanted the Untouchables to be regarded as Shudras: [Citation 8] 1925: I have indeed said that varna is based on birth.... He who performs the duty of [for instance] a Brahmin will easily become one in the next incarnation. But a translation from one varna to another in the present incarnation must result in a great deal of fraud. The natural consequence must be the obliteration of varna. I have seen no reason to justify its destruction.... [However] I have asked that a Panchama should be regarded as a Shudra because I hold that there is no warrant for a belief in a fifth caste [i.e. a fifth varna]. A Panchama does the work of a Shudra and he is therefore naturally classified as such when he ceases to be regarded as a Panchama.11 But he nevertheless found Western-style competition and class conflict so terrible that he would prohibit any Hindu who managed to acquire a skill other than the “hereditary” one from earning a living by the new one: [Citation 9] 1925: There is no harm if a person belonging to one varna acquires the knowledge or science and art specialized in by persons belonging to other varnas. But as far as the way of earning his living is concerned, he must follow the occupation of the varna to which he belongs, which means he must follow the hereditary profession of his forefathers. The object of the varna system is to prevent competition and class struggle and class war. I believe in the varna system because it fixes the duties and occupations of persons.... Varna means the determination of a man’s occupation before he is born.... In the varna system no man has any liberty to choose his occupation.12 1b. Developments in the 1930s in his views in regard to caste In 1931 Gandhi met a highly educated man, Ambedkar (1892-1956), who had been born into a caste of street-sweepers but was unwilling to sweep the streets. Ambedkar’s caste had been employed at British military bases, and some of its mem- bers, including his father, had thus become rather better off than other Untouchables. Ambedkar attended school and, not- withstanding the humiliations there due to his Untouchable status, showed such academic promise that an enlightened ma- haraja undertook to subsidize his higher education. In due time he earned an M.A. degree at Columbia University in New York, and a Ph.D. at the University of London, and studied Sanskrit at the University of Berlin. He was unique.* That first meeting with Ambedkar, in Bombay in 1931, did not end cordially, † but Gandhi came to appreciate Ambedkar’s brilliance, honesty and adherence to non-violence notwithstanding a lot of clearly expressed anger,‡ and indeed was im- mediately influenced to some extent by his criticisms. Hence the novel (for Gandhi) nuances in the following statements: [Citation 10] 1931: I do not believe in caste in the modern sense. It is an excrescence and a handicap on progress. Nor do I believe in inequalities between human beings. We are all absolutely equal. But equality is of souls and not bodies.... We have to realize equality in the midst of this apparent inequality. Assumption of superiority by any person over any other is a sin against God and man. Thus caste, in so far as it connotes distinctions in status, is an evil. I do however believe in varna which is based on hereditary occupations. Varnas are four to mark four universal occupa- tions – imparting knowledge, defending the defenceless, carrying on agriculture and commerce, and performing service through physical labor. These occupations are common to all mankind, but Hinduism, having recognized them as the law of our being, has made use of it in regulating social relations and conduct. Gravitation affects us all whether one knows its exist- * The best-informed biography is Dhananjay Keer’s Dr. Ambedkar. Life and Mission (Popular Prakashan; 4rd ed., 2009). † No transcript was made. However, Gandhi later explained ruefully to his secretary (see The Diary of Mahadev Desai, Ahmedabad 1953, i, 52): “I did not know he was a Harijan. I thought he was some Brahmin who took deep interest in Harijans and therefore talked intemperately.” (“Harijan” was Gandhi’s term for Untouchable. Etymologically it means “child of God” – the word for “God” in this instance being “Hari” as in “Hari Krishna.”) ‡ It is said to have been at Gandhi’s suggestion (see for instance Anil Nauriya, “Criticising Gandhi,” in the Indian journal, Mainstream, xxxiv/8 (27/i/1996), 45) that Ambedkar was appointed in 1946 chairman of the drafting committee for the Constitution of the Repub- lic of India. (Article 17 says: “ ‘Untouchability’ is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. The enforcement of any dis- ability arising out of ‘Untouchability’ shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.”)  ence or not. But scientists who knew the law have made it yield results that have startled the world. Even so has Hinduism startled the world by its discovery and application of the law of varna. [Yet] according to my definition of varna there is no varna in operation at present in Hinduism. The so-called Brahmins have ceased to impart knowledge. They take to various other occupations. This is more or less true of the other varnas.13 [Citation 11] 1932: My own opinion is that the varna system has just now broken down. There is no true Brahmin or true Kshatriya or Vaishya. We are all Shudras, i.e. one varna. If this position is accepted, then the thing becomes easy. If this does not satisfy our vanity, then we are all Brahmins. Removal of Untouchability does mean root-and-branch destruction of the idea of superiority and inferiority.14 [Citation 12] 1933: Leave aside the talk of high and low. Suppose a carpenter gives up carpentry and takes up the work of cleaning lavatories. The Gita* would describe him as fallen from dharma [duty].... Similarly, if he tries to get instructed in the vedas [the most ancient Hindu scriptures], even then I would call him a carpenter who had fallen. We want to bring about harmony between dharma and karma.... But today the Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra all want to become multi-million- aires. Hence I [have] maintained that everyone should have equal payment, whether a barrister or a Shudra. Everyone should dedicate his talent to the service of the community. If the whole community made sacrifices the people would not starve.15 [Citation 13] 1932: No matter what was the position in ancient times, no one can nowadays go through life claiming to belong to a high class. Society will not willingly admit any such claim to superiority, but only under duress. The world is now wide awake.... When it is suggested that everyone should practice his father’s profession, the suggestion is coupled with the condition that the practitioner of every profession will earn only a living wage and no more.... The lawyer or doctor ought by practicing his profession to earn only a living wage. And such was actually the case formerly.... Boys [between 9 and 16 years of age] should be taught their parents’ vocation in such a way that they will by their own choice obtain their livelihood by practicing the hereditary craft. This does not apply to the girls.... [From] 16 to 25..., every young person should have an education according to his or her wishes and circumstances.16 Ambedkar did not welcome such arguments: [Citation 14] 1933, Ambedkar: There will be outcastes as long as there are castes, and nothing can emancipate the outcaste except the destruction of the caste system. Gandhi: Dr. Ambedkar is bitter. He has every reason to feel so.... [Yet] I do not believe the caste system, even as distin- guished from varnashrama [the scheme of duties traditionally linked to the caste system], to be an “odious and vicious dogma.” It has its limitations and defects, but there is nothing sinful about it, as there is about Untouchability; and if [Untouch- ability] is a by-product of the system, it is only in the same sense that an ugly growth is of a body, or weeds of a crop.17 Gandhi admitted now that his ideal of a varna system with everyone enjoying equal economic and social status probably had no historical warrant: [Citation 15] 1934, Interviewer: Do you not think that in ancient India there was much difference in economic status and social privileges between the four varnas? Gandhi: That may be historically true. But misapplication or an imperfect understanding of the law must not lead to the ignoring of the law itself. By constant striving we have to enrich the inheritance left to us.18 The contrast between Gandhi’s and Ambedkar’s views was heightened by their respective relations to the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal, a new organization which was dedicated to promoting a casteless Hinduism. Gandhi told its secretary: [Citation 16] 1932: If eradication of castes means the abolition of varna I do not approve of it. But I am with you if your aim is to end the innumerable caste distinctions.19 * The Bhagavad Gita has been in modern times the most venerated of Hindu scriptures – the book upon which a Hindu places his hand when taking a legal oath. Gandhi memorized its 700 verses in the original Sanskrit (although he had in his youth never learned San- skrit, as only Brahmins were traditionally allowed to do that). He also published (in 1930) his own translation of it and wrote three book-length interpretations of it. Yet Ambedkar and the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal between them apparently caused the tone of Gandhi’s statements to change somewhat more. In 1935 Gandhi said: [Citation17] 1935: Caste Has To Go. Varnashrama of the shastras [the Hindu sacred scriptures] is today nonexistent in prac- tice. The present caste system is theery antithesis of varnashrama. The sooner public opinion abolishes it the better. ...Prohibition there is [in varnashrama] of change of one’s hereditary occupation for purposes of gain. The existing practice is therefore doubly wrong in that it has set up cruel restrictions about interdining and intermarriage and tolerates anarchy about choice of occupation.... The most effective, quickest and most unobtrusive way to destroy caste is for reformers to begin the practice with them- selves and, where necessary, take the consequences of social boycott. The change will be gradual and imperceptible.20 In 1936 the Mandal invited Ambedkar to preside at their annual convention. However, upon seeing the typescript of his proposed presidential address, in which he not only outlined a comprehensive program of Hindu reform including the selection of priests by state examinations rather than by heredity, but also implied that he would probably leave Hinduism altogether (which he later did by converting to Buddhism), the leaders of the Mandal asked him to modify the text. He refused; they cancelled the convention; and his speech was published independently. Here is a brief excerpt: [Citation 18] 1936, Ambedkar: The mass of people [in India have] tolerated the social evils to which they have been sub- jected... [because they] have been completely disabled for direct action on account of this wretched system of [caste restric- tions]. They could not bear arms [because they were notaishyas ] and without arms they could not rebel.* ...They could receive no education [because they were not Brahmins; so]... they could not think out or know the way to their salvation.... Not knowing the way of escape and not having the means of escape, they became reconciled to eternal servitude, which they accepted as their inescapable fate.21 Gandhi invited Ambedkar to express his views in his (Gandhi’s) fortnightly periodical, Harijan. Ambedkar declined, but Gandhi called attention to them anyway, and commented: [Citation 19] 1936: Dr. Ambedkar... has quoted chapter and verse in proof of his... indictment.... No Hindu who prizes his faith above life itself can afford to underrate the importance of this indictment.... [Yet there are] flaws in [it].... Caste has nothing to do with religion. It is a custom whose origin I do not know.... varna [has] nothing to do with castes. The law of varna teaches us that we have each one of us to earn our bread by following the ancestral calling.... The essence of Hinduism is contained [however] in its enunciation of the one and only God as Truth and its bold acceptance of ahimsa as the law of the human family. I am aware that my interpretation of Hinduism will be disputed by many besides Dr. Ambedkar. That does not affect my position. In my opinion the profound mistake that Dr. Ambedkar has made in his address is to pick out texts of doubtful authenticity and value and the state of degraded Hindus who are no fit specimens of the faith.... Judged by the standard applied by Dr. Ambedkar, every known living faith will probably fail [to be found worthy of acceptance].22 Ambedkar responded with a virtuoso display of academic and barrister-like disputation. It is almost a pity merely to cite the following long extracts; they ought rather to be delivered by a powerful actor in a dramatic setting: [Citation 20] 1936, Ambedkar: The first point made by the Mahatma is that the texts cited by me are not authentic. I confess I am no authority on the matter. But... the texts cited by me are all taken from the writings of... a recognized authority on the Sanskrit language and on the Hindu shastras [sacred scriptures].... The masses... are too illiterate to know the contents of the shastras. They have believed what they have been told, and what they have been told is that the shastras do enjoin as a religious duty the observance of caste and Untouchability. ...The [Hindu] saints... did not preach that all men were equal. They preached that all men were equal in the eyes of God † – a very different and a very innocuous proposition which nobody can find difficult to preach or dangerous to believe in.... [Moreover,] the masses have been taught that a saint might break caste but the common man must not.... *A traditionalist could reply that India might thus indeed lose wars but at least would not stop tending her crops for the sake of military mobilization. †The first paragraph of Citation 10 includes a 20th-century version by Gandhi of this kind of argument.  That religion should be judged not by its worst specimens but by its best is true enough, but does it dispose of the matter? I say it does not. The question still remains – why the worst number so many and the best so few. To my mind there are two conceivable answers to this question: (1) that the worst by reason of some original perversity of theirs are morally uneducable and are therefore incapable of making the remotest approach to the religious ideal; or (2) that the religious ideal is a wholly wrong ideal which has given a wrong moral twist to the lives of the many, and that the best have become best in spite of the wrong idea – in fact by giving to the wrong a twist, a turn in the right direction. Of these two explanations I am not prepared to accept the first.... To my mind the second is the only logical and reasonable explanation unless the Mahatma has a third alternative to explain why the worst are so many and the best so few. If the second is the only explanation then obviously the argument of the Mahatma that a religion should be judged by its best followers carries us nowhere except to pity the lot of the many who have gone wrong because they have been made to worship wrong ideals. ...The Mahatma seems to me to suggest... that Hindu society can be made tolerable and even happy without any funda- mental change in its structure if all the high-caste Hindus can be persuaded to follow a high standard of morality in their deal- ing with the low-caste Hindus. I am totally opposed to this kind of ideology. I can respect those of the caste Hindus who try to realize a high social ideal in their life. Without such men India would be an uglier and a less happy place to live in than it is. But nonetheless anyone who relies on an attempt to turn... caste Hindus into better men by improving their personal character is in my judgement wasting his energy and hugging an illusion. Can personal character make the maker of arma- ments a good man, i.e. a man who will sell shells that will not burst* and gas that will not poison? If it cannot, how can you expect personal character to make a man loaded with a consciousness of caste a good man, i.e. a man who would treat his fellows as his... kinsmen and equals? As a matter of fact, a Hindu does treat all those who are not of his caste as though they were aliens, who could be discriminated against with impunity and against whom any fraud or trick may be practiced without shame. This is to say that there can be a better or a worse Hindu, but a good Hindu there cannot be. This is not because there is anything wrong with his personal character. In fact what is wrong is the entire basis of his relationship to his fellows.... ...Does the Mahatma practice what he preaches? One does not like to make personal reference in an argument which is general in its application. But when one preaches a doctrine and holds it as a dogma, there is a curiosity to know how far he practices what he preaches.... The Mahatma is a Bania by birth.† His ancestors had abandoned trading in favor of [political] ministership which is a calling of the Brahmins. In his own life, before he became a mahatma [a great soul], when occasion came for him to choose his career he preferred law ‡ to scales. On abandoning law he became half saint and half politician. He has never touched trading which is his ancestral calling. His youngest son...has married a Brahmin’s daughter and has chosen to serve a newspaper magnate. The Mahatma is not known to have condemned him for not following his ancestral calling. It may be wrong and uncharitable to judge an ideal by its worst specimens. But surely the Mahatma as a specimen has no better and if even he fails to realize the ideal then the ideal must be an impossible ideal quite opposed to the practical instincts of man.... Why does the Mahatma cling to the theory of everyone following his or her ancestral calling? He gives his reasons no- where [nowadays; but]... years ago, writing on caste versus class in his Young India, he argued [Citation 2] that the caste system was better than the class system on the ground that caste was the best possible adjustment of social stability. If that be the reason why the Mahatma clings to the theory of everyone following his or her ancestral calling, he is clinging to a false view of social life.... Stability is wanted, but not at the cost of change when change is imperative.... Adjustment is wanted, but not at the sacrifice of social justice. Can it be said that the adjustment of social relationship on the basis of caste, i.e. on the basis of each to his hereditary calling, avoids those two evils? I am convinced that it does not. Far from being the best possible adjustment, I have no doubt that it is of the worst possible kind inasmuch as it offends against both the canons of social adjustment – namely fluidity and equity. ...I must admit that the [ancient] vedic theory of varna as interpreted by Swami Dayanand and some others is a sensible and an inoffensive thing; it did not admit birth as a determining factor in fixing the place of an individual in society.* * It only recognized worth. The Mahatma’s view of varna... makes nonsense of the vedic varna [and] makes it into an abominable thing. [Vedic] varna and caste are two very different concepts. Varna is based on the principle of each according to his worth, while caste is based on the principle of each according to his birth. The two are as distinct as chalk from cheese.... If the *A rare instance of this (during World War II) is depicted in the Oscar-award-winning film (1993), Schindler’s List. †The religious duty of men in the Bania caste is to engage in commerce. “Gandhi” means “grocer.” ‡Gandhi had been a (successful) lawyer in Africa. **Swami Dayanand was a 19th-century Hindu advocate of reform who took account of the fact that the most ancient scriptural reference to varna says that different people do different kinds of work but does not say that their vocations are inherited.  Mahatma believes as he does in everyone following his or her ancestral calling, then most certainly he is advocating the caste system and in calling it the varna system he is... causing confusion.... Does he regard [his concept of hereditary] varna as the essence of Hinduism? One cannot as yet give any categorical answer. Readers of his article on “Dr. Ambedkar’s Indictment” will answer “No.” In that article he does not say that the dogma of varna is an essential part of the creed of Hinduism. Far from making varna the essence of Hinduism, he says [see Citation 19], “The essence of Hinduism is contained in its enunciation of the one and only God as truth and its bold acceptance of ahimsa as the law of the human family.” But readers of his [other] article... will say “Yes.” In that article he says [see Cita- tion 43], “...I do not know how a person who rejects caste, i.e. varna, can call himself a Hindu.” Why this prevarication? Why does the Mahatma hedge? Whom does he want to please? Has the saint failed to sense the truth? Or does the politician stand in the way of the saint? The real reason why the Mahatma is suffering from this confusion is probably to be traced to two sources. The first is the temperament of the Mahatma. He has almost in everything the simplicity of the child with the child’s capacity for self-deception. Like a child he can believe in anything he wants to believe. We must therefore wait till such time as it pleases the Mahatma to abandon his faith in [hereditary] varna as it has pleased him to abandon his faith in caste. The second course of confusion is the double role which the Mahatma wants to play – of a mahatma and a politician. As a mahatma he may be trying to spiritualize politics. Whether he has succeeded in it or not, politics have certainly commer- cialized him. A politician must know that society cannot bear the whole truth; if he is speaking the whole truth, it is bad for his politics. The reason why the Mahatma is always supporting caste and varna is because he is afraid that if he opposes them he will lose his place in politics.... Whatever may be the source of this confusion, the Mahatma must be told that he is deceiving himself and also deceiving the people by preaching caste under the name of varna. The Mahatma says that the standards I have applied to test Hindus and Hinduism are too severe.... [However,] my quarrel with Hindus and Hinduism is not over the imperfections of their social conduct. It is much more fundamental. It is over their ideals.23 The immediate effect upon Gandhi of this brilliant argument does not appear to have been decisive. Late in 1936 he argued at some length in his biweekly journal, Harijan, that his ideal Banghi (a member of a caste far down even within the Untouchable category) would, by doing sanitation work, “possibly even excel” a Brahmin in rendering service.24 1c. Developments in the 1940s in his views in regard to caste Meanwhile, a younger opponent of caste and varna, Gora (1902-1975),* who had been disowned by his own (Brahmin) caste in 1928, and a few years later was dismissed from his job as a college biology-teacher for saying that the idea of divinity is untrue, began to walk to villages on weekends and during school vacations, speaking out against superstitions, caste and economic inequality. In due time he became a full-time social worker, and published his beliefs, among them: [Citation 21] 1949, Gora: This thorn-bush [caste] is in our path. It is useless to argue about who put it there, why, and when; the whole thing is against the interest of the people and we must simply remove it.25 Gandhi heard about Gora’s social work in the early 1940s and, when they were each released in 1944 from wartime deten- tion by the British, invited him to visit and found him to be hard-working, honest, courteous and free of fanaticism. Their first meeting included the following exchange, drawing upon the Gandhian precept that the purpose of a political fast is, not to get someone to do something which they don’t already (deep in their hearts) wish to do, but rather to make them reflect and find that deep wish: [Citation 22] 1944, Gora: I take the propagation of atheism as an aid to my [social] work. The results justify my choice. Gandhi: I should fast even because atheism is spreading. Gora: I will fast against your fast. Gandhi: You will fast? Gora: Yes, Bapuji [i.e. Respected Father]. But why should you fast? Tell me how atheism is wrong and I will change. Gandhi: I see, your conviction in atheism is deep....26 *Since writing this article I have written The Life and Times of Gora (Popular Prakashan, Mumbai 2009). Gandhi’s view of caste now moved closer to the one which Gora shared with Ambedkar. In 1945 he wrote a substantial preface to a new edition of a little book of his from the 1920s, Varnavyavastha, which had extolled his ideal varna system and which someone else now wished to republish. The new preface, entitled “Key to My Writings,” said that all Hindus should regard themselves as members of the same, service-performing varna:* [Citation 23] 1945: I do not have the time to read this book again. I do not even wish to. I have many other things to do. In my opinion a man daily moves either forward or backward. He never stands still. The whole world is moving and there is no exception.... Where are the four varnas of the Gita today?... There prevails only one varna today, that is, of “Shudras,” or, you may call it, “Ati-Shudras.” ...If I can bring round the Hindu society to my view, all our internal quarrels [i.e among Hindus] will come to an end.... A man should consider himself not the owner of his property but its trustee... for the service of society. He will accept only that much for himself as he has earned with his [physical] labor. If that happens, no one will be poor and no one rich. In such a system, all religions will naturally be held equal. Therefore all quarrels arising [today] out of religion, caste and economic differences will be ended. This is the swaraj [self-rule] of my dreams. I yearn for that. I want to live for the attain- ment of it. I am devoting every breath of my life to that effort. The reader is therefore requested to discard anything in this book which may appear to him incompatible with my views given above.27 Citation 11 (from 1932) includes an all-in-one-caste idea, and Gandhi had meanwhile mentioned this idea occasionally dur- ing his famous Harijan-uplift tour of 1933-34.28 The change described below in his attitude toward intermarriage meant that he now, in the mid-1940s, took the idea far more seriously. It had initially come to him from considering an argument which he had heard soon after returning definitively from South Africa to India: [Citation 24] 1927: I remember in 1915 the Chairman at [a] social conference... suggesting that formerly all were Brahmins, and that now too, all should be recognized as such and that the other varnas should be abolished. It appeared to me then, as it appears to me now, as a weird suggestion. It is the so-called superior that has to descend from his heights, if the reform is to be peaceful. 29 A clear statement of Gandhi’s latter-day view of caste – namely, that his cherished ideal of four varnas must be given up altogether in order to eradicate Untouchability – is the following remark which he made to Gora’s prospective son-in-law, who had been born an Untouchable: [Citation 25] 1946: You should become like Ambedkar. You should work for the removal of Untouchability and caste. Untouchability must go at any cost.30 A visitor from the USA described Gandhi’s view now as follows: [Citation 26] 1946 (as reported): He [Gandhi] said he was trying to create a classless and casteless India. He yearned for the day when there would be only one caste and Brahmins would marry Harijans. I am a social revolutionist, he asserted. Vio- lence is bred by inequality, non-violence by equality. 31 As to when that day – a classless and altogether casteless India might come, he would hope to see it dawn within fifty years: [Citation 27] 1946, Interviewer: In your recent correspondence... you have said that caste ought to go root and branch if Untouchability is to be completely eradicated.32 Then, why do you not make anti-Untouchability work part of a wider crusade against the caste system itself? If you dig out the root, the branches will wither by themselves. Gandhi: It is one thing for me to hold certain views and quite an other to make my views acceptable in their entirety to [Hindu] society at large. My mind, I hope, is ever growing, ever moving forward. All may not keep pace with it. I have there- fore to exercise the utmost patience and be satisfied with hastening slowly.... I am wholly in agreement with you in principle. If I live up to 125 years,† I do expect to convert the entire Hindu society to my view.33 * The preface is dated one day after Gandhi wrote a letter to an Untouchable-born disciple of Gora’s. (See C, lxxx, 221.) † According to the Isa Upanishad, which was one of Gandhi’s favorite scriptures in the late 1930s and ’40s, “Only doing works of service on this earth, you should wish to live 120 or 125 years.” (See apropos C, lxxx, 299.) In earlier days he would hardly have subscribed to the idea that the entire caste system must be eradicated. His new stance was strengthened by a statement that to have abolished, in the anti-British “Indian National Army” during World War II, all distinctions of caste as well as of class had been the greatest and most lasting act of its founder, Subhas Chandra Bose.34 Yet with all this, and notwithstanding Gandhi’s realization that “when all became casteless..., monopoly of occupations would go,”35 he might still sometimes – with hedging expressions like “more or less” and “generally” – say that a person who because of an abnormal talent has mastered an occupation other than the one he is born in should nevertheless earn his living by his hereditary occupation and not by the new one: [Citation 28] 1947 (as reported): [The] vocational organization of society, held Gandhi, may be vertical and competitive, or horizontal and cooperative. Under the former, remuneration is... on the basis of the law of supply and demand; in the latter all occupations... are paid equal wages... [and] a person will choose an occupation, not because of the personal prospects it offers, but because he has a special skill or aptitude for it. And since skills and aptitudes generally follow the line of heredity more or less, the average person in the normal course would, if there were no inequalities of remuneration to lure him away from it, tend to follow the occupation he is born in.... Would that mean that one would be debarred form changing his heredi- tary occupation, if he felt a special urge? No, said Gandhiji, not so long as one does not depend on it [the new occupation] for one’s living. Such cases will naturally be few. Thus Buddha was [by heredity] a ruling prince, Socrates a sculptor, St. Paul a tent-maker. Yet Buddha became the Enlightened One, Socrates the prince of philosophers and St. Paul an apostle; but none of them regarded their calling as a means of livelihood.36 Had Ambedkar commented on this, he could have mentioned the lack of evidence that the Buddha earned his keep ex- clusively by being a king, St. Paul by making tents, and Socrates by sculpting, or that any large society pays equal wages to all. Gandhi in effect admitted this latter point: [Citation 29] 1947: Indian society may never reach the goal [equal wages for all] but it is the duty of every Indian to set his sail towards that goal and no other if India is to be a happy land.37 2a. Gandhi’s views in the early to mid-1920s in regard to intercaste marriages A virtually prescient summary of Gandhi’s attitude, until his last years, toward marriage between people of different castes is in the following remarks of 1919: [Citation 30] 1919: Interdining [and] intermarrying, I hold, are not essential for the promotion of the spirit of democracy.... But as time goes forward and new necessities and occasions arise, the custom regarding... interdining and intermarrying will require cautious modifications or rearrangements.38 In his ashram (his experimental model commune), interdining with Untouchables was a corellary to their acceptance in 1915 as members.* But for a long time Gandhi took a different stance in regard to Hindu practice at large, and in this regard was in the early to mid-1920s outspoken against interdining, and intermarriage: * The following account is abbreviated from B, 210: “A few months after Satyagraha Ashram was founded [by Gandhi near the city of Ahmedabad], its peace was suddenly disturbed when a teacher named Dudabai, his wife Danibehn and baby daughter Lakshmi, belonging to the Untouchable class of Dheds, were admitted to the community. There was much resentment, some ashramites gave up their evening meal as a protest against the admission, [and Gandhi s wife even] threatened to leave. [But] Gandhi announced that he had adopted Lakshmi as his daughter. These developments caused quite a commotion in Ahmedabad, and the textile merchants who had helped to finance the ashram now began to withdraw their support, until the time came when the ashram had been depleted of all its funds. [Meanwhile] a rumor had gained currency that the polluted ashram would be socially boycotted. Gandhi was unper- turbed and told the ashramites that if the situation warranted they would all move to the Untouchable quarter of Ahmedabad and live on whatever they could earn by manual labor. “One morning a rich man drove up and placed into Gandhi’s hands an envelope containing thirteen thousand rupees in banknotes.”  [Citation 31] 1921: “Hinduism reached the highest limit of self-restraint. It is undoubtedly a religion of renunciation of the flesh so that the spirit may be set free.... Prohibition against interdining and intermarriage is essential to a rapid evolution of the soul. But this self-denial is no test of varna.”39 [Citation 32] 1925, Correspondent: I was surprised to read in a recent article [your] repudiation of intermarriage between Touchables and Untouchables.... Gandhi: I have repeatedly expressed my view of caste and intermarriage.... I cannot picture to myself a time when all mankind will have one religion. As a rule there will, therefore, be the religious bar; people will marry in their own religion.... The caste restriction is an extension of the same principle. It is a social convenience.... I am opposed to Untouchability because it limits the field of service. [But] marriage is not an act of service.40 2b. Developments between 1925 and 1940 in his attitude toward intercaste marriages By 1928, Gandhi clearly preferred people to marry across (sub)caste lines within the same varna. (Such a reform would, in the long run, tend to reduce the number of castes.) He attended reluctantly the wedding in that year of his son Ramadas and Nirmala, whom he found personally acceptable but who was of the same subcaste; and this was the last such wedding he attended.41 Three marriages which he blessed (in the late 1920s and ’30s) between people in different subcastes of his own varna were those of Rukshmani and Banarasilal (1929),42 Madalasa and Srimannarayan (1937),43 and Sharda and Gor- dhandas (1939).44 None of these were love matches; and this was, for him, a positive feature. When in the late 1920s his son Devadas and a Brahmin girl fell in love, he obliged them to wait for five years before marrying.45 His views in the early 1930s were as follows: [Citation 33] 1931: “When Hindus were seized with inertia, abuse of varna resulted in... unnecessary and harmful restrictions as to intermarriage and interdining. The law of varna has nothing to do with these restrictions. People of different varnas may intermarry and interdine. These restrictions may be necessary in the interest of chastity and hygiene; but a Brahmin who mar- ries a Shudra girl or vice versa commits no offence against the law of varna.”46 [Citation 34] 1932: “The ashram will not help to arrange a marriage between members of the same subcaste, and everyone is encouraged to seek his mate outside his own subcaste.”47 He had in 1929 advised a 22-year-old man not in the ashram to insist to his parents that he would marry outside the sub- caste, or else marry a widow (a radically untraditional thing for a Hindu to do; of course Gandhi meant a suitably young widow) rather than accept against his conscience a match with a nine- or ten-year-old girl within the subcaste: [Citation 35] 1929, Correspondent: My parents want me to be married this very year.... Child-marriage is the rule [and] in my case... girls of nine or ten years of age only are available [within our subcaste].... I am... 22 years of age. My parents will not hear of my marrying a widow or outside my caste. What am I to do in the circumstances? Gandhi: ...It has been my experience that when a grown-up boy or girl takes up a just and right position and adheres to it with absolute firmness, ...the parents, when once they realize that the resolution of their children is absolutely unalterable,... get reconciled to it.... My advice... is to refuse to be a party to the... sin of marrying a child-girl.... Consider it a virtue to marry [instead] outside [your] subcaste or to marry a widow, subject to the necessary limitations [e.g. within the same varna].48 In those days, even more extreme examples of taking a child-bride for the sake of marrying in one’s caste were at issue: [Citation 36] 1936, Correspondent: I draw your attention with great shame to the article “Surfeit of Child-marriages.”... These weddings took place in our... Chaturvedi caste. It is the misfortune of our caste that girls of two and three years of age are given in marriage.... It must be pointed out that we, the Chaturvedi community, consider ourselves the highest Brahmins. We consider it a sin to eat food cooked even by other Brahmins. Gandhi: What else can the marriages... be called than monstrous?... When scriptures are quoted in their favor, the difficulties multiply. However, satyagraha [holding non-violently to moral truth] can become a sure means of overcoming all kinds of tyranny.”49 The general religious climate was such that when Gandhi was planning in 1932 his famous Harijan-uplift campaign, he took care to assure his fellow Hindus that he would not campaign for intermarriage or interdining:  [Citation 37] 1932: I should never dream of making this reform [interdining and intermarriage], however desirable in itself it may be, part of an all-India reform [against Untouchability] which has been long overdue. Untouchability, in the form we all know it, is a canker eating into the very vitals of Hinduism. Dining and marriage restrictions [merely] stunt Hindu society. I think the distinction is fundamental.50 [Citation 38] 1932: I am glad to find that temples in your part of the country are being opened to Harijans. The removal of Untouchability does not necessarily include interdining and intermarriage, but it is open to anyone to dine or marry among Harijans. In other words, Harijans should have the same status as the rest of the Hindus in all matters.51 [Citation 39] 1932: Mixing up the two problems would jeopardize the success of both. For this reason intermarriage and inter- dining with Untouchables are not an integral feature of the removal of Untouchability; but their practice is not against religion either.52 Ten years later he would say: [Citation 40] 1942: When I said that removal of Untouchability did not include the removal of restrictions on interdining and intermarriage, I had the general Hindu public in mind, not the Congress workers or Congressmen. These have to abolish Untouchability from every part of their life.53 Meanwhile someone in 1933 had remarked that the tone of his statements on interdining and intermarriage had changed quite perceptibly since the early 1920s: [Citation 41] 1933: A correspondent who is a diligent student of my writings finds it difficult to reconcile my recent writings about intercaste dining and intercaste marriage and [my] corresponding writings of some years ago.... [Yet] the mode of life in the ashram in 1921 was absolutely the same as it is now. Therefore my practice has undergone no change. I still believe that restriction imposed by oneself upon interdining and intermarriage is an act of renunciation of the flesh [and therefore good]. There is one word that perhaps I would change if I was writing the article of 1921 [see Citation 31] today. Instead of “prohibition,” I should... say, “self-imposed restriction against intermarriage and interdining is essential for a rapid evolution of the soul.”54 Now the Jat-Pak-Todek Mandal and Ambedkar led him further. In the second of the following passages, he went so far as virtually to apply to implicitly the taboos against interdining and intermarriage an idea which he had for years been apply- ing explicitly to Untouchability: that Hinduism must shed the evil or else be abandoned: [Citation 42] 1935: It must be left to the unfettered choice of the individual as to where he or she will marry or dine. If the law of varnashrama was observed [with regard to hereditary occupation], there would naturally be a tendency, so far as mar- riage is concerned, for people to restrict the marital relations to their own varna.55 [Citation 43] 1936, Correspondent (from the Jat-Pak-Todek Mandal): For all practical purposes, in Hindu society caste and varna are... the same thing, for the function of both of them is... the same, i.e. to restrict intercaste marriages and interdining.... When you advocate your ideal of [varna] they find justification for clinging to caste.... To seek the help of the shastras for the removal of Untouchability and caste is simply to wash mud with mud. Gandhi: If caste and varna are convertible terms and if varna is an integral part of the shastras which define Hinduism, I do not know how a person who rejects caste i.e. varna can call himself a Hindu. [Yet] if the shastras support caste as we know it today in all its hideousness, I may not call myself or remain a Hindu, since I have no scruples about interdining or intermarriage.56 Ambedkar saw that intermarriage would be the structural antidote to the religiously administered social poison that was causing that “hideous” degradation and alienation in modern India: [Citation 44] 1936, Ambedkar: The real remedy is intermarriage. Fusion of blood can alone create the feeling of being kith and kin, and unless this feeling... becomes paramount, the separatist feeling – the feeling of being aliens – created by caste will not vanish.... ...The Hindus observe caste not because they are inhuman... [but] because they are deeply religious [and] their religion... has inculcated this notion of caste.57 It seems to me that this point should be recalled when considering the significance of the “reservation system” (the an- alogous counterpart in India of “affirmative action” in the USA, but more drastic inasmuch as it involves quotas). That has been a strong, steroid-like medicine, i.e. with harmful side-effects and wanting to be withdrawn gradually when the organ- ism has won the upper hand over the poison – against which intermarriage is the best long-term prophylaxis. In 1937 Gandhi hinted at the possibility of advocating inter-varna marriages, in the course of discussing with some members of the Gandhi Seva Sangh a proposal that they “give a place to Harijans in their homes, receive Harijans in the same way as they would receive others, seek opportunities to eat with them... [and] bring up some Harijan children”: [Citation 45] 1937, Vallabhbhai Patel:* This proposal justifies the fear of the sanatanists.... From removal of Untouchability you want to proceed step by step to intermarriage. (Laughter) Gandhi: For ordinary people, removal of Untouchability is enough. But, for you, mere touch is not enough. You must continue to proceed further.... The Hindu masses still follow quite a few restrictive practices in the matter of inter-dining and intermarriage. [And] even I have followed certain restrictions in this [latter] regard. That is why I have not spoken to the masses about these. But if I suggest to you that you should go to the extent of inter-dining and intermarrying with Harijans I would not be violating truth.... You have really not much control in the matter of intermarriage. You should certainly not bring compulsion on your children in this matter. Interdining is a different matter. If your mother says that it is irreligion, you must tell her that you would take the food cooked by her as well as by an Untouchable, and it would not matter that you were forsaken by her on that account.58 2c. Further developments in the 1940s in his views in regard to intercaste marriages In 1940 Gandhi publicly approved of a high-caste Hindu lad who married a Harijan girl after overcoming the reluctance of their parents:† [Citation 46] 1940, Correspondent: Shri [i.e. Mr.] Radhamadhab Mitra married a Harijan girl on 4th March last, strictly according to Hindu rites with Brahmin priests, and the ceremony was attended by about one thousand people of all castes and communities. Radhamadhab is aged about 25. When he was a student he organized a Harijan boys’ football team. During your epic fast [of 1932] for Harijans, Radhamadhab with some of his friends lived in a Harijan village, and during that period he and his friends promised to marry Harijan girls. His friends forgot their promise but Radhamadhab carried it out. When the proposal for marriage with a Harijan girl was first made, all the relatives and friends used all sorts of pressure to dissuade Radhamadhab from his resolve. When he first consulted me, I depicted a very dark future before him.... There was opposition from the bride’s relatives who were afraid of oppression from higher castes and also of divine punishment. But ultimately they agreed.... We tried our utmost to secure the attendance of as many high-class people as possible, and thank God we could get what we wanted.... Just imagine several hundred of high-caste people sitting together with an equal number of Harijans ...and receiving betel from the father of the bride. Gandhi: I congratulate Shri Radhamadhab on his courage in breaking through the rock of caste superstition. I hope his example will be copied by other young men. May the union prove happy. I would advise Shri Radhamadhab to arrange for proper education of his wife, who, I understand, has not received any scholastic training.59 In 1940 there took place in Gandhi’s immediate circle, and with his approval, an inter-varna marriage between a Brahmin woman (Dr. Saundaram) and a Shudra (G. Ramachandran)60 and also one between and an “Untouchable” woman (Indu- mati) and a high-caste Hindu (Dr. A. G. Tendulkar, President of the Goa Congress).61 These were love-matches, as was also perhaps that of Radhamabhab and his bride (since they braved opposition from her family as well as his); so Gandhi’s approval may have been tinged with a wistful longing – hinted at in Citation 41 – for his cherished ideal of marriage due less to personal attraction than to dedication and discipline. How could those values be combined with the new one of inter- caste marriage? Notwithstanding this problem, by mid-1945 he felt that at some future time it would become important for Hindu intermar- riages to cross the traditional line between “Untouchables” and those born into a varna: * Vallabhbhai Patel (1875-1950) was a very able administrative lieutenant to Gandhi and subsequently to Prime Minister Nehru; but his views on socio-religious issues differed somewhat from Gandhi’s. † From a letter he had received, Gandhi published excerpts which are here further abbreviated.  [Citation 47] 1945: If... castes and subcastes as we know them disappear – as they should – we should [then] unhesitatingly accord the highest importance to marriages between Ati-Shudras and caste-Hindus [i.e. from a varna].62 And now he would tell even people who were not members of his ashram that he could bless no weddings between mem- bers of the same subcaste: [Citation 48] 1945: If the marriage is in the same community do not ask for my blessings, however deserving the girl may be. I send my blessings if [and only if] she is from another community. 63 Meanwhile, Gora in his social work with Untouchables was asked, now and then in the early 1940s, “You are helping us and saying ‘We are all human,’ but would you really have your children marry people like us?” His explicitly formulated concept of ethics was to “do what I say and say what I do”;64 so when in 1944 he came out of prison (where the British put him, during World War II, for advocating India’s independence) he began to consider who among the Untouchables working with him might be a suitable match for his eldest child, then 16 years old. After a few months he had a young man in mind and asked his daughter if she would be willing to marry such a person. She concurred; the young man was con- sulted and was astonished65 but accepted the idea; and Gora wrote about it to Gandhi, who replied: [Citation 49] 1946: I have your letter. I like it.... I am prepared to get the marriage performed in the Sevagram Ashram.... [Since] Manorama is 17 years old..., I suggest that she should wait for two years.66 In a series of meetings Gandhi determined that it was not a love-match but was motivated by dedication to social justice, and that there was neither compulsion nor reluctance in either family.* Then, in response to the following remarks in a letter from Gora: [Citation 50] 1946, Gora: Side by side with the mixing up [of people born into different castes], an attempt also might be made to discourage the use of labels of caste and creed which raise imaginary barriers between man and man. Not only should the practice of Untouchability go, but the Harijan should not be allowed to continue a Harijan.... Similarly the Hindu and Moslem differences might be solved by discarding the labels. Such an attempt will no longer keep the form of communal har- mony, but it would lead to the growth of one humanity.... Though a powerful personality like Gandhiji might harmonize com- munities for a while, when the personal influence weakened, the communities would clash again. So a permanent solution of communal differences is the growth of [the] one-humanity outlook rather than communal harmony. 67 Gandhi replied: [Citation 51] 1946: Though there is a resemblance between your thought and practice and mine superficially, I must own that yours is far superior to mine.68 (As far as I know, he never praised anyone else quite so strongly and succinctly.) He vowed thereafter to attend no wedding between Hindus who were both members of varnas;69 and a hint of this was published at the time, though not in his bi- weekly journal, Harijan: [Citation 52] 1946, Interviewer: Does the Congress program for the abolition of Untouchability include interdining and inter- marriage with Harijans? Gandhi: So far as I know the Congress mind today, there is no opposition to dining with Harijans. But speaking for myself, I have said that we have all to become Harijans today or we will not be able to purge ourselves completely of the taint of Untouchability. I, therefore, tell all boys and girls who want to marry that they cannot be married at Sevagram Ashram unless one of the parties is a Harijan. I am convinced that there is no real difficulty in this. All that is needed is a change of outlook.70 The following exchange appeared in Harijan: [Citation 53] 1946, Correspondent: Educated [Harijan] girls can be counted on the fingers of one hand. If they marry caste Hindus they will, as a rule, be cut off from their own society and ...not be able to work for the uplift of their Harijan sisters from within. If Harijan girls are to marry caste Hindus it should be on condition that the couple will devote their lives to the * To see if Manorama was under duress he had her interviewed by a Brahmin who told her that it was a poor idea as there would be many difficulties and the young man was penniless. She welcomed the challenge.  service of the Harijans.* Otherwise, educated Harijan girls should be encouraged to marry educated youths of their own com- munity. Gandhi: It is certainly desirable that caste Hindu girls should select Harijan husbands. I hesitate to say that it is better. That would imply that women are inferior to men. I know that such [an] inferiority complex is there today. For this reason I would agree that at present the marriage of a caste girl to a Harijan is better than that of a Harijan girl to a caste Hindu. If I had my way I would persuade all caste Hindu girls coming under my influence to select Harijan husbands.71 Gandhi’s search for truth had thus led him to champion, in regard to marriage, the logical concomitant of the all-in-one- caste idea, contrary to his teaching of the 1920s and early ’30s that prohibition or at least self-imposed restriction against intermarriage was essential to a rapid evolution of the soul. 3. His views in regard to inter-religious marriages Gandhi’s view of inter-religious marriages also changed over the years, though to a lesser extent. In the 1920s he prevented his son Manilal from marrying a Moslem girl (and found a Hindu wife for him72): [Citation 54] 1926: You are of course a free man; so I cannot force you to do anything. But I write to you as a friend. What you desire is contrary to dharma If you stick to Hinduism and Fatima follows Islam, it will be like putting two swords in one sheath.... What should be your children's faith? ...It is adharma [dereliction of duty] if Fatima agrees to conversion just for marrying you.... Nor is it in the interests of our society to form this relationship. Your marriage will have a powerful impact on the Hindu-Moslem question. Intercommunal marriages are no solution to this problem. You cannot forget, nor will society forget, that you are my son. If you enter into this relationship, you may not be able to render any service. I fear you may no longer be the right person to run Indian Opinion.† It will be impossible for you, I think, after this to come and settle in India. I cannot ask Ba’s permission.‡ ...Her life will be embittered for ever. In proposing this marriage you have thought only of momentary pleasure.... I want you to get out of your infatua- tion.... May God show you the right path.73 In the early 1930s he gave more thought to the issue in principle: [Citation 55] 1931: [As for] marriage outside one’s religion... so long as each [partner] is free to observe his or her religion, I can see no moral objection to such unions. But I do not believe that these unions can bring peace. They may follow peace. I can see nothing but disaster following any attempt to advocate Hindu-Moslem [marital] unions so long as the relations between the two [religions] remain strained. That such unions may be happy in exceptional circumstances can be no reason for their general advocacy.74 [Citation 56] 1932: If anybody asks my opinion, I would say that marriage between persons following different faiths was a risky experiment.... I do not advocate marriages between persons of different faiths as I advocate intercaste marriages because I desire the disappearance of subcastes. I would not agitate against such marriages either. This is an issue on which every man and woman should think and decide for himself or herself. There cannot be a uniform law for all.75 In 1996 the only surviving member of his family from the next generation did not recall his having ever attended an inter- religious marriage.76 Back in 1905, however, he had attended the civil marriage in South Africa of two people whom he regarded as sharing the “religion of ethics” even though their formal religious affiliations differed: Millie Graham, a * Broadly speaking it may be said that the two kinds of marriage described here between Harijan-born women and Brahmin-born men are illustrated by (1) the marriage in 1933 of Gandhi’s adopted daughter, Lakshmi, and Maruti (see C, liii, 288f, 325, 358 and 438), and (2) the one in 1960 of the Telugu poet Joshua’s daughter, Hemalata, and Gora’s eldest son, Lavanam. †Manilal had been editing since 1917 this multi-lingual African political periodical which Gandhi had founded in 1904. ‡Gandhi’s wife, Kastur, was normally called “Kasturba.” “Ba” means “Mom.” Christian, and Henry Polak, a Jew.77 In 1942, he defended the imminent marriage of Nehru’s daughter, Indira, to a Parsi (Feroz Gandhi*), and commented: [Citation 57] 1942: As time advances, such [inter-religious] unions are bound to multiply with benefit to society. At present we have not even reached the stage of mutual toleration, but as toleration grows into mutual respect for religions, such unions will be welcomed.78 In 1945 he ventured to suggest that inter-religious marriages might, with due application of wisdom, entail “no difficulty”: [Citation 58] 1945: “Where parents are wise, there should be no difficulty even between persons of different religions. Do we not look upon all religions as equal? ...The offspring may choose either religion. The couple of our conception will give the children liberal education in that regard. In my view this should be quite easy.”79 And in 1947 his appreciation of the point of view represented in Citation 50 led him to argue that the marriage laws of the Republic of India should provide for non-religious weddings in order to “clear the way for inter-religious marriages”: [Citation 59] 1947, Interviewer: You advocate intercaste marriages. Do you also favor marriage between Indians professing different religions?... If so, what form should the marriage ceremony take? Gandhi’s reply as reported by his secretary: “Although he [Gandhi] had not always held that view, he had long since come to the conclusion that inter-religious marriage was a welcome event whenever it took place. Marriage in his view was a sacred institution. Hence there must be mutual friendship, either party having equal respect for the religion of the other. There was no room in this for conversion. Hence the marriage ceremony could be performed by the priests belonging to either faith; but this could come about only when the communities had shed mutual enmity and cultivated equal regard for all religions of the world.” Interviewer’s next question: Is not the institution of civil marriage a negation of religion and does it not tend to laxity in faith? Gandhi’s reply (as reported): “He did not believe in civil marriages, but he welcomed the institution of civil marriage as a much needed reform to clear the way for inter-religious marriages.”80 4. Concluding remarks Historians know (and any sophisticated person would suppose) that Gandhi’s status as a mahatma – “great soul” – did not prevent him from changing his mind about some things; many people in India know, however vaguely, that for most of his life he did not campaign against the entire caste system but only against some aspects of it (and especially the doctrine and practice of Untouchability); and, politically sophisticated observers have occasionally remarked that his intellect was far more complex his clothing.† The evidence presented here shows, in adequate detail, the hitherto uncharted complexity of the development, during the last quarter century of his life, of his views in regard to caste and intermarriage, and depicts clearly the little-known state of those views at the end of his life. Some tensions within these latter views (see Citation 28 and my comments about it, and the last sentence of Citation 59) suggest to me that they might well have evolved further during the next few years if he had not been assassinated in 1948. But this is not to suggest that he would ever have regarded modern American family life as an ideal model. Nor indeed would I (though I am from the USA). That would be, a priori, just as mistaken as to attribute universal validity to the “law of varna” (cf. Citation 10); and in fact American consumerist-style courtship normally arouses unrealistic expectations for the marriage which can be unfortunate. * The Nehrus were nominally Hindu. The Parsis adhere to the Zoroastrian religion of their Persian ancestors. (Feroz Gandhi was un- related to Mahatma Gandhi, but the fact that their last names were the same became a great asset, in electoral politics, to Indira, to her son Rajiv, and to his Italian-born ( and hence nominally Roman Catholic) widow, Sonia Gandhi.) † The Viceroy in 1946 said of Gandhi: “He never makes a pronouncement that is not so qualified and so vaguely worded that it cannot be interpreted in whatever sense best suits him at a later stage.” (See L, i, 494.) Moreover, even if Ambedkar and Gora were correct – as I believe they were – to imply (see Citations 44 and 50) that inter- marriages are a vital step toward long-term peace among groups of people with different cultural heritages, such marriages hardly suffice to ensure peace in a religiously mixed society, and can themselves be difficult (as Gandhi remarked). The story told here means two things to me: (1) Although Gandhi was slow to change his mind: [Citation 60] 1931, a Western observer: “He is a patient man, tenacious in his ideas; when he believes they are right, he needs repeated and decisive experiments before he will give them up.”81 — he would still in his last years learn from experience and from honest people, such as Ambedkar and Gora, who dis- agreed with him (Ambedkar about caste and politics; Gora about theism and the idea of inherited karma), provided the dis- agreement had the non-violent character which he took as a hallmark of any genuine search for truth. (2) Anyone responding to his call to be a “fellow seeker”: [Citation 61] 1940: “Let Gandhism be destroyed if it stands for error.... You are no followers, but fellow students, fellow pil- grims, fellow seekers, fellow workers.”82 — should make the same distinction, in regard to his teachings, that he did in regard explicitly to those of Muhammed, Jesus and the Buddha when he said: [Citation 62] 1934: “In the teachings of each prophet* ...there was a permanent portion and there was another... suited to the needs and requirements of the times.” 83 *Gandhi disclaimed prophetship (C, xxv, 117) whilst attributing it to Muhammed (C, lxxii, 224): Correspondent: We Muslims believe that the Prophet’s life was wholly directed by God and truly non-violent, though not in your sense of the term. He never waged an offensive war, and he had the tenderest regard for the feeling of others, but when he was driven to a defensive war he drew his sword for a holy war, and he permits the use of the sword under conditions he has laid down. But your non-violence is different. You prescribe it under all conditions and circumstances. I do not think the Prophet would permit this. Whom are we to follow? If we follow you, we cease to be Muslims. If we follow the Prophet, we cannot join the Congress with its creed of extreme non-violence. Will you solve this dilemma? Gandhi: I can only answer that, since you notice the difference, you should unhesitatingly follow the Prophet, not me. Only, I would like to say that I claim to have studied the life of the Prophet and the Koran as a detached student of religions, and I have come to the conclusion that the teaching of the Koran is essentially in favor of non-violence. Non-violence is better than violence, it is said in the Koran. Non-violence is enjoined as a duty, violence is permitted as a necessity. I must refuse to sit in judgement of what the Prophet did.... If I handled a motor car, I would surely run it and me into the danger zone and probably into the jaws of death. How much more dangerous would it be, then, for me to imitate a prophet! When the Prophet was asked why, if he could fast more than the prescribed times, the companions also could not, he promptly replied, “God gives me spiritual food which satisfies even the bodily wants; for you He has ordained the Ramadan. You may not copy me.” I quote from memory.  Books and periodicals cited by abbreviation: Abbre- viations A Ambedkar, Bhimrao: Writings and Speeches (12 vols., Bombay 1979-93) B Chadha, Yogesh: Gandhi, A Life (New York 1997; published in London as Rediscovering Gandhi) D Dalal, C. B.: Gandhi: 1915-1948. A Detailed Chronology (Delhi 1971) M Desai, Mahadev: The Diary of Mahadev Desai (Ahmedabad 1953)* F Fischer, Louis: The Life of Mahatma Gandhi (New York 1950) C Gandhi, Mohandas K.: The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (100 vols., Delhi 1958-94)† E ––––: An Autobiography, or The Story of my Experiments with Truth (Ahmedabad 1927 and later editions) H –––– et al., ed.: Harijan (Ahmedabad 1933-50) Y –––– et al., ed.: Young India (Ahmedabad 1919-31) G Gora: An Atheist with Gandhi (Ahmedabad 1951 and later editions) S ––––, ed.: Sangham (Vijayawada 1949-54) O The Ordinances of Manu, translated by A. C. Burnell and E. W. Hopkins (London 1884) N Nanda, B. R.: Mahatma Gandhi: A Biography (Boston and several other cities 1958) P Polak, Millie G.: Mr. Gandhi, the Man (London 1931) L Pyarelal: Mahatma Gandhi – The Last Phase (2nd edition, Ahmedabad 1956-58) R Rolland, Romain and Mahatma Gandhi, Correspondence, translated by R. A. Francis (Delhi 1976) T Tendulkar, D. G.: Mahatma. Life of Karamchand Gandhi (8 vols.; 2nd ed., Delhi 1960-63) Endnotes: 1 G, 44. 2 C, lxv, 89. 3 C, xix, 83f. 4 C, xix, 174ff. 5 A, ix, 275f. 6 C, xix, 410f. 7 C, xxvi, 289. 8 C, xxxv, 260. 9 B, 321ff (“Crusade against Untouchability”). 10 C, xix, 572. 11 Y, 23/iv/1925, 145. 12 A, ix, 277. 13 C, xlvi, 302. 14 C, li, 199f. * This book contains only one segment of Mahadev Desai’s voluminous diaries. The rest is in the process of being published by the National Gandhi Museum (New Delhi). † This first edition of the Collected Works is superior in workmanship to the revised second edition of 1998-2001. (A hallmark of the quality of the second edition is that the names of two politically significant figures, V. D. Savarkar and H. S. Suhrawardy, were, in that edition, removed from the “Index of Persons.”) 15 C, liii, 484f. 16 C, l, 233. 17 T, iii, 192f. 18 C, lix, 319. 19 C, li, 264. 20 C, lxii, 121f. 21 A, I, 63. 22 C, lxiii, 135 and 153f. 23 A, I, 87-93. 24 C, lxiv, 86ff. 25 S, 17/iv. 26 G, 34f. 27 C, lxxx, 222ff. 28 T, iii, 196ff. 29 C, xxxv, 262f. 30 Interview, February 1996, with Arjun Rao, Gora’s son-in-law. 31 F, 425. 32 C, lxxx, 222ff. 33 C, lxxxv, 24. 34 C, lxxxvi, 383f; see also lxxxvii, 372; lxxxix, 459 and xc, 484f. 35 C, lxxxvi, 484. 36 P, i, 541f. 37 C, lxxxv 38 C, xix, 83f. 39 C, xxi, 247. 40 C, xxvi, 285 41 Interview, January 1996, with Nirmala Gandhi. 42 D, 77. 43 Interview, January 1997, with Madalasa Narayan. 44 C, lxviii, 391. 45 C, xxxv, 339f. D, 102. 46 C, lxvi, 302. 47 C, l, 213. 48 C, xxxviii, 431f. 49 C, xlii, 439. 50 T, iii, 180f. 51 C, li, 237. 52 C, li, 264; see also 176, 188, 199, 206, 231, 241, 248, 264, 269. 53 C, lxxv, 207. 54 C, lv, 61. 55 C, lii, 121. 56 C, liii, 225f. 57 A, i, 67f. 58 C, LXV, 134f. 59 H, 22/vi, 173. 60 C, lxxv, 447. 61 C, lxxvii, 396. 62 C, lxxx, 77. 63 C, lxxx, 99. 64 G, 45. 65 See note 25. 66 G, 47. C, lxxxi, 432f. 67 G, 51; C, lxxxiii, 440f. 68 G, 52; C, lxxxiii, 390. 69 L, i, 60. N, 26. 70 The Hindustan Standard, 5/i/1946. 71 H, 7/vii/1946, 212f. 72 C, xxxiii, 55f, 73f ,78, 83f, 103f, 130ff, 145f, 148. 73 C, xxx, 229f. 74 C, xlvi, 303. 75 C, xlix, 478. 76 See note 34. 77 E, Part iv, Ch.22. P, 11-14. 78 C, lxxv, 375. 79 C, lxxx, 77f. 80 L, i, 558. C, lxxxvii, 11f. 81 R, 535. 82 H, 2/iii/1940, 23. 83 C, lix, 319.