“It takes two to speak the truth – one to speak and another to hear.” ― Henry David Thoreau
Prologue
Goparaju Ramchandra Rao 91902-1975) was no ordinary doctrinaire atheist bent on converting the faithful to a vision of godlessness. His atheism was based on an idea of what he called “one-humanity” and along with his wife spent his life in active public service, participating in the freedom movement, promoting inter-caste marriages, indeed marrying his children to spouses from among dalit community to that end. He had his theatrical side that bordered on the dangerously dramatic, as when he held pork-and-beef dinners, watched solar eclipses stayed in haunted houses. But his greatest achievement, as an atheist no less, was to actively engage Gandhi in dialogues on the subject of God, humanity its alleviation from suffering, the caste system for which he sought out the Mahatma at his ashram in Sewagram, in the Harijan colony in Delhi.
The time he spent with Gandhi would profoundly affect him and, as the correspondence and conversations below show, Gandhi no less. It was an exchange, in fact a confluence that was historic for the reflexivity of its discourse, its terms of engagement defined by a growing empathy, humility, mutual curiosity and respect for world views that appear, at a surface view and at first glance, inflexible.
In the conversations below you can hear tolerance, a willingness to learn by listening, indeed an eagerness to understand the ‘other.’ Gora’s adoration is matched by Gandhi’s gradual affection (but never condescension) after some awkwardness: initial curiosity gives way to an eagerness to learn from the other’s point of view. Gora the atheist acknowledges a humility that expresses the same desire: to learn about the need for faith. Theos and A-Theos are not metaphysical or hermeneutic terms for engagement; the conversations on matters of faith or no-faith, theos or a-theos never stray far from the terrain of practicality or rather praxis; to that extent, the reader ‘listening’ in is also grounded in the world and its iniquities. Both Gandhi and Gora agree, over the course of their dialogues, that paths may diverge but the goal is one. The resolution is tentative but resonates. The deeply spiritual “prophet” (Gora’s term) believer in the multiplicity of faiths and the atheist, believer in none but a ‘creedless’ humanity, represent an Indic tradition of learning through argument and conversation
It could not have been otherwise; Gora’s authenticity reaches the ‘reader’ through Gandhi who feels the atheist radiates a conviction that K.G. Mashruwala, the Gandhian who wrote an Introduction to Gora’s memoir, found to be no less a faith itself. Mashruwala signed off his own “conversation” (that is what the Introduction can be ‘read’ as) with the following: “Of great and practical importance is his living faith in living and dying for what he believes to be right, good and just, and in accordance with the highest principles of social and personal morality.” And with a deep bow to this atheist, Mashruwala, then the editor of the Harijan pays a rich tribute that also interstitially sums up his own ‘Gandhian’ vision of the place of God in our world, in humanity itself: “…as long as he retains a loving heart, exemplary moral character and courage, both in personal and public life, and a life of service and sacrifice, his name will be found in the list of God’s own devotees. For his sake, deva will assume the name adeva.”
Gora titles his chapters “interviews”. We have retained the original chapter headings. But for us, these are not “interviews.” The word connotes a hierarchy of power; perhaps Gora meant it that way. But for us the interactions do not exhibit the performativity of hierarchy; indeed the interactions are dialogues, conversations between equals and that is the stunning sound you can hear in the exchanges between Gandhi and Gora—the inflections of empathy and tolerance for positions that may never find resolution in the realm of belief though they coalesce in the troubled territory of praxis
**
Excerpts from “An Atheist with Gandhi” by Gora
Chapter III: I Go to Sewagram
Then came the 1942 ‘Quit India’ movement. My co-workers and I were frequently in gaol till 1944. Among us was a young man, Shri D. Ramaswamy, who had been in Sevagram Ashram before he joined us in 1942. Soon after Gandhiji’s release in 1944, Shri Ramaswamy again went to Sevagram Ashram. In rendering an account of his work to Gandhiji, he had occasion to describe the atheistic approach to the problem of untouchability — a work with which he was intimately associated during the two years he was with us in the village of Mudunur.
The following is the authorized gist of Shri Ramaswamy’s conversation with Gandhiji as noted down by Shri Pyarelal, Gandhiji’s secretary:
Faith in God and Constructive Work
The programme laid before the country by Gandhiji, i.e. the constructive programme, is not a new thing. He has always held that countrywide execution of the fifteen-fold programme in its entirety means independence for the people of India. He has often said that he is not a politician. He is essentially a man of religion and a social reformer, and to the extent political factors have come in his way he has been unwillingly drawn into the political sphere. Politics divorced from religion or social reform have no use for him. Execution of the fifteen-fold programme means re-organization of the village life and evolution of non-violent society. Purged of communal disharmony and washed of the sin of untouchability, the 7,00,000 [sic] villages in India, healthy, self-sufficient and literate, cannot be kept in subjection. the task is tremendous. the majority of our people are attracted by political meetings, processions and the like; but quiet labour in the villages is too insipid for them. The following discourse that Gandhiji had with a young graduate will be of some use to workers faced with such a predicament.
This young fellow saw Gandhiji at Sevagram the other day in order to present him with a report of his work and seek his help and guidance. He told Gandhiji that he had a cosmopolitan outlook and did not believe in God. Gandhiji was pleased with his report. “Re-organization of the villages is a very intricate problem,” he said, “but if we can find even half a dozen workers of the right type, we can solve it in due time. The time factor is important, but given the right start the thing will grow like a snow ball. You have heard of Booker T. Washington. We have to produce better workers even than him in order to achieve our object.”
“As for you,” he continued, “your ambition will be fulfilled if, beside your ability and enthusiasm, you introduce something else in your life, i.e., a living faith in God. Then all insipidity will vanish. A cosmopolitan outlook is a necessity but it can never be a substitute for God. God is there, but our conception of God is limited by our mental horizon and by our physical environment. For instance when you read the Bible, you find that the God of the Hebrews was quite different from the God of Jesus Christ. You are dissatisfied with the prevalent idea about God, for the simple reason that those who profess belief in God do not present a living God in their lives.
“Unless you have a living faith in God to sustain you, when failure stares you in the face there is disappointment for you. You may develop a revulsion for the work that you have taken up. You may begin to feel that after all what Dr. Ambedkar said was the right thing and you made a mistake in rejecting the high posts which you had been offered. My advice to you is that you should not leave this Ashram till you have found God. In spite of my limitless failings I am a seeker after Truth and so are my companions in this place. The Ashram, apart from its inhabitants, the sum total of energy that it represents, the principles for which it stands, may enable you to know God to the extent that you may be able to say ‘God is’, just as you can say ‘Truth is’.”
“I can say that in the sense that Truth is the antithesis of false-hood,” replied the young friend.
“That is good enough,” said Gandhiji. “The seers have described God as:
नेति नेति .
{“Not. Not This.”} Truth will elude you. The sum total of all that is true is Truth. But you can’t sum up all that is true. Like most of those who have had Western education, you have got an analytical mind. But there are things that can’t be analysed. God who can be analysed by my poor intellect won’t satisfy me. Therefore I do not try to analyse Him. I go behind the relative to the absolute and I get my peace of mind.” Friend: “I have carefully gone through your writings in the Harijan and Young India. Your way of life appeals to me very much. It offers scope for the exercise of individual will. The idea of God introduces a determinism and that limits man. It interferes with his free will.” Gandhiji: “Is there such a thing as free will? Where is it? We are mere playthings in the hands of Providence.” Friend: “What is the relationship between God and man, between Truth and God?”
Gandhiji: “I used to say ‘God is Truth.’ That did not completely satisfy So I said ‘Truth is God.’ He and His law are not different. God’s law is God Himself. To interpret it man has to resort to intense prayer and merge himself in God. Each one will interpret the same in his or her won way. As for the relationship between man and God, man does not become man by virtue of having two hands. He becomes man by becoming a tabernacle of God.”
Friend: When my idea if God itself is not clear, your talk of man becoming a tabernacle of God makes things still more confusing….”
Gandhiji: “Yet it is the true conception. Unless we have the realization that the body is the house of God, we are less than men. And where is the difficulty or confusion in conceiving Truth as God? You will concede that we are not tabernacles of Untruth: we are of Truth.” After a moment of silence, Gandhiji continued, “Every one who wants to live a true life has to fact difficulties I life, some which appear insurmountable. At that time it is faith in God that is Truth along, that will sustain you. The fellow-feeling which makes you feel miserable because of your brother’s misery is godliness. You may call yourself an atheist, but so long as you feel akin with mankind you accept God in practice. I remember of clergymen who came to the funeral of the great atheist Bradlaugh. they said they had come to pay their homage because he was a godly man.
“If you go back with a living faith in God, in Truth, I have no doubt that your work will flourish. You should feel dissatisfied with everything until you have found Him and you will find Him,” he concluded.
The friend has decided to stay at the Ashram for some time at least and he is trying to find God through labour for the service of his fellow beings.
From the above conversation it is clear that Shri Ramaswamy just presented the atheistic outlook to Gandhiji. Gandhiji’s reaction conformed to the common meaning of atheism, namely that atheism is something incapable of and even contrary to goodness and goodwill. This is evident in his remark, ‘The fellow feeling which makes you feel miserable because of your brother’s misery is godliness.’ the remark suggested that fellow-feeling was the outcome of godliness, and conversely that those who had no belief in god could have no fellow-feeling either. This is the way in which atheism is now understood and the first reaction of Gandhiji to Shri Ramaswamy’s presentation of atheism conformed to this kind of understanding of atheism.
During the conversation Shri Ramaswamy had occasions to refer to his association with me. Then Gandhiji wanted to know me. I was invited to Sevagram Ashram. I went there in the last week of November, 1944.
**
Chapter IV: My First Interview with Gandhi
Shri Ramaswamy who was continuing his stay in the Ashram, was the first to receive me at Sevagram. He introduced me to Shri Pyarelal, Gandhiji’s secretary, and to the other ashramites. He acquainted me with the details of his conversation with Gandhiji on atheism, reported in the last chapter. He told me that Gandhiji desired to know me.
Gandhiji was particularly busy those days with the many deputations that waited upon him. So it was two days before an interview with Gandhiji could be fixed for me. The time for the interview was Gandhiji’s evening walk. On the appointed evening I waited outside Gandhiji’s hut. Just at 5-30 p.m. Gandhiji came out of his hut for the usual walk. I was introduced to him. He greeted me with a broad smile and the first question, “What shall I talk to a godless man?”
We both laughed heartily and I replied, “Bapuji, I am not a godless man, I am an atheist.” Then the conversation continued as we walked together. Gandhiji: How do you differentiate between godlessness and atheism?
I: Godlessness is negative. It merely denies the existence of god. Atheism is positive. It asserts the condition that results from the denial of god.
G: You say that atheism is positive?
I: Yes. In positive terms atheism means self-confidence and free will. Atheism is not negative in meaning though it is negative in form. Look at the words: nonco-operation, non-violence, ahimsa. They have positive connotations, though they are negative in form. To express an idea that is unfamiliar, we often use the negative of a negative. For instance ‘fearlessness’ for ‘courage’.
G: You are talking of words.
I: Atheism bears a positive significance in the practice of life. Belief in god implies subordination of man to the divine will. In Hindu thought man’s life is subordinated to karma or fate. In general, theism is the manifestation of the feeling of slavishness in man. Conversely, atheism is the manifestation of the feeling of freedom in man. Thus theism and atheism are opposite and they represent the opposite feelings, namely, dependence and independence respectively.
G: You are too theoretical. I am not so intellectual. Go to professors and discuss.The remark pulled me up. I realized that Gandhiji’s bent of mind was primarily practical. So I adjusted myself and said:
I: If atheism were only theoretical, I would not have cared for it, nor wasted your time. We have practical programmes based upon the atheistic outlook.
G: Ah, ah, I know that, so I am talking to you. Tell me what you are doing among the villagers.
I: We conduct cosmopolitan dinners regularly on every full-moon night. We have selected the full-moon day for the dinner because we get moonlight and there is no need of lamplights. For the dinner the invitation is open to all who pay one anna towards the cost of their fare. One anna per head is sufficient in a village, because, the menu is very simple, we get fuel and vegetables free and we collect buttermilk from the villagers. At the cosmopolitan dinners we
care more for eating together than for eating full or well. The venue of the dinner is changed every time, a common place in the Harijanwada or a friend’s house in the village. Normally forty to fifty guests drawn from different castes partake in the dinner. A host is selected every time and the guests pay him their annas at least a day in advance of the full-moon. The host holds himself responsible for the arrangements in connection with that dinner. The balance of money, if any, is credited to the next month. Some of us do not attend public functions and wedding celebrations unless they include cosmopolitan dinners. Besides cosmopolitan dinners, we hold night literacy classes in Harijanwadas and adult education classes for the general public of the village. The adult education mainly consists of newspaper reading, map pointing and explanation. Everywhere we encourage cosmopolitan habits. Social mixing is not an easy affair especially in the villages now. It becomes more difficult when Harijans are brought into the picture.
G: Yes, I know that. But you could carry on this programme without atheism.
I: My method is atheism. I find that the atheistic outlook provides a favourable background for cosmopolitan practices. Acceptance of atheism at once pulls down caste and religious barriers between man and man. There is no longer a Hindu, a Muslim or a Christian. All are human beings. Further, the atheistic outlook puts man on his legs. There is neither divine will nor fate to control his actions. The release of free will awakens Harijans and the depressed classes from the stupor of inferiority into which they were pressed all these ages when they were made to believe that they were fated to be untouchables. So I find the atheistic outlook helpful for my work. After all it is man that created god to make society moral and to silence restless inquisitiveness about the how and the why of natural phenomena. Of course god was useful though a falsehood. But like all falsehoods, belief in god also gave rise to many evils in course of time and today it is not only useless but harmful to human progress. So I take to the propagation of atheism as an aid to my work. The results justify my choice.
Bapuji listened to me patiently and in the end said stiffly, “I should fast even because atheism is spreading.”
I: I will fast against your fast. (I answered at once.)
G: You will fast? (Gandhiji said looking straight into my face.)
I: Yes, Bapuji; but why should you fast? Tell me how atheism is wrong and I will change.
G: I see, your conviction in atheism is deep. (Gandhiji said slowly). I bowed.
G: The present conduct of people is giving room for the spread of atheism. (Gandhiji said reflectively.)
By then we had walked and conversed together for about twenty minutes. Gandhiji looked at me thoughtfully. There was a pause.
Shri Pyarelal who was all the while walking behind us and talking with others, joined Gandhiji and said that he wanted to tell Gandhiji something in private. Immediately those who were walking with us stepped aside a few paces. I too said Namaste to Gandhiji and was leaving him when he told me amidst laughter, “You can remain; privacy will not be disturbed as you do not understand Hindustani.” All of us enjoyed the joke. Thereby Gandhiji perhaps suggested that I should pick up Hindustani.
With folded hands I took leave of Bapuji. He smiled and said that he would fix up for me another interview with him very soon. I retired to my room in the Ashram and thought over the talk with Gandhiji. Two things became apparent to me.
First, Gandhiji was pre-eminently a practical man. He judged He judged theories and ideologies by the results they yielded in practice. Indeed that is a safe method to settle differences. Second, Gandhiji had the same views and prejudices against atheism as the common man. But in his characteristic way he clothed them with courtesy, when he remarked that the present conduct of people gave room for the spread of atheism. Evidently he thought that atheism had developed in reaction to the misbehaviour of god-believers and that better conduct on their part would render atheism unnecessary. But I felt differently. The theistic outlook is fundamentally defective and it is bound to corrupt social behaviour. The misdeeds of the theists are neither whims nor forced by circumstances but the direct consequences of their theistic outlook. So the call for atheism is not out of disgust for the present conduct of people who profess the theistic faith, but out of a desire for a better way of life. The conduct of people cannot be improved unless the atheistic outlook is adopted. Atheism and theism represent opposite forms of behaviour and each is positive in its own way.
All this I wanted to make plain to Bapuji at the next interview.
**
Chapter V: My Second Interview
After three days, Shri Pyarelal informed me that I could meet Bapuji that evening for half an hour at 4 o’clock.
I knew that Bapuji was very particular about punctuality. So I stepped into his apartment exactly at 4 o’clock by my watch. Bapuji who had just finished talking to an interviewer, looked at me and then at his watch and said to me smilingly, “You are half a minute too soon!”
“I am sorry, it is 4 o’clock by my watch,” I replied stepping back. “No, no, come in,” Bapuji said, “watches may disagree, but let us not.” It was a good joke.
He pointed out a seat to me and before I said anything to him, he started with a volley of questions. Each question required not more than a few words in answer from me. Within that half an hour he put me somewhere about what seemed to me a hundred questions. They related to minute details of my daily life, habits and the reactions of the villagers to my programmes. He inquired closely into my needs and difficulties and the help I had to meet them. He wanted to know the varied aspects of my relations — with my parents, sisters and brothers and cousins and relatives far and near. He was particular on questions that referred to my wife and to my children and their education and their health. Now and then he would say, “I wanted to know….”, wait for a moment or two and then he would put the question to me.
The series of questions revealed not only what intimate knowledge he had of the devious ways and practical difficulties of workers but how well he prepared himself to tackle me during that half an hour.
Toward the end he asked me whether I could stay longer in the Ashram. But on that occasion I had not gone to the Ashram prepared for a longer stay than a week. So I had to take leave of him with the promise of another visit to the Ashram in the near future.
I left the Ashram the next day deeply impressed with the immense interest that Bapuji took in me and my work. I was particularly happy to find that I could make Gandhiji take interest in my atheism, the cause which I represented. During the week I was in the Ashram I visited frequently the adjoining village of Sevagram where experiments were carried on in village work under the guidance of Gandhiji. I also gained the acquaintance of the ashramites and the sister institutions, namely the Talimi Sangh, the Charkha Sangh, the Goseva Sangh, the Dawakhana, Gopuri and Gram Udyog Sangh.
I was not attending the prayers, of course, and none seemed to mind my absence, though prayers in the early morning hours and towards the evening time formed important items of the Ashram routine. My friend, Shri
Ramaswamy, was not attending either. Shri Bhansali, an old inmate of the Ashram, also was not attending the prayers; he was not an atheist, though.
Thus ended the first phase of my personal contact with Gandhiji in the cause of Atheism. It opened the way for further attempts at closer understanding.
*****
Read the full essay here: https://www.thebeacon.in/2019/02/15/from-a-culture-of-conversation-gora-and-gandhi-bookshelf/ Related essay on K.G. Mashruwala Introduction to Gora’s book: FROM A ‘CULTURE OF CONVERSATION’: GORA AND GANDHI: The Missing Part!
Leave a Reply