In the face of British imperialism and British rule in India, Gandhi and Nehru both marketed their own form of Indian Nationalism. Although each of them had their own unique approach for the freedom of an independent nation from Great Britain, they both stood for independence and Indian nationalism. While Gandhi had a more traditional viewpoint, that focused on traditional Indian values while retreating from modernism and aspects of British and European culture. Nehru on the other hand, while promoting Indian culture, is a proponent of taking what could be beneficial to India from British and European culture and incorporating it into Indian culture, making a new and more productive India. The British Empire established a British rule of law and brought their type of civilization to India and despite some arguments for it, it was a system that relied on nationalism, imperialism, and racial superiority as the pillars that supported their right to rule.
While different, both Gandhi and Nehru worked to combat views and positions set by the British Empire.
In Kipling’s “White Man’s Burden (1899)”, Kipling describes via poem that it is a burden for white people to conquer others. They should “serve their captive’s needs” and describes those captives as “half devil and half child”. (Kipling, 273) The natives of foreign lands are described as incompetent and child like. While it describes the British as superior and better than the natives, it shows them in the light of servant leadership by highlighting the sacrifice of the British through military expansion through “savage wars of peace.” And “marking [roads] them with your dead”. (Kipling, 273) This description highlights sacrifice, making the conquering more of a “burden” than a symbol of prestige. The British held the belief that it was a noble pursuit to spread their culture to an inferior people. That not only was it their duty to spread their culture to other nations but also that the British were a superior race compared to inherently “childlike” and “savage” peoples of other continents.
Contrary to the British view of cultural superiority, Gandhi casts out British culture as the evil itself. British culture, was bleeding India dry. Gandhi sees British and modern culture as a form of slavery that threatens India. Despite the advances of their civilization, such as European technology, weaponry, food, and clothing, the quality of life does not increase, it actually decreases. (Gandhi, 35-36) Now in the new modern age, rather than working outside with close ties to the land, workers in this culture are now penned into their factories to work for hours on end only to rinse and repeat the next day in pursuit of earning more wages to buy more and more material goods. (Gandhi, 35) Gandhi is arguing that this new modern life or “civilization” is not what life was meant to be like. Not for India. With Gandhi’s resistance to the British Industrial influence, he also resisted British technology such as the railway. He saw this as an evil that men were not meant to have. It was an “institution” that gave man the abilities beyond what God had meant for the people. (Gandhi, 49) Gandhi also argues that the British parliamentary system is a tool of oppression and not the true will of the people, but actually a tool in which the British government can manipulate and abuse the people. To continue the use of the British parliament, even as an a country under an independent parliament could never be totally free. This would just lead it to home rule, not actually freeing in from the chains of the British Empire. (Gandhi, 18) Home rule itself, is not actual freedom, but still loyalty to Britain, a British system, and British customs just in another form. Gandhi cast out the parliamentary system as a “sterile woman” and a “prostitute”. (Gandhi,29) Gandhi sees the system itself as the issue, not just the people running it. The parliament system allows the parliament itself to be used as a prostitute who is manipulated by money and lust; or that it the system is sterile, because it cannot actually yield the will of the people to benefit anyone.
Nehru, unlike Gandhi, embraces some parts of modern culture. What may be beneficial to India, Nehru is willing to use no matter what its origin is. Nehru is willing to integrate everything from technology to political systems into the new India while staying true to historical India. Nehru is also not a deeply religious man (Nehru, 16). While Gandhi opposed technology, Nehru stressed its importance. While Gandhi was against foreign political systems, Nehru drew some ideas and inspiration from Marxism, indicating a willingness to use a European ideology. Nehru is willing to borrow this from foreign cultures while Gandhi wishes to fall back on traditional Indian customs.
Both Gandhi and Nehru speak of “eternal India”, being the long lasting Indian culture, not just the new or forming nation state of India. The British even acknowledge the idea of eternal India, the India that wins by outlasting hardship, not by defeating it. In “Kashi” (1910) by Edmund Candler, he remarks “India is too old to resent us. Yet who can doubt that she will survive us?”. (Boehmer, 344) This comment shows that even some of the British are realizing that the resilient Indian culture is not fading and becoming British. While there is no immediate resistance, India culture will continue on as it always has even after the British influence is gone, just like India has lasted under the rule of so many civilizations. Nehru recognizes this idea in his speech “Tryst With Destiny” in 1947. In the speech, he begins reflecting on the history and mission of India “long years ago” and that India will “redeem our pledge”. (Nehru, Tryst With Destiny) Here, Nehru is agreeing that India has always outlasted what was “”a period of ill fortune” referring to British rule as they have outlasted many civilizations before. (Nehru, destiny) Even though the British had their rule, it did not last.
In Macaulay’s “Minute on Education, he discredits both languages of Arabic and Sanskrit simply because he does not know them. (Macaulay, 10) Even though he has no knowledge of them, he automatically assumes they do not have any value compared to the English language. By his logic, the English culture is superior simply because it is what he knows. This demonstrates a certain bias in which the British claim cultural superiority above all others. This view is one that is used to justify British imperialism to spread that culture across the world. Just like how the British view it as their burden to share civilization- their system of politics, government, and economics; they also feel that their culture stands above all others. Macaulay states that while there is respect for other cultures, foreign institutions such as language, science, history, and medicine are false simply because they are not true unlike his British values. (Macaulay, 31) The British are claiming superiority simply because they claim their culture is the only true religion and way compared to others. The fact that the British culture is superior to others simply because it is theirs is the very definition of exceptionalism. Macaulay does not make an argument as to why other cultures are false except for on the grounds that the British culture is true. This view is also seen in Kipling’s “Recessional”, where Kipling has constructed a prayer for the good of the British Empire. While prayer does not suggest imperialism, his motivation does. Kipling is motivated by the idea that the British are God’s chosen people and the British strive to follow God. He prays for his people to be spared by the lord and for God’s guidance. But this is another example that argues Britain is special. It is the true culture, the true religion, a nation that follows the path god intended. This British view justified their right to forge and maintain such an empire.
While the British had their view of the superiority of British culture through education, history, and religion, India was a nation of education, history, and religion as well, developing these well before Britain had been inhabited. Both Gandhi and Nehru argue that India is full of history and culture that survived thousands of years of hardship and will continue to do so. This idea of India can be called “Eternal India”. The important aspect of “Eternal India” is the culture that survives, not just the physical India. Gandhi argues that it is spirituality or rather religion that Indians must stay in touch with. He believes Indian culture maintained a close relationship with God and what God had intended for humanity. British culture, which introduced technology such as railways, factories, and industry, only created “maddening conveniences” in Gandhi’s eyes; it did not actually help improve life, but worsened it. (Gandhi, 49) “God gifted man with intellect that he might know his maker. Man abused it, so that he might forget his maker”. (Gandhi, 49) Gandhi argues that technology separates man from his natural state as god intended for humans to live. In an effort to become more efficient, more profitable, and more “civilized” man has only managed to distance himself from God. While Gandhi sees different religions as different paths to God, he also sees the sin of technology as a reason to blame for religions and cultures clashing. “In thus attempting the impossible, man comes in contact with different natures, different religions, and is utterly confounded” (Gandhi, 49) By this, Gandhi means mankind would not be so surprised at discovering differences in others if they did not travel beyond their means given to them by God. Because of technology, the British traveled to a foreign land and were surprised by the cultural differences. Without such technology enabling such travel, there would be no need for “the white man” to burden himself and sacrifice “so much” for cultures they would have not encountered otherwise. In terms of Gandhi’s idea of multiple paths to God compared to the British view of one true religion, Gandhi saw different religions as “different roads converging to the same point”, the path one follows is not as important as the end state. (Gandhi, 49-50) Gandhi did not counter the British head on and say that Hinduism was the only way, he defeated the British view by doing what India has always done: absorb their invader and make them Indian as well. Gandhi did not fight a religious war, but rather call the British to join Indian culture.
Nehru on the other hand, while a man of science, not religion, still identifies Hinduism and religion as an important staple in society. He mentions how Gandhi has stressed religion in public life and Nehru generally agrees with his methods. (Nehru, 16) However, Nehru himself is not a religious man, but a man of science and politics. Nehru also thwarts this British approach not by arguing the opposite of the British claim, but he rather steps aside and creates a new argument. Nehru would not argue that Indian religion was better than British; rather, he argued that as an intellectual, he did not believe in it. Instead, he took stock in other doctrines such as Marxism and Leninism. (Nehru, 16-17) His selection of political ideologies countered the British argument because Nehru did subscribe to some European beliefs, but the wrong ones in the British eyes. Nehru followed Marxist/ communist influences, when the British supported a mercantilist/ capitalist economic policy. The British supported a state church, while Nehru stepped away from religion as a whole and simply pursued knowledge and science; something the British thought they had a monopoly on. However, Nehru recognized the value of religion and that Hinduism binds many Indians together. (Nehru, 16) Nehru did not use a religious approach in the sense of a shared religious belief, but he was able to use religion in a way to unite the people of India through their common culture. In Nehru’s mind, religion fulfilled “[an] inner need of human nature “ that needed to be filled. (Nehru, 13) While he did not believe it himself, he did not attempt to destroy the institution but use it to India’s advantage. While Gandhi and Nehru had two separate approaches to resisting the British view of cultural superiority, both of them resisted in their own ways, making intricate arguments rather than just ignorantly arguing the opposite of the British.
While Gandhi and Nehru did not agree on everything, they both resisted the British imperial system in their own unique way that helped Indian independence grow and become stronger. Through their own cultural experiences and views, they were able to craft counter arguments against the institution of British Imperialism. Be it the white man’s burden, in which the British claimed the responsiblility to spread their civilization and way of life due to racial superiority or the idea of cultural superiority, or the idea of Britain’s divine cause vs. Eternal India; both Gandhi and Nehru were able to make their own arguments that were effective against British rule.
Works Cited
Gandhi, M.K. “Hind Swaraj” and Other Writings: Centenary Edition. Edited by Anthony J
Parel, Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Kipling, Rudyard. “The White Man’s Burden (1899)(The Unite States and Philippine
Islands). Empire Writing, Oxford World Classics, 1998, p. 273.
Macaulay, Thomas Babington. “Minute on Indian Education.” Archives of Empire, Oct. 2003,
- 227-238.
Nehru, Jawabral. “Thryst With Destiny.” Eve of Independence. Even of Indepencence Oct
201, New Delhi, New delhi.
Nehru, Jawaherlal. The Discovery of India. (1946) Penguin Books, 2010. pp. 1-27.