You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
In an attempt to understand how Gandhi achieved without bloodshed Indian independence and the abolition of the caste system, Lowtzky traces the connection between Gandhi's relationship to his father and his relationship to Great Britain and British control over India.
During the First World War, Gandhi supported the British government in its war efforts and did not feel that this violated 'Ahimsa', with its belief in
nonviolence. Gandhi believed it the duty of the son to defend the father with 'whatever means were at his disposal'. When, however, India did not get promised independence, Gandhi's trust in Great Britain was shattered and he began his advocacy of passive resistance to the British administration. He drew an analogy: when a father does wrong it becomes the duty of a child to leave home. In India it became the duty of the subject to disassociate himself from an erring government, in order to make the government aware of doing wrong. It was 'an object lesson in Ahimsa'.
Lowtzky relates these attitudes to an incident between young Gandhi and his father, in which the father was devoted and loving instead of unforgiving, as Gandhi had expected. Gandhi learned that it is not the sinner who is evil, but the sin. This freed Gandhi from his guilt feelings and need for punishment. Similar attitudes were operative in Gandhi's successful campaign to abolish caste inequality in India.
Lowtzky says 'we can conclude that there are means to prevent war and violent revolution, such as the freeing of a child by means of right education from its hatred toward its parents'. He believes the causes of revolution and war are psychic in origin and unless the child's aggressive feelings toward his parents are successfully dealt with, the hostility remains in the adult and extends in scope and magnitude.