¹ A study of ideology defined in this manner deals with analysis of ‘central’ rather than ‘peripheral’ beliefs. See the development of this distinction in the stimulating study of ideology by Scott, J. C., Political Ideology in Malaysia, Yale University Press: New Haven, 1968, especially pp. 37–42, 59–60.Google Scholar

² Shils, Edward, ‘Ideology’ in The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Macmillan and Free Press: New York, 1968, Vol. 7, pp. 66–76.Google Scholar

³ Shils, Edward, ‘Ideology’ in The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Macmillan and Free Press: New York, 1968, Vol. 7, p. 68.Google Scholar

⁴ Ibid., p. 72.

⁵ The best study of Gandhi as a charismatic leader is contained in Lloyd, I. and Rudolph, Susanne H., The Modernity of Tradition, The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1967, Part Two: ‘The Traditional Roots of Charisma: Gandhi’.Google Scholar See also the present writer's review of this book in Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 3, Part 2, April 1969, pp. 187–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ Harijan, 9 December 1939.

⁷ Autobiography, Beacon Press: Boston, 1960, p. 208.Google Scholar

⁸ Lloyd, and Rudolph, Susanne, op. cit., pp. 192–216.Google Scholar

⁹ The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Publications Division, Government of India: Delhi, 1963, Vol. X, p. 64.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Young India, 2 July 1931.

¹¹ Shridharani, Krishnalal, War Without Violence, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan: Bombay, 1962;Google ScholarHorsburgh, H. J. N., Non-Violence and Aggression, A Study of Gandhi's Moral Equivalent Of War, Oxford University Press: London, 1968.Google Scholar

¹² These passages are all quoted in Gandhi, M. K., Satyagraha, Navajivan Press: Ahmedabad, 1958, pp. 80, 97–100.Google Scholar

¹³ Gandhi as quoted in Dhawan, Gopinath, Political Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi, Navajivan Press: Ahmedabad, 1957, p. 192.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Harijan, 3 March 1946.

¹⁵ Collected Works, 1965, Vol. XVIII, pp. 92, 242.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Collected Works, 1966, Vol. XXI, p. 415. The terms ‘anarchist’ and ‘authoritarian’ are used here to reinforce the comparative approach to ideology. However, the validity of these terms when applied to Gandhi may be shown not only through comparison with Western ideologists, but also by closely examining Gandhi within his own nationalist Indian context. In the latter instance, the concern should be with how Gandhi perceived himself and also with how some of Gandhi's Indian contemporaries perceived him. In regard to the term ‘anarchist’, Gandhi stated clearly ‘I myself am an anarchist’, (Ibid.., Vol. XIII, p. 318) and Nehru fully agreed with him. Nehru, J., Autobiography (Beacon Press: Boston, 1961, p. 318).Google ScholarGandhi's ideology is decidedly anarchist. See the present author's paper, ‘The Theory of Anarchism in Modern India’, presented to the Conference on Tradition in Indian Society and Politics at the School of Oriental and African Studies, 3 July 1969. Finally, Gandhi's behaviour, particularly after Indian Independence, in his Calcutta and Delhi fasts, may be seen as an individual anarchist's moral action to restore the forces of society without reliance upon the coercive arm of the State. The use of the term ‘authoritarian’ may seem harsh in view of Gandhi's remarkable wit, charm, and sensitivity to the feelings of others. Yet, there remains a dominant strain in Gandhi's character and approach to reform which can legitimately be called authoritarian.Google Scholar Gandhi himself came close to recognizing this when he wrote: ‘I have a strain of cruelty in me, as others say, such that people force themselves to do things … in order to please me … Even Gokhale used to tell me that I was so harsh that people felt terrified of me and allowed themselves to be dragged against their will out of sheer fear or in the attempt to please me …’ Collected Works, Vol. XII, pp. 410–11. This feature of Gandhi was realized by his associated Nirmal Kumar Bose who found in Gandhi the pronounced tendency of ‘subordinating a human being to a purpose not determined independently by the person concerned’. Bose also analyzes Gandhi's ‘ceaseless efforts at manipulating them [men and women] whether in the case of individuals or of communities’.Google ScholarMy Days With Gandhi (Nishana: Calcutta, 1953) pp. 172, 205. Subhas Chandra Bose and M. N. Roy each struggled against Gandhi's ceaseless efforts at manipulating them, and complained bitterly when their struggles proved in vain. But the contemporary of Gandhi who remained most alarmed by the Mahatma's authoritarian streak was Rabindranath Tagore. There is a chilling passage in Tagore's indictment of Gandhi's leadership, ‘The Call of Truth’, in which The Poet observes around him that ‘Something seems to be weighing on the people's spirit; a sterGoogle ScholarTowards Universal Man (Asia Publishing House; London, 1961) p. 263.Google Scholar Tagore complained that ‘Experience … has led me to dread, not so much evil itself, as tyrannical attempts to create goodness. Of punitive police, political or moral, I have a wholesome horror’. Reminiscences (Macmillan: London, 1920), p. 128. Although Tagore maintained, in some respects, profound respect for Gandhi, he also remained a splendid ‘sentinel’ (as Gandhi called him), warning his countrymen against the abuses of nationalism and excessive uses of moral authority.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Autobiography, pp. 242–3.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Harijan, 26 July 1942.

¹⁹ Gandhi, M. K., Delhi Diary, Navajivan Press: Ahmedabad, 1960, p. 326.Google Scholar

²⁰ Gandhi as quoted in Krishnadas, , Seven Months With Mahatma Gandhi, Ganesan, S.: Madras, 1928, Vol. I, pp. 203–4.Google Scholar

²¹ Rousseau, Political Writings, translated and edited by Watkins, Frederick, Nelson Philosophical Texts: New York, 1953, p. 40.Google Scholar

²² Rousseau, Political Writings, translated and edited by Watkins, Frederick, Nelson Philosophical Texts: New York, 1953, p. 42.Google Scholar

²³ Burke, as quoted in Schwartz, Benjamin I., ‘The Reign of Virtue: Some Broad Perspectives on Leader and Party in The Cultural Revolution’, The China Quarterly, No. 35, 07–09 1968, p. 8. This Excellent article seeks to compare Rousseau with Mao and is instructive for the study of comparative ideologies.Google Scholar

²⁴ This characterization of ‘moralist’ is applied to Marx by Tucker, Robert C. in Philosophy and Myth in Karl Marx, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1964, p. 15.Google Scholar

²⁵ For a discussion of Rousseau's conception of man see Wright, E. H., The Meaning of Rousseau, London, 1929.Google ScholarIn regard to Gandhi's theory of man, politics, and society see Morris-Jones, W. H., ‘Mahatma Gandhi—Political Philosopher?’ in Political Studies, 02, 1960, pp. 16–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁶ Rousseau, edited by Watkins, , ‘Editor's Introduction’, pp. xiv–xxix.Google Scholar

²⁷ The term has been used by Morris-Jones, W. H., see especially his The Government and Politics of India, Hutchinson University Library: London, 1964, pp. 59–63.Google Scholar

²⁸ Wolin, Sheldon S., Politics and Vision, Allen and Unwin: London, 1961, p. 11.Wolin defines politics as ‘both a source of conflict and a mode of activity that seeks to resolve conflicts and promote readjustment’.Google Scholar See also Crick, Bernard, In Defence of Politics, Penguin: London, 1964.Google Scholar The implications of this view of politics when contrasted with the Gandhi–Rousseau position may be seen in Morris-Jones, W. H. ‘The Unhappy Utopia’, The Economic Weekly, 25 June 1960, pp. 1027–31. Morris-Jones writes: ‘The stress on consensus seems to imply a peculiar view of the common good. It is thought of as something single and simple—discernible to men of insight and goodwill, attainable (as Rousseau again believed) through the silencing of particular or selfish interests. But is this really our experience? Is the position not rather that the common good is something towards which we can approximate only through a forthright expression of all relevant clashing interests and their reconciliation so far as is possible? The pretence that interests do not clash, that a common interest is somehow already present and only needs to be uncovered, is likely in practice to yield a good that is far from common. And there is no community, however organic it may be, without different interests.’Google Scholar

²⁹ Gandhi in Young India, 25 Feburary 1926.

³⁰ Young India, 18 June 1925.

³¹ Rousseau, edited by Watkins, especially pp. 176 and 244.Google Scholar

³² Ibid., p. 20.

³³ Young India, 1 November 1928.

³⁴ Rousseau, p. 20.Google Scholar

³⁵ Young India, 19 March 1931.

³⁶ Collected Works, Vol. XIX, p. 80.Google Scholar

³⁷ Hobbes, Thomas, Leviathan, in The English Philosophers From Bacon To Mill, Modern Library: New York, 1939), p. 196.Google Scholar

³⁸ Berlin, Isaiah, Two Concepts of Liberty, Inaugural Lecture of 31 october 1958. Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1958, pp. 51–2.Google Scholar See also the present writer's ‘The Idea of Freedom in the Political Thought of Vivekananda and Aurobindo’ in Mukherjee, S. N. (editor) South Asian Affairs, St Antony's Papers, Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1966, pp. 34–45.Google Scholar

³⁹ Gandhi wrote: ‘I confess that I have no argument to convince through reason. Faith transcends reason’. Tendulkar, D. G., Mahatma, Life of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, 8 vols; The Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India: Delhi, revised ed., 1961, Vol. II, p. 313.Google Scholar In regard to Rousseau see George, Sabine's comment ‘… reason [for Rousseau] is bad because it sets prudence against moral intuition. Without reverence, faith, and moral intuition there is neither character nor society’. A History of Political Theory, Henry Holt and Company: New York, 1956. ‘The Rediscovery of the Community: Rousseau’, Chap. xxviii, p. 578.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Rousseau, pp. 44–5.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Rousseau, p. 19.Google Scholar

⁴² Harijan, 9 September 1933.

⁴³ Harijan, 11 Feburary 1933.

⁴⁴ Rousseau, p. 113.Google Scholar