We are like mirrors of the world (jagatnī ārsīrūpe). All states of existence of the world reside in our body-world (śarīr-jagat).Footnote 1 It is evident that if we transform these inner states within us, the nature of the world itself will be transformed … This is the great divine illusion (īśvarnī mahāmāyā).
—M. K. Gandhi, ‘Accidents’, 1913Footnote 2They are mirrors of their circumstances … They show themselves exactly as they are … ‘As the ruler (rājā), so the ruled (prajā)’ is true, similarly, ‘as the ruled (prajā), so the ruler (rājā)’ is also true.
—M. K. Gandhi, ‘Mirror of existential reality’, 1920Footnote 3Introduction
This article examines the trajectory of the first all-India national movement (1919–1922), led by M. K. Gandhi (Mohandās Karamcand Gāndhī, 1869–1948), through the analysis of the underlying metaphysics of brahmacarya (celibate self-control)—his experiments in mastering bodily desires, particularly sexual passions. This perspective offers new insights into Gandhi’s decision to abruptly suspend the movement following the Chauri Chaura incident.Footnote 4
Upon his return from South Africa in 1915, Gandhi’s exceptional leadership and charismatic presence proved instrumental in uniting diverse groups—Indian elites, peasants, and Muslim forces.Footnote 5 Rallying around the vision of ‘one nation/people (ek prajā)’,Footnote 6 he launched the all-India satyāgraha struggle from 1919, marking the first organized nationwide independence movement during the colonial era. Yet, at its zenith in early 1922, Gandhi unexpectedly called for its complete cessation in response to a peasant uprising in Chauri Chaura, a small town in the Gorakhpur district of the United Provinces.
This ‘sudden’ decision to halt the movement of approximately 300 million people over a disturbance in a remote, politically insignificant town, ‘upset’Footnote 7 and ‘deeply shocked’Footnote 8 contemporary political leaders. Jawaharlal Nehru, then imprisoned, captured the Congress Party leadership’s reaction to this stunning event in his Autobiography:
The sudden suspension of our movement after the Chauri Chaura incident was resented, I think, by almost all the prominent Congress leaders—other than Gandhiji, of course. My father (who was in jail at the time) was much upset by it. The younger people were naturally even more agitated … Were a remote village and mob of excited peasants in an out-of-the-way place going to put an end, for some time at least, to our national struggle for freedom?Footnote 9
The Chauri Chaura incident stands as a pivotal moment in the history of India’s independence movement and, naturally enough, has drawn sustained scholarly attention. Yet, analyses of Gandhi’s enigmatic decision to halt the movement have rarely ventured beyond such conventional explanations as the following: ‘Although he [Gandhi] had realized that a mass campaign must be allowed to have a natural momentum, he had become increasingly aware in the days before the Chauri Chaura slaughter of the lack of real preparation of civil disobedience as he advised it.’Footnote 10 No study has, to the best of my knowledge, seriously engaged with or successfully shown what the ‘real’ preparation meant for Gandhi at this juncture.Footnote 11 Several distinct scholarly works in subaltern studies,Footnote 12 on the other hand, highlight the agency of the incident’s participants; these works, nonetheless, remain insufficient to explain Gandhi’s principled rationale behind his decision—why this particular incident, among other purportedly ‘political’ civil disturbances and rural unrest, served as the catalyst for suspending the movement.Footnote 13 Indeed, as Claude Markovits, somewhat hyperbolically, notes, while Gandhi explicitly ‘condemned’ the Chauri Chaura incident as a ‘violent’ event, he ‘kept silent’ regarding other manifestations of collective violence, most notably the Malabar Rebellion.Footnote 14
This article illuminates the moral imperatives underlying Gandhi’s decision to suspend the movement by examining his brahmacarya practice—his rigorous experiments in sexual restraint that he pursued concurrent with the political campaign. While Gandhi’s first all-India satyāgraha campaign has been scrutinized from multiple perspectives, the relationship between his brahmacarya experiments and the development of his political thought remains largely unexplored.Footnote 15 Several previous works have demonstrated the inseparability of public and private domains within Gandhi’s conception of svarāj (self-rule, independence).Footnote 16 This analytical framework, however, has yet to be applied to his momentous suspension of the first Non-Cooperation Movement. I argue that Gandhi’s brahmacarya experiments offer a crucial, though hitherto overlooked, dimension for understanding how he came to suspend the movement after Chauri Chaura—one that complements existing political and social analyses while revealing aspects of his decision-making that have remained obscure.
The argument that follows is divided into three sections. The first section traces the evolution of Gandhi’s conception of brahmacarya after his return from South Africa to India in 1915 until the inception of the nationwide hartāl (mass shutdown/strike). The second section examines Gandhi’s writings in both Gujarati and English on the Non-Cooperation Movement to explore the relationship between his brahmacarya experiments and his evolving understanding of ahiṃsā (non-violence). Finally, the analysis addresses the critical nexus between the Chauri Chaura incident—which occurred several months after the launch of the svadeśī movement—and Gandhi’s conceptualization of vīryasaṅgrah (concentration/preservation of semen). The incident, the analysis suggests, led Gandhi to perceive the failure of the quest for personal svarāj through brahmacarya, compelling him to draw a profound parallel with the failure to achieve political svarāj.
‘Ahiṃsā in hiṃsā’ and the ‘detention’ of sexual desire
Terminological shift: from ‘compassion’ to ahiṃsā
This section examines the formative four-year period between Gandhi’s return to India in 1915 and the launch of the nationwide hartāl in 1919. It illuminates how a crucial aspect of ahiṃsā emerged through its intricate relationship with Gandhi’s conception of brahmacarya—an aspect that would later characterize the principle of the Non-Cooperation Movement from 1920 onwards.
Upon his arrival in India, Gandhi achieved a remarkable ascendance to leadership of the independence movement within a mere four years. His rise from relative obscurity in domestic politics to the foremost position of national leadership was closely tied to his effective organization of three local satyāgraha campaignsFootnote 17 across India between 1917 and 1918.Footnote 18
In these campaigns, Gandhi rapidly gained insight into the distinctive characteristics and proclivities of movement participants in this new political terrain—a context markedly different from his South African experience. This growing understanding was inextricably connected to Gandhi’s strategic replacement of the universalizable notions of ‘compassion (dayā)’ and ‘love (prem)’—which had characterized his satyāgraha efforts in South Africa—with ‘ahiṃsā’, a term more resonant with his native Gujarati populace. It was only after his return to India that Gandhi began to use the word ahiṃsā, which upholds the integrity of satya, as the cardinal principle of satyāgraha.Footnote 19 This linguistic shift was, however, by no means without its complications.
Understanding this requires an examination of the semantic distinctions between these terms. During his South African sojourn, concepts of compassion and love primarily facilitated satyāgraha struggles. These principles were not merely strategies of peaceful resistance, but indicators of the practitioners’ psychological states. The satyāgraha movement privileged the practitioner’s inner state of ‘self (ātmā)’, while the external manifestation of ‘absence of violence’ was not a top priority.Footnote 20 It was precisely this correspondence between the inner and outer dimensions that attested to the integrity of satya. In contrast, the traditional concept of ahiṃsā among Gujarati Vaiṣṇavites, where Gandhi established his base, as Gandhi understood it, did not give primacy to the practitioner’s inner disposition. Instead, it manifested chiefly in quotidian practices—vegetarianism and cow protection. If ahiṃsā was interpreted as merely outward observances, it would be essentially incompatible with Gandhi’s satyāgraha philosophy. The challenge Gandhi encountered upon his return stemmed from these semantic divergences.
In Satyanā Prayogo (lit. Experiments of Truth), Gandhi recounts that during the Kheda satyāgraha, he became aware that the local populace misunderstood the meaning of his ahiṃsā.Footnote 21 According to Gandhi, the people of Kheda equated ahiṃsā with superficial acts of non-injury or non-killing. He observed that their understanding of ahiṃsā amounted to passive submission to rulers or social norms, stemming from fear of punishment or death. This ‘bitter experience’ was shocking in a way he had never experienced in South Africa.Footnote 22 Gandhi became almost ‘mad’ and frustrated;Footnote 23 he went around teaching that his concept of ahiṃsā was not a ‘weapon of the weak’—meaning mere outward customary performances—but rather a ‘weapon of the strong’, which required practitioners to act with deep conviction in the power and significance of ahiṃsā.Footnote 24 However, ‘the people of Kheda could not fully understand the inner essence (svarūp) of satyāgraha’.Footnote 25 Gandhi ‘could not feel at peace’ with ‘the submissive atmosphere’ of the Kheda people.Footnote 26
During this period of psychological turmoil, Gandhi began attributing a ‘new’ meaning to his concept of ahiṃsā that went beyond the notions of compassion and love he had previously formulated in South Africa. As scholars such as E. H. Erikson have noted, this conceptual development represented ‘surprising insights’ that proved ‘indispensable in the history of militant non-violence’.Footnote 27
Letter to Maganlal Gandhi
The following analysis examines a letter dated 25 July 1918, wherein Gandhi first articulated his ‘new’ interpretation of ahiṃsā. This epistolary text, composed in Gujarati and addressed to his kinsman Maganlal Gandhi (hereafter Maganlal), presents Gandhi’s important philosophical reflections to elucidate the fundamental essence of satyāgraha philosophy.
[1] Svāminārāyaṇ and Vallabhācārya have eroded our manliness (māṇsāī ) … The prem (love, affection) taught by Svāminārāyaṇ and Vallabh is shallow … [2] Ahiṃsā is the cessation of mental waves (ahiṃsā e cittvṛttine nirodh che ) … [3] I could not see before that there is ahiṃsā in hiṃsā (hiṃsāmāṃ ahiṃsā che ), but now I have begun to see it. This has been a big change. I have not understood the duty to stop a drunk person from committing atrocities, the need to euthanize a dog in extreme suffering, or the necessity of killing a rabid dog. All these are ahiṃsā in hiṃsā (hiṃsāmāṃ ahiṃsā). Hiṃsā is a bodily attribute (śarīrno guṇ). [4] Brahmacarya is the renunciation of sexual/sensual tendencies (viṣayvṛttino tyāg ), but we do not raise our children to be impotent (napuṃsak ). Even while being supremely vīrya -possessing (atyant vīryavān ), only when one detains (roke ) one’s own sensual organs (viṣayendriya ), that is brahmacarya . Similarly, our children should be physically strong (śarīre baḷiyāṃ). [5] If they cannot do the complete renunciation of hiṃsā tendencies (hiṃsāvṛtti sarvathā tyāg ), by allowing them to commit hiṃsā and use their fighting power (laḍvānī śakti ), they can become ahiṃsak.Footnote 28
Regarding the underlined passage [1], Gandhi criticized the teachings of ‘prem’ prevalent among the Svāminārāyaṇ and Vallabhācārya sects as mere ‘empty practices’. He further condemned them for having lost their ‘true purpose (sādhya vastu)’ and for having stolen people’s ‘manliness (māṇsāī)’.Footnote 29
In contrast to the conventional understanding of prem or ahiṃsā in his homeland, as shown in passage [2], Gandhi conceptualized ahiṃsā as ‘the cessation (nirodh) of mental waves (cittvṛtti)’. This formulation distinctly echoes Patañjali’s Yogasūtra (1.2), ‘Yoga is the cessation of mental waves (Yogaścittavṛttinirodhaḥ)’Footnote 30—a text Gandhi had thoroughly studied through Vivekananda’s Rāja Yoga, particularly since 1903.Footnote 31 This parallel can be interpreted as being indicative of Gandhi’s critical re-engagement with Vivekananda’s yogik advaita, which is characterized by a ‘masculine Hinduism’ with an emphasis on physical and mental fortitude.Footnote 32
To understand how ahiṃsā and the quality of ‘manliness’ were connected at a metaphysical level, it is necessary to consider the concept of brahmacarya mentioned in [4]. In explaining his philosophy of ahiṃsā, Gandhi suddenly begins discussing brahmacarya. The meaning of ‘supremely vīrya-possessing’ mentioned in [4] requires examination. This ‘virya-possessing’ refers to one who practises ‘vīrya-concentration (vīryasaṅgrah)’,Footnote 33 one of the most crucial observances of Gandhi’s brahmacarya experiments. Vīrya-concentration is the practice of accumulating ‘virya (semen, vital fluid)’ within the body, which is regarded as the source of ‘vitality’ and ‘virility’.
Gandhi appeared to have developed his philosophical understanding of vīrya-concentration through Vivekananda’s and Manilal N. Dvivedi’s commentaries on the Yogasūtra.Footnote 34 In Rāja Yoga, Vivekananda explains how vīrya or ‘sex energy’ can be ‘changed’ into ‘ojas’—representing ‘tremendous energy and gigantic will-power’.Footnote 35 Dvivedi’s commentary also interprets the Yogasūtra’s concept of brahmacarya: ‘the semen has great connection with … the spirituality of men. The abstaining from waste of this important element gives power, the real occult power.’Footnote 36 For Gandhi, this practice of vīrya-concentration was essential for satyāgraha practitioners to attain physico-spiritual strength.Footnote 37 Thus, satyāgraha was attainable only for the ‘strong’—those who achieved maximal ‘manliness’ through vīrya-concentration—rather than those who remained enfeebled.
The process of transmuting vīrya into spiritual force, which Gandhi later interpreted as ‘śakti’,Footnote 38 required extraordinary ascetic discipline. If vīrya was converted into śakti, the satyāgrahī would channel ahiṃsā, capable of effecting social change. However, such spiritual alchemy rarely occurred. Usually, the process remained partial, with energy surfacing as ‘sexual passion (viṣaynī icchā, vikār, kām)’. According to this understanding, unconverted sexual energy corresponded to manifestations of ‘violence’—including aggression and anger—in the phenomenal world. Conversely, the successful transmutation of vīrya into śakti would maximize ahiṃsā, bringing ‘peace (śānti)’ and ‘unity (ekta)’ to the phenomenal realm. During his South African sojourn, Gandhi developed this conception of body cosmology, positing a correlation between physico-spiritual states and conditions in the phenomenal world.Footnote 39 In fact, this body cosmology, wherein the successful transmutation of vīrya into śakti was pursued, functioned for Gandhi as self-assurance regarding the integrity of his satya—that is, ultimate liberation (mokṣa)—much as worldly success served as Heilsgewissheit in Weber’s The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.Footnote 40
Gandhi’s letter to Maganlal indicates that his basic framework of body cosmology has disintegrated. According to Gandhi’s corporal logic, one’s outward hiṃsak conditions are considered signs of invisible sexual passions. Yet, in his ‘new’ articulation of ahiṃsā, as discussed in passages [4] and [5], Gandhi presents a logically inconsistent claim; while he permits a certain level of hiṃsa, he strictly advocates ‘the renunciation of sexual tendencies’. Gandhi, here, adopts a compromising position only with respect to ‘hiṃsā tendencies’. He even asserts that these accommodating hiṃsak conditions are ahiṃsak, thus justifying committing hiṃsā. Contrarily, he never made compromising statements regarding sexual abstinence.
In this context, his explanation of vīrya-concentration merits attention; he states ‘one detains (roke) one’s own sensual organs, that is brahmacarya’. Indeed, the word ‘rokvuṃ’, which means ‘not allow to move’ and ‘to prevent’,Footnote 41 stands in stark contrast to a more creative transformative process of sexual energy. The forcible method of ‘detention’ or ‘prevention’ would not enable successful ‘renunciation of sexual tendencies’. Gandhi’s coercive practice of brahmacarya explains his contradictory claim of ahiṃsā in hiṃsā in passage [3].Footnote 42
Indeed, this logical inconsistency in the body cosmology, of which Gandhi himself was unaware at this juncture, provides significant insight into the subsequent development of the all-India satyāgraha campaign under his leadership.
Two weeks after writing to Maganlal, Gandhi fell gravely ill with dysentery.Footnote 43 During his convalescence, he reluctantly resumed drinking milk—a practice he had previously renounced due to its purported stimulation of the sexual urge.Footnote 44 Upon regaining sufficient strength to read the newspaper, Gandhi encountered news of the Rowlatt Bill’s promulgation. This moment proved pivotal, as Gandhi appeared to draw a cosmic connection between the manifestation of violence both in the external and internal worlds and the potential arousal of his sexual passions by his milk consumption.Footnote 45
Right after the recovery from his illness, he began to organize the nationwide hartāl, marking the inception of the satyāgraha campaign against the Rowlatt Bill.Footnote 46 The first historic all-India mass protest, thus, emerged at a moment when Gandhi was navigating a profound spiritual turmoil.
Doctrine of non-violence and the bonfire of foreign clothes
The beginning of the independence movement
The Rowlatt Bill precipitated an unprecedented intensification of anti-British sentiment throughout India. Despite unanimous opposition from Indian Legislative Council members and Gandhi’s explicit warning to the viceroy regarding potential civil disobedience,Footnote 47 the government enacted the Rowlatt Act on 21 March 1919. In response, Gandhi inaugurated the first nationwide satyāgraha campaign—manifesting as a hartāl—on 6 April (rescheduled from 30 March).Footnote 48
Implementation was, however, immediately beset by upheavals. A miscommunication in Delhi caused premature mobilization on 30 March, despite postponement to 6 April. This sparked riots across Delhi, Punjab, and Lahore. Unrest spread to Bombay, Ahmedabad, and Viramgam within a week.Footnote 49 The crisis peaked with the Jallianwala Bagh massacre on 13 April. In response, Gandhi acknowledged a ‘Himalayan blunder (pahāḍ jēvḍī bhūl)’, suspending the movement on 18 April.Footnote 50
While Gandhi conceded the blunder, he maintained that satyāgraha ‘had nothing to do with the violence of the mob’.Footnote 51 He stated that satyāgraha had ‘neither been the cause nor the occasion of the upheaval’,Footnote 52 attributing the riots to accidental confrontations between agitated police forces and peripheral crowds.Footnote 53 While suspending activities, Gandhi affirmed that the ‘really operative part movement namely preaching practice of truth [and] non-violence continue’.Footnote 54
The resumption of the movement required a strategic 16-month suspension. During this period, Gandhi cultivated crucial Muslim support by assuming the chairmanship of the Khilafat movement conference. In a significant rhetorical shift, he began to utilize the religiously neutral English term ‘non-violence’ along with Hindu-associated term ahiṃsā.Footnote 55 Subsequently, he initiated a comprehensive nationwide anti-British resistance, by naming it the ‘Non-violent Non-Cooperation Movement’.
‘The Doctrine of the Sword’ (1920)
Gandhi’s Non-Cooperation Movement launched in August 1920. The principle of ‘non-violence’ was first comprehensively articulated in his seminal article, ‘The Doctrine of the Sword’, published in his weekly journal, Young India, ten days after the movement’s inception.
But I believe that non-violence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment. क्षमा वीरस्य भूषणम् (kṣamā vīrasya bhūṣaṇam)। Forgiveness adorns a soldier. But abstinence is forgiveness only when there is the power to punish …
A definite forgiveness would therefore mean a definite recognition of our strength. With enlightened forgiveness must come a mighty wave of strength in us, which would make it impossible for a Dyer and a Frank Johnson to heap affront upon India’s devoted head …
I want her to practise non-violence being conscious of her strength and power.Footnote 56
Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violence rests on his understanding of ‘forgiveness’ associated with ‘manly’ nature, ‘abstinence’, and ‘the power to punish’. Gandhi’s concept of ‘forgiveness’ necessitates an acute consciousness of power—characterized as ‘a mighty wave of strength in us’—sufficiently potent to deter physical aggression from colonial authorities. What is striking here is Gandhi’s deployment of the Sanskrit aphorism ‘kṣamā vīrasya bhūṣaṇam’. The term ‘vīrasya’ (rendered by Gandhi as ‘soldier’) derives from ‘vīra’, denoting a ‘victor/hero’ embodying martial prowess and masculine valour. This terminology shares its roots with ‘vīrya (virility)’, establishing a semantic network linking martial, masculine, and spiritual power.Footnote 57
To better understand the concept of ‘forgiveness’ articulated in ‘The Doctrine of the Sword’, it is vital to examine Gandhi’s speech in Gujarati published in Sābarmatī, approximately a month earlier. This speech was delivered to residents of the satyāgraha āśram. In this address, Gandhi explained the meaning of ‘forgiveness’ in relation to his brahmacarya experiment as follows:
We wish to conduct a completely new experiment (akhataro) here …
If we truly want to serve the nation (deśsevā), I increasingly see that vīrya-preservation (vīryasaṃrakṣaṇ) is very necessary. What work can I get from all these weak bodies? …
What quality of forgiveness (kṣamāno guṇ) can someone with a stick-like body possess? … Therefore, I tell you that if you want to become a forgiving and truth-speaking hero (kṣamāvān ane satyavādī vīr), properly protect your vīrya (vīryanuṃ barābar rakṣaṇ) …
By maintaining this distinction, those whose sexual/sensual desire (viṣayavāsanā) has awakened and those who have not, can easily keep their sensual tendencies (viṣayavṛtti) under restraint (kābū) … Those who feel their senses have awakened should suppress (dābī) them right there.Footnote 58
In this article, notably, the ‘quality of forgiveness’ is linked to the psycho-physical strength obtained through ‘vīrya-preservation (vīryasaṃrakṣaṇ)’. One who embodies this ‘quality of forgiveness’ is described as a ‘vīra’. Reading ‘The Doctrine of the Sword’ alongside this speech reveals that the power of ‘forgiveness’ (‘a mighty wave of strength’) discussed in the former was intimately connected with the masculine strength possessed by the vīrya-preserving practitioner.
Another significant concept in this article is ‘suppression (dāb)’ in the final paragraph. This practice is prescribed for those who failed to maintain ‘restraint (kābū)’ over their ‘sexual desire’. The term ‘dābī’ carries multiple meanings, including to ‘suppress’, ‘press’, ‘compress’, as well as to ‘conceal’ and ‘keep secret’.Footnote 59
Maganlal’s letter, examined in the previous section, indicates a logical inconsistency in the body cosmology between Gandhi’s concepts of ahiṃsā and brahmacarya. The method of brahmacarya accompanying this inconsistency was, as discussed, essentially connected to the concept of ‘detention/prevention’. The method of ‘detention/prevention’ involved coercive abstinence of sexual passions. Similarly, the non-violent spirit of Gandhi’s Non-Cooperation Movement was explained through its relationship with the method of ‘suppression/concealment’, which parallels the concept of ‘detention/prevention’.
What does such a method of ‘suppression/concealment’ specifically contain? During his South African period, Gandhi advocated a cold bath as a concrete physical practice to prevent sexual passions.Footnote 60 A few years after returning to India during the Non-Cooperation Movement, Gandhi had not yet discovered any better method than this.
Gandhi reported receiving many letters inquiring about brahmacarya during the movement. In response, he published ten ‘simple rules’ about brahmacarya ‘based on the experience not only of myself but of many of my associates’. Among these, a cold bath was again referred to as ‘the finest preventive’ for avoiding ejaculation:
Nocturnal dreams need not cause any anxiety. A cold bath every time for a fairly strong is the finest preventive in such cases. It is wrong to say that an occasional indulgence is a safeguard against involuntary dreams.Footnote 61
Therefore, the corporeal practices that Gandhi prescribed for cultivating the power of vīrya-preservation or vīrya-concentration appear to have retained early patterns established in his South African years.
‘The historic meeting’ (1921)
The Non-Cooperation Movement, launched in August 1920, reached its ‘culmination’ in 1921, following landmark political events—the Congress Special Session in Calcutta on 4 September, the election boycott in November, and the 35th Congress Session in Nagpur on 26 December.Footnote 62 On 31 July 1921, the day before Tilak’s first death anniversary, Gandhi initiated a cloth burning campaign under the banner of ‘svadeśī’. Though this campaign avoided physical violence against people, it involved mass property destruction, drawing criticism from Gandhi’s sympathizers—notably Tagore and Andrews—who saw it as excessive nationalist fervour.Footnote 63
Gandhi’s speech on svadeśī, delivered at a historic meeting near Elphinstone Mills in suburban Bombay, requires close examination. At this meeting, the foreign cloth burning movement was officially announced.
I regard this day as sacred for Bombay. We are removing today a pollution from our bodies. We are purifying ourselves by discarding foreign cloth which is the badge of our slavery. We attain today fitness to enter the Temple of Freedom (swaraj) …
Hence I look upon the ceremony of burning as a sacrament. And I consider myself fortunate that the sacred ceremony is to be performed by me. May God remove all our uncleanliness whether within or without!Footnote 64
What relationship existed between the meaning of ‘self-purification’ articulated in this speech and Gandhi’s concept of ahiṃsā? Several days before this speech, Gandhi engaged in a question-and-answer session with the AICC (All-India Congress Committee), which was later published in Gujarati as follows:
Question: Does the burning of clothes not violate the vow of ahiṃsā (ahiṃsā vrat)?
Answer: There is no hiṃsā in cleansing impurity (mel). Sin (pāp) lies in the degradation of the ātmā (ātmānuṃ patan). Some hiṃsā is inevitable … In fact, bacteria exist even in milk. Nevertheless, we do not consider drinking water to contain impurity (doṣ), and we regard milk as highly nutritious food … But such hiṃsā is unavoidable, and we do not consider it sinful.Footnote 65
Several points warrant attention here. First, Gandhi states that ‘there is no hiṃsā in cleansing impurity’. Thus, in response to the AICC’s doubts, Gandhi asserts the ahiṃsak nature of his burning campaign. Second, Gandhi discusses the inevitability of hiṃsā in human practical life. This echoes the statement ‘hiṃsā is a bodily attribute (śarīrno guṇ)’ quoted in the aforementioned letter to Maganlal. Third, Gandhi references ‘milk’ alongside water as an example of such inevitable hiṃsā. While acknowledging that drinking milk constitutes hiṃsā against micro-organisms, Gandhi affirms its consumption.Footnote 66 Gandhi’s categorical assertion that hiṃsā accompanying svadeśī ‘is not hiṃsā’ can thus be seen as a philosophical extension of ‘ahiṃsā in hiṃsā’ expressed in the letter to Maganlal.Footnote 67
Two weeks after the ‘historic meeting’ speech, a Gujarati article titled ‘Power of Peace (Śāntinuṃ Baḷ)’ addressing vīrya-concentration appeared in Navjīvan. Gandhi explained the meaning of ‘power of peace’ as follows:
Peace (śānti) maintained through fear (bīk) or weakness (nabaḷāī) is not peace. Only when power (baḷ) and radiance (tej) are present can it be called true peace (kharī śānti) … Peace is also a preserved/protected vīrya (ek sūkṣam vīrya). Through its accumulation (sañcay), one becomes a mature/established brahmacārī (prauḍh brahmacārī), and thereby becomes one who radiates light (tejasvī).Footnote 68
Thus, during the svadeśī movement, Gandhi continued to emphasize the importance of vīrya-concentration. As in ‘The Doctrine of the Sword’ and the preceding speech, he explained ‘a mighty wave of strength’ as an essence of ‘forgiveness’ obtained through vīrya-concentration. Here, the ‘power’ or ‘radiance’ is articulated in relation to the concept of ‘peace’. For Gandhi, ‘peace’ signified not merely the absence of physical violence, but rather a modality of ‘power’ generated by ‘a preserved/protected vīrya’.
The Chauri Chaura incident and flaws of ‘experiments’
Despite witnessing multiple outbreaks of collective violence after initiating the hartāl, Gandhi maintained these incidents were virtually peripheral to his satyāgraha principle, favouring temporary suspension over complete cessation. Upon resuming the movement, his theoretical framework of ‘ahiṃsā in hiṃsā’ gained prominence, notably in his addresses ‘The Doctrine of the Sword’ and the ‘historic meeting’. This sophisticated conception of ahiṃsā, transcending the simple binary of physical violence and non-violence, developed alongside his brahmacarya experiments, characterized by rigorous suppression of sexual energy.
Nevertheless, the Non-Cooperation Movement precipitated an epistemological crisis regarding inherent ‘violence’ in Gandhi’s praxis. A pivotal moment emerged after the Moplah Rebellion, an insurrection in Malabar, Madras presidency, that took place roughly three weeks after the proclamation of the svadeśī movement. This event prompted Gandhi’s critical self-examination, leading him to consider whether such violence was not merely incidental, but fundamentally embedded in his satyāgraha and brahmacarya philosophies.
On 4 September 1921, Gandhi published an article in Gujarati titled ‘Moplah Outbreak (Moplā Utpāt)’ in Navjīvan, which read as follows:
Malabar has taught us that our non-co-operators had not achieved complete control (kābū) …
We do not possess the purity (cokhkhuṃ) that could exert [spiritual] influence (asar) over the Moplahs. No transformation (parivartan) of their hearts occurred that would prevent non-peace (aśānti) from arising among them …
I have clearly realized that the greatest obstacle to us comes not from the government, but from within ourselves … Indeed, the ātmā itself is both our enemy (śatru) and friend (mitra).Footnote 69
The next day, on 5 September, in a letter to Vallabhbhai Patel, Gandhi expressed his thoughts about suspending civil disobedience:
It seems better to suspend civil disobedience (kāydāno bhaṅg)Footnote 70 this month … We should engage in civil disobedience when we feel we can do it with more determination unto death.Footnote 71
Then, in his Navjīvan article ‘Svadeśī and Brahmacarya (Svadeśī ane Brahmacarya)’ in Gujarati published on 30 October, Gandhi presented a new perspective on the relationship between svadeśī and brahmacarya, departing from his earlier views:
A friend wrote that while the power of svadeśī has increased, there has not been an increase in [interest in and understanding of] brahmacarya. How can svarāj be achieved if men and women cannot maintain control (aṅkuś) over their minds (man)? While this thinking appears reasonable, there is no necessary relationship there. Svadeśī and brahmacarya are two separate subjects …
Only a few will observe brahmacarya. [But] it is desirable that everyone observes it. If everyone observes it, they will attain the kingdom of this world and the next (ā ane par duniyānuṃ sāmrājya). Observing it is our duty/religion (dharma). But, by linking it with svadeśī, we make this simple practice as difficult as brahmacarya. After understanding and making others understand the distance between these two, I naturally want to say that all active men and women should observe brahmacarya until the achievement of svarāj (svarājprāpti).Footnote 72
This shows Gandhi’s highly ambivalent attitude towards the ‘difficult’ practice of brahmacarya. While Gandhi advocates that ‘it is desirable that everyone observes’ brahmacarya, he acknowledges a ‘distance’ between the observance and svadeśī—a departure from his previous uncompromising positions during the movement. In other words, he explicitly states ‘there is no necessary relationship’ between them, characterizing them as ‘two separate subjects’.
On 10 November, in an article titled ‘How Can One Observe Brahmacarya? (Brahmacarya Kem Paḷāy?)’, he wrote:
A volunteer (svayaṃsevak) wrote a very miserable letter. He said that despite making great efforts, he cannot observe brahmacarya. Because impurity (doṣ) [nocturnal emission] occurs while he sleeps, he often feels like committing suicide. In this, I see confusion (gabhrāṭ).Footnote 73
After saying this, Gandhi enumerated 12 ‘rules (niyamos)’ that ‘one who continuously observes brahmacarya’ should follow, and among them, he again spoke of the necessity of ‘cold bath’.
Unable to offer appropriate methods beyond those proposed a year earlier at the movement’s inception, Gandhi’s doubts about his brahmacarya philosophy deepened after the 17 November 1921 incident, when riots erupted from incidental confrontations between police forces and crowds at an anti-British gathering during the Prince of Wales’s visit to Bombay. Gandhi, touring the city upon hearing this news, was ‘shaken’ by what he witnessed.Footnote 74 In his Gujarati article ‘Bombay’s Disgrace (Mumbaīno Apayś)’ in Navjīvan on 24 November, he wrote:
After careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that we are not yet ready to begin well-ordered civil disobedience by the masses … This is my painful confession of the lack of my śakti.Footnote 75
From 19 to 21 December, Gandhi undertook a fast to calm the Bombay riots and achieve atonement. Congress branch politicians immediately rushed to Gandhi, imploring him to break his fast. Although the riots were quickly quelled, Gandhi preached the necessity of continuing with reconciliation activities to prevent recurrence.Footnote 76
Subsequently, at the 36th Annual Congress Session in Ahmedabad on 26 December, Gandhi again outlined the policy of non-violent non-cooperation and prepared for civil disobedience planned to commence in Bardoli, Gujarat, from February of the following year. However, just three days after sending a letter to the viceroy, announcing his intention to commence the campaign in one week’s time,Footnote 77 the Chauri Chaura incident occurred on 4 February 1922. Gandhi received news of the incident four days later, on 8 February, on the eve of the campaign’s scheduled inception.
Following this, in a letter to the Satyagraha Working Committee on 8 February, Gandhi wrote that ‘I have received a rude shock when I have been on the eve of embarking upon mass civil disobedience’Footnote 78 and ‘if it is suspended it should not be discontinued for a sufficiently long period’.Footnote 79 In his speech to Congress activists in Bardoli on 10 February, he declared, ‘what I have heard now confirms me in the belief that most here failed to understand the message of non-violence’, concluding with, ‘I must immediately stop the movement for civil disobedience’.Footnote 80 The Congress Working Committee, meeting in Bardoli on 12 February, formally adopted the resolution to suspend the movement.Footnote 81 Gandhi then observed a fast from 12 to 16 February as penance for the Chauri Chaura incident.Footnote 82
On 16 February, when he broke his fast, an article titled ‘The Crime of Chauri Chaura’ was published in Young India with the following content:
God has been abundantly kind to me. He has warned me the third time that there is not as yet in India that truthful and non-violent atmosphere …
He warned me in 1919 when the Rowlatt Act agitation was started. Ahmedabad, Viramgam, and Kheda erred; Amritsar and Kasur erred …
The next time it was through the events of Bombay that God gave a terrific warning. He made me eyewitness of the deeds of the Bombay mob on the 17th November. The mob acted in the interest of non-co-operation …
But the bitterest humiliation was still to come. Madras did give the warning, but I heeded it not. But God spoke clearly through Chauri Chaura.Footnote 83
As shown here, Gandhi characterized the three major incidents discussed in this article as ‘warnings’ from ‘God’. Yet, notably, the Moplah Rebellion, with the highest death toll—estimates reaching approximately 10,000Footnote 84—of these incidents, is not included among these three warnings. Instead, it appears only as a supplementary reference in the final paragraph about the Chauri Chaura incident, where Gandhi notes ‘Madras did give the warning, but I heeded it not’. The Chauri Chaura incident, resulting in 22 deaths, was far less lethal than the Rebellion. Furthermore, Gandhi’s omission of the Rebellion from the chronological sequence—despite it predating the Bombay riots during the Prince’s visit—suggests he assigned it lesser significance. This inconsistent treatment of violence cannot be explained by the major works cited in my introduction, which lack a thorough analysis of the meaning of Gandhi’s ‘real preparation’, intimately associated with his innermost corporal politics of svarāj.
Indeed, on the same day Gandhi ordered the suspension of the movement, he published a Gujarati article titled ‘Wealth of the Body (Śarīrsampat)’ in Navjīvan. In it, he addressed complaints about brahmacarya from an anonymous correspondent from Surat, a district which includes Bardoli taluka, who expressed serious concerns about the physical weakness of the local people.
[An anonymous person from Surat] also wrote a letter about physical protection (śarīrrakṣā). According to his thinking, I had not written much about the physical fruits of brahmacarya (brahmacaryanāṃ śarīrik phaḷo) and [specific] exercise (vyāyām) of it. The person who wrote [the letter] is from Surat. According to what he informed me, the people of Surat are sufficiently conscious [of brahmacarya], but their bodies have become weak, and they are not prepared to endure the suffering (duḥkh) of prison and other hardships (kaṣṭo) that satyāgrahīs must face … This advice is reasonable. But, it is difficult to write repeatedly about the subject of brahmacarya. Furthermore, according to my belief, the use of brahmacarya is not merely for the body … I was thoroughly convinced that those involved in promoting other aspects of svarāj would naturally (saheje) come to know the necessity of brahmacarya.Footnote 85
Since the manuscript of this article was likely to have been prepared a week prior to the publication, Gandhi presumably received the letter one or two days before learning of the Chauri Chaura incident.Footnote 86 Indeed, a secret document from J. Crerar, secretary to the Government of Bombay, to S. P. O’Donnell, secretary to the Government of India, reports that ‘the moral effect of the Chauri Chaura outrage was not the sole motive for the suspension of the campaign’. The document reveals that additional information of ‘conditions in Bardoli’ had ultimately made Gandhi ‘apprehensive of the failure’ of the movement.Footnote 87
After the passage quoted above, Gandhi proceeded in the same article to enumerate similar prescriptions concerning the austere form of brahmacarya that he had previously advocated—though omitting a cold bath—such as thought control, physical strengthening, daily exercises, and dietary restrictions. Having provided these prescriptions, he nevertheless concluded with the following words in the final paragraph:
But I have realized that I have exceeded the limitations (maryādā) [that I had] set [for myself]. There are many subjects related to brahmacarya, but they cannot [all] be included in [this] note.Footnote 88
In this passage, Gandhi made an unprecedented public admission: his methods of brahmacarya had proven inadequate for restraining his body, conceding that ‘I had exceeded the limitations’. This was likely because in Gandhi’s mind his realization of brahmacarya’s shortcomings through the anonymous letter and his subsequent discovery of the Chauri Chaura incident were perceived as inherently connected events—just as when he learned of the Rowlatt Bill. The letter and the Chauri Chaura incident served as decisive triggers confirming the ‘flaws’ of his experiments with brahmacarya—particularly, the vīrya-concentration, which were the foundation of the ‘power of peace’.
Indeed, just around the day Gandhi received the letter, he did express dissatisfaction with his brahmacarya experiments to Krishnadas Gandhi (hereafter Krishnadas), who served as a secretary in Mahadev Desai’s absence, and to Vithalbhai Patel, a close associate. During his evening prayer, Gandhi, as Krishnadas recorded, confessed his deep concern about potential unconscious ‘falls’ in his brahmacarya experiments as follows:
Then, he [Gandhi] explained that self-restraint was the foundation of all spirituality. He said, restraint should be both internal and external. Desire for things of the world for self-gratification was opposed to the idea of restraint. Therefore, in order to attain true Brahmacarya, one must conquer the lust for things of the world … [He mentioned:] How could you know that anarchy that prevails within my mind, and the number of falls that I sustain every day[?]Footnote 89
Furthermore, it should be noted that three days after ‘The Crime of Chauri Chaura’ was published, Gandhi explained in a Gujarati article the reason for the suspension of the movement, in which he illustrated the process of recognition of his ‘hidden/mysterious voice (gebī avāj)’Footnote 90 in relation to the role of brahmacarya as follows:
The Bardoli civil disobedience campaign faded like a dream. It is no wonder that God (īśvar) had destined the very moment meant for its launch to be the moment of its termination … Thus, a truthful and moral person is always humble, understanding their flaws more and more each day. For a brahmacārī, brahmacarya remains distant [from its perfection], because a striving brahmacārī sees that deep within himself lies much sensual/sexual desire (viṣaylālsā) … From this, I am learning more and more that our svarāj lies in our own effort.Footnote 91
It is historically significant that the moments of Gandhi’s confession of doubts about brahmacarya in front of Krishnadas and Patel, his receipt of the letter from Surat, and his learning of the Chauri Chaura incident, though coincidental, occurred contemporaneously. Gandhi appeared to perceive interconnected manifestations of violence in both the internal realm and the external socio-political sphere. Thus, Gandhi, who unwaveringly believed that ‘the mental attitude is everything’,Footnote 92 eventually ‘decided to stop [the movement] immediately’.Footnote 93
Conclusion
This article examines how the first all-India satyāgraha movement and Gandhi’s experiments with brahmacarya evolved in tandem. Gandhi’s key concept of ‘ahiṃsā in hiṃsā’, which later defined the spirit of the movement, emerged from mid-1918 onwards. This paradoxical notion aligned with Gandhi’s inconsistent body cosmology—namely, the tension between his forceful method of vīrya-concentration and his acceptance of a certain level of worldly violence. As the movement reached its ‘culmination’ during the svadeśī campaign, the ‘violent’ nature of ahiṃsā became more evident, even as Gandhi vigorously promoted abstinence practices like ‘cold baths’ that would purportedly aid brahmacarya experiments.
Following the Moplah Rebellion, Gandhi began to draw connections between the external ‘riots’ and his own struggles to achieve ‘power of peace (śāntinuṃ baḷ)’ through vīrya-concentration—a correspondence that, while intensely personal, intersected with his growing concerns about organizational readiness within the movement and the participants’ understanding of satyāgraha principles. Though initially dismissive of these concerns, mounting doubts finally led him to confess his misgivings to Krishnadas and Patel. Around this time, two crucial events coincided: he received a letter from an anonymous Surat resident expressing deep anxiety about the inadequacy of Gandhi’s brahmacarya experiments, and he learned of the Chauri Chaura incident. These interconnected occurrences compelled Gandhi to publicly acknowledge ‘the limitations’ of his methods. Amid this convergence of concerns, Gandhi’s conviction that his failure to govern his internal world was intimately associated with the external unrest emerged as a decisive factor in his abrupt suspension of the Non-Cooperation Movement.
At 1.30 am on 10 March, Gandhi was arrested near sābarmatī āśram. On 18 March, he received a six-year sentence and was imprisoned in Yeravada Prison, Pune (though he served only two years). During his incarceration, Gandhi engaged in deep self-reflection and sought—to borrow N. K. Bose’s later expression—‘a new way of thinking’ to refashion his brahmacarya experiments.Footnote 94 This period exposed Gandhi to seminal books that would have ‘deeply influenced’ his thought, particularly those by John Woodroffe and Edward Carpenter—authors who themselves had drawn wisdom from little-known ‘gurus’.Footnote 95
Competing interests
The author declares none.
