My interaction with critics and supporters of Mahatma Gandhi, ranging from those who consider themselves diehard Gandhians to Left-wing and Dalit intellectuals, has revealed that in the long arc of his public life, few issues expose his philosophical tensions more than his shifting stance on Varnashram Dharma—the ancient Hindu concept that society should be divided into four varnas, or classes, based on duties and aptitudes.
While I do not claim to be an expert on the subject, it is clear that in his early years Gandhi embraced Varnashram Dharma as a spiritual ideal. However, what is less understood is that in his later years he moved steadily toward a humanistic rejection of its discriminatory aspects. Recently, I came across an article by Anil Nauriya titled "Gandhi’s Now Little-known Critique Of The Four-fold Varna Order", published in the Economic and Political Weekly in May 2006, where the author provides specific references to how this transformation unfolded.
From what I gathered from the article, the journey of Gandhi's evolution is not just the story of one man’s changing mind, but also a mirror reflecting India’s struggle between tradition and justice. Indeed, Nauriya, a contemporary historian and Supreme Court counsel, observes: “It is also generally understood that while Gandhi opposed untouchability and criticised caste, he defended 'varna-vyavastha', the fourfold varna order. This is not entirely correct over the entire Gandhian trajectory. Gandhi's own critique of the varna order, which unfurled over time, is usually overlooked by scholars.”
In Hind Swaraj (1909), Gandhi argued that varna was meant to organize society around duty, not privilege. He believed a person should follow their ancestral calling not out of compulsion, but as a way to cultivate humility and self-discipline. He insisted that the spiritual essence of varna had been corrupted by caste rigidity and untouchability—both of which he opposed—but he remained a defender of the original principle.
Gandhi wrote in Hind Swaraj:
“The varna system is no man-made thing, it is an immutable law of nature—the statement of duties corresponding to those of different natures. To destroy it is to create disorder. Varna is no bar to the practice of non-violence. Varna, as I understand it, is a duty; it is not a privilege. It determines not our rights but our duties. It does not prevent a Brahmin from learning a Kshatriya’s duty, but he must not make it his profession. If he does so, he falls.”
However, as Gandhi engaged more deeply with the lived realities of Dalits, or “Harijans” as he called them, his theory began to buckle under the weight of practice. In the 1930s, he conceded that caste had nothing to do with religion and was, instead, a social custom that required reform.
In fact, he declared caste “a handicap on progress” and “a social evil” (respectively: Young India, June 4, 1931; letter to Suresh Chandra Banerji, October 10, 1932). He supported temple entry for Dalits, opened community living spaces, and even advocated inter-caste dining and marriage—once unthinkable acts for a man so deeply rooted in traditional Hinduism.
In Harijan (November 1933), Gandhi wrote:
“Caste has nothing to do with religion. It is a custom whose origin I do not know and do not need to know for the satisfaction of my spiritual hunger. But I do know that it is harmful both to spiritual and national growth. Untouchability is the worst form of this evil. It is a disease which we must get rid of at any cost.”
By the mid-1930s, Gandhi’s position had dramatically shifted away from Varnashram Dharma. In a Harijan article dated November 16, 1935, he wrote: “Caste has to go,” adding, “the sooner public opinion abolishes [caste], the better.” A decade later, his view changed further. By the 1940s, he was calling caste “an anachronism” that “must go” (respectively: The Bombay Chronicle, April 17, 1945; and letter to Shyamlal, July 23, 1945). In 1945, he declared that the only remaining varna was one: the Shudras—or Ati-Shudras (Harijans, or untouchables). He emphasized that it was sinful to believe in distinctions of “high and low.”
In a 1945 foreword to a Gujarati compilation on Varnashram Dharma (Varnavyavastha, May 31, 1945; Collected Works, Vol. 80, p. 223), Gandhi stated:
“But there prevails only one varna today, that is of Shudras, or you may call it ati-Shudras, or Harijans or Untouchables. I have no doubt about the truth of what I say. If I can bring around Hindu society to my view, all our internal quarrels will come to an end.” He also insisted that “castes must go if we want to root out untouchability.”
This was a time when Gandhi openly acknowledged that his views had changed and should be judged by the last thing he said. From all appearances, this was no minor footnote—it was a quiet revolution. Gandhi, the man who once revered tradition as sacred, was now willing to discard what he saw as an obstacle to equality and unity.
He went further in 1946. Commenting on inter-caste marriages and whether the monopoly of occupations of specific castes should be abolished, Gandhi reiterated his long-standing support for inter-caste marriages, but added: “The question did not arise when all became casteless. When this happy event took place, the monopoly of occupations would go” (Harijan, March 16, 1947). In a letter written around May 15, 1947, Gandhi admired Gautama Buddha, noting that he “knew no caste and stood for perfect toleration.”
“If you do away with the distinction of savarna and avarna, if you treat the shudras, the untouchables and the adivasis as equals, then something good will have come out of a bad thing. But if we oppress them and oppress those following other faiths, then it will mean that we do not want India to survive, that we are out to destroy it.”
Despite these clear-cut positions, Nauriya notes: “It is difficult to understand why Gandhi's critique of the fourfold order is now so little known. This omission from scholarship at large is significant, as his earlier statements on the fourfold order have become, in writings on the subject—especially since the 1980s—a primary ground for criticism of Gandhi's position.”
Indeed, by then we no longer see a defender of varnashrama, but a radical reformer envisioning a new India—one unchained from the injustices of birth and caste. In his ideological evolution, Gandhi moved—however cautiously—closer to the vision long championed by B.R. Ambedkar. Though the two often clashed on methods and beliefs, in spirit Gandhi’s late-life embrace of caste eradication echoed Ambedkar’s fundamental view: that caste, in any form tied to birth, was incompatible with freedom, dignity, and democracy. Gandhi may not have adopted Ambedkar’s rationalist rejection of Hindu orthodoxy, but he ultimately arrived at a position where caste no longer had any moral or spiritual legitimacy.
And yet, instead of confronting these facts, scholars—including well-known litterateur Arundhati Roy and Dalit writers such as Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd—have gone out of their way to attack Gandhi's position on caste. The impact is real: I have personally encountered Dalit activists who openly express their dislike, even hate, for Gandhi. In fact, one of them—a passionate worker among Valmikis—even declared that Nathuram Godse was right to kill Gandhi, though regretting it later.
Let me end by quoting a well-known Gandhi expert, Tridip Suhrud, who told me once, "Granted. Gandhi once favoured Varnashram Dharma. But tell me which of the national leaders opposed untouchability tooth and nail like Gandhi did? Not even Jawaharlal Nehru or Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel."
Comments