In a time when everything and everyone is being excessively classified as “left” or “right,” if we pause to ask whether Mahatma Gandhi was a leftist or a rightist, we begin to see how flawed such classifications are.
According to certain Western “woke” arguments, those who support religion, believe in God, and speak of preserving ancient traditions are right-wing. Yet Muslims are not considered right-wing; only “traditionalists” among non-Muslims are—meaning Christians and Jews are labeled right-wing if they stand by their traditions in the western world. According to India’s so-called “rationalists,” none of these groups are right-wing in India; only Hindus are. This unspoken yet widely accepted definition operates in practice.
If we define matters this way, must we call Gandhi a right-winger? Gandhi did not abandon religion. He wrote many times, “I am a proud Sanatani.” He argued that politics must contain religion. Even when he used the English word “religion,” what he had in mind was not sectarian faith but the Indian concept of dharma. He said: “For me, there is no politics without religion. But mine is not the religion of superstition, hatred, and violence; it is the religion of universal tolerance. Politics devoid of such morality must be shunned.” He also said, “Politics without religion is absolute dirt, ever to be shunned,” and further, “Therefore, in politics also we have to establish the Kingdom of Heaven.”
By today’s woke standards, anyone who speaks of religion, God, faith, tradition, culture, civilization, morality, or virtue is right-wing. Even in Gandhi’s time, there were “rationalists” who branded him right-wing. Today, for political reasons, they hesitate to say so openly.
Gandhi disliked such classifications. He clearly stated: “I do not divide life into watertight compartments. Human thought cannot be compartmentalized. The life of an individual, like the life of a nation, is an indivisible whole.” Yet the obsession with labeling did not stop. In later decades, when it became clear that Gandhi could not easily be placed as left or right, a new label—“center” or “middle path” (centrism) —was created for him. Even for someone who rejected labels, the labeling impulse of the left insists that some tag must be attached!
Today we forget that there can be many independent positions that are neither left, right, nor center. Where would we place Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose? What label would we give Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel? Some of their ideas resemble those of present-day leftists; some align with so-called right-wing views; some appear centrist; others fit none of these categories. The same applies to A. P. J. Abdul Kalam. Even in the thought of Veer Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, one can see strands similar to what today’s leftist “rationalists” advocate. In fact, Savarkar himself vigorously initiated movements against religious superstition in India—ideas that present-day “rationalists” now reinterpret in their own way and promote.
What does this show? Human beings and human thought cannot be poured into a fixed mold and declared to be only that. Labels may make sense only for those who confine themselves within a particular “ism” and cannot think beyond it. Otherwise, such classifications and declarations are meaningless.
Once one binds oneself to a specific doctrine, one inevitably becomes tied to its intellectual boundaries. The limitations of the original ideologues become our own limitations. One ends up defending those ideologues as eternally supreme and infallible. Personal, collective, and national intellectual freedom disappears. The openness to recognize good elements across different schools of thought vanishes. Nations that embraced rigid doctrines—Marxism, Maoism, religious dogmatism—lost their intellectual freedom and creative vitality. They became prisoners of their own frameworks. New creativity and fresh perspectives failed to emerge. Instead, they fell into the illusion that “all solutions already exist in our foundational doctrine.”
Today, “left” and “right” labels have themselves become instruments of constant political branding—a kind of class struggle. Although there is more space for free discussion than ever before, this opportunity has become a double-edged sword. While it enables intellectual freedom, it also intensifies ideological conflict. Differences of opinion are damaging social relationships. Previously, there may have been more one-sided brainwashing; now there is constant friction between competing ideologies. The throwing around of “left” and “right” labels has reached a peak. On social networking platforms, people who once simply wished each other happy birthdays now plunge into political debates. Many digital platforms deliberately push the world toward greater conflict. Public dialogue is important—but wisdom about where, why, and how much it is needed is even more important. Political disagreements are even breaking marriages. Social media algorithms intentionally shape people’s minds in particular ways. Artificial intelligence algorithms are designed accordingly.
Among political labels, “leftist” is more readily embraced. Early European left thinkers called themselves that. Over time, as the term gained negative connotations, they preferred alternatives. Between the 1950s and 1970s, many called themselves “progressives.” Later, “liberal” became fashionable—especially in post-Enlightenment Europe. Marxists and left ideologues began using “liberal,” “left-liberal,” and “Neo-liberal” to describe various ideological streams, while older thought was termed “classical liberalism.” These were self-chosen ornaments.
Until the late 1930s, Indian political analysis rarely used labels such as “leftist,” “rightist,” “bourgeois,” or “proletariat.” “Nationalism” was the common positive term. After 1935, with the rise of leaders influenced by Lenin, these labels were imported. Before that, positive terms like “national” were prevalent. Negative labels entered political vocabulary later—“extremists” versus “moderates” during the freedom struggle. Some even borrowed the British term “terrorists” for revolutionary leaders. The label “right-wing” was used as a negative tag for those who rejected leftist views or upheld civilization and Dharma-based thinking.
While leftists have identified themselves as “left-liberal,” there are hardly examples in Indian history of thinkers proudly calling themselves “right-wing.” The term “rightist” originated in Europe, largely as a critical label. Dictionaries define “right-wing” as someone who supports the political or economic right—often capitalism or market economy. By that definition, over 95% of today’s countries would be “right-wing.” Even dictionaries provide little clarity on what exactly constitutes the “political right.” There is no single shared belief that defines it.
In reality, left–right divisions are devices meant to permanently divide people through rigid classifications. Such thinking has no real place in the Indian civilizational ethos. The spirit of genuine Indian intellectual freedom does not resonate with such narrow labels and rigid compartments.
(C) G. ANIL KUMAR
Author
