The Inner Conflict of Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship, and Society c15.s1.50

c15.s1.50

His achievement had little to do with his usual image as a not-too-decisive preacher and social worker. His aim was nothing less than the reorganization of Indian society on the universalistic basis of the renunciatory ideal. His spectacular noncooperation and civil disobedience actions were not so much directed against the British regime as they were aimed at national unity under the aegis of the renouncer's ultimate authority. This meant that national unity was to be realized by an ultramundane "renunciatory" society which required its adherents to give up en masse their state-supported positions and distinctions. For all its dramatic expressiveness, this was hardly a viable proposition. Nor could it aim at overthrowing the government. Insofar as it could be viewed as open rebellion, it could only be so in the way of a temporary *secessio in montem sacrum*, leaving state and government in their place and ready to arrive at a negotiated reconciliation—as time and again happened. It is therefore perhaps not fortuitous that Gandhi's actions had the same specificity as bureaucratic state action. As bureaucratic action was geared to apply specific rules, so Gandhi's actions were aimed at breaking specific rules, for instance, the government salt monopoly. But all the same, they remained within the overall conventions of the government. They were not meant to be formally "seditious," and the road to negotiated settlement was expressly left open.