India is often described as a tolerant democracy, but interreligious clashes and terrorism are spreading. Is his pacifist philosophy still alive among Indians sixty years after the Mahatma’s death?

Actually India was not tolerant even when he was alive. Gandhi himself witnessed the violent consequences of the Partition. India has not only fought many wars with neighbouring countries, but domestically, the State inflicts violence on its people, and vice versa. People inflict violence on people. Every day the newspapers all filled with reports about violence committed in the name of caste, religion or racism. So where is Gandhi? Indians have no respect for his philosophy.

Secularism was for example one of his concerns, but Hindu extremist demands for a Hindu nation are becoming stronger than ever. Has India ever been the secular state Gandhi dreamed of?

Gandhi was secular in the sense that he was tolerant, but he was a very observant Hindu. Gandhi himself used religion to mobilise people, as for example in the Caliphate movement. After Worls War One, when the Allies abolished the Caliphates in Ottoman Turkey, Gandhi protested and found an ally in the Khaliphat movement in India. He led protests against the slaughtering of cows, although he was also in favour of a reform of Hindu society. For example, he was in favour of castes, but said that you should not discriminate in the name of castes. But Gandhian tolerance has always been dead in India. There is a great deal of primitiveness in Indian society. Hindu Nationalism was stronger even then. Now they are everywhere, in offices and institutions.

Is there any constructive dialogue among the different religious communities in India? What can be done this dialogue more effective?

There is some dialogue. But it is the extremists who write the agenda, that is the problem. Moderate people generally do not speak out. Extremist do, and so they set the agenda. Dialogue can BE improved with greater tolerance. And here it is the State that has to go after the extremists by being intolerant on terrorism.

Different parties, especially Congress, have claimed to be Gandhi’s heirs and the ambassadors for his beliefs. Is this true?

The Congress party, to whom he belonged, is the living proof that Gandhi has no relevance. When India became independent he said that Congress should be disbanded. He said people should choose government without parties, they must choose politicians for their moral character not on their political party. Hence the survival of the Congress Party is a repudiation of his wishes. Today everybody praises Gandhi, even the Baratiya Janata Party. But it is just lip-service, he has become only a an icon, a mythical figure.

Hence, there is no evidence of Gandhi’s beliefs in the policies that guide today’s India?

Once someone asked Gandhi what amazed him the most, and he said, “How hard of heart people in authority are”. This is even truer today. There no compassion for the poor in our society and in our country. Too often there are no basic services for them, such as schools or hospitals. It is in such matters that one easily see how today that Gandhi has left no moral legacy. What is the value system of a country that sends a mission to the moon, but says that it has no money to build schools? Sixty percent of women in India are still illiterate. If Gandhi were alive there would be greater balance. Because, he said, before you do anything in government, you should first think of the poorest.

Ganhdi was a severe critic of untouchability. Even though this practice still exists, Gandhi today would find the Dalits less discriminated against.

Yes, the practice is not that common, but because of affirmative action taken by the State, not because of cultural persuasion. And also because when you start voting for your own identity – like Dalits are doing thanks to parties representing them – people start respecting you. This is one thing that Gandhi wanted that has improved.