From a small town in Gujarat to the House of Lords in London, Bhikhu Parekh’s journey has been one of intellect, conviction, and humility. Born in 1935 in Amalsad, he rose from modest beginnings to become one of the most influential political thinkers of his generation. As Professor of political philosophy at the University of Westminster and later President of the Academy of Social Sciences, Lord Parekh helped shape modern debates on multiculturalism, identity, and democracy. His critical reading of Mahatma Gandhi drew wide attention, and in 2007, India honoured him with the Padma Bhushan.
Despite spending over six decades in the United Kingdom, his ties to Vadodara remain deep. In the early 1980s, he returned as Vice-Chancellor of Maharaja Sayajirao University — a role that strengthened his bond with the city. During his recent stay in Vadodara, Mehul Devkala met Lord Parekh for an unhurried conversation that moved from geopolitics and immigration to Gandhi’s legacy, Indian democracy, and the meaning of a good life.
It’s been 25 years since you entered the House of Lords. How would you describe that journey?
It has been a critical period in British history. Ms. Thatcher had just gone, and many changes were taking place. I entered the House of Lords in 2000, so it’s been a quarter of a century — quite a long time in anyone’s life. During that period, I witnessed enormous shifts — Brexit, for instance, which began as a democratic choice that many later regretted. There were also important debates on assisted suicide and Britain’s membership in the European Union. It was an exciting and transformative time, both for the country and for me personally.
You’ve written extensively on multiculturalism and living together with difference. How do you view the recent anti-immigration protests in the U.K.?
Multiculturalism has, unfortunately, become a bugbear for many people. They think it means everyone can do whatever they like — a Muslim can marry four wives, a Sikh can wear his turban anywhere. But that’s not multiculturalism. No society can function that way.
True multiculturalism means people may follow their customs if they are rational, defensible, and consistent with broader social values. Take, for example, the right to cremate. When Hindus in Britain wanted to cremate their dead rather than bury them, there was initial resistance. But once people understood that it was deeply meaningful and not harmful to others, it was accepted. That is the real spirit of multiculturalism — reasoned dialogue and mutual understanding.
That sounds deeply Gandhian.
Indeed. I often describe Gandhi as the patron saint of multiculturalism. He believed no single culture can exhaust all human potential. Cultures must talk to one another, learn from each other, and grow through dialogue. We are all blind in some ways, believing what we’ve always done is right. Gandhi reminds us to look through another’s eyes — to see the world from their point of view.
Do Gandhi’s ideas still offer a model for leadership in today’s polarised world?
Yes, they do. Gandhi’s satyagraha comes from this very moral tradition. Suppose you treat me unjustly and I protest. You dismiss my complaint. How do I convince you of my truth? I stand firm — but peacefully. I refuse to hurt you, yet I persist until your conscience changes. That is Gandhi’s method, and it remains profoundly relevant today.
Some believe Gandhi’s followers failed to take forward his fight against caste discrimination. Do you agree?
Gandhi took the Dalit cause as far as he could. When he was assassinated in 1948, he had already fasted unto death for their rights, lived with Dalits in his ashram, even adopted a Dalit daughter. Challenging a 2,000-year-old system isn’t easy. Could he have done more? Perhaps. But within the political and bodily limits of his time, he did a great deal.
As for later Gandhians — some kept the issue alive, others didn’t. But the reservation policy itself ensured representation. Even when people forgot, justice found a way through institutions.
Britain recently recognised the state of Palestine. What impact do you think this decision will have?
Very little. The destruction of Gaza is heartbreaking — 80% of the city is uninhabitable. Recognition now is too little, too late. It gives Palestine symbolic legitimacy but imposes no real obligations. Netanyahu doesn’t seem to mind because it changes nothing on the ground.
And what about the role of the United States?
America has been compromised for decades. The last time it stood firm was under Eisenhower during the Suez crisis. Since then, it has pretended helplessness. Many young Americans oppose what’s happening in Gaza, but their government continues to arm and protect Israel. It’s a one-sided policy, and history will condemn it.
Turning to India — how would you assess Prime Minister Modi’s decade in power?
In many ways, he has been a good Prime Minister. People like him, vote for him, and he represents India confidently abroad. He connects emotionally with people, coins phrases that resonate, and restores a sense of pride.
But can I call him a great Prime Minister? Not yet. Poverty and inequality persist; a small elite still controls most wealth. Corruption remains entrenched. Many expected him to tackle that decisively. So yes, he is capable and competent, but greatness requires more — especially in addressing India’s structural flaws.
He has also never held a press conference, which is unusual in a democracy.
He should. I don’t know why he hasn’t, but a democratic leader must engage directly with the press. It’s part of accountability.
Rahul Gandhi has alleged large-scale vote manipulation, though the Election Commission dismissed it. What reforms could strengthen India’s democratic institutions?
Elections must not only be fair but be seen to be fair. Otherwise, the government loses legitimacy. Candidate selection, criminal records, and financial disclosures should be rigorously checked. Political parties — not just individual candidates — must certify honesty. Some progress has been made, but much more can be done to inspire public confidence.
You’ve lived a long and inspiring life. What, in your view, are the keys to living a long and meaningful one?
I’ve never had a grand plan. Life unfolded year by year. But I’ve learned a few things. First, gratitude. I was born in a small village, learned English only at 15, and at every stage someone appeared to help me forward. Luck matters immensely.
Second, never do anything that fills you with shame or guilt. Peace of mind is essential — you can only work well if your mind is at peace.
And third, hard work and perseverance. Whatever the obstacles, keep going. Combine that with decency, and you’ll find contentment. In the end, a good life isn’t about fame or fortune — it’s about quiet determination and a clean conscience.
