Brief Outline of Gandhi's Philosophy
By Stephen Murphy
This summary will attempt to describe Gandhi's philosophy in as simple a way as possible. Inevitably this must be a personal interpretation, but I hope it has some merit.
What is Gandhian philosophy? It is the religious and social ideas adopted and developed by Gandhi, first during his period in South Africa from 1893 to 1914, and later of course in India. These ideas have been further developed by later "Gandhians", most notably, in India, Vinoba Bhave and Jayaprakash Narayan. Outside of India some of the work of, for example, Martin Luther King Jr. can also be viewed in this light. Understanding the universe to be an organic whole, the philosophy exists on several planes - the spiritual or religious, moral, political, economic, social, individual and collective. The spiritual or religious element, and God, is at its core. Human nature is regarded as fundamentally virtuous. All individuals are believed to be capable of high moral development, and of reform.
The twin cardinal principles of Gandhi's thought are truth and nonviolence. It should be remembered that the English word "truth" is an imperfect translation of the Sanskrit, "satya", and "nonviolence", an even more imperfect translation of "ahimsa". Derived from "sat" - "that which exists" - "satya" contains a dimension of meaning not usually associated by English speakers with the word "truth". There are other variations, too, which we need not go into here. For Gandhi, truth is the relative truth of truthfulness in word and deed, and the absolute truth - the Ultimate Reality. This ultimate truth is God (as God is also Truth) and morality - the moral laws and code - its basis. Ahimsa, far from meaning mere peacefulness or the absence of overt violence, is understood by Gandhi to denote active love - the pole opposite of violence, or "Himsa", in every sense. The ultimate station Gandhi assigns nonviolence stems from two main points. First, if according to the Divine Reality all life is one, then all violence committed towards another is violence towards oneself, towards the collective, whole self, and thus "self"-destructive and counter to the universal law of life, which is love. Second, Gandhi believed that ahimsa is the most powerful force in existence. Had Himsa been superior to ahimsa, humankind would long ago have succeeded in destroying itself. The human race certainly could not have progressed as far as it has, even if universal justice remains far off the horizon. From both viewpoints, nonviolence or love is regarded as the highest law of humankind.
Although there are elements of unity in Gandhi's thought, they are not reduced to a system. It is not a rigid, inflexible doctrine, but a set of beliefs and principles which are applied differently according to the historical and social setting. Therefore there can be no dogmatism, and inconsistency is not a sin. Interpretation of the principles underwent much evolution during Gandhi's lifetime, and as a result many inconsistencies can be found in his writings, to which he readily admitted. The reader of Gandhi's works published by Navajivan Trust will notice that many are prefaced with the following quotation from an April 1933 edition of “Harijan”, one of Gandhi's journals. He states straightforwardly: "I would like to say to the diligent reader of my writings and to others who are interested in them that I am not at all concerned with appearing to be consistent. In my search after Truth I have discarded many ideas and learnt many news things.... What I am concerned with is my readiness to obey the call of Truth, my God, from moment to moment, and therefore, when anybody finds any inconsistency between any two writings of mine, if he still has any faith in my sanity, he would do well to choose the later of the two on the same subject."
That there are inconsistencies in Gandhi's writings accords with the fact that the ideas are not a system. In coming to grips with Gandhi's way of thinking it is most important to understand that the perception of truth undergoes an ongoing process of refinement which is evolutionary in nature.
In Gandhi's thought the emphasis is not on idealism, but on practical idealism. It is rooted in the highest religious idealism, but is thoroughly practical. One label (and almost the only one) Gandhi was happy to have pinned on him was that of "practical idealist". The important principle of compromise is relevant here, as is the acknowledgement that perfect truth and perfect nonviolence can never be attained while the spirit is embodied.
As alluded to above, Gandhian philosophy is certainly considered by Gandhians as a universal and timeless philosophy, despite the fact that on the more superficial level it is set in the Indian social context. They hold that the ideals of truth and nonviolence, which underpin the whole philosophy, are relevant to all humankind. (Recently some have been suggesting that a distinction can be made between the core elements of Gandhi's thought and peripheral elements which, depending on the particular element under consideration, may or may not have timeless relevance.) Also, it can be universal despite being fundamentally religious, as its religious position stresses not so much the Hindu interpretation of reality as the beliefs which are common to all major religions, and that commonality itself. It holds all religions to be worthy of equal respect and in one sense to be equal. As all are creations of mortal and imperfect human beings, no single religion can embody or reveal the whole or absolute truth.
Gandhian philosophy is also compatible with the view that humankind is undergoing gradual moral evolution. While conflict is seen as inevitable, in fact not always undesirable, violence as the result of conflict is not regarded as inevitable. Simply put, human beings do have the capacity to resolve conflict nonviolently. This might be difficult, but it is not impossible. Liberation from a violent society is seen as requiring many decades or longer - but it is not an impossible ideal.
Importantly also, it is not an intellectual doctrine. Gandhi was not an intellectual. Rather, Gandhi's thought was conceived, to a great extent, out of action and as a guide to action, by a man of action. He hesitated to write about anything of which he did not have personal, first-hand experience. In the sense of it being a call to action, Gandhi's thought can also be seen as an ideology.
As a guide to action, Gandhian philosophy is a double-edged weapon. Its objective is to transform the individual and society simultaneously (rather than in sequence, as Marxism describes), in accordance with the principles of truth and nonviolence. The historic task before humankind is to progress towards the creation of a nonviolent political, economic and social order by nonviolent struggle. The social goal was described by Gandhi as Sarvodaya, a term he coined in paraphrasing John Ruskin's book Unto This Last, meaning the welfare of all without exception. Its political aspect was expressed by the late eminent Gandhian Dr R.R. Diwakar in the following words: "The good of each individual in society consists in his efforts to achieve the good of all."
As the foundation of the Gandhian or nonviolent social order is religious or spiritual, economic and political questions are seen from the moral or humanistic perspective. The welfare of human beings, not of systems or institutions, is the ultimate consideration. Materially, it centres on the following concepts and ideals:
Political decentralization, to prevent massive concentrations of political power in the hands of too few; rather, to distribute it in the hands of many. The Gandhian political order takes the form of a direct, participatory democracy, operating in a tier structure from the base village-level tier upward through the district and state levels to the national (and international) level.
Economic decentralization, to prevent massive concentrations of economic power in the hands of too few, and again, to distribute it in the hands of many. Therefore villages, which are anyway geographically decentralized, become the basic economic units. However, where unavoidable, certain industries may be organized on a more centralized basis, and their ownership and control come under the umbrella of the State.
The minimization of competition and exploitation in the economic sphere, and instead, the encouragement of cooperation.
Production on the basis of need rather than greed, concentrating where India is concerned first on the eradication of poverty (and on the worst extreme of poverty).
Recognition of the dignity of labour and the greater purity of rural life.
The practice of extensive self-reliance by individuals, villages, regions and the nation.
Absence of oppression on the basis of race, caste, class, language, gender or religion.
A deep respect for mother nature, necessitating an economic system based upon the preservation rather than destruction of the natural environment.
Such concepts clearly represent pillars for a new social order.
A theory closely linked to the concept of Sarvodaya, also developed by Gandhi, is that of Trusteeship. Its fundamental objective is to create nonviolent and non-exploitative property relationships. Gandhi believed that the concepts of possession and private property were sources of violence, and in contradiction with the Divine reality that all wealth belongs to all people. However, he recognized that the concept of ownership would not wither easily, nor would the wealthy be easily persuaded to share their wealth. Therefore a compromise was to encourage the wealthy to hold their wealth in trust, to use themselves only what was necessary and to allow the remainder to be utilized for the benefit of the whole society.
It is apparent that Gandhi's philosophy has much in common with several Western philosophies which uphold the ideal of a more just and equitable society. For example, the Gandhian social order has been described as "communism minus violence". (However, Marxists have traditionally rejected Gandhi because of what they regard as his "bourgeois" outlook. Gandhi rejected violent class conflict and the centralization of political and economic power in the hands of the State as counterproductive to the development of a nonviolent society.) Nevertheless, Gandhian philosophy, particularly in the Sarvodaya ideal, does contain many socialist sentiments. In fact, such an entity as Gandhian Socialism emerged in theoretical literature during the 1970s and 1980s. Gandhi's thought has been likened also to Utopian Socialism and Philosophical Anarchism, and can be compared with strands of Maoist thought (though not a Western philosophy), and even Western liberal thought. However, Gandhi is incompatible with many aspects of Liberalism and is virtually entirely incompatible with the modern, intensely competitive, ecologically destructive and materialistic capitalism of the West.
As already observed, Gandhi's thought is equally a philosophy of self-transformation. The individual's task is to make a sincere attempt to live according to the principles of truth and nonviolence. Its fundamental tenets are therefore moral. They include - resisting injustice, developing a spirit of service, selflessness and sacrifice, emphasising one's responsibilities rather than rights, self-discipline, simplicity of life-style, and attempting to maintain truthful and nonviolent relations with others. It should be understood that by simplicity is meant voluntary simplicity, not poverty, which has no element of voluntarism in it. If there is one thing Gandhi does not stand for, it is poverty. A Gandhian should also avoid political office. He or she should remain aloof from formal party politics and equi-distant from all political groupings. But this is not to say, and in my view Gandhi does not require, that the individual should remain aloof from all politics. For often injustice cannot be resisted unless the political power holders and structures are engaged, nonviolently. What was the freedom struggle itself if not a political struggle, against the greatest concentration of political power the world had ever known, the British Empire? In my eyes, there is no particular virtue in attempting to avoid contact with politics. What must be avoided, however, is assumption of political power by a Gandhian (at least this is necessary in the short and medium terms in India), and cooperation with unvirtuous holders of political power on their terms.
The ultimate responsibility of a Gandhian is to resist clear injustice, untruth, in conjunction with others or alone. Resistance should be nonviolent if at all possible. But Gandhi did condone use of violent means in certain circumstances, in preference to submission which he regarded as cowardice and equivalent to cooperation with evil. In relation to the use of violence he stated categorically: "Where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence..." As surprising as it no doubt sounds, Gandhi disliked most not violence, but cowardice and apathy. The eminent peace researcher Johan Galtung has correctly observed that Gandhi preferred first, nonviolent resistance, second, violence in a just cause, and third, meaning least of all, apathy. In general, however, it is held that immoral means, such as violence, cannot produce moral ends, as means are themselves ends or ends in the making.
For the individual self-transformation is attempted with deliberateness rather than with haste. One should not seek to become a Mahatma overnight, because such attempts will surely fail, but to reform oneself over the whole of one's life, as far as one is capable. (Nor should there be any question of superficial imitation of Gandhi.) Gandhi viewed his own life as a process of development undertaken "one step at a time". He saw the need to continually "experiment with truth" (from which he derived the title of his autobiography) in whatever field, in order to come to see the truthful path. Though they were rooted in the highest idealism, the experiments were carried out on a very down-to-earth plane - India's moral, political and social needs as he saw them. Such an approach is available to all at all time. Gandhi believed his own moral and spiritual development to be far from complete at the time of his death. Despite the great heights he had attained, this was indeed true. He had not achieved perfection, as some of those who were close to him have testified.
The perception of what is the truthful path is largely a matter for the individual's reason and conscience, which therefore play key roles. The individual should subject each idea to the test of his or her own conscience and reason. Reason and rationality have enormous roles to play in the Gandhian way of thinking. This, I feel, is one of the major Western influences in Gandhi. If there is genuine, sincere disagreement, an idea can be discarded. However, once a principle is accepted a sincere attempt must be made to adhere to it. Ideally there should be harmony between thought, word and action. In this way the outer life becomes a true reflection of the inner, and a mental harmony is also achieved.
The remaining central concept in Gandhi's philosophy is Satyagraha. Defined most broadly (as Gandhi defined it), Satyagraha is itself a whole philosophy of nonviolence. Defined most narrowly, it is a technique or tool of nonviolent action. Because of the intention here to keep this discussion as simple as possible, Satyagraha will be described here in its latter guise. As a technique, Satyagraha was developed by Gandhi in South Africa to give the Indian population there a weapon with which to resist the injustices being perpetrated upon it by the colonial government. But Satyagraha can be practiced in any cultural environment - provided the necessary ingredients are present, not least Satyagrahis (those capable of Satyagraha). A Satyagraha campaign is undertaken only after all other peaceful means have proven ineffective. At its heart is nonviolence. An attempt is made to convert, persuade or win over the opponent. It involves applying the forces of both reason and conscience simultaneously. While holding aloft the indisputable truth of his or her position, the Satyagrahi also engages in acts of voluntary self-suffering. Any violence inflicted by the opponent is accepted without retaliation. But precisely because there is no retaliation (which can make the opponent feel his violence is justified), the opponent can only become morally bankrupt if violence continues to be inflicted indefinitely.
Several methods can be applied in a Satyagraha campaign, primarily non-cooperation and fasting. The action is undertaken in the belief in the underlying goodness of the opponent, and in his or her ability to acknowledge the injustice of the action and to cease the injustice, or at least to compromise. Satyagraha in this sense is highly creative. It creates no enemies, hatred or lasting bitterness, but ultimately only mutual regard. After a successful campaign there is not the least hint of gloating, nor is there any desire to embarrass the opponent. The former opponent becomes a friend. There are no losers, only winners. A truthful Satyagraha campaign, though it demands courage, self-discipline and humility on the part of the Satyagrahi, brings to bear tremendous moral pressure on the opponent and can bring about remarkable transformations.
Two factors are absolutely crucial to understand. There can be no Satyagraha in a cause which is not indisputably just and truthful. Nor can there be any element of violence or bitterness in a Satyagraha campaign - it must be conducted in a spirit of genuine nonviolence. Any campaign which is insincere in its spirit of nonviolence, or is not undertaken in a clearly just cause is not Satyagraha as Gandhi meant it.
To sum up, Gandhian philosophy is not only simultaneously political, moral and religious, it is also traditional and modern, simple and complex. It embodies numerous Western influences to which Gandhi was exposed, but being rooted in ancient Indian culture and harnessing eternal and universal moral and religious principles, there is much in it that is not at all new. This is why Gandhi could say: "I have nothing new to teach the world. Truth and nonviolence are as old as the hills." Gandhi is concerned even more with the spirit than with the form. If the spirit is consistent with truth and nonviolence, the truthful and nonviolent form will automatically result. Despite its anti-Westernism, many hold its outlook to be ultra-modern, in fact ahead of its time - even far ahead. Perhaps the philosophy is best seen as a harmonious blend of the traditional and modern. The multifaceted nature of Gandhi's thought also can easily lead to the view that it is extremely complex. Perhaps in one sense it is. One could easily write volumes in describing it! Yet Gandhi described much of his thought as mere commonsense. Dr Diwakar sums up Gandhi's thought in a few words: "The four words, truth, nonviolence, Sarvodaya and Satyagraha sand their significance constitute Gandhi and his teaching." These are indeed the four pillars of Gandhian thought.
His is the One Luminous, Creator of all, Mahatma
Always in the hearts of people enshrined,
Revealed through Love, Intuition and Thought
Whoever knows Him, Immortal becomes!!!
Bless us O Bapu, so that we may attain Success in all that we do!
(Adapted From: “Why Gandhi is Relevant in Modern India: A Western Gandhians Personal Discovery”, Gandhi Peace Foundation, New Delhi; Academy of Gandhian Studies, Hyderabad, 1991.)
Saturday, September 29, 2007
क्नोविंग more
Gandhi’s Approach to Communal Problems
By Dr. Asghar Ali Engineer
Many of us have written off Gandhi as irrelevant to our era of globalization and liberalization. Even before independence he sounded to conservative to many and his views on rural development were out of date. To others he was too religious to be acceptable in modern times. His economics did not make sound sense even to Jawaharlal Nehru though he was Gandhi's great follower. To Sardar Patel he appeared to be too pro-Muslim to be uncritically acceptable and communal forces whether of Muslim League Variety or RSS and Hindu Mahasabha variety openly detested him even hated him. A Hindu fanatic Godse ultimately shot him dead. Babasaheb Ambedkar also fought against him on the dalit question.
Gandhi was undoubtedly a great person and like any other great person he had very a complex personality. A great man has to deal with very complex situations and even, of necessity, has to respond in different situations differently and apparently in a contradictory manner. Gandhi had to deal with a complex society of a bewilderingly diverse country like India, and above all he had to deal with a mighty imperialist power like Britain.
No wonder then that Gandhi's personality appears to be so complex and bewilders many observers. Gandhi was deeply religious yet so rational. No one could lead Indian society without understanding its religious and cultural ethos. A leader while leading is also led in a way. In other words one cannot lead without being led by the people one leads. Logically this appears contradictory but this is what reality is.
Gandhi could not have ignored the religious sentiments of the people of India. Indian people were deeply religious and Indian culture was deeply influenced by religious customs and traditions. No leader of any worth could lead India ignoring religion. Because of ignorance and illiteracy religious beliefs had acquired overtones of superstition and they thus tended to be superstitious rather than spiritual. It was, therefore, necessary for an effective leader to emphasize the role of reason. Thus Gandhi combined religiosity with reason and talked of letting in fresh winds from the west by keeping mental, windows open. Thus to westernized people, he appeared to be too religious and too superstitiously religious to be rational.
And it was due to such a complex character that Gandhi became a great leader. He responded to all developing situations very carefully and intelligently. In view of certain calamitous situations he would become enigmatically silent and would speak only after a number of days spending periods of silence for deep reflection. He never acted instinctively.
Many of his actions appeared to be quite enigmatic, even to his close followers like Nehru and others. Nehru was baffled when the Mahatma withdrew the civil disobedience movement when it was at its height after the Chauri Chaura incident. But Gandhi withdrew the movement as it was becoming violent and he knew once violence starts it will go totally out of control and the British rulers will suppress it ruthlessly.
He took up the Khilafat d movement in 1919, which appeared even to Jinnah as pandering to sectarian mullahs and he differed from Gandhi on this question. But Gandhi knew the deeper urges of the Muslims of lndia and by supporting the Khilafat movement he successfully drew Muslim masses into the freedom movement and the Jami's at -ul- 'Ulama-I-Hind (an organization of Muslim theologians of. India), became a permanent ally, of Indian National Congress so much so that it vehemently opposed partition and appealed to the Muslim masses not to misled by Jinnah.
There were serious contradictions between Gandhi and Jinnah. Gandhi was thoroughly Indian by ethos and Jinnah was highly westernized. Gandhi was a man of the masses Jinnah was totally elitist in his orientation. Gandhi drew masses into the freedom movement, Jinnah felt politics was for the educated elite and it is for lawyers to decide the constitutional questions with the British rulers. Jinnah was an ace constitutionalist and Gandhi was a fighter for the cause. Jinnah was mainly concerned with minority rights and Muslin question and Gandhi had to lead the entire nation.
Gandhi developed the doctrine of Satyagraha and nonviolence which was unique in the modern political movements and for Gandhi nonviolence was not mere strategy. He elevated it to the status of a political doctrine. It was indeed a unique contribution of the Mahatma to the whole of humanity. The British rulers were also totally baffled by Gandhi’s insistence on nonviolence. It was difficult for them to deal with Mahatma Gandhi. They had never dealt with such person before. The ‘naked Fakir’ became the greatest challenge for the mightiest rulers in the world.
The twentieth and twenty first centuries so far have been the most violent and the world needs the doctrine of nonviolence as never before. In this respect Gandhi remains most relevant He proved efficacy of non violent political struggle and while all other colonial countries were waging armed struggle freedom India was the only country fighting for its liberation through non violent means.
However, after independence this most noble doctrine of nonviolence has been relegated to the political backyard. The communal forces base their politics on hatred and violence. Gandhi, though himself, a Hindu, was not an exclusivist. He was not only inclusivist but also the upholder of the doctrine of pluralism. He firmly believed in the principle of equal respect for all religions of the world. I have no hesitation in saying that he was a Hindu Sufi. For Sufis the basic doctrines are sulh-I-kul (total peace or peace with all) and love (muabhat). Also, like the Sufis, he believed in living a simple life, a life based on needs, not on greed. He often pointed out there is enough on this earth for everyone’s need and not enough even for one man's greed.
Contemporary India is developing neither along the ideals of Gandhi nor those of Nehru. Their differences were more apparent than real. Nehru was agnostic but understood others need for religion and he had great insights into Indian civilisation and understood its cultural ethos. Both Gandhi and Nehru were deeply committed to Indian Pluralism and human rights and individual dignity. Both Gandhi and Nehru were aware and appreciative of the contribution to Indian culture by all communities, particularly of Muslims.
Gandhi was indeed deeply aware of the Muslim question. Unfortunately the more he tried to solve it, more problems it created. Gandhi wanted to tackle it with a sense of justice and wisdom. He was inclusivist to the core. He knew the nation could not be built by excluding the Muslims at any level. But the Muslim League of Jinnah on one hand, and the Hindu communalists on the other were not prepared to bring wisdom and sense of justice in resolving this tangled problem.
The most fundamental question, as far as Jinnah was concerned, was of proper constitutional arrangement for power sharing between the two communities and when this arrangement could not be satisfactorily worked out he began to propound the two nation theory. Propounding this theory added to the complexity of the problem. The theory had no substance of course and it generated more heat and bitterness. It enormously complicated the communal problem.
The Hindu communal forces too believed in Hindu Rashtra and considered Muslims as alien and at best secondary citizens. The RSS theorists had laid the foundation of separate nationhood much before Jinnah did. Lala Lajpat Rai, Bhai Parmanand, Veer Savarkar and Hedgevar, all believed in the two nation theory and actively propagated it. Savarkar, Hindu Mahasabha leaders and RSS leaders hated Gandhi because of his emphasis on love and nonviolence and respect for other religions.
Gandhi firmly believed in secular nationalism and unity of the country. The Hindu Rashtravadis, though they talked of Akhand Bharat and never tired of talking of patriotism, were, in fact, responsible for the vivisection of the country. They hated Muslims, the largest. minority and considered them as aliens. They thought, highly superficially of course, that Muslims could never be true patriots (though they themselves were not). Thus through this approach they strengthened the hands of separatists among Muslims and made it obvious for these Muslim separatists that the two nation theory was justified and that Hindus and Muslims indeed cannot live together. This proved disastrous for the unity and integrity of our country.
Gandhi, on the other hand, believed in tolerance and acceptance of all religions within the Indian national framework. A Modern nation state, he knew, could not be built on intolerance towards others and by excluding them. Nationhood cannot be a based on religion. It will only lead to intolerance, hatred and violence. Religious nationalism can and does lead to fascistic tendencies.
All communal forces whether of Muslim or the Hindu variety hated Gandhi precisely because tolerance, love and nonviolence would totally negate religious nationalism and exclusivistic approach. Religious nationalism can be sustained only on hatred and violence. Religious nationalists hate nonviolence and peace. They thrive on hatred and violence. In fact religious nationalism is nothing but gross misuse of both, religion and nationalism. A true love of religion and a true patriot would never allow such misuse either of religion or of the concept of a nation.
A communalist, though he projects himself as a patriot, is not. Similarly he thinks he is the defender of his religion but it is not so. One who hates a section of people of his own country cannot be a patriot in any sense of the word and one who peddles hate in the name of religion cannot be truly religious. The communalists are hate mongers on one hand, and champions of their vested interests on the other. It is also important to note that communalists cannot be democrats either. They do not believe in democratic dissent. Anyone who disagrees is a traitor to the 'cause'.
Gandhi, on the other hand, was deeply religious, truly patriotic and a great democrat. His politics was based on values like truth and nonviolence. A democracy, in order to be meaningful has to imbibe these values. For Gandhi, cow was a holy animal as he was an orthodox Hindu. Yet nonviolence was more important to him than the cow. Thus he writes in Young India (May 7, 1919) "I believe myself to be an orthodox Hindu and it is my conviction that no one who scrupulously practices the Hindu religion may like a cow killer to protect the cow."
And in Young -India (May 18,1921) he wrote very insightfully, "To attempt cow protection by violence is to reduce Hinduism to Satanism and to prostitute to a base end the grand significance of cow protection." He further says in the same issue, "The Hindu must scrupulously refrain from using any violence against Mussalman. Suffering and trust are attributes of soul force. I have heard that, at big fairs, if a Mussalman is, found in possession of cows or even goats, he is at times forcibly dispossessed. Those claiming to be Hindus, thus resort to violence and are enemies of the cow and of Hinduism."
In our own times we witness that VHP and Bajarang Dal activists openly incite violence against Muslims and Dalits. Several riots have taken place in India in the postindependence period too, on this question. What happened in Jhajjar, Haryana a year ago is a hair raising event. Four dalits who were skinning dead cows were lynched. Thus, as pointed out above, communalists can never be truly religious. Gandhi boldly states that it is not Hinduism but 'Satanism'. It is a very harsh word but, for Gandhi, anyone using violence amounts to an act of Satan.
For Gandhi truth and non violence are the fundamentals for every religion and he calls them to be the master key with which the essence of every religion is to be unlocked. A communalist, however, never accepts truth and nonviolence. His creed is violence and falsehood. For him revenge is far more fundamental than forgiving. Gandhi was against retaliation as it involves violence. He stood for forgiveness rather than revenge. He wrote in Young India of August 18, 1924, "The law of retaliation has been tried since the day of Adam and we know from experience that it has hopelessly failed. We are groaning under its poisonous effect. Above all, the Hindus may not break mosques against to temples. That way lies slavery and worse. Even though a thousand temples, may be reduced to bits, I would not touch a single mosque and expect thus to prove the superiority of my faith to the so called faith of fanatics."
A communalist can never accept such superior morality. His actions are based on feelings of revenge. Remember what Narendra Modi said in justification of the communal carnage in Gujarat? Reaction is equal to action and hence Godhra needs to be revenged through carnage in the rest of Gujarat. We can very well understand why all communalists hate persons like Gandhi. They of course physically assassinated him but cannot do away with his philosophy of non-violence and truth. In fact the world needs this to philosophy as never before.
Unfortunately Gandhi's Gujarat has put the whole country to shame by organizing such brutal carnage the enormity of which is truly mind-boggling. Gandhi is known as Sabarmati's saint and his, Ashram is still there on the bank of Sabarmati River and Ahmedabad City is being rocked communal violence time and again. It is communally the most sensitive city in Gujarat. From 1969 to 2002 several major communal riots have rocked this unfortunate city. The communal forces are well entrenched there, and have used every trick in their bag to intensify communal hatred.
It is for Gandhians, not only of Gujarat but also of the entire country, to reflect deeply on the situation prevailing in our country in general and in Gujarat in particular. When communal violence could not be checked , Gandhi always undertook a fast and put his life at stake readily. I would also like to share here what Subhadra Joshi told me about the riots in Delhi during partition. Gandhi inquired from her as to how many people were killed in the riots. She answered 10,000. Then Gandhi asked how many of you (i.e. peace workers) have been killed? She said none. Gandhi then said how can I believe that you are trying to prevent communal violence? Those of you who faced the British bullets cannot face the Indian police? But we find today that hardly any Gandhian comes forward to do so. I asked some Gandhians in 1985 when Ahmedabad was rocked by communal violence for long as to why no one among them followed Gandhi and undertook the fast, I was told we do not have the status of Gandhi.
One acquires some status only through ones action. Gandhi also acquired the status he had through constant action based on his deep convictions. Unfortunately very few Gandhians have deep conviction in Gandhi's philosophy. It is therefore highly necessary to critically evaluate the functioning of Gandhians in India today. Unless it is honestly attempted I am afraid, our country will continue to suffer.
Today our country is facing several dilemmas, especially moral dilemmas. We forswear by Gandhism but his staunchest opponents are in power today. While Gandhi says I will not like to touch a single mosque even if a thousand temples are reduced to bits, we see a political party riding to power by demolishing a mosque without a single temple being demolished.
Our country is a country of bewildering diversity and the Gandhian concepts of truth, non-violence and tolerance are highly necessary to maintain this diversity. Today our unity is in great danger like never before and as true Gandhians and patriots it is our fundamental duty to not only preserve but strengthen this diversity and save the country from violence and hatred, on one hand, and from likely disintegration, on the other.
Another dilemma is of no less importance. Gandhi fought against imperialism his whole life. Every action of his was to fight against imperialism. And yet, today we are facing grave danger from neo-imperialism and globalization and we are hardly doing anything to meet this challenge.
Gandhi was greatly concerned with the weakest and poorest people and his real measure of progress was how much the weakest. sections of society have gained from it. Nehru developed the concept of mixed economy to cater to the needs of the poorer sections of society. Today the entire public sector is being systematically destroyed and what an irony that a ministry of disinvestment, headed by a former World Bank employee has been created. On the one hand we are celebrating the rapid progress India is making and on the other workers and peasants are committing suicide. Two workers recently committed suicide by setting fire to themselves as they were unjustly fired from their jobs.
Gandhi was greatly committed to the concept of need-based economy as opposed to a greed-based one. However, the whole thrust of our economy is based on greed for profits. Multinational corporations are almost dominating our economy today. The multinationals are engaged in producing luxury goods leaving the poor starving to death. I feel that after communalism the greatest danger is the neo-economic imperialism.
If fact this new economic imperialism further strengthens the need for communal division. The poor and backward sections of the society are being injected with communal hatred so that they fight the religion and not their real enemy responsible for their poverty and backwardness. Any analysis of those who are increasingly participating in communal movements as well as communal riots are the poor and backward sections of our society. In the Gujarat carnage too poor tribals, dalits and backward caste Hindus were incited to kill poor Muslims.
Thus the Gandhians have two grave challenges to meet and both seem to be inter-related i.e. the communal challenge on the one hand and the challenge of globalization on the other. I am not suggesting for a moment that positive benefits of globalization should not be taken advantage of. International trade and connectivity through electronic media have been a great boon, but globalization should not become a vehicle for fast track transfer of our national wealth to Western countries leaving our weaker sections to suffer pangs of poverty and unemployment and a strong dose of communalism and compensation.
I hope the Gandhians will dedicate themselves to fight both the challenges with renewed vigour and realize the dangers of neglecting them.
By Dr. Asghar Ali Engineer
Many of us have written off Gandhi as irrelevant to our era of globalization and liberalization. Even before independence he sounded to conservative to many and his views on rural development were out of date. To others he was too religious to be acceptable in modern times. His economics did not make sound sense even to Jawaharlal Nehru though he was Gandhi's great follower. To Sardar Patel he appeared to be too pro-Muslim to be uncritically acceptable and communal forces whether of Muslim League Variety or RSS and Hindu Mahasabha variety openly detested him even hated him. A Hindu fanatic Godse ultimately shot him dead. Babasaheb Ambedkar also fought against him on the dalit question.
Gandhi was undoubtedly a great person and like any other great person he had very a complex personality. A great man has to deal with very complex situations and even, of necessity, has to respond in different situations differently and apparently in a contradictory manner. Gandhi had to deal with a complex society of a bewilderingly diverse country like India, and above all he had to deal with a mighty imperialist power like Britain.
No wonder then that Gandhi's personality appears to be so complex and bewilders many observers. Gandhi was deeply religious yet so rational. No one could lead Indian society without understanding its religious and cultural ethos. A leader while leading is also led in a way. In other words one cannot lead without being led by the people one leads. Logically this appears contradictory but this is what reality is.
Gandhi could not have ignored the religious sentiments of the people of India. Indian people were deeply religious and Indian culture was deeply influenced by religious customs and traditions. No leader of any worth could lead India ignoring religion. Because of ignorance and illiteracy religious beliefs had acquired overtones of superstition and they thus tended to be superstitious rather than spiritual. It was, therefore, necessary for an effective leader to emphasize the role of reason. Thus Gandhi combined religiosity with reason and talked of letting in fresh winds from the west by keeping mental, windows open. Thus to westernized people, he appeared to be too religious and too superstitiously religious to be rational.
And it was due to such a complex character that Gandhi became a great leader. He responded to all developing situations very carefully and intelligently. In view of certain calamitous situations he would become enigmatically silent and would speak only after a number of days spending periods of silence for deep reflection. He never acted instinctively.
Many of his actions appeared to be quite enigmatic, even to his close followers like Nehru and others. Nehru was baffled when the Mahatma withdrew the civil disobedience movement when it was at its height after the Chauri Chaura incident. But Gandhi withdrew the movement as it was becoming violent and he knew once violence starts it will go totally out of control and the British rulers will suppress it ruthlessly.
He took up the Khilafat d movement in 1919, which appeared even to Jinnah as pandering to sectarian mullahs and he differed from Gandhi on this question. But Gandhi knew the deeper urges of the Muslims of lndia and by supporting the Khilafat movement he successfully drew Muslim masses into the freedom movement and the Jami's at -ul- 'Ulama-I-Hind (an organization of Muslim theologians of. India), became a permanent ally, of Indian National Congress so much so that it vehemently opposed partition and appealed to the Muslim masses not to misled by Jinnah.
There were serious contradictions between Gandhi and Jinnah. Gandhi was thoroughly Indian by ethos and Jinnah was highly westernized. Gandhi was a man of the masses Jinnah was totally elitist in his orientation. Gandhi drew masses into the freedom movement, Jinnah felt politics was for the educated elite and it is for lawyers to decide the constitutional questions with the British rulers. Jinnah was an ace constitutionalist and Gandhi was a fighter for the cause. Jinnah was mainly concerned with minority rights and Muslin question and Gandhi had to lead the entire nation.
Gandhi developed the doctrine of Satyagraha and nonviolence which was unique in the modern political movements and for Gandhi nonviolence was not mere strategy. He elevated it to the status of a political doctrine. It was indeed a unique contribution of the Mahatma to the whole of humanity. The British rulers were also totally baffled by Gandhi’s insistence on nonviolence. It was difficult for them to deal with Mahatma Gandhi. They had never dealt with such person before. The ‘naked Fakir’ became the greatest challenge for the mightiest rulers in the world.
The twentieth and twenty first centuries so far have been the most violent and the world needs the doctrine of nonviolence as never before. In this respect Gandhi remains most relevant He proved efficacy of non violent political struggle and while all other colonial countries were waging armed struggle freedom India was the only country fighting for its liberation through non violent means.
However, after independence this most noble doctrine of nonviolence has been relegated to the political backyard. The communal forces base their politics on hatred and violence. Gandhi, though himself, a Hindu, was not an exclusivist. He was not only inclusivist but also the upholder of the doctrine of pluralism. He firmly believed in the principle of equal respect for all religions of the world. I have no hesitation in saying that he was a Hindu Sufi. For Sufis the basic doctrines are sulh-I-kul (total peace or peace with all) and love (muabhat). Also, like the Sufis, he believed in living a simple life, a life based on needs, not on greed. He often pointed out there is enough on this earth for everyone’s need and not enough even for one man's greed.
Contemporary India is developing neither along the ideals of Gandhi nor those of Nehru. Their differences were more apparent than real. Nehru was agnostic but understood others need for religion and he had great insights into Indian civilisation and understood its cultural ethos. Both Gandhi and Nehru were deeply committed to Indian Pluralism and human rights and individual dignity. Both Gandhi and Nehru were aware and appreciative of the contribution to Indian culture by all communities, particularly of Muslims.
Gandhi was indeed deeply aware of the Muslim question. Unfortunately the more he tried to solve it, more problems it created. Gandhi wanted to tackle it with a sense of justice and wisdom. He was inclusivist to the core. He knew the nation could not be built by excluding the Muslims at any level. But the Muslim League of Jinnah on one hand, and the Hindu communalists on the other were not prepared to bring wisdom and sense of justice in resolving this tangled problem.
The most fundamental question, as far as Jinnah was concerned, was of proper constitutional arrangement for power sharing between the two communities and when this arrangement could not be satisfactorily worked out he began to propound the two nation theory. Propounding this theory added to the complexity of the problem. The theory had no substance of course and it generated more heat and bitterness. It enormously complicated the communal problem.
The Hindu communal forces too believed in Hindu Rashtra and considered Muslims as alien and at best secondary citizens. The RSS theorists had laid the foundation of separate nationhood much before Jinnah did. Lala Lajpat Rai, Bhai Parmanand, Veer Savarkar and Hedgevar, all believed in the two nation theory and actively propagated it. Savarkar, Hindu Mahasabha leaders and RSS leaders hated Gandhi because of his emphasis on love and nonviolence and respect for other religions.
Gandhi firmly believed in secular nationalism and unity of the country. The Hindu Rashtravadis, though they talked of Akhand Bharat and never tired of talking of patriotism, were, in fact, responsible for the vivisection of the country. They hated Muslims, the largest. minority and considered them as aliens. They thought, highly superficially of course, that Muslims could never be true patriots (though they themselves were not). Thus through this approach they strengthened the hands of separatists among Muslims and made it obvious for these Muslim separatists that the two nation theory was justified and that Hindus and Muslims indeed cannot live together. This proved disastrous for the unity and integrity of our country.
Gandhi, on the other hand, believed in tolerance and acceptance of all religions within the Indian national framework. A Modern nation state, he knew, could not be built on intolerance towards others and by excluding them. Nationhood cannot be a based on religion. It will only lead to intolerance, hatred and violence. Religious nationalism can and does lead to fascistic tendencies.
All communal forces whether of Muslim or the Hindu variety hated Gandhi precisely because tolerance, love and nonviolence would totally negate religious nationalism and exclusivistic approach. Religious nationalism can be sustained only on hatred and violence. Religious nationalists hate nonviolence and peace. They thrive on hatred and violence. In fact religious nationalism is nothing but gross misuse of both, religion and nationalism. A true love of religion and a true patriot would never allow such misuse either of religion or of the concept of a nation.
A communalist, though he projects himself as a patriot, is not. Similarly he thinks he is the defender of his religion but it is not so. One who hates a section of people of his own country cannot be a patriot in any sense of the word and one who peddles hate in the name of religion cannot be truly religious. The communalists are hate mongers on one hand, and champions of their vested interests on the other. It is also important to note that communalists cannot be democrats either. They do not believe in democratic dissent. Anyone who disagrees is a traitor to the 'cause'.
Gandhi, on the other hand, was deeply religious, truly patriotic and a great democrat. His politics was based on values like truth and nonviolence. A democracy, in order to be meaningful has to imbibe these values. For Gandhi, cow was a holy animal as he was an orthodox Hindu. Yet nonviolence was more important to him than the cow. Thus he writes in Young India (May 7, 1919) "I believe myself to be an orthodox Hindu and it is my conviction that no one who scrupulously practices the Hindu religion may like a cow killer to protect the cow."
And in Young -India (May 18,1921) he wrote very insightfully, "To attempt cow protection by violence is to reduce Hinduism to Satanism and to prostitute to a base end the grand significance of cow protection." He further says in the same issue, "The Hindu must scrupulously refrain from using any violence against Mussalman. Suffering and trust are attributes of soul force. I have heard that, at big fairs, if a Mussalman is, found in possession of cows or even goats, he is at times forcibly dispossessed. Those claiming to be Hindus, thus resort to violence and are enemies of the cow and of Hinduism."
In our own times we witness that VHP and Bajarang Dal activists openly incite violence against Muslims and Dalits. Several riots have taken place in India in the postindependence period too, on this question. What happened in Jhajjar, Haryana a year ago is a hair raising event. Four dalits who were skinning dead cows were lynched. Thus, as pointed out above, communalists can never be truly religious. Gandhi boldly states that it is not Hinduism but 'Satanism'. It is a very harsh word but, for Gandhi, anyone using violence amounts to an act of Satan.
For Gandhi truth and non violence are the fundamentals for every religion and he calls them to be the master key with which the essence of every religion is to be unlocked. A communalist, however, never accepts truth and nonviolence. His creed is violence and falsehood. For him revenge is far more fundamental than forgiving. Gandhi was against retaliation as it involves violence. He stood for forgiveness rather than revenge. He wrote in Young India of August 18, 1924, "The law of retaliation has been tried since the day of Adam and we know from experience that it has hopelessly failed. We are groaning under its poisonous effect. Above all, the Hindus may not break mosques against to temples. That way lies slavery and worse. Even though a thousand temples, may be reduced to bits, I would not touch a single mosque and expect thus to prove the superiority of my faith to the so called faith of fanatics."
A communalist can never accept such superior morality. His actions are based on feelings of revenge. Remember what Narendra Modi said in justification of the communal carnage in Gujarat? Reaction is equal to action and hence Godhra needs to be revenged through carnage in the rest of Gujarat. We can very well understand why all communalists hate persons like Gandhi. They of course physically assassinated him but cannot do away with his philosophy of non-violence and truth. In fact the world needs this to philosophy as never before.
Unfortunately Gandhi's Gujarat has put the whole country to shame by organizing such brutal carnage the enormity of which is truly mind-boggling. Gandhi is known as Sabarmati's saint and his, Ashram is still there on the bank of Sabarmati River and Ahmedabad City is being rocked communal violence time and again. It is communally the most sensitive city in Gujarat. From 1969 to 2002 several major communal riots have rocked this unfortunate city. The communal forces are well entrenched there, and have used every trick in their bag to intensify communal hatred.
It is for Gandhians, not only of Gujarat but also of the entire country, to reflect deeply on the situation prevailing in our country in general and in Gujarat in particular. When communal violence could not be checked , Gandhi always undertook a fast and put his life at stake readily. I would also like to share here what Subhadra Joshi told me about the riots in Delhi during partition. Gandhi inquired from her as to how many people were killed in the riots. She answered 10,000. Then Gandhi asked how many of you (i.e. peace workers) have been killed? She said none. Gandhi then said how can I believe that you are trying to prevent communal violence? Those of you who faced the British bullets cannot face the Indian police? But we find today that hardly any Gandhian comes forward to do so. I asked some Gandhians in 1985 when Ahmedabad was rocked by communal violence for long as to why no one among them followed Gandhi and undertook the fast, I was told we do not have the status of Gandhi.
One acquires some status only through ones action. Gandhi also acquired the status he had through constant action based on his deep convictions. Unfortunately very few Gandhians have deep conviction in Gandhi's philosophy. It is therefore highly necessary to critically evaluate the functioning of Gandhians in India today. Unless it is honestly attempted I am afraid, our country will continue to suffer.
Today our country is facing several dilemmas, especially moral dilemmas. We forswear by Gandhism but his staunchest opponents are in power today. While Gandhi says I will not like to touch a single mosque even if a thousand temples are reduced to bits, we see a political party riding to power by demolishing a mosque without a single temple being demolished.
Our country is a country of bewildering diversity and the Gandhian concepts of truth, non-violence and tolerance are highly necessary to maintain this diversity. Today our unity is in great danger like never before and as true Gandhians and patriots it is our fundamental duty to not only preserve but strengthen this diversity and save the country from violence and hatred, on one hand, and from likely disintegration, on the other.
Another dilemma is of no less importance. Gandhi fought against imperialism his whole life. Every action of his was to fight against imperialism. And yet, today we are facing grave danger from neo-imperialism and globalization and we are hardly doing anything to meet this challenge.
Gandhi was greatly concerned with the weakest and poorest people and his real measure of progress was how much the weakest. sections of society have gained from it. Nehru developed the concept of mixed economy to cater to the needs of the poorer sections of society. Today the entire public sector is being systematically destroyed and what an irony that a ministry of disinvestment, headed by a former World Bank employee has been created. On the one hand we are celebrating the rapid progress India is making and on the other workers and peasants are committing suicide. Two workers recently committed suicide by setting fire to themselves as they were unjustly fired from their jobs.
Gandhi was greatly committed to the concept of need-based economy as opposed to a greed-based one. However, the whole thrust of our economy is based on greed for profits. Multinational corporations are almost dominating our economy today. The multinationals are engaged in producing luxury goods leaving the poor starving to death. I feel that after communalism the greatest danger is the neo-economic imperialism.
If fact this new economic imperialism further strengthens the need for communal division. The poor and backward sections of the society are being injected with communal hatred so that they fight the religion and not their real enemy responsible for their poverty and backwardness. Any analysis of those who are increasingly participating in communal movements as well as communal riots are the poor and backward sections of our society. In the Gujarat carnage too poor tribals, dalits and backward caste Hindus were incited to kill poor Muslims.
Thus the Gandhians have two grave challenges to meet and both seem to be inter-related i.e. the communal challenge on the one hand and the challenge of globalization on the other. I am not suggesting for a moment that positive benefits of globalization should not be taken advantage of. International trade and connectivity through electronic media have been a great boon, but globalization should not become a vehicle for fast track transfer of our national wealth to Western countries leaving our weaker sections to suffer pangs of poverty and unemployment and a strong dose of communalism and compensation.
I hope the Gandhians will dedicate themselves to fight both the challenges with renewed vigour and realize the dangers of neglecting them.
Gandhi’s Approach to Communal प्रोब्लेमस
Many of us have written off Gandhi as irrelevant to our era of globalization and liberalization। Even before independence he sounded to conservative to many and his views on rural development were out of date. To others he was too religious to be acceptable in modern times. His economics did not make sound sense even to Jawaharlal Nehru though he was Gandhi's great follower. To Sardar Patel he appeared to be too pro-Muslim to be uncritically acceptable and communal forces whether of Muslim League Variety or RSS and Hindu Mahasabha variety openly detested him even hated him. A Hindu fanatic Godse ultimately shot him dead. Babasaheb Ambedkar also fought against him on the dalit question.
Gandhi was undoubtedly a great person and like any other great person he had very a complex personality. A great man has to deal with very complex situations and even, of necessity, has to respond in different situations differently and apparently in a contradictory manner. Gandhi had to deal with a complex society of a bewilderingly diverse country like India, and above all he had to deal with a mighty imperialist power like Britain.
No wonder then that Gandhi's personality appears to be so complex and bewilders many observers. Gandhi was deeply religious yet so rational. No one could lead Indian society without understanding its religious and cultural ethos. A leader while leading is also led in a way. In other words one cannot lead without being led by the people one leads. Logically this appears contradictory but this is what reality is.
Gandhi could not have ignored the religious sentiments of the people of India. Indian people were deeply religious and Indian culture was deeply influenced by religious customs and traditions. No leader of any worth could lead India ignoring religion. Because of ignorance and illiteracy religious beliefs had acquired overtones of superstition and they thus tended to be superstitious rather than spiritual. It was, therefore, necessary for an effective leader to emphasize the role of reason. Thus Gandhi combined religiosity with reason and talked of letting in fresh winds from the west by keeping mental, windows open. Thus to westernized people, he appeared to be too religious and too superstitiously religious to be rational.
And it was due to such a complex character that Gandhi became a great leader. He responded to all developing situations very carefully and intelligently. In view of certain calamitous situations he would become enigmatically silent and would speak only after a number of days spending periods of silence for deep reflection. He never acted instinctively.
Many of his actions appeared to be quite enigmatic, even to his close followers like Nehru and others. Nehru was baffled when the Mahatma withdrew the civil disobedience movement when it was at its height after the Chauri Chaura incident. But Gandhi withdrew the movement as it was becoming violent and he knew once violence starts it will go totally out of control and the British rulers will suppress it ruthlessly.
He took up the Khilafat d movement in 1919, which appeared even to Jinnah as pandering to sectarian mullahs and he differed from Gandhi on this question. But Gandhi knew the deeper urges of the Muslims of lndia and by supporting the Khilafat movement he successfully drew Muslim masses into the freedom movement and the Jami's at -ul- 'Ulama-I-Hind (an organization of Muslim theologians of. India), became a permanent ally, of Indian National Congress so much so that it vehemently opposed partition and appealed to the Muslim masses not to misled by Jinnah.
There were serious contradictions between Gandhi and Jinnah. Gandhi was thoroughly Indian by ethos and Jinnah was highly westernized. Gandhi was a man of the masses Jinnah was totally elitist in his orientation. Gandhi drew masses into the freedom movement, Jinnah felt politics was for the educated elite and it is for lawyers to decide the constitutional questions with the British rulers. Jinnah was an ace constitutionalist and Gandhi was a fighter for the cause. Jinnah was mainly concerned with minority rights and Muslin question and Gandhi had to lead the entire nation.
Gandhi developed the doctrine of Satyagraha and nonviolence which was unique in the modern political movements and for Gandhi nonviolence was not mere strategy. He elevated it to the status of a political doctrine. It was indeed a unique contribution of the Mahatma to the whole of humanity. The British rulers were also totally baffled by Gandhi’s insistence on nonviolence. It was difficult for them to deal with Mahatma Gandhi. They had never dealt with such person before. The ‘naked Fakir’ became the greatest challenge for the mightiest rulers in the world.
The twentieth and twenty first centuries so far have been the most violent and the world needs the doctrine of nonviolence as never before. In this respect Gandhi remains most relevant He proved efficacy of non violent political struggle and while all other colonial countries were waging armed struggle freedom India was the only country fighting for its liberation through non violent means.
However, after independence this most noble doctrine of nonviolence has been relegated to the political backyard. The communal forces base their politics on hatred and violence. Gandhi, though himself, a Hindu, was not an exclusivist. He was not only inclusivist but also the upholder of the doctrine of pluralism. He firmly believed in the principle of equal respect for all religions of the world. I have no hesitation in saying that he was a Hindu Sufi. For Sufis the basic doctrines are sulh-I-kul (total peace or peace with all) and love (muabhat). Also, like the Sufis, he believed in living a simple life, a life based on needs, not on greed. He often pointed out there is enough on this earth for everyone’s need and not enough even for one man's greed.
Contemporary India is developing neither along the ideals of Gandhi nor those of Nehru. Their differences were more apparent than real. Nehru was agnostic but understood others need for religion and he had great insights into Indian civilisation and understood its cultural ethos. Both Gandhi and Nehru were deeply committed to Indian Pluralism and human rights and individual dignity. Both Gandhi and Nehru were aware and appreciative of the contribution to Indian culture by all communities, particularly of Muslims.
Gandhi was indeed deeply aware of the Muslim question. Unfortunately the more he tried to solve it, more problems it created. Gandhi wanted to tackle it with a sense of justice and wisdom. He was inclusivist to the core. He knew the nation could not be built by excluding the Muslims at any level. But the Muslim League of Jinnah on one hand, and the Hindu communalists on the other were not prepared to bring wisdom and sense of justice in resolving this tangled problem.
The most fundamental question, as far as Jinnah was concerned, was of proper constitutional arrangement for power sharing between the two communities and when this arrangement could not be satisfactorily worked out he began to propound the two nation theory. Propounding this theory added to the complexity of the problem. The theory had no substance of course and it generated more heat and bitterness. It enormously complicated the communal problem.
The Hindu communal forces too believed in Hindu Rashtra and considered Muslims as alien and at best secondary citizens. The RSS theorists had laid the foundation of separate nationhood much before Jinnah did. Lala Lajpat Rai, Bhai Parmanand, Veer Savarkar and Hedgevar, all believed in the two nation theory and actively propagated it. Savarkar, Hindu Mahasabha leaders and RSS leaders hated Gandhi because of his emphasis on love and nonviolence and respect for other religions.
Gandhi firmly believed in secular nationalism and unity of the country. The Hindu Rashtravadis, though they talked of Akhand Bharat and never tired of talking of patriotism, were, in fact, responsible for the vivisection of the country. They hated Muslims, the largest. minority and considered them as aliens. They thought, highly superficially of course, that Muslims could never be true patriots (though they themselves were not). Thus through this approach they strengthened the hands of separatists among Muslims and made it obvious for these Muslim separatists that the two nation theory was justified and that Hindus and Muslims indeed cannot live together. This proved disastrous for the unity and integrity of our country.
Gandhi, on the other hand, believed in tolerance and acceptance of all religions within the Indian national framework. A Modern nation state, he knew, could not be built on intolerance towards others and by excluding them. Nationhood cannot be a based on religion. It will only lead to intolerance, hatred and violence. Religious nationalism can and does lead to fascistic tendencies.
All communal forces whether of Muslim or the Hindu variety hated Gandhi precisely because tolerance, love and nonviolence would totally negate religious nationalism and exclusivistic approach. Religious nationalism can be sustained only on hatred and violence. Religious nationalists hate nonviolence and peace. They thrive on hatred and violence. In fact religious nationalism is nothing but gross misuse of both, religion and nationalism. A true love of religion and a true patriot would never allow such misuse either of religion or of the concept of a nation.
A communalist, though he projects himself as a patriot, is not. Similarly he thinks he is the defender of his religion but it is not so. One who hates a section of people of his own country cannot be a patriot in any sense of the word and one who peddles hate in the name of religion cannot be truly religious. The communalists are hate mongers on one hand, and champions of their vested interests on the other. It is also important to note that communalists cannot be democrats either. They do not believe in democratic dissent. Anyone who disagrees is a traitor to the 'cause'.
Gandhi, on the other hand, was deeply religious, truly patriotic and a great democrat. His politics was based on values like truth and nonviolence. A democracy, in order to be meaningful has to imbibe these values. For Gandhi, cow was a holy animal as he was an orthodox Hindu. Yet nonviolence was more important to him than the cow. Thus he writes in Young India (May 7, 1919) "I believe myself to be an orthodox Hindu and it is my conviction that no one who scrupulously practices the Hindu religion may like a cow killer to protect the cow."
And in Young -India (May 18,1921) he wrote very insightfully, "To attempt cow protection by violence is to reduce Hinduism to Satanism and to prostitute to a base end the grand significance of cow protection." He further says in the same issue, "The Hindu must scrupulously refrain from using any violence against Mussalman. Suffering and trust are attributes of soul force. I have heard that, at big fairs, if a Mussalman is, found in possession of cows or even goats, he is at times forcibly dispossessed. Those claiming to be Hindus, thus resort to violence and are enemies of the cow and of Hinduism."
In our own times we witness that VHP and Bajarang Dal activists openly incite violence against Muslims and Dalits. Several riots have taken place in India in the postindependence period too, on this question. What happened in Jhajjar, Haryana a year ago is a hair raising event. Four dalits who were skinning dead cows were lynched. Thus, as pointed out above, communalists can never be truly religious. Gandhi boldly states that it is not Hinduism but 'Satanism'. It is a very harsh word but, for Gandhi, anyone using violence amounts to an act of Satan.
For Gandhi truth and non violence are the fundamentals for every religion and he calls them to be the master key with which the essence of every religion is to be unlocked. A communalist, however, never accepts truth and nonviolence. His creed is violence and falsehood. For him revenge is far more fundamental than forgiving. Gandhi was against retaliation as it involves violence. He stood for forgiveness rather than revenge. He wrote in Young India of August 18, 1924, "The law of retaliation has been tried since the day of Adam and we know from experience that it has hopelessly failed. We are groaning under its poisonous effect. Above all, the Hindus may not break mosques against to temples. That way lies slavery and worse. Even though a thousand temples, may be reduced to bits, I would not touch a single mosque and expect thus to prove the superiority of my faith to the so called faith of fanatics."
A communalist can never accept such superior morality. His actions are based on feelings of revenge. Remember what Narendra Modi said in justification of the communal carnage in Gujarat? Reaction is equal to action and hence Godhra needs to be revenged through carnage in the rest of Gujarat. We can very well understand why all communalists hate persons like Gandhi. They of course physically assassinated him but cannot do away with his philosophy of non-violence and truth. In fact the world needs this to philosophy as never before.
Unfortunately Gandhi's Gujarat has put the whole country to shame by organizing such brutal carnage the enormity of which is truly mind-boggling. Gandhi is known as Sabarmati's saint and his, Ashram is still there on the bank of Sabarmati River and Ahmedabad City is being rocked communal violence time and again. It is communally the most sensitive city in Gujarat. From 1969 to 2002 several major communal riots have rocked this unfortunate city. The communal forces are well entrenched there, and have used every trick in their bag to intensify communal hatred.
It is for Gandhians, not only of Gujarat but also of the entire country, to reflect deeply on the situation prevailing in our country in general and in Gujarat in particular. When communal violence could not be checked , Gandhi always undertook a fast and put his life at stake readily. I would also like to share here what Subhadra Joshi told me about the riots in Delhi during partition. Gandhi inquired from her as to how many people were killed in the riots. She answered 10,000. Then Gandhi asked how many of you (i.e. peace workers) have been killed? She said none. Gandhi then said how can I believe that you are trying to prevent communal violence? Those of you who faced the British bullets cannot face the Indian police? But we find today that hardly any Gandhian comes forward to do so. I asked some Gandhians in 1985 when Ahmedabad was rocked by communal violence for long as to why no one among them followed Gandhi and undertook the fast, I was told we do not have the status of Gandhi.
One acquires some status only through ones action. Gandhi also acquired the status he had through constant action based on his deep convictions. Unfortunately very few Gandhians have deep conviction in Gandhi's philosophy. It is therefore highly necessary to critically evaluate the functioning of Gandhians in India today. Unless it is honestly attempted I am afraid, our country will continue to suffer.
Today our country is facing several dilemmas, especially moral dilemmas. We forswear by Gandhism but his staunchest opponents are in power today. While Gandhi says I will not like to touch a single mosque even if a thousand temples are reduced to bits, we see a political party riding to power by demolishing a mosque without a single temple being demolished.
Our country is a country of bewildering diversity and the Gandhian concepts of truth, non-violence and tolerance are highly necessary to maintain this diversity. Today our unity is in great danger like never before and as true Gandhians and patriots it is our fundamental duty to not only preserve but strengthen this diversity and save the country from violence and hatred, on one hand, and from likely disintegration, on the other.
Another dilemma is of no less importance. Gandhi fought against imperialism his whole life. Every action of his was to fight against imperialism. And yet, today we are facing grave danger from neo-imperialism and globalization and we are hardly doing anything to meet this challenge.
Gandhi was greatly concerned with the weakest and poorest people and his real measure of progress was how much the weakest. sections of society have gained from it. Nehru developed the concept of mixed economy to cater to the needs of the poorer sections of society. Today the entire public sector is being systematically destroyed and what an irony that a ministry of disinvestment, headed by a former World Bank employee has been created. On the one hand we are celebrating the rapid progress India is making and on the other workers and peasants are committing suicide. Two workers recently committed suicide by setting fire to themselves as they were unjustly fired from their jobs.
Gandhi was greatly committed to the concept of need-based economy as opposed to a greed-based one. However, the whole thrust of our economy is based on greed for profits. Multinational corporations are almost dominating our economy today. The multinationals are engaged in producing luxury goods leaving the poor starving to death. I feel that after communalism the greatest danger is the neo-economic imperialism.
If fact this new economic imperialism further strengthens the need for communal division. The poor and backward sections of the society are being injected with communal hatred so that they fight the religion and not their real enemy responsible for their poverty and backwardness. Any analysis of those who are increasingly participating in communal movements as well as communal riots are the poor and backward sections of our society. In the Gujarat carnage too poor tribals, dalits and backward caste Hindus were incited to kill poor Muslims.
Thus the Gandhians have two grave challenges to meet and both seem to be inter-related i.e. the communal challenge on the one hand and the challenge of globalization on the other. I am not suggesting for a moment that positive benefits of globalization should not be taken advantage of. International trade and connectivity through electronic media have been a great boon, but globalization should not become a vehicle for fast track transfer of our national wealth to Western countries leaving our weaker sections to suffer pangs of poverty and unemployment and a strong dose of communalism and compensation.
I hope the Gandhians will dedicate themselves to fight both the challenges with renewed vigour and realize the dangers of neglecting them.
Many of us have written off Gandhi as irrelevant to our era of globalization and liberalization। Even before independence he sounded to conservative to many and his views on rural development were out of date. To others he was too religious to be acceptable in modern times. His economics did not make sound sense even to Jawaharlal Nehru though he was Gandhi's great follower. To Sardar Patel he appeared to be too pro-Muslim to be uncritically acceptable and communal forces whether of Muslim League Variety or RSS and Hindu Mahasabha variety openly detested him even hated him. A Hindu fanatic Godse ultimately shot him dead. Babasaheb Ambedkar also fought against him on the dalit question.
Gandhi was undoubtedly a great person and like any other great person he had very a complex personality. A great man has to deal with very complex situations and even, of necessity, has to respond in different situations differently and apparently in a contradictory manner. Gandhi had to deal with a complex society of a bewilderingly diverse country like India, and above all he had to deal with a mighty imperialist power like Britain.
No wonder then that Gandhi's personality appears to be so complex and bewilders many observers. Gandhi was deeply religious yet so rational. No one could lead Indian society without understanding its religious and cultural ethos. A leader while leading is also led in a way. In other words one cannot lead without being led by the people one leads. Logically this appears contradictory but this is what reality is.
Gandhi could not have ignored the religious sentiments of the people of India. Indian people were deeply religious and Indian culture was deeply influenced by religious customs and traditions. No leader of any worth could lead India ignoring religion. Because of ignorance and illiteracy religious beliefs had acquired overtones of superstition and they thus tended to be superstitious rather than spiritual. It was, therefore, necessary for an effective leader to emphasize the role of reason. Thus Gandhi combined religiosity with reason and talked of letting in fresh winds from the west by keeping mental, windows open. Thus to westernized people, he appeared to be too religious and too superstitiously religious to be rational.
And it was due to such a complex character that Gandhi became a great leader. He responded to all developing situations very carefully and intelligently. In view of certain calamitous situations he would become enigmatically silent and would speak only after a number of days spending periods of silence for deep reflection. He never acted instinctively.
Many of his actions appeared to be quite enigmatic, even to his close followers like Nehru and others. Nehru was baffled when the Mahatma withdrew the civil disobedience movement when it was at its height after the Chauri Chaura incident. But Gandhi withdrew the movement as it was becoming violent and he knew once violence starts it will go totally out of control and the British rulers will suppress it ruthlessly.
He took up the Khilafat d movement in 1919, which appeared even to Jinnah as pandering to sectarian mullahs and he differed from Gandhi on this question. But Gandhi knew the deeper urges of the Muslims of lndia and by supporting the Khilafat movement he successfully drew Muslim masses into the freedom movement and the Jami's at -ul- 'Ulama-I-Hind (an organization of Muslim theologians of. India), became a permanent ally, of Indian National Congress so much so that it vehemently opposed partition and appealed to the Muslim masses not to misled by Jinnah.
There were serious contradictions between Gandhi and Jinnah. Gandhi was thoroughly Indian by ethos and Jinnah was highly westernized. Gandhi was a man of the masses Jinnah was totally elitist in his orientation. Gandhi drew masses into the freedom movement, Jinnah felt politics was for the educated elite and it is for lawyers to decide the constitutional questions with the British rulers. Jinnah was an ace constitutionalist and Gandhi was a fighter for the cause. Jinnah was mainly concerned with minority rights and Muslin question and Gandhi had to lead the entire nation.
Gandhi developed the doctrine of Satyagraha and nonviolence which was unique in the modern political movements and for Gandhi nonviolence was not mere strategy. He elevated it to the status of a political doctrine. It was indeed a unique contribution of the Mahatma to the whole of humanity. The British rulers were also totally baffled by Gandhi’s insistence on nonviolence. It was difficult for them to deal with Mahatma Gandhi. They had never dealt with such person before. The ‘naked Fakir’ became the greatest challenge for the mightiest rulers in the world.
The twentieth and twenty first centuries so far have been the most violent and the world needs the doctrine of nonviolence as never before. In this respect Gandhi remains most relevant He proved efficacy of non violent political struggle and while all other colonial countries were waging armed struggle freedom India was the only country fighting for its liberation through non violent means.
However, after independence this most noble doctrine of nonviolence has been relegated to the political backyard. The communal forces base their politics on hatred and violence. Gandhi, though himself, a Hindu, was not an exclusivist. He was not only inclusivist but also the upholder of the doctrine of pluralism. He firmly believed in the principle of equal respect for all religions of the world. I have no hesitation in saying that he was a Hindu Sufi. For Sufis the basic doctrines are sulh-I-kul (total peace or peace with all) and love (muabhat). Also, like the Sufis, he believed in living a simple life, a life based on needs, not on greed. He often pointed out there is enough on this earth for everyone’s need and not enough even for one man's greed.
Contemporary India is developing neither along the ideals of Gandhi nor those of Nehru. Their differences were more apparent than real. Nehru was agnostic but understood others need for religion and he had great insights into Indian civilisation and understood its cultural ethos. Both Gandhi and Nehru were deeply committed to Indian Pluralism and human rights and individual dignity. Both Gandhi and Nehru were aware and appreciative of the contribution to Indian culture by all communities, particularly of Muslims.
Gandhi was indeed deeply aware of the Muslim question. Unfortunately the more he tried to solve it, more problems it created. Gandhi wanted to tackle it with a sense of justice and wisdom. He was inclusivist to the core. He knew the nation could not be built by excluding the Muslims at any level. But the Muslim League of Jinnah on one hand, and the Hindu communalists on the other were not prepared to bring wisdom and sense of justice in resolving this tangled problem.
The most fundamental question, as far as Jinnah was concerned, was of proper constitutional arrangement for power sharing between the two communities and when this arrangement could not be satisfactorily worked out he began to propound the two nation theory. Propounding this theory added to the complexity of the problem. The theory had no substance of course and it generated more heat and bitterness. It enormously complicated the communal problem.
The Hindu communal forces too believed in Hindu Rashtra and considered Muslims as alien and at best secondary citizens. The RSS theorists had laid the foundation of separate nationhood much before Jinnah did. Lala Lajpat Rai, Bhai Parmanand, Veer Savarkar and Hedgevar, all believed in the two nation theory and actively propagated it. Savarkar, Hindu Mahasabha leaders and RSS leaders hated Gandhi because of his emphasis on love and nonviolence and respect for other religions.
Gandhi firmly believed in secular nationalism and unity of the country. The Hindu Rashtravadis, though they talked of Akhand Bharat and never tired of talking of patriotism, were, in fact, responsible for the vivisection of the country. They hated Muslims, the largest. minority and considered them as aliens. They thought, highly superficially of course, that Muslims could never be true patriots (though they themselves were not). Thus through this approach they strengthened the hands of separatists among Muslims and made it obvious for these Muslim separatists that the two nation theory was justified and that Hindus and Muslims indeed cannot live together. This proved disastrous for the unity and integrity of our country.
Gandhi, on the other hand, believed in tolerance and acceptance of all religions within the Indian national framework. A Modern nation state, he knew, could not be built on intolerance towards others and by excluding them. Nationhood cannot be a based on religion. It will only lead to intolerance, hatred and violence. Religious nationalism can and does lead to fascistic tendencies.
All communal forces whether of Muslim or the Hindu variety hated Gandhi precisely because tolerance, love and nonviolence would totally negate religious nationalism and exclusivistic approach. Religious nationalism can be sustained only on hatred and violence. Religious nationalists hate nonviolence and peace. They thrive on hatred and violence. In fact religious nationalism is nothing but gross misuse of both, religion and nationalism. A true love of religion and a true patriot would never allow such misuse either of religion or of the concept of a nation.
A communalist, though he projects himself as a patriot, is not. Similarly he thinks he is the defender of his religion but it is not so. One who hates a section of people of his own country cannot be a patriot in any sense of the word and one who peddles hate in the name of religion cannot be truly religious. The communalists are hate mongers on one hand, and champions of their vested interests on the other. It is also important to note that communalists cannot be democrats either. They do not believe in democratic dissent. Anyone who disagrees is a traitor to the 'cause'.
Gandhi, on the other hand, was deeply religious, truly patriotic and a great democrat. His politics was based on values like truth and nonviolence. A democracy, in order to be meaningful has to imbibe these values. For Gandhi, cow was a holy animal as he was an orthodox Hindu. Yet nonviolence was more important to him than the cow. Thus he writes in Young India (May 7, 1919) "I believe myself to be an orthodox Hindu and it is my conviction that no one who scrupulously practices the Hindu religion may like a cow killer to protect the cow."
And in Young -India (May 18,1921) he wrote very insightfully, "To attempt cow protection by violence is to reduce Hinduism to Satanism and to prostitute to a base end the grand significance of cow protection." He further says in the same issue, "The Hindu must scrupulously refrain from using any violence against Mussalman. Suffering and trust are attributes of soul force. I have heard that, at big fairs, if a Mussalman is, found in possession of cows or even goats, he is at times forcibly dispossessed. Those claiming to be Hindus, thus resort to violence and are enemies of the cow and of Hinduism."
In our own times we witness that VHP and Bajarang Dal activists openly incite violence against Muslims and Dalits. Several riots have taken place in India in the postindependence period too, on this question. What happened in Jhajjar, Haryana a year ago is a hair raising event. Four dalits who were skinning dead cows were lynched. Thus, as pointed out above, communalists can never be truly religious. Gandhi boldly states that it is not Hinduism but 'Satanism'. It is a very harsh word but, for Gandhi, anyone using violence amounts to an act of Satan.
For Gandhi truth and non violence are the fundamentals for every religion and he calls them to be the master key with which the essence of every religion is to be unlocked. A communalist, however, never accepts truth and nonviolence. His creed is violence and falsehood. For him revenge is far more fundamental than forgiving. Gandhi was against retaliation as it involves violence. He stood for forgiveness rather than revenge. He wrote in Young India of August 18, 1924, "The law of retaliation has been tried since the day of Adam and we know from experience that it has hopelessly failed. We are groaning under its poisonous effect. Above all, the Hindus may not break mosques against to temples. That way lies slavery and worse. Even though a thousand temples, may be reduced to bits, I would not touch a single mosque and expect thus to prove the superiority of my faith to the so called faith of fanatics."
A communalist can never accept such superior morality. His actions are based on feelings of revenge. Remember what Narendra Modi said in justification of the communal carnage in Gujarat? Reaction is equal to action and hence Godhra needs to be revenged through carnage in the rest of Gujarat. We can very well understand why all communalists hate persons like Gandhi. They of course physically assassinated him but cannot do away with his philosophy of non-violence and truth. In fact the world needs this to philosophy as never before.
Unfortunately Gandhi's Gujarat has put the whole country to shame by organizing such brutal carnage the enormity of which is truly mind-boggling. Gandhi is known as Sabarmati's saint and his, Ashram is still there on the bank of Sabarmati River and Ahmedabad City is being rocked communal violence time and again. It is communally the most sensitive city in Gujarat. From 1969 to 2002 several major communal riots have rocked this unfortunate city. The communal forces are well entrenched there, and have used every trick in their bag to intensify communal hatred.
It is for Gandhians, not only of Gujarat but also of the entire country, to reflect deeply on the situation prevailing in our country in general and in Gujarat in particular. When communal violence could not be checked , Gandhi always undertook a fast and put his life at stake readily. I would also like to share here what Subhadra Joshi told me about the riots in Delhi during partition. Gandhi inquired from her as to how many people were killed in the riots. She answered 10,000. Then Gandhi asked how many of you (i.e. peace workers) have been killed? She said none. Gandhi then said how can I believe that you are trying to prevent communal violence? Those of you who faced the British bullets cannot face the Indian police? But we find today that hardly any Gandhian comes forward to do so. I asked some Gandhians in 1985 when Ahmedabad was rocked by communal violence for long as to why no one among them followed Gandhi and undertook the fast, I was told we do not have the status of Gandhi.
One acquires some status only through ones action. Gandhi also acquired the status he had through constant action based on his deep convictions. Unfortunately very few Gandhians have deep conviction in Gandhi's philosophy. It is therefore highly necessary to critically evaluate the functioning of Gandhians in India today. Unless it is honestly attempted I am afraid, our country will continue to suffer.
Today our country is facing several dilemmas, especially moral dilemmas. We forswear by Gandhism but his staunchest opponents are in power today. While Gandhi says I will not like to touch a single mosque even if a thousand temples are reduced to bits, we see a political party riding to power by demolishing a mosque without a single temple being demolished.
Our country is a country of bewildering diversity and the Gandhian concepts of truth, non-violence and tolerance are highly necessary to maintain this diversity. Today our unity is in great danger like never before and as true Gandhians and patriots it is our fundamental duty to not only preserve but strengthen this diversity and save the country from violence and hatred, on one hand, and from likely disintegration, on the other.
Another dilemma is of no less importance. Gandhi fought against imperialism his whole life. Every action of his was to fight against imperialism. And yet, today we are facing grave danger from neo-imperialism and globalization and we are hardly doing anything to meet this challenge.
Gandhi was greatly concerned with the weakest and poorest people and his real measure of progress was how much the weakest. sections of society have gained from it. Nehru developed the concept of mixed economy to cater to the needs of the poorer sections of society. Today the entire public sector is being systematically destroyed and what an irony that a ministry of disinvestment, headed by a former World Bank employee has been created. On the one hand we are celebrating the rapid progress India is making and on the other workers and peasants are committing suicide. Two workers recently committed suicide by setting fire to themselves as they were unjustly fired from their jobs.
Gandhi was greatly committed to the concept of need-based economy as opposed to a greed-based one. However, the whole thrust of our economy is based on greed for profits. Multinational corporations are almost dominating our economy today. The multinationals are engaged in producing luxury goods leaving the poor starving to death. I feel that after communalism the greatest danger is the neo-economic imperialism.
If fact this new economic imperialism further strengthens the need for communal division. The poor and backward sections of the society are being injected with communal hatred so that they fight the religion and not their real enemy responsible for their poverty and backwardness. Any analysis of those who are increasingly participating in communal movements as well as communal riots are the poor and backward sections of our society. In the Gujarat carnage too poor tribals, dalits and backward caste Hindus were incited to kill poor Muslims.
Thus the Gandhians have two grave challenges to meet and both seem to be inter-related i.e. the communal challenge on the one hand and the challenge of globalization on the other. I am not suggesting for a moment that positive benefits of globalization should not be taken advantage of. International trade and connectivity through electronic media have been a great boon, but globalization should not become a vehicle for fast track transfer of our national wealth to Western countries leaving our weaker sections to suffer pangs of poverty and unemployment and a strong dose of communalism and compensation.
I hope the Gandhians will dedicate themselves to fight both the challenges with renewed vigour and realize the dangers of neglecting them.
क्नोविंग mahatma गाँधी better
Communal harmony in Gandhi’s perspective
Mahatma Gandhi was born on the crossroads of our history and gave the country a purposeful direction. He made his mark as a reformer, as a thinker, and as a liberator. He was a practical idealist. His sense of observation, analysis, and experimentation even at a comparatively younger age gave him a distinctive mental quality and approach to the matters that he confronted. He was, as Romain Rolland remarks, "familiar with the best that Europe and America have produced." He was as familiar with the Bible as the Quran believer. Bhagavad Gita and Upanishads had a new meaning for him. He drew the best out of these. In his constructive programme, he gave the first place to communal harmony among the people of different faiths. The result was the famous book, The Way To Communal Harmony, written by Gandhi himself. in this collection of his writings and speeches, one is struck again and again by the passion and sincerity with which he pleaded for the cause of better understanding among individuals and communities. The books is a compilation of Gandhi's reflections on certain problems that divide mankind. Everywhere in the world, individuals and groups are divided because of fear, suspicion, and hatred towards each other, which further depends on whether the division expressed itself along religious, economic, political, caste, or colour lines. Whatever is the form, insecurity perhaps the major cause of individual or social dissensions. A person, who is integrated and sure of himself, fears none and consequently provokes no fear. We have examples of such heroic individuals. But we do not have till now instances of societies or communities that are fully integrated and therefore fearless.
Gandhi felt the need of community unity during his stay in South Africa. The principal question before him was harmony between Hindus and Muslims who inhabited this country. Gandhi felt that if Hindu-Muslim unity was established, unity with other communities which was already there, could easily be strengthened. He never found serious differences between the Hindus and Muslims and other minority communities like the Christians and the Sikhs, not to speak of the small community of Parsis. Naturally, therefore, he turned to the question of Hindu-Muslim unity. He insisted that the Hindus who are in a majority in the country should help the Muslims and should never entertain any idea of enforcing their rights but try to win the hearts of the minority community. He expressed : -
"I am striving to become the best cement between the two communities. My longing is to be able to cement the two with my blood, if necessary. There is nothing in either religion to keep the two communities apart. In nature there is a fundamentally unity running through all the diversity. Religions are no exception to the natural law. They are given to the mankind so as to accelerate the process of realization of fundamental unity. The need of the moment is not an establishment of a Universal religion but there is a greater need to develop mutual respect towards the different religions."
The basic principle, Truth, inspired all his thought and action. It was the realization that an inviolable harmony exists in all creation and any violation of that harmony would create disaster. He saw this principle enshrined in all religions, which led him to accord equal respect to all faiths. Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam of the Vedic tradition to him was no different from the Quranic belief that Allah the Beneficent and Merciful was the creator if all that we see and hear about and that he would dispense justice on the basis of deeds and not the professed faith of each person. Nor was it different from the Christian faith that God's love and benediction was for all without any distinction and so on. All religions insist on equality of human race and on developing a harmonious relationship with the entirety of creation around. Any violation of the principle of equality gives way to conflict and violation.
Gandhi regards Islam as a religion of peace in the same sense as Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism. No doubt, there are differences in degree. He says in this regard that he knew the passages that can be quoted form the Holy book Quran to the contrary. But it is possible to quote from the Vedas to the contrary. "My reading of the Quran has convinced me that the basis of Islam is not violence but is unadulterated Peace. It regards forbearance as a superior to vengeance. The very word "Islam" means Peace, which is nonviolence. My experience of all India tells me that the Hindus and the Muslims know how to live at Peace among themselves. I decline to believe that the people have said good-bye to their senses, so as to make it impossible to live at Peace with each other, as they done for generations. The enmity cannot last forever."
Gandhi had never accepted in principle the theory of the Hindus and the Muslims being two distinct nations and he tried to convince both of them of the pernicious character of this principle. He continued to the last day of his life to instill the lesson of unity among the communities of India. It is remarkable that how by his honest and fearless advocacy of communal unity he had enraged many of the Muslims and a negligible few among the Hindus. The Muslims looked upon him as an enemy, while some Hindus felt that by showing humility, respect, regard and partially for the Muslims, he was jeopardizing the cause of the Hindus. Those Hindus, who did not like his efforts, conceived the idea of getting rid of him. So he was shot to death on the prayer ground. It was a tragic end.
The great leader, however, clearly saw the time coming when people belonging to different faiths will have the same regard for the other faiths that they have for their own. Just as in nature a fundamental unity running through all the existing diversity, so also in religions there is a fundamental unity, which one has to recognize and realize. In order to discover this underlying unity among all religions, Gandhi had with him a master key of Truth and nonviolence. He stressed upon universal Peace, brotherhood, an reverence for all life.
He emphatically stressed upon ethical teachings in school curriculum, as he believed that the fundamentals of ethics are common to all religions. The conflict of the creeds and religious recrimination, he detested most. he preached that we must eradicate from our midst the secret pride that our religion is truer than the other religions. Our attitude towards all other religions must be absolutely clear and sincere. He wanted unity of heart and mind among Hindus and Muslims. Communal harmony always received priority over other programmes.
All religions teach men to be good and peaceful. Intolerance is the religion of the negative. The Gita, the Quran, the Bible, the Granth Sahib, the Zend Avesta contain gems of wisdom, although the followers might belie their teachings. "The essence of true religious teaching is that one should serve and befriend all. I learnt this in my mother's lap.
Mahatma Gandhi was born on the crossroads of our history and gave the country a purposeful direction. He made his mark as a reformer, as a thinker, and as a liberator. He was a practical idealist. His sense of observation, analysis, and experimentation even at a comparatively younger age gave him a distinctive mental quality and approach to the matters that he confronted. He was, as Romain Rolland remarks, "familiar with the best that Europe and America have produced." He was as familiar with the Bible as the Quran believer. Bhagavad Gita and Upanishads had a new meaning for him. He drew the best out of these. In his constructive programme, he gave the first place to communal harmony among the people of different faiths. The result was the famous book, The Way To Communal Harmony, written by Gandhi himself. in this collection of his writings and speeches, one is struck again and again by the passion and sincerity with which he pleaded for the cause of better understanding among individuals and communities. The books is a compilation of Gandhi's reflections on certain problems that divide mankind. Everywhere in the world, individuals and groups are divided because of fear, suspicion, and hatred towards each other, which further depends on whether the division expressed itself along religious, economic, political, caste, or colour lines. Whatever is the form, insecurity perhaps the major cause of individual or social dissensions. A person, who is integrated and sure of himself, fears none and consequently provokes no fear. We have examples of such heroic individuals. But we do not have till now instances of societies or communities that are fully integrated and therefore fearless.
Gandhi felt the need of community unity during his stay in South Africa. The principal question before him was harmony between Hindus and Muslims who inhabited this country. Gandhi felt that if Hindu-Muslim unity was established, unity with other communities which was already there, could easily be strengthened. He never found serious differences between the Hindus and Muslims and other minority communities like the Christians and the Sikhs, not to speak of the small community of Parsis. Naturally, therefore, he turned to the question of Hindu-Muslim unity. He insisted that the Hindus who are in a majority in the country should help the Muslims and should never entertain any idea of enforcing their rights but try to win the hearts of the minority community. He expressed : -
"I am striving to become the best cement between the two communities. My longing is to be able to cement the two with my blood, if necessary. There is nothing in either religion to keep the two communities apart. In nature there is a fundamentally unity running through all the diversity. Religions are no exception to the natural law. They are given to the mankind so as to accelerate the process of realization of fundamental unity. The need of the moment is not an establishment of a Universal religion but there is a greater need to develop mutual respect towards the different religions."
The basic principle, Truth, inspired all his thought and action. It was the realization that an inviolable harmony exists in all creation and any violation of that harmony would create disaster. He saw this principle enshrined in all religions, which led him to accord equal respect to all faiths. Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam of the Vedic tradition to him was no different from the Quranic belief that Allah the Beneficent and Merciful was the creator if all that we see and hear about and that he would dispense justice on the basis of deeds and not the professed faith of each person. Nor was it different from the Christian faith that God's love and benediction was for all without any distinction and so on. All religions insist on equality of human race and on developing a harmonious relationship with the entirety of creation around. Any violation of the principle of equality gives way to conflict and violation.
Gandhi regards Islam as a religion of peace in the same sense as Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism. No doubt, there are differences in degree. He says in this regard that he knew the passages that can be quoted form the Holy book Quran to the contrary. But it is possible to quote from the Vedas to the contrary. "My reading of the Quran has convinced me that the basis of Islam is not violence but is unadulterated Peace. It regards forbearance as a superior to vengeance. The very word "Islam" means Peace, which is nonviolence. My experience of all India tells me that the Hindus and the Muslims know how to live at Peace among themselves. I decline to believe that the people have said good-bye to their senses, so as to make it impossible to live at Peace with each other, as they done for generations. The enmity cannot last forever."
Gandhi had never accepted in principle the theory of the Hindus and the Muslims being two distinct nations and he tried to convince both of them of the pernicious character of this principle. He continued to the last day of his life to instill the lesson of unity among the communities of India. It is remarkable that how by his honest and fearless advocacy of communal unity he had enraged many of the Muslims and a negligible few among the Hindus. The Muslims looked upon him as an enemy, while some Hindus felt that by showing humility, respect, regard and partially for the Muslims, he was jeopardizing the cause of the Hindus. Those Hindus, who did not like his efforts, conceived the idea of getting rid of him. So he was shot to death on the prayer ground. It was a tragic end.
The great leader, however, clearly saw the time coming when people belonging to different faiths will have the same regard for the other faiths that they have for their own. Just as in nature a fundamental unity running through all the existing diversity, so also in religions there is a fundamental unity, which one has to recognize and realize. In order to discover this underlying unity among all religions, Gandhi had with him a master key of Truth and nonviolence. He stressed upon universal Peace, brotherhood, an reverence for all life.
He emphatically stressed upon ethical teachings in school curriculum, as he believed that the fundamentals of ethics are common to all religions. The conflict of the creeds and religious recrimination, he detested most. he preached that we must eradicate from our midst the secret pride that our religion is truer than the other religions. Our attitude towards all other religions must be absolutely clear and sincere. He wanted unity of heart and mind among Hindus and Muslims. Communal harmony always received priority over other programmes.
All religions teach men to be good and peaceful. Intolerance is the religion of the negative. The Gita, the Quran, the Bible, the Granth Sahib, the Zend Avesta contain gems of wisdom, although the followers might belie their teachings. "The essence of true religious teaching is that one should serve and befriend all. I learnt this in my mother's lap.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
ज़रा si shaayari
Tum Kya Jano Kya Hai Tanhai,Is Tute Hue Patte Se Pucho Kya Hai Judai,Yu Bewafa Ka Ilzam Na De Zalim, Is Waqt Se Puch Kis Waqt Teri Yaad Na Aayi...
Zindagi Sirf Muhabbbat Nahi, Kuch Aur Bhi Hai,Zulf-O-Rukhsaar Ki Jannat Nahi, Kuch Aur Bhi Hai। Bhook Aur Pyaas Ki Maari Hui Is Duniya Mein, Ishq Hi Ek Haqeeqat Nahi, Kuch Aur Bhi Hai.
Sitare to bohot hai, magar Chand jaisa koi nahi,Phool to bohot hai, magar Gulab jaisa koi nahi,Shayar to bohot hai ees duniya main, magar Aap jaisa koi nahi,Aur dost to bohot hai hamare, magar Aap jaisa Heera(diamond) koi nahi...
Poocho na us kaagaz se, jis per hum dil ke bayaan likhte hain,Tanhaayion mein beeti baatein tamaam likhte hain, woh kalam bhi dewani ho gayi,jis se hum tumhaara naam likhte hain॥
Pholon Ki Tarha Gozro Mere Dil Ki Gali Se ॥Khushboo Ki Tarha Muj Pe Bikhar Jao Kisi Din ,Mien Apni Har Ek Sans Usi Raat Ko Dedon ,Sar Rakh Ke Mere Seene Pe So Jao Kisi Din ..
Phool Ki Tarah Tere Dil Se Guzar Jaayenge, Khushboo Ki Tarah Tum Mein Bhikar Jaayenge,Ek Din Hum Apni Saari Zindagi Ik Raat Mein Guzaar Denge, Tum Khwabo Mein Toh Aao Ek Din....
Hum ek dusare ke itane karib aae,Ke do badan aur ek jaan ban jaae,Hum ek dusare ke pyaar main ees kadar kho jaae,Ke log laila-majnu ko bhulkar hamare pyaar ki kasame khaae...
Aankhon ki nami ko chupa ker jeene ki aadat hai hume,Sawan mai barish sang ashq bah gaye tou kya karun ,Kab tak sahna hoga aey khuda jeene ka gum,Na unki khabar aaye na jaan jaye tou kya karun॥
Ae kalam ruk ruk ke chal ek adab ka mukaam hai,teri nok ke neeche mere mehboob ka naam
Na moh na maya hai; Aalas tumhi ko aaya hai; Humein bhi msg kar k dekh lo; Nokia/Motorola/Sony ne ye mobile sirf tumhari GIRLFRIEND k liye nahi banaya
Yaad hum bhi aapko karte hai, yaad aap bhi hame karte hai,fark itna hai hum yaad ane par sms karte hai aur aap sms ane par yaad karte
Raaz dil ka dil mein chupate hai woh, samne aate hi nazar jhukate hai woh,Baat karte nahi, ya hoti nahi, par shukar hai jab bhi milte hai muskurate hai
Zindagi de 4 din hass khed k katt lo,pyar naal duniya ch khatna jo khat lo,lutt lo nazara jag wale mele da,pata nahio hunda yaaro aun wale wele da।
Kise-kise mutiyar de hai sir utte palla,PAGG wala munda dise dasan vicho kalla,Jeanan chall payian suitan da riwaaz na riha, Mera pehlan varga rangla Punjab na reha।
Asin jitte bazi tan mashoor ho gaye,Tere haseyan ch hase tan hanju door ho gaye,Bas ik tere jehe dost di dosti badoult,Asin tutte kach ton KÖHINÖÖR ho gaye.
Raaz dil ka dil mein chupate hai woh,Samne aate hi nazar jhukate hai woh,Baat karte nahi, ya hoti nahi,Par shukar hai jab bhi milte hai muskurate hai woh।
Zindagi de 4 din hass khed k katt lo,Pyar naal duniya ch khatna jo khat lo,Lutt lo nazara jag wale mele da,Pata nahio hunda yaaro aun wale wele da... Enjoy!
Moor ker na dekh mujhe, yoon hanstay hanstay,Mere dost hain baray hoshiyaar, keh dengay bhabhi Namaste।
Dil ke dard ko dil todne waala kya jaane,pyaar ke rivajo ko ye jmaana kya jaane,hoti hai kitni takleef kabar mein,upper se phool chadane waala kya jaane
Dil do to kisi ek ko,Aur do to kisi nek ko...Jo samjhe pyaar ke matlab ko॥Jab tak saccha dildar na mile, try karte raho har ek ko।
Har khushi teri taraf mod doon,Tere liye chand taare tak tod doon,khushiyo ke darwaje tere liye khol doon,Itna kaafi hai ya do chaar jhoot aur bol du
Judai apki rulati rahegi,yaad apki aati rahegi,pal pal jaan jati rahegi,jab tak jism mein hai jaan har saans ye rishta nibhati
Har daag, daag nahi hota, har yaar wafadar nahi hota,Yeh to dil milne ki baat hai, varna saat pheron mein bhi pyar nahi hota।
Zindagi Sirf Muhabbbat Nahi, Kuch Aur Bhi Hai,Zulf-O-Rukhsaar Ki Jannat Nahi, Kuch Aur Bhi Hai। Bhook Aur Pyaas Ki Maari Hui Is Duniya Mein, Ishq Hi Ek Haqeeqat Nahi, Kuch Aur Bhi Hai.
Sitare to bohot hai, magar Chand jaisa koi nahi,Phool to bohot hai, magar Gulab jaisa koi nahi,Shayar to bohot hai ees duniya main, magar Aap jaisa koi nahi,Aur dost to bohot hai hamare, magar Aap jaisa Heera(diamond) koi nahi...
Poocho na us kaagaz se, jis per hum dil ke bayaan likhte hain,Tanhaayion mein beeti baatein tamaam likhte hain, woh kalam bhi dewani ho gayi,jis se hum tumhaara naam likhte hain॥
Pholon Ki Tarha Gozro Mere Dil Ki Gali Se ॥Khushboo Ki Tarha Muj Pe Bikhar Jao Kisi Din ,Mien Apni Har Ek Sans Usi Raat Ko Dedon ,Sar Rakh Ke Mere Seene Pe So Jao Kisi Din ..
Phool Ki Tarah Tere Dil Se Guzar Jaayenge, Khushboo Ki Tarah Tum Mein Bhikar Jaayenge,Ek Din Hum Apni Saari Zindagi Ik Raat Mein Guzaar Denge, Tum Khwabo Mein Toh Aao Ek Din....
Hum ek dusare ke itane karib aae,Ke do badan aur ek jaan ban jaae,Hum ek dusare ke pyaar main ees kadar kho jaae,Ke log laila-majnu ko bhulkar hamare pyaar ki kasame khaae...
Aankhon ki nami ko chupa ker jeene ki aadat hai hume,Sawan mai barish sang ashq bah gaye tou kya karun ,Kab tak sahna hoga aey khuda jeene ka gum,Na unki khabar aaye na jaan jaye tou kya karun॥
Ae kalam ruk ruk ke chal ek adab ka mukaam hai,teri nok ke neeche mere mehboob ka naam
Na moh na maya hai; Aalas tumhi ko aaya hai; Humein bhi msg kar k dekh lo; Nokia/Motorola/Sony ne ye mobile sirf tumhari GIRLFRIEND k liye nahi banaya
Yaad hum bhi aapko karte hai, yaad aap bhi hame karte hai,fark itna hai hum yaad ane par sms karte hai aur aap sms ane par yaad karte
Raaz dil ka dil mein chupate hai woh, samne aate hi nazar jhukate hai woh,Baat karte nahi, ya hoti nahi, par shukar hai jab bhi milte hai muskurate hai
Zindagi de 4 din hass khed k katt lo,pyar naal duniya ch khatna jo khat lo,lutt lo nazara jag wale mele da,pata nahio hunda yaaro aun wale wele da।
Kise-kise mutiyar de hai sir utte palla,PAGG wala munda dise dasan vicho kalla,Jeanan chall payian suitan da riwaaz na riha, Mera pehlan varga rangla Punjab na reha।
Asin jitte bazi tan mashoor ho gaye,Tere haseyan ch hase tan hanju door ho gaye,Bas ik tere jehe dost di dosti badoult,Asin tutte kach ton KÖHINÖÖR ho gaye.
Raaz dil ka dil mein chupate hai woh,Samne aate hi nazar jhukate hai woh,Baat karte nahi, ya hoti nahi,Par shukar hai jab bhi milte hai muskurate hai woh।
Zindagi de 4 din hass khed k katt lo,Pyar naal duniya ch khatna jo khat lo,Lutt lo nazara jag wale mele da,Pata nahio hunda yaaro aun wale wele da... Enjoy!
Moor ker na dekh mujhe, yoon hanstay hanstay,Mere dost hain baray hoshiyaar, keh dengay bhabhi Namaste।
Dil ke dard ko dil todne waala kya jaane,pyaar ke rivajo ko ye jmaana kya jaane,hoti hai kitni takleef kabar mein,upper se phool chadane waala kya jaane
Dil do to kisi ek ko,Aur do to kisi nek ko...Jo samjhe pyaar ke matlab ko॥Jab tak saccha dildar na mile, try karte raho har ek ko।
Har khushi teri taraf mod doon,Tere liye chand taare tak tod doon,khushiyo ke darwaje tere liye khol doon,Itna kaafi hai ya do chaar jhoot aur bol du
Judai apki rulati rahegi,yaad apki aati rahegi,pal pal jaan jati rahegi,jab tak jism mein hai jaan har saans ye rishta nibhati
Har daag, daag nahi hota, har yaar wafadar nahi hota,Yeh to dil milne ki baat hai, varna saat pheron mein bhi pyar nahi hota।
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
