What would Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi have made of a society, which has turned its back so soon on his attempts to usher in a culture of progress, science, and tolerance in a fundamentally violent society where the lives of the traditionally disadvantaged castes were nasty, brutish and short? An extreme example is provided in Nisha Pahuja’s documentary The World Before Her, in which Prachi Trivedi, 24, a stocky Durga Vahini, women’s youth wing of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, activist who fiercely says: “Frankly, I hate Gandhi.” Probably his lifelong adherence to Jesus’s maxim of turning the other cheek would have made him accommodative of her antagonism also.

This culture of forgiving, which the Mahatma advocated made him a moral exemplar for statesmen and world leaders such as Rev. Martin Luther King, Nelson ‘Madiba’ Mandela, Rev. Desmond Tutu and Rev. Jesse Jackson. “Prior to reading Gandhi, I had concluded that the ethics of Jesus were only effective in individual relationships. The ‘turn the other cheek’ philosophy and the ‘love your enemies’ philosophy were only valid, I felt, when individuals were in conflict with other individuals; when racial groups and nations were in conflict, a more realistic approach seemed necessary.

But after reading Gandhi, I saw how utterly mistaken I was. Gandhi was probably the first person in history to lift the love ethic of Jesus above mere interaction between individuals to a powerful and effective social force on a large scale. Love for Gandhi was a potent instrument for social and collective transformation. It was in this Gandhian emphasis on love and nonviolence that I discovered the method for social reform that I had been seeking.” – Stride Toward Freedom {p.96-97}, Martin Luther King; who warmed to the Mahatma post-Montgomery.

Decades later, in an address at the unveiling of the Gandhi Memorial on June 6, 1993, in Pietermaritzburg, Mandela was to declare : “He negotiated in good faith and without bitterness. But when the oppressor reneged he returned to mass resistance. He combined negotiation and mass action and illustrated that the end result through either means was effective. Gandhi is most revered for his commitment to non-violence and the Congress Movement was strongly influenced by this Gandhian philosophy, it was a philosophy that achieved the mobilisation of millions of South Africans during the 1952 defiance campaign, which established the ANC as a mass based organisation. The ANC and its alliance partners worked jointly to protest the pass laws and the racist ideologies of the white political parties.”

In the domain of economics, where Gandhian views are considered antediluvian and Luddite, there is a necessary and differing Occidental academic opinion. Delivering the Gandhi Memorial Lecture at the Gandhian Institute of Studies at Varanasi in 1973, Dr. EF Schumacher, the humane socialist economist, narrated this story: “A German conductor was asked who he considered as the greatest of all composers. ‘Unquestionably Beethoven’ was his answer. He was then asked ‘Not even Mozart?’ He said ‘Forgive me. I thought you were referring to the others.’

Drawing a telling parallel Schumacher said the same initial question might be put to an economist as to who was the greatest. The reply invariably would be ‘Definitely Keynes.’ ‘Would you not even consider Gandhi?’ ‘Forgive me; I thought you were referring to the others.’”

And in the Orient, Masanobu Fukuoka, the Japanese author of One Straw Revolution, which inspired many to convert to Natural Farming too was inspired by Gandhi. In Fukuoka’s words: “I believe that Gandhi’s way, a methodless method, acting with a non-winning, non-opposing state of mind, is akin to natural farming. The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops, but the cultivation and perfection of human beings.”

Such striving for a life of ethical rectitude can be glimpsed from this episode from My Experiments with Truth. Gandhi mentions the bitter fight he had with Kasturba over her refusal to clean the latrine, wanting a ‘bhangi’ to do it instead. When Kasturba refused to give in, Gandhiji did the job himself. This brings to mind the anecdote of a chance visitor catching President Abraham Lincoln polishing his own shoes: “Mr. President, you are polishing shoes?” “Of course, I do my own,” answered Lincoln innocently, “So, whose do you polish?”

Mahatmaji’s culture of secularism needs special mention. The first principle of democratic secular humanism is its commitment to free inquiry, which opposes any tyranny over the mind of man, any efforts by ecclesiastical, political, ideological, or social institutions to shackle free thought. Free inquiry entails recognition of civil liberties as integral to its pursuit, that is, a free press, freedom of communication, the right to organise opposition parties, and freedom to cultivate and publish the fruits of scientific, philosophical, artistic, literary, moral and religious freedom.

Free inquiry requires that we tolerate diversity of opinion and that we respect the right of individuals to express their beliefs, however unpopular they may be, without social or legal prohibition or fear of sanctions. The guiding premise of those who believe in free inquiry is that truth is more likely to be discovered if the opportunity exists for the free exchange of opposing opinions; the process of interchange is frequently as important as the result. This applies not only to science and to everyday life, but to politics, economics, morality, and religion.

Because of their commitment to freedom, secular humanists believe in the principle of the separation of religion and state. The lessons of history are clear: wherever one religion or ideology is allowed dominant status, minority opinions are jeopardised. A pluralistic, open democratic society allows polyphony or multiplicity of voices. Compulsory religious oaths and prayers in public institutions {political or educational} are also a violation of the separation of powers principle.

A repeated usage of the term occurs early in Gandhi’s writings and speeches in 1933. Later, on January 27, 1935, Gandhi, addressing some members of the Central Legislature, said that “even if the whole body of Hindu opinion were to be against the removal of untouchability, still he would advise a secular legislature like the Assembly not to tolerate that attitude.” {Collected works}. On January 20, 1942 Gandhi remarked while discussing the Pakistan scheme: “What conflict of interest can there be between Hindus and Muslims in the matter of revenue, sanitation, police, justice, or the use of public conveniences? The difference can only be in religious usage and observance with which a secular state has no concern.”

In September 1946, Gandhi told a Christian missionary: “If I were a dictator, religion and state would be separate. I swear by my religion. I will die for it. But it is my personal affair. The state has nothing to do with it. The state would look after your secular welfare, health, communications, foreign relations, currency and so on, but not your or my religion. That is everybody’s personal concern!”

A part of his conversation with Rev. Kellas of the Scottish Church College, Calcutta, on August 16, 1947, was reported in Harijan thus: “Gandhiji expressed the opinion that the state should undoubtedly be secular. It could never promote denominational education out of public funds. Everyone living in it should be entitled to profess his religion without let or hindrance, so long as the citizen obeyed the common law of the land. There should be no interference with missionary effort, but no mission could enjoy the patronage of the state as it did during the foreign regime.” This was subsequently reflected in Articles 25, 26 and 27 of the Constitution.

Gandhi observed in a speech at Deshbandhu Park, Calcutta on August 22, 1947: “Religion was a personal matter and if we succeeded in confining it to the personal plane, all would be well in our political life… If officers of Government as well as members of the public undertook the responsibility and worked wholeheartedly for the creation of a secular state, we could build a new India that would be the glory of the world.”

On Guru Nanak’s birthday on Nov 28, 1947, Gandhi opposed any possibility of state funds being spent for the renovation of the Somnath temple. He reasoned thus: “After all, we have formed the Government for all. It is a ‘secular’ government, that is, it is not a theocratic government, rather, it does not belong to any particular religion. Hence it cannot spend money on the basis of communities.”

Six days before Gandhi was felled by a Chitpavan Brahmin, he presciently wrote: “A well-organised body of constructive workers will be needed. Their service to the people will be their sanction and the merit of their work will be their charter. The ministers will draw their inspiration from such a body which will advise and guide the secular government.”

Both Gandhi and Nehru favoured territorial nationalism, clearly demarcating themselves from the Hindu Mahasabha, which would define nation or nationality on the basis of religion.

Perhaps Gandhi’s greatest achievement in the historic Non-cooperation movement of 1920-22 was the amazing participation of Muslims, which lent it an inclusive and mass character. This, in turn ensured communal harmony, rending to shreds the till then successful snare of the British in playing off the two communities against each other. In fact, so pronounced was Muslim support to the cause of the freedom struggle that history is our witness that in some places two-thirds of these arrested were from that community.

This remarkable spirit of the man who could bend the societal arc of his time to the moral compass of his conscience was best grasped by a little known Australian-born British classical scholar and public intellectual. “Persons in power,” Gilbert Murray prophetically wrote about Gandhi in the Hibbert Journal in 1918, “should be very careful how they deal with a man who cares nothing for sensual pleasure, nothing for riches, nothing for comfort or praise, or promotion, but is simply determined to do what he believes to be right. He is a dangerous and uncomfortable enemy, because his body which you can always conquer gives you so little purchase upon his soul.”

There is a reason for this reminder to ‘persons in power’. As per reports on December 25th at a function in Patna organised by a former Union minister in Modi’s cabinet folk singer Devi was stopped from singing Gandhi’s favourite Bhajan, ‘Raghupati raghav raja ram’, when she reached the stanza ‘Ishwar Allah tero naam’. She was allegedly forced to apologise by BJP workers at Bapu Sabhagar auditorium gathered to celebrate the 100th birth anniversary of former Prime Minister Vajpayee. Following the apology, it is further reported that the audience chanted “Jai Shri Ram” in full volume.

These bigoted hatemongers will yet come to realise that the syncretic teaching of Gandhi, mirroring the composite ethos of our accommodating shores, which still resonates in the hearts of his beloved daridra narayans and narayanis, will prevail forever. For the flame that was lit on that funeral pyre in 1949 is and will be the lingering light of the innumerable flickering chirags that brightens lives across India.

Courtesy: The AIDEM

The post Gandhi, the Flame Eternal appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
Sixty years after the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, with his legacy of non-violence under serious threat, with India teetering perpetually on the brink of socio-political anarchy, with the menace of state and fundamentalist terror ever present in a society still torn apart by caste, colour and creed, the words of the mahatma ring true as never before

Violence and terrorism

My experience teaches me that truth can never be propagated by doing violence. Those who believe in the justice of their cause have need to possess boundless patience and those alone are fit to offer civil disobedience who are above committing criminal disobedience or doing violence.

Popular violence

If I can have nothing to do with the organised violence of the government, I can have less to do with the unorganised violence of the people. I would prefer to be crushed between the two.

For me, popular violence is as much an obstruction in our path as the government violence. Indeed, I can combat the government violence more successfully than the popular. For one thing, in combating the latter, I should not have the same support as in the former.

I make bold to say that violence is the creed of no religion and that whereas non-violence in most cases is obligatory in all, violence is merely permissible in some cases. But I have not put before India the final form of non-violence.

I object to violence because when it appears to do good the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.

No faith in violence

It is an unshakeable faith with me that a cause suffers exactly to the extent that it is supported by violence. I say this in spite of appearances to the contrary. If I kill a man who obstructs me, I may experience a sense of false security. But the security will be short-lived. For I shall not have dealt with the root cause. In due course, other men will surely rise to obstruct me. My business therefore is not to kill the man or men who obstruct me but to discover the cause that impels them to obstruct me and deal with it.

I do not believe in armed risings. They are a remedy worse than the disease sought to be cured. They are a token of the spirit of revenge and impatience and anger. The method of violence cannot do good in the long run.

The revolutionary

I do not deny the revolutionary’s heroism and sacrifice. But heroism and sacrifice in a bad cause are so much waste of splendid energy and hurt the good cause by drawing away attention from it by the glamour of the misused heroism and sacrifice in a bad cause.

I am not ashamed to stand erect before the heroic and self-sacrificing revolutionary because I am able to pit an equal measure of non-violent men’s heroism and sacrifice untarnished by the blood of the innocent. Self-sacrifice of one innocent man is a million times more potent than the sacrifice of a million men who die in the act of killing others. The willing sacrifice of the innocent is the most powerful retort to insolent tyranny that has yet been conceived by god or man.

Prevention of brutalisation

I am more concerned in preventing the brutalisation of human nature than in the preventing of the sufferings of my own people… I know that people who voluntarily undergo a course of suffering raise themselves and the whole of humanity but I also know that people who become brutalised in their desperate efforts to get victory over their opponents or to exploit weaker nations or weaker men not only drag down themselves but mankind also.

There is no necessary charm about death on the gallows; often such death is easier than a life of drudgery and toil in malarious tracts… I suggest to my friend the revolutionary that death on the gallows serves the country only when the victim is a ‘spotless lamb’.

…I do not condemn everything European. But I condemn for all climes and for all times secret murders and unfair methods even for a fair cause… Armed conspiracies against something satanic is like matching Satans against Satan. But since one Satan is one too many for me, I would not multiply him. …

Cowardice, whether philosophical or otherwise, I abhor. And if I could be persuaded that revolutionary activity has dispelled cowardice, it will go a long way to soften my abhorrence of the method, however much I may still oppose it on principle. …

I do not regard killing or assassination or terrorism as good in any circumstances whatsoever. I do believe that ideas ripen quickly when nourished by the blood of martyrs. But a man who dies slowly of jungle fever in service bleeds as certainly as the one on the gallows. And if the one who dies on the gallows is not innocent of another’s blood, he never had ideas that deserved to ripen.

Between cowardice and violence

I would risk violence a thousand times rather than risk the emasculation of a whole race.

Violence the choice

I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence… I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour.

But I believe that non-violence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment. Forgiveness adorns a soldier… But abstinence is forgiveness only when there is the power to punish; it is meaningless when it pretends to proceed from a helpless creature. …

But I do not believe India to be helpless… I do not believe myself to be a helpless creature… Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will.

We do want to drive out the best in the man but we do not want on that account to emasculate him. And in the process of finding his own status, the beast in him is bound now and again to put up his ugly appearance.

The world is not entirely governed by logic. Life itself involves some kind of violence and we have to choose the path of least violence.

No cowardice

I want both the Hindus and Mussalmans to cultivate the cool courage to die without killing. But if one has not that courage, I want him to cultivate the art of killing and being killed rather than, in a cowardly manner, flee from danger. For the latter, in spite of his flight, does commit mental himsa (violence). He flees because he has not the courage to be killed in the act of killing. …

No matter how weak a person is in body, if it is a shame to flee he will stand his ground and die at his post. This would be non-violence and bravery. No matter how weak he is, he will use what strength he has in inflicting injury on his opponent and die in the attempt. This is bravery but not non-violence. If, when his duty is to face danger, he flees, it is cowardice. In the first case, the man will have love or charity in him. In the second and third cases, there would be a dislike or distrust and fear. …

Self-defence by violence

I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully.

The strength to kill is not essential for self-defence; one ought to have the strength to die. When a man is fully ready to die he will not even desire to offer violence. Indeed, I may put it down as a self-evident proposition that the desire to kill is in inverse proportion to the desire to die. And history is replete with instances of men who, by dying with courage and compassion on their lips, converted the hearts of their violent opponents.

(from The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi.)

Untouchability

Untouchability as at present practised is the greatest blot on Hinduism. It is (with apologies to Sanatanists) against the shastras. It is against the fundamental principles of humanity; it is against the dictates of reason that a man should, by mere reason of birth, be for ever regarded as an untouchable, even unapproachable and unseeable. These adjectives do not convey the full meaning of the thing itself. It is a crime for certain men, women and their children to touch or to approach within stated distances or to be seen by those who are called caste Hindus. The tragedy is that millions of Hindus believe in this institution as if it was enjoined by the Hindu religion.

Happily, Hindu reformers have recoiled with horror from this practice. They have come to the conclusion that it has no support in the Hindu shastras taken as a whole. Isolated texts torn from their context and considered by themselves can no doubt be produced in support of this practice, as of any evil known to mankind. But there is abundant authority in the shastras to warrant the summary rejection, as being un-Hindu, of anything or any practice that is manifestly against the fundamental principles of humanity or morality, of ahimsa or satya.

This movement against untouchability has been daily gathering strength. It was in last September that leading Hindus, claiming to represent the whole of Hindu India, met together and unanimously passed a resolution condemning untouchability and pledging themselves to abolish it by law if possible during the existing regime and, failing that, when India had a parliament of her own.

Among the marks of untouchability to be removed was the prohibition against temple entry by Harijans. In the course of the struggle it was discovered that the British courts in India had recognised this evil custom, so much so that certain acts done by untouchables as such came to be offences under the British Indian Penal Code. Thus, the entry by an untouchable into a Hindu temple would be punishable as a crime under the Indian Penal Code.

Before, therefore, the movement of temple entry can make headway, it has become imperative to have this anomaly removed. It is for this purpose that Sjt. Ranga Iyer has given notice of two bills to be introduced in the central legislature. After ascertaining the opinion of the provincial governments, H.E. the viceroy has sanctioned the introduction of these bills… (one of the bills) withdraws legal recognition from untouchability.

There are practices in various religions professed by the inhabitants of this land whose breach is not regarded as criminal though it would be regarded as very serious by the respective religious codes. Thus beef eating by a Hindu is an offence in the eye of the Hindu religious code but rightly not punishable as a crime under the Indian Penal Code. Is there then any reason why the common law of India should punish a breach of the custom of untouchability?

…On the 25th of January 1933 was held the session of the All-India Sanatan Dharma Sabha, presided over by Pundit Malaviyaji and attended by over one hundred learned men. It passed a resolution to the effect that Harijans were as much entitled to temple entry as the rest of Hindus.

If the bills are not passed, it is obvious that the central part of the reform will be hung up almost indefinitely. Neutrality in matters of religion ought not to mean religious stagnation and hindrance to reform. …

…Nevertheless the caste Hindus who recognise that untouchability is a blot on Hinduism have to atone for the sin of untouchability. Whether, therefore, Harijans desire temple entry or not, caste Hindus have to open their temples to Harijans, precisely on the same terms as the other Hindus. For a caste Hindu with any sense of honour, temple prohibition is a continuous breach of the pledge taken at the Bombay meeting of September last. Those who gave their word to the world and to god that they would have the temples opened for the Harijans have to sacrifice their all, if need be, for redeeming the pledge. It may be that they did not represent the Hindu mind. They have then to own defeat and do the proper penance. Temple entry is the one spiritual act that would constitute the message of freedom to the untouchables and assure them that they are not outcastes before god. n

(from Harijan, 11-2-1933.)

www.mkgandhi.org

Archived from Communalism Combat,  February 2008 Year 14    No.128, Document

The post Words of wisdom appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Contrary to popular belief, there were many failed attempts on the life of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, the Mahatma. Out of these attempts five are well documented and involve the Pune branch of the Hindu Mahasabha. Three of which also point to the involvement of Narayan Apte and Nathuram Godse. 

The following text is based on the book Hatyakand (The Story of Gandhi’s Murder), a good work in Hindi giving a minute–by–minute account of the Gandhi murder trial. 

The First Attempt: Bomb thrown at Pune
25th June 1934, Pune: During the Harijan Yatra in 1934, the Mahatma visited Pune. On 25th June he was to deliver a speech at the Corporation Auditorium. The Mahatma and Kasturba were travelling in a motorcade consisting of two similar cars. At one place en route the car in which the Gandhis were travelling was detained at a railway level crossing.

The first car arrived at the auditorium and the welcoming committee assumed that the Gandhis had arrived and stepped forward to welcome them. Just then a bomb was thrown at the car which exploded, grievously injuring the chief officer of the municipal corporation, two policeman and seven others. 

The bomb was reportedly hurled by anti–Gandhi Hindu extremists as mentioned by Mahatma’s secretary Pyarelal in his book, The Last Phase, and by his biographer BG Tendulkar. Pyarelal has written: “This time their attempt was very well planned and executed to perfection….” Implying that the attempts before 25th June 1934 failed due to lack of planning and co–ordination. And also that the murderers were getting better with each attempt.
Pyarelal has said: “These people kept photographs of Gandhi, Nehru and other Congress leaders in their shoes. They were trained to shoot by using Gandhiji’s photograph as their target, these were the same people who later murdered the Mahatma while he was striving to bring peace to a riot ravaged Delhi, in 1948.”

After the attack, speaking at the function to felicitate him, the Mahatma said: “It is sad that this happened while I am working for the uplift of the Harijans. I have no desire for martyrdom as yet, but if it is to happen I am prepared to face it. But in trying to kill me why are they inconsiderate to the innocents who are likely to be killed or injured along with me? My wife and three young girls who are like daughters to me were travelling in the car with me. How have they angered you?”

The attacker escaped and there is no record of investigations or arrests. This was the first documented attempt in India on the life of the Mahatma. Many historians have alleged that this was the work of the Nathuram Godse and Narayan Apte gang. This gang was involved in several other bomb attacks on other opponents of their Hindutva and dominance of the upper caste ideology.
(http://web.mahatma.org.in/attempts/attempt0.asp) 

The post ‘It is sad that this happened while I am working for the uplift of the Harijans’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.