I paste here incidents from Gandhi's life which left an enduring impact on me. This is a extract from Professor Madhu Dandawate's talk on 'Gandhi's Human Touch'.
Dark Calcutta & Glittering Delhi
Many of you must have seen the famous Attenborough's film Gandhi. When I saw the film my immediate reaction was that if I were to produce that film, I would have begun it in a different way. Those of you who have seen the film must have noted that it began with the scene of assassination of Gandhi. I am sure, from the point of historicity as well as excellence and aesthetics of art, there could have been a better beginning. I would have projected a flash back of two extreme events of 1947. One scene would have been the darkness of Calcutta, where Gandhi was giving the healing touch to the society that was torn by Hindu-Muslim riots. And the second flash back would have been the glittering lights of Delhi on the midnight of 14th August 1947, awaiting the dawn of freedom on 15th August 1947. Glittering lights, loud slogans and a poetic assertion of Late Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, who said: "At the stroke of the midnight hour when the world sleeps India will awake to life and freedom and a soul of a nation long suppressed will find utterance." I remember the darkness of Calcutta. I remember the agony of Gandhi. A few weeks prior to Independence Day of 1947, an emissary of Pandit Nehru and Sardar Patel was sent to Gandhi at Calcutta, who was working for peace and harmony among the Hindus and Muslims. The emissary reached at midnight. He said: "I have brought an important letter for you from Pandit Nehru and Sardar Patel." "Have you taken your food?", asked Gandhi. When the emissary said " No", Gandhi served him food. And after food, Gandhi opened the letter from Nehru and Patel. They had written: "Bapu you are the father of the nation. 15th August 1947, will be the first Independence Day and we want you to come to Delhi to give us the blessings." Gandhi said: " How stupid!. When Bengal is burning, Hindus and Muslims are killing each other and I hear their cries of the agony in the darkness of Calcutta, how can I go to Delhi with the glittering lights?" These words are the heart-rending words of Gandhi. He said "I have to live here for the establishment of peace in Bengal and if need be, I have to give up my life for ensuring that there is harmony and peace." The emissary started for his return journey in the morning. It was a moving sight, full of human touch. Gandhi gave the emissary a sendoff. He was standing below a tree. A dry leaf fell from the tree. Gandhi picked it up and put it on his palm and said: " My friend, you are going back to Delhi. What gift can Gandhi give to Pandit Nehru and Sardar Patel? I am a man without power and wealth. Give this dry leaf to Nehru and Patel, as my first Independence day gift." And when he was saying this, tears came from the eyes of the emissary. And with a sense of humour Gandhi said: " How the great is God? He did not want Gandhi to send that dry leaf. He made it wet. It is glistening with laughter. Carry this leaf as a gift full of your tears." That was Gandhi's human touch.
Noakhali Peace Mission
I said I will begin from the end and move backwards. I will, therefore, take you now to Noakhali. There were 'brave men' in India who from house tops were saying: "Hindus are being butchered, they are subjected to atrocities in Noakhali and we must save them." But, there was only one Gandhi and his peace mission went to Noakhali. The Noakali episode and Ghandi's peace March brings out his courage as well as compassion. I will give some of the instances which I gathered from no less a person than Sucheta Kripalani, who had accompanied Gandhi on his peace mission to Noakhali. Gandhi went from village to village. He carried holy books with him. He went to every village. He appealed to all the men and women, Hindus as well as Muslims, to ensure peace. They offered prayers and Gandhi made them take a pledge that they will not kill each other. But he waited for a few days in every village to see that whatever pledges that were given were implemented. .....Then he went from village to village and brought peace to Noakhali. What type of human experience he had? Horace Alexander, an eminent journalist of those days, gave a story to one of the leaders. He said that when Gandhi's prayer was going on in one village, all of a sudden a Muslim person pounced on him. He caught his throat. Gandhi almost collapsed. While falling down Gandhi recited a beautiful quotation from the Quran. Hearing the words of Quran, the Muslim, instead of throttling Gandhi, touched his feet and with a feeling of guilt he said: "I am sorry. I was commiting a sin. I am prepared to remain with you to protect you. Give me any work, entrust to me any task, tell me what work I should do?" Gandhi had a sense of humour and compassion. He said: "Do only one thing. When you go back home, do not tell anyone what you tried to do with me. Otherwise there will be Hindu-Muslim riots. Forget me and forget yourself." That man went away with a feeling of repentence.
The full lecture can be found here: http://www.mkgandhi-sarvodaya.org/humantouch.htm
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Gandhi on Socialism, Capitalism and Trusteeship - Part I
While it is difficult to typecast Gandhi's economic idea into any one particular model, there persists an enduring misconception that Gandhi was a socialist and Nehru's socialism was a legacy of Gandhi's thought. Yes he endorsed the spirit of socialism and in that sense he can be classified as socialist by intent. However he had correctly seen several of the flaws in socialism when it was still very fashionable in that era. I find the quotes below fascinating. Though he does not use modern economics jargon, the essence is exactly the same and the words he uses to express them are fascinating and reflect intellectual honesty.
On Capitalism:
It can be easily demonstrated that destruction of the capitalist must mean destruction in the end of the worker and as no human being is so bad as to be beyond redemption, no human being is so perfect as to warrant his destroying him whom he wrongly considers to be wholly evil. We invite the capitalist to regard himself as trustee for those on whom he depends for the making, the retention, and the increase of his capital. Nor need the worker wait for his conversion. If capital is power, so is work. ... Either is dependent on the other. Immediately the worker realizes his strength, he is in a position to become co-sharer with the capitalist instead of remaining his slave. If he aims at becoming the sole owner, he will most likely be killing the hen that lays golden eggs. Inequalities in intelligence and even opportunity will last till the end of time. A man living on the banks of a river has any day more opportunity of growing crops than one living in the arid desert.
On Socialism and Communism: I look upon an increase of the power of the State with the greatest fear, because although while apparently doing good by minimizing exploitation, it does the greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality, which lies at the root of all progress. We know of so many cases where men have adopted trusteeship, but none where the State has really lived for the poor. ...
The socialists and communists say, they can do nothing to bring about economic equality today. They will just carry on propaganda in its favor and to that end they believe in generating and accentuating hatred. They say, when they get control over the State, they will enforce equality. Under my plan the State will be there to carry out the will of the people, not to dictate to them or force them to do its will.
It is my firm conviction that if the State suppressed capitalism by violence, it will be caught in the coils of violence itself, and will fail to develop non-violence at any time. The State represents violence in a concentrated and organized form. The individual has a soul, but as the State is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence.
On Trusteeship
He very well identified the need for wealth creators. In the context of Ahmadabad textile strike when someone asked Gandhiji whether it is desirable to close down the mills he opined that we also need people who have the capacity to make money. Some more excerpts:
...That no matter how much money we have earned, we should regard ourselves as trustees, holding this money for the welfare of all our neighbours. If God gives us power and wealth, he gives us the same so that we may use them for the benefit of the mankind and not for our selfish, carnal purpose....
...My theory of trusteeship is no makeshift, certainly no camouflage. I am confident that it will survive all other theories. It has the sanction of philosophy and religion behind it.
I am inviting those people who consider themselves as owners today to act as trustees, i.e., owners, not in their own right, but owners in the right of those whom they have exploited.
Supposing I have come by a fair amount of wealth—either by way of legacy, or by means of trade and industry—I must know that all that wealth does not belong to me; what belongs to me is the right to an honorable livelihood, no better than that enjoyed by millions of others. The rest of my wealth belongs to the community and must be used for the welfare of the community.
The question how many can be real trustees according to this definition is beside the point. If the theory is true, it is immaterial whether many live up to it or only one man lives up to it. The question is of conviction.
It is my conviction that it is possible to acquire riches without consciously doing wrong. For example I may light on a gold mine in my one acre of land. But I accept the proposition that it is better not to desire wealth than to acquire it, and become its trustee. I gave up my own long ago, which should be proof enough of what I would like others to do. But what am I to advise those who are already wealthy or who would not shed the desire for wealth? I can only say to them that they should use their wealth for service.
Several decades later most of the above stands vindicated. Most countries that tried to enforce equality by force have failed. The communist countries in their efforts to make a classless society simply ended up creating another layer of bureaucrats and middleman.
There is a very real difference in the abilities, intent and opportunities that each individual has. This will be reflected in the trajectories each individual follows in their life spans. Some will achieve more, some less. So the endeavor to create equality cannot be forced top down, there needs to be a bottom up approach. Enduring change can only come through some real transformation of hearts.
Narayan Murthy, founder of Infosys, once said he is a socialist at heart and a capitalist by profession. Gandhi wanted the capitalist or the wealth creators to be the trustees of the wealth they create. In that trusteeship remains one of the most relevant of Gandhi's concept, which something which most of us can easily relate.
On Capitalism:
It can be easily demonstrated that destruction of the capitalist must mean destruction in the end of the worker and as no human being is so bad as to be beyond redemption, no human being is so perfect as to warrant his destroying him whom he wrongly considers to be wholly evil. We invite the capitalist to regard himself as trustee for those on whom he depends for the making, the retention, and the increase of his capital. Nor need the worker wait for his conversion. If capital is power, so is work. ... Either is dependent on the other. Immediately the worker realizes his strength, he is in a position to become co-sharer with the capitalist instead of remaining his slave. If he aims at becoming the sole owner, he will most likely be killing the hen that lays golden eggs. Inequalities in intelligence and even opportunity will last till the end of time. A man living on the banks of a river has any day more opportunity of growing crops than one living in the arid desert.
On Socialism and Communism: I look upon an increase of the power of the State with the greatest fear, because although while apparently doing good by minimizing exploitation, it does the greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality, which lies at the root of all progress. We know of so many cases where men have adopted trusteeship, but none where the State has really lived for the poor. ...
The socialists and communists say, they can do nothing to bring about economic equality today. They will just carry on propaganda in its favor and to that end they believe in generating and accentuating hatred. They say, when they get control over the State, they will enforce equality. Under my plan the State will be there to carry out the will of the people, not to dictate to them or force them to do its will.
It is my firm conviction that if the State suppressed capitalism by violence, it will be caught in the coils of violence itself, and will fail to develop non-violence at any time. The State represents violence in a concentrated and organized form. The individual has a soul, but as the State is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence.
On Trusteeship
He very well identified the need for wealth creators. In the context of Ahmadabad textile strike when someone asked Gandhiji whether it is desirable to close down the mills he opined that we also need people who have the capacity to make money. Some more excerpts:
...That no matter how much money we have earned, we should regard ourselves as trustees, holding this money for the welfare of all our neighbours. If God gives us power and wealth, he gives us the same so that we may use them for the benefit of the mankind and not for our selfish, carnal purpose....
...My theory of trusteeship is no makeshift, certainly no camouflage. I am confident that it will survive all other theories. It has the sanction of philosophy and religion behind it.
I am inviting those people who consider themselves as owners today to act as trustees, i.e., owners, not in their own right, but owners in the right of those whom they have exploited.
Supposing I have come by a fair amount of wealth—either by way of legacy, or by means of trade and industry—I must know that all that wealth does not belong to me; what belongs to me is the right to an honorable livelihood, no better than that enjoyed by millions of others. The rest of my wealth belongs to the community and must be used for the welfare of the community.
The question how many can be real trustees according to this definition is beside the point. If the theory is true, it is immaterial whether many live up to it or only one man lives up to it. The question is of conviction.
It is my conviction that it is possible to acquire riches without consciously doing wrong. For example I may light on a gold mine in my one acre of land. But I accept the proposition that it is better not to desire wealth than to acquire it, and become its trustee. I gave up my own long ago, which should be proof enough of what I would like others to do. But what am I to advise those who are already wealthy or who would not shed the desire for wealth? I can only say to them that they should use their wealth for service.
Several decades later most of the above stands vindicated. Most countries that tried to enforce equality by force have failed. The communist countries in their efforts to make a classless society simply ended up creating another layer of bureaucrats and middleman.
There is a very real difference in the abilities, intent and opportunities that each individual has. This will be reflected in the trajectories each individual follows in their life spans. Some will achieve more, some less. So the endeavor to create equality cannot be forced top down, there needs to be a bottom up approach. Enduring change can only come through some real transformation of hearts.
Narayan Murthy, founder of Infosys, once said he is a socialist at heart and a capitalist by profession. Gandhi wanted the capitalist or the wealth creators to be the trustees of the wealth they create. In that trusteeship remains one of the most relevant of Gandhi's concept, which something which most of us can easily relate.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Gandhi- The Anarchist
Anarchy is about abolishing hierarchy. According to the original, Greek meaning of the word, Anarchy stands to create a world where there is no separation between the rulers and the ruled--a place where everyone rules themselves.An anarchic vision of society is nonviolent, self-managed and non-hierarchical, and Anarchist thinkers hold dear to the ideal of democracy--rule by the people.
Mohandas Gandhi opposed the State. The State is the military, police, prisons, courts, tax collectors, and bureaucrats. He saw the State as concentrated violence. "The State represents violence in a concentrated and organized form. The individual has a soul, but as the State is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence." Gandhi recognized that the State claims to serve the nation, but he realized that this was a fallacy. "While apparently doing good by minimizing exploitation, [the State] does the greatest harm to mankind."
According to Dr. Dhawan, Gandhi was a philosophical Anarchist because he believed that the "[the greatest good of all] can be realized only in the classless, stateless democracy." While Gandhi advocated democracy, he differentiated between direct democracy and western democracy. Commenting on the parliamentary system, Gandhi says, "If India copies England, it is my firm conviction that she will be ruined. Parliaments are merely emblems of slavery." He had no more appetite for majority democracy of America, "It is a superstition and an ungodly thing to believe that an act of a majority binds a minority." By centralizing power, western democracies feed into violence. Thus, he thought decentralization was the key to world peace.
In Gandhi's view all the political power that was concentrated in the State apparatus could be dissolved down to every last individual. He stated "Power resides in the people, they can use it at any time." Reiterating the idea of Anarchy, Gandhi said, "In such a state (of affairs), everyone is his own rulers. He rules himself in such a manner that he is never a hindrance to his neighbor." Gandhi had no illusions about the enormity of the task, but he took it on anyways. He believed that by reforming enough individuals and communities, society at large will change. Gandhi's concept of swaraj elucidates the connection between the individual and society.
Swaraj translates into "self-rule" or "autonomy". For Gandhi, every individual had to take steps towards self-rule in their lives; then India would naturally move towards self-rule as a nation. Gandhi insisted, "Everyone will have to take [swaraj] for himself." He continued, "If we become free, India becomes free and in this thought you have a definition of swaraj. It is swaraj when we learn to rule ourselves."
Gandhi angered some of his cohorts by extending his notion of power and swaraj to the history of colonization. While acknowledging the British Empire's cynical intentions in India, he places the responsibility of the disaster of colonization on the India people. "It is truer to say that we gave India to the English than that India was lost... to blame them for this is to perpetuate their power." Because power resides in the people and they can only lose it by relinquishing their own power (often through coercion by others), petitions to the government get a new meaning with Gandhi. "A petition of an equal is a sign of courtesy; a petition from a slave is a symbol of his slavery." Gandhi will petition the government as an equal and he used love-force to back himself up. "Love-force can thus be stated: 'if you do not concede our demand, we will be no longer your petitioner. You can govern us only so long as we remain the governed; we shall no longer have any dealings with you.'"
The principle of swaraj ultimately leads to a grassroots, bottom-up, "oceanic circle" of self-ruling communities. In 1946, Gandhi explained this vision:
"Independence begins at the bottom... It follows, therefore, that every village has to be self-sustained and capable of managing its own affairs... It will be trained and prepared to perish in the attempt to defend itself against any onslaught from without... This does not exclude dependence on and willing help from neighbors or from the world. It will be a free and voluntary play of mutual forces... In this structure composed of innumerable villages, there will be every-widening, never ascending circles. Life will not be a pyramid with the apex sustained by the bottom. But it will be an oceanic circle whose center will be the individual. Therefore, the outermost circumference will not wield power to crush the inner circle but will give strength to all within and derive its own strength from it."
In apparent contradiction to these ideals, Gandhi battled for national liberation and he expressed a lot of patriotism towards Indian civilization. He redefined the terms 'nationalism' and 'patriotism' to fit his vision. Nationalism, for instance, meant many different things. Gandhi said, "Every Indian whether he owns up to it or not, has national aspirations--but there are as many opinions as there are Indian Nationalists as to the exact meaning of that aspiration." Gandhi's nationalism stood to disband the Congress Party upon independence, "Its task is done. The next task is to move into villages and revitalize life there to build a new socio-economic structure from the bottom upwards." He also understood patriotism differently than his contemporaries, "by patriotism, I mean the welfare of the whole people."
But Congress did not disband after independence in 1947. Gandhi recognized that there would be a national government, and his anarchic, oceanic circle would not yet be possible. Nevertheless, he used the terms of nationalism to move towards the ideal of Anarchy. He advocated for a minimal level of State organization to fund some education programs and to promote his economic concept of trusteeship. Hence, Gandhi was a compromising Anarchist.
To Gandhi, ideas were worth having. He defended his vision of Anarchy in India on this point, "It may be taunted with the retort that this is all Utopian and, therefore, not worth a single thought... Let India live for the true picture, though never realizable in its completeness. We must have a proper picture of what we want, before we can have something approaching it."
By trying to understand Gandhi's worldview, certain questions jump out with contemporary relevance. First off, what is our culturally appropriate "utopian" picture of America or of the communities in which we live? Secondly, what practical steps can we make towards swaraj amidst the current global empire? Finally, if Gandhi is right that all power resides in individuals, and that power is derived from an "indomitable will" than how do we reclaim the latent power within us, both individually and collectively?
"The individual has a soul, but as the State is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence."
-Mahatma Gandhi
http://www.calpeacepower.org/0201/PDF/was_gandhi_an_anarchist.pdf
Mohandas Gandhi opposed the State. The State is the military, police, prisons, courts, tax collectors, and bureaucrats. He saw the State as concentrated violence. "The State represents violence in a concentrated and organized form. The individual has a soul, but as the State is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence." Gandhi recognized that the State claims to serve the nation, but he realized that this was a fallacy. "While apparently doing good by minimizing exploitation, [the State] does the greatest harm to mankind."
According to Dr. Dhawan, Gandhi was a philosophical Anarchist because he believed that the "[the greatest good of all] can be realized only in the classless, stateless democracy." While Gandhi advocated democracy, he differentiated between direct democracy and western democracy. Commenting on the parliamentary system, Gandhi says, "If India copies England, it is my firm conviction that she will be ruined. Parliaments are merely emblems of slavery." He had no more appetite for majority democracy of America, "It is a superstition and an ungodly thing to believe that an act of a majority binds a minority." By centralizing power, western democracies feed into violence. Thus, he thought decentralization was the key to world peace.
In Gandhi's view all the political power that was concentrated in the State apparatus could be dissolved down to every last individual. He stated "Power resides in the people, they can use it at any time." Reiterating the idea of Anarchy, Gandhi said, "In such a state (of affairs), everyone is his own rulers. He rules himself in such a manner that he is never a hindrance to his neighbor." Gandhi had no illusions about the enormity of the task, but he took it on anyways. He believed that by reforming enough individuals and communities, society at large will change. Gandhi's concept of swaraj elucidates the connection between the individual and society.
Swaraj translates into "self-rule" or "autonomy". For Gandhi, every individual had to take steps towards self-rule in their lives; then India would naturally move towards self-rule as a nation. Gandhi insisted, "Everyone will have to take [swaraj] for himself." He continued, "If we become free, India becomes free and in this thought you have a definition of swaraj. It is swaraj when we learn to rule ourselves."
Gandhi angered some of his cohorts by extending his notion of power and swaraj to the history of colonization. While acknowledging the British Empire's cynical intentions in India, he places the responsibility of the disaster of colonization on the India people. "It is truer to say that we gave India to the English than that India was lost... to blame them for this is to perpetuate their power." Because power resides in the people and they can only lose it by relinquishing their own power (often through coercion by others), petitions to the government get a new meaning with Gandhi. "A petition of an equal is a sign of courtesy; a petition from a slave is a symbol of his slavery." Gandhi will petition the government as an equal and he used love-force to back himself up. "Love-force can thus be stated: 'if you do not concede our demand, we will be no longer your petitioner. You can govern us only so long as we remain the governed; we shall no longer have any dealings with you.'"
The principle of swaraj ultimately leads to a grassroots, bottom-up, "oceanic circle" of self-ruling communities. In 1946, Gandhi explained this vision:
"Independence begins at the bottom... It follows, therefore, that every village has to be self-sustained and capable of managing its own affairs... It will be trained and prepared to perish in the attempt to defend itself against any onslaught from without... This does not exclude dependence on and willing help from neighbors or from the world. It will be a free and voluntary play of mutual forces... In this structure composed of innumerable villages, there will be every-widening, never ascending circles. Life will not be a pyramid with the apex sustained by the bottom. But it will be an oceanic circle whose center will be the individual. Therefore, the outermost circumference will not wield power to crush the inner circle but will give strength to all within and derive its own strength from it."
In apparent contradiction to these ideals, Gandhi battled for national liberation and he expressed a lot of patriotism towards Indian civilization. He redefined the terms 'nationalism' and 'patriotism' to fit his vision. Nationalism, for instance, meant many different things. Gandhi said, "Every Indian whether he owns up to it or not, has national aspirations--but there are as many opinions as there are Indian Nationalists as to the exact meaning of that aspiration." Gandhi's nationalism stood to disband the Congress Party upon independence, "Its task is done. The next task is to move into villages and revitalize life there to build a new socio-economic structure from the bottom upwards." He also understood patriotism differently than his contemporaries, "by patriotism, I mean the welfare of the whole people."
But Congress did not disband after independence in 1947. Gandhi recognized that there would be a national government, and his anarchic, oceanic circle would not yet be possible. Nevertheless, he used the terms of nationalism to move towards the ideal of Anarchy. He advocated for a minimal level of State organization to fund some education programs and to promote his economic concept of trusteeship. Hence, Gandhi was a compromising Anarchist.
To Gandhi, ideas were worth having. He defended his vision of Anarchy in India on this point, "It may be taunted with the retort that this is all Utopian and, therefore, not worth a single thought... Let India live for the true picture, though never realizable in its completeness. We must have a proper picture of what we want, before we can have something approaching it."
By trying to understand Gandhi's worldview, certain questions jump out with contemporary relevance. First off, what is our culturally appropriate "utopian" picture of America or of the communities in which we live? Secondly, what practical steps can we make towards swaraj amidst the current global empire? Finally, if Gandhi is right that all power resides in individuals, and that power is derived from an "indomitable will" than how do we reclaim the latent power within us, both individually and collectively?
"The individual has a soul, but as the State is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence."
-Mahatma Gandhi
http://www.calpeacepower.org/0201/PDF/was_gandhi_an_anarchist.pdf
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Brilliant Gandhi story
Sorry I don't remember full name of Mr. Desai
This man was a poor school teacher earning a small salary. He had three sons, and a fourth was on its way. One day, he came across Gandhiji, who told him to leave his job and work for the nation. The teacher was very worried; how would he feed his wife and his children. His wife was illiterate and could not work. One day his wife asked him why he was so worried and he told her what Gandhiji had told him," narrated Desai.
Desai continued: "You know what his wife told the teacher? She told him, in Gujarati, 'Bapu told you to quit the school and work for the country, didn't he? So why should you even think about it. Do it right away.'
The teacher then said, 'But how will we live, what will we eat?' The wife told him, 'Don't worry about that. We will manage somehow. But you must listen to Bapu.' So the teacher immediately quit his job and began to take part in social and political activities."
Desai paused, a lump in his throat. "Just imagine the effect that Gandhi had that people, rich or poor, would give up everything just because he told them to do so. But more important, is there any leader around today for whose sake we would give up everything simply because he tells us to?" he asks.
There is no need for a reply because the answer is obvious.
"And you know the best part of it all," continues Desai, "The teacher was worried about his children, their food and education and very survival. Yet, the family did well. Two boys became engineers, one a chartered accountant and the last a doctor. How much better can one do? It is almost like in obeying Gandhi, he was blessed and his worst fears taken care of," said Desai.
This man was a poor school teacher earning a small salary. He had three sons, and a fourth was on its way. One day, he came across Gandhiji, who told him to leave his job and work for the nation. The teacher was very worried; how would he feed his wife and his children. His wife was illiterate and could not work. One day his wife asked him why he was so worried and he told her what Gandhiji had told him," narrated Desai.
Desai continued: "You know what his wife told the teacher? She told him, in Gujarati, 'Bapu told you to quit the school and work for the country, didn't he? So why should you even think about it. Do it right away.'
The teacher then said, 'But how will we live, what will we eat?' The wife told him, 'Don't worry about that. We will manage somehow. But you must listen to Bapu.' So the teacher immediately quit his job and began to take part in social and political activities."
Desai paused, a lump in his throat. "Just imagine the effect that Gandhi had that people, rich or poor, would give up everything just because he told them to do so. But more important, is there any leader around today for whose sake we would give up everything simply because he tells us to?" he asks.
There is no need for a reply because the answer is obvious.
"And you know the best part of it all," continues Desai, "The teacher was worried about his children, their food and education and very survival. Yet, the family did well. Two boys became engineers, one a chartered accountant and the last a doctor. How much better can one do? It is almost like in obeying Gandhi, he was blessed and his worst fears taken care of," said Desai.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Gandhi, Art and Architecture - I
Gandhi said,” Sometimes, Art lies in not interfering with nature’s unevenness and irregular curves and lines ..” (Harijan, nov 14, 1936). thus attributing that ‘art’ directly to nature, for he believed “All true art is always simple and natural” (To Ashram Sisters, P9)
Implying on this aspect of Gandhi’s thinking , if one further explores his relationship with Architecture, one comes to the conclusion that Art or Architecture according to Gandhian thinking is nothing but a pure manifestation of Nature itself.
Gandhi’s affection towards “Nature” in “Architecture” can be inferred by the following
“ My room may have blank walls and I may even dispense with the roof, so that I may gaze out upon the starry heavens overhead that stretch in an unending expanse of beauty. What conscious art of man can give the panoramic scenes that open out before me when I look up to the sky above with all its shining stars ?” ( Young India , Nov 13, 1924 )
“ I do not want my house to be walled in all sides and my windows to be stuffed , I want the culture of all lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible but I refuse to be blown off my feet by any.” ( Sabarmati Ashram )
Thus, “Gandhi” and “Architecture” can be inter-linked by the word “Nature
Implying on this aspect of Gandhi’s thinking , if one further explores his relationship with Architecture, one comes to the conclusion that Art or Architecture according to Gandhian thinking is nothing but a pure manifestation of Nature itself.
Gandhi’s affection towards “Nature” in “Architecture” can be inferred by the following
“ My room may have blank walls and I may even dispense with the roof, so that I may gaze out upon the starry heavens overhead that stretch in an unending expanse of beauty. What conscious art of man can give the panoramic scenes that open out before me when I look up to the sky above with all its shining stars ?” ( Young India , Nov 13, 1924 )
“ I do not want my house to be walled in all sides and my windows to be stuffed , I want the culture of all lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible but I refuse to be blown off my feet by any.” ( Sabarmati Ashram )
Thus, “Gandhi” and “Architecture” can be inter-linked by the word “Nature
“ The earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s need, but not any man’s greed.”
This statement can be interpreted in many forms. it simply means that by destroying and over consuming the Natural wealth, the ‘man’ is committing an act of ‘Violence against Nature’. Thus, the idea of ‘Economy of Permanence’ took shape. Today, this has in turn become one of the most intriguing terms in our day-to-day life. It is called “Sustainable Development”.
It means that developing affordable , environment friendly, energy efficient, simple technologies, by maximizing the use of local resources and skills.
Architecturally, it implies that whatever is built, should be designed in such a way that it does not disturb the existing Natural wealth and utilize minimum optimum energy for their survival. This may be only done utilizing the locally available materials and using non-conventional alternate sources.
Gandhi, hence stressed the importance of building a house on whatever is available in a 5 mile radius.
Mahatma's "Green brain" !!!
When Mahatma Gandhi received a letter from a friend asking about his pain in the elbow, and "Blue brain, Gandhi was sitting under a tree, so he famously wrote, that he cannot feel any "blue brain" but yes, the tree might cause "Green Brain" instead! President K R Narayanan, in his address to UN assembly, pointed out Mahatma's love for the nature.
This was the letter:
LETTER TO BEHRAMJI KHAMBHATTA
October 24, 1932
BHAISHRI KHAMBHATTA,
I got your letter.Since the pain in the elbow has returned,I have again started dictating as many of the letters as I can to give rest to my arm.None of us was scared by your letter in which you spoke of “blue brain”.I had not the least idea what “blue brain” was and as I had been lying under a tree when your letter came,I said: “Who knows what ‘blue brain’ is! But living under a tree might cause ‘green brain’, and it would certainly be good to have it.”Thus we had some fun about it, as I showed no symptom at all of what you feared.And we have more cause for fun now that we can understand how you came to have the fear.There is absolutely no reason why I should not let myself be examined by Bhai Mehta.I would like him to examine me and make some suggestions.Why should not I learn from Mehta,when I am always ready to learn from anybody who has something to give?But the truth is that I would have to obtain special permission to get myself examined by him,and I am really afraid I would not get such permission if I asked for it.I do not ask the permission to spare myself the shock of the refusal. However, I would certainly think about whatever suggestions he sends in writting on the basis of any likely causes that occur to him.Like him, I also believe that disease is lurking somewhere in me, despite all the self-control I exercise, and that the disease expresses itself through the pain in the elbow or otherwise. The bowels certainly are weak.After all I have not been a man of self-control all my life.I lived a life of self-indulgence for a number of years, and who can measure the self-indulgence that must have mixed with self-control after I consiously started to lead such a life?
It would be very good indeed if both of you could go to a quiet place.Do not fight nature.
Blessings from
BAPU
From a photostat of the Gujarati: G.N. 7554, Also C.W. 5029. Courtesy: Tehmina Khambhatta
This was the letter:
LETTER TO BEHRAMJI KHAMBHATTA
October 24, 1932
BHAISHRI KHAMBHATTA,
I got your letter.Since the pain in the elbow has returned,I have again started dictating as many of the letters as I can to give rest to my arm.None of us was scared by your letter in which you spoke of “blue brain”.I had not the least idea what “blue brain” was and as I had been lying under a tree when your letter came,I said: “Who knows what ‘blue brain’ is! But living under a tree might cause ‘green brain’, and it would certainly be good to have it.”Thus we had some fun about it, as I showed no symptom at all of what you feared.And we have more cause for fun now that we can understand how you came to have the fear.There is absolutely no reason why I should not let myself be examined by Bhai Mehta.I would like him to examine me and make some suggestions.Why should not I learn from Mehta,when I am always ready to learn from anybody who has something to give?But the truth is that I would have to obtain special permission to get myself examined by him,and I am really afraid I would not get such permission if I asked for it.I do not ask the permission to spare myself the shock of the refusal. However, I would certainly think about whatever suggestions he sends in writting on the basis of any likely causes that occur to him.Like him, I also believe that disease is lurking somewhere in me, despite all the self-control I exercise, and that the disease expresses itself through the pain in the elbow or otherwise. The bowels certainly are weak.After all I have not been a man of self-control all my life.I lived a life of self-indulgence for a number of years, and who can measure the self-indulgence that must have mixed with self-control after I consiously started to lead such a life?
It would be very good indeed if both of you could go to a quiet place.Do not fight nature.
Blessings from
BAPU
From a photostat of the Gujarati: G.N. 7554, Also C.W. 5029. Courtesy: Tehmina Khambhatta
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Few Inspiring Quotes by Mahatma Gandhi
- Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes.
- Always aim at complete harmony of thought and word and deed. Always aim at purifying your thoughts and everything will be well.
- Hate the sin, love the sinner.
- I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.
- The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.
- You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.
- An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
- I cannot teach you violence, as I do not myself believe in it. I can only teach you not to bow your heads before any one even at the cost of your life.
- In the attitude of silence the soul finds the path in a clearer light, and what is elusive and deceptive resolves itself into crystal clearness. Our life is a long and arduous quest after Truth.
- You must be the change you want to see in the world.
http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Mahatma_Gandhi/
Friday, February 1, 2008
Gandhi and Euthanasia
Did Gandhi support Euthanasia?We may have to say 'Yes'.For him saving a patient from the pain caused by an incurable disease was in the interest of the sufferer.One can't oppose taking the life in the name of following the ideal of Non-violence.There are two instances in Gandhi's life from where we can understand his views on the issue.
In a reply to a letter asking if a man had the right to give up life when it became only a burdensome and painful thing, Gandhi wrote:
In another case, one of his Ashram's heifers(young cow)fell ill and suffered under great pain. The veterinary surgeon had declared her past all cure. The heifer lay on one side, unable to move, and as it was a big one, she couldn't be lifted about in order to prevent bed sores.She couldn't take nourishment and was being tormented by the flies.Although in this case the sanctity of the cow was involved,Gandhi made up his mind "that the true ahimsa required him to put the heifer out of her misery by having her killed as painless a way as possible".He then called a doctor and when the heifer was dead, Gandhi was in great pain,took a cloth and spread it over its face, and then walked silently back to his room.
(From Gandhi a Life by Krishna Kripalani, NBT publications)
In the words of Gandhi :
In a reply to a letter asking if a man had the right to give up life when it became only a burdensome and painful thing, Gandhi wrote:
"My opinion on that point is as follows.A man who is suffering from an incurable disease and is living thanks to the service rendered to him by others without himself doing anything useful in return has the right to end his life. To fast unto death would be much better for him than to drown himself, for it tests his firmness and leaves room for him to change his mind"
In another case, one of his Ashram's heifers(young cow)fell ill and suffered under great pain. The veterinary surgeon had declared her past all cure. The heifer lay on one side, unable to move, and as it was a big one, she couldn't be lifted about in order to prevent bed sores.She couldn't take nourishment and was being tormented by the flies.Although in this case the sanctity of the cow was involved,Gandhi made up his mind "that the true ahimsa required him to put the heifer out of her misery by having her killed as painless a way as possible".He then called a doctor and when the heifer was dead, Gandhi was in great pain,took a cloth and spread it over its face, and then walked silently back to his room.
(From Gandhi a Life by Krishna Kripalani, NBT publications)
In the words of Gandhi :
"A calf, having been maimed, lay in agony in the ashram and despite all possible treatment and nursing, the surgeon declared the case to be past help and hope. The animal's suffering was very acute.
In the circumstances, I felt that humanity demanded that the agony should be ended by ending life itself. The matter was placed before the whole ashram. Finally, in all humility but with the cleanest of convictions I got in my presence a doctor to administer the calf a quietus by means of a poison injection, and the whole thing was over in less than two minutes.
"Would I apply to human beings the principle that I have enunciated in connection with the calf? Would I like it to be applied in my own case? My reply is yes. Just as a surgeon does not commit himsa when he wields his knife on his patient's body for the latter's benefit, similarly one may find it necessary under certain imperative circumstances to go a step further and sever life from the body in the interest of the sufferer".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
