For Gandhi Non-violence was an ideal and a religion in itself which he strived to observe in his personal life both in words and deeds.For him non-violence was an infinitely superior power.Non-violence was not his invention and the same was taught to the humanity by many great men in the past.As an ideal no one saw in it a means to achieve an end.
Gandhi put his ideas on non-violence in to action during the freedom struggle in the form of 'Satyagraha' to achieve the end 'Swaraj'.Swaraj didn't mean just political independence from the British rule but much more wherein all villages become self sufficient, the poor and the disadvantaged are not exploited but given a chance to live with dignity.
Non-violent action is not about inaction or passiveness.Many in our generation have a tendency to view it that way.One can understand it as fighting for a cause but not for punishing anyone.Gandhi's method of 'satyagraha' turned into a weapon in the hands of masses and even household women other than political activists.It brought people together, cutting across caste,religion and regional divides to fight for a cause for the first time in known history of Indian subcontinent.The nature of the grass root freedom struggle with a sense of participation and belonging among people has gone a long way in making the Indian nation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is nothing passive about Gandhian non-violent action.
Gandhi's non-violent action was not an evasive strategy nor a defensive one. Gandhi was always on the offensive. He believed in confronting his opponents aggressively, in such a way that they could not avoid dealing with him.But wasn't Gandhi's non-violent action designed to avoid violence? Yes and No. Gandhi steadfastly avoided violence toward his opponents. He did not avoid violence toward himself or his followers.
Gandhi said that the non-violent activist, like any soldier, had to be ready to die for the cause. The difference was that the non-violent activist, while willing to die, was never willing to kill.
Gandhi pointed out three possible responses to oppression and injustice. One he described as the coward's way: to accept the wrong or run away from it. The second option was to stand and fight by force of arms. Gandhi said this was better than acceptance or running away.But the third way, he said, was best of all and required the most courage to stand and fight solely by non-violent means.
From 'Mahatma Gandhi and His Myths'- By Mark Shepard
http://www.mkgandhi.org/faq/q14.htm
Friday, March 21, 2008
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Understanding the Gandhian ideal of Non-Violence -- I
In the words of Gandhi:
The Doctrine Of Sword (Young India, 11-8-1920)
"In this age of the rule of brute force, it is almost impossible for anyone to believe that anyone else could possibly reject the law of the final supremacy of brute force. And so I receive anonymous letters advising me that I must not interfere with the progress of non-cooperation even though popular violence may break out. Others come to me and assuming that secretly I must be plotting violence, inquire when the happy moment for declaring open violence will arrive. They assure me that the English will never yield to anything but violence secret or open. Yet others, I am informed, believe that I am the most rascally person living in India because I never give out my real intention and that they have not a shadow of a doubt that I believe in violence just as much as most people do.
Such being the hold that the doctrine of the sword has on the majority of mankind, and as success of non-co-operation depends principally on absence of violence during its pendency and as my views in this matter affect the conduct of a large number of people, I am anxious to state them as clearly as possible.I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done, had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908,1 whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defended me, I told him that it was his duty to defend me even by using violence. Hence it was that I took part in the Boer War, the so-called Zulu rebellion and the late War. Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of 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 proceed from a helpless creature. A mouse hardly forgives a cat when it allows itself to be torn to pieces by her. I, therefore,appreciate the sentiment of those who cry out for the condign punishment of General Dyer and his like. They would tear him to pieces if they could. But I do not believe India to be helpless. I do not believe myself to be a helpless creature. Only I want to use India’s and my strength for a better purpose.
Let me not be misunderstood. Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will. An average Zulu is any way more than a match for an average Englishman in bodily capacity. But he flees from an English boy, because he fears the boy’s revolver or those who will use it for him. He fears death and is nerveless in spite of his burly figure. We in India may in a moment realize that one hundred thousand Englishmen need not frighten three hundred million human beings. A definite forgiveness would therefore mean a definite recognition of our strength. With enlightened forgiveness must come a mighty wave of strength in us, which would make it impossible for a Dyer and a Frank Johnson to heap affront upon India’s devoted head. It matters little to me that for the moment I do not drive my point home. We feel too downtrodden not to be angry and revengeful. But I must not refrain from saying that India can gain more by waiving the right of punishment. We have better work to do, a better mission to deliver to the world.
I am not a visionary. I claim to be a practical idealist. The religion of non-violence is not meant merely for the rishis and saints. It is meant for the common people as well. Non-violence is the law of our species as violence is the law of the brute. The spirit lies dormant in the brute and he knows no law but that of physical might. The dignity of man requires obedience to a higher law—to the strength of the spirit.
I have therefore ventured to place before India the ancient law of self-sacrifice. For satyagraha and its off-shoots, non-co-operation and civil resistance, are nothing but new names for the law of suffering. The rishis, who discovered the law of non-violence in the midst of violence, were greater geniuses than Newton.They were themselves greater warriors than Wellington. Having themselves known the use of arms, they realized their uselessness and taught a weary world that its salvation lay not through violence but through non-violence.
Non-violence in its dynamic condition means conscious suffering. It does not mean meek submission to the will of the evildoer, but it means the putting of one’s soul against the will of the tyrant. Working under this law of our being, it is possible for a single individual to defy the whole might of an unjust empire to save his honour, his religion, his soul and lay the foundation for that empire’s fall or its regeneration.
And so I am not pleading for India to practise non-violencebecause it is weak. I want her to practise non-violence being conscious of her strength and power. No training in arms is required for realization of her strength. We seem to need it because we seem to think that we are but a lump of flesh. I want India to recognize that she has a soul that cannot perish and that can rise triumphant above every physical weak- ness and defy the physical combination of whole world. What is the meaning of Rama, a mere human being, with his host of monkeys, pitting himself against the insolent strength of ten-headed Ravana surrounded in supposed safety by the raging waters on all sides of Lanka? Does it not mean the conquest of physical might by spiritual strength? However, being a practical man, I do not wait till India recognizes the practicability of the spiritual life in the political world. India considers herself to be powerless and paralysed before the machineguns, the tanks and the aeroplanes of the English. And she takes up non-co-operation out of her weakness. It must still serve the same purpose, namely, bring her delivery from the crushing weight of British injustice if a sufficient number of people practise it.
I isolate this non-co-operation from Sinn Feinism, for, it is so conceived as to be incapable of being offered side by side with violence. But I invite even the school of violence to give this peaceful non-co-operation a trial. It will not fail through its inherent weakness. It may fail because of poverty of response. Then will be the time for real danger. The high-souled men, who are unable to suffer national humiliation any longer, will want to vent their wrath. They will take to violence. So far as I know, they must perish without delivering themselves or their country from the wrong.
If India takes up the doctrine of the sword, she may gain momentary victory. Then India will cease to be pride of my heart. I am wedded to India because I owe my all to her. I believe absolutely that she has a mission for the world. She is not to copy Europe blindly. India’s acceptance of the doctrine of the sword will be the hour of my trial. I hope I shall not be found wanting. My religion has no geographical Limits. If I have a living faith in it, it will transcend my love for India herself. My life is dedicated to service of India through the religion of non-violence which I believe to be the root of Hinduism.
Meanwhile I urge those who distrust me, not to disturb the even working of the struggle that has just commenced, by inciting to violence in the belief that I want violence. I detest secrecy as a sin. Let them give non-violent non-co-operation a trial and they will find that I had no mental reservation whatsoever."
The Doctrine Of Sword (Young India, 11-8-1920)
"In this age of the rule of brute force, it is almost impossible for anyone to believe that anyone else could possibly reject the law of the final supremacy of brute force. And so I receive anonymous letters advising me that I must not interfere with the progress of non-cooperation even though popular violence may break out. Others come to me and assuming that secretly I must be plotting violence, inquire when the happy moment for declaring open violence will arrive. They assure me that the English will never yield to anything but violence secret or open. Yet others, I am informed, believe that I am the most rascally person living in India because I never give out my real intention and that they have not a shadow of a doubt that I believe in violence just as much as most people do.
Such being the hold that the doctrine of the sword has on the majority of mankind, and as success of non-co-operation depends principally on absence of violence during its pendency and as my views in this matter affect the conduct of a large number of people, I am anxious to state them as clearly as possible.I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done, had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908,1 whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defended me, I told him that it was his duty to defend me even by using violence. Hence it was that I took part in the Boer War, the so-called Zulu rebellion and the late War. Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of 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 proceed from a helpless creature. A mouse hardly forgives a cat when it allows itself to be torn to pieces by her. I, therefore,appreciate the sentiment of those who cry out for the condign punishment of General Dyer and his like. They would tear him to pieces if they could. But I do not believe India to be helpless. I do not believe myself to be a helpless creature. Only I want to use India’s and my strength for a better purpose.
Let me not be misunderstood. Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will. An average Zulu is any way more than a match for an average Englishman in bodily capacity. But he flees from an English boy, because he fears the boy’s revolver or those who will use it for him. He fears death and is nerveless in spite of his burly figure. We in India may in a moment realize that one hundred thousand Englishmen need not frighten three hundred million human beings. A definite forgiveness would therefore mean a definite recognition of our strength. With enlightened forgiveness must come a mighty wave of strength in us, which would make it impossible for a Dyer and a Frank Johnson to heap affront upon India’s devoted head. It matters little to me that for the moment I do not drive my point home. We feel too downtrodden not to be angry and revengeful. But I must not refrain from saying that India can gain more by waiving the right of punishment. We have better work to do, a better mission to deliver to the world.
I am not a visionary. I claim to be a practical idealist. The religion of non-violence is not meant merely for the rishis and saints. It is meant for the common people as well. Non-violence is the law of our species as violence is the law of the brute. The spirit lies dormant in the brute and he knows no law but that of physical might. The dignity of man requires obedience to a higher law—to the strength of the spirit.
I have therefore ventured to place before India the ancient law of self-sacrifice. For satyagraha and its off-shoots, non-co-operation and civil resistance, are nothing but new names for the law of suffering. The rishis, who discovered the law of non-violence in the midst of violence, were greater geniuses than Newton.They were themselves greater warriors than Wellington. Having themselves known the use of arms, they realized their uselessness and taught a weary world that its salvation lay not through violence but through non-violence.
Non-violence in its dynamic condition means conscious suffering. It does not mean meek submission to the will of the evildoer, but it means the putting of one’s soul against the will of the tyrant. Working under this law of our being, it is possible for a single individual to defy the whole might of an unjust empire to save his honour, his religion, his soul and lay the foundation for that empire’s fall or its regeneration.
And so I am not pleading for India to practise non-violencebecause it is weak. I want her to practise non-violence being conscious of her strength and power. No training in arms is required for realization of her strength. We seem to need it because we seem to think that we are but a lump of flesh. I want India to recognize that she has a soul that cannot perish and that can rise triumphant above every physical weak- ness and defy the physical combination of whole world. What is the meaning of Rama, a mere human being, with his host of monkeys, pitting himself against the insolent strength of ten-headed Ravana surrounded in supposed safety by the raging waters on all sides of Lanka? Does it not mean the conquest of physical might by spiritual strength? However, being a practical man, I do not wait till India recognizes the practicability of the spiritual life in the political world. India considers herself to be powerless and paralysed before the machineguns, the tanks and the aeroplanes of the English. And she takes up non-co-operation out of her weakness. It must still serve the same purpose, namely, bring her delivery from the crushing weight of British injustice if a sufficient number of people practise it.
I isolate this non-co-operation from Sinn Feinism, for, it is so conceived as to be incapable of being offered side by side with violence. But I invite even the school of violence to give this peaceful non-co-operation a trial. It will not fail through its inherent weakness. It may fail because of poverty of response. Then will be the time for real danger. The high-souled men, who are unable to suffer national humiliation any longer, will want to vent their wrath. They will take to violence. So far as I know, they must perish without delivering themselves or their country from the wrong.
If India takes up the doctrine of the sword, she may gain momentary victory. Then India will cease to be pride of my heart. I am wedded to India because I owe my all to her. I believe absolutely that she has a mission for the world. She is not to copy Europe blindly. India’s acceptance of the doctrine of the sword will be the hour of my trial. I hope I shall not be found wanting. My religion has no geographical Limits. If I have a living faith in it, it will transcend my love for India herself. My life is dedicated to service of India through the religion of non-violence which I believe to be the root of Hinduism.
Meanwhile I urge those who distrust me, not to disturb the even working of the struggle that has just commenced, by inciting to violence in the belief that I want violence. I detest secrecy as a sin. Let them give non-violent non-co-operation a trial and they will find that I had no mental reservation whatsoever."
Monday, March 3, 2008
Gandhi and Political Decentralisation
Gandhi advocated self-sufficient village republics, which produce their own food and cloth, remain independent of the neighbors for vital wants, and yet interdependent for other needs and cooperating with the higher authorities. This aspect of economic decentralization was the highlight of what came to be known as ‘Gandhian Economics’. According to Gandhi, political decentralization should go hand in hand with economic decentralization.
By political decentralization he meant: “Prevention of 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 level."(“Why Gandhi is Relevant in Modern India: A Western Gandhian's Personal Discovery-- Stephen Murphy)
According to Gandhi, "Men ... should do their actual living and working in communities ... small enough to permit of genuine self-government and the assumption of personal responsibilities, federated into larger units in such a way that the temptation to abuse great power should not arise. The larger a democracy grows, the less becomes the rule of the people and the smaller is the say of individuals and localized groups in dealing with their own destinies.”
---------------------------------
“My idea of village swaraj is that it is a complete republic, independent of its neighbours for its own vital wants, and yet interdependent for many others in which dependence is a necessity. Thus every village’s first concern will be to grow its own food crops and cotton for its cloth. It should have a reserve for its cattle, recreation and playground for adults and children. Then if there is more land available, it will grow useful money crops, thus excluding ganja, tobacco, opium and the like. The village will maintain a village theatre, school and public hall. It will have its own waterworks, ensuring clean water supply. This can be done through controlled wells or tanks. Education will be compulsory up to the final basic course. As far as possible every activity will be conducted on the cooperative basis. There will be no castes such as we have today with their graded untouchability. Non-violence with its technique of satyagraha and non-cooperation will be the sanction of the village community. There will be a compulsory service of village guards who will be selected by rotation from the register maintained by the village. The government of the village will be conducted by a Panchayat of five persons annually elected by the adult villagers, male and female, possessing minimum prescribed qualifications. These will have all the authority and jurisdiction required. Since there will be no system of punishments in the accepted sense, this Panchayat will be the legislature, judiciary and executive combined to operate for its year of office. Any village can become such a republic today without much interference even from the present Government whose sole effective connection with the villages is the exaction of the village revenue. I have not examined here the question of relations with the neighbouring villages and the centre if any. My purpose is to present an outline of village government. Here there is perfect democracy based upon individual freedom. The individual is the architect of his own government. The law of non-violence rules him and his government. He and his village are able to defy the might of a world. For the law governing every villager is that he will suffer death in the defence of his and his village’s honour.”
SEVAGRAM, July 18, 1942
Harijan, 26-7-1942
These ideas might have sounded utopian at the time of Indian independence. Gandhi himself said that these are utopian and went on to say “ Let India live for this true picture, though never realizable in its completeness.”
The drafting committee of the constituent assembly consisted of people who were well versed with the working of constitutions of other democracies but they gave little importance to this idea of political decentralization. However, the constituent assembly consisted of people elected by masses and they contested the non-inclusion of the concept of ‘Gram Swaraj’ in the draft constitution.As a result, it was included in Directive Principles of State policy,article 40 of the constitution which states “the State shall take steps to organise village panchayats and endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of self- government”. Understandably, centralization was given prominence by the then establishment in the wake of partition and demands for statehood by numerous groups. No doubt India at that point of time needed a strong center and though the constitution has guaranteed many federal features, it termed India as a ‘Union of states’ rather than a federation.
Nehru being a democrat had nothing against the idea of self-government at the grassroot level. He went on centralized planning but at the same time he created a Ministry of Community Development, Panchayati Raj and Cooperation. The initial emphasis was on community development programmes without much success. Later Balwant Rai Mehta committee, appointed by the government concluded that: “Development cannot progress without responsibility and power. Community development can be real only when the community understands its problems, realizes its responsibilities, exercises necessary powers through its chosen representatives and maintains a constant and intelligent vigilance on local administration”. The creation of elected local bodies and formulation of plans at district level was proposed. After Nehru, the centralization tendencies began to take stage and Indira Gandhi’s government merged the ministry of community development, Panchayat Raj and cooperation with Ministry of Food and Agriculture.It was only in second half of 1980s there was growing awareness that ‘top to bottom’approach was ineffective in delivering the government schemes to the real beneficiaries. In 1992, through 73rd and 74th constitutional amendments, Panchayat Raj Institutions and Urban Local Bodies were given constitutional status.In the period that followed, though states were reluctant to devolve powers to local bodies, the PRIs have made a mark in functioning at the grass root level ushering in participative democracy. Through affirmative action, women and depressed sections of the societies began to take active part in local governments. A lot need to be done and we are nowhere in the reach of Gandhian Utopia of Gram Swaraj. The importance of self-sufficient villages with local administrative structure, planning and catering to the local needs is being realized today with the prevalence of rural distress and migration to cities.To make the PRI system work in the envisaged manner, there is an essential need of devolving political and financial powers to Panchayati Raj Institutions.
Mahatma Gandhi and the Legacy of Democratic Decentralisation in India by Partha Nath Mukherjee:http://se1.isn.ch/serviceengine/FileContent?serviceID=PublishingHouse&fileid=44C46258-1D7C-50C2-4BF6-B14A2F46B30A&lng=en
From the above link:The challenges to our system of Local self Government .
(1)There is the factor of the local political economy and the high probability of elite capture of resources.
(2)Central and State-level political elite feel threatened having to vie with the local political elite, trying to win support from a common constituency.
(3)The non-elected resource-rich NGOs/INGOs with their primary accountability to the donors operate within panchayat jurisdictions as competing structures of influence and power.
(4)There are State and central-level projects that bypass the authority of the PRIs.
(5)Problems of accountability and transparency often associated with rent-seeking behaviour characterise many functionaries at all levels.
(6)Gram sabhas, which are the fundamental units of direct democracy, are often convened at irregular intervals with poor attendance.
(7)There is the problem of what is known as ‘proxy panchayats’, where the husband/male members of the family act on behalf of the elected women representatives.
(8) Social-institutional barriers often inhibit the role of dalits (the Scheduled Castes) and the Scheduled Tribes in the Panchayati Raj system.
(9)A resistant bureaucracy is tardy in implementing devolution of power.
(10) Political and economic clientelism in an iniquitous agrarian and caste structure perpetuates the role of dominant powers.
(11) There are problems relating to ambiguities in the distribution and sharing of power at the various sub-State levels.
(12) Most importantly, there are problems of poverty, illiteracy and malnutrition that provide structural barriers to the improvement in life-chances of the deprived and marginal groups.
In the words of Partha Nath Mukherjee today there is an irreversible ascendance of the forces of gram swaraj.Now it is the responsibility of the government, civil society and individuals with faith in participative democracy to let India live (after taking in to account the changed circumstances and the new globalized world) for Gandhi’s Utopia of Gram Swaraj, though never realizable in its completeness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
