Mahatma Gandhi had answered these questions as guidance for behaviour of volunteers but they can also be incorporated into our daily office lives as well. I have edited the article specifically for the office scenario. The text in italics represents my edits. The complete article can be found in Vol. 28 of CWMG, starting from Pg 226.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many times we find there are a set of people in our office who have a set agenda against us. How should we behave in such a case?
l. What should we do if our co-workers of set purpose behave badly towards us, dislike us without cause and burn with envy?
I quote this and such other questions from letters which I have been receiving. We should behave correctly towards one who behaves badly towards us, should like one who dislikes us and love one who envies us. I do not know any-other way in which one can live in peace in this world. If one decides to live thus, such behaviour becomes easy and natural by and by. When we cannot behave in this straight forward manner, we should keep aloof from others.
Behaviour when there is a difference of opinion in any matter.
2. What should we do if, in an ordinary matter, there is a difference of opinion and each one wants to have his way?
That this should happen suggests lack of experience of community life. If everyone follows his own way, we should join him whose way we consider best, so that there will be two co-workers at any rate. If they are truthful, firm and humble, others will come and join them of their own accord. He who does not yield to persuasion will submit when he has no choice left.
What to do when we are sure that actions of some particular colleague are harming the organization?
3. If a worker feels convinced that a certain other worker really harms the institution, what should he do?
He should humbly point out to that worker his mistake. If the latter does not see it, he should leave that institution and save himself from being a party to the mischief. If one acts frankly in this manner, all the three—the institution, the one who harms it and the one who notices it—will benefit.
How to handle the immorality of the leader?
4. What should one do when one finds the chief worker in a locality to be immoral?
This is a delicate and serious question. A leader has the eyes of all fixed on him. Some among these may have even jaundiced eyes. An idler has no interest except to observe the faults of others. We should, therefore, never credit such rumours. If we believed everything alleged against all leaders, not one person whose company we would welcome would be left to work with us. All human beings have their weaknesses. As Tulsidas says, all physical objects and all living creatures partake of evil. The saint, discriminating like the swan, leaves aside the water, the evil, the impurity, and drinks in the milk, the virtue. But we cannot shut our eyes to what is there before us. What should we do when we have not been looking for something ourselves but, without our searching for it, we are confronted with irrefutable evidence, with ocular proof? If we have courage and humility, we should certainly speak to the leader about the matter and ask him to give up his leadership. If he refuses, we should state the fact as our reason and leave him.
[There is further text in this answer but it was specifically for the volunteer work of congress and hence not included here. If the reader wishes to read the complete article, it can be found in Vol. 28 of CWMG, Page 226]
[From Gujarati]
Navajivan, 29-6-1924
-------------------------------------------CWMG Vol. 28, Pg 226---------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many times we find there are a set of people in our office who have a set agenda against us. How should we behave in such a case?
l. What should we do if our co-workers of set purpose behave badly towards us, dislike us without cause and burn with envy?
I quote this and such other questions from letters which I have been receiving. We should behave correctly towards one who behaves badly towards us, should like one who dislikes us and love one who envies us. I do not know any-other way in which one can live in peace in this world. If one decides to live thus, such behaviour becomes easy and natural by and by. When we cannot behave in this straight forward manner, we should keep aloof from others.
Behaviour when there is a difference of opinion in any matter.
2. What should we do if, in an ordinary matter, there is a difference of opinion and each one wants to have his way?
That this should happen suggests lack of experience of community life. If everyone follows his own way, we should join him whose way we consider best, so that there will be two co-workers at any rate. If they are truthful, firm and humble, others will come and join them of their own accord. He who does not yield to persuasion will submit when he has no choice left.
What to do when we are sure that actions of some particular colleague are harming the organization?
3. If a worker feels convinced that a certain other worker really harms the institution, what should he do?
He should humbly point out to that worker his mistake. If the latter does not see it, he should leave that institution and save himself from being a party to the mischief. If one acts frankly in this manner, all the three—the institution, the one who harms it and the one who notices it—will benefit.
How to handle the immorality of the leader?
4. What should one do when one finds the chief worker in a locality to be immoral?
This is a delicate and serious question. A leader has the eyes of all fixed on him. Some among these may have even jaundiced eyes. An idler has no interest except to observe the faults of others. We should, therefore, never credit such rumours. If we believed everything alleged against all leaders, not one person whose company we would welcome would be left to work with us. All human beings have their weaknesses. As Tulsidas says, all physical objects and all living creatures partake of evil. The saint, discriminating like the swan, leaves aside the water, the evil, the impurity, and drinks in the milk, the virtue. But we cannot shut our eyes to what is there before us. What should we do when we have not been looking for something ourselves but, without our searching for it, we are confronted with irrefutable evidence, with ocular proof? If we have courage and humility, we should certainly speak to the leader about the matter and ask him to give up his leadership. If he refuses, we should state the fact as our reason and leave him.
[There is further text in this answer but it was specifically for the volunteer work of congress and hence not included here. If the reader wishes to read the complete article, it can be found in Vol. 28 of CWMG, Page 226]
[From Gujarati]
Navajivan, 29-6-1924
-------------------------------------------CWMG Vol. 28, Pg 226---------------------------
Posts
1 comment:
["3. If a worker feels convinced that a certain other worker really harms the institution, what should he do?
He should humbly point out to that worker his mistake. If the latter does not see it, he should leave that institution and save himself from being a party to the mischief. If one acts frankly in this manner, all the three—the institution, the one who harms it and the one who notices it—will benefit."]
It is in fact very easy instruct congress men and volunteers...but did Mahatma show the same big heartedness to Congress President Subhas Chandra Bose in 1939.Who was behind the Pant Resolution? .Was it not unconstitutional to ask the constitutionally elected President to appoint a cabinet as per the will of Mahatma-only those whom Gandhiji preferred .As pointed above did he leave the Congress peacefully...In fact he stayed there ,created conditions that forced Bose to resign...This was a shameful episode in Gandhi's "political career" -I repeat Gandhian politics.
Post a Comment