'An Excursion in Psychology' - Nirmal Kumar Bose

The following constitutes chapter 18, 'An Excursion in Psychology' of Nirmal Kumar Bose's book 'My Days with Gandhi'. It gives an insight into Gandhi's idea of Bramhacharya (Celibacy). Much has been written on the topic quoting Nirmal Kumar Bose and sadly some commentaries misrepresented the actual facts. It is always better to read it from the prime source and if you get are able to get a copy of the book, read chapters 15 and 17 for background information and letter correspondence between Gandhi and Nirmal Kumar Bose. Hopefully this will set the record straight. Other than that, the book has rich accounts of Gandhi's Noakhali peace mission, the miracle of Calcutta ( http://appliedgandhi.blogspot.com/2007/11/noakhali-peace-mission-and-miracle-of.html ) and the last days of Gandhi. Nirmal Kumar Bose lived with Gandhi for five months just before independence when communal fires were raging all over Bengal. It was a crucial phase in Gandhi's life where in he lived up to his words "Do or Die" for the sake of establishing communal peace and harmony.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The separation which thus took place between Gandhiji and myself were, as the reader will have observed, on grounds other than those which had led to his breach with either Parasuram or some of his intimate co-workers in Sevagram. The questions raised by the latter had been two. One was: barring the needs of nursing in illness or other occasions of helplessness, may one needlessly appear in a nude condition before man or woman, if one does not belong to a society in which nakedness is customary? Secondly, should people of opposite sexes share the same bed, assuming that they were not husband and wife, or people openly living as such? After the events of March 1947, although Gandhiji was in the midst of the devastation in Bihar and although threatening clouds were already breaking upon the political horizon of India, he felt it his duty to explain clearly his views on bramhacharya. This led to a curious series of articles in the Harijan of June 8, 1947 (‘How did I begin it?’) , June 15, 1947 (‘Walls of protection’), June 22, 1947 (‘Who and where is God?’), June 29, 1947 ( ‘Towards Realization’), July 6, 1947 ( ‘ A perplexity’) on the practice of continence. Readers did not know why such series suddenly appeared in the midst of intensely political articles, but the roots lay in one of the most critical event so f Gandhiji’s personal life when he had to differ from those whom he respected greatly for their independence of opinion.

There are many who were close to Gandhiji and who knew about these happenings, but who, out of fear of misrepresenting him, have thought it wise to leave out this portion of his life from any critical consideration at all. But the present writer has always felt that such an attitude is not justified. Perhaps away at the back of our minds there is a lurking belief that what Gandhiji did was not right; and, in an apparent effort of avoiding injustice to his greatness, we may perhaps decide to draw a veil over certain events of which we have personal knowledge. But this can only be achieved by sacrificing what I believe to be one of the most important keys to an understanding of this unique personality of our age.

Even is we fail to approve of certain things, that is no justification for sitting in judgement over them and deciding, according to the stature of our small minds, what should or should not be said about Gandhiji. We can only bear testimony to what we have witnessed; and, in a spirit of utter truthfulness, describe it with the utmost fidelity possible. Perhaps we may be pardoned if we put our own construction upon events; but then the facts and the opinions must be clearly distinguishable from one another; so that when our age has passed away and many of the values for which we stand have been relegated to the lumber heap of history, men may have the means of knowing all that is possible about a man who once stood towering like a mountain above those who lived beside him.

As I left Gandhiji in Bihar, I wandered for weeks from place to place, and constantly pondered over the experiences of my five month’s lonely but very intimate association with Gandhiji. I t gradually dawned upon me that although I had felt hurt by his overshadowing concern for the private welfare of individuals which occasionally led him to allow these concerns to interfere with his larger public interests, it had been wrong on my part to have expected an absolute abandon for any particular aspect of life at the cost of more humble ones. He was not like a star in heaven by which men guide their pathway in life and which profess neither love nor hatred for those who tread upon the earth with their weary footsteps. He was more like a giant banyan tree which rears its head high in the heavens , but which at the same time, spreads its branches it throws down newer roots to grip the earth once more in its embrace. This symbol of the tree, I felt, was more characteristic of the life of Gandhi than anything else. He stood in daily need of contact with the earth of humanity from which he had sprung, and the sap of life which was gathered coursed through his veins and kept him evergreen. He would have been nothing without these roots which he dug into the earth; the barrenness of the titanic battles which he waged against political or social evils of tremendous magnitude would have otherwise dried up the sap of life which flowed within him. A mere voyage in high heavens would have meant for him an utterness of selfish indulgence from which his mind recoiled in horror. The earth with it slowly creatures was as much part of truth for him as the high heavens with their immaculate dustlessness.

And when I gradually realized the truth of this, I appreciated the need which he felt for his sacred bath in the stream of earth bound human life. I felt also how he was justified in his own way even while violently differing in either thought or action from his most trusted and loving comrades, who were undoubtedly right from their own point of view.

This led me to enquire closely in to the origin of Gandhiji’s character and whatever little I achieved in this respect, is being presented here for what it may be worth. The point which we should never permit ourselves to forget is that even when Gandhiji’s associated failed to approve of certain things connected with him, yet the latter consistently held that his relation with the members of the other sex was something ‘sacred’, and though he did not ‘advertise’ it , there was no secrecy about it either. On 3-2-1947 again, Gandhiji had said ‘What he was doing was not for blind imitation. It was undoubtedly dangerous, but it ceased to be so if the conditions were rigidly observed.’ Why then should we draw a veil over them even when we try to understand the uniqueness of Gandhiji’s personality? A bias never helps one to understand, even when it springs from a feeling of worshipfulness for one’s object of study. I ti s better perhaps to err than not attempt at all, or start be censoring with the hel p of values which have mostly been picked up by us without question from the market price.

One can perhaps make the best attempt to understand Gandhiji’s attitude towards womankind by a consideration of his relation with his mother. It is well known what a deep influence this devoutly religious woman exercised over her son in his boyhood days. The love for saintliness, for hard vows and an unflinching adherence to them even in the midst of severe trials, in other words, a heroic devotion to high ideals, were all apparently imbibed by Gandhiji from the example of his mother’s life. For these very traits in his mother’s character had evoked the deepest admiration withih his soul while he was yet very young.

It is also well known that before he started on a voyage for studies in England, it was at the instance of his mother that Gandhiji took a solemn vow before a Jain monk saying that he would never touch ‘wine, women and meat.’ It was only then that he could secure his blessings of his mother in undertaking a journey which was still considered taboo for members of his caste. Besides this, Gandhiji’s relations with his wife whom he had married even at the age of 13 also exercised a profound influence upon his life and opinions on the question of sex. An event of very great significance had taken place during his illness of his father when he was 16 years of age. A little while before his father breathed his last, Gandhiji had retired to his own room where his wife lay asleep. Within a few minutes, a servant knocked at the door to announce that his father was no more. In profound sorrow he wrote later on how deeply ashamed and miserable he felt. He ran to his father’s room. He saw that if ‘animal passion had not blinded him, he should have been spared torture of separation from his father during his last moment.’ Commenting on the event, he wrote again: ‘The shame of carnal desire even at the critical hour of my father’s death.. is a blot I have never been able to efface or forget, and I have always thought that, although my devotion to my parents knew no bounds and I would have given up anything for it, yet it was weighed and found unpardonably wanting because my mind was at the same moment in the grip of lust. I have therefore always regarded myself as lustful, though a faithful husband. It took me long to get free from the shackles of lust, and I jad to pass through ordeals before I could overcome it.’

It was in the year 1906, when he was 37 years of age,that he took the vow of continence or bramhacharya. Ever since that date, his relation with members of the other sex was progressively ‘purified’ and he felt that he was becoming a fitter instrument for the practice of the highest virtues of n on-violence. We may be permitted to assume that the repression of the sexual instinct was not only means oto a lofty end, but it was also a penance which Gandhiji voluntarily imposed upon himself for having proved untrue to his father during the last moments of his life.

Long afterwards, the question of Gandhiji’s relationship with the other sex came up for some amount of hostile criticism; and, in order to explain his stand, he wrote several articles and also made some public statements , a few of which bear reproduction and analysis. In the Harijan of September 21, 1935, there was an article entitled ‘A Renunciation’, which is reproduced below in full.

“ In 1891 after my return from England, I virtually took charge of the children of the family and introduced the habit of walking with them—boys and girls—putting my hands on their shoulders. These were my brothers’ children. The practice continued even after they grew old. With the extension of the family, it gradually grew to proportions sufficient to attract attention. I was unconscious of doing any wrong, so far as I can recollect, till some years ago at Sabarmati an inmate of the Ashram told me that my practice, when extended to grown-up girls and women, offended the accepted notion of decency. But after discussion with the inmates it was continued. Recently two co-workers who came to Wardha suggested that the practice was likely to set a bad example to others and that I should discontinue it on that account. Their argument did not appeal to me. Nevertheless I did not want to ignore the friends’ warning. I, therefore, referred it for examination and advice to five inmates of the Ashram. Whilst it was taking shape a decisive event took place. It was brought to my notice that a bright university student was taking all sorts of liberties in private with a girl who was under his influence, on the plea that heloved her like his own sister and could not restrain himself from some physical demonstration of it. He resented the slightest suggestion of impurity. Could I mention what the youth had been doing, the reader would unhesitatingly pronounce the liberties taken by him as impure. When I read the correspondence, I and those who saw it came to the conclusion that either the young man was a consummate hypocrite or was self-deluded. Anyway the discovery set me athinking. I recalled the warning of the two co-workers and asked myself how I would feel if I found that the young man was using my practice in its defence. I may mention that the girl who is the victim of the youth’s attentions, although she regards him as absolutely pure and brotherly, does not like them, even protests against them, but is too weak to resist his action. The self-introspection induced by the event resulted, within two or three days of the reading of the correspondence, in the renunciation of the practice, and I announced it to the inmates of the Wardha Ashram on the 12th instant. It was not without a pang that I came to the decision. Never has an impure thought entered my being during or owing to the practice. My act has always been open. I believe that my act was that of a parent and enabled the numerous girls under my guidance and wardship to give their confidences which perhaps no one else has enjoyed in the same measure. Whilst I do not believe in a brahmacharya which ever requires a wall of protection against the touch of the opposite sex and will fail if exposed to the least tempation, I am not unaware of the dangers attendant upon the freedom I have taken.

The discovery quoted by me has, therefore, prompted me to renounce the practice, however pure it may have been in itself. Every act of mine is scrutinized by thousands of men and women, as I am conducting an experiment requiring ceaseless vigilance. I must avoid doing things which may require a reasoned defence. My example was never meant to be followed by all and sundry. The young man’s case has come upon me as a warning. I have taken it in the hope that my renunciation will set right those who may have erred whether under the influence of my example or without it. Innocent youth is a priceless possession not to be squandered away for the sake of a momentary excitement, miscalled pleasure. And let the weak girls like the one in this picture be strong enough to resist the approaches, though they may be declared to be innocent, of young men who are either knaves or who do not know what they are doing.”

If anybody questioned Gandhiji’s purity in respect of sex, he could fly in to an anger; and an article written almost in an angry mood appeared in the Harijan of November 4, 1939. It was entitled ‘My Life’, and is reproduced below:

The following from its Allahabad correspondent appears in TheBombay Chronicle:

Startling revelations have come to light regarding what has been going round the House of Commons about Gandhiji. It is reported that Mr. Edward Thompson, the British historian who visited Allahabad recently, threw some light on the curious mentality prevailing in England. Mr. Thompson, who met some political leaders here, is reported to have told them three things going round the House of Commons regarding Gandhiji:

1. Gandhiji was for unconditional co-operation with the British Government.

2. Gandhiji could still influence the Congress.

3. There were various stories about Gandhiji’s sensual life, it being the impression that Gandhiji had ceased to be a saint.

Impressions about Gandhiji’s ‘sensual life’, it appeared to Mr. Thompson, were based on some Marathi papers. He spoke about them, I understand, to Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, who repudiated them. He spoke about them to Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Mr. P. N. Sapru also, who strongly repudiated them. It appears Mr. Thompson, before leaving England, had seen several members of the House of Commons. Mr. Thompson, before leaving Allahabad, sent a letter to Mr. Greenwood, M.P., on the suggestion of Pandit Nehru pointing out that the stories regarding Gandhiji were absolutely baseless.

Gandhi: “Mr. Thompson was good enough to visit Segaon. He confirmed the report as substantially correct.

The ‘unconditional co-operation’ is dealt with in another note.

The country will presently know the influence I have over the Congress.

The third charge needs clearing. Two days ago I received a letter signed by four or five Gujaratis sending me a newspaper whose one mission seems to be to paint me as black as it is possible for any person to be painted. According to its headline it is a paper devoted to ‘the organization of Hindus’. The charges against me are mostly taken from my confessions and distorted from their setting. Among many other charges, the charge of sensuality is most marked. My brahmacharya is said to be a cloak to hide my sensuality. Poor Dr.Sushila Nayyar has been dragged before the public gaze for the crime of giving me massage and medicated baths, the two things for which she is the best qualified among those who surround me. The curious may be informed that there is no privacy about these operations which take over 11/2 hours and during which I often go off to sleep but during which I also transact business with Mahadev, Pyarelal or other co-workers.

The charges, to my knowledge, began with my active campaign against untouchability. This was when it was included in the Congress programme and I began to address crowds on the subject and insisted on having Harijans at meetings and in the Ashram. It was then that some sanatanists, who used to help me and befriend me, broke with me and began a campaign of vilification. Later, a very high-placed Englishman joined the chorus. He picked out my freedom with women and showed up my ‘saintliness’ as sinfulness. In this chorus there were also one or two well-known Indians. During the Round Table Conference, American Journals indulged in cruel caricatures of me. Mirabai who used to look after me was the target of their attack. As far as I could understand Mr. Thompson, who knows the gentlemen who have been behind these charges, my letters to Premabehn Kantak, who is a member of the Sabarmati Ashram, have also been used to prove my depravity. She is a graduate and worker of proved merit. She used to ask questions relating to brahmacharya and other topics. I sent her full replies. She thought they might be of general use and she published them with my permission. I hold them to be absolutely innocent and pure.

Hitherto I have ignored these charges. But Mr. Thompson’s talks about them and the importunity of the Gujarati correspondents, who say the indictment sent by them is but a sample of what is being said about me, impel me to repudiate them. I have no secrets of my own in this life. I have owned my weaknesses. If I were sensually inclined, I would have the courage to make the confession. It was when I developed detestation of sensual connection even with my own wife and had sufficiently tested myself that I took the vow of brahmacharya in 1906, and that for the sake of better dedication to the service of the country. From that day began my open life. I do not remember having ever slept or remained with my own wife or other women with closed doors except for the occasions referred to in my writings in Young India and Navajivan. Those were black nights with me. But as I have said repeatedly God has saved me in spite of myself. I claim no credit for any virtue that I may possess. He is for me the Giver of all good and has saved me for His service.

From that day when I began brahmacharya, our freedom began. My wife became a free woman, free from my authority as her lord and master, and I became free from my slavery to my own appetite which she had to satisfy. No other woman had any attraction for me in the same sense that my wife had. I was too loyal to her as husband and too loyal to the vow I had taken before my mother to be slave to any other woman. But the manner in which my brahmacharya came to me irresistibly drew me to woman as the mother of man. She became too sacred for sexual love. And so every woman at once became sister or daughter to me. I had enough women about me at Phoenix. Several of them were my own relations whom I had enticed to South Africa. Others were co-workers’ wives or relatives. Among these were the Wests and other Englishmen. The Wests included West, his sister, his wife, and his mother-in-law who had become the Granny of the little settlement.

As has been my wont, I could not keep the new good thing to myself. So I presented brahmacharya for the acceptance of all the settlers. All approved of it. And some took it up and remained true to the ideal. My brahmacharya knew nothing of the orthodox laws governing its observance. I framed my own rules as occasion necessitated. But I have never believed that all contact with women was to be shunned for the due observance of brahmacharya. That restraint which demands abstention from all contact, no matter how innocent, with the opposite sex is a forced growth, having little or no vital value. Therefore natural contacts for service were never restrained. And I found myself enjoying the confidence of many sisters, European and Indian, in South Africa. And when I invited the Indian sisters in South Africa to join the civil resistance movement, I found myself one of them. I discovered that I was specially fitted to serve womankind. To cut the (for me enthralling) story short, my return to India found me in no time one with India’s women. The easy access I had to their hearts was an agreeable revelation to me. Muslim sisters never kept purdah before me here even as they did not in South Africa. I sleep in the Ashram surrounded by women for they feel safe with me in every respect. It should be remembered that there is no privacy in the Segaon Ashram.

If I were sexually attracted towards women, I have courage enough, even at this time of life, to become a polygamist. I do not believe in free love—secret or open. Free, open love I have looked upon as dog’s love. Secret love is besides cowardly.

Sanatanist Hindus may abhor my non-viloence. I know many of them think that Hindus will become cowards if they remain under my influence. I know of no man having become a coward under my influence. They may decry my non-violence as much as they like. But they ill serve themselves or Hinduism by indulging in palpable lies.”

It is interesting to observe in this connection how Gandhiji regarded the slightest trace of sexual excitement on his own part as a fall from the vow of bramhacharya, and how he considered public confession as the proper means of punishing himself for the lapse and also of relief from the feeling of sin which oppressed him. During a convalescence in 1936, there was an occasion when, while asleep, he had felt momentarily excited. This forthwith led to a confession entitled “Nothing without grace” in the Harijan of February 29, 1936, a part of which is being quoted below.

He wrote:

“I have been trying to follow brahmacharya consciously and deliberately since 1899. My definition of it is purity not merely of body but of both speech and thought also. With the exception of what must be regarded as one lapse, I can recall no instance, during more than thirty-six years' constant and conscious effort, of mental disturbance such as I experienced during this illness. I was disgusted with myself. The moment the feeling came I acquainted my attendants and the medical friends with my condition. They could give me no help. I expected none. I broke loose after the experience from the rigid rest that was imposed upon me. The confession of the wretched experience brought much relief to me. I felt as if a great load had been raised from over me. It enabled me to pull myself together before any harm could be done. But what of the Gita? Its teaching is clear and precise. A mind that is once hooked to the Star of stars becomes incorruptible. How far I must be from Him, He alone knows. Thank God, my much vaunted Mahatmaship has never fooled me. But this enforced rest has humbled me as never before. It has brought to the surface my limitations and imperfections. But I am not so much ashamed of them, as I should be of hiding them from the public. My faith in the message of the Gita is as bright as ever. Unwearied ceaseless effort is the price that must be paid for turning that faith into rich infallible experience. But the same Gita says without any equivocation that the experience is not to be had without divine grace. We should develop swelled heads if Divinity had not made that ample reservation.”

This violent reaction against any physical manifestation of sex and his psychological effort to become as pure as his mother, led Gandhiji into a profoundly significant attitude in public life.He was the fashioner of the instrument of non-violence in public life. All social evils need remedies; and the remedy can be either violent r non-violent. The essence of violence consists in inflicting punishment upon wrong-doer, which may eventually lead to his destruction if he does not correct himself. The essence of non-violence, on the other hand consists in resisting the evil of the wrong doer so that he is forced to shower punishment upon the non-violent man for his resistance or non-co operation with evil. If the latter does not bend, then his heroic suffering in a just cause is likely to evoke respect for him in the hear to f the wrong-doer, and the process of conversion begins. If it fails, the non-violent man takes more drastic steps, intensifies his non-coperation, invites more suffering; and eventually this may lead to his own destruction in contrast to the destruction of the evil-doer under violence. The way of non-violence thus becomes the way of heroic self-suffering in which the fighter never surrenders his respect for the personality of the opponent, and aims at his conversion rather than destruction. He tries to bring about a cessation of evil even with the co-operation of the erstwhile wrong-doer.

This deep respect for human personality coupled with infinite capacity for self-suffering was regarded by Gandhii as a characteristic specifically associated with the nature of woman.

In 1940, he wrote:

“My contribution to the great problem lies in my presenting for acceptance truth and ahimsa in every walk of life, whether for individuals or nations. I have hugged the hope that in this woman will be the unquestioned leader and, having thus found her place in human evolution, will shed her inferiority complex.

I have suggested in these columns that woman is the incarnation of ahimsa. Ahimsa means infinite love, which again means infinite capacity for suffering. Who but woman, the mother of man, shows this capacity in the largest measure ? She shows it as she carries the infant and feeds it during nine months and derives joy in the suffering involved. What can beat the suffering caused by the pangs of labour ? But she forgets them in the joy of creation. Who again suffers daily so that her babe may wax from day to day ? Let her transfer that love to the whole of humanity, let her forget she ever was or can be the object of man’s lust. And she will occupy her proud position by the side of man as his mother, maker and silent leader. It is given to her to teach the art of peace to the warring world thirsting for that nectar. She can become the leader in satyagraha which does not require the learning that books give but does require the stout heart that comes from suffering and faith.” (*Harijan, 24-2-1940, p.13)

“Woman is more fitted than man to make explorations and take bolder action in Ahimsa. For the courage of self-sacrifice woman is any day superior to man as I believe man is to woman for the courage of the brute.”(*Harijan 5-11-1938)

It follows from all this that, according to Gandhi, progress in civilization consisted in the introduction into human life and social institutions of a larger measure of the law of love or self-suffering which women represented best in her own person. This was a profoundly transformed projection on the broad canvas of social life of an attitude which had come into being in the privacy of his personal life.

In private life, too, Gandhiji’s relationship with individuals was deepened and modified in the same direction in which it moved in public. Thus we read in Manu Gandhi’s Bapu-My Mother, how he said to her:

“Have I not become your mother? I have been a father to many but only to you I am amother. A father does payattention to the bringing up of his children but the real education of a girl comes from mother.” “Ever since then.” writes Manu Gandhi, “Bapu began to bring me up just as a mother would bring up her own daughter of 14 or 15. A girl of that age is generally near her mother and her development requires the company of her mother. Bapu also began taking interests in the minutest details of my life, such as food, attire, my sickness, my visits and companions, my studies, right down to whether I thoroughly washed my hair every week and he continued to do so till his last moment.”

Gandhiji used to sleep under the open sky or in open room if the weather happened to be cold. There was no privacy about him because other men and women also slept near him and some even on the same bed. At an age bordering on 80, his circulation became poor, his feet had to be massaged every day with clarified butter, otherwise it tended to crack. On cold nights, he had occasional tremors which were difficult to control. These fits might continue for several minutes, and then it was the practice of his attendants to hold him tightly clasped to their bodies so as to restore warmth to his shivering fame.

On other occasions, too, Gandhiji’s body might have come in contact with other persons; and it is curious that he tried to ascertain from them if any impure feeling had, even momentarily, assailed their minds. It was his belief that if he was not wholly free from sensualism, it would not fail to evoke a kindred feeling in those who attended him. He held firmly that if his mind was completely free from lust, such an experience would spiritually prove elevating to both parties.

He made a reference to this in his letter to me dated the 17^th of March of 1947. Personally, I have had the feeling that the question which he had asked those who shared in his ‘experiment’ was whether they did not feel the same about him as they felt in respect of their mother. In such experiments, sex, which had long acted as a barrier to that complete identification which exists between a mother and child, was laid low and experimenter became free to enter upon a new relationship with men and women which was completely pure’, and therefore spiritually elevating.

Gandhi’s concern about the private, personal life of individuals, whether men or women, sprang from the same attitude of mind. This domestic concern had replied me originally and made me leave him for the time being; but it was a deep, spiritual attitude on his part which was the by-product of his attempt to conquer sex by becoming a woman. The intense concern which he evinced in the lives of men and women, and his ceaseless efforts at manipulating them, whether in the case of individuals or of communities, is therefore comparable to the manipulating technique exercised by LKeonardo da Vinci after the sublimation of his sexual impulse. Only, in the case of Leonardo da Vinci, it was exercised in respect of physical material, while in the case of Gandhi, it was in respect of human lives whether in the private or public sphere.Saints have lived in India who have been able to rise above the impulse of sex by indetifying themselves with those belonging to the opposite sex. In the case of the mystuic Shree Ramakrishna, it is said tha this psychological identification reached such a high degree that somatic changes followed, and discharges o fblood through the pores of the skin appeared periodically during one phase of his life, as in the case of women (* Shree Ramakrishna Leelaprasanga, Sadhak Bhava, 6^th Edition).

But Gandhiji, even within the secret recesses of his heart, never gave himself to such an absolute abandon to an intensity of feeling. He was less of an introvert, more closely bound to the world of sense- experience to develop such total exclusiveness of certain experiences as we observe in the case of Shree Ramakrishna. The bridge which held him on to the world of common men remained unbroken till the end of his days. If he had given way to an abandon as in the case of Shree Ramakrishna, we would have lost a leader of men, and the world would probably have been poorer thereby.

Inspite of that, this mother cult of Gandhi’s boyhood days remained throughout his life a very strong element in his philosophy, and he tried to enlist men and women in private as well as in public life to his cult of purity, love and self-suffering. This mission of civilization, which was Gandhi’s greatest contribution to modern life, was thus in the last analysis , an external projection of the larger canvas of the world’s life of the saintliness which was embodied in that noble woman who shone like a pole star over her son’s great life.

This projection again had become possible only because the son was a genius of action and organization to the end of his days the deep influence he had imbibed from the west during the formative period if his life. A typical Indian, without Gandhi’s history of western contact, would have given way to individual exclusiveness. He would undoubtedly have risen higher in the spiritual plane than Gandhiji, but would have done so by the sacrifice of his beneficial personal influence upon the lowlier lives of his fellow men.

The above analysis does not however mean in any way that Gandhi’ cult of non-violence can be dismissed as the idle fancy of private individual. The world has profited immensely by the physical investigations of Leonardo da Vinci even though they sprang from the humble depths of his personal history. In a similar manner, although the origin of Gandhi’s desire to purify and civilize mankind lay within the depths of his personal relationship with his mother, or to certain events of his boyhood days, yet the objective result does not lose any value thereby. His gift to mankind in the shape of a civilized form of collective action in satyagraha as a substitute for warfare, which is helplessly looked up on as the last instrument for the resolution of conflicts of interest in human society, will have to be experimented upon and judged on its own merits and not dismissed on account of its humble, personal origin.

Little known story of Mahadev Desai

A greatness of his own While many know him as Gandhi's secretary and translator of his autobiography, few have a real sense of the role Mahadev Desai played in the Mahatma's life. Venu Madhav Govindu finds an intimate and tender portrait of a man and his intensely lived life, in the Sahitya Akademi award winning biography by his son, The Fire and the Rose.http://www.indiatogether.org/2005/jan/rvw-firerose.htm

Memoirs of Manibhai Desai

The life of Dr. Manibhai Desai is of great inspirational value. He was but one of the hundreds of seeds that Gandhi sowed to leaven India. But he is unique in many ways. His is not a name that jostles with the likes of Patel, Nehru or Azad. Though he was of rural stock, he came from an affluent family and was a science graduate. He began his public life as an anarchist and only later embraced Gandhian ways. And when he did, he foreswore a personal life and plunged into the work that Gandhi set him. Despite that devotion to Gandhi, he was not an unquestioning disciple. As he built BAIF as a modern institution he displayed a flexibility that orthodox Gandhians tend to frown at. Manibhai Desai was indeed an exceptional Gandhian.http://www.goodnewsindia.com/Pages/content/institutions/manibhaiDesai/preface.html

Truth, lies and effects

Through this article I want to show how lying actually does more harm to us than any good.The examples I am going to give are mostly found among to be used by youth between age of 18 to 23. I have lied many times untill I understood the harm they have done to me. Through this article it is my honest attempt to stop those whom I can from lying.

For students, lies can be broadly classified into

1] Lies to Parents
2] Lies to Teachers
3] Lies to Friends

Lets take the first point - Lies to Parents. Before that, I am sure that all of you will agree that the only goal of the student is to get educated and get as good results as the student can in examinations. The examples can be many but most common ones are (the ones I am guilty of)

1] Monetary lies to get more pocket money for various expenses

I used to live as a hostelite during my engineering days. As with most of the hostelites, my parents used to send me some money reularly for the living expenses. It was enough for accommodation, travel, food and miscelleneous expenses for education and entertainment. Somehow, I needed more money to cover some expenses which I could not tell my parents about. They were actually bad habits. I justified such action to myself thinking that my parents will feel bad and get angry. Living away from them gave me the liberty as far as time is concerned and by lying to them about the expenses, I was able to get money to indulge in so called 'cool' things. What I failed to realise at that time was that such acts will harm me in the long term in many ways. Not only they harm my health, I get habituated to it and then spend lot of time on it. Time vital for my studies which I could have used to get ahead in competition, score good marks and finally get a good job after I finished engineering. To be successful one needs to be strong and focussed on the job at hand. By lying, I actually harmed myself and my prospects in the future. It made me lie more (next examples)

2] Reasons for scoring less marks which actually is a direct effect of example 1.

The typical reasons that I used to give were sickness, power cuts, headaches etc. I failed once and I used sickness as the reason for it, but the reason was something else. I was not courageous to tell the truth. Again I failed to realise that this was the chance god had given me to correct my mistakes and if I told truth now, though my parents would get angry, I would get rid of the real reasons of my failure and I will get more focussed for producing good results. By lying now, I hid all my mistakes and though I got more careful about my studies, I still used to waste time in the similar activities. I did pass but not with good marks. Had I told my parents the entire truth, it would have given me strength to get rid of those activities and focus only on studies.

Second Point - Lies to Teachers I dont think I need to tell any of you about this as this is very common. We lie when we are late for lectures (train was late, bus was late, too much traffic, punctured tyre etc.) Well I dont say that it was not true all the times, but most of the times it was. We wanted to get away from the immediate reprimand, but we didnt think of the larger affect it would have on us.I remember an incident in first year of engineering. I liked Mechanical Engineering and I used to attend all the lectures of the subject. Once I was late for the lecture and I gave a similar reason. The truth was that I went to a late night movie and then got up late in the morning. Incidentally, the lecturer had seen us there and he knew the reason why I was late. He told the class the reason I was late but let me sit in the lecture. Later on he told me that he allowed me to sit as it was an important topic. When it came to submission of assignments, we again had a range of reasons of not completing them on time. We didn't care to submit the assignments on time and then on the last dates we used to ask for extension. These were the times for internal vivas and since we were not able to study for them, we used to lose marks and more importantly, we lose a chance of gaining knowledge which harms us even more in the longer run. The point I want to make is that lying to teachers might get us out of the immediate reprimand, but it makes our job difficult in the long term. A simple truth here would have given us strength to rectify ourselves. It would have given us the thirst for more knowledge and strength to finish the assignments before time and ask the teachers for improvements, or try some extra curricular activities.

Third Point - Lies to friends This I feel is the main reason for lies we tell in points 1 & 2.

We lie to friends about our social status, girlfriends, financial status, habits etc. And to give credibility to ourselves in our friends eyes, we indulge in all the things which make us lie to our parents and teachers. Lies to friends is primary reason why students pick up bad habits and in some extreme cases, it makes us steal. Obviously this is not what we came to learn.

The main point of the article that I want to make is that truth gives us strength and lies make us weak. In short term, lies might look like a tool to get away from an immediate reprimand, but we do not realise the harm it does to us in long term.

Lies might appear to do good, the good they do is temporary, but the evil they do is permanent.

First they ignore you..

See this add from Red Hat Linux.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_VFKqw1q2Q

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
-- Mohandas Gandhi

Misdirected Intolerance

Yes, we all are guilty of misdirecting our intolerance. I will come up with examples of that, but before that, what I want to say here is that we should be intolerant towards injustice to anyone of us by us of by someone else. I will also try to show how our misdirected intolerance can have far reaching effects and how our intolerance for the right causes can change so many things.
We all blame the government for sorry state of affairs. Cleanliness, Traffic, Health and Safety, corruption, are the issues which affect us daily among others.
Gandhiji had said, "Be the change you want to bring in the world". And we all know that self governance is the first step towards good governance.
Let me come up with examples of Misdirected Intolerance where changing our habits is the best solution.

1] Stopping our vehicles right on pedestrian crossing

At traffic signals, if we want to cross, we obviously look for a pedestrian crossing (the zebra crossing, yes that one). How frustrated we feel when we see a vehicle standing on it blocking our way and we do not find any space to cross the road without putting our safety in jeopardy and then hurl abuses at the government. How many times I myself have done that while I used to be in engineering college, though towards the end of the college, I realized my mistake and changed myself. That line belongs to pedestrians and for god sake; it is only a 5 or 10 meters in width. It is not going to create any difference to the vehicle owners but keeping vehicles off it is going to help the pedestrians a lot. The problem arises when we forget while on or in a vehicle that we also are pedestrians sometimes and we hate it when some vehicle stands on it. I hope the reader respects, from next time onwards, the stop line and would stop just before the pedestrian crossing. Isn't it a very simple solution for everyone? We should be intolerant towards ourselves not respecting such facilities.

2] Not waiting for the green light to appear before taking off.

We have all done it and some of us do it even now. I am also guilty of this sin. But sanity says that it is very risky and 5 to 10 seconds wait for the light to go green is not going to do any damage. We often reason to ourselves and others that we would be able to save time by doing this, which we all know is not true and if we have to save time; we can start early rather than starting at our own stretch (Indian Stretchable Time). Frankly speaking, the risk in such an adventure/endeavor/habit is too high and can result in someone's death (maybe ours). And if we are able to avoid this, the traffic policeman can do the job he is actually supposed to do, that is manage the traffic and this will also help in improving our security situation.

3] Crossing the tracks

We are literates, aren't we? We know that crossing the tracks at the places where it is not manned or where there are other ways like over bridge available is illegal and risky. But with the intelligence we have (pun intended), we cross the tracks, the wrong way and at times face the music for this transgression! We are intolerant for the effort we need to make to climb the bridge which is incorrect. We should be intolerant towards ourselves crossing the tracks and we should insist at the least to people we know to not do the same.

4] When waiting outside the ATM.

We don't wait for the other person to come out, we enter as soon as his card is out of the machine and if he waits inside to read some brochure, he is an idiot and we have all the right to go in. Is it right? Obviously not! The person inside the ATM centre has not come to live there and he has the right to privacy and right to send the intruder to prison as well.

5] When littering everywhere

First thing the government should do is clean the roads. Look at Singapore, the roads are so clean, you will not find even a single piece of paper on the road. How many times have we said that, how many times have we blamed the government, when we all know that it is us who are to be blamed for littering on the road. We are intolerant towards the litter full streets but its very easy for us to drop anything that we do not need on the roads. We should be intolerant towards littering ourselves.

6] When eating at places where healthy practices of cooking food are not followed

We eat at those shoddy places and then blame the government for not keeping tabs on such places and in turn expect the government to come up with additional schemes like licensing etc. We all are educated; well enough to see that the cooking practice is not healthy in those places and even after all these we eat there just because it is cheap. Often this is the case that it leads to medical problems and it puts strain on the medical system of the country. We should be avoiding eating at such places and also ask others to follow the same. This has a lot of potential to solve many things including the illegal hawkers occupying the pavements, child labor other than reducing the strain on the medial system.

7] Waste of electricity and water

Nothing needs to be explained here I think.

8] Corruption.

I am living a corruption free life from 2003 onwards. I know it is difficult sometimes, but officials are corrupt because we give them a chance to be. As literates, it is very easy for us to find out the procedures and rules and if we are to change the system, we have to change ourselves first.

The examples could be infinite and the reader is invited to make his or her own observations and imagination. Self governance in such simple things can itself make a lot of difference to the nation. A nation is as good as its citizens.

Who gave independence to India?

India was granted independence by the British electorates! Please note; had Winston Churchill won the elections in 1945, there would not have been any question of independence to India- during his reign. Agreed, the idea of granting independence was in the air, for quite some time then, and Indian National Congress had already started celebrating its independence day on 26 January since 1930; yet even for that the credit accrues to Gandhi!

Churchill a war Hero, and still a hero today for the whites anywhere in the globe, was defeated at the heights of his fame- just after winning the world war-II!

And who was the alternative? Atlee! What was the issue? A just dispensation for India!

Do you think if we grant dominion status to Kashmir, at this point, it would be due to our fear of Kasab or any of those bastards, who created mayhem in Mumbai? Saying yes would be like saying the victorious Britons were afraid of Bhagat Singh or Subhash Bose!

The moral substratum of the British colonialism, who claimed to be the most civilized race, was to bring civilization to the barbarians. Have you not heard of the claim “The white mans burden”? Now that claim no longer appealed to an average Briton and who was responsible for this paradigm shift? GANDHI- spelt in capital intentionally.

Let’s not forget the milieu and the peculiarity of Indian independence struggle. Far more than the Britons, the Indian Kings, upper castes and the landed gentry were a real terror for the poor Indians, who clearly constituted the vast majority. Gandhi held out an honorable and practical alternative in the form of ‘Satyagraha’ before the educated mass, who mostly came from the above privileged classes. Many dived into the national renaissance brought about by Gandhi and choose education, social justice, sanitation work, charkha and a very moral life instead of a life of ease and comfort.
As the social reforms undertaken were monumental and Gandhi has no desperation like an extremist the British were really at a loss. Their predicament was compounded when many of their ilk started admiring Gandhi and white followers like Mira Behn, Andrews and Kallenbach made a big difference. The Gandhi magic made the mighty British weak from inside and like any moral struggle it happened over four decades, which includes their engagement in South Africa also.

The Mahatma did not hate the British and became a mahatma for an average Briton also. The capitulation of Britons was inevitable in these back drops and that unfolded the most significant event ever to have happened in human history- Indian independence!
M. A. Jinnha- who was an atheist and hence a secular had misgivings regarding the Mahatma due to his proclivities and wanted to pursue his ambitions and that tinged the above extraordinary event with blood. Even here the Gandhi magic saved many lives in the eastern frontier and that gave rise to the famous cliché of Lord Mountbatten – “My one man army”- and it goes without saying that this one man army proved to be much more successful than the entire might of the British army in India.

People who are obsessed with Brahmanism and hence have a strong dislike for a humanist Nehru blame him and his entire family for all ills of India, they are quite innocent of a humanitarian concept like ‘secularism’ notwithstanding.
People who think the British left being afraid of extremists grossly ignore the following facts:
Nirad C Chaudhury dedicated his famous 'Autobiography of an unknown Indian' to The British Raj even after they had gone! He had a very good grasp of the then prevailing situation and in retrospect though we may call him to be an anglophile, he represented a good number of Indians who looked upon the British as their emancipators.

Listening about the imminent grant of independence to India a good number of Indian Judges sought British citizenship- for they expected anarchy afterwards- and on being granted the same gleefully immigrated abroad.

Most of the titled gentry - Rai bahadur etc- flaunted their titles and they did not hesitate even to betray their sons to show their loyalty to the Raj.

Most Indians coveted and still covet a British degree

Most British servants were very loyal to the Raj


Where as 30,000 ppl actively participated for quit India Movement more than 87,000 Indian soldiers died in world war- II

Compared to the loyalty of the Indian civil servants and the poor Indian subjects the opposition of extremist elements pales into oblivion.

In fact the British dispensation gave human dignity to the Dalits and women and abolished many abominable traditions like ‘Sati’ etc. Thomas Babington Macaulay laid the foundation stone for mass education, which till then was mainly limited to the upper caste Hindus except for some fortunate Moslems, who had their own avenues.

Ambedkar wanted a Dalitstan:
Ambedkar wanted a Dalitstan and its no secret that he wholeheartedly supported Pakistan. The rationale of Ambedkar behind Dalitstan was the same which created Pakistan. from the view point of a dalit they were far better off under the British than under upper class Hindus and hence the Dalits actually supported the British and the number of dalits and minorities was/is far bigger than the privileged Hindus.

But then there was one GANDHI and he just fired every ones imagination, that included the British also alas Jinnah like Savarkar wanted to play with the sword of religion, being atheists they did not believe in religion though!

if we saw such a large number of ppl participating in Salt Satyagraha and Quit India Movement the credit goes to Gandhi and also the British, who unlike barbaric Indian kings respected democracy and peoples voice and did not try foul means to eliminate Gandhi.

Britons were grief stricken when they heard about the assassination of Gandhi and that goes in to prove the reach of the Mahatma and the actual underpinnings behind the story of our independence, in the mid night of 15 august 1947.