When I was visiting Gujarat during eighties when
frequent caste and communal violence was taking place I did not find a single
Gandhian in Ahmedabad (which has Sabarmati Ashram) who could dare communalists
or even undertake an indefinite fast (as most powerful tool Gandhi employed to
fight communal violence) to stop communal frenzy. In fact during 2002 those in
charge of Sabarmati Ashram did not allow a peace meeting to be held on their
premises by peace activists like Medha
Patkar and others
fearing state government may stop their grant. How such Gandhians who care for
state grant can ever practice ideals of Gandhian philosophy based on the concept
of human behavior purged of all vested interests. -- Asghar Ali
Engineer
By Asghar Ali
Engineer
The extreme violence the world
is experiencing in 21st century is of bit different type – what world now calls
it terrorist violence in the post-9/11 situation. In a way violence is violence
by whatever name we call it. Wars until twentieth century were representative of
aggressive invasions by some countries against the other, or some nations
against other nations. However, terrorist violence has two characteristics: one,
it is not frontal war (but not guerilla war either) and two, it is more of a
reactive violence.
Recent terroristic attacks by
Naxalites or Maoists, whatever we choose to call them, are of the intensity
which have disturbed the whole country. Also, the brutality with which jihadis
in Pakistan are killing are highly disturbing as well. The attack last Friday
i.e. on 28th May on Ahmedi Mosques in Lahore killing 70 persons who
were
praying inside the two mosques
shook the conscience of humanity.
India produced apostle of
non-violence in the person of Gandhi in the last century and he liberated India
from clutches of British colonialism through non-violent means. Many people
begin to raise question in the face of such terroristic attacks on innocent
civilians as to the relevance of Gandhiji’s non-violence in our era. Has Gandhi
become irrelevant? Is he fit only for paying rich tributes on his birth day or
day of martyrdom, and nothing else?
It is for Gandhian philosophers
to answer these questions. Are those who proclaim themselves to be Gandhians,
take Gandhi and his philosophy seriously? Or Gandhism has also become a sort of
religion with certain rituals and priesthood with certain ashrams and properties
thrown in? Where are active Gandhians? Gandhi was not mere philosopher of
non-violence but an active practitioner who made it a
way of life.
When I was visiting Gujarat
during eighties when frequent caste and communal violence was taking place I did
not find a single Gandhian in Ahmedabad (which has Sabarmati Ashram) who could
dare communalists or even undertake an indefinite fast (as most powerful tool
Gandhi employed to fight communal violence) to stop communal frenzy. In fact
during 2002 those in charge of Sabarmati Ashram did not allow a peace meeting to
be held on their premises by peace activists like Medha
Patkar and others fearing state
government may stop their grant. How such Gandhians who care for state grant can
ever practice ideals of Gandhian philosophy based on the concept of human
behavior purged of all vested interests.
Let us first understand crucial
elements of Gandhian philosophy of non-violence. Gandhiji always spoke of
Satyagraha and Ahimsa i.e. insistence on truth and non-violence. Both concepts
are integral to each other. No non-violence is possible without truth and no
truth is possible without non-violence either. Also, we often say God is truth
but Gandhiji reversed this and said Truth is God.
Why truth and non-violence are
integral to each other is because truth has to be non-coercive and based on
deeper conviction. An element of coercion would contaminate truth. Violence, on
the other hand, is highest degree of coercion and is used to make people believe
what they do not want to believe and accept what they do not want to accept.
Thus violence and truth are totally opposed to each other.
Non-violence, on the other hand,
guarantees freedom of conscience and people are free to base their behavior on
their deeper conviction. Self interests would also contaminate truth and lead to
unauthentic behavior and hence violence. Thus a non-violent behavior should have
following attributes: 1) It must be based on genuine conviction; 2) it should be
truthful and 3) it should be based on freedom of conscience. Any behavior
lacking these attributes is likely to lead to violence.
It is also important to
understand that by violence we should not only mean physical violence. Violence
can be subdivided into three categories: 1) physical violence leading to injury
or death; 2) violence by words and 3) violence of ethical norms and fundamental
values. Physical violence could be either individual or of nations and
communities; similarly violence by words also can imply individual
or
group or entire nation and of
course violation of norms could be cultural norms of a civilizational group or
those of an individual.
Another important dimension is
that behavior such as this is possible only if an individual or a collectivity
(a group, nation or religious or cultural community) is possible only when one
is constant communication with ones inner self and is very well conscious of
ones own ethical norms and civilizational values. Such a communication is sin
qua non of authentic behavior.
Interestingly an American Jesuit
and a Gandhian John Merton describes such a communication as ‘encounter with
solitude’. One can deeply reflect and have encounter with ones self only when
one communicates with oneself in complete solitude unaffected by what goes on
out there and totally concentrates on what is inside ones own authentic self.
That is why all Rishis, saints and prophets never neglected this deep reflection
and communication with ones own self and thus discovered
truth.
Of course this authentic
communication with self can be sub-divided into two categories: 1) one who does
it for self knowledge and does or does not want to communicate with the world
outside him or her and 2) one who not only wants to communicate with the world
at large but also wants to transform the world. Many prophets and Gandhi himself
in our own time falls into second category.
Gandhi was primarily an activist
and was not only in search of truth but also wanted to see truth in action. For
such people justice and freedom not only of the self but of the entire people or
nation become central. Such people not only transform themselves but know that
individual transformation would mean nothing without transforming the world
around them. This is what Gandhiji set about to do both in South Africa and in
India when he returned to his own country.
Thus from above discussion we
can conclude that for a non-violent world following conditions must be
fulfilled: 1) the world order has to be based on truthfulness and justice and 2)
non-coercive and genuine convictions and freedom of self or of nations and
communities. Since today our world lacks all this violence has become all
pervasive around us either aggressive violence of one country or nation
against
another country or nation or
reactive violence of resistance groups, freedom fighters or even of
terrorists.
I would also like to say here
that those who follow founder of such movements often fail to rise up to the
ethical standards of its founders and soon the movement develops vested interests and becomes a powerful
establishment, the very anti-thesis of the original movement. Gandhian movement
could not escape this irony. Not only after Gandhiji’s death but in his life
itself Gandhi began to become irrelevant with dawn of freedom. Gandhi was no
more needed as freedom
was there and now power was the
goal. Gandhi’s advice was no more needed as it could deliver values, not
power.
And then Gandhian movement was
soon transformed into an establishment with allotments of lands, formation of
trusts, control over properties and so on. Even worse, it lost its dynamic
spirit and became orthodoxy with its symbol of spinning wheel and khadi without
much relevance to new economic realities. Thus Gandhians, devoid of creative
thinking became ritualistic.
Now coming to all pervasive
violence in the contemporary world how relevant is Gandhism? Its relevance
depends of course on truth, justice and freedom form coercion. Since these
attributes are lacking how can we have a violence-free world? These attributes
are sin qua non and despite everyone talking of Gandhian non-violence, violence
remains all pervasive.
Can we then say violence-free
world is just a dream? In a sense yes but not quite so. One must dream a dream
but one also needs an activist like Gandhi with creative thinking and practical
application. The concept of non-violence has been there for centuries as all
spiritual thinkers, Prophets, Rishi and Munis have emphasized it but it was
Gandhi in twentieth century who practically and creatively
applied for freedom of the
country.
The problem of violence has
become much more complex with highly destructive weapons based on latest
technology and hence results in loss of heavy life, less of actual combatants
but mostly of non-combatants. It is, therefore, highly necessary that violence
in our world which is highly unjust, highly unevenly developed
and
promotes greed among few,
ignoring needs of vast majority of people and is heavily biased in favor of few
rich nations, to creatively apply non-violent methods of resistance to save
humanity.
Should we wait for another
Gandhi? It will be our weakness to wait for one. We need collective value-based
thinking. We must transform our education system and make it accessible to
poorest of poor again through creative methods, an education system which is
cooperative, not competitive. Gandhian concept of economy has to be just and
need based and our education system has to promote this concept of economy with
creative use of modern technology. We can then hope to contain
violence at least on local
levels.
Centre for Study of Society and
Secularism, Mumbai.
E-mail: csss@mtnl.net.in
9:33 PM
Sultan Shahin
0 comments:
Post a Comment