Dormant Gandhi in all of us
Sonia Gandhi
Gandhian truth: The world knows greatness in many forms. There are
the great who won celebrated military victories; the great who have
deepened our knowledge of the physical universe; the great who have
helped us understand the workings of the human mind; the great who by
their inventions have transformed the way we live.
|
|
Mahatma Gandhi |
Sonia Gandhi |
Mahatma Gandhi stands in a category of his own. He too was an
inventor but of a different kind: an inventor of a unique way of
protest, struggle, emancipation and empowerment. His generalship lay not
in making war but in waging peace. His weaponry was not arms and
ammunition but "truth force", "satyragraha", as he called it.
The moral universe was his field of action. He explored a whole new
dimension of the human psyche-its capacity to willingly accept
suffering, even unto death, not to attain the kingdom of heaven, but a
better world here and now, through social and political change.
When Mahatma Gandhi launched the first satyragraha campaign in
Johannesburg on September 11, 1906, he issued a clarion call for
non-violent resistance against racial discrimination, oppression and
injustice. He described satyragraha as "a force born of truth and the
love of non-violence", a moral equivalent of war.
After 21 years in South Africa, where his views took shape and were
tested, he carried the torch of satyragraha to India. The world saw with
amazement how this unique technique energised millions of men and women
to bring a mighty empire to its knees.
Mahatma Gandhi was a many-sided personality to an unusual degree. He
was a man of peace who did not hesitate to fight for what he believed to
be right; a political strategist who shunned conventional politics and
held no office; a thinker and a philosopher who was a man of action.
He adapted himself to changing situations without compromising or
abandoning his basic values. He respected tradition, yet he was an
iconoclast. He embodied spirituality.
But his was a spirituality rooted in service to and empowerment of
the disadvantaged and underprivileged. He was impatient for cataclysmic
change. Yet he shunned violence in any form as an instrument to force
the pace of change.
A common response to Gandhian thought, word and deed is that it was
extraordinarily effective given the times he lived in, but in today's
world, which is dramatically different, it would be naive and
unrealistic to expect his methods to be effective. I beg to disagree.
It is true that the world of today is vastly different from the world
of Mahatma Gandhi. The fundamental issue he was confronted with, namely
colonial subjugation, has disappeared from our world. Racial
discrimination too has been blunted significantly.
At the same time, new threats to peace, harmony and stability have
emerged. It is one of the paradoxes of the 21st century that while the
establishment of peace has become the world's single greatest
imperative, the traditional instruments of preserving peace have been
found to be increasingly ineffective.
Whether it is ethnic nationalism or religious chauvinism, economic
inequality or military might, there is no doubt that we are in great
need of a new paradigm for solving conflicts.
Today, we face the challenge posed by continuing confrontation in the
name of religion and ethnicity. At its worst, this is terrorism, which
inflicts untold suffering on innocent women, men and children. We also
confront the challenge of growing inequality both within and amongst
nations.
Economic disparities are accentuated by lack of access to education,
health and food security. To these are now added the new threat of
environmental degradation and climate change, as well as new diseases
like HIV-AIDS.
The question to ask is not whether Mahatma Gandhi is relevant or
not.The real issue is whether we have the courage and strength of mind
to follow in his footsteps, whether we are prepared to live our lives by
what he preached and most importantly, practised.
The simple truth is that instead of diminishing in relevance, Mahatma
Gandhi has actually become all the more pertinent in the 21st century.
Whichever the challenge we confront, you can be sure that the Gandhian
way is a real, live option, an option that informs and illuminates.
But we would be doing him great injustice if we didn't interpret, in
contemporary terms, what he spelt out in the context of his times. He
would have wanted us to experiment and find our own way without
compromising our fundamental beliefs.
Mahatma Gandhi bequeathed to us three guiding principles: Ahimsa (or
non-violence), Satyragraha (or the force born of truth and non-violence)
and Sarvodaya (or upliftment of all). It is the value of these
principles that we have to rediscover if we want to deal effectively
with today's challenges. Let me take the challenge of inequality first.
The essence of Gandhi's political philosophy was the empowerment of
every individual, irrespective of class, caste, colour, creed or
community. To him, extreme poverty was itself a form of violence.
Democracy has become the preferred form of government in the 21st
century, yet sadly his "notion of democracy" is far from being
universally accepted.
We now recognise that political liberty must go hand-in-hand with
economic progress. But to be truly meaningful, this growth has to be
equitable. Economic growth also has to be consistent with the
imperatives of environmental conservation and stewardship.
What is the Gandhian perspective on economic growth? It is that
wealth created and generated must contribute, first and foremost, to a
larger social purpose and cause. By stating this in today's world, we do
not negate the principles of profit and commerce.
But we do underline the need to use a part of the wealth created to
better the quality of life of those whose voices remain unheard.
Observing the rush to consumerism that is so evident today, Mahatma
Gandhi would also most likely have reminded us that a modicum of
austerity would not be out of place.
For many, Mahatma Gandhi was and continues to be the ultimate
touchstone of moral authority. This means judging all our actions in
word and deed on the touchstone of public purpose. Public purpose itself
has to be judged against the yardstick of the welfare and well-being of
the poorest and most deprived in the land.
Let me now turn to conflict. Here I would straightaway say that
Gandhi would give primacy to the search for the underlying causes of
conflict. Violence can be wanton and senseless. But often, conflicts can
be symptoms of a deeper malaise that needs to be understood.
This is not to romanticise violence Gandhi never did. But it is to
analyse why it occurs and address it at its very source and root.
The political discourse, these days, is centred on a global war on
terror. And indeed, terrorists who target innocent men, women and
children deserve no quarter. But today's enemies are not just
individuals, they are also ways of thinking and perceiving the world
itself. Countering violence with even more violence provides no durable
solution.
Whatever else Gandhi may have done in our circumstances, surely
strengthening the wellsprings of discourse and dialogue must play a
central part in it. And he would have gone even further.
He would have looked within himself. For him, external engagement
went hand-in-hand with internal interrogation. In reaching out, he would
first and foremost have asked himself "To what extent am I myself
responsible?"
If democracies are going to wage a war against terrorism, the
measures adopted should be consistent with and not contrary to the
values of democracy.This is in keeping with the Gandhian consonance of
ends and means. "There are many causes that I am prepared to die for,"
he said, "but no causes that I am prepared to kill for".
What would the Gandhian perspective on the so-called "clash of
civilisations" be? Actually, he would summarily reject the very idea of
such a clash. He never accepted the exclusivist approach to religion,
culture or civilisation. The Mahatma fervently believed in the pivotal
role of religion in everyday life.
He saw it as an ethical and moral mooring to all our actions private
and public. But his was a faith that drew from every religion, a faith
that was all-inclusive. When asked about his religious belief, he said,
"Yes, I am a Hindu. I am also a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist and a
Jew."
And what of the future? Conflict and inequality seem an inevitable
part of the human condition. Gandhi's greatest lesson to the world was
that this need not be destructively so. Conflicts can be resolved and
inequalities contained. But without worthy means, worthy ends can never
be attained. Will the 21st century see the fulfilment of Gandhi's
vision?
Or will non-violence be viewed as outdated and utopian? All around
us, we witness that violence cannot bring about peace, that violence
only begets violence and spirals on. It is my fervent hope that the
world will embrace Gandhian truth and action and that you, my young
friends here, will be among its torchbearers.
(This is an edited version of the lecture, "Relevance of Gandhian
Philosophy in the 21st Century", delivered at Cape Town University,
South Africa, on August 23, 2007. - Outlook |