Non violence was Mahatma Buddha’s (as also Mahavira) contribution to the world which Gandhi used as a political strategy. Thoreau gave protest a meaning through Civil Disobedience. This was brilliantly used by Gandhi to do deal with Britishers. What is significant about Gandhi was his pursuit on truth –satyagraha. This was a b
rilliant idea since Satyagraha was considered personal but he made it societal, a mass movement. What sages for ages pursued in secluded mountains and later disseminated to people through teachings he made it an action -a new take on karma. An attempt on society that stands for fairness and justice. His contribution is in this ability to organize people on these lines, providing a foundation on building a just society.
What is however unmaking of Gandhi is his ‘followers’. Gandhians have done more damage than probably organized mafia particularly who masquerade Gandhism in public places. The policy makers had lots of opportunities in 50s and 60s but they turned Gandhi as a mascot to hide their incompetence (bias) so what was a brilliant idea got reduced into strategy in inaction and vacillation. Gandhi then and now is used to score brownie points than for actual action, it bred corruption and apathy. It created a class of people who made a career out Gandhism and fattened themselves at the expense of millions of poor people. Elite lapped to Gandhism since it was a safe bet, no land reforms, no laws on social mobility just keeping talking about non violence and ‘changing minds’. Wonder what ‘changing minds’ meant? People express ‘change of mind’ through elections is it not? Further laws are consolidation of these ‘changes of mind’ is it not? Gandhism has nothing to do with ‘changing the mind’ of corrupt or criminals; it has to be dealt firmly with law otherwise don't have laws! They maybe taught compassion once inside jail. Law machinery need to be strengthened. Gandhi's methodolgy is significant when the laws are unjust.
Understand Gandhi, understand his teachings, and understand the context in which he worked and the eternal value of his views. Understand the significance of non violence and the brilliance of Satyagraha. Understand his acumen for mass mobilisation and use of symbols. Understand the beauty of his effort, understand the simplicity which was so endearing, understand the greatness of the man. But be very beware of Gandhians. The kind of stagnation of society has to do with manipulations in the name of Gandhism in the earlier part of national development wherein the need was not of 'change of mind’ of elites but revolutionary laws to keep with aspiration of majority. The need was to take over the lands of ‘trustees of nation’ and redistribute it as democracy demanded. Now on the contrary they are taking away land for SEZs in most case meaning land mafia. So much for Father of the Nation. If some zeal was shown in lawmaking then maybe we could have had more equitable society. This nation has lost that chance.
rilliant idea since Satyagraha was considered personal but he made it societal, a mass movement. What sages for ages pursued in secluded mountains and later disseminated to people through teachings he made it an action -a new take on karma. An attempt on society that stands for fairness and justice. His contribution is in this ability to organize people on these lines, providing a foundation on building a just society.What is however unmaking of Gandhi is his ‘followers’. Gandhians have done more damage than probably organized mafia particularly who masquerade Gandhism in public places. The policy makers had lots of opportunities in 50s and 60s but they turned Gandhi as a mascot to hide their incompetence (bias) so what was a brilliant idea got reduced into strategy in inaction and vacillation. Gandhi then and now is used to score brownie points than for actual action, it bred corruption and apathy. It created a class of people who made a career out Gandhism and fattened themselves at the expense of millions of poor people. Elite lapped to Gandhism since it was a safe bet, no land reforms, no laws on social mobility just keeping talking about non violence and ‘changing minds’. Wonder what ‘changing minds’ meant? People express ‘change of mind’ through elections is it not? Further laws are consolidation of these ‘changes of mind’ is it not? Gandhism has nothing to do with ‘changing the mind’ of corrupt or criminals; it has to be dealt firmly with law otherwise don't have laws! They maybe taught compassion once inside jail. Law machinery need to be strengthened. Gandhi's methodolgy is significant when the laws are unjust.
Understand Gandhi, understand his teachings, and understand the context in which he worked and the eternal value of his views. Understand the significance of non violence and the brilliance of Satyagraha. Understand his acumen for mass mobilisation and use of symbols. Understand the beauty of his effort, understand the simplicity which was so endearing, understand the greatness of the man. But be very beware of Gandhians. The kind of stagnation of society has to do with manipulations in the name of Gandhism in the earlier part of national development wherein the need was not of 'change of mind’ of elites but revolutionary laws to keep with aspiration of majority. The need was to take over the lands of ‘trustees of nation’ and redistribute it as democracy demanded. Now on the contrary they are taking away land for SEZs in most case meaning land mafia. So much for Father of the Nation. If some zeal was shown in lawmaking then maybe we could have had more equitable society. This nation has lost that chance.
Elite now have assumed that they can never be wrong, infact the McMedia is playing on the game that nobody can be wrong. It is about different opinion, different views. Off course they are right when it is about individuals but when it affects us it is no longer that simplistic there is line of right and wrong. The socio-economical decisions have the context of society. As Gandhiji said “whether it helps the poorest of poor” the “Daridranarayan” or shall we say the marginalized as also the Nature. This is where the line needs to be drawn. It is about defining ‘Development’. It is about understanding ‘sustainability’ (the need not greed). The policies of the Government, Corporate and Media need work on these lines. How about RTI in Corporate on issues which effect our environment, natural resources and labour? Gandhi’s relevance has only increased in recent times. He was one rarest of rarest human to have lived in recent times.
On a lighter note: For Gandhians to ‘experiment’ they need followers and they did ‘experiment’ happily for years after independence but in last two decades or so the people from lower strata of society have mobilized themselves (except the tribals who have turned to Naxalism) and have left most Gandhians stranded……not bad at all.
On a lighter note: For Gandhians to ‘experiment’ they need followers and they did ‘experiment’ happily for years after independence but in last two decades or so the people from lower strata of society have mobilized themselves (except the tribals who have turned to Naxalism) and have left most Gandhians stranded……not bad at all.
