news details |
|
|
| Gandhism revisited | | Towards a just and equitable society | |
Gandhi is one thing, Gandhism is another and Gandhi-ites are a third thing”, wrote Mahatma Gandhi in a letter of July 16, 1945 to a Communist. The “pseudo revival” of Gandhi’s philosophy witnessed recently is, in fact, a continuation of his charisma which, since long, has intrigued not only a common man but academics, scholars, politicians, peace leaders, community organisers and policy makers across the world.
Gandhi’s principles and methods of organising continue to be studied through a variety of lenses in various disciplines like social work, peace studies, and conflict management. Gandhi’s philosophy is valued as much for its innovative appeal as it is for the extent to which it was successful in organising people for the greatest sacrifice for their country.
Gandhi’s campaigns and strategies like Swadeshi (self-sufficiency), Swaraj (self-rule), Ahimsa (non-violence), Sarvodya (selfless service) and Satyagraha (militant non-violence) have reached epic dimensions in popularity. Indeed, these have valuable implications for achieving a just and equitable society, presently plagued with the consequences of globalisation and industrialisation — the significant one being the ever widening gap between the rich and the poor.
However, like with any guiding thought or principle, Gandhi’s philosophy needs to be viewed through a critical lens as against regarding it as a solution to all kinds of issues and problems prevailing in different societies. At the outset, it is fundamental to truly understand the depth and significance of Gandhi’s views. A growing trend to blindly follow Gandhi’s non-violent organising for social change makes one wonder if his ideology is understood in its true essence.
Though it is essential to guard against making Gandhi’s philosophy too complicated to be understood by a common man, it is equally important to protect it from being trivialised to the extent to which its true meaning is lost. A lack of a clear understanding and training to practice Gandhi’s beliefs is not only unhelpful in the long run but can also prove to be dangerous, if interpreted or applied carelessly. For instance, discipline is the founding factor for any non-violent movement to be successful.
However, satyagrahis in India’s fight for freedom struggled to fully understand or practice discipline thus resulting in the biggest non-violent organising for India’s independence led by the founder of satyagraha — Gandhi — ending in severe violence with Gandhi himself being a victim of such violence. In fact, Gandhi conceded that one of his serious mistakes was that he has taught civil disobedience to those who had still not learned to be disciplined.
A clear grasp on Gandhian ideology and a critical thought must precede its blatant applicability, as many followers have become disillusioned or have lost faith over a period of time particularly evident in the violence demonstrations, which forced Gandhi to withdraw satyagraha on a few occasions. Satyagraha demands a great degree of self-control and seldom yields instant desired outcome.
During the course of the freedom movement, Gandhi’s non-violent struggle degenerated into mass violence primarily due to a lack of understanding and commitment to the principle of non-violence in the face of adversaries and provocative situations.
Additionally, a mass mentality to believe in the universality of Gandhi’s teachings should not overlook a critical analysis of what is relevant, viable and helpful in today’s context. Gandhi’s wisdom has to be retrieved cautiously and with an appreciation of the complexities of the present times and issues, all of which might not necessarily find favour with the intricacies of some of his views.
Gandhi’s thoughts on sex, marriage and education are debatable in terms of their practicality and usefulness keeping in view the present economy and societal structures. Similarly, the universal applicability of the doctrine of satyagraha is arguable. Distinction between satyagraha and duragraha is a matter of moral and political judgement. These judgements are not easy to make; even more difficult is to reduce them to a simple formula of right or wrong. An act that may appear wrong in one situation might be right and timely in other. Thus, there are dangers and practical difficulties in unchecked applications of these ideas, which must be revisited with a focus on the present facts and a vision of the future.
Gandhi’s social philosophy indeed has valuable implications for achieving welfare of the masses. However, concepts like self suffering should be interpreted and followed without losing perspective of the present societal set up and a structural analysis of the larger global forces. For instance, Gandhi advocated for simple needs and embracing poverty, and lived in poverty as an example.
However, to be poor and to live like a poor are two different things. As Sarojini Naidu once remarked, “It costs a great deal of money to keep Gandhiji living in poverty”. To learn to live with modest needs and wants could undeniably be a path to salvation. But then, this needs to be constantly guarded against becoming an excuse to not advocate for uplifting the poor and the downtrodden, and to reduce the economic imbalance between the haves and the have-nots.
Despite the criticisms and limitations in universality and applicability, there is no denying that there is much to learn and practice from Gandhi’s values relevant till today. While avoiding the unnecessary complications in interpreting Gandhi’s philosophy, its meaning, seriousness, depth and purpose should be preserved.
A society that chooses to practice Gandhian ideology must do so after a careful consideration of the issue in focus and must choose its own mode of practicing Gandhian principles in keeping with its unique past, culture and experiences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
