Gandhi Centenary : The Dos And Don'ts.

By Acharya Tulsee

Q: Through his actions Gandhi established the importance of truth and nonviolence in world politics. when his centenary is being celebrated, does it not devolve on his countrymen to set an example for others by making special nonviolent experiments in their policies and actions?

A: Any celebration acquires a living character only when it result in some practical use. Very often we make the mistake of relegating the living or practical aspects to the background while trying to invest the memory of a great man with a halo. Every citizen of India, irrespective of his party affiliation, has a deep respect for Gandhiji. On the occasion of the Gandhi centenary everyone should try to experiment with nonviolence in conducting party activities and in framing its policies.

        One might wonder if any use can be made of Gandhiji's ideas at the level of the government. According to me, they should be first tried on at that level. Gandhiji wanted the reign of the country to be in the hands of a person who led the life of an ordinary Indian. Instead of occupying palatial mansions he should live in an ordinary house. He should  use ordinary vehicles instead of of luxurious limousines. He should practice simplicity in eating, dressing and living. In other words he wanted the country's helmsman to never forget the poor and the downtrodden. Today's leaders are its antithesis. Even the monthly water and electricity bills of ministers run into thousands of rupees. Does it become a poor country that its leaders should use grand mansions, luxury cars and costly furniture? How can these man be treated as real representatives of the people? Is it not a mockery of Gandhism that the inheritors of the man who put on just a loin cloth in vow of India's utter poverty should lead a life of a luxury?

        In truth people are sick of preaching now; they want to see these  preachings actually practised. It makes it necessary for the government to exercise simplicity.
 
        The usual argument to justify the building of these luxurious mansions is that they are necessary for receiving foreign guests and dignitaries. It makes no sense to me. It is totally unjust for a government unable to satisfy even the basic needs of its citizen f or food and shelter to squander wealth on prohibitively costly banquets and hotels. It is  not tantamount to basking in the heat produced by the burning of ones own house? I am not at all against extending a warm welcome to guests. The only question is : Should the welcome accord with or domestic conditions or should our domestic conduits be made to accord with the welcome?
        There is a rajasthani proverb that says:
        The guest falls in the line with household, not the household with the guest.

        I have no doubt the foreign guests will carry with them a much better impression of our country as a result of simple reception.

        I noticed that violence has augmented after independence and the people too are more inclined towards it. The government maintains that it cannot refrain from resorting to violence ones the public indulges in violent agitation's. But one has to find out why the public is getting attracted towards it. What is its root cause? Without finding answers to this it is not of much use to simply condemned violence. The need of the hour is to go into the causes of violence and then to seriously think how best they can be tackled.

        India incorporated socialism in its constitution as one of its goals . Socialism aims at providing equal opportunities for development to all. The essential physical needs of all the people have to be fulfilled. This remained a mere paper provision, for socialism did not touch the lives of the people. Today one small class of people are enjoying the heavenly luxuries, while the other class, representing the vast majority of Indians, are leading an infernal life. When this oppressed class ask for their rights to be recognised and resort to destruction to give vent to their anger, their violent attitude is condemned and long sermons on nonviolence are delivered; but it is possible to stop violence without giving the public the fruits of socialism?
 
        I see a very  close connection between socialism and nonviolence. According to the jain philosophy, Lord Rishabh taught the people the activities relating to use of arms., accounting, cultivation etc. with the advent of Karma Yuga. The commentators were faced with the problem as to why the Lord taught these worldly activities. The answer they give is that it was done so that the people could be kept away from evil propensities for violence, stealing, plundering etc. If they had not been taught those skills, people for want of a proper means of living, would have indulged in mutual plunder, theft and violence. I think the present conditions are not very dissimilar. People are angry because while they are deprived of the means of living, there are a few individuals who, besides being able to fulfill all their needs, have plenty to squander. It is this inequality which goads them to be violent. If socialism does not remove this inequalities, it will be an open invitation to violence.

        The capitalists often ask me if India will ever go communist. My reply has always been that if they made inevitable, it would be unavoidable. They do not immediately understand it and think that the communist tendencies are gaining strength inspite of them. How can they prevent it merely by not wishing it? But the truth is that had they not made it inevitable, but we would not have faced the present dilemma.

        In this context Gandhian principles need minute surgical analysis. Many senior Congressmen think and against Gandhian principles today, It will be very useful to take a proper decision in this matter considering the pros and cons of the lines of action available.

        The central issue is that the purity of means. Gandhiji insisted on the purity of means fr attaining one's end. We are witnessing the exact opposite nowadays since the Congressmen think anything will do. If that is what they believe in how can anyone blame communism? Socialism and communalism become indistinguishable if both profess resort to violent means. It is not an instance of violence that the citizen of an avowedly socialist country jettisons the principle of purity of means in earning his livelihood? By doing so, he may not appear to be practising violence, but he is truly striking a mortal blow at the roots of non-violence. The violence we witness today is mostly reactive-violence being met with violence.  Infact profligacy means violence, which is bound to invite counter-violence. Therefore I don't think we can really stop violence without first ensuring purity of means.
Q:    Do other political parties in the country also have some responsibility in the matter?

A:    Some parties may not agree to Gandhian ideas, but I think every party has tremendous respect for Gandhi, the individual. Moreover, there are many ideas of his that are utterly necessary for national development. No party can subscribe to divisive tendencies like sectarianism, linguism, casteism and regionalism. Today, when all these ugly trends are in the ascendant., all parties have duty to contribute their mite to their removal. Likewise, I think there can be no disagreement on the need for right conduct and self-restraint. Everyone concerned must give a serious thought to it also. 

[ Home Page of Acharya Tulsee ]       [ Impression Gallery ]        [ Feed Back ]        [ Email ]