Modern Problems and Gandhian Philosophy

By Acharya Tulsee

Q.    Gandhi Samrak Nidhi is going to celebrate the gandhi centenary on a very grand and elaborate scale with a widely disseminating Gandhian philosophy. Do you think Gandhian philosophy can be effective in solving modern problems ?
A.    I have no doubt whatsoever about the effectiveness of Gandhian philosophy , but I do not doubt the understanding of that philosophy is one of the truth and non-violence. It is the philosophy self-restraint. There can be no doubt about the usefulness of truth, non-violence and self-restraint. But one is compelled to question people's understanding of Gandhian philosophy when one sees in the nation committed to that philosophy large scale incidence of violence and lack of restraint.

        Gandhi centenary is an occasion for the Gandhians to introspect and see how much they have understood the e
Gandhian philosophy. I often feel that there are very few people left who truly understand the Gandhian philosophy. Most people are seen to misinterpret it to suit their selfish interests and only a small minority of scholars interpret it properly. Why talk of others when the Congress party itself exploits Gandhi's name from time to time ? It is both surprising and painful. Further, the youth of today seem to have no inclination towards Gandhism. This again is due to utter paucity of true interpreters of Gandhian philosophy.

        Many of us have physically seen Gandhi, but the surprising thing is that even Gandhians have forgotten Gandhi. It is twenty-five centuries since the deliverance of Lord Mahavira. If his disciples forget him, it causes pain but no surprise. But it is only two decades that have elapsed since the death of Mahatma Gandhi. What can be more surprising than he being forgotten by those of his contemporaries whose lives were shaped by him ? Gandhian philosophy is losing it's importance simply because there is no powerful voice among his followers. Even today people do not doubt the success of his practical experiments. But they wonder if there is anybody who can keep his banner aloft.

        I have been told that Morarji Bhai, Shrimanarayanji and others are responsible for drawing the programmes relating to Gandhi centenary. I have had close contacts with both of them. Both carry an indelible imprint of gandhian philosophy in their thoughts, actions and beliefs. However, the question is why the influence of Gandhi did not go beyond their generation. I hope Morarji and other Gandhians will give a serious thought to it. The influence of Gandhi is not going to come alive merely through programmes, speeches, celebrations and other modes of publicity. It requires a big sacrifice. Gandhi sacrificed himself for the independence of the country. Today we need even bigger sacrifices by the people so that the country may experience real freedom. This will be possible only if the followers of Gandhi choose not politics but public life as their field of action.

        Do those who occupy exalted positions know that the ordinary people have yet no idea of how they should lead their life. Crores of people do not yet know the meaning of a happy life. They do not know what to drink or eat, how to live, more particularly, how to live a cultured and decent life. Infact they have no idea as to how to breathe the air of freedom. I have profoundly experienced these these things during my long walking tours.

        Gandhi had said, " My god dwells in the poor." If his devotees are asked now that where their God dwells. they might answer, " He does in power or authority. He has shifted from the cottage to a palace." What greater mockery can there be of Gandhain principles ?

        Gandhi gave primacy to non -violence in every field, including politics. Things have now come to a pass when there is politics even in non-violence. Gandhi stressed the principle of fearlessness, for fear and non-violence are incompatible. Infact both fear and cowardice are a kid of violence. I am not talking about those who do not believe in non-violence, but do those who believe in violence betray any sign of fearlessness ? No one wants to displease anyone for fear the their selfish interests may be adversely affected. Under these circumstances, the words 'non-violence' and 'fearlessness' have been reduced to mere joke.

        We have to ask if the modern India is the kind of country Gandhi dreamed of. If no, then the Gandhi centenary should give Gandhian thinkers an occasion for introspection to find out how far they have understood Gandhi's philosophy, to what extent they have shaped their lives on it's basis, and in what measure they have attempted to create a public climate conducive to the growth of  Gandhian ideals. I have no doubt about the efficacy of the Gandhian philosophy in solving the present-day problems, but I wonder if they can be solved by the steps taken in the name of Gandhism. Gandhi formulated his ideas t be in consonance with the Indian mentality. It is deeply regrettable that the nation could not make use of them; that is why people have started questioning the efficacy of Gandhian philosophy in solving the present-day problems.

Q. The serious economic and political situation in the country calls for change of a far-reaching nature. the question as who should lead the country is also becoming increasingly complicated. In your opinion, what kind of leadership does India need to ensure the good of its teaming million?

A. though the question of leadership is always important, it becomes more so in a democracy as compared to the last twenty two years of independence, the political situation of today is much more complicated. therefore the leadership issue has acquired much greater importance. circumstances dictate that India should have a leadership which is unambiguously committed to general welfare. Today the vast majority of people cannot tolerate neglect in the name of minoritysm. Only that leadership can succeed now which symphathises with the ordinary people of the country and which is determined to bring down the increasing economic disparities.

        The congress opted for a socialist system in order to remove economic inequalities, but it has not been able to do much in this direction. Bank nationalization is indeed a courageous step taken by the government for this purpose, but it is not enough.

        Then the question of implementing the policies is no less complicated. despite the fact that it has passed many resolutions to usher in socialism, the congress has succeeded in completing very few of them. here again we face the problem of leadership.
The greater the courage and non partisanship of the leader brighter the changes of its policies being implemented .

        Leadership directly affects administration and the latter has a clear influence on policy implementation. therefore a clean administration is prerequisite to a revolutionary transformation. Bank nationalization or similar other steps can be deemed courageous, but what really matters is not the initiation of the move but ensuring its full and successful culmination. It can be possible beyond any doubt only if there is a clean and healthy administration.

        Democracy inevitably implies giving primacy to the welfare of the people, which makes it incumbent not to sacrifice the general good in the interest of the few.

Q: In view of the present political turmoil, the Survudhaya leader jayprakash Narayan has a many times called for an all party government comprising competent people to assume national leadership. What do you think about it?

A: Ideally, I could not have agreed more but I don't think it is practical. It is virtually impossible for people belonging to different ideologies to work together. The idea may have a topical relevance but it cannot hold good for any length of time. From time to time similar experiments are been made in many states and it has been noticed that different parties to the coalition never got over mutual wrangles. Far from implementing public welfare policies, they spend all the energies in somehow keeping the coalition together.

        Further, they have to pacify many individuals to avoid a breakup and in pursuing a policy of pacification. Many welfare activities are neglected. Moreover I see no merit in bringing people of different persuasions on a common platform. What is needed is that they should rise above their respective party interest and loyalties but it to does not seem feasible. As a result even as a coalition the constituents remain bound to their parties . how can they do justice to the country as the whole then?
And the coalition is meaningless if they can't do it .The people generally esteemed to be capable of acting in a nonpartisan way shall hardly ever acceptable to a party as its representatives since it appears impossible to subordinate ones party interest to the national good, the idea of a coalition government is not practical.
 
        present administration does want to bring about a radical transformation. It can come about minorities is abandoned bad general welfare is made the main objective. Unless it happens, it looks difficult to salvage the nation from the party morass.  

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