The Naked Fakir

The Naked Fakir
Knowing Gandhi: My trials with the man, his philosophy
Hiren Kumar Bose
Published on www.chowk.com October 3, 2005

'The naked fakir', Churchill called him. `Greatest man ever who walked on the earth...` said Einstein.

So diverse were people`s opinion about him. Intriguingly, we Indians feel privileged and fortunate unlike the Westerners when comes to `knowing` the Mahatma or Bapu as we address him as and what he stood for. Because we have been always guided by the thought: he was one of us! That includes me too because while in school we wrote essays on him, viewed Films Division documentaries, could not escape the news items on his birth and death anniversaries and had to sit through speeches delivered by men-in-khadi, the so called sole inheritors of Bapu`s legacy.

The fact is that we hardly know much about Gandhi`s philosophy, and if at all are remotely familiar we consider him to be like a mummy to be raised and displayed during his birth and death anniversaries. Our understanding of Gandhi`s philosophy has been second-hand: knowing him
through what others have said and practiced. Let us face it that Gandhi needs to be evaluated on the basis of his own outlook and his own policies.

In this era of unspeakable global violence the world at large is feeling the need for a revisit and re-envision a trans-cultural understanding of nonviolence. Like it or not the ethics of the everyday politics is being affected through one of modernity`s greatest spokespersons on peace and nonviolence--Mahatma Gandhi. A reading of Gandhi`s works and understanding of present day thinkers brings out the contemporariness of his philosophy.

The moment the image of the frail figure of Gandhi rises before us, several questions assault us. Jai Narain Sharma, Chairman, Department of Gandhian Studies, Punjab University, Chandigarh, asks what is the Mahatma`s relevance today and for the future? What inspiration can we draw from his life? What light can his thoughts and wisdom shed on our problem? How does his way of life affect our course of action in private and public affairs?

Gandhi is slowly being understood as a social theorist, a moral-spiritual philosopher and a social-political activist. Challenging the dominant world structure of his time, the colonial system he struggled with some of the most significant issues of our time: violence, racism, oppression of women, role of religion in the modern world, the nature of capitalism and of course conflict between ethnic and religious communities. Rightly so those engaged in peace mobilization, conflict resolution et al are examining his theory and praxis on these issues and exploring and evaluating his legacy.

Many feel that it is not the relevance of Gandhi to our times that is in question but the acceptance of that relevance by the world at large today for we are slowly waking up to the fact, though belatedly that we can not afford to profit from violence. And if we do resort to violence, it would be at our own peril as the US is realizing in Afghanistan and Iraq. Thanks to its `war against terror` and its US centric worldview it has made more enemies than friends.

Many believe that non-violent action for political ends is only practical under the particular set of circumstances, which prevailed in India during Gandhi`s time. In fact, besides bringing the majority Hindus under its spell, non-violent action became the mantra of the Muslim Pathans of North-West Frontier Province. These men, with a long tradition of military prowess and skill in war, quickly came under the leadership of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan.

The need is not just to deify Gandhi as an apostle of nonviolence who transcended the messiness of our complex humanity, but also to debate his global legacy, understanding the man himself and his everyday application of ahimsa. The basic tenets of Gandhi`s belief were truth, non-violence and peace: the cornerstones of civilization.

"Had we not adopted this code of life primeval humans would not have been able to form societies and become civilized, " said Tushar Gandhi, managing trustee of Mahatma Gandhi Trust and the Mahatma`s great grandson to this writer.

For non-violence is not about walking away because one cannot resist or because one is afraid. It is about resisting without committing violent actions in the face of violence. Non-violence is the only hope we have to end this cycle of violence as the world witnessed with South Africa`s Truth and Reconciliation Commission which brought victims of Apartheid and the perpetrators on the same platform in order to resolve their conflicts. One of the longest running violent conflict between the Irish Republican Army and the British, came to an end only when a nonviolent initiative was made.

The relevance of a man or his message can be said to have many aspects. It can be immediate or remote; it can be local, regional or general; it can be personally relevant to some or universal for all. Like the Governor of Illinois, George Ryan, quoting Gandhi`s remark against revenge: "an eye for an eye and soon the whole world is blind" commuted the death sentences of all the 167 persons on the death row
in his state in January, 2003.

Or as Narayan Desai, son of Mahadev Desai, secretary of the Mahatma, writes in "Gandhi Will Live On" about how a priest changed peoples` heart with his 21-day long fast. Following widespread hunger in the north western provinces of Brazil several families headed for Sao Paulo which scared the citizens who appealed that shopkeepers selling grains be given gun licenses. Hurt by this crass inhumanity Father Kuns, a clergyman residing in the slums went on a fast, which continued for 21 days. Initially, most laughed at him. Gradually, a few came and asked him if they could join him in his fast. The Father said, "No one should for more than one day as a mark of sympathy.
What I would like you to do is something better. Those who feel real sympathy for the hunger-stricken refugees should put up boards in front of their homes inviting them in. Tell them you are ready to share you bread with them till the food lasts. When there is no more food you will share your prayers with them." On the last day of Father Kuns fast there were 10,000 homes in San Paulo ready to share their meals with the refugees. The idea of providing shopkeepers with guns had simply evaporated.

Take the case of the Inuit fishermen of North Pole in Canada who organized a satyagraha to stop Nato`s air exercises which had affected
the fish breeding depriving the Inuit`s of their food. They made a human chain, surrounding about a mile-long airport area, which resulted in Nato abandoning its exercises.

For those of us who believe that non-violent action was once practical but now impractical should need to do rethink. Is satyagraha relevant for the west? The issue was argued a long time ago by an Indian sociologist, Krishnalal Shridharani, in his doctoral thesis at Columbia University (and later in his book, War Without Violence) that the West was more suitable than India for the technique: "My contact with the Western world has led me to think that, contrary to popular belief, satyagraha, once consciously and deliberately adopted, has more fertile fields in which to grow and
flourish in the West than in the Orient. Like war, satyagraha demands public spirit, self-sacrifice, organization, endurance and discipline for its successful operation, and I have found these qualities displayed in Western communities more than my own. Perhaps the best craftsmen in the art of violence may still be the most effective wielders of non- violent direct action."

"Nonviolence", wrote Gandhi in 1920, "does not mean meek submission to
the will of the evil-doer, but it means the pitting of one`s whole soul against the will of the tyrant.... And so I am not pleading for India to practice non-violence because she is weak. I want her to practice non-violence being conscious of her strength and power."

It was Gandhi`s primary contribution, not only to argue for, but also to develop practically non-violent means of struggle in politics for those situations in which war and other types of political violence were usually used. Though pioneering, and sometimes inadequate, his work was sufficient to put him outside the traditional categories. Gandhi was neither a conscientious objector nor a supporter of violence in politics. He was an experimenter in the development of "war without violence".

Gandhian institutions worldwide are experimenting with `war without violence` in countries like the US, Australia, Great Britain, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Bolivia and others. For instance Fundacion Mahatma Gandhi, Colombia was set up to educate the beneficiaries (12-year-old and upwards, those are of scarce economic resources) on teachings of Gandhi philosophy so that they are reflected in them and could acquire a true commitment of service in the progress and well-being of the Colombians.

Gandhi will remain relevant as the kinds of questions he asked nearly eight decades ago are the ones, which now face both the underdeveloped and the post-industrial societies. Take for instance India. It can pride itself today as being a booming economy with Sensex hitting the roof and the multi million-dollar acquisitions by Indian MNCs and foreign investments pouring into India. Just the day when the Mumbai Stock Exchange Index breached the 8000 mark the newspapers reported the death of 50 tribals who died after consuming flesh of rotting animals. Then there are regular reports of farmers driven to suicide due to financial ruin.

Questions Tushar, "Will the Indian industries and the foreign investors establish industries in these country`s backward districts and give employment to the starving destitute? Unlikely. We will never have a Microsoft Technology Development Center in Kalahandi or a British Telecom Call Centre in Thane district."

But even today Gandhiji`s vision of Gramudyog, the technology of Khadi, not just the Khadi yarn and textile but also all the traditional crafts and
skills which if properly administered can provide a supplemental income to these impoverished millions and help stop migration to cities where one can a living by just selling scrap.

As Tushar explains, "A charkha in every house in villages will not be dependant on the elusive electricity which inhibits the spread of industry to these regions, but a charkha in every family and handlooms at least two in every village will ensure that the villagers will be able to manufacture with their own labour enough to clothe their families and the surplus sold for the much needed cash. And then if as a social obligation all of us decide to use at least one item from the village industry sector every day in our lives we will generate enough commerce for the uplift of these villagers."

Now when salient economic inequalities become predominant, and the unprecedented rate of ecological degradation continues, which are likely to cause some of humanity`s worst problems as we all are by the market mantra: `dil mange more` Gandhi`s concept of civilization rings a bell.

Gandhi said: `Civilization, in the real sense of the term, consists not in the multiplication, but in the deliberate and voluntary restriction of wants. This alone promotes real happiness and contentment. `

Inspired by the Jain philosophy of aparigraha, the phrase `restriction of wants` means the civilized person is not the one who would like to eat and drink magnificently, have a lot of sexual partners and so on, but finds it necessary to settle for less; instead it is the one who has considered these matters thoughtfully and has come to prefer what is reasonable and sensible.

As Dr Mark Lindley who has taught courses at Bogazici University Istanbul) on modern South Asian history and on Gandhi and whose Publication include "Gandhi`s Challenge Now to the Affluent", writes, "The idea is challenging to us because it undermines a basic precept of Capitalism - that more overall is always better - which we have got in the habit of regarding as vital to our interests. "

Though Gandhi never used the word `ecology`, but he did suggest that globalized industrialism could become a menace. He said: `God forbid that India should ever take to industrialism after the manner of the West. The economic imperialism of a single tiny island kingdom [England] is today keeping the [human] world in chains. If an entire nation of 300 millions [that`s what he said and he meant India; but now the USA has that many, and India and China have each more than 1000 million] took to similar economic exploitation, it would strip the world bare like locusts.

The unprecedented need to co-operate worldwide, and yet the mounting
and ever more obvious economic unfairness worldwide - heightens the value of genuine concern about poverty. Here is what Gandhi told his disciples, toward the end of his life, as a farewell talisman: `Whenever you are in doubt, or when the self becomes too much with you, apply the following test. Recall the face of the poorest and weakest man whom you may have seen, and ask yourself if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to `him`. ... Will he gain anything by it? Will it restore [to] him ... [some] control over his own life and destiny? In other words, will it lead to `swaraj`
[self-rule] for the hungry and spiritually starving millions?`

With liberalisation and privatisation as accepted policy, the Bharat verses India divide that Gandhi had intuited long ago, is, if anything, rapidly and disastrously growing. The swaraj Gandhi dreamt of is becoming an impossible dream.

It is widely believed that Gandhi was simply a personification of Indian traditions. Dr Joan Bondurant of the University of California demonstrates that wherever Gandhi drew upon traditional Indian concepts, he gave them a fresh and vital interpretation, which differed significantly from the original. Gandhi`s basic assumption that one must not "accept" or "understand" evil but fight it, although supported by some, also was in diametrical opposition to other schools of Hindu philosophy which held that one must not fight evil, but
transcend it.

Gandhi`s activity and sense of struggle not only challenged (or ignored) those schools of Hindu thought. They went contrary to widely established patterns of actual behaviour. In fact Gandhi found that passivity and submission, the common traits among Indians of his day were the main enemy blocking the way to independence. Gandhi is widely credited with a major influence in their reduction and replacement by action, determination and courageous self-reliance.

Many of us, though we grudgingly address him as the Father of the Nation are unwilling to accept that Gandhi`s non-violence method in any way ontributed to the fall of the British empire in India but strongly feel that the British left because it was no longer profitable for them to hold on to the subcontinent. It`s because our history as like others is a record of violent upheavals and not non violent struggles. The new spirit of resistance and independence among the Indians to which Gandhi contributed did increase the difficulties and expense of maintaining the British Raj, especially during the major non-co-operation and civil disobedience campaigns. But even in purely economic terms of trade with India, Gandhi`s program had a significant impact. This is particularly demonstrated by the impact of the boycott during the 1930-31 civil disobedience campaign which coincided with the world depression, and also importantly led to the drop in purchases of British goods by Indians.

Many of us are not aware that the British Secretary of State for India, in the House of Commons in late 1930, according to Gandhian economist J. C. Kumarappa, credited the general depression with a 25 per cent fall in the export trade to India, and credited the balance of 18 per cent in the fall directly to the boycott programme carried on by the Indian National Congress. The total British exports to India according to statistical abstracts declined (in millions of pounds sterling) from 90.6 in 1924, to 85.0 by 1927, then to 78.2 in 1929 and in the boycott year, 1930, to 52.9. The total import of cotton piece-goods by India from all countries rose from 1.82 billion yards in 1924 to 1.94 billion yards in 1929 and declined only to 1.92 billion yards in 1930. However, the British export of the same commodity to India fell from 1.25 billion yards in 1924 to 1.08 billion yards in 1929-a decline of 14 per cent. Then it fell to 0.72 billion yards in 1930-a decline of 42.4 per cent. Between October 1930 and April 1931, when the boycott was at its height, there was a decline of 84 per cent.

Gandhi`s non-violent action is incapable of wielding effective political power, and is hence irrelevant for practical politicians. "I believe, and everybody must grant", wrote Gandhi, "that no Government can exist for a single moment with out the cooperation of the people, willing or forced, and if people suddenly withdraw their cooperation in every detail, the Government will come to a standstill."

By withdrawing the cooperation and obedience of the subjects, Gandhi sought to cut off important sources of the ruler`s power. Every British Government and Viceroy that had to deal with him and his movement would have vigorously denied the view that Gandhi was ignorant of the realities of political power and that his technique of action was impotent.

In a most revealing address to both Houses of the Indian Legislative Assembly in July 1930, the Viceroy, Lord Irwin declared: "In my judgment and in that of my Government it [the civil disobedience movement] is a deliberate attempt to coerce established authority by mass action, and... it must be regarded as unconstitutional and dangerously subversive. Mass action, even if it is intended by its promoters to be non-violent, is nothing but the application of force under another form, and when it has as its avowed object the making of Government impossible, a Government is bound either to resist or abdicate." "So long as the Civil Disobedience Movement persists, we must fight it with all our strength."

Apparently those who have dismissed Gandhi and his technique has some re-thinking to do and rewrite the textbooks not merely by continuing to deify Gandhi but dwell on the praxis of non-violence and help understand the contemporariness of the tool which continues to affect change in us.


Times read: 6317 (as on October 18,2005) Interacts: 229