As the Nation marks yet another Gandhi Jayanthi on October 2nd we are once again reminded of Non-Violence by Manmohan Singh in New Delhi and Sonia Gandhi in New York. The misplaced emphasis on Non-Violence every October 2nd speaks volumes about how our leaders and the country at large have poorly understood Gandhi.
The ‘Ahimsa Divas Yatra’ flagged off by the Prime Minister at the AICC headquarters in the Capital to mark the 138th birth anniversary of the Mahatma is a classic case of worshipping the “means” while remaining ignorant of the end goal.
While attempting to evolve a Gandhian Doctrine in response to Terrorism, last July after the 7-11 Mumbai Blasts Offstumped had occasion to understand Gandhi’s thought process in choosing the path of Non-Violence. Some snippets from that original post follow
Gandhi had a set very high bar for himself in seeking a moral compass for his course of action in the fight against British Imperialism. The conclusion Gandhi came to was that it would not be possible for him to be selfless in that endeavor unless he gave up violence in every shape and form. Infosys Chairman N.R. Narayana Murthy on many an occasion refers to Gandhi as the greatest leader ever for having led by example. Gandhi had to motivate the masses to act against the British selflessly. For this he had to achieve a state of selflessness. And the conclusion he came to in his endeavor to become selfless was that without practicing non-violence he could not become selfless.
To Gandhi Ahimsa or Non-Violence was not an end in itself, rather it was Anasakta or selflessness that was the end and Non-Violence was the most desirable means for him to attain it in his day and age.
desireless action; by renouncing fruits of action; He who gives up action falls. He who gives up only the reward rises. But renunciation of fruit in no way means indifference to the result. In regard to every action one must know the result that is expected to follow, the means thereto, and the capacity for it. He who, being thus equipped, is without desire for the result, and is yet wholly engrossed in the due fulfillment of the task before him, is said to have renounced the fruit of his action
Let it be granted, that according to the letter of the Gita, it is possible to say that warfare is consistent with renunciation of fruit.
But after 40 years’ unremitting endeavor fully to enforce the teaching of the Gita in my own life, I , in all humility, feel that perfect renunciation is impossible without perfect observance of Ahimsa in every shape and form.
He who would be Anasakta (selfless) has necessarily to practice non-violence in order to attain the state of selflessness. Ahimsa is, therefore, a necessary preliminary, it is included in Anasakti, it does not go beyond it.
So how can we apply Gandhi’s Thought Process to the present day issues. Gandhi gives the answer as well
Many things which we look upon as non-violent will, perhaps, be considered violent by future generations. To look upon philosophies of the past to obtain direct answers to all the questions that arise from day to day, would not be desirable even if it were possible; for, in that case, there would be nothing like progress or discovery for mankind. Human intelligence would then simply atrophy from disuse. Therefore, questions that arise in each age must be solved by the people of that age through their own effort. Our difficulties at present, such as world wars, must be met by applying the general principles derived from the Gita and similar books, which can be of help only to a limited extent. Real help can come only from our endeavors and struggles.
Some time back on INI and elsewhere there was a debate on waiting for the free market Mahatma. In Offstumped’s opinion Gandhi was the Free Market Mahatma, we just didn’t draw the right lessons from him. To better understand this consider Gandhi’s comments on the Gita and why Krishna did not advise Arjuna Non-Violence.
The problem before Krishna was not that of violence or non-violence. Arjuna shrank not from violence but from having to kill his relations. Krishna, therefore, explained to him that in doing one’s duty one ought not to treat one’s relations differently from others. In the age when the Gita was composed, the men who influenced its thought did not raise the question whether the violence committed in war was right or not. That question seems to have been raised only in modern times.
In much the same vein Offstumped believes the problem before Gandhi was not one of Free Market and State Control. In a different day and age if Gandhi were to have been presented with this problem he would have come down in favor of free enterprise rather than on the side of control. After all he got politically active in South Africa fighting unfair taxation laws imposed on indentured Indians against White Traders who would not brook competition in Trade.
Filed under: Uncategorized
What is the “missing” end goal you are referring to? Surely no one is claiming to use ahimsa as a tool of strategy against terrorism.. what they are suggesting is to try to follow it in everyday life as a matter of principle (in the hopes that it’ll make you ‘anasaktha’, as u mentioned)
“But after 40 years’ unremitting endeavor fully to enforce the teaching of the Gita in my own life, I , in all humility, feel that perfect renunciation is impossible without perfect observance of Ahimsa in every shape and form.”
It’s not very clear to me the relationship between perfect renunciation and perfect observance of Ahimsa. How is ahimsa related to anasaktha?
Jujung – the missing end goal is the desireless discharge of one’s duty or dharma.
How is Ahimsa related to anasaktha ? Read the book by Hingorani (url in my original post). But let me explain with my limited knowledge of Gandhi.
Gandhi felt it was his dharma or duty to fight for freedom and to motivate fellow Indians to do the same. That however required making sacrifices. He felt he could motivate others to make sacrifices only by leading with example. So he had to attain a state of perfect anasaktha or desirelessness.
What Gandhi is saying in the sentence above is that for him to attain a state where he is completely devoid of desire he had to completely overcome anger as an emotion. Hence ahimsa or non-violence. For by practising ahimsa or non-violence he felt he could rid himself of all anger and thus attain a state where he was completely desireless. By discharging his duty in that state of anasaktha he felt he would have the moral strength to ask of sacrifices from fellow Indians in the fight for freedom.
That is the connection.
So worshipping non-violence in of itself is meaningless as it is merely a means that Gandhi adopted. What is important as Gandhi points with the Krishna Arjuna example is desireless action to discharge one’s duty or dharma. Inaction or non-discharge of dharma is unacceptable.
So a Sonia Gandhi or a Manmohan Singh sermonizing on non violence with references to terrorism is meaningless. They need to ask themselves the question – what is their dharma or duty and what actions are necessary to discharge that duty and then figure out for themselves what is the best means for “desireless” discharge of that dharma just as Gandhi did.
‘By discharging his duty in that state of anasaktha he felt he would have the moral strength to ask of sacrifices from fellow Indians in the fight for freedom.’
May I add here that a heroic warrior fighting the British can also be thought to be selfless, and would’ve surely inspired people (like Netaji did). So the reason why Gandhi chose the path of non-violence was probably more out of pragmatism (Indians were largely unarmed and a weaker side against the British). This is not to devalue Gandhi’s contribution.
As you rightly point out, Gandhi essentially followed Karma yoga. Anyone following ‘Gandhi’s philosophy’ today should be aware of that.
Yossarin – Thanks for the clarification.
I guess the disagreement with the govt. is on the kind of actions that are necessary to fight terrorism, among others. But, BJP did nothing much different when it was in power.. like the communist parties, it also just reacts to what the govt. does instead of proposing a good alternative!
jujung – yes the disagreement is not just on the kind of actions but also about “taking actions” instead of “lulling into abject inaction while praising the resilience of the citizens”.
By the way BJP’s lacklustre action is no excuse to be content, satisified with incompetence. This is exactly the least common denominator mindset that Offstumped was arguing against in the campaign against Pratibha Patil.
We should demand the best in every aspect of Governance. No reason to compromise just because others were not competent.
We need to adopt a Culture of Excellence in Public Affairs instead of a Culture of Entitlements.
[...] of the finest commentary on the nature of dharma is the Gita, it is little surprise that both Gandhi and Golwalkar derived their sense of dharma from the notion of “desireless action” or [...]