Gandhi and Bengal Politics

The communal violence in West Bengal enlivens the debates during the partition of Bengal at the time of independence of India. Those debates reveal while visionary leaders like Gandhi were aware of the communal fault lines and were working tirelessly to bridge the divides, communal leaders like H. S. Suhrawardy, who was Prime Minister (the current equivalent of Chief Minister in an Indian state) of Bengal during the partition, were deliberately stoking communal passion, thus undermining peaceful coexistence between the communities.

The letter exchanges between Gandhi and Suhrawardy show the different priorities of both the leaders. Gandhi believed from the very beginning that Hindus and Muslims belonged to the same sociocultural tradition. He failed in his mission to halt the partition juggernaut but tried his best to stop the communal violence triggered by the partition politics. The nonviolent worker in him worked tirelessly and travelled violence affected parts of India including Bengal and Bihar to address public gatherings and engage people and leaders in dialogue.

When Gandhi decided to visit Bengal, to areas like Noakhali, Suhrawardy, the Prime Minister of Bengal, was not in favor of such a visit. How could he tolerate Gandhi who opposed partition and worked for communal harmony? Suhrawardy and his political party used communal violence as a tactic to pressure the Congress leaders and the British government to accept partition as the only viable solution. This was in line with Jinnah’s two-nation theory, that Hindus and Muslims are two nations, and they can never live together. Without delving deep into this two-nation theory, it is sufficient here to make the point that Suhrawardy’s communal politics was in clash with Gandhian nonviolence and peaceful coexistence.

Gandhi believed that Hindus and Muslims are part of the same family, inheriting the same historical and cultural tradition. There are differences between the two communities, he acknowledged but argued that differences, as in a joint family, do not imply discord, separation, and violence. But Suhrawardy, following the line of Jinnah, believed that as a Hindu Gandhi represented only the Hindus, not the Muslims. He suggested that Gandhi represented Hindu interests and it cannot be expected of him to play a pacifying role in communally tense areas. Suhrawardy also doubted that Gandhi’s visit to violence affected areas in Bihar, where Hindus were majority, would help restore Muslim confidence in him. This logic of religious politics appalled Gandhi and hurt him the most.

In a letter to Suhrawardy in December 1946 from Noakhali, Gandhi quoted parts of Suhrawardy’s letter. He wrote, “you proceed to say: ‘It is true that it is the Muslims who have suffered in Bihar and not Hindus. And then you insinuate, therefore, perhaps, your going to Bihar will not have any effect in re-establishing confidence amongst Muslims’…” He retorted, “Let me say that I do not regard the Muslims to have less claim on my service or attention… This distrust is so utterly baseless. I regard myself as an efficient servant of India.” Gandhi even did not lose hope and appealed him, “Let me tell you, whether you as a late friend and other members of the Muslim League believe me or not, that I am here to regain the lost confidence. Nothing will move me away from Noakhali unless the lost confidence is regained, which will be the case if the Hindus and Muslims in these districts trust one another without needing the presence of the police or the military.”

Suhrawardy viewed with suspicion Gandhi’s presence in Noakhali, where the Hindus were the victims of communal violence. He told Gandhi that the situation in Noakhali is fine and there is no need of his presence. Gandhi in his reply wrote, “You have painted a rosy picture of things in Noakhali. I wish I could share your estimate. …If the information imparted to me is correct, things are not safe enough in Noakhali. Hindus have not shed their fear and from what you say even the Muslims are not free from it. My business in coming here is not to sow or promote dissensions between the two. I regard myself, as I have ever been, an equal friend of both.”

Gandhi was suspicious of authority, whether that of Prime Minister Suhrawardy, or that of British government, to restore communal peace. In March 1947, he wrote to Suhrawardy to reconsider his decision to support public celebration of Pakistan Day. Gandhi’s reason was that such a public celebration would incite communal violence, particularly in the areas which witnessed communal killings. He wrote, “I have seen your press note…I must confess that it does not give me much satisfaction. May we hold Pakistan Day celebration meetings in parts of Bengal where Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code is not in action or where there is no other prohibitory order? And if meetings can be held indoors, are they not likely to be far more dangerous than public meetings?”

Are these Gandhi-Suhrawardy exchanges relevant for a discussion on current politics in West Bengal? The answer is YES. They show that there were communal leaders who stoked communal passion and engineered violence then, and there are communal leaders now who did not learn from history and engage in communal politics for petty gains. It also shows us the mirror that divisive politics rigidifies the feelings of hatred, generates more violence, and narrows the scope for peaceful coexistence.

(This article was earlier published on my Times of India blog site, Periscope: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/periscope/gandhi-suhrawardy-exchanges-and-bengal-politics/)

Theory of Relativity in Politics

Though the theory of relativity is known as a theory in science it can be applied to politics. When I say relativity, it implies that in politics there is a tendency to consider certain ways absolute, but they are not so. What is the rationale behind this argument? 

Politics is broadly defined, to use David Easton’s words, allocation of resources in society in an authoritative way as people have different expectations from the state and it is not possible for the state to meet all the needs of all the people. Relativity in politics implies that people disagree, or rather they agree to disagree, and representatives of people, the political leaders, must keep this relativity principle in mind while making policies. In mathematics when you add two and two it makes four. It is certain and it does not matter where you are making that addition. To give another example if you add hydrogen and oxygen it gives you water. But that certainty principle is not there in social science because social science is a science about society, about human beings. Politics is not about insentient objects or numbers, but about social beings who shape and are shaped by divergent ideas and values. It is about the people who are conditioned by events and who live, to use the words of Auguste Comte, dead men’s lives. 

Relativity as a social principle can be traced to the ancient period. Ekam sat vipra bahudha vadanti (Truth is one but the wise express it in many voices) or Anekantavada (many sided truth) affirm this relativity principle in life and society. The story is that some blind people went to describe an elephant. One of them touched the elephant’s tail and described that the elephant is like a rope. Another touched the elephant’s leg and described that the elephant is like a pole. The point is that all of them described the elephant, but not the whole elephant, the absolute truth. 

We in society are like these blind men and like these men argue that our truth is the absolute truth and the truth of the other side is not the truth. This blindness extends further with horrifying consequences. Once I claim my truth is the only truth and your truth is not truth, I try to give my truth a life, a concrete shape and deny your truth and do everything to deny it life. In sum, you are morally excluded from my world. That is the extreme manifestation of absolutism. There are ample examples of such moral exclusions in history, and we can see this happening in our society today. 

Political labeling – either you are a nationalist or anti-nationalist, a patriot or a traitor – is the trend nowadays worldwide. This has led to the shrinking of the middle ground, or the loss of sensitivity to diverse voices. The point is that one individual can be a nationalist at one point of time by supporting one state policy and he can be the same nationalist by criticizing another policy. To give an example, I support India’s policy of abrogation of Article 370, which was a temporary and transitional provision of the constitution. The Article, contrary to its objectives, distanced Jammu and Kashmir from India. But at the same time, I was skeptical of the policy of demonetization. I doubt whether it realized its intended objectives. Does supporting one policy and critiquing another make one nationalist or anti-nationalist? One can apply this logic not only to Indian politics but to politics elsewhere. Rigid political labeling has apparently become the norm. The middle space has shrunk. Appreciation of differences and diverse views is a rare commodity now. Decency has almost become pariah in political debates. Even one’s family tragedy is ascribed to his or her disagreement with dominant political views.

While I understand that idealism is not appreciated in politics and a politician, howsoever well-intentioned, has to tread through the minefields of crude realism, that does not imply a shirking of moral responsibility. After all, Aristotle, the father of political science, called political science master science and politics a noble profession. Plato too is relevant here. He recommended rigorous education and training for political leaders. Perhaps the time has come for politicians to go through rigorous training and education in moral character and statesmanship. It is not that we do not have examples. Abraham Lincoln comes to mind and also Mahatma Gandhi. Martin Luther King, Jr. famously said, “I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” King talked about color, but one can also think of religion, nationality, race, caste, language and other such distinct markers. 

I doubt whether politicians of today would be enamored by Gandhi’s talisman: “Whenever you are in doubt, or when the self becomes too much with you, try the following expedient: Recall the face of the poorest and the most helpless 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 be able to gain anything by it? Will it restore him to a control over his own life and destiny?”

In the new year I wish genuine attempts are made towards understanding and appreciation of divergent views. Politics should not be that ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish’ in which fellow human beings are used as objects, morally excluded and humiliated.

(This article was published in Times of India blogs: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/periscope/theory-of-relativity-in-politics/)

Resolving Conflicts Gandhian Way

The Gandhian conflict resolution wheel has three major spokes: conflict is a reality of life, hence unavoidable; if conflict is unavoidable then it must be experienced and addressed through nonviolence; and the reality of conflict must be mediated through the nonviolent means towards conflict transcendence. The pragmatic politician in Gandhi recognized conflict as a feature of human life. He would adopt an ontological view of the conflict – that conflict and life are inseparable. Such an approach implies that there are conflicts at multiple levels and everywhere – within individuals, families, larger groups, societies, states, and the world. Gandhian conflict lexicon hence would not neglect any of these conflicts and make use of this Gandhian logic to explain a conflict – when there is no harmony in what we think, say, and do, then there is a conflict. He would apply this logic to all conflicts, even though its operationality would vary from conflict to conflict, and from level to level. The othering, greed, hatred, selfishness, immorality, and their various avatars give rise to violent conflicts, and unless their origin is understood and addressed, such conflicts remain protracted.

If conflict is an inevitable reality of life, then the question is how to address it? Broadly, there are two means – violent and nonviolent. Gandhi would call the former immoral or evil, and the other moral, as it is based on moral force or soul force. He did not claim he discovered this principle or was the first one to apply this principle. He acknowledged that this principle is ‘as old as the hills,’ and he would credit those who discovered this principle as ‘greater geniuses than Newton’ simply owing to the logic that despite knowing the methods of violence and use of arms, they realized the futility of violence and engaged in nonviolent methods. The means of nonviolence, for Gandhi, emerges from an unwavering conviction. He displayed this conviction while in action in South Africa and India. When one of his colleagues argued that there was not a single instance in history when a freedom struggle was organized through nonviolence, Gandhi replied there are yet many pages to be written in the book of history. This Gandhian conviction permeated the followers of Gandhi during the freedom struggle. Nonviolence is the only means for conflict resolution and if this method fails, Gandhi would argue, the fault is not in the principle, but in the practitioner.

How is this Gandhian framework relevant to South Asia? How can his thoughts be fruitfully used without undermining the cultural values of the groups and communities in South Asia? There are myriad possible pathways, some of which are perhaps yet undiscovered as they would need human ingenuity, but they would need, for implementation, bold political leadership, and vision. Dialogues, summits, talks, meetings of foreign secretaries, attending ceremonies have values in this direction, but they would not be useful unless they originate from the very ontology of nonviolent belonging. Towards conflict resolution, Gandhi would probably point out at the failures of the past summits and agreements and appeal the leaders to introspect and reflect on the past policies, and then act creatively. The policymakers need to understand, appreciate, and implement this Gandhian way. It is an arduous task; it needs courage, conviction and persistence. As the past seven decades have shown, the words and deeds, colored by the othering, have failed to bring the desired result, peace. But, did not Gandhi say, it needs more courage to be nonviolent and work for peace than to fight and kill?

Elsewhere, in the context of South Asia, I focused on various types of engagements to promote belonging and emphasized that psychological engagement is the fulcrum of these engagements. There are elements that are common to both Hindu and Muslim cultural systems which could be cultivated to promote belonging. This is not to suggest that there are no differences between the two cultures, but to suggest there are elements of commonalities that need recognition. It is necessary to connect filaments of both the cultures. It is necessary to think out of the box and engage the common people in this peace project. Gandhi pinned his hopes on students as carriers of peace and wrote on August 18, 1947, just after a few days of partition, “Students are the makers of the future. They cannot be partitioned.” On another occasion, he called the youth “to shed your indifference, inertia and sloth and throw yourselves into constructive work with all your heart and soul.”

In the 21st century globalized world where the ideas of a borderless world are popular, India and Pakistan need to move forward and gear their state machineries for peace and belonging. It needs a Gandhian emphasis that violence has not resolved the India-Pakistan conflict. It is not that there are not attempts to build peace, but either they were symbolic and lacked political will and vision. There are spoilers with stakes in the continuation of the conflict, as the conflict keeps the political, intelligence and war machinery greased with resources, and legitimizes their existence and othering projects. But the othering cannot thrive infinitely, and even if it goes on, history stands witness, it will not address the conflict, rather it will protract the conflict, and exact further psychological, cultural, political and economic costs. The learnings from the past need to be accelerated and the leaders, business houses, opinion makers, civil society and nongovernmental organizations must come forward in a framework of engagement and belonging. Of course, a movement of people for belonging, Gandhi would argue, is important. This will be a gradual process, but it must be done in the right earnest. That will be in salience with the Gandhian vision of a nonviolent conflict resolution, in which othering becomes history and belonging becomes the future, and present becoming the field of nonviolent praxis.

The article was earlier publisher in the Times of India blogs on September 23, 2020: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/periscope/resolving-conflicts-gandhian-way/

Gandhi in the 21st century: Relevance of nonviolence as a method towards realizing a peaceful world

Mahatma Gandhi inspired nonviolent movements across the world including the civil rights movement in America. This article examines the ideas and relevance of Gandhi on the occasion of his 150th birth anniversary. 

During the Indian freedom struggle, a woman inquired when Gandhi is planning to visit America, to which Gandhi replied in jest that there are people in America who want to put him in a zoo. Gandhi alluded not to a real zoo but to the unfamiliarity of his idea and practice of nonviolence and its potency to the American public. On one occasion he wrote, “I respectfully invite Americans to study carefully the Indian National Movement and they will therein find an effective substitute for war.” Notably, Gandhi’s ideas on nonviolence were put in action in the civil rights movements in America in late 1960s. Recently, the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, called Mahatma Gandhi, “the spiritual leader of America’s non-violence movement.”

In last October I participated in the Gandhi Global Legacy conference at California State University Fresno, where I talked about the relevance of Gandhi for international society. The university with its beautiful Peace Garden, displaying statues of Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Cesar Chavez and Jane Addams, appeared an appropriate venue for the conference. Organized by the Gandhian scholar Veena Howard, the conference offered an excellent opportunity to interact with several Civil Rights activists, including, Reverend James Lawson, Mary Elizabeth King, and Dolores Huerta. Reverend Lawson, whom Martin Luther King, Jr. called the ‘leading theoretician and strategist of nonviolence’ told we need to cultivate Gandhian principles to address global problems. This reminded me of Nelson Mandela, who, while unveiling a Gandhi Memorial in South Africa in 1993, stated, “The enemies that Gandhi fought – ignorance, disease, unemployment, poverty and violence are today common place…Now more than ever is the time when we have to pay heed to the lessons of Mahatma Gandhi.” Like his former colleague and leader Martin Luther King, Jr., Reverend Lawson argued there are greater moral forces of the universe, which we have not tapped yet and applied in our daily lives. Among these forces he counted the Gandhian soul-force or love-force as one, which we need to cultivate to make a better world. 

Raised in a traditional Hindu family in Porbandar in British India and married at the age of 13, Gandhi wanted to be a lawyer. During his study in London he wanted to learn the manners of British society, but later got disillusioned. At a later stage he chose to shun his suit and wear a loincloth for the rest of his life. The transformation, however, started in South Africa. In 1893 he sailed to South Africa to practice law. While traveling in a train on a first-class ticket in racially segregated South Africa, Gandhi was thrown out of the coach in Pietermaritzburg due to his color. The young man of 23 shivered the whole night in cold and weighed on two options –returning to India to the safety of his family or fight injustice. The later thought prevailed, and thus started the journey of Mohandas Gandhi to become Mahatma (noble soul) Gandhi. Gandhi not only successfully fought against discriminatory laws in South Africa but later spearheaded the freedom struggle in India. 

There is something eternally appealing about Gandhi, a frail figure about five feet and four inches tall, weighing about one hundred and ten pounds. He was an adherent of nonviolence, which he also termed love-force or soul-force. To one of his colleagues, who argued that in the history of the past 200 years no freedom struggle has been won without violence and India needs to adopt violent methods to fight British rule, Gandhi replied that India could set an example to achieve independence through the method of nonviolence. Gandhi’s ideas not only inspired leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr. and Nelson Mandela, but also leaders and people across continents who fought for nonviolent social change. To acknowledge this, the United Nations observes Gandhi’s birthday on October 2 as the International Day of Nonviolence.

Gandhian worldview can be summarized in the three fundamental principles. First, there are certain universal moral principles that can be applied across divides. These principles are needed to realize positive peace among individuals, societies and nations. Second, these principles are not something outside of human beings and their collectivities. They are found within the human mind and heart. Third, it is the individual who is the center of the universe. Or rather, the individual is the nation and the world in miniature. Martin Luther King, Jr. during his visit to India in 1959, affirmed, “Mahatma Gandhi embodied in his life certain universal principles that are inherent in the moral structure of the universe, and these principles are as inescapable as the law of gravitation.” 

For Gandhi, nonviolence is the primary universal moral principle; the supreme virtue in human life. Life is an integral whole, and the nonviolence principle should govern it. His idea is relevant in the contemporary world which apparently witnesses chaos in human life due to the widening chasm between the moral principles and the actual living. His caution rings true: “For one man cannot do right in one department of life whilst he is occupied in doing wrong in any other department. Life is one indivisible whole.” Further, the Gandhian dictum that ‘Nature has for everyone’s need but not for everyone’s greed’ provides a powerful message. Unless the very basic datum of thinking of individuals, states and their leaders change and factor the principle of nonviolence, Gandhi would argue, it will be difficult to have sustainable peace, at the individual, community or at the international level. 

Gandhian nonviolence embodied not only a conviction in the principle but also in its firm application. But there is an apparent paradox – though Gandhi preached and practiced nonviolence and influenced leaders across continents, in the 21st century world world there appear to be fewer adherents to nonviolence. There are ample examples to corroborate this. At the international level, in Syria about a half million people perished in less than a decade while international organizations and conflict stakeholders were engaged in endless dialogue. At the domestic level, thousands of Americans are killed by guns each year. Martin Luther King, Jr., argues there is no choice: “The choice today is no longer between violence and nonviolence. It is either nonviolence or nonexistence.” 

Gandhian ideas are relevant to the contemporary world, but selectively and creatively. His letter to Hitler to adopt nonviolent method during World War II, his critique of modern industrial civilization as ‘satanic’, his puritan values may appear at odds with the 21st century world. A selective approach to Gandhian ideas is helpful. First, Gandhi does not have all the answers (he also never claimed to have them). Second, it will facilitate exclusion of his ideas which are outdated. 

If Gandhi, King, Jr., and Mandela were leaders and champions of nonviolence in their times, why not individuals, communities and leaders of our time practice nonviolence? Why there is an apparent increase in violence everywhere, while still the names of these champions are invoked? How can the paradox be explained – while policymakers do not factor nonviolence in the policymaking, many popular movements worldwide have increasingly espoused nonviolence and rejected violent tactics? Is nonviolence as a governing principle of life and society not relevant for the contemporary world? Gandhi’s 150th birth anniversary provides an occasion to meditate on these questions.

(The article was published in Peace and Justice Institute Journal, Valencia College, Spring/Summer 2020 Issue, pp. 14-15)

Gandhi and Khashoggi: Soldiers of Peace

On October 2 was born Mahatma Gandhi. On October 2 was also killed Jamal Khashoggi. There is one common element though 149 years separated both the events–Gandhi and Khashoggi fought injustice through peaceful means. They were harbingers of nonviolent social change but met a violent death.

While Gandhi in the 20th century fought colonialism and sought to change the heart of the ruler through nonviolent resistance, Khashoggi in the 21st century sought to change the course of the Arab world through his journalism. While Gandhi emerged a popular leader for nonviolent social change in the 20th century, Khashoggi through his media activism drew a mass following for the cause.

Gandhi and Khashoggi were killed but they remained immortal as their actions evoked powerful and enduring forces of nonviolent social change. While Gandhi remained an inspiration for nonviolent struggle all over the world, the death of Khashoggi shook international politics and many nations are still recovering from its after effects. The question, however, remains – what lessons we learn from the work and death of these peace agents, and how we use those lessons to change our world. Do we need more such deaths to realize that we live in a violent world?

2019 marks the 150th birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi. The United Nations declared October 2 as the International Day of Non-Violence. While marking the beginning of the anniversary celebrations, the UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, said, “at a time of protracted conflicts and complex challenges, Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violence remains an inspiration. At the United Nations, a world free of violence – and the resolution of differences through non-violent means – is at the core of our work.” Though the UN has remained a moral torchbearer, the policies of nations have been increasingly at odds with its founding principles. The death of Khashoggi is a testimony to the fact that the world has become more violent.

Gandhi was a critic of the principle of an eye of an eye and argued that such a principle would make the whole world blind. He preached and practiced the principle of nonviolence. He famously asserted when what we think, we say and we act are in harmony there is true peace. It needs more courage to be a ‘soldier of peace’ than to wield weapons and kill. He wrote in Young India, a weekly paper founded by him, on 6 October 1921, “As our movement is avowedly peaceful, it is much better even to drop sticks (as weapons). Soldiers of peace that we are, we should copy the ordinary soldier as little as possible whether in point of uniform or otherwise.”

Hypocrisy, particularly the disconnect between moral principles and politics – the hardcore realism, has not actually worked in the human world. In this era of globalization and borderless world, an event in a small place affects the wide world. A moral perspective is necessary for the survival of human society and the world. Khashoggi, like Gandhi, believed in nonviolent social change. Even after death, their voices appeal to us and call us for action. Their voices echo in our heart and call us to play a transformational role in our society.

Gandhi and Khashoggi were soldiers of peace and laid down their lives for a peaceful social change. Both of them fought against religious fundamentalism. Religion in its true spirit invokes peace and love in the adherents, but as we see in this tumultuous world, religions have often been used for narrow goals. This is amply visible in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, in India, in the Middle East, in Iraq, and many other parts of the world. The rise of religious right parties and the suppression of saner voices like Khashoggi give ample evidence that we live in a dangerous time.

Gandhi and Khashoggi were not just isolated individuals living for themselves. They represented the saner voice of humanity and lived within us. They represented the universal human morality that stood against violence and oppression. Instead of confining these soldiers of peace to the streets and memorials, we will do better service to them by learning from their lives and defining our role for building a peaceful world.

Moralizing International Politics

This article makes an appeal to bridge the chasm between the practice of international politics and the universal moral principles. Violation of moral principles has emerged a norm than exception in international politics. States and global institutions have proved ineffective to checkmate violent conflicts and wanton killings as in Syria. It is not they are incapable or lack resources. The problem lies elsewhere. Ego is a major cause behind much of the hazards in international politics. The article problematizes ego and calls for a broader thinking in international politics. 

Ban Ki-moon, the former head of the United Nations, expressed the frustration of our age. He lamented: “It should shame us all…the suffering of the Syrian people continues to plumb new depths … The international community, and in particular the Security Council, cannot afford to waste any further time in ending the cycle of violence… it is time to find an exit from this madness” (The United Nations 2015). Syria provides a stark example before us how states and global institutions have proved ineffective to ensure international peace and security. Within a span of six years since the crisis erupted, more than 400,000 people lost lives and unaccountable others uprooted. The powerful states in the United Nations flexed muscles over means to realize peace. Peace remained elusive.

One of the factors that contribute to the ineffectiveness of the international community and its leaders is the technological-moral chasm. There has been rapid growth in technology, particularly the communication technology, but the thinking pattern has not witnessed parallel growth. The old primordial way of thinking has not changed. The archetypal thinking in terms of binaries – mine vs thine, us vs them, my group vs rival group – has not evolved over centuries though major changes appeared in the structure and organization of human living. This thinking has produced a paradox. In the midst of developed technology, globalization and discourses of a flat and borderless world, the states are engaged in re-bordering practices. Technology has been used to rigidify barriers – us vs them – through narrow visions of security. Both hard power and soft power are used to strengthen these binaries in thinking and practice.

Does seclusion/isolation help? Is an isolated state immune from insecurity beyond its borders? In this age of globalization, how would states ensure safety at home when there is violence outside? The global concerns such as terrorism, religious extremism and climate change transcend state borders. Isolation as a foreign policy strategy might have worked in the past, but in the contemporary world isolation implies invitation to more problems. A small happening in a small part of the globe can shape international developments. How would erecting barriers ensure security of one state while other states undergo violent crises? Does eerie calm imply peace? When minds are disturbed, security is fragile, peace is uneasy, when we have blatantly messed up with Nature, how would we ensure the survival of human race in the decades and centuries to come?

The states spend billions of dollars in building weapons, while vouching disarmament. States spent around 1686 billion US dollars on defense in 2016. Contrast this figure with another figure: from 2014 to 2016, about 795 million people in the world suffered from chronic undernourishment. Is it not a violation of human moral principle to invest billions in weapons to secure people and borders while people remain hungry?

Indian philosopher Sri Aurobindo argued, like individuals, states have egos– amplified through national habits, prejudices and idiosyncrasies (Sri Aurobindo 1962). When applied to international politics, they lead to jingoism, exploitation and wars, leading to practices like colonialism and imperialism. Colonialism and imperialism, one of the worst forms of exploitation, have ended. However, they were only manifestation of an exploitative substructure. The root, the ego, is intact, and its manifestation has acquired new shapes. The Indian philosopher argued that state ego could evolve when state leaders think in terms of larger human unity and harmony. The establishment of the United Nations, after the failure of the League of Nations, was hailed as a right step in this direction. The UN was established with a promise to ensure dignity and equality to all states. Has this happened?

If the ultimate goal of human life is peace and security, then the theories of international politics have not fared well. Grand theorizing might provide a big picture and offer plausible explanations of developments, but they largely fail to account small developments at small places with big implications. Should not theories suggest ways to address state egos and its various avatars? Explaining developments in retrospect maybe useful as it offers insights for future action, but unless there is an active agenda to realize global peace, the theories would be limiting in their usefulness. Social science theories, dealing with human beings and their behaviors, stand in contrast to physical science theories, which deal with matter, mostly insentient. The post-behavioralism trend in political science that emerged in late 1960s due to ‘deep dissatisfaction in political research and teaching’ called for ‘new strategies in science’. David Easton in his presidential address at American Political Science Association in 1969 called for “the development of new norm of behavior” as the post-behavioral trend “sees policy engagement as a social responsibility of the intellectual…” He further agued, “Someday it may also require the release of the social scientist from bondage to the unique needs and objectives of his own national political system” (Easton 1969, 1061). The trend, however, petered out quickly. Now is the time to revive this trend.

Some theories suggest that the world has become a better place to live since inter-state wars have declined. Are we living in a more secure and peaceful world? What about wars within communities and states and their international ramifications? How does one define conflict in Syria – intrastate, interstate or both, or a more dangerous face of traditional rivalries? Thousands of fault lines along regions, religions, races, ethnicities have emerged. Even the threat of interstate wars with a nuclear angle cannot be undermined. The present crisis can be compared to a can of worms, with worms – multiple conflicts at various levels – continuously crawl out, in all shapes, sizes and colors and challenge individuals and states alike.

The dilemma over pleasure, happiness and peace was well depicted in the life of the Greek philosopher Diogenes. The philosopher asked the Emperor Alexander, who offered him all comforts of life, not to block sun light and that was all what he needed from him. With a lantern in his hand, Diogenes searched for an honest man. This act may defy rational understanding, but it contains a deeper message, which can help salvage humanity from the multiple crises. Pretensions, subterfuges, and other instruments meant for tangential gains bring hazards in its trail and harm the perpetrator. Gandhi’s caution rings true: “For one man cannot do right in one department of life whilst he is occupied in doing wrong in any other department. Life is one indivisible whole” (Gandhi 1969, 571).

A report titled, “Welcome to Miami, Massachusetts” claimed that if the greenhouse gas emission continues at the current rate, “… by 2100 Boston’s average summer-high temperatures will likely be more than 10 degrees Fahrenheit hotter than they are now, ‘making it feel as steamy as North Miami Beach is today’” (Annear 2014). A large iceberg of the size of Delaware broke off from an ice shelf in Antarctica in July 2017. According to a report, “global warming has pushed temperatures up to 5 degrees higher in the region since the 1950s and could increase up to 7 degrees more by the end of the century, putting more stress on the ice” (Rice 2017). Tony de Brum, the former Marshall Islands Foreign Minister, nominated for Nobel Peace Prize for his role in Paris Climate agreement, died recently at the age of 72. Brum witnessed the ‘Bravo shot,’ the thermonuclear test at Bikini Atoll when he was 9 years old. He became a champion of nuclear disarmament and environment protection. Brum, whose island home went under waters due to rising ocean, argued, “The thought of evacuation is repulsive to us…We think that the more reasonable thing to do is to seek to end this madness, this climate madness, where people think that smaller, vulnerable countries are expendable and therefore they can continue to do business as usual” (The Guardian 2017). Gandhi’s ‘Nature has for everyone’s need but not for everyone’s greed’ provides a powerful message. Unless the very basic thinking of states and their leaders change, it will be difficult to moralize international politics.

Plato devised a scheme of governance in which the king, the modern equivalent of president/prime minister, must be a philosopher. The king must undergo decades of education to govern the state. The king and his class must rise above the notions of mine and thine, live a communal life, eat in common kitchen, transcend boundaries of family and group, and become free to dedicate his life to state. Applying the Platonic yardstick to modern day kings, leaders of modern states, may appear farfetched, but it provides a vision how a leader should govern a state.

For moralizing international politics, one state does not have to dominate or be dominated. Morality requires collective conscience and action. The states, through their leaders, need to develop an integral moral psychology that informs social, economic and political worlds as they interact and shape each other. Powerful states may provide leadership in this direction.

References:

Annear, Steve (2014) Welcome to Miami, Massachusetts. Boston Daily, July 11, http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2014/07/11/climate-central-map-heat-boston-miami/, accessed 4 July 2017.

Easton, David (1969) The New Revolution in Political Science. The American Political Science Review; 63 (4):1051-1061.

Gandhi, Mahatma (1969) The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi Vol. 32. New Delhi: The Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India.

Rice, Doyle (2017) Massive iceberg nearly the size of Delaware breaks off Antarctica. USA Today, 12 July, https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/sciencefair/2017/07/12/massive-iceberg-breaks-off-antarctica/102637874/, accessed 4 July 2017.

Sri Aurobindo (1962) Human Cycle, the Ideal of Human Unity, War and Self-Determination. Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram.

The Guardian (2017) Tony de Brum, champion of Paris climate agreement, dies aged 72, 23 August, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/23/tony-de-brum-champion-of-paris-climate-agreement-dies-aged-72, accessed 24 August 2017.

The United Nations (2015) Statement by the Secretary-General on the Third Anniversary of the Geneva Communique on Syria. 30 June, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/06/30/world/middleeast/ap-un-united-nations-syria.html, accessed 5 August 2017.

(This article was earlier published in Transcend Media Weekly: https://www.transcend.org/tms/2017/12/moralizing-international-politics/)

International Yoga Day: Some Reflections

The Yoga lovers all over the world celebrated International Yoga Day today. I participated in a Yoga event in Boston, organized by an India-based organization. The participants came from different communities. I will focus more on this particular event later.

Last year, the UN declared 21 June as International Yoga Day. The Yoga lovers all over the world rejoiced at the UN declaration.

Let me briefly analyze what I understand by the term Yoga. The term has two aspects: narrow and broad. This is a simplistic categorization as I know Yoga is a much more deep term. A person with Yogic bent of mind, or rather a person who is true Yogi, can better define Yoga. In the narrow sense, as understood by most people, Yoga is equivalent to Asanas and similar body exercises that are reinvigorating. Asanas are different from body exercises in gym such as lifting weights or rising high on bars. Asanas usually do not need props. One can do it on an open space; one does not need to go to gym. The point is, for Asana, there are no special requirements. One should have a healthy body - that is most important requirement. I would say it is the cheapest, and at the same time priceless, exercise that keeps body and mind active and peaceful. The healing power of Asana is indeed great. One of the pioneers of Yoga in India, B. K. S. Iyengar who as a young boy had been suffering from diseases cured himself by practicing Asanas. World wide, there are various Yoga centers by enterprising professionals, who try to innovate and add one or two new techniques to make it popular, and earn good money.

Yoga developed in ancient India. The founder of Yoga was Patanjali. It is difficult to exactly trace his time period, but it would be fair to say that Patanjali was before Chirst, perhaps much before Christ. His book, Yoga Sutra is considered one of the major books on Yoga. One of my friends gifted me this book, when I was a college student in India. I read the hymns and tried to fathom their depth, but it was difficult for me that time to understand them.

Patanjali’s definition of Yoga is indeed a broad one. He says, “Yoga chitta vritti nirodha”. The literal meaning of the hymn is: to control the movements of mind is Yoga. This definition may seem too simplistic for the uninitiated, but too profound who understand the true import of Yoga. This definition has parallels with Gita’s hymn: “karmenye vadhikaraste maa phaleshu kadachana”, and “sthitaprajna”. In the hymn, Lord Krishna says to Arjuna, who was bewildered to see cousins on the rival side, “you have right to perform actions, but not to fruits of actions”. Sthitaprajna implies a state of mind – a composure in which the Yogi, the practitioner of Yoga, adopts same posture at good news and bad news, at success and at failure. This is certainly a broad definition as it does not talk about Asana or Pranayam (control of breathing for particular effects) or meditation (concentration of mind on divine or divine thoughts and words or on a particular point). Yoga includes all, and goes further. 

Yoga literally means addition or joining of one thing with some other thing. The spiritual connotation of the term is the joining of the individual soul with the universal soul. To put in a different language, it implies the joining of the individual soul with God. Even if we take out the religious interpretation, the term has profound secular meaning. It is by practicing Yoga the individual can widen his or her narrow self, and think broad and universal. Yoga can elevate an individual, whether religious or not, from his or her narrow selfish cocoon to the universal platform. One does not necessarily need to be religious to practice Yoga, whether in the form of Asana or Pranayam or meditation. Yoga is scientific and one can see its result after practicing.

One can know the value of Yoga only by practicing it, not by preaching it. Yoga is certainly an instrument of practice. A person who practices Yoga everyday would be jealous enough to give it up at the insistence of a misguided one who declares it an instrument of a particular religion.

In Hindu tradition, there are many types of Yoga. Yoga in this religious tradition is a means to realize God. In Hindu religion, there are six kinds of Yoga: Jnana Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, Prema Yoga, Karma Yoga, Raj Yoga and Tantra Yoga. In short: Jnana Yoga emphasizes on the means of knowledge and wisdom to realize God. Adi Shankara was one of its key proponents. Bhakti Yoga emphasizes on devotion to realize God. Sri Chaitanya was one of its key proponents. Prema Yoga emphasizes on love to realize God. Mira bai was one of its key proponents. Karma Yoga emphasizes on work as a key means to realize God. Gandhi was one of its key proponents. Raj Yoga emphasizes on Pranayam towards realizing God. Swami Vivekananda on his book Raj Yoga elaborated this Yoga. Tantra Yoga emphasizes on occult practices to realize God. Gorakhnath was one of its key proponents. Sri Aurobindo says it is not necessary that one must practice a particular Yoga or all Yogas to realize God. He suggests one should practice any of these Yogas, or a combination of them that suits a his or her aptitude and constitution.

Sri Aurobindo’s definition of Yoga is: All Life is Yoga. Perhaps this is the broadest definition of Yoga. It seems confusing. How can all life be Yoga? When I was a student at a university in New Delhi, I had a debate with one of my friends on this issue. My friend said: how can it be possible that Yoga will be the guiding principle of life? How can whole life be Yoga? It can not be. We have to do so many things – we have to study, watch TV, have some fun, and also Yoga. So, Yoga is one part of our life activities, not all activities. His argument apparently contradicted Sri Aurobindo’s definition. As a person he has every right to cling to his argument.

A person who has understood Sri Aurobindo’s philosophy understands the true import of his definition. In fact, this definition summarizes his whole philosophy. All Life is Yoga. He simplifies: the human life follows a path of evolution, human being moves towards God, and if not today then tomorrow he will reach God. This is certain, he says. And a person who understands this, and realizes this that he or she is born on earth to realize God, he or she would then adopt a Yogic perspective on life. Whatever he or she does, she would do that from that consciousness. That consciousness entails: I am here on earth to realize God, earth is the playground chosen by God for me, God is the guide, and everything that I do, I do for God. I am studying – I am studying for God. I am playing football – I am playing for God. I am dancing – I am dancing for God. Sri Aurobindo would say when one adopts this approach to life and actions – for him all his or her life, all his actions, will be Yoga. He would grow towards God, and his consciousness becomes God-consciousness. It is a difficult process as there is almost an eternal pull of base elements to obstruct this growth of human being towards God. Hence, Sri Aurobindo says doing Yoga is like walking on the edge of a sword.

We conventionally understand Yoga as doing Asana or Pranayam or meditation. And the International Yoga Day is intended to celebrate and promote these practices, which are enormously helpful for body, vital and mind.

Some people oppose Yoga. I came across a blog, which says that in India there are millions of people who do not get two good meals a day, so what is the fun of doing Yoga or promoting it? His concern for the poor is justified, and I hope the concern is genuine. But, he fails to explain how doing Yoga increases poverty, or contributes to poverty in India. These two issues are unrelated. Did the government of India divert millions or billions of dollars from welfare activities such as poverty eradication to Yoga? If yes, then he has a point. If not, then he is making an argument, when there is actually no argument.

Some people object practicing Yoga and term it religious, particularly Hindu. It is like saying flying in an aeroplane is Christian as Wright brothers made it. This objection simply does not stand rational scrutiny.

If we apply a sheer utilitarian measure (Bentham’s theory that pleasure can be quantified), Yoga is utilitarian. It makes the functioning of the body better, or even corrects/heals some of its malfunctioning. It brings calm and peace to our mind. If done properly, Pranayam and meditation increase mental power. What is the cost? Almost nothing, if you are not going to a professional Yoga teacher. Where is religion here?

I liked the event today. There was a discourse on Yoga. The speaker told about Yoga, and its various advantages. There was group meditation with soothing music in the background that continued for about one hour. At the end of the event, the organizers offered sweets and a card with a good message. One of the organizers asked me: how was the event, did I like it, or do I practice Yoga differently? I replied, the event was good, but I was expecting the meditation would be shorter than one hour. I know how it is difficult to meditate for one hour at one stretch. Few participants were dismayed as they came with their mats for doing some guided Asanas, which did not happen.

Epic Moments

In human life, there are moments which we can term ‘epic’. I will give here some examples of these moments, and will elaborate why I call these moments epic. 

Gandhi was thrown out of the train at Pietermaritzburg. The young man took a pledge that he will fight injustice. Non-violence will be his weapon.

Gautama was walking in a garden. He saw a sick man, an old man and a corpse. He took the pledge of renunciation and became Buddha. 

Archimedes jumped into a bathtub. He discovered the principle of buoyancy. 

An apple fell on the head of Newton. He discovered the law of gravitation. 

These are some of the examples of what I call epic moments. We have many such examples. 

We read about these events, giving rise to epic moments. One can argue and juxtapose whether another person, other than the persons described in the above examples, could have the same experience, same impact, with same consequences had he experienced the same event. The answer we do not know. But we ‘know’ these events, how they produced epic moments and how they changed the course of history, philosophy, science and human life. 

Let us forget for a moment these events. We are all human beings. Our life practices are almost same – we eat, sleep, we need family, friends, and comfort and so on. These elements too had a place among the lives of above individuals.

But what made them different from us? Is it time? Is it space? Is it the particular age in which they were born? Perhaps not. The epic moments I described above transcend time and space. Their consequences transcend age, transcend physical human phenomenon. All these persons lived like us. They spoke, lived and behaved like us. But, all are dead and gone. What does remain? Those epic moments remain, their impacts remain. Because of those epic moments, and their consequences, we remember these people.

So, we have the answer – what makes them different from us. The answer is – epic moments. It is these moments that separate them from us. Events occurred to them, created an epic moment for them, and we know that, and we remember them. 

How is an epic moment produced? It is difficult to answer. The events described, and which gave rise to epic moments, are very ordinary events. That can possibly happen to any individual. They are events that produced epic moments. It is not the event per se that is important, but it is the person, his/her state of mind, the exact situation, the circumstances surrounding the event, the social mores of the time, the receptivity of the individual at that time – all help constitute an epic moment. In another way, it is the combination of acts and forces happening in a particular time and place, but not in the control of that particular person, who is experiencing that particular event. Again I emphasize, the event may be ordinary, but when it gives rise to an epic moment, its significance passes beyond that particular person, time and space. 

I further argue that in every individual’s life there are epic moments. Perhaps the scales are different, but nonetheless there are epic moments in every individual’s life. An event causing a sudden moment of realization, an intimation of something deep, invoking in us something noble, or loosening the grip of mind and heart towards something wider, can give rise to an epic moment. An epic moment can emerge from any event, even from a very mundane event such as watching an animal walking, or a bird flying, or water flowing, or watching a person speaking some particular words, or watching a song or a play. Epic moments create life changing waves in us. They inspire us, change our lives, and make us a different human being than we were before. It was, I would say, a kind of reincarnation or rebirth, but in the same body.

There is another angle. A human being on average lives about 60 or 70 or 80 years, or may be more or less. The human life is very ordinary. It is indeed very ordinary. Society and law have set before us certain rules, which guide our lives. We do our daily chores, do our work for sustenance, have family, friends, and so on. And life passes away. In that sense, human life is very ordinary.

What makes life extraordinary? What brings to it meaning? Epic moments. Minus epic moments, the whole life possesses not much value. Epic moments inspire our life, shape our life. Like non-violence shaped the life of Gandhi, or renunciation shaped the life of Buddha, and so on. To add, the ordinary human life becomes extraordinary due to epic moments. If a human being is seized by an epic moment, clings to it, and follows it, his life becomes different than the others. His life becomes extraordinary. 

I will make a distinction here. Are all events epic? No. Can an event which is ordinary for an individual be epic for another individual? Yes. Who will define whether an event is epic or not? First, the individual, then the society. Rather the impact of an epic moment on an individual is so powerful, so immense, it flows out towards society. It is the society that remembers, reinvigorates the epic moment that happened to the individual, even long after the individual is dead and gone. 

In a different context, Max Weber wrote ideas come to us when they please, not when we please. It has a deeper meaning, which I can apply to the analysis of epic moments. Epic moments occur when they please, not when we please. But, again, there is a qualification here. There may be exceptions. The general rule is the individual must be receptive to the epic moment. There must be preparedness somewhere. Individual must be able to capture the energy released by the epic moment, and channelize it. It was like the apple that fell on the head of Newton, and activated his fertile brain, toward the discovery of law of gravity. 

Epic moments are ‘epic’ moments. They are not ordinary moments. Hence, it is not under the control of a particular individual to make an epic moment happen. As I mentioned earlier, there is probably scales in epic moments. An epic moment that changes human life, revolutionizes science, creates new paradigms are not the same epic moment that begins in an individual’s life and ends there. Both are, however, epic in terms of transformative power, whether small or large, individual or group or larger society. An individual may have experienced an epic moment and guided by it in his own life and is not interested to widen or to channel the transformative power to other individuals in society. But, it will still remain an epic moment as it transformed the life of that individual.

Are there negative and positive epic moments? This is very difficult to answer. I may appear biased if I say that epic moments have a positive transformative power on society. I may be wrong.

Philosophy of Life: Some Propositions

What is philosophy of life? The answer is uncertain. There is no single answer. It is like entering an ocean of debates; the end result being the beginning of the ocean. My argument against this will be human life can not survive in a vacuum. There needs to be debate and discussion, this is what makes the human being rational. It will be safe to argue that every individual has his own philosophy of life. It may also be safe to argue that philosophy of life changes from place to place, from situation to situation and from time to time. In my philosophy of life, I have the following propositions.

The first proposition is individual is fragile. However a strong and determined a person may be, there must be moments in his life when his determination melts, or he breaks down or feels weak. At the death of his wife, Kasturba, Gandhi bemoaned, “After sixty years of constant companionship, I cannot imagine life without her.” You can call it a sign of emotional chord that Gandhi struck at the loss of Kasturba but it shows the softer side of Gandhi who was otherwise considered a strong willed person who sat on fast for weeks together and fought non-violently the mighty British. I can give many examples. The great scholar and one of the founders of modern sociology, Emile Durkheim was devastated at his son’s death and this hastened his death. This fragility comes in many shapes – physical, emotional, moral, etc.

The second proposition is individual’s thinking and actions are molded by circumstances. No genius now says that a time will come when there will be flying machines as Roger Bacon had said centuries ago. We just fly. We do not think about travelling faster in aero planes, we just travel in them. We are no more worried about how to light our home as electricity is a quotidian thing. This was not the case hundred and some years ago. One of my friends in Minneapolis narrated how the older generations were confronting cold as they had to go outside their houses to attend nature’s call in minus twenty five degree Fahrenheit temperature and how they had to keep fire burning so that their house can be warm. These are now the past. These are some of the examples in collective life of the individuals. Even an individual’s personal thinking and behavior changes due to circumstances. Circumstances sometimes force an individual to do an act which he could not have otherwise done. We know extreme cases how an individual commits a serious crime, which he repents later. When I say circumstances I include these factors: individual’s state of mind at a given time, his place and status in society, his current location and the time, and his perception of laws and mores.

The third proposition is there is something in individual life which is not always in his control. You may call it fate or destiny. There is such an element in human life. The fate may include a eureka moment as in case of Archimedes or an apple falling on Newton’s head. One element brings these disparate incidents together is in none of these cases the person expected that particular incident will happen. I am not saying they are same. What I am trying to allude is the reward may not be always correspondent to a person’s work, the reverse maybe true. Shakespeare had said that some have greatness thrust upon them. I will give an Indian example. During choice of candidates for presidential elections in India in 2007, the ruling Congress party chose Karan Singh, one of the able candidates for the post. One of the coalition partners of the Congress, the Communist Party vetoed it arguing that Singh belongs to a royal family, and his aristocratic upbringing and his views on religion may not be suitable to the post. They proposed another candidate Pratibha Patil, who was a classmate of a communist leader. Patil was elected President.  

The fourth proposition is the most workable philosophy of life is inclusivism. A narrow minded person always finds faults in others and indulges in blame game. To add, a self-centered philosophy is not a better philosophy of life. I do not deny the importance of self, but there is a limit. I also believe in the dictum: a person who does not know how to help him can not help others. I am trying to extend the argument further. Gandhi comes here as an ideal. For him, all religions are like different rivers flowing to a sea or like beautiful flowers in a garden. For him, divisions on the basis of caste, color, religion, country are man made and they do not stand rational scrutiny. A person believing in inclusivism when sees a problem will first ask: how far am I responsible for this? How much have I contributed to this problem? How much can I help to resolve it? He will respect different views, different ways of life, though not necessarily succumbing to them. He will learn from others. To quote Gandhi, learn as if you are a student whole life.

The fifth proposition is humility is a greater asset than arrogance. I believe in the Socratic saying, ‘I know that I do not know.’ It is true that more an individual learns he becomes more humble. Swami Vivekananda articulated this proposition very well with the simile of well-frog. The frog living in the well can not see beyond the well. For the frog, the well is the universe, and there is nothing beyond that. A frog from outside fell down in the well. The well-frog asked the outsider: is your home bigger than this? The frog from outside said the outside world is too big, there is no comparison. The well-frog insisted that there can be nothing bigger than the well. The point I am trying to make is a person who wants to learn more must be humble; an arrogant person closes his mind for new knowledge.

I will stop for now. I will add few more propositions later. Perhaps the sixth one will be: simple living and high thinking. There is no end to human need; hence the better thing to do is to minimize the needs. I do not disagree with Aristotle that a person needs comfort and time to have useful reflections. But one has to find out ways how to find one’s comfort in such a way as to put minimal burden on nature and earth. The seventh proposition will be: one must contribute to society. I believe the society is our larger self. One needs to contribute to society in his own capability. A person who has no food needs to be busy to find means of subsistence. But a person who has no such worry should contribute to society. 

On the New Year

It may seem odd to write something on the New Year when the year is shedding one of its twelve legs. I understand that this perspective applies to the English new year, as there are many other new years which are yet to come – the Chinese celebrate it on 5th of February, the Hindus some time in March, etc. In that sense all these celebrations, if I may say, fall into a cycle – the cycle of new years or what I call the cycle of life. 

When I am talking about life, my mind goes to the saying of one of India’s celebrated philosopher, social servant and freedom fighter – Gopabandhu Dash. Dash (1877-1928) was fiercely independent in mind and spirit and despite having university degrees in those days and having opportunities to enjoy the life of high class preferred to be a dhoti-clad social reformer going from door to door to serve the poor. When the devastating flood affected the coastal Orissa Dash came out of his house to distribute relief to the victims. At that time his only son was bedridden with serious illness (those days medical facilities were horrible). His wife requested Dash not to leave their sick son on the verge of death, to which he replied (and I paraphrase), ‘thousands of my sons are afflicted by flood – whom should I serve: to this son or those thousands of sons suffering outside home?’ Gopabandhu left for serving the victims, and his son died. 

This is a brief background of Gopabandhu’s life – I have no intention to go into detail of his life, which is available in internet. I want to quote his message, which is quite apt for the New Year. Dash wrote in his poetic style, manav jeevan nuhain kevala barsha masa dina danda, karme jien nara karma eka tara jeevanara manadanda. To translate: the human life (and its worth) can not be measured by years, months or moments (which he lives), but only by the work (used broadly service to society) because human life can only be measured by the work he has done when alive. Dash not only wrote this but also walked his writing. I had already given one example. There are thousand such examples in his life. In the Gandhian language – his life was his message. He lived his philosophy. 

By bringing Gopabandhu to life on the occasion of the New Year I intend to do one thing – to remind myself and to my friends who read this – to think how far can we think and act in his way? How do we live our life worthy of a vision which we cherish – and which our successors will proudly remember and say that this person lived a worthy life – the life of a Gandhi, or Gopabandhu or Mandela or King Jr, or Newton, Einstein, or Wittgenstein – the examples are numerous. We may not want to be one of these worthy offsprings of the world, but we can be creative, productive, and humble in our own way. To argue in a lighter way, I bring here the famous song acted by Raj Kapoor, ek din bik jayega mati ke mol jag mein rah jayenge pyare teri bol, duje ke hontho ko dekar apne geet koi nisani chhod phir duniya se bol…(roughly translated - one day this fragile body will melt away (meaning death), but your actions will stay. Share others’ joy and pain, and in that do something for the world). Another song, acted by Kapoor, kisi ki muskurahaton pe ho nisar kisika dard mil sake to le udhar, kisiki vaste ho tere dil mein pyar jina isika naam hai bears similar message. Come here Swami Vivekananda who mightily pronounces: as you are born a human – leave an indelible mark on earth. 

I am reminded here the English film Death Has Become Her, which I watched few years ago. In that movie one of the protagonists Ernest denounces a magic potion, a drink of which makes human being immortal. There is a famous dialogue – Ernest to the prodding to drink the potion says I do not want to live artificially; rather I would live my life and die. These are not the exact words but something like which he said to his opponents. This is like Socratic way of saying (when the Greek philosopher Socrates was administered hemlock to die without his fault) – by dying I will remain alive and this jury will die while alive. There are many hilarious moments in the movie. (If I remember correctly) one of the women who had drunk potion met an accident and her body became scattered, she then collected her body into one. A movie full of comedies but with messages.

This is in brief my New Year reflections. I do not recommend that everybody must follow the example of Gopabandhu ditto – that is not the message. It is also not possible. The idea is to follow the spirit that guided Gopabandhu or Gandhi or Newton. If we can follow their examples in our own way and remain active, vigilant with seriousness to our work and surrounding and with compassion towards all, we can reasonably say that we can effect something positive in our life as well as for the world. I strongly reject the spirit of fatalism or a lazy attitude to life and in believing that a superior power will do everything for us – that is something I call negativism. Also, God does not help them who do not know how to help them. 

When I look at India, the place of my birth, I find (using the language of biology) malnutrition of these great spirits and surfeit of evil spirits – in terms of corruption and corrupt leaders, crime, religious orthodoxy, class and caste antagonisms. Field a few of Gandhis, Gopabandhus and Vivekanandas – all these problems and problem makers will vanish. There are attempts in this direction in recent months. We need more vigorous attempts. I am optimistic and positive about India’s future. Did not the great philosopher Sri Aurobindo proclaim during his message on the eve of India’s Independence that India is destined to be the Guru (leader) of the world? That leadership is the spiritual leadership, not a leadership backed by gun.

When I write these things on the New Year I may appear to lecture or give sermons – I actually look at things in a different way. These are messages to me as well. Human beings need guides like Gandhi but Gandhi can not lead human beings unless the human being wills to be led or to be changed. What I mean is: social transformation or change in the world is a collective effort, in which all, including I, have acts to perform.

Contending Visions of Development in India, more Political than Economic

As India’s general elections will take place in less than a year to elect a new government in New Delhi, political parties with support from noted economists have ratcheted up rival visions of development. Though this trend could be visible in all general elections, the forthcoming election has witnessed an unprecedented uptick of participation by noted economists.

Intense debates about India’s growth are not something new as such debates have taken place since independence. While India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru called industries as ‘temples of modern India,’ his political mentor Mahatma Gandhi was against industrialization and believed in village swaraj (self-rule). Post-independence India had witnessed the influence of Gandhi’s ideas. Nehru followed a middle path, called ‘mixed economy,’ under which heavy industries remained under state control, while small scale industries were left to private initiatives. The impact of Soviet five-year plans was evident on Indian economic strategy in those years. The preamble to India’s constitution also proclaimed India to be a ‘socialist’ country. Nehru’s thinking led to the establishment of many heavy industries and particularly under the second five-year plan, also called the Mohalanobis model, many heavy industries were established in different parts of India.

This mixed economy model was largely pursued till the late 1980s. Both India andChina followed socialist models of growth. China’s opening of its economy for private sector and foreign investment in late 1970s under Deng Xiaoping led it to grow at a faster rate, while India’s economic growth tottered at a lower single digit level with slogans such as ‘garibi hatao’ (eliminate poverty) occupying center stage in policy making.

It was only in the early 1990s when India underwent an acute financial crisis that it opened its economy. It was under the stewardship of then Finance Minister, currently Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh that India invited foreign capital, provided incentives to private sectors, ended quota-permit raj, and as a result in a span of one decade India’s growth story was not only India’s story, but also a story of a rising power with Indian companies like Tata, Reliance, Bharti, etc making names and investments around the world. While in 1991 India’s foreign exchange reserves stood at $1.2 billion, in 2013 the number was more than $280 billion. India’s growth story, however, was blighted by massive corruption, indecisiveness of its leaders and internal problems.

Ahead of the forthcoming elections noted economists have argued about the most appropriate model for the country and hence have deliberately or inadvertently are linked themselves to the ideology of one or the other political party. Amartya Sen, Nobel laureate and professor at Harvard University, argued in his book Development as Freedom that development does not merely imply the building of industries or foreign exchange reserves but also the penetration of fruits of development to all layers of society including the poor and marginalized. He further argued that unless human capabilities are developed, a state cannot attain levels of just and fair growth. His academic rivals Jagdish Bhagwati and Arvind Panagariya, professors at ColumbiaUniversity, may not disagree with Sen on this point, but they sharply disagree as to how to achieve such a goal.

The debate between the noted economists can be characterized by the dilemma as to which came first, egg or chick? The Bhagwati-Pangariya duo would argue that investment in industries, infrastructure, etc. would propel growth with positive impact on the government’s welfare activities, as growth in these sectors will have its trickle down effect. Sen would argue that without development of capabilities in terms of education, health, and the alleviation of poverty, development will not be just and fair. It will lead to asymmetrical development with the rich becoming richer, and poor becoming poorer. Bhagwati and Panagariya have a different view on this. While Sen termed India’s recent growth story as ‘uncertain,’ as reflected in the title of his recent co-authored book Uncertain Glory, an indirect reference to India’s growth story, the Columbia University professors have taken a positive approach to India’s growth story in their recent book Why Growth Matters: How Economic Growth in India Reduced Poverty and the Lessons for Other Developing Countries.

The intellectual debates are politicized or are being appropriated by political parties. The current debate between these two rival groups is about the efficacy of the ‘Bihar model’ (with which Sen has sympathies) and ‘Gujarat model’ (with which Bhagwati and Panagariya have sympathies). Both Indian states have witnessed growth. But, it is not the question of which model of development that has raised the debate to such a charged atmosphere; rather it is the political implications of these debates and their likely impact on electorates. Bihar the north Indian state is ruled by a regional political party called Janata Dal Untied (JD- U), and led by Nitish Kumar, whileGujarat the west Indian state, ruled by a national party called Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The state is led by Narendra Modi. Both JD-U and BJP were allies for the last 17 years till June this year. At present Kumar is a strong critic of Modi and criticizes his secular credentials for the Gujarat riots of 2002 that led to killing of more than a thousand Muslims. Interestingly, Kumar praised Modi’s leadership in 2003 in a speech, within a year of the riots.

Times have changed with changing aspirations. Both Kumar and Modi are now aspiring to play pivotal roles in Indian politics beyond their states. While Modi is seen as prime ministerial candidate of the BJP in forthcoming elections, Kumar has kept his political cards close to his chest though his aspirations are not hidden. The current ruling party in India , the Indian National Congress (INC) is an arch-rival of BJP; hence it has welcomed the separation of JD-U from BJP. While the economists have raised fruitful debates about India’s growth, the politicization of these debates have actually tapered much of intellectual stamina of these debates.

Published in http://blogs.umb.edu/paxblog/ on 30 July 2013

Living Reality of God

When I use the phrase living reality of God, I use it in a very conventional sense. I use it in the sense a common person will prefer to use it. Hence, one does not need specialization in theology or philosophy to comprehend what I mean to say here. It is simple, related to the common sense notion of God. Further extending my assumption, I argue that most of the human beings believe in God; only few are atheists or agnostics. Here, I am emphasizing on this majority God-believing people and drawing their attention to the discourse here. On basis of conjecture, I argue that among the seven billion people the earth tolerates now, at least six billion people believe in God. Whether you are a Christian or a Hindu or a Muslim, or belong to any other religion, I am not alluding to that- my major point is that most of we humans believe in God (I am afraid whether we could attribute gender to God, particularly when we talk about God as infinite, formless and shapeless). We believe God is three omnis (-potent, -scient, -present), magnanimous, kind and embodiment of all perfections.

We adorn our houses with beautiful images or symbols representing God, we pray every morning and evening, or any other time. A devout Muslim says Namaz at least five times a day, a Christian goes to Church to pray God, a Hindu goes to a temple to offer prayers. In all these actions, I identify an underlying motive of good, we pray – O’ God give us strength, give us wisdom, give us wealth, and all other kinds of endowments which any human being may desire in his life for a dignified living. I do not dispute it, and do not quarrel on this attitude. This, in a range a God prayers, may be rated one rung, there are many other prayers – for instance a saint may ask for salvation instead of wealth, a wealthy person may ask for solace and peace of mind, and so on. The basic point I am trying to underline is we believe God is the giver, and we are the receiver. God is good, and we can ‘earn’ and ‘learn’ from God.

That is fine, and that in a sense fortifies human belief in a higher power, which is beyond our grasp. I will not debate here various implications of such a belief, but certainly I will debate the human individual the center of attention-seeker and seeker of things from God, and the contrast between his prayer and his ideas while praying, and what actually he does. I emphasize on the term contrast, because this contrasting nature of human personality is the issue of core debate. And the contrast is so glaring, so naked, that it appears that the whole human cycle since ancient days is just a continuum in repeating this contrast, without any actual transformation or change in this cycle. I will elaborate this point.

Let me simplify this by alluding to simple instances in our daily lives. We pray– O’ God make us peaceful. But after we finish the prayer, we get angry at instances which do not warrant anger, or which can be subdued or controlled, and the prayer goes to oblivion. This prayer does not take place one day, but for months and years. We pray something, we vow before God to do something, but aftermath we just do the opposite. We know how many people take oath before God that they will never do evil things, but actually they perpetrate all those evil things. We might laugh at the situation in the law courts. The witness touches Gita or Koran or Bible (the religious scriptures believed to have directly flown from the mouth of God) and takes oath that he will not lie while answering to the lawyer, but he knows he is there just to tell lies. I am not generalizing the issue, but it happens in many cases. This is another case of striking contrast. There are thousands of such contrasts in human lives, which make human person most paradoxical, most contrasting. 

Why then this contrast? Is it essential? Is it inevitable? I offer this psychological explanation for this contrast. Human beings are fragile and at the same time shrewd, and also at the same time he knows that he needs a veneer of good-nature knowing well that he cannot be that. This thinking pervades not one human being, but all human beings; as a consequence this contrast has been accepted as a normal order in human society. Putting it figuratively, it is not one or two, but all are naked in this public bath, hence it is considered neither immoral, nor anti-God, but it is just Normal. Rather it is encouraged so that at least such a practice can provide a kind of social guarantee that people stay attached to such an order. This is acceptable as society accepts this. Here social regulation trumps up God, while we believe God is supreme but in reality we make social beliefs and social practices, which are full of contrasts, supreme.

Why this prevalent contrast, which has taken such a deep root? We seldom question it. When Tolstoy said – the kingdom of God lies within you, what did he mean? When Gandhi proclaimed Truth is God and God is Truth, what did he actually mean? Or when Sri Aurobindo argued All Life is Yoga, what did he actually imply? There is one common thread pervading all these arguments – that in God-believing there cannot be a difference between thinking and practice, between ideas and their implementation, and most importantly when we believe in God and worship God, we must live God and God-Reality. Otherwise, it will be better to throw the images and symbols representing God to dustbin– in that way at least we will shed some of our pretense.

Mani Bhavan in Mumbai

I visited Mani Bhavan (name of Gandhi museum in Mumbai) recently. It is the place where the Mahatma (the great soul), our Mahatma, or rather the Mahatma of the world was staying, whenever in then Bombay, for about seventeen years – from 1917 to 1934. From Mani Bhavan, some of the historic movements including the Satygraha (literally meaning love for truth, it may also imply peaceful resistance) against the Rowlatt Act (a repressive British law) in 1919, non-cooperation movement 1921-1922, the Civil Disobedience movement 1932 were conceived.

It was indeed novel experience. This part of Bombay (now Mumbai), where Mani Bhavan is located, was the real Bombay as it was originally developed by the British. Hence, while walking one will definitely come across old buildings, bearing marks of old construction, old style, perhaps British, Victorian style. After getting down at Grant Road railway station, I crossed over to the west and walked on the newly constructed foot bridge and walked around some hundred meters to the left (there is a short route which I discovered later, when I visited later) and then getting down near August Kranti Maidan (revolution garden), famous as from here Mahatma Gandhi had in August 1942 given the call for ‘Quit India’ against the British. I strolled in the garden for about few minutes, and saw the memorial constructed in 1970 in one corner of the garden. It was the garden which witnessed some 70 years ago, one of the most powerful movements in the world, finally convincing the British to give up the Indian empire. I could visualize, though in my own way, how the Mahatma might have stood in the centre of the garden and calling the Indians to throw the mighty yoke of colonialism and imperialism, though in a particular Gandhian way. Gandhi from here gave that final call ‘Do or Die.’

Mani Bhavan is something, I recommend, which everyone across divides should visit at least once. It is a kind of pilgrimage. It opens one’s eyes to the message of that great soul. I remember while reading the copy of his letter dated 23 July 1939 to Adolph Hitler in the first floor of the museum in a plea to stop the war during the second world war, Gandhi was in his usual self, polite, humble and even his language showed no antipathy or dislike of Hitler. He wrote the letter very carefully, and with a powerful peaceful mind, and pleading to the dictator to stop the violence. One must read the letter not to read the style of Gandhi, but even how the powerful message can be conveyed in simple ways. I am reproducing the letter here:

“Dear Friend,
Friends have been urging me to write to you for the sake of humanity. But I have resisted their request, because of the feeling that any letter from me would be an impertinence. Something tells me that I must not calculate and that I must make my appeal for whatever it my worth.
It is quite clear that you are today the one person in the world who can prevent a war which may reduce humanity to the savage state. Must you pay that price for an object however worthy it may appear to you to be? Will you listen to the appeal of one who has deliberately shunned the method of war not without considerable success? Any way I anticipate your forgiveness, if I have erred in writing to you.”

Below that letter, there was copy of another letter of Gandhi dated 1 July 1942 to then US president Franklin D. Roosevelt. It is a big letter in comparison to letter to Hitler. Gandhi expressed his appreciation of some of the values of the West, recounted how he was influenced by the ideas of Thoreau and Ruskin, and how he was educated in London, etc. However, he did not fully support the policies of the Allies during the second world war. In a way, he appealed Roosevelt to use his power on the British to withdraw from India. To quote him, “I venture to think that the Allied declaration that the Allies are fighting to make the world safe for freedom of the individual and for democracy sounds hollow, so long as India and, for that matter, Africa are exploited by Great Britain, and America has the Negro problem in her home. But in order to avoid all complications, in my proposal I have confined myself only to India. If India becomes free, the rest must follow, if it does not happen simultaneously.”

Gandhi’s message is crystal clear throughout the photographs and paintings and other items in the museum. At one place, he says that ‘if I die from the bullet of a mad man, then I will rather smile with name of God on my lips.’ Such courage, I think, few human beings can display, or shelter in heart. Indeed he followed his words. When killed by a fanatic on 30 January 1948, Gandhi joined his palms as in prayer and uttered the name of God! And he says cowardice is a crime! I read the message of Albert Einstein on Gandhi, and he rightly says, hardly future generation will believe that such a man of flesh and blood ever walked on earth!
Below is reproduced the message (undated) of Einstein:

“A leader of his people, unsupported by any outward authority; a politician whose success rests not upon craft or mastery of technical devices, but simply on the convincing power of his personality; a victorious fighter who has always scorned the use of force; a man of wisdom and humility, armed with resolve and inflexible consistency, who has devoted all his strength to the uplifting of his people and the betterment of their lot; a man who has confronted the brutality of Europe with the dignity of the simple human being, and thus at all times risen superior.
Generations to come, it may be, will scarce believe that such a one as this ever in flesh and blood walked upon this earth.”

The photographs portrayed various aspects of life of Gandhi. I saw medals he was awarded for his services in Africa, particularly during the Boer war, 1899-1900, and the Service Medal, 1906. The paintings displaying his humiliation as he was thrown out from his first class rail car in Pietermaritzburg in South Africa (well portrayed in Shyam Benegal’s film Making of the Mahatma), his fight there against the discrimination, his Tolstoy farm (including his letter exchanges with Leo Tolstoy), are well preserved in that museum. His role in Indian freedom struggle, his arrest from the terrace-tent of Mani Bhavan, his visit to communal violence affected areas in Bengal, Bihar, are well depicted in the museum. I was moved by that particular painting, belonging to both Hindu and Muslim fanatics in Bengal, surrendering their arms before Mahatma Gandhi as he was on fast unto death to stop communal violence. Such was his personality! His power was his simplicity, honesty and conviction.

Similarly his Dandi March in 1930 to break discriminatory salt law was equally heart thrilling. Gandhi, then 61 years old, along with some of his followers walked about 261 miles from Sabaramati Ashram in Ahmadabad to Dandi in the west coast of India to break discriminatory salt law. Another picture, in which another great stalwart of Indian freedom struggle, Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, also called Frontier Gandhi, was sitting on the bed side of Gandhi before departing for his home place in Pakistan after the partition of the British India. About Nehru, Gandhi is full of praise and says when he dies, Jawaharlal will speak his voice. Perhaps that conviction and that trust in Nehru, led Gandhi to choose him to be independent India’s first prime minister. And, I believe, Nehru lived up to Gandhi’s trust on him.

At one place, I saw copies of front pages of various news papers such as Young India, Indian Opinion, Harijan, Harijan Sewak, which Gandhi during the Indian freedom struggle. Gandhi took over Navjivan weekly and Young India in Gujarati and English respectively in this building in 1919. We all know how Gandhi’s heart was always concerned for the upliftment of Harijans (a name meaning people of God, which Gandhi used to call lower caste people or Dalits). One can imagine from the life of Gandhi how much he was active. It is written somewhere in the museum that while writing whenever his right hand was tired, Gandhi used to write in his left hand without taking rest. In the thick of action, as he was actively involved in the freedom struggle, he could manage to read and write volumes after volumes.

In the museum I saw the painting of Srimad Rajchandra (1867-1901), an ascetic who influenced Gandhi so deeply. Gandhi wrote in 1930 about this ascetic who died at a young age of 34, “Srimad Rajchandra captivated my heart in religious matters as no other man has till now. In moulding my inner life Tolstoy and Ruskin vied with Kavi (poet) Rajchandra. But Kavi’s influence was undoubtedly deeper.”

I could see postal stamps from almost every country of the world to mark the birthday centenary of Gandhi in 1969-1970. There are also posters, pamphlets, some quoting Gandhi, to mark the occasion. Some of those quotations are very powerful and much relevant today. They are perhaps powerful antidotes to communal violence and parochialism that have wrecked havoc in India in recent years. Gandhi in these messages exhorts countrymen to think from a wider Indian identity and perspective rather than as a Hindu or Muslim, or Marathi or Gujarati, or any such other narrow divisions.

Gandhi’s love for his wife and parents is well depicted in the paintings and pictures in the museum. At one place, after the death of his wife and great companion for 62 years Kasturba Gandhi (whom Gandhi called Ba), Gandhi said ‘it is difficult to imagine life without Ba.’ In a painting, the head of deceased Kasturba was lying in rest on the lap of Gandhi. Before going to London for study, Gandhi took an oath before his mother. His mother allowed him to go but on the condition that ‘he will not touch wine, woman and meat.’ And Gandhi kept the promise. In this, he was in the image of his mother, whom he describes as a woman who keeps all the promises, even the toughest. At some place he says during his service to his father for about five years when he was ill, Gandhi used to discuss many issues with him. There is a painting in which the teenage Gandhi kneels down before his father asking forgiveness for theft, which his father accepted, in fact appreciated the confession of his son.

There are many other interesting things as well in the museum. Gandhi’s meeting with famous personalities like Romain Rolland, Charlie Chaplin, Rabindranath Tagore, his stay with working class people of London for about eight weeks are well depicted in the paintings and pictures in the museum. In one of the photographs it is shown that Rolland was playing Beethoven’s symphony at the request of Gandhi in Geneva.

Some very interesting things I also found in the galleries. In the first floor, one can see a copy of Gandhi’s passport to visit to London in 1931 to attend Round Table Conference. In the passport his citizenship was written as ‘British protected subject’ (perhaps that was the status of all Indians then), his height five feet four inches, his occupation as ‘farmer (bar-at-law) non practicing.’ There are many such interesting things one can find in Mani Bhavan. In one picture Gandhi was sitting like a stone as one of the renowned sculptors Joe Davidson was drawing his painting in 1931. There are in the museum replicas such as bowels, utensils, knives, etc. which Gandhi was using while staying in jail.

In Gandhi’s living room on the second floor, one can see from the glass the original Charkha (the spinning wheel, Gandhi’s symbol of self-dependence) he was using, his bed on the floor, his Kadam (wooden slipper), his book stand, and many other things. I imagined Gandhi while viewing that room. The room is still there, the great soul has departed, but his ideas still reverberate in the world. We all know how great leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela and many others were influenced by him. I remember reading somewhere how one of the great peace activists of our time Johan Galtung started crying at the news of the departure of the great soul.

The US President, Barack Obama during his visit to Mumbai last year in November paid tribute to Gandhi in Mani Bhavan. In the museum is adorned a stone (stone of hope, from Martin Luther King Jr. memorial) presented by Barack and Michelle Obama to the museum.

It was a great experience indeed! I wish every person believing in peace must visit the museum and feel Gandhi and learn to follow his messages. Hope, people with radical ideas come to the museum and learn from the ideas of the great soul. If this happens, which I pray, we will not have wars and violence. Gandhi, the visit to museum made me further convinced, is much more relevant in today’s world in which we are witnessing violence almost on daily basis in almost in every place. Which peace loving citizen will not agree with Gandhi when he says in peace lies the salvation of the mankind, not in violence!