Kashmir, Chidambaram, and cheap politics

In a recent tweet, P. Chidambaram, former Home Minister of India, termed Indian government’s abrogation of Article 370 ‘(un)constitutional coup’. At other places he attributed religious motives to the policy and reasoned that India abrogated the Article because Kashmir is Muslim-dominated region, and argued India used its muscle power to keep Kashmir in its fold.

Many other things Chidambaram also uttered recently, with which I have no problem to agree – the abrogation has increased unrest in Jammu and Kashmir, that India should cultivate the people and leaders of Jammu and Kashmir and win their trust, and mere muscle power is not going to help resolve the problem in the valley. Mixing national interest with cheap politics might help his party score some points but the damage his utterances do to India can be far reaching.

Article 370 was supposed to be abrogated at some point of time. It was a temporary provision. Chidambaram can argue that in the abrogation process the government could have consulted the opposition parties but claiming that the abrogation was done for religious purpose is like arguing that Article 370 was incorporated in the constitution for a religious purpose. It is not necessary that one must search for communal motives in all policies. That was one of the reasons why India got partitioned in the very first place. The two-nation theory held that everything is communal, everything can be seen through two-nation, and Hindus and Muslims cannot coexist. By attributing a communal motive to India’s policy to abrogate Article 370, Chidambaram is just subscribing to this two-nation theory.

One can apply Chidambaram’s logic to the policies of leaders like Sardar Patel and Jawaharlal Nehru. Patel sent forces to Hyderabad to secure its integration with the Indian state. Chidambaram’s logic would tell us that Patel, a Hindu, was sending forces to integrate the Hyderabad, ruled by Nizam, a Muslim. This logic would also apply to Nehru, who sent forces to Kashmir after the Pakistan-supported forces invaded Kashmir after the partition and occupied significant portions of the princely state.

Mixing national interest with petty political goals, deliberate or not, has increasingly become a norm in recent years. When a seasoned politician, and a former Home Minister, succumbs to this temptation, one can imagine the herds that follow such leaders, and how social media and propaganda machines within and across borders ceaselessly circulate such confusing utterances.

It is true that there is unrest in Jammu and Kashmir, and India has not been successful in addressing the challenges posed by this unrest. The increasing fighting between the security forces and the disgruntled youth in recent years is a testimony to this unrest. As the conflict is entangled with religion (in the shape of two-nation), territorial claims, geopolitical ambitions, blaming one factor and ignoring other factors make a poor understanding of the conflict. Not only that, it does not help address the conflict, but rather provides ammunition to spoilers who will be happy to quote leaders like the former Home Minister to support their activities.

I have no problem in agreeing with Chidambaram that the people of India should stand with the people of Jammu and Kashmir. During my visits to border areas, I came across acute alienation among the people of the valley, and that needs to be addressed. As I argued elsewhere, it is necessary that India must initiate people-centric policies and make the people and local leaders of the region stakeholders in the policymaking process. In this direction, perhaps it will be useful to engage in dialogue with groups like the Gupkar alliance and other stakeholders in the Kashmir conflict. It will be useful to learn from previous governments to steer such a peace process. Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh initiated many positive steps in this regard. ‘Round tables’ and ‘heart-to-talks’ could be organized in the valley and other parts of the region. The people must not feel left out from the developments happening in the region, nor must they feel that the policies are imposed from above without their consent. While engaging people and their leaders in a spirit of dialogue, the government must use its muscle power to address the spoilers.

It should be clear to the leaders of India that Jammu and Kashmir conflict is not a Congress party issue or BJP party issue, to be used against each other. It is a national issue and all political parties having a stake in national progress must put serious thought on how to bring peace and development to the region. As India is a democratic country, the opposition must play a positive role when the government does not perform its duty, and at the same time support government policies which are necessary for national unity and development. The difference between a petty politician and a visionary statesman is certainly wide, and the Indian leaders, including P. Chidambaram, are not only accountable to the political party of which they are members but also to the people of India and the posterity even after they are dead and gone.

(This article was earlier published in my TOI blogsite: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/periscope/kashmir-chidambaram-and-cheap-politics/)

Two Cities, Shared History

I just finished reading and relishing the book Tales of Two Cities (2008, edited by David Page, published by Roli Books under the series Cross Border Talks).

The book is about the journey of two prominent South Asians – Kuldip Nayar from India and Asif Noorani from Pakistan. Theirs are not simply stories of travel but voyages – physical, emotional and spiritual – deeply embedded in the history of partition of the British India. This book, hence, is a narrative of history of India and Pakistan – the birth pangs of the two nations, the role of religion in history making and also about an integrated identity and onslaughts on it. Equally importantly, this book is not only about tragedies of Nayar and Noorani but also about tragedies of millions of Indians and Pakistanis, who crossed the abruptly created border, suffered and died.

Nayar recounts his days in Sialkot and how he was active in friend circles, leading a peace committee to fight communal hatred that was gaining momentum in the wake of the partition. He talks about his Muslim friends and how at the wish of his best friend, Shafquat, he tattooed the Islamic insignia – the crescent and star – on his right arm. His father was a dentist in the town and popular among the local populace. The fever of partition was going high and along with the hatred among the Hindus and the Muslims. Nayar argues that the partition of the subcontinent on religious basis fostered the hatred and provided much of its rationale. He raises this issue before the founder of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who visited Lahore College before three years of the partition. Nayar that time was a Law student in the college. To his question, how would he ensure that the Muslims and the Hindus live together once Pakistan is created, Jinnah replied that once the states are created Pakistan and India would remain as friends as France and Britain after many years of war.

“The few weeks of madness (during the partition) on both sides of the border embittered relations between the two countries for generations to come…Fear and mistrust of each other made even trivial matters major issues”, Nayar writes.

He remains nostalgic about his native place. He describes in detail the surrounding of his house and the town. Though a Hindu, Nayar describes how his family was worshipping a Pir (a Muslim Saint) in the backyard of his house and how the Hindus and the Muslims were sharing each others’ joy and sorrow, only to be sullied by the communal hatred and violence. He tells how his father, then 65, was hurled a brick by a Muslim boy (whom he had cured from typhoid few weeks back) while returning back from office on a tonga. The boy named Bashir, accompanied by his parents, came to Nayar’s house next day to seek forgiveness for his act. Nayar argues that the arrival of the Muslim refugees from India who had tragic experiences at the hands of the Hindus and the Sikhs further spurred the communal violence. Those refugees encouraged and actively engaged in violence.

Nayar is also critical about the Indian leadership during partition. He believes that some Indian leaders were apathetic towards the conditions of the Muslims as they believed that the Muslims got a separate state as they wanted. He also mentions India not transferring the agreed upon assets to Pakistan, which furthered the bitterness. Nayar, however, speaks highly of India’s Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, and argues he was a thorough secularist. Nehru went to the streets of Delhi with kurta and pajama with a stick in hand to stop communal violence. He points out as most of the Muslim leadership shifted to Pakistan the remaining Muslims in India looked to Maulana Abul Kalam Azad for leadership. Azad in one of his speeches at Lahore College had argued that the partition would not serve the cause of peace in the subcontinent.

Though the wounds of the partition are deep, Nayar believes, they can be healed through friendship and cooperation. He is active in promoting peace between the two countries. He is also an advocate of friendly relationship between the two Punjabs in India and Pakistan.

Asif Noorani – a journalist, film critic, columnist, is adept in combining humor and hard fact with subtle messages. Like Nayar, he was born in an affluent family in Bombay and went to school and befriended kids from different religions. As a child he believed all are Muslims and a Hindu must be a Shia or Sunni! This is pure simplicity which we also experience in different ways in childhood. Noorani describes his childhood in a multicultural and multiethnic setting in Bombay, and remembers some of the gory scenes of communal violence. One needs to remember that Bombay was not as affected by partition-related violence as Punjab.

His family travelled to Karachi in 1950, three years after the partition. It was more an economic factor than political and communal that pushed his family to leave Bombay. His father had suffered losses in Bombay as his partner in the medical store had shifted to Pakistan and the new partner was not cooperative. Noorani’s description of Lahore, particularly the model town locality where his family initially settled, is vivid. This locality was mostly developed by the Hindus and Sikhs before the partition, and Noorani tells us how some of the houses have Hindu names engraved in the marble plaques.

Later his family migrated to Karachi. He describes how families migrating from different parts of India had settled in the city. These refugees had not forgotten their native places in India. They named their new habitations as per their old places in India. So there were Benaras colony, Kokan society, Bihar colony and Dilli colony in Karachi! Here, it is important to observe how the identity of the people remained with them despite their dislocation. Not only that, the migrant people, particularly the women preferred to call each other in the name of the locality they belonged to in India. So, his mother was Bumbai wali behan. There was also a Jhansi ki Rani, the lady who migrated from the Indian town Jhansi!

Noorani’s narration of the 1965 war and his confinement to Bombay is heartrending. Though he was worried about possible internment or possibility of being a prisoner of war, he remained composed throughout. During his Bombay days he had a brief interaction with the noted Bollywood actor Dilip Kumar. His encounters with the Indian officials including one Takle were a mixture of tribulation and humor. It shows how the officials despite the conflict between the two countries were not in the same mold. While some preferred to be rigid like the official who did not send his passport to Delhi for the stamp, others like Takle showed the humane side and offered Noorani tea and biscuits and shared jokes.

Noorani tells us the multiethnic and pluralistic culture of Karachi. It is the city in Pakistan which has the maximum number of minorities. He tells how on one occasion when communal frenzy was at high, Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan rushed to the Burnes Road with kurta and pajama to stop the violence.

Noorani and Nayar also recount the story of their respective cities which they called their homes after the partition. They cast a balanced picture of the cities of Karachi and Delhi. Though these cities have grown manifold and become cosmopolitan, they have increasingly encountered problems such as environment pollution, overcrowding, unemployment, etc. Both Noorani and Nayar are optimists. That optimism has motivated them to pursue their life-long goal – peace between India and Pakistan. Theirs is a shared story, shared history, identity and culture, which the border created in 1947 could not rupture.

(Published in Transcend Media Weekly, 12-18 May 2014)

Reading Speeches

I watched three events in youtube yesterday: the speeches of three successive Indian prime ministers: Jawaharlal Nehru, Lal Bahadur Shastri, and Indira Gandhi. All the three speeches were incidentally related to Kashmir conflict. I watched these video clips to divert my attention from hectic schedule, but found myself involved thinking about the speeches and related dimensions: what the leaders spoke, their style of speaking, their tonal expressions and implications. All these I have referred in this piece reading speeches. I am aware that I am a novice in this disciple, and many universities have special departments to study and analyze speeches. But there is nothing, I suppose, in hazarding this analysis in a blog, which for me an open space to express myself. In this adventure, I do not mind considerations of specialization, expertise, and all those stuff.

All these three clips hardly continued more than 20 minutes. These clips were random selections. As I was thinking of ways of comforting myself, a random thought appeared that I should listen to Shastri’s speech. And when I watched the video of Tashkent summit and his brief speech there, I could come across other video clips in the same webpage containing speeches of father-daughter duo – Nehru and Indira. To my amusement all the speeches were related to Kashmir conflict. Nehru was speaking at the UN and at a press conference in New Delhi and Indira was speaking to press during her whirlwind world tour during Indo-Pak crisis in 1971.

Let me start with Indira Gandhi. She was visibly tense during interviews. I could fathom her visible frustration. While speaking at the Panos show, or at other interviews, mainly in the UK, her face was stiff, at time contorted, as she was confronting barrage of questions from journalists. Journalists were perhaps delighted to see India’s prime minister in such a tense posture. And they bombarded with questions: will India attack Pakistan? Will India initiate a dialogue with Pakistan to bring peace in West Pakistan? Will India support Mukti Bahini of Shiekh Mujibur Rehman in its war against Pakistan? Indira was visibly upset, and trying to articulate Indian position that India has nothing to do with Pakistan crisis. But what about millions of refugees crossing over to Indian territory, she asked journalists? What about if Pakistan in order to persecute Mukti Bahini crossed international border and follow the refugees, she argued? My point is she could have articulated this point without displaying her frustration at non-support from the Western powers to her diplomacy. At one point she said, Kashmir is not our problem; it is created by Pakistan.

Shastri at Tashkent was forthcoming. I saw in video clip that he displayed at the same time a child-like innocence and statesmanlike demeanor. The meeting was organized by the Soviet Premier Alexi Kosygin, who introduced Shastri and Ayub Khan at the round table. As I could identify Shastri was accompanied by Sardar Swaran Singh, then Foreign Minister of India, and Jagjivan Ram, and Ayub was accompanied by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Shastri read out the printed speech, it was clear and audible. His manner was straightforward, without any trace of gullibility, and simple. He was wearing dhoti and kurta. His small physical stature was sufficiently compensated by his demeanor. After the summit, he went to an educational center and glimpsed over some of the old texts and talked to the staff of the institute. It was a great opportunity to see Shastri walking and talking. The government dominated public media display speeches of Nehru and Indira, but I have never come across Shastri’s speeches, not even on his birthday which falls on the same day as that of Mahatma Gandhi. This video was created by the Soviet government.

Coming back to Nehru he appeared articulate and at ease while speaking to journalists or while speaking at the UN. His long years of experience during freedom struggle and also in post-independent politics must have been assets for him. While speaking to journalists in Delhi, in the context of Kashmir, he said Kashmir has acceded to India. It is Pakistan which should withdraw its forces, and make peace with India. He argued that he went to the United Nations because he wanted to tell the world the aggression of Pakistan. He squarely blamed Pakistan, and said the onus lies on Pakistan how to make peace in the region. He said India has not occupied Kashmir illegally; rather Pakistan has occupied parts of it by invading it. Indira too echoed her father during one of her interviews with a journalist named Chris Panos. Nehru, I think, can be graded the best speaker among the three. His foreign upbringing, his mastery over language, and his casual approach are his assets. In case of Shastri, it is his straightforwardness that can be considered his asset. He had not upbringing as that of Nehru, he rose from the grassroots. Perhaps he was the most upright politician India ever witnessed in its post-independent history. In case of Indira, she was perhaps not that astute in political affairs by that time (1971) as was her father in early 1960s. She was known as a ‘mute’ politician in her early political career (one socialist thinker Rammanohar Lohia described her as ‘ghunghi gudiya’). She might have unsurpassed shrewdness as a politician, but she was less articulate in comparison to her father and Shastri. I have not seen clips of her later speeches, which, I am sure, must be better in terms of composure. 

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!