Resolving Conflict on the Himalayas

The Himalayas, known as the rooftop of the world and considered an ecological wonder, are also a contested geopolitical landscape hosting three nuclear-weapon states. Conflicts involving China, India, and Pakistan are not new, but as the recent developments demonstrate they have assumed new forms with far-reaching implications.

Take, for example, the case of Kashmir. The erstwhile princely state got embroiled in a conflict between India and Pakistan after their independence in 1947. Pakistan considered the Muslim majority state a part of its Islamic identity and India considered it a part of its multiethnic identity. The conflict led the two neighbors to three wars, a limited war, and myriad border skirmishes. It got murkier in the 1980s with the support of Pakistan to militant movements within the Indian side of Kashmir. The internal violence led to the killing of thousands of people. As both countries acquired nuclear weapons in the late 1990s, a fear of a nuclear war grappled the region. China took control of a part of Kashmir during its war with India in 1962 and Pakistan handed over a part of its controlled Kashmir as a gesture of friendship in 1963.

Moving fast forward, the surgical strikes by India in recent years to destroy terrorist camps in Pakistan side of Kashmir and the withdrawal of special status accorded to the troubled region have been challenged by Pakistan, which in turn announced a new map declaring whole Kashmir as its part. This is a departure from its traditional position. While India has claimed whole Kashmir as its integral part from the beginning, Pakistan while controlling a part of it claimed it supported the right of Kashmiris to self-determination. The saber-rattling has intensified from both sides. Some analysts fear that the protracted conflict may witness a two-front war involving the two countries with China playing an active role. Early this month China raised the issue of Kashmir at the UN Security Council to internationalize it, but the move was opposed by the other members of the Council including the United States.

The proliferation of radical networks such as the Taliban, Haqqani Network, Lashkar-e-Toiba, and Jaish-e-Mohammad makes the situation further volatile. These networks with bases in the fragile border areas of Pakistan shape regional politics by acting spoilers of peace.

Like the border between India and Pakistan, the border between India and China is disputed since the drawing of the McMohan Line in 1914. The signing of Panchsheel or the five principles of coexistence, in 1954, which emphasized on territorial integrity and non-interference in internal politics, generated hopes for peace. The hopes, however, remained short-lived, as the two countries fought a war in 1962. China expresses discontent as India provides shelter to the Tibetan leader, Dalai Lama. India views with concern the increasing bonhomie between China and Pakistan. However, despite the continued border conflict and uneasy bilateral relations, India and China refrained from major violent engagement since the 1962 war, but until recently. In June 2020, while the world was busy with the COVID-19 pandemic, the soldiers of the two countries clashed at Galwan river valley, resulting in the death of 20 Indian soldiers. The clash drew international attention. In reference to China, the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said, “You can't threaten countries and bully them in the Himalayas.”

China’s Belt and Road Initiative has emerged as a point of major contention between the two countries. The proposed road passes through the disputed Kashmir. While China has emphasized that the project is a vector of its ‘peaceful rise’ and aims at regional economic integration, India has viewed it as a strategy for hegemony. India’s non-participation in the project is viewed as a challenge by the Chinese leadership. India also views the recent assertiveness of its neighbors such as Nepal as a Chinese ploy to undermine India’s influence in South Asia.

The conflict on the Himalayas has global implications. The democratic ‘quad’, comprising the US, India, Australia, and Japan, has expressed concern at the rise of authoritarianism and aggressive foreign policy in Asia. The United States has in the past decade changed its policy focus in the Asia-Pacific and termed the region Indo-Pacific, emphasizing the role of India in its Asia pivot. The conflict that has emerged at the rooftop of the world will have a spillover effect unless it is addressed through a spirit of democracy and dialogue. Violent conflict in the region has the potential to unleash humanitarian and ecological disaster beyond the Himalayas.

(Another version of this article of mine was published in Orlando Sentinel on August 25, 2020. https://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/guest-commentary/os-op-india-pakistan-china-conflicts-20200815-ltrch3rpkrbjtdfbticbweg5py-story.html)

New Year 2020: A Prayer for Peace and Religious Harmony

As I am thinking about the New Year, I am thinking about peace, about how to make the world a peaceful place to live and thrive.

The passing year was not that peaceful. There were violent incidents all over the world. There were violent incidents within states, and other kinds of violence based on an exclusionary approach to particular people.

As I work in the area of conflict resolution and international peace, what concerns me most in the New Year is a possible rise of religious violence. Religion was created as a social institution where people can get together with a common purpose, with a goal to realize peace and collective good for mankind. But that goal as we see the world over seems to be belied, and our developed science and technology, and our increasing connectedness, have not helped to address this degeneration.

All religions are possible – Gandhi famously said and believed. He believed in this principle and practiced this in his life. He wrote, if a Christian comes to me and says he is not happy with his religion, he (Gandhi) would advise him to be a good Christian. If all the people, who practice religion, Gandhi believed, are truly faithful to their religion and follow it honestly, there will be no religious violence.

But in the modern age, it appears religions have become more exclusivist. Religions have developed a club-mentality. You are part of my religion, hence you are welcome. You are not part of my religion, hence you are not welcome. This moral exclusion has acquired dangerous proportions. Those who believe and practice this exclusion do not hesitate to take devilish actions against people practicing religions other than theirs. This is not a good development for our human society and the world.

Why cannot religions coexist? Why cannot there be peace among religions? Must religions clash? Some individuals believe that religions would clash, and religion-driven cultures would fight and this fight would engulf nations. This fighting would create fault lines among nations, pushing them to the one or the other side. Is it necessary? I ask.

Why should followers of one religion believe their religion is the best, and other religions are worst? Why should they believe their religion is pure, and other religions are impure, and hence followers of other religions must be part of their religion or be vanquished from the face of the earth? This is dangerous thinking. And it seems the adherents of this thinking are increasing, rather than decreasing. And these adherents use modern technology to spread this exclusionary vision worldwide.

It is not that there are not progressive people who are aware of this dangerous trend. There are people, and their size is undoubtedly bigger than fundamentalists. But I believe this larger section of people is more silent than active. Many of them are busy in daily activities of life, and many of them think that they have no responsibility to stop the spread of this exclusionary vision.

And their lies the problem. One philosopher termed those people who do not take positions, moral eunuchs. When the larger sections of people do not take a position and become mute spectators, the problem starts. As social beings living in society, living among people, every individual must take a position on the state of things in the society she or he lives in.

Once this passive majority become the active majority and work for religious peace and harmony, I think the problem will be resolved. I am not saying that all the people must come to the streets and protest against religious fundamentalism or terrorism. Even if they believe in this idea of religious harmony and peace and do their bit in their daily lives, that will be enough to stop this dangerous juggernaut. Whenever one thinks about religion, one should think in an inclusive way. Instead of saying his religion is the best, he has to say all religions are social institutions and it is for every individual to follow a religion of his or her choice if he or she feels peace and fulfillment in that religion.

The most deplorable thing is when religious fundamentalists not only spew venom and try to rupture social harmony but kill innocent people. This happens everywhere. The killing of civilians, including children, women and old, by the religious fundamentalists, happen in all parts of the world. This is something which I call a blot on human conscience, a darkness on the very human nature. They do not mind to bring their devilish anger to schools, hospitals, and busy market places.

So, the time has come for all the progressive individuals of the world, who believe that the world is a beautiful place in which multiple religions can thrive, to come forward and join hands in whatever capabilities they can to denounce this exclusivist ideology. This is my prayer for the New Year. The prayer that all people from all over the world come together and take a position on religion, and contribute in their way to make the world a peaceful place, a place in which not ‘my’ religion or ‘your’ religion thrives, but all ‘our’ religions thrive. ‘Mine’ and ‘thine’ are the terms from the primal, animalistic, world, in which lack of education and also lack of resources led to vicious fights and killings. In the twenty-first century world, religious conflicts look anachronistic. They also somehow confirms that there is still the primal, animalistic, world somewhere within us, which needs transformation.

Some beautiful minds wish and sing, imagine there is no religion. I think that is too high thinking, and I respect that. But I think religions will be there so far there are human beings, and so far there is need of a social institution in which the individual can get moral guidance and some solace from the hazards life present before him. So, in that sense, religion may be necessary. Another thinker termed religion opium of the masses. This is again an extreme position.

I believe that religion is a matter of private practice. I also believe no individual professing a particular religion has a moral right to impose his or her views on others. All the religions emerged in particular periods of human history, and all of them came with a message for its followers. But when the followers take that religion as absolute at the cost of all other social values and institutions, the problem starts.

My prayer for the New Year is this – may the New Year be more peaceful than the passing year. May there be no religious violence across the world. May individuals come forward to renounce religious fundamentalism. May we all think, speak and act peace.

May peace prevail in the world! Happy New Year!

Restoring Peace in Kashmir

More than forty people were killed in Kashmir in exchange of violence between Indian security forces and Kashmiri people, after Indian forces killed the Hizbul Mujahideen commander, Burhan Wani early this month. Wani had emerged a youth icon and used social network sites to recruit fellow Kashmiris to fight against the Indian rule. Perhaps this is the most violent situation that Kashmir experienced after the 2010 upsurge during which about 100 people were killed.

The ongoing violence, unless addressed fast, may descend into a terrible chaos of the 1990s type during which Indian forces and Pakistan backed militants engaged in cycles of violence leading to killing of thousands of Kashmiris. Unless the current violence is contained, it may escalate and plunge the whole region into deadly cycle of violence with loss of civilian life and consequent economic destruction. The violence would help neither India nor Pakistan nor the people of Kashmir. It would only help the states to score some brownie points. Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif called Burhan Wani, “a leader of Kashmir.” Wani represented Hizbul Mujahideen in Kashmir. The terrorist organization was banned by many countries and organizations including the European Union. There is evidence that Wani was involved in violent activities in Indian part of Kashmir, and played a key role in recruiting youth to the terrorist organization. According to one report he recruited at least 30 youths to Hizbul Mujahideen.

During my visit to the Kashmir valley in July and August last year, I could see it brimming with enthusiasm with tourists from across the world flocking the beautiful city of Srinagar and Dal Lake. As I visited the border areas of Uri for my research on cross-border exchange, I could witness a similar picture. The local traders engaged in cross-border exchanges were brimming with confidence that flexible border would not only accrue economic benefits to two parts of Kashmir but eventually help make Kashmir borderless. Unless the violence is contained, all the positive capital of the past decade whether in terms of cross-border opening, meeting of divided families and decline in cross-border firing will be nullified, and Kashmir will be exposed to another cycle of violence, consequences of which may be difficult to comprehend.

The spoilers will benefit from the current turmoil. The spoilers – that include the terrorist organizations such as Lashkar-e-Toiba, Hizbul Mujahideen, Jaish-e-Mohammed, the hard line separatist leaders, the hard line political leaders, the international terrorist organizations such as the Islamic State and the Al Qaeda – would seize the opportunity. For the spoilers conflict is ‘normal’ and any attempt towards peace creates a ‘crisis.’ Hence, they work hard to derail peace process and create a ‘new normal.’ The Islamic State’s fledgling presence in the valley will be further strengthened. During my visit last year, I came across the youth in the outskirts of Srinagar city holding Islamic State flags. The dreaded organization may further exploit this volatile situation to its advantage. It may not be a surprise that the radical organizations across the border use their proximity to army and intelligence agencies to provoke large scale conflict. Furthermore a nuclear conflagration – the worst nightmare not only for the South Asian community but for the whole world – may not be ruled out. Such a catastrophe may help bring a cold, negative, stone-age peace. But, would that restore real peace to Kashmir?

In negotiation lexicon, there is an acronym BATNA – Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement. Parties to a negotiation weigh their BATNA, and if they find they have a better alternative than to the negotiated agreement, they prefer to break away from negotiation. In case of India and Pakistan, BATNA for each is worse. They have to negotiate. In fact, the past wars between them ended after the leaders of both the countries came to the negotiation table. Again to use the negotiation language, they have to expand their pie, implying they have to be flexible, in order to have a peaceful settlement of the Kashmir issue.

Spoilers must be discouraged, and the gainers must be encouraged. Terrorist organizations such as Hizbul Mujahideen and Lashkar-e-Toiba must be deprived of patronage and resources. Historically the method of war and violence was usually applied by a strong state against a weak state. But in case of nuclear weapon states, this old method fails. Secondly, in the age of global connectivity and active international institutions, acts of war, or promoting proxy wars, are equally antithetical to international norms of peace and security. If past is any indication, violence has always failed to reach a solution in case of the Kashmir conflict. So, while discouraging spoilers, India and Pakistan must promote the gainers – the gainers are those who gain from engagement. For example, the opening of border in Kashmir helped thousands of people. Divided families met, the local traders gained. This constituency of gainers needs to be strengthened towards a durable and positive peace.

India and Pakistan must revive the peace process. The more they procrastinate, the more the stalemate would be hardened. The more they dry the channels of bilateral communication, the more it will be opportune for the spoilers to exploit the volatile situation. There were some movements in this direction, but it seems dead weight of animosity nullifies these attempts. Despite Indian Prime Minister Modi and Pakistani Prime Minister Sharif developing personal rapport, the state to state relations could not move forward. In case of Pakistan, army is a more powerful driver than the civilian government in determining the relations with India. Unless the two countries continuously engage constructively, they will fail to appreciate each other’s apparent position. But, for a full-fledged effective dialogue, it is necessary that spoilers must be contained. It is difficult to simultaneously continue dialogue and promote the spoilers.

One of the major lacuna of Modi’s policy in Kashmir is lack of engagement with the discontented people including the separatists. Modi’s mentor, Vajpayee had initiated talks with the separatists and their leaders had talks with high Indian officials and leaders including Vajpayee’s deputy, L. K. Advani. Not talking to separatist is not a better policy option than talking to them. The primary reason is that not engaging them further contributes to the alienation in the valley. The separatists’ influence might be confined to the valley, but even then it is not a small influence as the valley has millions of people and it is the place where alienation is sustaining. Like Vajpayee, his immediate successor, Manmohan Singh too had engaged the separatists and organized ‘Round Tables’ to engage the discontented people. Modi needs to engage the moderate separatists, and encourage them to play active messengers of peace.

Deprivation, and particularly the sense of deprivation, plays a major role in a conflict situation. It is not deprivation per se, but the perception of deprivation – that the ruling power deliberately undermines the group’s identity and culture – plays a major role in generating and sustaining conflict. Some of the marks of this deprivation, in the context of Kashmir, are presence of security forces, lack of trust between people and government, and arbitrary laws. India needs to craft a sensitive policy to address all these issues. And Pakistan needs to support the peace efforts, while simultaneously containing, along with India, the spoilers active in any part of Kashmir.

Gender, Conflict and Peace: Women's Day Rumination

We celebrate Women’s Day on March 8 every year. Since the day was declared a day of celebration, we see processions, marches, posters and various activities highlighting women’s plights and progress around the world. This year the United Nations theme for the day is “Equality for Women is Progress for all.”

Have we really progressed on this front? Is there any real empowerment of women?

As I work in areas of conflict transformation and peacebuilding, my interest in the roles women play in conflict situations and in peacebuilding is natural. I prefer to look on this day the role women played in conflicts and peacebuilding. What better way to analyze this than to review a book on gender, conflict and peace in Kashmir, just out of the press last month? The book titled Gender,Conflict and Peace in Kashmir: Invisible Stakeholders is written by Dr. Seema Shekhawat and published by the Cambridge University Press. The book is the result of the author’s decades-long research in Kashmir.

The subtitle of the book says a lot about the status of women in Kashmir. It draws our attention to the real position of women in conflict and peace discourse in Kashmir. When the role of women in conflict is juxtaposed to their role in peace, there appears asymmetry. The author draws our attention to the militancy when it was at peak in 1990s. Women were everywhere. They took part in protests, fought security forces, and testified rape cases against the security forces in public. In a conservative society like Kashmir this participation could not have been possible without the patriarchal sanction. Women’s role as perpetrators, mobilizers, supporters, the author argues, sustained the militancy. Kashmir received international attention. The media flashed burqa clad women protesting on the streets of Srinagar, arguing with the gun totting security forces, shouting anti-India slogans.

The severe crackdown by the Indian security forces under the armed forces special powers act sent male militants and their leaders into hiding, leaving the movement in hands of the women. Women mobilized and spread the message of Azadi, encouraged their sons to participate in militancy, and sang bravery songs at the death of their sons. They were the main engines of the movement. They hid guns under their veils, carried letters for male militants, obstructed the path of the security forces to let the fugitive militant escape, nourished wounded militants, fed them, and even escorted  male militant under the cover of veil to escape security posts. Shekhawat devotes a full chapter to elaborate the roles played by the women in militancy. According to her, “The movement could not have received international attention on such a large scale had Kashmiri women not supported it.” (p. 78).

The militancy receded in 2000s. The violence went down in the Kashmir valley, the main site of insurgency. The governments and the separatists engaged in dialogue. Peace moves such as ‘round tables,’ ‘heart to heart talks,’ were initiated. Various confidence building measures were also initiated. Working committees were formed to carry forward the peace process.

“Where are women?” in this peacebuilding process, the author asks poignantly. She points out how Kashmir “provides ample evidence of prejudiced nature of conflict and peace making, which glorified women as linchpins of the movement for secession but later did not hesitate in pushing them to the fringes of the peace process”  (p. 145). There are many such moving arguments in the book. Hence, for anyone interested to learn the status of women in conflict situation and in peace processes the book is a must. The author provides us evidence from the field, drawing from her numerous interviews, how the women of Kashmir are sidelined in the peace process. They have no representation in peace committees. To add, they are not vocal in demanding their due share in the peace process.

Are there no women leaders in Kashmir to be part of the peacebuilding process? The author points out that there is no dearth of women talent in Kashmir. But either they have chosen to remain silent and acquiesce to the old patriarchal norms, or they think that the male leadership is naturally poised to lead the peace process; they have no role to play. Rather, they need to go back to their traditional domain of activity – taking care of family and being confined to the four walls of the house. Even the existing women’s separatist organizations are silent on this issue. The author rightly argues, “Kashmir seems to be an apt example where women’s organizations subjected women to a male-dominated order” (p. 101).

The author strongly argues unless women are part of the peace process, it will remain highly insensitive and exclusive. The central message of the book is: women must play a key role in peacebuilding. For Shekhawat, “the aim of sustainable peace (in Kashmir or elsewhere) cannot be realized when the process is exclusive and discriminatory” (p. 165). This book paints a vivid picture of the reality and unfolds before us the paradox that despite celebrating the Women’s Day with all fanfare, women’s status in society remains deplorable. Are women listening? They must rise and stake their claims. Perhaps this should be the message of the Women’s Day, which this book reinforces.

Yoga for Peace

The idea of peace through Yoga may at first sight appear trivial or religious or mystic, but a closer analysis will reveal that this is a practicable idea – the cost of which is trifle but the benefits are immense. It is neither related to religious beliefs nor mysticism. A practitioner of Yoga knows its powerful and sobering impact on mind, and also knows how it can bring peace in mind and consequently on action with bearing on society. Yoga implies many things. There are many types of Yoga. Here, my focus is not on its typology or its origin or religious significance as my purpose is different. My purpose is to demonstrate how Yoga can dispel violence from human mind. I will focus on a particular kind of Yoga called Raja Yoga, which mainly involves breathing exercises. Yoga, derived from Sanskrit, means ‘join’ or ‘connection’ – the spiritual implication is joining God in individual to the God in universe. 

Swami Vivekananda in his book Raja Yoga, first published in 1896, elaborated this Yoga. He argued that Yoga is scientific. Even an atheist by following the rules of Yoga can sharpen his mind, increase his mental power, develop a healthy body and maintain composure in worst situations. The main component of this Yoga is called Pranayam, which can be roughly translated as breathing exercises. This Yoga is mainly based on the premise that control of our breathing not only helps us control the inflow of oxygen into our lungs or outflow of carbon dioxide from a mere physiological point of view, but also helps control our mental activities with far reaching psychological and psychic implications. A simple test demonstrates that – a deep breathing, deep inhaling of oxygen into the lungs, has a soothing impact on our body. It is suggested by well wishers that when we get angry, or anxiety grips us, or we get nervous, we should take a deep breath and it helps. This is true. This is a rudimentary example. 

Yoga is based on this simple principle but it can gradually acquire a higher pitch. Instead of doing this breathing exercise in case of ‘emergency’ or ‘necessity’ its proponents will suggest to continue this breathing exercise on a regular basis by following its rules. Any haphazard practice may have negative impact on health. As Vivekananda argued, Yoga is scientific and demands certain rules and procedures, and once these rules are followed Yoga can have transformational impact on the practitioner. 

Like various kinds of Yoga, there are various kinds of breathing exercises or Pranayam. I will elaborate here the Anulom Vilom Pranayam. It is also called alternate breathing exercise. Any casual search of internet sites including YouTube will flash hundreds of video clips on this particular Pranayam. This exercise is simple – one has to breathe in one nostril and inhale maximum oxygen to lungs while closing the other nostril and exhale the air through the alternate nostril, and the next time air must be inhaled through this alternate nostril while keeping the other nostril closed but to exhale air through it. This breathing exercise should continue for some time. There is no fixed time for completing this exercise. It mostly depends on the practitioner and his or her comfort level and practice. The best time for this exercise is morning or evening; preferably the stomach should not be full or empty; the health should be in a good condition – the person should not be suffering from cold or fever or any health problems which create difficulties for this exercise. All these rules and procedures are amply available in internet sites. 

What is the cost of this exercise? Nothing. I would suggest one should learn from a person who is already practicing this exercise. One may practice at will, and give up practice at will. The basic credo of Yoga is voluntary practice as any compulsion defies the very purpose of Yoga – peace and happiness. In the initial period it may appear difficult, but with few days practice it will be easy. Patanjali defines Yoga as ‘skill in works’. Yoga is always enabling, not obstructing. Everyday practice for about 10 minutes of Anulom Vilom can have lot of positive impacts on mind. 

Am I writing something which is useless or unproductive from a peace perspective? I disagree. States spend billions of dollars to craft peace in conflict zones. They send emissaries to conflicting parties and invite them to negotiating table to achieve modicum of peace. They spend a lot of money in projects in academics and in civil society to conduct research, roundtables, and workshops, fact finding missions, working groups, conflict analysis and assessment. All these methods have their importance. If Yoga can be a priceless armor in this weaponry of conflict management/transformation/resolution process, then what is wrong?

Not that there has not been any application of Yoga in conflict transformation. One of the leading figures of India, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, the founder of Art of Living Foundation, has applied his version of Yoga in conflict ridden Kashmir. His foundation imparted lessons to people in the region. He also applied these lessons to other conflict regions such as Sri Lanka. These can be replicated elsewhere. And the cost of such exercises is trifle. I will add that besides the youth, the leaders of the conflicting parties need to be convinced the utility of these exercises and its impact in soothing the tensions of mind. Tensions, anxiety, and insecurity breed and intensify enmity. These have sources in human mind, and once mind is composed and calm, these negative aspects can be fought more easily. This fighting will be inner than outer. And in this process Yoga can help. I emphasize that leaders or persons in high positions, whether in conflict regions or peace regions, need to practice Yoga.

In Afghanistan billions of dollars have been invested in crafting peace. Mediating powers have admitted that they have spent lot of money in bringing peace and stability in the war torn country. In this process they have bribed rebel groups like the Taliban and the government officials to build peace. This method of peace may have some tangible effects, but it is difficult at present to predict its long term impacts. My argument here is that unless these conflicting factions, whether the ruling establishment or the Taliban or other myriad ethnic factions, and external players, change their minds, peace will be a difficult enterprise. The parties consist of human beings, and unless these human beings change, the achieved peace may be a fractured or a negative one. I agree that achieving peace is a complex process. Hence, I argue to achieve positive peace all methods irrespective of their source or reach need to be used. Yoga is one.

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!