Gandhi in Our Times

Satyapal: Mr. Chairman, dear friends, I am Satyapal, National Secretary of Servants of People’s Society, which was founded by Lala Lajpat Rai in 1941 and also General Secretary of South Asian Fraternity. Since 1989, we had been working with South Asian friends. I am a Gandhian student. So far as I could understand, Gandhiji focussed on human beings, self-respect of human beings and human rights. For that he gave way and said that political freedom is necessary. Side by side he did not wait. He gave economic freedom. Way? How to achieve economic freedom self-reliant economy. And he said that everybody should decide for reliance. And if his needs are not fulfilled then he entered his dependence from cottage industry to rural industry, from rural industry to small-scale industry and so on. So if we can fulfill our needs within our circle or if need be extended circle, then we can be self-reliant and self respect generators. Now we see that this land of Gandhi, India is going against it. Gandhiji worked very hard to drive out British rule, British economy. And he said that if we boycott British goods, then no one will be interested to rule over India, because their main interest was to have this market for exploitation. So we started many institutions, to make people self-reliant, to make India self-reliant. So far I have studied the Budget of India and Pakistan and other countries. We require loans from America, World Bank, IMF and other agencies, mainly for three items for our defence equipments, for purchasing oil from the gulf and for returning of loan or interest on the loan and then some luxury items. But for these major three, if we could resolve our disputes internally including Kashmir with an understanding and come out from the trap of competition, we know America brought very intelligently Russia to arm race and ultimately Russia collapsed, so we are also collapsing, because of huge expenditures on defence. So if we resolve our internal disputes on territory, on religion, on caste, on language etc. then we can clear the roads and reduce our defence expenses. Because if suppose we resolve these issues, but if there are communal riots, there are caste based struggles then we will require arms and ammunition to combat this, which is against Gandhi. We know about Gandhi as Lord Mountbatten said, that a thousands of police could not control riots in Punjab but a single man could control riots in Bengal. That is moral force. And we have to develop moral force, brotherhood, friendship with our neighbour in urban & rural, and tribal and urban people. So if we resolve these issues externally and internally, then we need not spend much on arms and defence. As Gandhi said that if you don’t meet your requirements yourself then extend to neighborhood. Similarly we have a deficit of 38% in oil and we need dollar loans to purchase oil. Arab countries need the dollar loans to purchase defence or food or cloth. But it we start a Barter system of trade in South Asia and with gulf countries after resolving our disputes, then we can exchange. Neither Arab countries i.e. middle east nor South Asia will require this dollars loan. Then we can come out of this necessity of dollar loans. Third item will be when we will be able to generate our own economy, our own economic progress, then we can slowly and gradually return the American loans or IMF or World Bank loans. Then because we will not be borrowing we as the biggest customer, because we have a population of around 150 crores, in the sub-continent, then we can dictate our terms and say that we want your goods on these terms. Instead of accepting their terms and their loans for our development, we can have some self-respect in trade and economy. Gradually our growth can shoot up. When we will have self sustained economy, then self respect will come in. Then human rights will follow. And that will be the fulfillment of an idea of Gandhi that they give dignity to human beings, self-respect, and better economy.

Thank you.

Ville-Veiko: Thank you. I am Ville-Veikko Hirvela from Finland. I work in various NGOs including Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam and Friends of the Earth and so on. I was very inspired with Suresh Sharma saying about language and its role in this problem I think of modernization. Because I see somehow that all the power of modernity and all the discriminations it creates is somehow carried with language and our unconscious relation to our language structures. It is very easy for us to use that one of the major correlation for peoples is their literacy. We have those who can read and write in a way in English language they eat 100% better than those who are not. Then we ask why? This is something which is very unjust. If somebody is born in area where she or he learns some other language or some structure of language or thinking then western grammar or western structure of semantics, then he must stop. But anybody who has a good literacy, just by being born in the place where he gets such education, immediately it is very clear that he or she will never stop. This is something, which is a most peculiar element for me in the modern world. That here power and rights are very much determined by your structures of language. And I think, Gandhi would have very much to give in this respect, not very explicitly. But as you know Gandhi for example said in Hind Swaraj that may be, it would have been better that would have been no English education in India. May it had done more harm in India then benefit. And also what he says about lawyers is that they might have caused more quarrels than justice. I think both these points are connected. There is something, some connection between this extreme injustice of the power which is connected to this western structure of language and it is like a noble power in today’s world that those ideas and speech is connected to western structures of justice having more rights. And I think the way how Gandhi was giving representation of justice in Hind Swaraj is something which we should reflect. And I hope, some people will reflect these things especially Suresh.

Isseney: “My name is Isseney, I am from Tokyo, Japan. I was yesterday; the chairman the session on Japanese Peace constitution. May be some of you might have attended that session. That session was a big session. Around 300 participants. May be you have attended that session. O.K.

I would like you to understand; to know that Japan has an extraordinary constitution. Very unusual constitution, that I have not seen in any other constitution of the world. We have our 190 countries. Japan is the only country that has a constitution strictly giving up Armed Force, Gun force, Sea force, Air Force. We call it a peace constitution. Ofcourse pacifism, the idea of pacifism of Gandhi, is reflected in the constitution we today have. I would like to give the copies of that constitution in English to the participants if they are interested.

I used to teach in a Japanese university. I am a political scientist. Now, this constitution which provides not to be engaged in War of any kind. Thanks to this idea of non-violence of Gandhi and I would like to strengthen my ideological pecking on my international politics. Because Gandhi is not a property of only one person. Gandhi is a very forceful assistant in my search to our answers. I felt it should be spread all over the world.

Now speaking about modernity, I think one of the aspect of modernity that we take for granted is the physical enforcement products like Army or Military power. If we take it for granted, as long as we take it for granted, I think we cannot end the days of military invasion and engagement with various parts of the world. I try to establish some connection with the people who enter to re-discover Gandhian non-violence, peace and related ideas, so that I somehow strengthen my development of new ideas of social management in area of politics. Social Sciences thought all over the world including Japan and every country you come from at the university level take it for granted that politics is power. Power is nation. Nation holds the power and ultimately nation holds the Military power. Unless we somehow change that knowledge or commonsense for Social management, I think we are not able to overcome this very militaristic way of management in society. I would like to establish some sort of connection with you and your institution of Gandhi in Finland.

New speaker: “Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. I am just trying to change the little. It says “Gandhi in our Times”. I say “We in Gandhi’s Times”, because Henry Luis Dopson in 1911, said, “time passes” you say oh! No “Time stays, you pass”. In a similar fashion, Gandhi’s stage will continue to pass, establishing Gandhi as universal truth without being aligned to the east or to west. Because truth takes no sides, it is universal. I was travelling in New York and a Spanish taxi driver; very well off. Just while driving said,” O! from India” I said ‘Yes’! “O! from the land Gandhi” I said you like him. He said, ‘No! I don’t like him. I love him”. I said why do you love him? He said in his own way American way. “The only son of a bitch, who practices what he preaches”. So I find Gandhi is an established truth which can not be wished away by the Indians or the Europeans, no matter what. What we are really facing is the Gandhi versus the modern vein arrogant, industrialized, men eastern or western.

In Bombay, the other day I was driving on the road and my friend was walking on the footpath. I said “come on Sunil get in”. He said not today, today I am in a hurry! So in Los Angles in Tokyo today everywhere modernity is today doing itself in. Therefore we have to look upon Gandhji, not as a force which we must defend but look upon him as a thought which probably might be Save the Universe. Recently Time magazine featured an article, which says ten men who could save the world and one of them was the spinning Gandhi. And therefore I have a feeling that Gandhi will continue. Continue forever. Because Gandhi itself is synonymous with truth, some kind of truth which touches everybody in Finland or in America. Therefore I am afraid, I will pass away but Gandhi will survive. And one day as Wallgren said every idea has its own time. So may be Gandhi’s idea will have its own time and it may save us from the inevitable holocaust, which I see on the horizon. Thank you!

New Speaker: I am Stew Hadson from Australia. I did not know much about Gandhi. Only since three days, I am here in India. The major gist, I pick up on Gandhi is that he speaks about truth. Some of these are very true to me. I have a non-violence resistance window on my paper and for problem of injustice in World. I think problem of injustice comes from people paying and believing in unequal systems. Whether it is Marxist or Gandhian, as soon someone represents himself as an object of relation, whether good or bad is irrelevant, it causes conflict in a conversation. I can be a Christian. He can be a Hindu. Both can have brotherhood. I have my concept of brotherhood. My experience. You may have your concept of brotherhood. To your experiences. This creates a friction between us. So I think it is our different believe systems? To some degree. It needs cooperation which is the essence of the moment. So organizations are progressing. Progressing not to stop! Involvement is important. As he said for Gandhi, that Taxi driver using words like son of a bitch.

Next Speaker: “I am not a expert on Gandhi. I am from Jawahar Lal Nehru, University. I am from JNU, New Delhi. I always had found problem with Gandhi. Because people from Finland, from Japan had found sympathy for Gandhi. In India, I see, it is a poor, very poor country. There are lots of problems. Last speaker spoke of Peace and anti-war message. I think, previous speaker also spoke about anti-war message. How do you like to push away War. I mean, Gandhi in our times. I mean how would Gandhi respond to this? Is non-violent struggle really feasible. Clarification I need is, You know, I don’t know anything about Gandhi. I have a bit of a problem. I am sorry! I am using Marx here while interpreting the word ‘change’. How do you change the world in third World conditions. I mean we are not talking about first world here. And an opposition to modernity. Now I am also a student of philosophy. I view philosophy, in a different way. I find myself articulating better with modernity and its aids. I can not go into its Post-modern term. I think, that is a luxury of first world. I see modernity as still relevant. The same old French Revolution. The specific question, I want to ask all these scholars here and I want them to respond to all this. I mean what was Gandhi’s position on capitalism? Imperialism can be understood. O.K. He fought the British. But what is his specific point when he comes on capitalism, because he had association with Birlas.

And then there are two specific incidences in Indian history, which I am not sure most of our foreign friends here know. One is Bhagat Singh. When Bhagat Singh was actually executed Gandhi was in a position to save him. So why did not he do it? He may have opposed Gandhi’s methodology. But I would like to know why Gandhi did not intervene with the kind of negotiating skills and power he had. So why did he not do it?

Second thing is the Telegana movement in 1946. I am not sure if people know that Telegana is a place in Andhra Pradesh, where instability is going on even today. Ultimately, I don’t think, things will change until we give state powers. We hate the word ‘power’, I understand. But then we can always say that we will be good individuals. But ultimately everything is done through power. So unless we struggle for state power in someway or the other, we cannot. I know it is ridiculous, because ultimately our ideas are related to our ‘class’. I have an immense respect for Gandhi. No way that I disrespect that man. He was a very nice individual. But politically what does he get us. How can or could he change things for us. Now that Telegana thing I was talking about, in 1946 lot of people were fighting British. At that point Indian army sent troops. Lots of people got killed in Telegana. And Gandhi was very much around during that time. But not one word. Not one word. These were people, these were Indians, who fought Imperialism when British were there and then they fought Indian capitalism. Because they understood that capitalism will be the ultimate evil. Not one word for them. I just want to understand why was he silent during that time.

Thomas Wallgren: I think, if you allow me to engage in a dialogue, there was a specific question. And I think if we reply to your question, five to ten minutes, and then go to other interventions and continue from there if you like. So let me make a little, a small attempt to address your issue first. There was a specific question as to why Gandhi did not intervene. Now I have no idea. Because, I am not a Gandhian scholar of that time. But I do have some idea about his pacifism. It is very difficult proposition in theory and practice. It is very fruitful to engage with Gandhian principles of Satyagraha and non violent resistance.

In practice in 1999, we went out to stop the construction of a ditch which was one finest bird lakes in Finland. So we danced, we played in front of police. So we got small imprisonment, paid small price of few thousand dollars, ten dollars to each on of us. So it was still with reference to Gandhi. So people around the globe might have suffered fighting with Gandhian principles, some might have died. So I do believe Gandhi was very aware of the possible price the practice of non-violence. He would not fear the loss of millions of lives. He was not a man who was afraid of. So I think there was some fearlessness in Gandhi’s thinking and his practice. But it is unusual. May be that was one point were people have difficulty. Difficulty any modern man will have. Socrates was of the same kind. Socrates was not afraid of death. Any decent man can be afraid of death. It is very clearly stated in apology, as clearly as in Gandhi’s autobiography that one must not be afraid of death. But it is very difficult for someone as secular as I am not to be afraid of death. Actually it has to do with public, private distinctions as Suresh said, which Gandhi challenged. It is one of the interesting features of modern universe or modem west. But we do practice different aspects in public life and private life. So I am a common Finnish middle –class, middle aged man. The primary incidence that I can imagine myself as facing death without fear, in order to protect my family, my children, my wife. But I can easily imagine. I am a politically committed person. So I think, it is difficult for me to translate this fearlessness in the public sphere. That shows how great the relation is. The relation in our political moral theory is sanctified. And still we know, still we hear about these strange people who break rules. Gandhi is one. But I think the person who brings to the Left, or Leftist or green Left in my generation is a kind of fearlessness towards death for public purposes. Gandhi exemplified this.

One person who brings this message powerfully to us is Victor Harra. I would recommend a book, if you have not read, a book from John Harra, a dancer from Britian who married a Chilian artist and political fighter, magician Victor Harra. They married in 50s. They lived together in 60s. They had children in 60s. In 1971, Victor Harra was a big leader of the circle against the fascists in Chile. He was captured and taken to jail. And he died in jail after torture. Now he had his family and his public role. And for his family for him, for his children, a resistance against the fascist, it was more difficult to comprehend that Harra would die for public sphere because public force and private force were separate. So it can happen to modern left and can be identified with modernists today. So it is possible to transcend this boundary of private and public in the fashion as Suresh told about Gandhi. So it is possible to transcend this boundary of private and public. But it is not a usual thing. But it is usual to say that an absolute in the private sphere and an absolute in the public sphere, are two different conceptions. I think, it is more of question of courage than a principle.

Sorry! For going so long. I think there was another question. I think we should bring more people into dialogue. Suresh why don’t you. I think we have more interventions after this.

Power in it self like violence is a danger to itself. I think that’s what Gandhi understood. Overcoming this separation between private and public sphere, is an approach.

New Speaker: I am Ajit from India. I am a Marxist. But I know how important Gandhi is and what is the commonness in Marxist way of thinking and Gandhian way of thinking. So there are some differences and there are some common points. I think, the most important relevance for me about Gandhi is his holistic way of thinking is dividing the world into pieces, putting it under a microscope and developing the 'scientific theory of world'. Gandhi looks into the world as a continuous process. His spirituality, his economics, his politics his social practice were not different from each other. They were intrinsically connected, inter-related and they come as a system. I think that is a greatest service to the development of a system. System of thought.

Second thing, I think why Mahatma Gandhi is important to us is, that Gandhiji told us that the most powerless people i.e. one who don’t have formal power are empowered people. They can fight and fighting with arms may restrict the fight but fighting without arms may make the fight unlimited and that can really be the fight of the poor. So fight of the poor cannot be that some people fight on behalf of the people by taking arms. May be sometimes, it is justified, but most of the times it may not be. Because that restricts the fight. That really contracts the right of the fight to some. They fight on your behalf and then they start ruling over you. The importance of Gandhian way is that the powerless people can fight in their own way. Of course you can not make the whole principle applicable in any circumstances in all the times to come. Ultimately, political theories, political ideologies are in any system, is a practical question. It is question of praxis. You have to modify it. You have to adapt it.

Third thing is that this earth has many resources. It is sufficient to meet anyone’s need, but not the greed of a single man. You can not convert the whole earth to an item of consumption. Lastly Mahatma Gandhi did not distinguish between a human being as a producer and a human being as a consumer. The whole theory of consumerism is based on, the idea of consumerism is based on the assumption that all happiness lies in consumerism. Full stop and nothing more than that. And Marx precisely says this, when he talks about the animal function of procreating, eating. In that man finds humanity because his real human function is creating his labour. Then his labour becomes animal labour and he finds his humanity only in consumption. I think there are some areas where these two thought systems can go together, as far as the social practice and social movement is concerned. May be on some points they may not agree.

As far as opposition to modern machine is concerned, I think that is not the essential part of the Gandhian system. Satyagrah is important. Non-violence is not so important. Gandhi also said, “I do not want the non-violence of a coward, I would prefer the violence of a brave man rather than a coward and not committing any violence”. His relevance is very much in practical social movements of the core working class. I consider Gandhi as a friend of a working class and not a luxury of the North. I don’t buy this view.

For Hindi click here

Copyleft. Any part of the content on this site can be used, reproduced, or distributed freely by anyone, anywhere and by any means. Acknowledgement is appreciated.

Designed and maintained by CAPITAL Creations, New Delhi. Phone 91-11-26194291