New Speaker: “I am Aslam. I am from Delhi, India. As a scholar I must say that I am not one with any thing left. I can’t speak volumes but I am running a society called, “Gandhi Study Circle” in Delhi University. We had been discussing the same issue for our lifetimes, the one raised by speaker from JNU. So what I will do is, I will just answer the questions raised regarding Gandhiji. I will point out some specific incidents when he failed to speak up, when he failed to explain or we fail to explain why he did that. Just to add one more. When the whole issue of partition of India was at stake, it was considered that it is Gandhi who can find a solution to all this. When Lord Mountbatten was sitting in now the Indian President’s house, Gandhi walked in. It was Monday. Viceroy asked him the most important question. Millions of people were waiting for him to say no! I don’t want a partition. When Mountbatten asked him, what is your stand Mr. Gandhi. His answer was …..(gestures in silence)……. That’s what he did. Since it was Monday and he was on mute fast. If he had broken that fast. A lot of people say, by just breaking these fast he could have avoided that huge disaster, the partition country had to face.

Gandhi was one person who was also called the Mahatma. That is because he did not differentiate between his political and his personal life. Then there was this question about his living with Birlas. Now ‘Birlas’ were then like ‘Billgates’ of India. Now he stayed with Birlas whenever he came to Delhi. Now let me tell you. He used to have his meetings during daytime in Birlas House but during night he used to go to sleep at night to the harijans, the people who are lowest of the low. So what he was, he never hid his political life from anyone. In the middle of a political discourse, he will give you a big lecture on benefits of anema. That was a person we are talking about whom you can see through. He had nothing to hide. It he was suffering from constipation, he would speak about the highest leaders. He would start describing as to how Ayurveda is superior to English medicines. His niece was in high fever. He refused to give her English medicines. That was the only way to save her. The doctors had to come and convince her and tried to sideline Gandhi in order to save her niece. The point is that by raising such specific instances from his life, his personal life, which is also his political life, you cannot deny that person his right to be called a ‘Mahatma’.

OK, I take now the example of Bhagat Singh. Now you won’t believe that Gandhi passed a petition to his fellow congressmen to support the British Army and British rule in World War-I. Gandhi was supporting it. Lots of congressmen said, why he was doing it, Supporting Britishers when they were not helping India. But he said that I believe, if we are going to support them in this War, they are going to leave our country.

He was also against the violent aggression against the British Army, against the British aggression, because he truly believed. Because he was the one believed that people can change. People say the truth. He not only believed in his own truth but also the truth which people proclaimed to him. So when the Britishers said that if you support us, we will walk out of your country, he actually believed it. He did not give a damn to what his fellow congressmen were saying. But see what happens when World War-I is over. Britishers instead of going increased their occupation. Then in 1919, he launches the first form of passive resistance. He says don’t cooperate with them. He does not say don’t be disobedient. That comes still later, he says don’t cooperate with them. He still believes that Britishers are going to leave. So you don’t have to go out and be dis-obedient until 1930s. Now in 1930s when it was quite obvious that now, these Britishers are here just to exploit, he changes his terminology from non-cooperation i.e. passive resistance. Then the last word he mentioned was the capitalism, which I think the person before me have explained that he would not distinguish between production and consumption. Because he believed production, is a matter of an individual. He believed that a village can be self sustained. He did not talk about that level since he did not believe at that level. He believed in an individual. He said you produce your own cloths. You produce your own food. You eat it. So the question of capitalism does not arise when he is talking about an individual. You know we run a study circle. We come across. Questions like Why did he do this? Why did he do that? Now these are questions even I can’t explain. We can only think why he did that. Because he truly believed in it. And if we are asked to support Gandhi, then first of all we have to believe in it.

Thomas Wallgren: I would also state a discussion on Marxism and Gandhi but before that Suresh.

OK. Gandhian theory was not a producer’s theory. In Marx's analysis on capitalism, I think indifference is the key. The indifference comes with capitalist economy and its relation with production and they were with respect to our moral means, a different force meaning liberating force. Liberate people from various forms of oppressions which are due to traditional social and cultural religious orders where caste will be a fine example. That makes the difference. That's why capitalist economy was of significance to Marx. But at the same time capitalist world order was not enough for Marx. There was a difference between cheap and modern economy. While in any decent economic thinking, the national success is the dignity of the last person, which is a different measure of success. The dignity of the last person I think is not in quite a way eradication of poverty, because eradication of poverty has sometimes little to do with dignity. So that is one.

The other aspect of critique of Gandhi’s modern economy, which I find interesting, is the idea on which the modern economy is based on. This is based forcefully on the satisfaction of desires. This dimension of the critique of modern economy is not available in Marx. Other thing, which is totally absent in the Marxism theory or is not brought to centre and is very centre to Gandhian critique, this part is of political relevance to everyone who is worried about the problems of globalisation today that satisfaction of desire as measure of success will have difficulty in achieving the dignity to the last person. It is very simple. We don’t need to be Gandhi’s followers. You can just link the idea of the dignity of the last person to the success of economy. Many of the things in the globalisation or non-liberal economic regime will just have to go away.

Thank you.

Suresh Sharma: I want to respond about the Gandhi’s silence. In fact possibly worse the condemnation of Gandhi, and about capitalist violence. These are tree things. On both two Thomas has said earlier. I do not worry about the kind of conclusion you draw about Gandhi living with Birlas. I will not worry about it. About Bhagat Singh, now Bhagat Singh was perhaps the first revolutionary terrorist who commanded public attention which has never happened before. This public attention was extraordinary. At times there are descriptions of public meeting where slogans like “Long live Bhagat Singh” out shadowed “Long live Gandhi”. This would never upset Gandhi. He had clarity that Bhagat Singh was a great patriot but did things in a way which ultimately did not do any service to India or to mankind. That may be right or wrong. One would doubt about forgiveness in such context but one could not speak of suspicion of a cause. People may like it. Some don’t like it. But on his part he was transparent.

Number two, communist were members of the All India congress committee. In 1942, when the Indian National Congress passed the resolution of Quit India Movement, seven or eight people in AICC stood up and opposed it. And I would like to report to you Gandhiji’s response to that, he said, “I congratulate them for their courage. I know that their position, which they are taking, is fundamentally mistaken. But they have the courage to stand alone for their belief. So long as they believe that they should do so, I must congratulate them.”

So Gandhi should be recognized for what he stood for. So Gandhiji was there for freedom and for seeking of truth. Now this was a short ground he shared with Marxism. According to Gandhi, if you have to pursue truth and if you have to live in freedom, you have to learn to control your needs. Because it you can not control your needs the realm of necessity can never be transacted. There is no way. Because in transcending this realm of necessity two questions need to be asked. One is, Is this possible for everyone more or less every-time for all time. Not just possible for two years, for ten years, for twenty years, for which you can pay enormous price by way of revolution. The question Gandhi would ask is that is it possible for all, for all times? There lies the sharp distinction in Marxist formulation of capitalism. If you look at Hegel, if you look at Hegel’s master slave dialectics and Gandhi’s view points, the very foundation of the dialogic freedom in this peculiar Marxist relationship is the ability of the master to risk debt in order not be become the master but to subvert master-slave dialectics.

Rakesh Manchanda: I would like to focus on one of the Mantras which Gandhi had taught to entire world i.e. of non-violence. For that I will take the incidence of our friends, Because we are sitting here in WSF and there are people in minority sitting in Mumbai resistance. Ofcourse Gandhi has said even if there is one minority, That minority has to be given due respect. Now these friends of ours in Mumbai Resistance, some of my friends say O.K. we have a common dream, a common goal. Of course, Gandhi remains a pioneer in that dream in how to change the world. Now we all have this dream, this lowest common denominator, But they say you do not incorporate armed revolution in W.S.F. Now let me talk to you heart to heart. They do come here. They shed their masks. They wear all this (identity Card). They come inside. They shout slogans. So this was what Gandhi wanted. The dialogues. Dialogues of participation are very very important. As this gentleman said that Gandhi was so popular; he could have negotiated with Lord Irvin; as far as going of Bhagat Singh to gallows was concerned. We right now have to understand that being practical we can not ignore Gandhi. We have to understand Gandhi as a Life.

There are people sitting here who can understand Gandhi as a hero or as an ideal. Because if the structure of inequality always remains, there then we remember what Gandhi said: If you want to remove poverty you have to remove inequality also in 1931. At times, a shade of red was there in Gandhi. At time, a shade of green was there in Gandhi. But at the same time humanity was always there in Gandhi. This can not be ignored. So my humble request is that we understand Gandhi in a situation where humanity can go ahead and a solidarity can also be achieved.

But of course to understand humanity we can not and can not ignore Gandhi.

Ville-Veikko Hirvela: I will try to give answers on capitalism and I hope I can also reflect something on this. First let me say that always when I hear about some revolutionary movement in South, I am very happy. But at the same time, I can’t be sure how it will go and how many people will die. I can be sure that if they do not fight, many people will die all the time, because of capitalism. But if they fight how many people will die, I am not sure. So it is a difficult question. But I myself had been without food for thirty-two days resisting obligations to take guns. But I think the problem is do we take guns or not? But the problem is the nature of capitalism. That we do not understand enough. You know Marx was very aware that revolution must be international. Now so far we have had only national revolutions. That is the problem, that capitalism is not national. And you know the structures of capitalism, the division of South and North. The shares and sharing of labour between different parts of the west is structured throughout to produce certain kinds of things for certain purposes in this third world market exchange.

And now people who wanted to have guns against English rule. O.K. You want to throw away the English mentality or the English rule. And I think this is the very point that even you can see all around the world. They are very dependent on international structures and commerce as to how in five hundred years of colonization it has structured the economy. And often guns manage. You imagine if your economy has been structured such as to produce something which is a raw material for the other side of the Ocean. And then suddenly you get it all in your hands. You have no value in your hands. You have values only when it is connected to the other side of the Ocean, which you can’t control. And I think this is one point, that you can’t overthrow the real structures of capitalism only by gun power. You need something else and which can’t be done at the national level. That is why there is certain problem in national level revolutions even if we can share the idea of reducing the death through revolution. It might be sometimes possible but it is very difficult to know. The point is also concerning the death. I can imagine that a country had made many mistakes. But I don’t know much about India. Neither about the country’s history. But I know that it is very difficult for me to know as to what would happen if I open the mouth on some occasion, may be if I am in a position of a person like Gandhi. It means that if I open it, they must stop to kill one thousand people. If I do not open it, they must start to kill five thousand people. It is not very easy. Now if we check about what you say, because it is something which is depending upon so many things around. Now I am not defending him, because I know in situation it is very difficult to know. I mean we really can’t leave capitalism in this movement. Capitalism is something which is structured over time in a way that there is a depth included in it is some way that means of production are somehow connected to the chains of generations. And what I mean to say is that structures of western institutions which are really the core of capitalism. These structures are a western way of thinking and language. I think there is somehow a situation where all the deeds what we are doing in our life time are not the way how we participate into production. But the way in how we participate into production is something in which we stop to grow. I know this is not the point, which we can discuss here. But this good to recollect for everybody.

Thank you.

Suresh Sharma: I think what you say is good. In that sense gun has really no power against capitalism. It is not a question of effective power. It has no power. It cannot address itself to the structures and question of capitalism. Because you can have the gun only if you have the structure of capitalism.

Rakesh Manchanda: In order to establish the system of capitalism even a gun has to be avoided. So gun has no role except to keep the flock?

Suresh, gun as mentioned has no power with capitalism. It can not be a destroyer of the system. It can be a destroyer of a human life quite easily and automatically. And also a point has been raised that can there be a non-violent resistance. I have a counter question to this: “It is conceivable to think of a violent resistance and what consequences does a violent resistance has? What are the kind of structures if has thrown?

Speaker from JNU, Delhi: I just want to respond to that. Just a response. It is not that I am disrespecting Gandhi. He is the person who I really admire. But then the whole point is that why are not the Gandhians angry enough. I have the same questions with the liberals. Because we all live in a capitalist system. We all acknowledge that and understand that. So liberals are nice people I may agree with their philosophy. They are all very nice people. But why are we not angry enough. That is my basic question. I do not question the Gandhian way of life. Fine! Then there are people who are fighting. There are so many different kinds of protests in fighting the state. You have WSF, you have Police protection. What happens the moment you start a dissent against state? You know Chomsky. You know nobody in US will touch Chomsky, because he has a space. This is how capitalism works. It allows you to dissent. Because you cannot change. Look at the people in Telengana. Right through our eastern corridor of India. Look at Nepal. Look at the kind of movements going on. Nothing comes in media. I live in Delhi. That is where all intellectuals are, in India, that’s the way it is structured. In India, all the academics are in Delhi. Money, media all institution are centred in Delhi. Now they are not angry enough.

Now I grew admiring Gandhi honestly. I did not go straight to Marx. So I am not attacking Gandhi personally. The question is why all of us are not angry enough?

Rakesh Manchanda: My one minute response to you is that peace and non-violence do not require to be angry.

Speaker JNU: People there are actually fighting on the ground. Just across the road there are people who are gathering there. There are people like Gadar. He is also an intellectual. I mean he might not have gone to University like us.

Rakesh Manchanda: Gandhi was also angry in 1931, he talked about inequality. He talked about inequality, about non-cooperation, civil disobedience. He had been angry at times also. But the question is to evolve ourselves practically.

Thomas Wallgren: Sorry! I interrupt. I wanted to re-confirm if we could continue till 4 P.M.… O.K., please continue.

I just wanted to say two points more . Even Gandhi himself evolved his own ideas. At one point, he says that I support ‘Chaturvarn’, these four Varanas. He evolved his ideas over a period of time. There are you know these R.S.S., B.J.P. people who are using Gandhi for their support using some of his quotations from his early days. So Gandhi had evolved himself because Gandhi himself did not decide first that I want to be Gandhian first. He was honest to his ideas, he was honest to the struggle. He was honest to the people. So when he saw a lady standing in the middle of a river without sufficient cloths. He just decided. He dropped his cloth and said hence forth he will wear only this much. That is- he is responding to some reality. I think what I can learn from Gandhi’s life is this, that if I am honest to the people, to the society and the well being of the society? I have to learn from what he did, how he responded. The transparency was one point. And he evolved himself. He did not feel wrong to say that yesterday I was wrong. And today I feel this.

Number two, but I don’t buy all his views on Trusteeship. I don’t buy all his views on Marxism. I don’t buy his views on capitalism. He had different views. For me capitalism is not just a economic political system. It is just a culture. This cultural fight is an extremely important fight because capitalism creates a culture which can buy the goods it creates and which can manufacture the needs first and then manufacture the goods. So they manufacture the needs. They condition you to some needs. Particularly in last fifty years this has increased. And then this marketing technology and all that. I think that Gandhism is quite relevant. It teaches us, it integrates the cultural aspects and the economic aspects. How that integration is to be made has to be left to the time and society. It may not be integrated through Charkha. It may be through other means. May be through computers. I have no problem. So the value of Gandhi is to be honest to people and to yourself. And making the struggle real, proper and really fool proof. That was my point of view.

Thomas Wallgren: I take the privilege of the chair to intervene again. I want to make two brief points. One is that it is somehow awkward that when we discuss Gandhi, the man and the name becomes so significant. It reflects in problem we have in receiving Gandhi in our part of the world, today.

People often have to choose from two options. One is that he was Guru or the other is …………

Speaker: I come from the South-West of U.S. I have lot of friends doing a lot of solidarity work. In terms of issues relating to both the militarisation of the U.S. Mexican border, and specific with deaths that occur especially in border area. For instance last year there were 205 deaths of migrants crossing the border to Arizona. I work with lot of people. Although I am not a Christian myself and I don’t really feel like I have particular religious affiliation. There are lots of people who have a deep faith base, who are Christian for example and who use Gandhi very much in their struggle and who are doing a lot of good work and do not feel bogged down in what they are doing. Because what they do sustains them. I think elsewhere you can talk about sustainability. So I think to address this issue of anger. I think anger can be used creatively and can be transformed into a useful tool. But I would say that if it is one of these things that does not have a focus or does not have a direction, then you can easily burn yourself out. And I think that is where Gandhi’s message is very relevant. Because what we see today, should anger us. I think it should anger us. And I think it should really make us mad. And I have to agree with you. You know I come from a very traditional Telugu Brahmin background, where you know I am with the people, with the family that does not get very angry or doesn’t get disturbed. And it upsets me that it does not upset them. But at the same time, I think that is so easy. I come across lots of activists who are fuelled so easily. And I think that’s where what Gandhi said is relevant.

Thomas Wallgren: Before we take formal break at four o’clock, I think someone wanted to speak half an hour ago. So please come.

Ville-Veikko Hirvela: This question of anger is very anger is very interesting because we are very used to think that anger is something that is inefficient and is something which is harmful. And often it is like this. But then we must think also a little bit more about the issue. We can think that millions of people are in desperate position and face extreme answers against themselves all the time. They are quite often used to it and there is often a wrong use of anger because they can't change anything by getting angry. But then we can also think that can there be a situation where we can somehow present justice by anger. I don’t know it could depend a little bit on your cultural background. But I think there can’t be a situation that all the time something is happening which is against justice and is continuing as a normal state. How you can even see that there is something wrong if it is anyway happening everyday everywhere and in a way you can’t do anything about it? May be your own reaction says that anger is wrong. But another thing is that these feelings what we are recognizing in our language like anger, love and envy and whatever, can we find equivalence for these in all languages all over the world. May be not. And we used to think in our western culture that these are universal human feelings. Everybody feels justice, anger, love, hatred and so on. But why I am stating that we should not condemn anger because I can think situations where there are people, some very poor people facing injustice all the time and who feel anger and I really can’t say they are wrong, when they feel anger. I can imagine they could have even much more relevant feelings that if I can’t provide them by myself those feelings then I should not say that they are doing wrong when they are in anger. So I think it is complicated while we think about anger but I think we should be very open minded. So I also want to remind you about the African thinker who has said that how the colonized people have restored their justice by this kind of anger.

Thomas Wallgren: We covered philosophy of language. We covered death, economy, Marx etc. We covered lots of ground enough to stimulate some thinking, I hope. So thank you, this is the end of the formal session. Other session is starting at 5’o clock, which will be even more interesting than this one. So please feel free to join us. But if you want to stay we already have one speaker who wants to continue the discussion. So it is our discussion. OK. Continue. Fine.

Speaker

Gandhiji was a spiritual person. He believed in the principle of non-violence, non-attachment, love and if we have to admire Gandhiji as a person, we will try to apply those principles in this materialistic practical world. As far as capitalism. Gandhiji always talked about the need of human beings and the whole capitalist idea is based on greed of human beings. If you want to continue please come closer.

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