Not in Mahatma's name

Email To Friend

• You can send this article as a link to anyone you feel would be keen to read it. Just fill the form below to send it now.
• Your Email: *
• Your Name: *
• Recipient Name: *
• Recipient Email: *
• Subject: *
• Message: I found a very interesting article on GoaNews.com and thought you will definitely like to read it.
• * mandatory fields

Team Anna has adopted the Gandhian bottle but not the wine, the Gandhian frame but not the canvas. The ‘mirch-masala’ sprinkled by (Arvind Kejriwal, Kiran Bedi, Prashant Bhushan and Manish Sisodia) the key members of the team and their transactions at the Ramlila Maidan and with the media is totally alienated from the passive resistance enunciated by the Mahatma.

It was 2^nd October, 2003. 134^th birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi.  As the convention goes, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of India releases an all India advertisement to pay homage to the Father of the Nation. The rarest of the rare words, probably spoken once in his lifetime during a disturbed moment are given wide publicity……..”I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour”. Even an enemy of the Mahatma would not dig from his writings running into volumes a quote like the above to pay homage to this apostle of peace, ahimsa, truth and passive resistance. But, the BJP, the party in power at the Centre at that time, just could not find any other quote to pay respects to the Mahatma.

Now, the Satyagraha and the hunger fast at Ramlila grounds is claimed to be a Gandhian method of protest. It is argued that the method is constitutional even if it is used to tear the Constitution and the institutions of governance to tatters. The name of the Mahatma is again linked to an event which he would have never approved.

Nonetheless, Mr. Anna Hazare should be credited for awakening the people, the government and the Parliament through a movement without any incidents of violence. Instead of saying that Anna has won, I would prefer to say that Anna has succeeded. Anna has achieved a lot more than what a mere anti-graft statute can achieve. In a Satyagraha, there are no losers including the opponents. Compromise done by any party is not a loss or weakness. Compromise is accepting that both the sides have their points and also their limitations. The civil society cannot gain if the constitutional institutions including the Parliament are coerced to lose.

Gandhian fast was ascetic

Let us not equate this Satyagraha and fast to the Gandhian weapon. Team Anna has adopted the Gandhian bottle but not the wine, the Gandhian frame but not the canvas. The ‘mirch-masala’ sprinkled by (Arvind Kejriwal, Kiran Bedi, and Manish Sisodia) the key members of the team and their transactions at the Ramlila Maidan and with the media is totally alienated from the passive resistance enunciated by the Mahatma.

A reading of the ‘Collected works of Mahatma Gandhi’ unlocks the Gandhian Satyagraha. According to the Mahatma, Satyagraha means fighting injustice by voluntarily submitting oneself to suffering, self-restraint and self-denial. A pure passive resister cannot allow himself to be regarded as a martyr; much less may he allow any matter of passive resistance to be advertised. Gandhi was emphatic in holding that the Satyagrahi should not overawe the public by a demonstration from outside. In short, in his own words, “To be a Satyagrahi is like walking on the blade of sword”.

For Gandhi, Satyagraha and hunger strike were two different things. Fast was for self-purification. It need not accompany Satyagraha unless it has well defined limits and resorted not to extort rights but to reform people whom you love. Gandhi has put on record that his fasts at Bombay and then at Bardoli were of this character. The Last Fast (1947) was for a reunion of hearts without any pressures.

No wounds, pure compassion

Writing in the Harijan (15/4/1933), Gandhi said that Satyagraha is gentle, it never wounds. It must not be the result of anger or malice. It is never fussy, never impatient, never vociferous………”. In a Satyagraha, never insult the opponent and do not take part in newly coined cries which are contrary to the spirit of Ahimsa. It is never the numbers that count. The intention is not to embarrass the wrong-doer. The appeal is not to his fear; it is always to the heart. It is love expressed through the Satyagrahi’s suffering.

During the 13 days of fast by Annaji, I have constantly heard about the lack of trust in everybody except the Jan Lok Pal bill. Gandhi as a Satyagrahi was exactly the reverse. According to him, trust in opponent and human nature is the essence of the creed of a Satyagrahi. Even if the opponent plays false twenty times, the Satyagrahi is ready to trust him the twenty-first time!.

Hence, I say, let us not mis-interpret the Mahatma. Let us not attach our debits to him. Admitted, it is not for the sane and materialistic mortals like us to tread on some of his footprints. His fast was of an ascetic and let him be known for what he preached and practiced.

Ambedkar’s no to satyagraha

Since, we are on Satyagraha and fast as a method of protest, it would be relevant to know the sea-change in Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar on these methods. Dr. Ambedkar was also another author of Satyagraha. He launched the temple entry Satyagraha to energise the depressed classes and make them conscious of their position. He also used this method to establish his people’s right to use the public places and public water tanks. However, whilst presenting the draft Constitution before the Constituent Assembly (25^th November, 1949), he warned the people of India on Satyagraha. To quote “ …… It means we must abandon the bloody methods of revolution. It means that we must abandon the method of civil disobedience, non-cooperation and Satyagraha………. But, where constitutional methods are open, there can be no justification for these unconstitutional methods.
These methods are nothing but the Grammar of Anarchy and the sooner
they are abandoned, the better for us”.

There is an attempt to crown the fight against corruption as the second “azadi”. The second independence has to be freedom from hunger, poverty and to ensure effective access to primary education, primary health care and basic needs to each and every citizen. Undoubtedly, corruption also distorts development. However, the middle class and the affluent are largely the beneficiaries or victims of corruption.  They are both on the demand and supply side of corruption. Frankly speaking, a strong and highly effective Lok Pal will not make much difference to 40% of India’s poor. They cannot afford this luxury.

I do not say that fight against corruption is a low priority area. It is equally important for democracy and equality. But, for the poor it is the struggle for livelihood. I would describe the crusaders against corruption as interrupters of injustice. There is also Team Anna like crusaders who are purveyors of development and equity. They too need visibility and kudos.

I would conclude with a conversation between Nehru and Bapu.

Nehru: Bapuji, the whole country is moving.

Bapuji: Yes. But, in what direction?