A small reason for me to post 0n Mahatma Gandhi's birthday - it was a pleasant coincidence that I finished a re-read of "The Story of my experiments with truth" last week. My regard for the book and the person has only grown after the re-read.
Gandhiji was an avid reader and quite a number of books find mention in his life story.
- Bhagavad Gita , Mahabharata
Leo Tolstoy's
- The Gospels in Brief, What to do?
- The Kingdom of God is within you
John Ruskin's
- Unto this Last
Carlyle's
- Heroes and Hero-Worship
Sir Edwin Arnold's
- The Song Celestial (Gita translation)
- The Light of Asia (Gautam Buddha)
Washington Irving's
- Life of Mohamet and His successors
Let me see on how many of them I can lay my hands.
I came across a thought provoking perspective to one of Gandhiji's principles in an article I read in The Hindu, Sunday magazine.
" On the contrary, M.K. Gandhi's greatest legacy to India and the world was a form of political agitation called "civil disobedience", which frequently did lead to violence but which was so original a philosophy that it worked in certain circumstances and against certain regimes. One such authority was the British in India, a Government and a civilisation that believed in the rule of law, respected the judiciary and had a comparatively better record on human rights than other colonial power.
Had Nazi Germany been the colonial power in India, we would never have heard of Gandhi one mile into the `Dandi march'. Hypothetically speaking, what would have happened if six million Jews in Central Europe used `civil disobedience' to protest the death camps? Absolutely nothing. It was a military dictatorship. If Iraqis today used such a political philosophy to protest the occupation of their country by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld? Absolutely nothing. The truth is that for `civil disobedience' to work, you need both sides to play by the rules. The opposition you disobey has to be civilian, largely law abiding and at least partially democratic."
That for 'civil disobedience' to work, you need both sides to play by the rules. and also that the opposition you disobey has to be civilian, largely law abiding and at least partially democratic is a very stirring thought. That it had worked only because the opposition was British, doesn't go well with me. My heart doesn't accept it though the argument he advanced sounds logical to the mind. I need to dwell upon this more for clarity.
2 comments:
Sriharsha garu,
I'm very happy to see this particular post of yours. I read the same comment about civil disobedience (that it needs both parties to play by the rules to work) and had the same thoughts about the validity of the statement. As you said, the statement is quite logical. But deep in my heart I believe that truth and non-violence work - no matter who the other person or party is. As long as they are humans, these principles ought to work. Glad to have come across this post.
The British government played foul in certain cases JalianWallah bagh for example. But Indians remained non violent. Gnadhiji has ensured that the spirit of non violence was absorbed by everyone and followed to the letter. I think the greatness of Gandhiji was in motivating the millions and civil disobedience was only one tool which he wielded very successfully.
But we have to think of Burma. Recently we had the buddhist monks who protested peacefully only to be gunned down by the government. But before we decide on the applicability of Civil disobedience for all regimes, I think we have to make a much more detailed and thorough analysis of Gandhiji's ideas, independence movement. A reinterpretation of the philosophy is absolutely necessary.
Post a Comment