By M H Ahssan
Muslim influx and influence in India started almost at the inception of the religion. The traders from Arabia were frequent visitors to the Indian subcontinent even before Prophet Muhammad revealed the Koran. They brought the word of Muhammad to India in the 7th century and this resulted in some peaceful conversions of Hindus to Islam. Following this, Mohammad-ibn-Quasim in the year 712 A.D conquered the Province of Sindh. However, this event in history does not seem to have influenced India as much as expected. Beginning with the invasion of Mohammad of Ghazni in the 10th century, followed by a barrage of invaders from Persia, Turkey and Afghanistan in the 11th and 12th centuries, a full force of Islam was thrust upon India. Forcible conversions of people of other faiths with inducements as well as unfair taxation resulted in spread of the Islam in Hindustan. The British conquest in India that started insidiously with the establishment of the East India Company, eventually usurped the Muslim stronghold of India, in the 18th century.
Today there are more than a quarter of a billion Muslims living in the Indian subcontinent (India, Pakistan and Bangla Desh). This amounts to more than a quarter of the total Muslim population of the world. Muslims form about fifteen percent of the Indian population. It is unique that the Muslim population of India has been influenced by the Hindu religion throughout history. Sufism, for example is an adaptation of Vedanta. Over many centuries, Islam in India has undergone several attempts at reforms, some towards modernization and some leaning more towards fundamentalism.
The Muslims in India are categorized into two distinct classes based on their origins. This is similar to the caste system of Hinduism (so called Varnashrama). Muslims are broadly divided into two groups, namely, Ashraf and Ajlaf. Ashraf are again grouped as Sayyeds, Sheikhs, Mugahls and Pathans. The Sayyeds are said to be descendents of the Prophet and regarded in high esteem. The Sheikhs are of Arab descent and are next in line in prestige. The Mughals are descendents of the greatest Muslim rulers of India, the Mughals and occupy third place. Pathans including Sepahis hail from the northwestern regions including Afghanistan and form the last group of Ashraf. The Ajlaf on the other hand are the Indian converts and are considered to be of common ancestry. They are considered to be of inferior class when compared to the Ashraf.
Nineteenth century India saw great socio-religious reform in Hinduism. The reform movements of Rajaram Mohan Roy in 1827 first started the abolishing of Sati and recognition of widow marriage as well as education of women by founding of his Brahmo Samaj in Bengal. Many reform movements followed this, significantly the Prarthana Samaj started by Keshab Chandra Sen in 1867 (later popularized by G.M.Ranade and Bhandarkar), Arya Samaj established in 1875 by Dayananda Saraswati and Ramakrishna Mission of Vivekananda. The Theosophical Society of Colonel Cleott popularized by Annie Besant in 1886 in Madras, the Rehnumai Mazdayasan Sabha of the Parsees established by Dadabhai Navaroji in 1851 in Bombay and the Sri Narayan Dharma Paripalan Yogam started by Sri Narayana Guru in 1903 in Travancore were some other reform movements of late 19th century. All these reforms were attempts at steering the Hindu religion towards Vedanta, which is the backbone of its philosophy.
Unlike Hinduism, which is flexible and amenable to reform, Islam is rigid and difficult to change. Criticism of old archaic practices is shunned and viewed as anti- Muslim rhetoric. Modernization is seen as a threat to the way of life of a Muslim. In the face of such persistent orthodoxy all the reforms of the 19th century generally have been reverting to more fundamentalism rather than modernization. Two such reforms were the Wahabis and Tabligis.
The Wahabis
The Wahabi movement started in Saudi Arabia in the 18th century by Muhammad ibn-Abd-al-Wahab (1703–1792) regards all other religions as heretical and thus intolerant towards them. The Indian Wahabi movement was founded by Syed Ahmed Brelavi (1789-1831) belonging to Rai Baraili. When he saw Islam drifting towards superstitions and exaggerated veneration of saints and prophets, he steered Islam to its more fundamental roots similar to the Arabian Wahabi movement. However, the Brelavi Wahabis had no direct contact with their counterparts in Arabia. Its aim was to establish Muslim sovereignty in India or a Dar-ul-Islam.
Though the Wahabis took part in fighting the British, the basic tenet of the movement did not change, that is to establish Muslim supremacy over all of India. Influenced by the Wahabi movement, two other fundamentalist movements came into existence. Shariatullah started Fairazi movement in attempt to aid the poor peasants in Bengal against the oppressive zamindars. Soon this became an anti-Hindu movement as well. More significant was the second movement called the Deoband. They established the Muslim schools for education, the model of which is still followed in the madrassahs around the Muslim world. These Deoband faction attracted students from all over the Muslim world. Financed by the rich Muslim Arab nations, fundamentalism was institutionalized in these schools. In India there is an undercurrent of discord between the Deoband faction and the Brelavi Wahabis, mainly due to the financial disparity. In course of time the movements started as reform of Muslims shifted course and has been preoccupied with power and control of the populous.
The Tabligis
Dayananda Saraswati’s Arya Samaj targeted Muslim converts and attempted a purification drive (shuddhikaran). As a response Maulana Iliyas of Mewat in Rajastan started the Tabligi movement in 1927. The Hindu converts were practicing a mixed form of Islam as they were culturally more Hindu than Muslim. Maulana Iliyas started his movement to transform these converts into ‘complete Muslims’ and put forward the slogan, ‘Aye Musalmano! Musalman bano’ (O Muslims! Be Muslims). True Islamic teachings and practices were taught in an uncompromising way. Initially localized to Mewat, the movement caught on and spread rapidly after the death of the Maulana.
The Tabligis follow strict codes of the Islamic law. They are bound by the religious dogma, dressing patterns, detailed methods of religious practices. Meetings of thousands of Muslim gatherings (Jama’at) are held where minute details of the religious practices are taught for Muslims to follow. Half the populations of Muslims in the subcontinent are now adherents of this movement. Though apolitical in its organization, they have a capacity of mobilizing a large number of Muslims at short notice to gather.
More moderate reforms of the Islamic religion also occurred simultaneously. The adherents of such reforms are much less in number today. The Aligarh and the Ahmedia movements are the two main moderate attempts at reform.
The Aligarh Movement
Sir Syed Ahmed Khan (1817-1891) attempted a social upsurge amongst the Indian Muslims with his so-called Aligarh movement. His main contribution was to enhance education with starting of many schools and colleges. Much importance was given to Urdu language. He undertook reconciliation between Islam and Christianity and he pointedly showed the similarities between the two religions. He even published a sympathetic study of the Bible. Urdu translation of books on western arts and sciences were done by a translation society founded by him. Despite all the successful launching of social reforms, Sir Syed failed to bring about much needed moderation of the religion such as women’s education and the purdah system for oppressed women. Only the education of upper and middle class and has been criticized for not going far enough with his reforms of the entire Muslim society.
The Ahmedias
Founded in 1889 by Mirza Ghulam Ahmed, the movement was based on universal religion of all communities. It spread western liberal education among Muslims by starting a number of schools and colleges. It was opposed to Jihad but at the same time infused vigorous religious spirit among Muslims. It is the most closely knit and organized group of Muslims in the country. Its perceived mysticism was its downfall.
The Aga Khan’s Flock
Apart from the Sunnis (the followers of Omar, the Caliph) and Shiites, (followers of Ali, Prophet’s son in law) there is another sect in Indian subcontinent called the Aga Khanis. It is the Nizari Ismaili community with Aga Khan as their Imam. It originated as a splinter group of Shi’ite sect, when they accepted Ismail as the seventh Imam instead of his brother. They trace an unbroken line of Imams up to the current day Aga Khan (Prince Karim), who is 49th in succession. Many Shiite sects refused to accept any Imams after the elevnth Imam died without an heir. In this way the Nizari Ismailis are different. Thirteen generation after Ali, the Shiite sect further divided between followers of Nizar and his brother (later came to be known as Bohra community). Nizari Ismailis follow Aga Khan as their leader and celebrate his birthday as a holy day rather than the Muharram, which most of the Shiites celebrate as a holy day because of the death anniversary of Hussein, son of Ali.
Followers of Aga Khan are more westernized than any other Muslim community. Most of the recent Aga Khans have been educated in England. Thousand years ago they were rivals of the caliphate of Baghdad and ruled as the Fatimid caliphate of Cairo. After the decline of their influence in Egypt and Asia, they remained in Persia until 1840, when the 46th Imam was forced to leave Persia. They then moved to India and Pakistan where they formed an amicable relationship with the British. They were not accepted into Mecca and did not undertake pilgrimage. In 1866 their interpretation of the Koran resulted in dissension among its followers and many left the faith and reverted to some other form of Shiite sect. The Aga Khans were also accused of mishandling the Nizari finances in 1905 though they won a court battle in this regard. However, the modernization of the religion by the Aga Khans did not sit well in the Muslim world. The Nizari Ismailis of Gujarat are called Khojas.
During the 16th and 17th centuries, for example, Indian Nizaris often deemed it necessary to consult Hindu texts as well as The Holy Koran (which is of course their primary Book); in fact even today a fair number of Aga-Khanis enjoy and derive some inspiration from the Bhagavad-Gita. Unlike other Muslims, they sometimes sing hymns during their services, usually in an Indian language such as Gujarati. In addition, many Nizaris believe that reincarnation of souls is possible under certain circumstances. Mostly these are Muslims who embrace Sufism. An attempt was once made to categorize Hazrat Ali as the tenth avatar of Vishnu by Aga Khan though they no longer believe this.
As a result of the rift between the reformers and the orthodox sections of the religion, many deserted and joined other Shiite sect, thus becoming indistinguishable from them. It was thought that only about four million Muslims remained faithful to Aga Khan. However, after the breakup of the Soviet Union and birth of independent countries like Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan where many Aga Khanis were found to be followers of the faith. Now it is believed that there are about 20 million followers.
Other attempts
Other attempts have been made to modernize the religious practices with varying effects. Shibli Numani attempted Muslims to adopt a more flexible attitude towards Hindus and accept new ideas, but failed. Barruddin Tyebji (1844-1906) attempted to do away with the Purdah in Bombay. Moves toward re-interpretation of scriptures, history and behavior have been attempted by Hali and more recently by Maulana Vahiddudin Khan.
Traditional Muslim forces are too strong to allow any radical changes in the socio-religious front. Unlike Hindu reforms, real radical reforms of Islam have remained a dream of certain individuals over the course of history. Phadke wrote in 1989 that “ So tight has been the hold of orthodoxy on the Muslim mind that nowhere in India has Muslim society been so far able to support a vocal group of liberal Muslims committed to modern values. There has been no serious attempt of a thorough critical appraisal of their heritage”. After Indian Independence the reform of the Islam has become even more difficult as any attempt is viewed with suspicion because of the minority status of the Muslims.
Another moderate Muslim movement attempting to reform is the Bohra Reformist Group. Bohras are mainly business people mostly in the hardware and gun smithy. This is a modern movement attempting to soften the authority of the religious leaders on the religion. Started by Engineer, Contractor and Poonawala they have even attempted to interpret Koran in the perspective of a Christian liberal theology.
In the 1970’s a reformist named Hamid Dalwai made a serious attempt at modernizing Islam in India. He proposed abandonment of purdah and more freedom to women among the Maharashtra Sunni Muslim community. For this effort he was branded as heretic and his movement did not survive after his death. Dalwai’s movement was called Muslim Satayshodhak Mandal (MSM). Many more similar attempts have so far failed to produce significant results in reforming the socio-religious aspect of Islam in India. The fundamentalism is readily accepted whereas the moderate reforms are shunned.
The Future
Any attempt to bring the religion in par with the modern scientific world is perceived as a threat to Islamic identity. Religion is law in Islam and any change is thought to be breech of faith and belief. Sir Syed (Aligarh Movement) was called a kafir or infidel for his attempts and Dalwai (MSM) was branded as munafique or a heretic. Religion forms an integral part of the day-to-day practice of Islam that any reform devoid of religion is bound to fail. At the same time the injudicious reliance on religion can result in extreme fundamentalism like the Wahabi or directionless organization of the Tablig Jama’at. Being a minority status in India has resulted in any attempt at modernization to be called as an attempt at ‘Hindu-isation’ of Islam. Even the purdah system is defended as a religious identity, discarding the humanitarian aspect and discrimination.
Somehow a middle ground has to be sought both by the minority Muslims and the majority Hindus in India. There has to be an exchange of moderate ideas in a non-religious context that does not cross the line of infuriating the religious faction. From a distance this looks like an impossible feat as both sides have vowed not to give an inch. This rigidity has made the clash of two of the great religions all the more difficult to avoid. The divergent paths followed by both in their philosophy and theosophy seems to be drifting apart at a rapid pace.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query religion. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query religion. Sort by date Show all posts
Saturday, May 02, 2009
Thursday, April 04, 2013
Unholy War: Atheists And The Politics Of Muslim-Baiting
Polemical atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, who were dubbed the ‘The Unholy Trinity’, have openly criticised religion in their books – such as The God Delusion (Dawkins), God is not Great (Hitchens) and The End of Faith (Harris). But in an earlier time, much of their atheist exertions were focused on the excesses of Christianity, and to a lesser extent, Judaism.
In his book Letters to a Christian Nation, for instance, Harris states that his aim was to “demolish the intellectual and moral pretensions of Christianity in its most committed forms.” Religion, he argues, may have served some useful purpose for humanity in the past, but it was increasingly becoming the greatest impediment to building a global civilization.
But the terrorist attacks of September 2001, inspired by a jihadi-minded suicide squad assembled by Osama bin Laden, brought a new planet – Islam – into the atheists’ ken. Since arguably the most audacious terrorist attack in modern times was inspired by Islam, to which Western civilization had not devoted much critical attention, the attention – of media commentators and among the authors who explored the goings-on at the intersection of faith, society and politics – turned to something an obsession with Islam and jihad.
“The men who committed the atrocities of September 11,” wrote Harris, “were certainly not ‘cowards,’ as they were repeatedly described in the Western media, nor were they lunatics in any ordinary sense. They were men of faith—perfect faith, as it turns out—and this, it must finally be acknowledged, is a terrible thing to be.”
More generally, Harris wrote that Islam, “more than any other religion human beings have devised, has all the makings of a thoroughgoing cult of death.”
And while there were “other ideologies with which to expunge the last vapors of reasonableness from a society’s discourse,” Islam, he added, “is undoubtedly one of the best we’ve got.”
Outpourings like these, and other such commentaries and, more recently, Twitter rants by Dawkins (such as this one – where he called Islam the “greatest force for evil today” – and this one – where he established an equivalence between the Koran and Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf) have led commentators to wonder if the “New Atheists” – as they are called – are “flirting with Islamophobia.”
Writing in Salon, Nathan Lean, author of The Islamophobia Industry: How the Right Manufactures Fear of Muslims, reasons that the New Atheists found their calling with the September 2001 attacks. “The occasion was, for them, a vindication,— proof that modernity, progress and reason were the winners in the post–Cold War era and that religion was simply man’s play toy, used to excuse the wicked and assuage fears of a fiery, heavenless afterlife as the punishment for such profane deeds.”
And emboldened by the newfound religious fervor in the wake of the terrorist attacks, the New Atheists “joined a growing chorus of Muslim-haters, mixing their abhorrence of religion in general with a specific distaste for Islam,” writes Lean.
As he sees it, conversations about the practical impossibility of God’s existence and the science-based irrationality of an afterlife “slid seamlessly into xenophobia over Muslim immigration or the practice of veiling.” The New Atheists, he writes, became the new Islamophobes, their invectives against Muslims resembling the rowdy, uneducated ramblings of backwoods racists rather than appraisals based on intellect, rationality and reason.”
These New Atheists, reasons Lean, have used the “climate of increased anti-Muslim sentiment” to shift their narrative – from trying to convince people that God is a myth – to embracing Islamophobia, the “monster narrative of the day.” That, he says, is not rational or even intelligent: it’s opportunism. “Proving that a religion – any religion – is evil… is just as pointless and impossible an endeavour as trying to prove that God does or doesn’t exist.”
A similar critique of the atheists’ excessive preoccupation with painting Islam as evil is offered up by Murtaza Hussain, a Toronto-based scholar of Mideast Politics. Writing in the Al Jazeera website, Hussain likens leading figures in the New Atheist movement – like Harris – to those from an earlier era who justified racism on pseudo-scientific grounds.
“Citing ‘Muslims’ as a solid monolith of violent evil – whilst neglecting to include the countless Muslims who have lost their lives peacefully protesting the occupation and ongoing ethnic cleansing of their homeland – Harris engages in a nuanced version of the same racism which his predecessors in scientific racism practiced in their discussion of the blanket characteristics of ‘Negroes’,” writes Hussain.
Hussain concedes that Islam as an “intellectual movement” is not above scrutiny; and attempts to shut down legitimate debate using the charge of Islamophobia should, he says, be rejected. “However,” he adds, what is being pursued today by individuals such as Harris and others under the guise of disinterested observation is something far more insidious.”
Where once science was trotted out to justify slavery, today it is being used to push forward the belief that Muslims as a people lack basic humanity and to justify the “wars of aggression, torture and extra-judicial killings”, he adds.
“And just as it is incumbent upon Muslims to marginalise their own violent extremists, mainstream atheists must work to disavow those such as Harris who would tarnish their movement by associating it with a virulently racist, violent and exploitative worldview,” Hussain writes.
Hussain’s column has an epilogue. After Guardian’s columnist Glenn Greenwald tweeted out a link to Hussain’s column, Harris e-mailed him (here) to object to his retweeting “defamatory garbage” and to claim that there was in fact “nothing defamatory” about his criticism of Islam and that he criticised “white, western converts in precisely the same terms.”
The truth, says Harris, is that the “liberal (multicultural) position on Islam is racist. If a predominantly white community behaved this way–the Left would effortlessly perceive the depth of the problem. Imagine Mormons regularly practicing honor killing or burning embassies over cartoons…”
Greenwald responded to Harris to say that he was probably “embarrassed that people are now paying attention to some of the darker and uglier sentiments that have been creeping into this form of atheism advocacy.” In his estimation, he added, “a bizarre and wholly irrational fixation on Islam, as opposed to the evils done by other religions, has been masquerading in the dark under the banner of rational atheism for way too long.”
Monday, July 01, 2013
Politics Of Religion: The Tug-Of-War Over Kedarnath Temple
By M H Ahssan / Hyderabad
At the heart of what we call religion, lies faith – the variations of which manifest themselves as obsession, superstition, prejudice and several other such disruptive emotions. On the flipside of India’s much celebrated plurality, however, are the consequences of the various expressions of faith – the collective experience of which is called religion. The fact that religion is a social construct and hence readily lends itself to politics, is not new. And major parties in India are not unaware of its potential when it comes to political wrestling matches.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Gandhi, Spirituality, And Social Action
By Surendra Bhana
Time magazine selected Indian social reformer Mohandas K. Gandhi the runner-up to scientist Albert Einstein as the Man of the Millennium. As Johanna McGeary said in her lead-article, “The flesh and blood Gandhi was a most unlikely saint. Just conjure up his portrait: a skinny, bent figure, nut brown and naked except for a white loincloth, cheap spectacles perched on his nose, frail hand grasping a tall bamboo staff. This was one of the century's great revolutionaries? Yet this strange figure swayed millions with his hypnotic spell. His garb was the perfect uniform for the kind of revolutionary he was, wielding weapons of prayer and nonviolence more powerful than guns.” Gandhi may have become a “towering myth” in the West, but it was one that mattered. His work and his spirit have awakened a moral beacon for all times.
At first glance, Gandhi's ideas may seem irrelevant to current struggles for social change. He railed at industrialism and material pleasures. He remained unpersuaded by the value of modernity and technology, and offered us instead a backward-looking romantic vision of a simple society. Much of his ascetic personal philosophy has lost its meaning for newer generations of people used to more hedonistic ways. His kind of pacifism would not be tolerated even in India where he is regarded as the Father of the Nation.
Despite Gandhi’s idiosyncrasies and the anachronism of some of his ideas, there is much to his beliefs that is relevant. For us, his enduring value lies in the power of love, peace, and freedom. Freedom and justice were ever his guiding light. His ecumenical approach to religion is a model of tolerance that we can follow; and his vision of non-violence as a basis of change provides lessons for resolving conflicts within our society.
We are particularly attracted by Gandhi's way that reform begins with an individual. Spiritualize and awaken the individual conscience, and we will have an easier road to peaceful change. A majority of one is all one requires to effect meaningful change.
Spirituality as the Basis of Change: The Context of Gandhi's Social Action
For Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869-1948), religion was both, the formal where ritual practices diverged, and the eternal where all faiths had common goals. Prayers were needed to affirm and activate the divine within, not to ask favours. He did not care for dogmas. For him, it was not theology but morality that mattered. There was truth in each of the religions, but that did not mean they were all true, because they contained some falsehood as well. God was infinite even if every religion was partial and limited. He argued for sadbhava, that is goodwill and toleration.
Therefore religions could gain much by a dialogue, and none should claim exclusivity since it would amount to "spiritual arrogance." Religion was "not an authoritative and monolithic structure of ideas and practices, but a resource from which one freely borrowed ..." It was the basis of all life, and it thus shaped all activities. No action was without the influence of religion, and for him politics was not separate from religion, although he did not advocate theocracy. Religion was a matter of freely and sincerely held beliefs.
Gandhi was following an ancient tradition of using spirituality as a basis of social change. The Buddha and Jesus Christ had used them effectively. Gandhi’s unique discourse on the subject was the result of his having discovered the East and the West at about the same time, the one through the other. Thus he incorporated Christian notions of love, forgiveness, and uncomplaining suffering into his philosophy while rejecting the idea that salvation could come only through Christ; and he embraced Islam’s emphasis on equality. Jainism's anekantavada (the many-sidedness of truth) made him tolerant to all religions.
Injustices could be eliminated if ahimsa (non-violence) was practiced. But he found the Hindu idea of ahimsa too passive, and the Christian notion of love too attached. Thus he combined ahimsa and love, and added the Hindu concept of anaskati (detachment) to arrive at his activist philosophy. For Gandhi the world was ordered on moral principles and brute force had no place in it. He added fasting as a tool in his armoury. Fasting was not hunger strike designed to extract submission or evoke self-pity. Rather it was a way of atoning vicariously for the misdeeds of others. This "vicarious suffering" like "voluntary crucifixion" is an essentially Christian idea.
Hinduism nevertheless formed the core of his religious beliefs. It offers salvation through karma-yoga (selfless action), raja-yoga (bodily discipline), bhakti-yoga (devotional endeavours), and jnana-yoga (knowledge through mental discipline). He chose to stress the first, and adapted it to four fundamental Hindu ideas to suit his philosophy of social activism. Thus, Moksha (individual liberation), Tapasya (penitence), Yoga (mind-body harmonization), and Samadhi (withdrawal to prepare for moksha) all were adapted to suit his commitment for social reform and change in the service of the poor and the needy.
He drew upon the lives of ordinary people to create symbols with which they could identify. His approach was always aimed at appealing to the head and the heart. In any situation, he set the rules, developed his own unique logic. From this core set of beliefs, he shaped Satyagraha (Passive Resistance). This concept means "soul-force" in Sanskrit, but in Gujarati (Gandhi's native language), it also means insisting on truth without being obstinate or uncompromising. Truth had many sides, so one had to remain open and flexible. The use of violence implied infallibility and was therefore totally inappropriate in Satyagraha. He called Satyagraha "surgery of the soul" intended to awaken the opponent’s humanity.
A Satyagrahi (one who pursues Passive Resistance) has to observe certain rules of behaviour: believe in the power of right action, think rationally, study the situation, dissuade the opponent, keep open the channels of communications, use intermediaries, follow rules and principles, be courteous, remain open to compromise, and accept suffering love. If the opponent proved to be unyielding, the satyagrahi must engage in economic and political action such as boycott. Take positive action, or be trampled upon like worms, is the way he put it.
This is the lesson he sought to impart at his ashrams or communal settings where he experimented in group living. Religious spirit was used at these places to turn the individual into a social activist. The first, Phoenix Settlement, was inspired by a single reading of John Ruskin’s Unto This Last (1900), a work that extolled the virtues of the simple life of love, labour, and human dignity. The second was founded in 1910, and was called Tolstoy Farm in honour of Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910). Gandhi first read the Russian’s The Kingdom of God is Within You in 1893 soon after it was published. At these two experiments in communal living, he sought to shape the moral and spiritual life of the residents so that they may engage effectively in political and social change in the world outside.
When he returned to India, ashrams continued to be an important part of his life. He taught the residents to serve their fellows around strict moral principles, and to be daunted by nothing, not even death, in pursuing their goals. They were expected to find the truth through a life of simplicity, tolerance, hard-work, discipline, and self-reliance. Christians, Hindus, and Muslims nurtured respect for one another. There was much that was experimental as the residents tried out new diets, nature cure, and harmonious living with the environment. It was a way of training an army of spiritualized soldiers ready to effect change through ahimsa (non-violence). The ashrams produced heroic individuals.
He entered South Africa in 1893 a hesitant person; he left in 1914 self-confident and purposeful, spiritual and humble. He had learned that thought had no meaning unless it was lived out. Life was shallow unless it carried with it a vision. It was a weapon with great potential.
In India, Gandhi launched the Non-Cooperation Movement in 1920 that lasted for two years. It was inspired by the simple but effective idea of withdrawing cooperation to the imperial government, and of setting up alternative institutions. Non-cooperation came in several stages: resigning from government services, refusing to use government-created institutions, withholding taxes, quitting the armed services, and destroying foreign cloth. The movement made independence a widely shared goal. It radicalized a large body of Indians who had been drawn into it, and it helped to promote the Indian National Congress whose president he became in 1924. The movement reduced the hold of the colonial state on the people, but it failed to end foreign rule. For Gandhi, the failure signalled a need for reform from within. He withdrew from active politics, and devoted his energies to a "comprehensive syllabus" for change in what became known as the Constructive Program.
This program aimed at effecting national regeneration. Gandhi believed that Indians did not deserve independence unless they ended divisiveness, and changed their outmoded practices and beliefs. For him, political power for its own sake would only encourage careerism. Overall, Gandhi hoped to awaken spirituality. The program aimed to produce, among other things, Hindu-Muslim unity, equality for the untouchable caste, use of domestically-produced cloth (khadi), development of village industries, institution of craft-based education, and a ban on alcohol. It also worked for other desirable social changes such as introducing equality for women, developing health education, promoting indigenous languages, working for economic and social equality among peasants, workers, and tribal groups, creating a code of conduct for students, bringing help to lepers and beggars, and inculcating respect for animals.
For 35 years Gandhi single-mindedly expended his energies towards achieving these aims. The goal of political independence, however, had logic different from and often contradictory to that of the Constructive Program. Satyagraha (Passive Resistance) required working within the institutions created by the colonial state. Many Indian leaders were more interested in political independence rather than moral regeneration, and believed that the second was better left until after the first had been achieved. Gandhi needed to redefine constantly the relationship among conventional politics, satyagraha, and his reform program, not always with success. This made his overall strategy incoherent, and he appeared occasionally erratic and unpredictable. He was most comfortable with his reform program and satyagraha rather than conventional politics.
Gandhi's search for communal harmony went with an inner personal search. When violence broke out between Hindus and Muslims, he blamed himself, and often wondered why God was not working for him. Was he pure, had he removed all traces of violence within himself? This brought him to the conclusion that the possible source of his violence was the presence of unconscious sexuality. He had already taken a vow of celibacy in 1906. He thus began his experiments of sleeping with carefully chosen female associates. The experiments showed him that he was pure and that God had not forsaken him. He was ready to offer his own life to fight against communal violence, and thus to awaken the conscience and moral energies of his misguided countrymen. From October 1946 to February 1947, he walked from village to village, working 18 hours a day and covering as many as 49 villages, living in huts. His feet developed chilblains. He faced death threats. Nothing deterred him.
Gandhi’s emphasis on awakening individual spirituality offers a solution to communities in search of ways to effect desirable social change. The process must begin with the individual. Awakened to the potential within, the individual will carry the message to others. The individual thus repays the moral debt owed to others, and contributes to harmonious living. This strategy is an effective anti-dote to the modern state’s tendencies towards centralization and bureaucratization; as well as against the intolerance that divide one human being from another. Share, do not waste resources; do not despoil the environment; and recognize that the earth belongs to all who live in it. There is much we can learn from him.
Gandhi's Ideas: A Basis for Dialogue and Action
There are five major ideas from Gandhi's teaching and example, and their implications for dialogue and social action.
Leadership By Example
Gandhi exercised leadership by example. There was nothing he expected his followers to do that he himself was not prepared to do. There are many such instances when he took the lead. His sheer dedication and commitment inspired his followers. They quickly recognized that nothing deterred him. Here are three examples.
First: When he agreed to a political compromise in 1908 with the Boer leader Jan C. Smuts, some of his supporters accused him of expediency. He remained firm that it was the right thing to do, and so set out to be the first to register for a new identity document and thereby honour the compromise. On his way, however, he was severely assaulted by one of his compatriots. When he regained consciousness, he insisted on fulfilling his promise to be the first to register, and asked that the registrar be brought to him.
Second: He headed the column of 2000 marchers during the Great March of 1913 in South Africa. He dressed like them, ate what they ate, and was prepared to experience all the hardships that they endured.
Third: At the age of 61, Gandhi set out on the Salt March of 1930 with 78 loyal supporters. They marched 241 miles at the rate of 10 to 15 miles per day over 24 days. It was “child’s play” to him, but his feat of endurance was illustrative of what could be done with the courage and determination that were hallmarks of his leadership by example.
Based on Gandhi's leadership by example, here are some questions to stimulate dialogue and action: How would Gandhi's example be seen in your community? Would those trying to lead by his example have followers? How does experiencing hardships prepare us for leadership? In your community today, what sort of example would best fit the leadership needed to address what matters to local people?
Serving as a Moral Symbol
Gandhi was himself a moral symbol: his dress, his language, mode of public speaking, food, bodily gestures, ways of sitting, walking, talking, laughter, humour, and staff or walking stick. Each evoked deep cultural memories, spoke volumes, and conveyed highly complex messages. He hoped to reach the "whole being" and thus to mobilize their moral energy. In this world that he created, the colonial world had no access. No other leader before Gandhi had such a clear and complete strategy of action. None possessed either his self-confidence or his organizational and communication skills.
Gandhi evolved a distinct mode of discourse. He appealed to the emotions by judiciously selecting culturally significant symbols drawn from the daily lives of ordinary Indians. The symbols were: khadi, cow, Gandhi cap, spinning wheel. The spinning wheel was not only intended to rebel against modern technological civilization, but was affirming the dignity of rural India. It also affirmed the dignity of manual labour and social compassion. By supporting the spinning wheel he was promoting the needs of the poor. It was infinitely more moral than asking for financial donations.
Consistent with the idea of Gandhi serving as a moral symbol, here are some questions to guide dialogue and action: In your community, what dress, language, and manner of speaking and acting would bring out the rich culture of the local people? What beliefs and values should be represented in our leaders (and followers)? What are the traps or challenges of being seen as a "moral' leader? How might it benefit (or harm) the cause of a group?
Non-Violence
Rational discussion worked when different parties recognized their fallibility and were prepared to be self-critical and understood the psychological and moral context within which they operated. When this did not work, it was necessary to appeal to the heart to expand the range of sympathy and understanding for the other party. The recourse must not be violent. The use of violence denied that all human beings had souls, and that they were capable of appreciating and pursuing good, and that no one was so degenerate that he could not be won over by appealing to his fellow-feeling and humanity. Violence presupposed infallibility and this was not the case. The consequences of violence were irreversible. Morality suggested otherwise, and ends do not morally or otherwise justify the means.
Following Gandhi's practice of non-violence, here are some questions to promote dialogue and action: How was Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Civil Rights Movement in the United States influenced by the idea of non-violence as a means for social change? How has this idea influenced social change movement throughout the world? Are there conditions under which violence might be justified?
Satyagraha (Passive Resistance)
The way out of the dilemma of effecting change without violence is to use soul force. Mobilize the enormous latent energy of the soul, and thus bring to bear spiritual power to the issue. The new method should open up the opponent's heart and mind and thus renew rational discussion. However degenerate a person might be, he has a soul, and thus he has the capacity to feel for other human beings and to acknowledge their common humanity. Satyagraha was a "surgery of the soul", a way of activating "soul-force" and "suffering love" was the best way to do it since "moral nobility" disarmed opponents.
A sense of common and indivisible humanity was necessary as an article of belief; as well as the feeling that degrading another degraded oneself. So the community's moral capital was necessary. Gandhi would say that it is always present no matter appearances to the contrary. Satyagraha has resonance in both Hindu and Christian traditions: spiritual nature of human beings, the power of suffering love, and the deliberate and skilful use of suffering love to reach out to and to activate the moral energies of others.
In reflecting on Gandhi's idea of Satyagraha (Passive Resistance), here are some questions to stimulate dialogue and action: Under what conditions might passive resistance be more likely to be effective as a change of strategy? Under what conditions might it fail? For example, would we expect it to work in a Holocaust in which the Nazis killed millions of Jews?
Compromise and Negotiations
A satyagrahi (or a practitioner of Passive Resistance) observed basic principles: study rationally, carefully, and methodically the situation; convince opponents of the passion of his feelings; keep open channels of communication; use intermediaries; observe rules and principles, be courteous; be ready for compromises; be prepared for suffering love. When the stakes got high (that is suffering love alone was not enough), the satyagrahis used additional methods: defiance of laws, non-payment of taxes, non-cooperation, and strikes. Gandhi's vocabulary changed when the reality proved intractable: "non-violent warfare", "peaceful rebellion". He also introduced fasting as a tactic for purification and attracting public support.
Gandhi's example of communication and compromise suggests several questions to guide our own efforts: How do we come to understand the situation in which we do community work? How do we demonstrate our commitment to bringing about desired change while being open to compromise? When do we use more aggressive approaches to change (e.g., strikes, boycott)? How do we keep communication open during a "battle" with others?
Applying Gandhi's Ideas in Today's Social Action
The modern industrial civilization is characterized by rationalism, secularization, science, technology, and globalization. Gandhi saw the impact of modern civilization essentially through the eyes of its victims. For him, all civilizations are inspired and energized by specific human conceptions, which, if corrupted could become sources of evil. The corruption he spoke of related to the neglect of the soul as a consequence of the emphasis on materialism and reason. It made for an aggressive, violent, and exploitative world sustained by regimentation and abuse of the natural environment in which the poor and the weak were treated with contempt.
The modern state tends to promote the idea that ordinary individual—especially the poor and the "weak"—are not able to solve problems on their own.
This has destroyed stable and long-established communities; devalued personal autonomy; and has undermined the individual’s sense of identity and continuity. It could destroy the moral foundation of the individual, and this could lead to indifference, alienation, and hostility.
Gandhi was prepared to accept the role of the state as a trustee within defined limits in which the local community could determine its own needs. In India’s case, the village community was a basic unit of economy. Large-scale industries were necessary, but they should be located in a city and restricted. Local communities should have the power to redefine their own institutions.
Gandhi’s notion of a good society held that human beings are informed by the spirit of piety and recognize their interdependence. They are governed by moral and spiritual powers. They cherish plurality of reason, intuition, faith, and traditions, and appreciate the individual’s need for autonomy. It places morality at the center of individual behaviour. The spirit of reverence and broad-minded tolerance is the hallmark of a society that Gandhi helped us to see.
About the Author: The author wrote his first article on Gandhi in 1975: "The Tolstoy Farm: Gandhi's Experiment of Co-operative Commonwealth," South African Historical Journal. Since then, he has continued to read and write on Gandhi. Gandhi's Legacy in 1997 focused on one hundred years of an organization that he founded in 1894 in South Africa, namely the Natal Indian Congress. Currently, he is researching new aspects of Gandhi in South African so as to better understand his life and work later in India.
Time magazine selected Indian social reformer Mohandas K. Gandhi the runner-up to scientist Albert Einstein as the Man of the Millennium. As Johanna McGeary said in her lead-article, “The flesh and blood Gandhi was a most unlikely saint. Just conjure up his portrait: a skinny, bent figure, nut brown and naked except for a white loincloth, cheap spectacles perched on his nose, frail hand grasping a tall bamboo staff. This was one of the century's great revolutionaries? Yet this strange figure swayed millions with his hypnotic spell. His garb was the perfect uniform for the kind of revolutionary he was, wielding weapons of prayer and nonviolence more powerful than guns.” Gandhi may have become a “towering myth” in the West, but it was one that mattered. His work and his spirit have awakened a moral beacon for all times.
At first glance, Gandhi's ideas may seem irrelevant to current struggles for social change. He railed at industrialism and material pleasures. He remained unpersuaded by the value of modernity and technology, and offered us instead a backward-looking romantic vision of a simple society. Much of his ascetic personal philosophy has lost its meaning for newer generations of people used to more hedonistic ways. His kind of pacifism would not be tolerated even in India where he is regarded as the Father of the Nation.
Despite Gandhi’s idiosyncrasies and the anachronism of some of his ideas, there is much to his beliefs that is relevant. For us, his enduring value lies in the power of love, peace, and freedom. Freedom and justice were ever his guiding light. His ecumenical approach to religion is a model of tolerance that we can follow; and his vision of non-violence as a basis of change provides lessons for resolving conflicts within our society.
We are particularly attracted by Gandhi's way that reform begins with an individual. Spiritualize and awaken the individual conscience, and we will have an easier road to peaceful change. A majority of one is all one requires to effect meaningful change.
Spirituality as the Basis of Change: The Context of Gandhi's Social Action
For Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869-1948), religion was both, the formal where ritual practices diverged, and the eternal where all faiths had common goals. Prayers were needed to affirm and activate the divine within, not to ask favours. He did not care for dogmas. For him, it was not theology but morality that mattered. There was truth in each of the religions, but that did not mean they were all true, because they contained some falsehood as well. God was infinite even if every religion was partial and limited. He argued for sadbhava, that is goodwill and toleration.
Therefore religions could gain much by a dialogue, and none should claim exclusivity since it would amount to "spiritual arrogance." Religion was "not an authoritative and monolithic structure of ideas and practices, but a resource from which one freely borrowed ..." It was the basis of all life, and it thus shaped all activities. No action was without the influence of religion, and for him politics was not separate from religion, although he did not advocate theocracy. Religion was a matter of freely and sincerely held beliefs.
Gandhi was following an ancient tradition of using spirituality as a basis of social change. The Buddha and Jesus Christ had used them effectively. Gandhi’s unique discourse on the subject was the result of his having discovered the East and the West at about the same time, the one through the other. Thus he incorporated Christian notions of love, forgiveness, and uncomplaining suffering into his philosophy while rejecting the idea that salvation could come only through Christ; and he embraced Islam’s emphasis on equality. Jainism's anekantavada (the many-sidedness of truth) made him tolerant to all religions.
Injustices could be eliminated if ahimsa (non-violence) was practiced. But he found the Hindu idea of ahimsa too passive, and the Christian notion of love too attached. Thus he combined ahimsa and love, and added the Hindu concept of anaskati (detachment) to arrive at his activist philosophy. For Gandhi the world was ordered on moral principles and brute force had no place in it. He added fasting as a tool in his armoury. Fasting was not hunger strike designed to extract submission or evoke self-pity. Rather it was a way of atoning vicariously for the misdeeds of others. This "vicarious suffering" like "voluntary crucifixion" is an essentially Christian idea.
Hinduism nevertheless formed the core of his religious beliefs. It offers salvation through karma-yoga (selfless action), raja-yoga (bodily discipline), bhakti-yoga (devotional endeavours), and jnana-yoga (knowledge through mental discipline). He chose to stress the first, and adapted it to four fundamental Hindu ideas to suit his philosophy of social activism. Thus, Moksha (individual liberation), Tapasya (penitence), Yoga (mind-body harmonization), and Samadhi (withdrawal to prepare for moksha) all were adapted to suit his commitment for social reform and change in the service of the poor and the needy.
He drew upon the lives of ordinary people to create symbols with which they could identify. His approach was always aimed at appealing to the head and the heart. In any situation, he set the rules, developed his own unique logic. From this core set of beliefs, he shaped Satyagraha (Passive Resistance). This concept means "soul-force" in Sanskrit, but in Gujarati (Gandhi's native language), it also means insisting on truth without being obstinate or uncompromising. Truth had many sides, so one had to remain open and flexible. The use of violence implied infallibility and was therefore totally inappropriate in Satyagraha. He called Satyagraha "surgery of the soul" intended to awaken the opponent’s humanity.
A Satyagrahi (one who pursues Passive Resistance) has to observe certain rules of behaviour: believe in the power of right action, think rationally, study the situation, dissuade the opponent, keep open the channels of communications, use intermediaries, follow rules and principles, be courteous, remain open to compromise, and accept suffering love. If the opponent proved to be unyielding, the satyagrahi must engage in economic and political action such as boycott. Take positive action, or be trampled upon like worms, is the way he put it.
This is the lesson he sought to impart at his ashrams or communal settings where he experimented in group living. Religious spirit was used at these places to turn the individual into a social activist. The first, Phoenix Settlement, was inspired by a single reading of John Ruskin’s Unto This Last (1900), a work that extolled the virtues of the simple life of love, labour, and human dignity. The second was founded in 1910, and was called Tolstoy Farm in honour of Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910). Gandhi first read the Russian’s The Kingdom of God is Within You in 1893 soon after it was published. At these two experiments in communal living, he sought to shape the moral and spiritual life of the residents so that they may engage effectively in political and social change in the world outside.
When he returned to India, ashrams continued to be an important part of his life. He taught the residents to serve their fellows around strict moral principles, and to be daunted by nothing, not even death, in pursuing their goals. They were expected to find the truth through a life of simplicity, tolerance, hard-work, discipline, and self-reliance. Christians, Hindus, and Muslims nurtured respect for one another. There was much that was experimental as the residents tried out new diets, nature cure, and harmonious living with the environment. It was a way of training an army of spiritualized soldiers ready to effect change through ahimsa (non-violence). The ashrams produced heroic individuals.
He entered South Africa in 1893 a hesitant person; he left in 1914 self-confident and purposeful, spiritual and humble. He had learned that thought had no meaning unless it was lived out. Life was shallow unless it carried with it a vision. It was a weapon with great potential.
In India, Gandhi launched the Non-Cooperation Movement in 1920 that lasted for two years. It was inspired by the simple but effective idea of withdrawing cooperation to the imperial government, and of setting up alternative institutions. Non-cooperation came in several stages: resigning from government services, refusing to use government-created institutions, withholding taxes, quitting the armed services, and destroying foreign cloth. The movement made independence a widely shared goal. It radicalized a large body of Indians who had been drawn into it, and it helped to promote the Indian National Congress whose president he became in 1924. The movement reduced the hold of the colonial state on the people, but it failed to end foreign rule. For Gandhi, the failure signalled a need for reform from within. He withdrew from active politics, and devoted his energies to a "comprehensive syllabus" for change in what became known as the Constructive Program.
This program aimed at effecting national regeneration. Gandhi believed that Indians did not deserve independence unless they ended divisiveness, and changed their outmoded practices and beliefs. For him, political power for its own sake would only encourage careerism. Overall, Gandhi hoped to awaken spirituality. The program aimed to produce, among other things, Hindu-Muslim unity, equality for the untouchable caste, use of domestically-produced cloth (khadi), development of village industries, institution of craft-based education, and a ban on alcohol. It also worked for other desirable social changes such as introducing equality for women, developing health education, promoting indigenous languages, working for economic and social equality among peasants, workers, and tribal groups, creating a code of conduct for students, bringing help to lepers and beggars, and inculcating respect for animals.
For 35 years Gandhi single-mindedly expended his energies towards achieving these aims. The goal of political independence, however, had logic different from and often contradictory to that of the Constructive Program. Satyagraha (Passive Resistance) required working within the institutions created by the colonial state. Many Indian leaders were more interested in political independence rather than moral regeneration, and believed that the second was better left until after the first had been achieved. Gandhi needed to redefine constantly the relationship among conventional politics, satyagraha, and his reform program, not always with success. This made his overall strategy incoherent, and he appeared occasionally erratic and unpredictable. He was most comfortable with his reform program and satyagraha rather than conventional politics.
Gandhi's search for communal harmony went with an inner personal search. When violence broke out between Hindus and Muslims, he blamed himself, and often wondered why God was not working for him. Was he pure, had he removed all traces of violence within himself? This brought him to the conclusion that the possible source of his violence was the presence of unconscious sexuality. He had already taken a vow of celibacy in 1906. He thus began his experiments of sleeping with carefully chosen female associates. The experiments showed him that he was pure and that God had not forsaken him. He was ready to offer his own life to fight against communal violence, and thus to awaken the conscience and moral energies of his misguided countrymen. From October 1946 to February 1947, he walked from village to village, working 18 hours a day and covering as many as 49 villages, living in huts. His feet developed chilblains. He faced death threats. Nothing deterred him.
Gandhi’s emphasis on awakening individual spirituality offers a solution to communities in search of ways to effect desirable social change. The process must begin with the individual. Awakened to the potential within, the individual will carry the message to others. The individual thus repays the moral debt owed to others, and contributes to harmonious living. This strategy is an effective anti-dote to the modern state’s tendencies towards centralization and bureaucratization; as well as against the intolerance that divide one human being from another. Share, do not waste resources; do not despoil the environment; and recognize that the earth belongs to all who live in it. There is much we can learn from him.
Gandhi's Ideas: A Basis for Dialogue and Action
There are five major ideas from Gandhi's teaching and example, and their implications for dialogue and social action.
Leadership By Example
Gandhi exercised leadership by example. There was nothing he expected his followers to do that he himself was not prepared to do. There are many such instances when he took the lead. His sheer dedication and commitment inspired his followers. They quickly recognized that nothing deterred him. Here are three examples.
First: When he agreed to a political compromise in 1908 with the Boer leader Jan C. Smuts, some of his supporters accused him of expediency. He remained firm that it was the right thing to do, and so set out to be the first to register for a new identity document and thereby honour the compromise. On his way, however, he was severely assaulted by one of his compatriots. When he regained consciousness, he insisted on fulfilling his promise to be the first to register, and asked that the registrar be brought to him.
Second: He headed the column of 2000 marchers during the Great March of 1913 in South Africa. He dressed like them, ate what they ate, and was prepared to experience all the hardships that they endured.
Third: At the age of 61, Gandhi set out on the Salt March of 1930 with 78 loyal supporters. They marched 241 miles at the rate of 10 to 15 miles per day over 24 days. It was “child’s play” to him, but his feat of endurance was illustrative of what could be done with the courage and determination that were hallmarks of his leadership by example.
Based on Gandhi's leadership by example, here are some questions to stimulate dialogue and action: How would Gandhi's example be seen in your community? Would those trying to lead by his example have followers? How does experiencing hardships prepare us for leadership? In your community today, what sort of example would best fit the leadership needed to address what matters to local people?
Serving as a Moral Symbol
Gandhi was himself a moral symbol: his dress, his language, mode of public speaking, food, bodily gestures, ways of sitting, walking, talking, laughter, humour, and staff or walking stick. Each evoked deep cultural memories, spoke volumes, and conveyed highly complex messages. He hoped to reach the "whole being" and thus to mobilize their moral energy. In this world that he created, the colonial world had no access. No other leader before Gandhi had such a clear and complete strategy of action. None possessed either his self-confidence or his organizational and communication skills.
Gandhi evolved a distinct mode of discourse. He appealed to the emotions by judiciously selecting culturally significant symbols drawn from the daily lives of ordinary Indians. The symbols were: khadi, cow, Gandhi cap, spinning wheel. The spinning wheel was not only intended to rebel against modern technological civilization, but was affirming the dignity of rural India. It also affirmed the dignity of manual labour and social compassion. By supporting the spinning wheel he was promoting the needs of the poor. It was infinitely more moral than asking for financial donations.
Consistent with the idea of Gandhi serving as a moral symbol, here are some questions to guide dialogue and action: In your community, what dress, language, and manner of speaking and acting would bring out the rich culture of the local people? What beliefs and values should be represented in our leaders (and followers)? What are the traps or challenges of being seen as a "moral' leader? How might it benefit (or harm) the cause of a group?
Non-Violence
Rational discussion worked when different parties recognized their fallibility and were prepared to be self-critical and understood the psychological and moral context within which they operated. When this did not work, it was necessary to appeal to the heart to expand the range of sympathy and understanding for the other party. The recourse must not be violent. The use of violence denied that all human beings had souls, and that they were capable of appreciating and pursuing good, and that no one was so degenerate that he could not be won over by appealing to his fellow-feeling and humanity. Violence presupposed infallibility and this was not the case. The consequences of violence were irreversible. Morality suggested otherwise, and ends do not morally or otherwise justify the means.
Following Gandhi's practice of non-violence, here are some questions to promote dialogue and action: How was Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Civil Rights Movement in the United States influenced by the idea of non-violence as a means for social change? How has this idea influenced social change movement throughout the world? Are there conditions under which violence might be justified?
Satyagraha (Passive Resistance)
The way out of the dilemma of effecting change without violence is to use soul force. Mobilize the enormous latent energy of the soul, and thus bring to bear spiritual power to the issue. The new method should open up the opponent's heart and mind and thus renew rational discussion. However degenerate a person might be, he has a soul, and thus he has the capacity to feel for other human beings and to acknowledge their common humanity. Satyagraha was a "surgery of the soul", a way of activating "soul-force" and "suffering love" was the best way to do it since "moral nobility" disarmed opponents.
A sense of common and indivisible humanity was necessary as an article of belief; as well as the feeling that degrading another degraded oneself. So the community's moral capital was necessary. Gandhi would say that it is always present no matter appearances to the contrary. Satyagraha has resonance in both Hindu and Christian traditions: spiritual nature of human beings, the power of suffering love, and the deliberate and skilful use of suffering love to reach out to and to activate the moral energies of others.
In reflecting on Gandhi's idea of Satyagraha (Passive Resistance), here are some questions to stimulate dialogue and action: Under what conditions might passive resistance be more likely to be effective as a change of strategy? Under what conditions might it fail? For example, would we expect it to work in a Holocaust in which the Nazis killed millions of Jews?
Compromise and Negotiations
A satyagrahi (or a practitioner of Passive Resistance) observed basic principles: study rationally, carefully, and methodically the situation; convince opponents of the passion of his feelings; keep open channels of communication; use intermediaries; observe rules and principles, be courteous; be ready for compromises; be prepared for suffering love. When the stakes got high (that is suffering love alone was not enough), the satyagrahis used additional methods: defiance of laws, non-payment of taxes, non-cooperation, and strikes. Gandhi's vocabulary changed when the reality proved intractable: "non-violent warfare", "peaceful rebellion". He also introduced fasting as a tactic for purification and attracting public support.
Gandhi's example of communication and compromise suggests several questions to guide our own efforts: How do we come to understand the situation in which we do community work? How do we demonstrate our commitment to bringing about desired change while being open to compromise? When do we use more aggressive approaches to change (e.g., strikes, boycott)? How do we keep communication open during a "battle" with others?
Applying Gandhi's Ideas in Today's Social Action
The modern industrial civilization is characterized by rationalism, secularization, science, technology, and globalization. Gandhi saw the impact of modern civilization essentially through the eyes of its victims. For him, all civilizations are inspired and energized by specific human conceptions, which, if corrupted could become sources of evil. The corruption he spoke of related to the neglect of the soul as a consequence of the emphasis on materialism and reason. It made for an aggressive, violent, and exploitative world sustained by regimentation and abuse of the natural environment in which the poor and the weak were treated with contempt.
The modern state tends to promote the idea that ordinary individual—especially the poor and the "weak"—are not able to solve problems on their own.
This has destroyed stable and long-established communities; devalued personal autonomy; and has undermined the individual’s sense of identity and continuity. It could destroy the moral foundation of the individual, and this could lead to indifference, alienation, and hostility.
Gandhi was prepared to accept the role of the state as a trustee within defined limits in which the local community could determine its own needs. In India’s case, the village community was a basic unit of economy. Large-scale industries were necessary, but they should be located in a city and restricted. Local communities should have the power to redefine their own institutions.
Gandhi’s notion of a good society held that human beings are informed by the spirit of piety and recognize their interdependence. They are governed by moral and spiritual powers. They cherish plurality of reason, intuition, faith, and traditions, and appreciate the individual’s need for autonomy. It places morality at the center of individual behaviour. The spirit of reverence and broad-minded tolerance is the hallmark of a society that Gandhi helped us to see.
About the Author: The author wrote his first article on Gandhi in 1975: "The Tolstoy Farm: Gandhi's Experiment of Co-operative Commonwealth," South African Historical Journal. Since then, he has continued to read and write on Gandhi. Gandhi's Legacy in 1997 focused on one hundred years of an organization that he founded in 1894 in South Africa, namely the Natal Indian Congress. Currently, he is researching new aspects of Gandhi in South African so as to better understand his life and work later in India.
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Absurd Provocation, Uncalled For Reaction
The BJP’s reactions, however, are equally unnecessary. For all their huffing and puffing, there is little doubt that people inspired by the Sangh Parivar version of Hinduism have been involved in planting bombs in trains and mosques and that some of their members have rushed to the defence of the accused. The BJP has to decide whether it is against all forms of terrorism or not and whether it is fair to call Muslims terrorists and start foaming at the mouth when someone else calls Hindus terrorists. If terrorism cannot be related to religion A then it cannot be related to religion B either.
Having said that, it is also true that terrorists get inspired by someone or something and very often it is religion. The jihadis of the Al-Qaeda and similar groups have been promised some kind of religious reward to motivate (or fool) them. Similarly, members of groups like Abhinav Bharat are made to believe that their acts of terrorism will somehow help Hinduism. The argument cannot be that investigators and prosecutors are prejudiced when it comes to one community when your supporters are involved and are free and fair when others are caught. In fact all evidence points to the fact that investigators in India are usually biased against Muslims.
Unfortunately, the media, especially television news, is playing a perilous game here by egging on this apparent Hindu terrorism versus Muslim terrorism war of words. As it happens, there is no event around which this rage is based. By fanning flames of religion-based anger, there is a possibility of enflaming religious-based anger. This is a similar irresponsibility shown by television just recently over border skirmishes between India and Pakistan: an attempt to create news rather than report it.
For the political parties, words of outrage over religion and terror are blatant and deliberate moves to manipulate political discourse in the country and deflect attention from real issues. The UPA and the Congress are struggling with their falling trust deficit with the electorate. The BJP has just come through a presidential battle with palpable wounds.
The lack of maturity by our political class is self-evident. Fomenting religious is evil and short-sighted – whoever does it and whichever religion is targeted. At some point in our history we have to let go off religion as a vote-catcher and move on to more worthwhile issues. The misuse of the secular nature of our
Constitution by our political parties has only led to problems for the people of India and indeed of the subcontinent. Surely, we cannot afford another conflagration?
Sunday, December 07, 2008
Sunday Exclusive: DOORS OF THE MIND
As long as we have the power to choose, it is never too late to open doors to channels we haven’t travelled before, says Kishore Asthana .
Imagine a vast hall in our minds. We spend our lives in this hall. There are many doors here and one corridor leading off, with no door at all. In the final stages of our lives, we go into this door-less corridor and, at its end, fall off this plane of existence. This note is not about what happens when we fall off at the end. It is about what happens as we spend our time in this Central Hall.
The doors in the Hall are of different colours. Behind these doors we can find creativity, laughter, adventure, love, serenity and fulfillment. There are some doors behind which we find negativity, too, in the form of addiction, disease, enmity, vileness, bigotry and such things. When we open a door, we spend time behind it experiencing whatever that room contains. We then come out into the Hall and have the choice to do nothing, open another door or go into the same one again. Inside these doors, there are other doors leading to different rooms.
All the doors are unlocked and open smoothly when we are born. Those we choose to ignore become harder to open, as their hinges rust. Those doors we keep opening frequently remain smooth. In the nature of things, it is possible to be behind more than one door at the same time, but the time spent behind any additional door takes away the time from other doors.
As we age, we make our choices. We open certain doors and ignore others. We are guided in our choices by a variety of factors — our genes shape these to a certain extent. Our family and friends are another influence, for we usually prefer to open those doors behind which we are likely to find those we like or which are recommended by them. That is why the wise recommend good company, satsang.
When we spend too much time behind a particular door, the hinges start rusting and it becomes increasingly difficult to come out. Most of our politicians are examples of this. They have spent so much time behind the door marked Vote-Bank-Politics that they find it difficult to come out of this sorry room even at the time of a crisis such as therecent terrorist strike in Mumbai. Similarly, most of our bureaucrats appear to spend most of their time behind the door marked, Pass The Blame.
Sometimes we spend too much time behind a door because we find happiness there - this may be a ‘good’ happiness or a negative one such as that caused by drugs or visions of paradise through religious extremism. Often we spend too much time behind a specific door because we feel helpless. This can happen because of things like prolonged illness, addiction or the wrong company, such as that of religious zealots. It can also happen because of laziness and lack of daring. Sometimes it happens because of belief in our own importance – “what will happen to all this if I leave?” is a question often asked and then replied in a way which enforces the sense of ones indispensability.
At all times, we must remember that, in the final analysis, the choice is entirely ours. We are the Openers of The Doors. The Hall belongs to us and it is not the other way around. Whoever thinks that she belongs to the Hall is powerless to do anything worthwhile and prematurely awaits her end near the entrance of the open corridor. Ennui and a sense of worthlessness are the major experiences if one tarries at this point too long. Some people mistake this inaction for spiritual detachment but such people do not find the bliss they are looking for.
In this connection, I would like to particularly mention two doors which are often mistaken for each other, though they are quite different. One is marked Religion and the other Spirituality. Though the two doors are independent, the rooms behind them are interlinked and the room behind the door marked Religion also has a portal to go into the room marked Spirituality. Unfortunately, Religion has other doors, too and one of them is marked Jihad, or its equivalent in other faiths. Some religious leaders inveigle impressionable young men and women into opening this door. Once inside this, the only way out appears to be death – their own and that of many others who they take with them through misguided notions of vengeance. The recent events in Mumbai highlight what can happen when this door is entered.
Most people enter the door marked Religion under the mistaken notion that this will take them automatically to Spirituality. Unfortunately, in most cases people entering the door marked Religion are unable to reach the spiritual, as they get engrossed in the many diversions offered by religion. An impression has been conveyed by religious leaders that we must enter the room of religion for the Creator to listen to us because He does not do so in other places. This misunderstanding also tends to make the seeker unwilling to leave the varied attractions of this room by opening the interconnected door of Spirituality.
The door marked Spirituality leads to a wondrous corridor whose hallmarks are inclusiveness, empathy and compassion. If travelled till the end, this takes one outside this construct altogether and permits the adept to view it from the perspective of the one who created it all. The adept realizes what has been called moksha, satori, enlightenment and baqa. At the end of her life, the realised one might experience a change of form but not a change of focus. She finds herself at the place she already was. This state has to be experienced and cannot be learned through words. One must see for oneself what colour is and it is not possible to describe it in words to a blind person. So it is with this state.
We should review the choices we have made till now. We should also evaluate if we have been behind a particular door too long. If need be, we should make fresh choices before the hinges of the as yet unopened doors get too rusted to open. Remember, till we have the power to choose, it is not too late to open any new door. It may be increasingly difficult to do so, but, with a strong will, it is still possible to do so. All we have to do is exercise our will in channels it has not travelled before, but would like to. The alternative is travelling through the door-less corridor to our end, carrying with us the regret at what could have been.
At the end of our lives all the doors will open themselves, but by then it would be too late. At that time the doors only allow us to go out into the hall, where the door-less corridor awaits.
Imagine a vast hall in our minds. We spend our lives in this hall. There are many doors here and one corridor leading off, with no door at all. In the final stages of our lives, we go into this door-less corridor and, at its end, fall off this plane of existence. This note is not about what happens when we fall off at the end. It is about what happens as we spend our time in this Central Hall.
The doors in the Hall are of different colours. Behind these doors we can find creativity, laughter, adventure, love, serenity and fulfillment. There are some doors behind which we find negativity, too, in the form of addiction, disease, enmity, vileness, bigotry and such things. When we open a door, we spend time behind it experiencing whatever that room contains. We then come out into the Hall and have the choice to do nothing, open another door or go into the same one again. Inside these doors, there are other doors leading to different rooms.
All the doors are unlocked and open smoothly when we are born. Those we choose to ignore become harder to open, as their hinges rust. Those doors we keep opening frequently remain smooth. In the nature of things, it is possible to be behind more than one door at the same time, but the time spent behind any additional door takes away the time from other doors.
As we age, we make our choices. We open certain doors and ignore others. We are guided in our choices by a variety of factors — our genes shape these to a certain extent. Our family and friends are another influence, for we usually prefer to open those doors behind which we are likely to find those we like or which are recommended by them. That is why the wise recommend good company, satsang.
When we spend too much time behind a particular door, the hinges start rusting and it becomes increasingly difficult to come out. Most of our politicians are examples of this. They have spent so much time behind the door marked Vote-Bank-Politics that they find it difficult to come out of this sorry room even at the time of a crisis such as therecent terrorist strike in Mumbai. Similarly, most of our bureaucrats appear to spend most of their time behind the door marked, Pass The Blame.
Sometimes we spend too much time behind a door because we find happiness there - this may be a ‘good’ happiness or a negative one such as that caused by drugs or visions of paradise through religious extremism. Often we spend too much time behind a specific door because we feel helpless. This can happen because of things like prolonged illness, addiction or the wrong company, such as that of religious zealots. It can also happen because of laziness and lack of daring. Sometimes it happens because of belief in our own importance – “what will happen to all this if I leave?” is a question often asked and then replied in a way which enforces the sense of ones indispensability.
At all times, we must remember that, in the final analysis, the choice is entirely ours. We are the Openers of The Doors. The Hall belongs to us and it is not the other way around. Whoever thinks that she belongs to the Hall is powerless to do anything worthwhile and prematurely awaits her end near the entrance of the open corridor. Ennui and a sense of worthlessness are the major experiences if one tarries at this point too long. Some people mistake this inaction for spiritual detachment but such people do not find the bliss they are looking for.
In this connection, I would like to particularly mention two doors which are often mistaken for each other, though they are quite different. One is marked Religion and the other Spirituality. Though the two doors are independent, the rooms behind them are interlinked and the room behind the door marked Religion also has a portal to go into the room marked Spirituality. Unfortunately, Religion has other doors, too and one of them is marked Jihad, or its equivalent in other faiths. Some religious leaders inveigle impressionable young men and women into opening this door. Once inside this, the only way out appears to be death – their own and that of many others who they take with them through misguided notions of vengeance. The recent events in Mumbai highlight what can happen when this door is entered.
Most people enter the door marked Religion under the mistaken notion that this will take them automatically to Spirituality. Unfortunately, in most cases people entering the door marked Religion are unable to reach the spiritual, as they get engrossed in the many diversions offered by religion. An impression has been conveyed by religious leaders that we must enter the room of religion for the Creator to listen to us because He does not do so in other places. This misunderstanding also tends to make the seeker unwilling to leave the varied attractions of this room by opening the interconnected door of Spirituality.
The door marked Spirituality leads to a wondrous corridor whose hallmarks are inclusiveness, empathy and compassion. If travelled till the end, this takes one outside this construct altogether and permits the adept to view it from the perspective of the one who created it all. The adept realizes what has been called moksha, satori, enlightenment and baqa. At the end of her life, the realised one might experience a change of form but not a change of focus. She finds herself at the place she already was. This state has to be experienced and cannot be learned through words. One must see for oneself what colour is and it is not possible to describe it in words to a blind person. So it is with this state.
We should review the choices we have made till now. We should also evaluate if we have been behind a particular door too long. If need be, we should make fresh choices before the hinges of the as yet unopened doors get too rusted to open. Remember, till we have the power to choose, it is not too late to open any new door. It may be increasingly difficult to do so, but, with a strong will, it is still possible to do so. All we have to do is exercise our will in channels it has not travelled before, but would like to. The alternative is travelling through the door-less corridor to our end, carrying with us the regret at what could have been.
At the end of our lives all the doors will open themselves, but by then it would be too late. At that time the doors only allow us to go out into the hall, where the door-less corridor awaits.
Friday, May 20, 2016
Terror Tactics: Why 'Saffron Terror' Is Not A Myth?
By M H AHSSAN | INNLIVE
By shielding Hindu terror suspects, the Modi government is making a big mistake. It should learn from Pakistan’s blunders.
The National Investigation Agency recently decided to drop all terror related charges against the 2008 Malegaon blast accused, Sadhvi Pragya Thakur. The decision of the NIA to overlook earlier findings of investigative agencies against Singh has been along predicted lines under the Narendra Modi regime.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Gandhi Showed How Religion Is Used In Politics
By Vishal Arora
Mahatma Gandhi said his mission was to win self-rule. He did not mean it as an exclusive term nor did it connote theocracy. Gandhi's vision was broad enough to encompass various faiths.
Those who believe religion cannot play a constructive role in politics must study how Mahatma Gandhi led India to win independence from the British rule with a struggle that was founded on religious beliefs.
Gandhi said his mission was to win Swaraj (self-rule), which he envisioned and portrayed as “Ramarajya”. Ramarajya was not an exclusive term, and nor did it mean theocracy. It called for establishment of a just and humane government and society which, according to him, was realising God on earth. Winning independence politically was only a small part of it.
Gandhi clarified that Ramarajya did not mean a rule of the Hindus. “My Rama is another name for Khuda or God. I want Khudai raj, which is the same thing as the Kingdom of God on earth” (Haimchar, February 26, 1947). He explained that politically translated, it is perfect democracy in which, “inequalities based on possession and non-possession, colour, race or creed or sex vanish; in it, land and State belong to the people, justice is prompt, perfect and cheap and, therefore, there is freedom of worship, speech and the Press—all this because of the reign of the self-imposed law of moral restraint”.
Gandhi’s Satyagraha (struggle for truth) movement, which compelled the British to leave the country in 1947, was also grounded on explicit and strong religious beliefs.
Satyagraha involved the use of soul force as against the body force and was characterized by passive resistance and Ahimsa (non-violence). It sought to awaken the inherent virtues in those against whom it was used, and not to suppress perceived evil in them by any physical pressure or force. Besides, it was focused on self-purification rather than judgment of the other.
According to Gandhi, non-violence was a more active force than retaliation, which increases wickedness. “I contemplate a mental, and therefore, a moral opposition to immoralities. I seek entirely to blunt the edge of the tyrant’s sword, not by putting up against it a sharper-edged weapon, but by disappointing his expectation that I would be offering physical resistance”.
Satyagraha had three inseparable components. One, it was aimed at a just cause. He said, “I claim that the method of passive resistance…is the clearest and safest, because, if the cause is not true, it is the resisters and they alone who suffer.”
Two, it was effective but peaceful. “Passive resistance is an all-sided sword; it can be used anyhow; it blesses him who uses it and him against whom it is used. Without drawing a drop of blood it produces far-reaching results,” said Gandhi (“Hind Samaj or Indian Home Rule”, Navajivan Publishing House, 1958). He saw non-violence as “the end of all religions”.
Three, it concerned impurities and weaknesses in the self rather than focusing on the evil in the object of resistance. For instance, he said it was the people in India who needed to change to earn the freedom. “It is the people alone who have to win swaraj; no man, not even the Viceroy, can grant it.”
He also said, “When it (the government) sees the faith in yourselves which you will have displayed to the world by starting 20 lakh spinning-wheels within the time fixed, it will come down on its knees…When you have done this, the world will have realized, and so will have the Government, that you have faith in yourselves, that you really mean to have Swaraj.”
Again, he said, “You must be religious and pure of heart. You must give up drinking and firmly vow to wear only pure swadeshi (indigenous) cloth…. You must bear in mind that no one who is wicked and of impure heart succeed in the non-cooperation struggle.”
However, Gandhi’s use of religion was not idealistic, and nor was he over-optimistic about the realisation of his dream of Ramarajya. “It is a dream that may never be realized. I find happiness in living in that dreamland, ever trying to realize it in the quickest way.”
His pragmatic approach can be gauged from the fact that he did not aim at becoming consistent in his views, but was open to new ideas based on experiences in life. “When anybody finds any inconsistency between any two writings of mine, if he has still faith in my sanity, he would do well to choose the latter of the two on the same subject,” he said.
Besides, Gandhi was not like some of his contemporaries, who too were using religion in their respective struggles for independence. What set him apart was the fact that while others highlighted worldly interests of religious communities—which created hatred and jealousy, he introduced tenets of various religions in politics with a vision that was broad enough to respect the needs of all communities. Religion, he said, in its broadest sense governs all departments of life, including politics.
Unfortunately, it is the misuse of religion that we see in politics of the day, and not the use of virtues found in religion.
Mahatma Gandhi said his mission was to win self-rule. He did not mean it as an exclusive term nor did it connote theocracy. Gandhi's vision was broad enough to encompass various faiths.
Those who believe religion cannot play a constructive role in politics must study how Mahatma Gandhi led India to win independence from the British rule with a struggle that was founded on religious beliefs.
Gandhi said his mission was to win Swaraj (self-rule), which he envisioned and portrayed as “Ramarajya”. Ramarajya was not an exclusive term, and nor did it mean theocracy. It called for establishment of a just and humane government and society which, according to him, was realising God on earth. Winning independence politically was only a small part of it.
Gandhi clarified that Ramarajya did not mean a rule of the Hindus. “My Rama is another name for Khuda or God. I want Khudai raj, which is the same thing as the Kingdom of God on earth” (Haimchar, February 26, 1947). He explained that politically translated, it is perfect democracy in which, “inequalities based on possession and non-possession, colour, race or creed or sex vanish; in it, land and State belong to the people, justice is prompt, perfect and cheap and, therefore, there is freedom of worship, speech and the Press—all this because of the reign of the self-imposed law of moral restraint”.
Gandhi’s Satyagraha (struggle for truth) movement, which compelled the British to leave the country in 1947, was also grounded on explicit and strong religious beliefs.
Satyagraha involved the use of soul force as against the body force and was characterized by passive resistance and Ahimsa (non-violence). It sought to awaken the inherent virtues in those against whom it was used, and not to suppress perceived evil in them by any physical pressure or force. Besides, it was focused on self-purification rather than judgment of the other.
According to Gandhi, non-violence was a more active force than retaliation, which increases wickedness. “I contemplate a mental, and therefore, a moral opposition to immoralities. I seek entirely to blunt the edge of the tyrant’s sword, not by putting up against it a sharper-edged weapon, but by disappointing his expectation that I would be offering physical resistance”.
Satyagraha had three inseparable components. One, it was aimed at a just cause. He said, “I claim that the method of passive resistance…is the clearest and safest, because, if the cause is not true, it is the resisters and they alone who suffer.”
Two, it was effective but peaceful. “Passive resistance is an all-sided sword; it can be used anyhow; it blesses him who uses it and him against whom it is used. Without drawing a drop of blood it produces far-reaching results,” said Gandhi (“Hind Samaj or Indian Home Rule”, Navajivan Publishing House, 1958). He saw non-violence as “the end of all religions”.
Three, it concerned impurities and weaknesses in the self rather than focusing on the evil in the object of resistance. For instance, he said it was the people in India who needed to change to earn the freedom. “It is the people alone who have to win swaraj; no man, not even the Viceroy, can grant it.”
He also said, “When it (the government) sees the faith in yourselves which you will have displayed to the world by starting 20 lakh spinning-wheels within the time fixed, it will come down on its knees…When you have done this, the world will have realized, and so will have the Government, that you have faith in yourselves, that you really mean to have Swaraj.”
Again, he said, “You must be religious and pure of heart. You must give up drinking and firmly vow to wear only pure swadeshi (indigenous) cloth…. You must bear in mind that no one who is wicked and of impure heart succeed in the non-cooperation struggle.”
However, Gandhi’s use of religion was not idealistic, and nor was he over-optimistic about the realisation of his dream of Ramarajya. “It is a dream that may never be realized. I find happiness in living in that dreamland, ever trying to realize it in the quickest way.”
His pragmatic approach can be gauged from the fact that he did not aim at becoming consistent in his views, but was open to new ideas based on experiences in life. “When anybody finds any inconsistency between any two writings of mine, if he has still faith in my sanity, he would do well to choose the latter of the two on the same subject,” he said.
Besides, Gandhi was not like some of his contemporaries, who too were using religion in their respective struggles for independence. What set him apart was the fact that while others highlighted worldly interests of religious communities—which created hatred and jealousy, he introduced tenets of various religions in politics with a vision that was broad enough to respect the needs of all communities. Religion, he said, in its broadest sense governs all departments of life, including politics.
Unfortunately, it is the misuse of religion that we see in politics of the day, and not the use of virtues found in religion.
Thursday, January 08, 2015
Review: Intolerant Islam Creates An Unfree Muslim World
They will claim the killing of journalists, whose weapon of offense was their humour, is a just retribution against those who mocked and blasphemed the Prophet Muhammad, little realising that it violates the very spirit of the Quran.
What precisely is the spirit of the Quran is open to interpretations and contestations.
Thursday, June 11, 2015
A Future On World Religions And Trends: Is Hinduism The Fastest-Growing Religion In Pakistan And Saudi Arabia?
Beyond India too, Islam's ranks are swelling. But what that same report also shows is that Hinduism happens to be the fastest growing religion for a very motley set of countries.
One of a Reddit user took the data from the Pew Research Centre's The Future of World Religions report, and turned it into a map of the world's fastest-growing religions.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Islam at Crossroads: Who's to Blame?
By Rajaque Rahman
It has become almost fashionable for a Muslim to say 'Islam is in danger'. The religion whose literal meaning is peace is today seen as the root cause of terror and violence. The Muslim world cannot merely dismiss this as a fallout of a grand conspiracy against Islam by people of other faiths. It has failed to present the real essence of Islam and remained a mute spectator to many atrocities against humanity committed in the name cleansing the world of infidels.
This diffidence to stand up for Islam is mainly due to lack of clarity among Muslims about what their religion truly stands for. The Muslim world is heavily weighed down by its own blinkered interpretation of what's permitted and forbidden in Islam. The most glaring misinterpretation that has led to a distortion of the very essence of Islam is its understanding of the expression 'La Ilaaha Illallaah', which is the first principle of Islam. Literally translated, it means 'there is no god but God'.
However, generations of Muslims have been taught to interpret it as 'there is no god but Allah'. Thanks to this limiting interpretation, Muslims are made to believe that there are many gods, but only Allah is the right one. This understanding totally distorts Islam's real message of tauhid (oneness of God).
A case in point is the recent statement of chairman of National Fatwa Council of Malaysia Abdul Shukor Husin while passing a fatwa against yoga. "Many Muslims fail to understand that yoga's ultimate aim is to be one with a God of a different religion." When one has affirmed to 'La Ilaaha Illallaah', how can a Muslim think of another "God of a different religion".
If a Muslim thinks there are different Gods for different religions, he is negating the essence of Islam and unwittingly subscribing to polytheist beliefs. 'La Ilaaha Illallaah' establishes beyond argument that there is only one God. However differently we may pray and by whatever name we may call, it goes to that one source. Further, the Quran clearly states that God can be invoked in different names. "Glory be to God, beyond any associations. He is Allah, the Creator, the Evolver, the Bestower of Form. To Him belong the Most Beautiful Names." [Al Hashr 59:22].
Despite the clear pointers in the Quran, orthodox mullahs still hold that calling God by any other name than Allah amounts to associating a partner with Him. The biggest casualty of this exclusivity of Allah has been the concept of jihad, prompting innocent Muslims to believe that fighting against 'infidels' who don't call God by Allah is an act worthy for the Quranic promise of heaven for jihad. This amounts to challenging Quran's command to invoke God by any names with a sense of reverence and beauty.
This myopic interpretation of the concept of tauhid has had a domino effect on other spheres of life. Take the case of recent fatwas forbidding yoga for Muslims on the ground that yoga will erode their faith in the religion.
As the Quran and Hadith have nothing specific that will make practice of yoga haram, the ulemas based the ruling on their own fear of supposedly 'Hindu' elements of yoga destroying the faith of a Muslim. The best way to allay their fear is to look at the Hindu philosophy on yoga and see how and where it contradicts the tenets of Islam.
Yoga simply means uniting with the Self. Maharishi Patanjali's Yoga Sutras starts by calling itself an enunciation in union. The asanas, the practice of which is the focal point of these fatwas, are just one way of attaining that union. Is striving for such a union with the Self against Islam? It cannot be. For, Prophet Mohammed has said, "He who knows his own Self knows his Lord." Anything done in pursuit of knowing the Lord will count as a meritorious act of following the Prophet.
The best explanation of why yoga is not just permissible, but also desirable for Muslims is to be found in the second sutra of the Yoga Sutras. "Yogas Chitta Vritti Nirodhah." It means yoga is stopping all the modulations of the mind. Ceasing all the outward activities of the mind and reposing in Allah is the ultimate goal of Islam. So doing yoga asanas as a means of attaining a thoughtless state will qualify as the highest form of ibadat (prayer). Hence contrary to the fatwas, yoga as a spiritual pursuit is very much permissible in Islam.
It's universally proven that yoga brings peace of mind, and on that count yoga is almost obligatory for Muslims. As Islam means peace, peace of mind is a prerequisite for one to be truly following Allah's only religion.
This leaves only one ground for orthodox mullahs to frown at yoga: that yoga stems from polytheist beliefs of Hinduism. But when yoga means union, how can it be linked to polytheist beliefs? In fact, yoga takes one away from polytheism and leads to Advaita, which is in perfect agreement with the doctrine of tauhid.
The time has come for ulemas to dispel this mistaken understanding of the real essence of Islam. Else history will accuse them of doing a great disservice to Islam and unwittingly leading innocent Muslims towards polytheism.
It has become almost fashionable for a Muslim to say 'Islam is in danger'. The religion whose literal meaning is peace is today seen as the root cause of terror and violence. The Muslim world cannot merely dismiss this as a fallout of a grand conspiracy against Islam by people of other faiths. It has failed to present the real essence of Islam and remained a mute spectator to many atrocities against humanity committed in the name cleansing the world of infidels. This diffidence to stand up for Islam is mainly due to lack of clarity among Muslims about what their religion truly stands for. The Muslim world is heavily weighed down by its own blinkered interpretation of what's permitted and forbidden in Islam. The most glaring misinterpretation that has led to a distortion of the very essence of Islam is its understanding of the expression 'La Ilaaha Illallaah', which is the first principle of Islam. Literally translated, it means 'there is no god but God'.
However, generations of Muslims have been taught to interpret it as 'there is no god but Allah'. Thanks to this limiting interpretation, Muslims are made to believe that there are many gods, but only Allah is the right one. This understanding totally distorts Islam's real message of tauhid (oneness of God).
A case in point is the recent statement of chairman of National Fatwa Council of Malaysia Abdul Shukor Husin while passing a fatwa against yoga. "Many Muslims fail to understand that yoga's ultimate aim is to be one with a God of a different religion." When one has affirmed to 'La Ilaaha Illallaah', how can a Muslim think of another "God of a different religion".
If a Muslim thinks there are different Gods for different religions, he is negating the essence of Islam and unwittingly subscribing to polytheist beliefs. 'La Ilaaha Illallaah' establishes beyond argument that there is only one God. However differently we may pray and by whatever name we may call, it goes to that one source. Further, the Quran clearly states that God can be invoked in different names. "Glory be to God, beyond any associations. He is Allah, the Creator, the Evolver, the Bestower of Form. To Him belong the Most Beautiful Names." [Al Hashr 59:22].
Despite the clear pointers in the Quran, orthodox mullahs still hold that calling God by any other name than Allah amounts to associating a partner with Him. The biggest casualty of this exclusivity of Allah has been the concept of jihad, prompting innocent Muslims to believe that fighting against 'infidels' who don't call God by Allah is an act worthy for the Quranic promise of heaven for jihad. This amounts to challenging Quran's command to invoke God by any names with a sense of reverence and beauty.
This myopic interpretation of the concept of tauhid has had a domino effect on other spheres of life. Take the case of recent fatwas forbidding yoga for Muslims on the ground that yoga will erode their faith in the religion.
As the Quran and Hadith have nothing specific that will make practice of yoga haram, the ulemas based the ruling on their own fear of supposedly 'Hindu' elements of yoga destroying the faith of a Muslim. The best way to allay their fear is to look at the Hindu philosophy on yoga and see how and where it contradicts the tenets of Islam.
Yoga simply means uniting with the Self. Maharishi Patanjali's Yoga Sutras starts by calling itself an enunciation in union. The asanas, the practice of which is the focal point of these fatwas, are just one way of attaining that union. Is striving for such a union with the Self against Islam? It cannot be. For, Prophet Mohammed has said, "He who knows his own Self knows his Lord." Anything done in pursuit of knowing the Lord will count as a meritorious act of following the Prophet.
The best explanation of why yoga is not just permissible, but also desirable for Muslims is to be found in the second sutra of the Yoga Sutras. "Yogas Chitta Vritti Nirodhah." It means yoga is stopping all the modulations of the mind. Ceasing all the outward activities of the mind and reposing in Allah is the ultimate goal of Islam. So doing yoga asanas as a means of attaining a thoughtless state will qualify as the highest form of ibadat (prayer). Hence contrary to the fatwas, yoga as a spiritual pursuit is very much permissible in Islam.
It's universally proven that yoga brings peace of mind, and on that count yoga is almost obligatory for Muslims. As Islam means peace, peace of mind is a prerequisite for one to be truly following Allah's only religion.
This leaves only one ground for orthodox mullahs to frown at yoga: that yoga stems from polytheist beliefs of Hinduism. But when yoga means union, how can it be linked to polytheist beliefs? In fact, yoga takes one away from polytheism and leads to Advaita, which is in perfect agreement with the doctrine of tauhid.
The time has come for ulemas to dispel this mistaken understanding of the real essence of Islam. Else history will accuse them of doing a great disservice to Islam and unwittingly leading innocent Muslims towards polytheism.
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
A Peep Into Congress Party's 'Brand of Secularism' Policies
RESEARCH ANALYSIS Come elections and the parties sing a familiar tune. They go into an overdrive of pandering to our sense of insecurity about our communities, languages, regional development, ethnic origins and caste statuses.
Since the Indian mainland supports 1/6th of the world’s population with 1/16th of the world’s land, there are bound to be deficiencies and inequity. Add to it, the sense of persecution and a partial picture of biases, and we have the insecurity story complete and attractive.
Saturday, August 08, 2015
Sofia Ashraf Started A Revolution With ‘Kodaikanal Won’t'
 |
| By Sofia Ashraf |
All dualities aren’t constant though. Take for instance the oscillating pendulum between my blind faith in God and my strongly atheistic pragmatism. Spoiler alert: I chose the latter. The journey though, is a long story and every story has at least two sides to it. Both versions in this case are mine.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
When Hinduism Meets The Internet
The internet, on the other hand, is a little more than two decades old, and it has been fashioned largely in the United States. So do the startlingly old and the exceedingly young make for strange bedfellows? Or might one well argue the extreme opposite, namely that the internet and Hinduism exist in a marriage that appears to have been made in heaven?
There is but no question that Hinduism is the most apposite religion for our age. As is commonly known, Hinduism is a highly decentralized faith. Unlike Muslimsand Christians, Hindus do not uniformly adhere to the precepts of a single book. Hinduism has neither a historical founder nor a Mecca; and its Shankaracharyas represent competing schools of authority. Only Hinduism can match the internet’s playfulness: the religion’s proverbial “330 million” gods and goddesses, a testimony to the intrinsically decentered and polyphonic nature of the faith, find correspondence in the world wide web’s billion points of origin, intersection, and dispersal.
Hinduism has thus appeared to anticipate many of the internet’s most characteristic features, from its lack of any central regulatory authority and anarchism to its alleged intrinsic spirit of free inquiry and abhorrence of censorship. If, moreover, cyberspace is awash with images, no religion is more fecund in this respect than Hinduism. Not only do Hindus keep images of their gods and goddesses everywhere around them, but the notion of darshan, or the gaze, is central to popular Hindu religiosity.
What is equally clear is that Hinduism’s adherents, nowhere more so than in the US, have displayed a marked tendency to turn towards various forms of digital media, and in particular the internet, to forge new forms of Hindu identity, endow Hinduism with a purportedly more coherent and monotheistic form, refashion our understanding of the history of Hinduism’s engagement with practitioners of other faiths in India, and even engage in debates on American multiculturalism. Furthermore, the aspiration to create linkages across Hindu groups worldwide and create something of global Hindu consciousness, has a fundamental relationship to India’s ascendancy as an ‘emerging economy’ and the confidence with which its Hindu elites increasingly view the world and their prospects for prosperity and political gain.
While adherents of Hinduism are by no means singular in being predisposed towards digital media, there is nonetheless an overwhelming amount of anecdotal and circumstantial evidence to suggest that Hindus have been particularly conscientious in mobilizing members of the perceived Hindu community through the internet. The rise of Hindu militancy in India since the late 1980s, signalled by the term Hindutva, had its counterpart in the creation of new Hindutva histories on the internet. The internet was but a few years old when the Global Hindu Electronic Network (GHEN), an exhaustive site on Hinduism and its enemies, was put up by an Indian American student in the US as a point of entry into ‘the Hindu Universe’.
Some of the other manifestations of viewing history as the terrain on which new and more robust conceptions of Hindu identity were to be shaped can be seen in the creation of the virtual Hindu Holocaust Memorial Museum, dedicated to advancing the argument that the holocaust against Hindus in India over a thousand years is without comparison, and in the manner in which Hindu parents in the US waged a determined struggle, largely over the internet, on the question of the representation of Hinduism and ancient India in history textbooks intended for middle school students in California.
In some respects, however, we are on wholly uncharted territory in thinking of the future of Hinduism in cyberspace. A good illustration of some of the difficulties that might creep in is furnished by the phenomenon that is described as online puja. The altar, or alcove where the deities are housed, in the Hindu home is kept clean. Now suppose that a person wishes to perform online puja on his computer screen. What if that same computer screen had been used fifteen minutes earlier to watch pornography? Can one ‘clean’ the computer, and erase all traces of one’s activity?
In recent years, advocates of Hindutva, online and offline, have been staunch supporters of the view that Israel, India, and the US are three democracies that are besieged by the soldiers of Islam. The website, HinduUnity.org, describes Hindus and Jews as natural allies in the allegedly global struggle against Islam. Digital media technologies have thus created new interfaces for articulations of rights, grievances, and interests in a world where rules of civic engagement on the internet are still under negotiation. Just how far internet Hinduism will proceed in helping us understand changing protocols of citizenship in a transnational world remains to be seen.
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
Watch: These Kids Are Asked What They Know About Religion, Their Answers Are A Lesson For Everyone!
India is a country where people from multiple religions coexist but it is also one that has seen violent clashes in the name of religion between communities. But the simple philosophy in the answers of these kids, featured in a video 'Kids Speak Out On Religion' by the popular viral content creator BeingIndian, will make you think what we, adults, are doing wrong when tackling contentious religious issues.
Friday, May 29, 2015
Social Discrimination: How Bias Against Muslim Flat Seekers Came To Be Entrenched In Mumbai City?
Public relations professional Misbah Quadri, 25, uncovered Mumbai’s worst-kept secret of two decades when she approached the National Human Rights Commission this week with a complaint that she had been forced to vacate a legitimately leased apartment because she is Muslim. It certainly isn’t the first case of its kind in the place that is usually touted as India’s most cosmopolitan metropolis.
Wednesday, July 27, 2016
Zakir Naik's IRF's Alleged ISIS Connection Makes A Strong Case For Action Against Preacher
By M H AHSSAN | INNLIVE
Radical religious preachers who do sermons never begin their discourse saying thus. "Here I'm going to start my indoctrination session to prove that my religion is better than yours. In the next few hours, I'll do my best to convince you of my idea and ultimately convert you to my religion."
Instead, they typically play mind games with the enchanted listeners, often selectively quoting (rather twisting) the lines from sacred scriptures, to impose the ultimate idea of religious supremacy in the audience's psyche and ultimately establish why one should embrace that particular religion. This is arguably the trade technique of televangelists such as Zakir Naik.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Gandhian Perspective On "Convergence Of Values: Spiritual, Political And Economic"
By M H Ahssan
Mahatma Gandhi has been described as a very unique personality who combined saintliness with politics. His advocacy of spiritualization of politics was not intended to mix politics with religion. It was rather, a passionate appeal for moralizing the culture and practice of politics. Although Gandhi’s popular image was that of a statesman, who successfully used nonviolence as a tool in the struggle for his political objective i.e., independence for India, elementally Gandhi was a humanist, who ventured through out his life to seek Truth as God.
Philosophically speaking, Gandhi believed in affirmation of the essential unity of all existence, the indivisibility of truth and interrelation of truth and nonviolence. While the former was the end, the latter was the means to achieve that, in whatever field i.e., social, economic or political, he worked in the course of his life’s mission.
Gandhi’s concept of religion transcends the rigid framework of a sectarian approach. About religion he said that it binds one in dissolutely to the truth within and purifies actions. It is the personal element in human nature, which leaves the soul restless until it has found itself.
Gandhi was a revolutionary in every field that he treaded. To the protagonists of pure religion, he advised, “Carry God to the poor in a bowl of rice rather than a bundle of high dogmas and logic.”
Religion provides the ethical framework for all social and political actions of Gandhi. Wither it was satyagraha (use of moral force) for pressing political demands or his multi-faceted constructive programmes like Hindu-Muslim unity, upliftment of the oppressed classes or his emphasis on Swadeshi and Khadis, there was an underlying spiritual urge. Many of his critics and even some of his closest colleagues felt that Gandhi’s views were utopian and antithetical to modernity. But as the dust settles down on his historical agenda of political work, it is evident that as a practical person he always tried to strike a balance between the political realities on the ground and his moral ideological pursuits.
About his vision of India as an independent nation, Gandhi said: “My notion of Poorna Swaraj is not isolated independence but a healthy and disciplined inter-dependence between nations. My nationalism is not exclusive, nor designed to harm any other nation. It is rather to promote international cooperation.” About party politics as a social instrument, Gandhi was very skeptical. He wrote, “Today politics pushes the individual into immoral and anti-social conduct. Mutual distrust and enmity result into conflicts and wars, which unleash the bases of human passions even under the moral guise such as—patriotism, bravery, self-sacrifice and altruism. For satyagraha, Gandhi put four essential requirements:
1. Faith and regard for Truth
2. Strict adherence to nonviolence
3. Purity of means, as the ends and means are inter-convertible terms
4. Fearlessness (Abhaya) where pain is voluntarily borne by a satyagrahi.
Although Gandhi’s basic ideas on economics were rooted in the oriental spiritual traditions of ‘Aparigraha’ (spirit of non-possession) and ‘Sanyama’ (restraint in consumption), his ideas on economics got crystallized as he went on analyzing the cause of the plight and poverty of poor nations like India, who had suffered due to the exploitative policies of capitalist and colonial powers. Gandhi’s views on economics reflect the common man’s perception about his well-being.
Modern Economics has taken its shape after the industrial revolution in the later part of the 18th century. The resultant craze for material progress put forth the Growth Oriented development model. Today, economic growth has become the standard measure of power, strength and virtue at all levels i.e., individual, national and international. The IMF and World Bank and their multi-faceted arms working in forums like WTO etc. are trying to impress upon nations that they should accelerate their growth rate in order to integrate themselves into the process of globalization, despite the fact that it has brought about ecological imbalances, environmental problems and increasing disparity of economic well-being among nations.
Today in retrospect, Gandhi appears to be prophetic in out rightly rejecting the growth model of economic development. In Hind Swaraj, his first exposition on the contemporary issues in the early 20th century, Mahatma Gandhi severely criticized the western model of development and its resultant civilization. He labeled it as “Satanic”, calling it a product of dark age, “Kaliyuga” of Indian mythology. Gandhi said that this civilization is enslaving men by offering temptation of money and the luxuries as its fruit. Alternatively, Gandhi propounded the model of “Sarvodaya”—the good for all. He said that economics has to be infused with spiritual values. It should create social prosperity in terms of cordial relationship, among different layers of society rather than accumulation of sheer material wealth in certain pockets only.
Today, it is a growing realization that even the so-called affluent societies created by the growth based economic model are experiencing isolation, emptiness and are loosing their own perspectives. At the personal level, it is causing acute stress, depression and insecurity. Gandhi said that an economy based purely on material considerations and totally devoid of any value base would not bring happiness to mankind. Only that economic system which is regulated by ideals rooted in permanent order of things would achieve the vision of a sustainable world.
Crucial features of Gandhi’s economic model could be summarized as: All wealth is produced jointly and should therefore bye equally divided among those who have produced it.
Everyone should get enough to satisfy his needs as also reasonable comforts of life.
There should be limitation on human wants within certain reasonable limits. Gandhi said, “Nature produces enough for our day-to-day needs, and if everybody took just enough for himself and nothing more, there would be no pauperism in this world.”
For the use of accumulated wealth, Gandhi came up with the doctrine of trusteeship. Similarly, his Swadeshi movement was aimed at the rejuvenation of Indian Industry and Village Crafts which gave employment to rural folk in times when they had no farm work in hand.
Gandhi said that Science and Technology should be so regulated that they work for public good and not as tools to exploit hapless masses.
In Gandhi’s words, “True economics never militates against the highest ethical standards, just as all true ethics to be worth its name, must also be good economics”.
Mahatma Gandhi thus offers us an integrated approach and solution to the calls and cries of the present times. He believed that human life follows an integral unity in all its aspects and hence it could not be addressed in parts or dealt with in compartments like social, religious, political, and economic and so on. In the Gandhian perspective of things, all life sustaining values converge into an integrated pattern. Gandhi firmly believed that for a sustainable world, the development model must have its roots in spiritual values. However, they must express themselves through the normal activities of life in all fields i.e., economic, social and political.
Mahatma Gandhi has been described as a very unique personality who combined saintliness with politics. His advocacy of spiritualization of politics was not intended to mix politics with religion. It was rather, a passionate appeal for moralizing the culture and practice of politics. Although Gandhi’s popular image was that of a statesman, who successfully used nonviolence as a tool in the struggle for his political objective i.e., independence for India, elementally Gandhi was a humanist, who ventured through out his life to seek Truth as God.
Philosophically speaking, Gandhi believed in affirmation of the essential unity of all existence, the indivisibility of truth and interrelation of truth and nonviolence. While the former was the end, the latter was the means to achieve that, in whatever field i.e., social, economic or political, he worked in the course of his life’s mission.
Gandhi’s concept of religion transcends the rigid framework of a sectarian approach. About religion he said that it binds one in dissolutely to the truth within and purifies actions. It is the personal element in human nature, which leaves the soul restless until it has found itself.
Gandhi was a revolutionary in every field that he treaded. To the protagonists of pure religion, he advised, “Carry God to the poor in a bowl of rice rather than a bundle of high dogmas and logic.”
Religion provides the ethical framework for all social and political actions of Gandhi. Wither it was satyagraha (use of moral force) for pressing political demands or his multi-faceted constructive programmes like Hindu-Muslim unity, upliftment of the oppressed classes or his emphasis on Swadeshi and Khadis, there was an underlying spiritual urge. Many of his critics and even some of his closest colleagues felt that Gandhi’s views were utopian and antithetical to modernity. But as the dust settles down on his historical agenda of political work, it is evident that as a practical person he always tried to strike a balance between the political realities on the ground and his moral ideological pursuits.
About his vision of India as an independent nation, Gandhi said: “My notion of Poorna Swaraj is not isolated independence but a healthy and disciplined inter-dependence between nations. My nationalism is not exclusive, nor designed to harm any other nation. It is rather to promote international cooperation.” About party politics as a social instrument, Gandhi was very skeptical. He wrote, “Today politics pushes the individual into immoral and anti-social conduct. Mutual distrust and enmity result into conflicts and wars, which unleash the bases of human passions even under the moral guise such as—patriotism, bravery, self-sacrifice and altruism. For satyagraha, Gandhi put four essential requirements:
1. Faith and regard for Truth
2. Strict adherence to nonviolence
3. Purity of means, as the ends and means are inter-convertible terms
4. Fearlessness (Abhaya) where pain is voluntarily borne by a satyagrahi.
Although Gandhi’s basic ideas on economics were rooted in the oriental spiritual traditions of ‘Aparigraha’ (spirit of non-possession) and ‘Sanyama’ (restraint in consumption), his ideas on economics got crystallized as he went on analyzing the cause of the plight and poverty of poor nations like India, who had suffered due to the exploitative policies of capitalist and colonial powers. Gandhi’s views on economics reflect the common man’s perception about his well-being.
Modern Economics has taken its shape after the industrial revolution in the later part of the 18th century. The resultant craze for material progress put forth the Growth Oriented development model. Today, economic growth has become the standard measure of power, strength and virtue at all levels i.e., individual, national and international. The IMF and World Bank and their multi-faceted arms working in forums like WTO etc. are trying to impress upon nations that they should accelerate their growth rate in order to integrate themselves into the process of globalization, despite the fact that it has brought about ecological imbalances, environmental problems and increasing disparity of economic well-being among nations.
Today in retrospect, Gandhi appears to be prophetic in out rightly rejecting the growth model of economic development. In Hind Swaraj, his first exposition on the contemporary issues in the early 20th century, Mahatma Gandhi severely criticized the western model of development and its resultant civilization. He labeled it as “Satanic”, calling it a product of dark age, “Kaliyuga” of Indian mythology. Gandhi said that this civilization is enslaving men by offering temptation of money and the luxuries as its fruit. Alternatively, Gandhi propounded the model of “Sarvodaya”—the good for all. He said that economics has to be infused with spiritual values. It should create social prosperity in terms of cordial relationship, among different layers of society rather than accumulation of sheer material wealth in certain pockets only.
Today, it is a growing realization that even the so-called affluent societies created by the growth based economic model are experiencing isolation, emptiness and are loosing their own perspectives. At the personal level, it is causing acute stress, depression and insecurity. Gandhi said that an economy based purely on material considerations and totally devoid of any value base would not bring happiness to mankind. Only that economic system which is regulated by ideals rooted in permanent order of things would achieve the vision of a sustainable world.
Crucial features of Gandhi’s economic model could be summarized as: All wealth is produced jointly and should therefore bye equally divided among those who have produced it.
Everyone should get enough to satisfy his needs as also reasonable comforts of life.
There should be limitation on human wants within certain reasonable limits. Gandhi said, “Nature produces enough for our day-to-day needs, and if everybody took just enough for himself and nothing more, there would be no pauperism in this world.”
For the use of accumulated wealth, Gandhi came up with the doctrine of trusteeship. Similarly, his Swadeshi movement was aimed at the rejuvenation of Indian Industry and Village Crafts which gave employment to rural folk in times when they had no farm work in hand.
Gandhi said that Science and Technology should be so regulated that they work for public good and not as tools to exploit hapless masses.
In Gandhi’s words, “True economics never militates against the highest ethical standards, just as all true ethics to be worth its name, must also be good economics”.
Mahatma Gandhi thus offers us an integrated approach and solution to the calls and cries of the present times. He believed that human life follows an integral unity in all its aspects and hence it could not be addressed in parts or dealt with in compartments like social, religious, political, and economic and so on. In the Gandhian perspective of things, all life sustaining values converge into an integrated pattern. Gandhi firmly believed that for a sustainable world, the development model must have its roots in spiritual values. However, they must express themselves through the normal activities of life in all fields i.e., economic, social and political.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)