It is always the simple things that catch thy breath.
Before I start, let me make it clear,I was and am not a Gandhian. I don't think I can ever achieve as high a pedestal as is required to qualify myself to be called or to call myself a 'Gandhian'.
You ask me what I've got?
Recently-I was ashamed to have known this only recently- I came to know about the visit of Che Guevara's visit to India.
I have read his books on Guerrilla warfare and his Motorcycle Diaries,but was ignorant of the possibility of him making a visit to the country that was taking shape from the spoils of the greatest struggle ever know to form a nation.
 |
| Che Guevara being greeted by an Indian |
Well, the best thing of knowing this interesting trivia is that it makes us dig a little deeper to know that Che actually admired Gandhi and his methods of Non-violence.
For Che,hunger is a violent condition forced upon the hungry and he finds violence an unavoidable method to counter it. For Gandhi, violence is a boomerang, which once unleashed against the oppressor would only return to chase the oppressed.
Despite Che's strong ties to violence his endorsement of Gandhi's non-violence is a historical and a significant possibility of food for revolutionary thought, not to forget the impending nature of the possibility of changing the views on the intimacy that two ideologies that are perceived to be diagonally opposite can possibly hold.
Well,the fact is, as children we were brought up basing our conscience on the basis of morals that the simple but splendid wisdom that Panchatantras lend us, as an ancient civilization.
We have many adages that have a moral scrutiny on us. I had one doubt after reading that if two great leaders of opposite ideologies could embrace the possibility of tolerance towards the other ideology so much,why can't we?
Why do most of have revolutionary thoughts that are, more often than not directed towards violent means? Why?
Is it that 'Tit for Tat' the most understandable moral we got from our ancestors? Was it that easy to implement? Probably yes. When a highly inferred 'Athidhi Devo Bhava', with a universal domain goes out,the highly self-centric and carelessly construed 'tit for tat' comes in. It is applied,in a crudely reverse-engineered form. Sadly,it is understood as a violent form. Even Gandhiji was not against it, when carefully observed:
"First they ignore you,
then they laugh at you,
then they fight you,
then you win!"
The same holds with religion I guess.
Blasphemy,when not allowed, more often than not gives rise to a new religion. Catholic blasphemy gave rise to Protestant ethics considering the broad contours in which we take religion as a way of living. Blasphemy inherent in the inquisitiveness of certain religions is one that reinforces the faith in perennial tolerance. Sometimes, asking questions becomes more important than finding the answers. I think this reinforces that change need not always be revolutionary or sudden. It is not supposed to be whimsical or overhauling. May be the best the change can adapt to depends on its subtlety of engaging in tolerance towards blasphemy.
Look at us,in a vacuum, if all the above discussion was null and void,when someone comes and slaps us, if the person next to you says slap back, whether or not you think twice before doing it, you ll never ask him back 'Are you mad?'. But when the same person asks you to show him the other cheek, you surely will.
I never understood the concept of radical change. So here is my question: Is radicalism the first-to-go solution, really? I am confused. Are ideologies mass-driven because they can be easily instilled and retained till the objective is attained?
May be, for the generations to come, Tit-for-Tat will not be a distorted reverse-engineered violence. Hope can never die right...
True, there are no Blacks and Whites, there is always a grey we can never overlook. May be the best medicine is in fact Tolerance, or may be there is no one panacea that holds good. Of-course, War is Qualitatively different from a Struggle, A revolution from a eased-in-change!
Seriously, Do opposites really exist at all?
What can I say, I am back to square one.It IS the simple things that catch thy breath.
.JPG)
.JPG)
14 comments:
Well, we do live in a modern evolutionary world where conventions of "conventional wisdom" are itself being questioned! And for generations to come, like u said, It shall be the simple things that will catch their breath.
And yeah, well written, like always! :-)
What if che never really believed in gandhian principles and was just fulfilling his diplomatic obligation.there was never any actual embrace of ideologies,just a mere acknowldgemnt of differnt path in a different situation.
also if someone slaps us and the person next to us ask us to slap back our response will depend on the strength of the person who slapped us and our capacity to survive future dire consequences.if the person who slapped us is stronger then we wont fight back unless and until u r willing to risk everything.
gandhi was wrong in estimating both the aspects,
the european strength and our tolerence to except and face any hardship for freedom.
so he suggested us to show the other cheek.
Radicalism is a extreme change of current state of affairs.the pace of this change can only be decided by necessary factors ,conditions.even gandhi wanted a sudden radicalism when he said do or die for the first time in 25 yrs of freedom struggle.
@Prasad: Thank you.
@Anonymous: First of, even when Gandhi said do or die, He said 'die'. He never said 'kill'. From the very begining, whenever Gandhi wanted to see a change so fast he kept sacrifice as the first bet. Not violence. Even in the fag end of the national struggle, he tolerated violence. He did not resort to violence.
Secondly my point was that, radicalism, not as a thought, but in practice,might give a sudden and impending change but, history has proved it time and again that.. that change comes in with many consequences ;winning something that way, more often than not, only resulted in losing many other things that were essential. I am talking about empathy and value towards 'life'. Also, I wanted to point to my opinion that ideologies and other barriers are only in our head. And though radicalism was there in India even before Gandhi,it never could shape up as a mass movement.
Also,that the slap example is naive,I was using it in the metaphorical sense did not mean in the literal sense. It is supposed to be reperesenting 'ideology'. Only when a person is ready to face all the consequences, not leaving behind his principles is it called an 'IDEOLOGY', else it will simply remain an 'IDEA' or an 'OPINION'.
If Che can appreciate (even lip-service to such a different ideology from a man of that stature can not go ignored) Gandhian principles, I kept thinking, may be we all have a Che and a Gandhi within us and they are not truly opposites. And ya, I accept that the conditions around you bring out a person from within you. A matter of choice.
your initial premise that many people have revolutionary ideas which more often tend towards violence is not entirely true,except in few cases.
nobody starts their campaign in a violent way.it grows towards violence depending on the actions of the authority which holds power.if they are repressed with violence people retaliate in similar manner.the violent retaliation cannot be called tit for tat.
ya i know the slap example is naive.but i was just trying to throw some light on the rationale behind Gandhi asking us to show the other cheek.
and i really dont think gandhi's non violence in an idea forget about ideology{in his personal level}.His experiences in S.A made him believe that the english are inherently good and will do the right thing eventually but they take some time.and he was afraid that if we become violent in the mean time,the english ego might get hurt and they will not conceive[just like a child acting well behaved so he can get a new toy].
if the english did not budge in S.A he would never have asked us to show the other cheek.
so what gandhi actually brought to table are believing in goodness of other human beings and patience both of which are the morals of ancient panchatantras.
His dont instigate policy turned into non violence policy thanks to the moderate journalists and high class bongs.
if not for the second world war and shivers of growing russian socialist influence in india,gandhi's non-violence would have been a failed model.
anyway u r right even the lip service from che cannot be ignored.
and plz explain how history proved that radical change made people loose essentials......
Yeah true, and that is why I never said always. I mean, what is it that comes to ones mind when someone says 'revolution'. It is the general perception. Psychological studies show that people associate the word 'revolution' with the color red and blood-shed. Also, all dislocated power does not lead to a need for change. It depends on the locus of reference of the people.
And Gandhi was not relying solely on his inferences from experiences in S.A. He has quite some ideas on holding on to self respect that blends into his ideology of non-violence, see I am not propagating the idea of showing the other cheek(I am definitely not a Gandhian). Its just a realization, that there is an option called 'tolerance' (It is qualitatively different from acceptance and budging in) which Indians used and re-used to get slow results.
When you said,'if the english did not budge in S.A he would never have asked us to show the other cheek'. Are you suggesting that Gandhi’s non-violence is a paradigm that just vanishes or alters to something different once the goal is gratified? If that is the case, even then it would not be called an ‘ideology’, it will merely become an ‘instrument’ for the coveted change. That, I can't vouch for, and I don't think anyone can, it is solely his perception we can't judge that at all, and it is not a immediate cause-effect I don’t think that is how social change works. It is completely dynamic and it is the sartorial metaphor for what the concerned society fits into. If what you said were true, the moment Gandhi got to India, he must have started a struggle, asked us to show the other cheek right away. He took a long time to understand what he has at hand first.
Also, I am not saying Gandhi's ideology was the only thing that got us through the struggle. That is preposterous I never said that, never will. A change may have many, lot many causes than one can imagine. All the factors had some role to play, even the smallest even that goes ignorant in the eye of a person who wants to observe relentlessly, counts. True, changes in economic and social ideology of the people take a greater stance here.I agree, definitely true. Even a person as respected as Gandhi, however righteous the ideas may be, is nothing without the people. However, people started to wait and listen, wanted to fight back. It formed an inclusive body of people who wouldn't take no for an answer, and that too in a country as diverse as India.
And for starters, radical change, often driven by violence leads to human rights violations, loss of human life and property, it sets back civilizations some decades, and sensitization of the social milieu is a gone case only.
If it is not through violence, it is very difficult to sustain(Even French 'revolution' was gradual change in different sectors ideological-technological-industrial-social), people have that factor of delayed gratification and fancy inertia, retaliation is strong when the change is sudden too (Even physically and biologically). It can lead to going back or getting struck in the prism for very long (like Riggs would say), unless it is in a land that starts from zero, where everyone is equal. Unity, though very sought after, comes in the form of nationalism (not patriotism, like cricket nationalism, company, gender.. anything can be nationalism). Even when people board a bus, exhibit it in the most profound way they become groups of 2, forgetting all the differences- The ones boarding the bus, the ones getting down the bus, but they eventually break. It is difficult to perpetuate that feeling.That is why I think people resort to violence.
What I am saying is, it was a 'struggle' for independence. It is not a 'war'.We always have an option of 'tolerance'. It is a food for thought and may be if people actually opt for that sometimes, may be, just may be, many communal tensions will loosen up making way for peace.It is always a choice.And I agree with you, radical change does not ALWAYS cause loss.
even if there are few cases when radical change had led to loss of life it is not because of people creating the revolution but because of few people in power resisting it due to people around started thinking of violence when they hear the word revolution. Actually we should be thinking of oppression,injustice and freedom.
i think there are two social reasons for growing violent behavior in people.you rightly said that people have both che and gandhi in them,its the circumstances that decide which face they put on.In present day people are loosing trust in our system{all three legs}[sadly though its the people who form the system].they are perceiving our system as oligarchy in general and bjp supporters are perceiving it as monarchy.either way its commoner who is getting distanced and becoming helpless.because of their helplessness they are turning violent.eg:posco.
second reason i think our democratic system itself is giving people a sense of security to indulge in violence and cause destruction.proven over and over that they can get away with anything if they are in a group or under a political banners is further encouraging people to become violent.
yes,i think gandhi's non violence[dont instigate policy] did vanish after the goal was gratified.cant say about gandhi,but his true followers nehru,patel used force,money,privileges to make princely states to join the union instead of doing individual satyagrahas in the princely states until they joined.they dint because those rulers were weak.
because even they knew non violence doesnt make any sense against a weaker opponent
dude,that is exactly her point. it is not that every instigation shud be retaliated in just the 2 ways. it is indeed food for thought to explore the other way. everything is made of ppl,ryt.. it ll end up to be a chicken-egg circle power is also a form of ppl's actions only.
Ya i get it mr subramanian u muddus sticking together...wat 2 ways were u refering to??
she was talking abt non-violence,i am talking abt dnt instigate policy....
wat are the other way to react to an instigation ?if not by ignoring it or by hitting back?
chk egg circle power??wat the frack man......
Hey ravva.. nice one! I never knew you admired Gandhi so much. I never had a positive reinforcement regarding many decisions he took. So I guess we are on different pages.. :)
lol!
@Anirudh: Sir, I am not saying there is a 3rd way. I am saying, even opposites can appreciate each other. Like Aristotle said, it seems like it a cycle. After all, may be it is a chicken-egg circle. We ll end up nowhere.
Exactly. For the follwers, non violence remained a mere instrument. It failed to retain as an ideology. I said already, the slap example is a metaphorical stand for 'ideology'. And, when you say they did that because they are weak, it should have applied to all the princely states but that was not true, it is a classic carrot-stick political approach. They wanted reslts alone, and real quick ones. When pride is what gets hurt and result supercedes methods, it doesn't matter when the ooponent is powerful. The very fact of holding a plebiscite shows us that. It is the belief. Also if gratification changes beliefs why did Gandhi strive for peace during partition and if it does change, again. it ll not be an ideology, it ll remain an idea or an instrument merely. Sorry to say but when people resort to violence it often leads to the illusionary land of mass hysteria and sometimes it leads to losing track of the events. Most of the protestors will not even know what they are fighting for. A very real and current example, which I choose not to explicitly mention is before us, like right now! Everyone of us know that right? True evry social issue boils down to this but people tend to exhibit very short spans of nationalism, to hold it strong, an even stronger ideology takes shape. I am not saying one is wrong and the other is right. I am no one to judge that. I am just saying, in the most non judgemental way, if a person at the pinnacle of one end can appreciate the other diagonally opposite end, why can't we?? Its always an option to explore and more importantly, food for thought.
Anyways, it is a perception and I dont think anyone has a stature to typify if it is right or wrong.
And,tolerance is not ignoring. It is an active resistance beyond violence, steadily driven by self respect.
@Sony: Thanks! I am not saying I appreciate the other more. I do not want to judge. Its just a view that we could possibly explore.
the current happenings has got nothing
to do with either mass hysteria or nationalism.its a planned and politically motivated protests.
And contrary to your opinion, violent agitations prevents mass hysteria.people who are really serious to dedicate their lives for a cause only take part.When there is nothing to loose everybody joins in just for time pass.
[reason why extremism never got any mass involvement in our freedom struggle].
i agree gandhi held a satyagarh to stop communal violence.all he did was to ask them not to fight but what else do you expect a political leader to say when two groups are fighting?
his own followers dint follow his ideology,his own kith and kin dint follow and they whole nation dint follow it so i think its ok to say its not a great ideology.
in order to cash in on patriotic votes,congress rubbed the failed gandhi model on people using his name for policies and roads and his portrait on currency notes.
even if precious ego and pride gets hurt and results supersedes methods it still matters who ur opponent is...
@lord ulysis: The first half of what you said, is what I wrote in the post and the second half is a difference of perspective. I would not like to judge it as a universal result, I prefer to look it as a case-by-case difference. A difference of opinion to which I respect, but can not assume to always be right. If it could be so easily decisive, every country's path will be an open text book and a well trodden path. So, you are entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine.
i am really glad that u respect the opinions of people who think diametrically opposite to you.
i think the educated netizens should understand the
subtle nuances of romanticism and realism.u felt that iconic leader like che guevara endorsing gandhigiri is a real interesting food for thought.but you have to accept(not just respect) that both the models of revolution are failed models.since u said yourself that violent models of revolution are not apt and ambedkar has banned satyagrahas.in Indian neighbourhood too rohingyas, and tamils fighting with violent methods and tibetans followings peaceful protests havent given them any dividends.
the real food for thought is the egyptian revolution which is the actual true mixture of both the ideologies.
the willingness of people to demand what they deserve, peacefully and turn violent if it is required is really a unique feature.this sort of revolution stands apart among all the revolutions.the kind of self restraint towards resorting to violence shown by egyptians is not appreciated enough.i really feel ashamed that not even our bhaghavadgita advocates this egyptian model of fight against an enemy.
I am very much in peace with fact that both were failures in the long run. The thing is, they had positive spring offs too and suited different social circumstances in different times I chose not to ignore that.
Post a Comment