Conversations with hate
Jayamohan
(Go here for Part 1)
Secondly, the Gandhian struggle always keeps an open mind to correct its ways and policies when they were found to be not in the interest of the people. There is always a possibility of human errors creeping into the way a political movement is organized. Apart from the human errors there is also possibility of policy errors, the misunderstandings that can come into any movement - all these can make following a movement impossible.
Social struggles encompass people with hundreds - if not thousands - of years of history, culture and individual lives as baggage. Creating a movement which can understand all these micro factors and be absolutely faultless is not possible. So there is no path that is going to be completely error-free as well.
Gandhi has always pulled the movement backwards whenever he felt that the movement is not understood properly or that the moment is not opportune enough for the same. He usually re-analyze the movement and taken corrective steps and re-started the movements in a different way. This is possible only in the Gandhian way of struggle.
Thirdly, the Gandhian movement understands that there is no final solution to any historical and/or social struggles. This is probably the most basic vision of the Gandhian movements. Any proclamation in the nature of understanding of a final solution to the struggles tend to be based on the haughtiness of an individual rather than on a proper understanding of the society or history. Gandhi understood this contradictory nature of the struggles. There is always a reaction to the way a struggle goes and the movement has to be ready for continuous dialogues and compromises with these reactionary movements. This - Gandhi understood clearly.
Gandhi never stated it as his intent to remove the British completely from the Indian soil or eradicate them from the face of Earth. His movement was nothing but a long conversation with the British rulers. It is surprising that he was always ready to start the talks with the British. He compromised some, got some and then had further conversations to get more. He never said that the British are his enemies - in fact, he said the opposite. He always claimed that he is struggling for the British as well.
This is the reason why though the British gave up the power in India, we still have the democracy, judiciary and a journalistic system, all based on the British. They are now part of the Indian civilization. He appropriate those who he fought against.
Finally, Gandhian movement is not a single faceted one. It is also a big social construct which while taking for the struggle for independence, also managed to identify the multiple social evils that formed the reasons for the state of a slavish society and fought continuously against each of them as well. When he traveled across the villages of India, it was not only to carry forward the fight against the British government but also to preach about the necessity of toilets in those villages. The religious reforms and the struggle to bring back a self-sufficient village economy became part of the same struggle because of this face of the movement.
Today, India stands as the strongest democracy in South Asia - however much its inadequacies and challenges may be. The democratic norms of the Modern India was made possible only because of the Gandhian movement.
Those who reject the Gandhian way of struggle need to show a few examples of the success of violent struggles and movements across the world. If we look back into the last 100 years with some amount of historical neutrality, it can be seen that these violent movements have accomplished nothing but the killing in millions of the same people they were sworn to protect.
The reason for the directions the violent struggles take is because of the lack of those characteristics of the Gandhian movements as outlined above. What were the accomplishments of the biggest revolutions of the last century - Russian and Chinese - other than large scale destructions and slavery to its people? But those who defended these revolutions till yesterday are the ones who are at the forefront of criticizing Gandhi today.
From the Russian and Chinese revolutions to the struggles of African national movements, they have one common denominator. These movements have given more importance to the killing of their internal enemies and removing the reactionary elements of their movements. Every movement driven by violence has killed indiscriminately its own people on the basis of suspicions, betrayals and revenge. There is no exception to be found to this rule till now.
Because violence stifles dialogue and kills any way forward which involve compromise and taking everyone forward. This basic tendency to stifle creates an environment of fear and distrust resulting in the internal conflicts and the paranoia towards its own people.
Today people who support these movements go past by apologizing for the 'excesses and errors' of the revolution without answering for the millions of people killed by it. Every violent movement burns the bridges behind while moving forward. The errors of such movements are paid with the lives of poor people. Cultural revolutions and Gulags may have been mistakes but those mistakes killed millions.
The lack of dialogues in a violent movement means that it moves towards an end which was determined much earlier without taking into account any of the counter-forces or events that might happen. Anyone who can look back at 50 years of history can realize the amount of changes and possibilities that has existed. Every movement will have to take those into account while moving forward and that will happen only through a continuous dialogue.
All sorts of opinions and criticisms have been placed on about the Gandhian way simply because it permits it. Even today, we do not have a clear records around Subhash Chandra Bose's INA movement. It can be seen that he was used by the world powers as a pawn in their struggle for control during the world war. Till the end, it was the Japanese who determined the way the INA will take. Per official record, INA played a role in only one front.
More than that, Subhash also kept his silence about the thousands of Indian workers killed during the construction of the Siamese railway and did not record any kind of protest against it. Would Gandhi have remained silent against such an atrocity?
(To be continued)
Jayamohan
(Go here for Part 1)
Secondly, the Gandhian struggle always keeps an open mind to correct its ways and policies when they were found to be not in the interest of the people. There is always a possibility of human errors creeping into the way a political movement is organized. Apart from the human errors there is also possibility of policy errors, the misunderstandings that can come into any movement - all these can make following a movement impossible.
Social struggles encompass people with hundreds - if not thousands - of years of history, culture and individual lives as baggage. Creating a movement which can understand all these micro factors and be absolutely faultless is not possible. So there is no path that is going to be completely error-free as well.
Gandhi has always pulled the movement backwards whenever he felt that the movement is not understood properly or that the moment is not opportune enough for the same. He usually re-analyze the movement and taken corrective steps and re-started the movements in a different way. This is possible only in the Gandhian way of struggle.
Thirdly, the Gandhian movement understands that there is no final solution to any historical and/or social struggles. This is probably the most basic vision of the Gandhian movements. Any proclamation in the nature of understanding of a final solution to the struggles tend to be based on the haughtiness of an individual rather than on a proper understanding of the society or history. Gandhi understood this contradictory nature of the struggles. There is always a reaction to the way a struggle goes and the movement has to be ready for continuous dialogues and compromises with these reactionary movements. This - Gandhi understood clearly.
Gandhi never stated it as his intent to remove the British completely from the Indian soil or eradicate them from the face of Earth. His movement was nothing but a long conversation with the British rulers. It is surprising that he was always ready to start the talks with the British. He compromised some, got some and then had further conversations to get more. He never said that the British are his enemies - in fact, he said the opposite. He always claimed that he is struggling for the British as well.
This is the reason why though the British gave up the power in India, we still have the democracy, judiciary and a journalistic system, all based on the British. They are now part of the Indian civilization. He appropriate those who he fought against.
Finally, Gandhian movement is not a single faceted one. It is also a big social construct which while taking for the struggle for independence, also managed to identify the multiple social evils that formed the reasons for the state of a slavish society and fought continuously against each of them as well. When he traveled across the villages of India, it was not only to carry forward the fight against the British government but also to preach about the necessity of toilets in those villages. The religious reforms and the struggle to bring back a self-sufficient village economy became part of the same struggle because of this face of the movement.
Today, India stands as the strongest democracy in South Asia - however much its inadequacies and challenges may be. The democratic norms of the Modern India was made possible only because of the Gandhian movement.
Those who reject the Gandhian way of struggle need to show a few examples of the success of violent struggles and movements across the world. If we look back into the last 100 years with some amount of historical neutrality, it can be seen that these violent movements have accomplished nothing but the killing in millions of the same people they were sworn to protect.
The reason for the directions the violent struggles take is because of the lack of those characteristics of the Gandhian movements as outlined above. What were the accomplishments of the biggest revolutions of the last century - Russian and Chinese - other than large scale destructions and slavery to its people? But those who defended these revolutions till yesterday are the ones who are at the forefront of criticizing Gandhi today.
From the Russian and Chinese revolutions to the struggles of African national movements, they have one common denominator. These movements have given more importance to the killing of their internal enemies and removing the reactionary elements of their movements. Every movement driven by violence has killed indiscriminately its own people on the basis of suspicions, betrayals and revenge. There is no exception to be found to this rule till now.
Because violence stifles dialogue and kills any way forward which involve compromise and taking everyone forward. This basic tendency to stifle creates an environment of fear and distrust resulting in the internal conflicts and the paranoia towards its own people.
Today people who support these movements go past by apologizing for the 'excesses and errors' of the revolution without answering for the millions of people killed by it. Every violent movement burns the bridges behind while moving forward. The errors of such movements are paid with the lives of poor people. Cultural revolutions and Gulags may have been mistakes but those mistakes killed millions.
The lack of dialogues in a violent movement means that it moves towards an end which was determined much earlier without taking into account any of the counter-forces or events that might happen. Anyone who can look back at 50 years of history can realize the amount of changes and possibilities that has existed. Every movement will have to take those into account while moving forward and that will happen only through a continuous dialogue.
All sorts of opinions and criticisms have been placed on about the Gandhian way simply because it permits it. Even today, we do not have a clear records around Subhash Chandra Bose's INA movement. It can be seen that he was used by the world powers as a pawn in their struggle for control during the world war. Till the end, it was the Japanese who determined the way the INA will take. Per official record, INA played a role in only one front.
More than that, Subhash also kept his silence about the thousands of Indian workers killed during the construction of the Siamese railway and did not record any kind of protest against it. Would Gandhi have remained silent against such an atrocity?
(To be continued)
No comments:
Post a Comment