"In the course of the launches in various cities, I met quite a few people who have been silently and dedicatedly carrying on Gandhi’s work on a very large scale. It is sad that they are not our celebrated heroes and their work goes unnoticed."

Nandita, I really hope you can share some of these with us. Thanks.

Nandita,

Thanks for the information. Couple of years back I was just researching on Gandhi and what was going on in his mind during the freedon struggle. I did a bit of research on "Gopal Godse" as what he has say about Gandhi.

I am bit into " Numerology" as well. I did bring all this together and try to understand what was going on in his mind. I found few intersting things. I will write it in detail later.

Let me first get this CD and see what is in it.

Thanks for the information.

Yogi Selliah.

Nandita,

"I have always felt that Gandhi’s philosophy is more relevant today than ever before. The various interactions reaffirmed the desperate need for us to trust in the possibility of truth, non-violence and compassion; and believe they hold the key to everything that we yearn for."

Very aptly said. In this world of Modis and Bushes, we need to rediscover Gandhi. The sheer number of people supporting violence in this blog stuns me. This blog is supposed to be visited by educated individuals. The hatred towards other life in them confirms my belief that we need Gandhi in this world NOW.

Can you tell me if this audiobook will be available through Amazon or any other US booksellers? Is there a way to purchase this book in here?

I read your profile you are amazing and gorgeous I might add. What you mention as "Ghandhi's philosophy" I am not so sure was actually his philosophy though certainly those points need to be addressed. I just always wonder about authenticity, I think if the philosophy was going to work then it should have and according to how things were afterwards and how they are now I am not so sure. So I questioned always his teachings and who he was. It's interesting for me to read your post about Mahatma because I was just today looking through a little book of pictures of him and was surprised to see one of a very young Mahatma Gandhi with an elderly Rabindranath Tagore...whom I consider a true scholar, poet, artist, saint etc. all in one...

When I learned about George Orwell I became very astounded and inspired by his writing just to come across some of his thoughts in an essay he writes about the Mahatma...

"Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent, but the tests that have to be applied to them are not, of course, the same in all cases. In Gandhi's case the questions on feels inclined to ask are: to what extent was Gandhi moved by vanity - by the consciousness of himself as a humble, naked old man, sitting on a praying mat and shaking empires by sheer spiritual power - and to what extent did he compromise his own principles by entering politics, which of their nature are inseparable from coercion and fraud? To give a definite answer one would have to study Gandhi's acts and writings in immense detail, for his whole life was a sort of pilgrimage in which every act was significant. But this partial autobiography, which ends in the nineteen-twenties, is strong evidence in his favor, all the more because it covers what he would have called the unregenerate part of his life and reminds one that inside the saint, or near-saint, there was a very shrewd, able person who could, if he had chosen, have been a brilliant success as a lawyer, an administrator or perhaps even a businessman.

At about the time when the autobiography first appeared I remember reading its opening chapters in the ill-printed pages of some Indian newspaper. They made a good impression on me, which Gandhi himself at that time did not. The things that one associated with him - home-spun cloth, "soul forces" and vegetarianism - were unappealing, and his medievalist program was obviously not viable in a backward, starving, over-populated country. It was also apparent that the British were making use of him, or thought they were making use of him. Strictly speaking, as a Nationalist, he was an enemy, but since in every crisis he would exert himself to prevent violence - which, from the British point of view, meant preventing any effective action whatever - he could be regarded as "our man." In private this was sometimes cynically admitted. The attitude of the Indian millionaires was similar. Gandhi called upon them to repent, and naturally they preferred him to the Socialists and Communists who, given the chance, would actually have taken their money away. How reliable such calculations are in the long run is doubtful; as Gandhi himself says, "in the end deceivers deceive only themselves"; but at any rate the gentleness with which he was nearly always handled was due partly to the feeling that he was useful. The British Conservatives only became really angry with him when, as in 1942, he was in effect turning his non-violence against a different conqueror.

But I could see even then that the British officials who spoke of him with a mixture of amusement and disapproval also genuinely liked and admired him, after a fashion. Nobody ever suggested that he was corrupt, or ambitious in any vulgar way, or that anything he did was actuated by fear or malice. In judging a man like Gandhi one seems instinctively to apply high standards, so that some of his virtues have passed almost unnoticed. For instance, it is clear even from the autobiography that his natural physical courage was quite outstanding: the manner of his death was a later illustration of this, for a public man who attached any value to his own skin would have been more adequately guarded. Again, he seems to have been quite free from that maniacal suspiciousness which, as E.M. Forster rightly says in A Passage to India, is the besetting Indian vice, as hypocrisy is the British vice. Although no doubt he was shrewd enough in detecting dishonesty, he seems wherever possible to have believed that other people were acting in good faith and had a better nature through which they could be approached. And though he came of a poor middle-class family, started life rather unfavorably, and was probably of unimpressive physical appearance, he was not afflicted by envy or by the feeling of inferiority. Color feeling when he first met it in its worst form in South Africa, seems rather to have astonished him. Even when he was fighting what was in effect a color war, he did not think of people in terms of race or status. The governor of a province, a cotton millionaire, a half-starved Dravidian coolie, a British private soldier were all equally human beings, to be approached in much the same way. It is noticeable that even in the worst possible circumstances, as in South Africa when he was making himself unpopular as the champion of the Indian community, he did not lack European friends."

Nandita,

You said it right."It is sad that they are not our celebrated heroes and their work goes unnoticed."
Let me describe one of my observations.Most of the news which come in the media as an act of greatness, are the one which is of business interest for some.The business interest may be
related to politics, power or any of such selfish motivated ones. Or it can be because the
time space effect was favourable.Or else it can be because of the person's self marketing
skills.Yes self marketing skills and success goes hand in hand in the present world.Anyway
most of such acts doesnt come out of the compassion to help fellow beings, but because of
some selfish interests.

But there are few gems(I would like to call them diamonds)like beings, who doesnt care about
any pubilcity, or about power or whatever selfish objectives, who, just acts to bring about some changes in the society just because of the compassion towards their fellow beings or
just because they listen to their inner voice and act according to them.But a person who
does such an unselfish act will not only be noticed by the media or will not be known to
the public, because nobody is really going to make a business out of doing that. But they
are the real angels.Isnt it one of the most important responsibility of the media to help
these noble souls do a better job? Yes, If we all abide to our "true" responsibilities, the
world would have been a better place.

Hi Nandita,

Not only Gandhi but no one should be put on a pedestal.

Let each one of us live our own cross and not that of any other person.

Each one of us is given our own world. Each one is to make his own experiments of truth with and within it.

Each one is to arrive at his own conclusions, which may or may not tally with Gandhi or with any one else for that matter, simply because each one of us is on different rungs of the ladder of evolution.

We should listen to everybody but not swayed by anybody, again not even Gandhi.

Life is for ever. Good times and bad times will come in it for ever. Better be true to yourself than to any socalled great man. (In fact if even Gandhi had not followed what I am saying here, he would not be the Gandhi we are so appreciating here but a second-hand replica of some so-called great man of the past.)

Gandhi could experiment with Brahamcharya, he could even succeed, but that does not mean people in general, overly influenced, should begin vowing alike, later falling into pangs of guilt for not succeeding, and some of them going even insane. What holds true of Brahamacharya also holds true of truth, non-violence and compassion.

People must see where they are and then what is the next best step for them rather than outrightly go for truth, non-violence etc.

Putting on pedestal and eulogizing in other ways put the general people in the same quandary - whether to live by being true to themselves or to a Gandhi?

The way to truth, non-violence and compassion is by going through lies, violence and hate and coming up winners on the other side and not by
getting a direct gift by some other so-called great man.

Reminding that Gandhi was just like us is great but eulogising his ideals overly is not. Let each one of us find our own ideals.

Nor doing necessarily means doing in the outer world. One cannot win oneself or one's mind by winning the world but one can win the world by winning oneself or one's mind. So the greatest doing is in one's own mind. (Of course I know you were aiming at the pseudo-knowledgeable while saying "Knowing and doing are two entirely different things".

In fact, beyond a certain stage of evolution, the outside world just comes into our minds. Then the whole thing is played there. Then there is nobody else to be thrown any blame on to. No self deceptions. Then you find that you are doing whatever you are doing for your own self and not for others.

Being a Gandhi is good but being a Gandhian is not.

Harb. The Wholly Harb.

Nandita,

the relevance of Gandhi or for that of any great man is like the relevance of a known road map to a destination.

we all go in our different ways towards the goals of our lives and would love to know the best way possible.

icons like gandhi leave behind irrefutable proof of the existence of such roads that can easily lead us to our own goals much faster and surer.

i call them Evolutionary Highways. people who embark on the footsteps of such great souls reach the destination faster. it is like a man on a road of nonviolence is more evolved than a man on the path of violence.

Harb,

the above is the same reason why i dont agree with u. great people should be put on the highest pedestal and emulated for they chalk out roadmaps on which billions can move unaltered.

they also negate the negative emotions that can be generated in a ill informed journey by guiding along the correct path.

the world right now requires, hundreds nay even more such great men like Gandhi and i always will bow down in reverence to one such.

Hi Nandita

Very nice post. I read the autobiogrpahy about 2 yrs back and remember it being very honest and courageous , coming from a man who had gained a humongous stature even when he wrote it .

It is shorn of any self glorification or any preaching for that matter . It just so wonderfully traces the journey of growth of an extraordinary person , a spiritual journey in every which way.

Id not have known the true Gandhi had it not been through his own words...my respect for him and his contribution to the India only deepened after reading the book .

Hope more people esp. youngsters can rediscover him through your audio book , to able to appreciat e a great man's quest for truth, and what it could accomplish when put to action.

Nandita...thank you for sharing this.
I get an eeire feeling so many times when I visit this Blogsite...just yesterday I was telling my husband how Mahatma Ghandi was called by that name because he wasn't just a great person, as the word great also refers to size, he was called GREAT SOUL, relating to the depth of his Being and Presence.
Im my younger days, I persued the readings of his life story and was so fascinated by what he stood for, when the movie came out...I had gone to see it about 11 times. I just kept going and going and going. I even drew a picture of him and kept it in my room. While I was a teen, I went to see the movie with my best friend, who was in her 50's. We loved wach other so much, people thought we were related, even though we came from different cultures.
Now, thinking about it, I believe it is part of Ghandiji's message of crossing those invisible bridges where you could no longer detect the line between sky and land in the horizon...both being one and the same.

I will certainly try to get this product of divinity soon.

CONGRATULATIONS!

Namaste,
Cinda

Krish: Are you sure Gandhi was a LOT different from Modi or Bush?

I beg to differ.

The reason is simple - he had a certain and a VERY strong "Contempt for Diversity". When someone takes upon himself that he KNOWS and the other doesnt.. that person usually ends up creating mess.. as I believe Gandhi did.

I do believe that he was a genius - and did great work from 1920's to early 1940's.. and then he just lost it! He was a thoroughly opinionated and undemocratic person - which is reflected in his opposition to Netaji's election as COngress Prez and that of Sardar Patel as PM against Nehru.. and in how he messed up his own kids lives...

Here is an interesting episode of our independence struggle - the juxtaposition between Tilak and Gandhi - where Gandhi turned out to be more aggressive than Tilak! http://www.drishtikone.com/?q=node/664

Nandita: I think reverence without looking at contradictions and even understanding the views of all hues - makes one as much of an extremist as say Modi or Bush maybe.

The strife of the world does NOT lie in Violence.. but in THOUGHTS and in the CONTEMPT for others.. irrespective of WHICH tool you use to express yourself!

As far as Violence is concerned - I have tried to parse out the different paradigms in this post - http://www.drishtikone.com/?q=node/667 - because I strongly believe that Violence or Non-violence is NOT a decider of virtue.. something FAR more profound is!

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

Excerpts from Gandhi, Great Soul, by Severance, John B.
Publication: New York Houghton-Mifflin Trade and Reference, 1997

This shows the ordinariness or greatness what you may call of a great soul ----

In the early morning of August 9, Gandhi, Mirabehn, Mrs. Naidu, and Mahadev Desai were arrested. Jawaharlal Nehru and dozens of members of Congress were also arrested. The next day Kasturba was arrested when she announced that she would give a speech that Gandhi himself was to have delivered at a meeting in Bombay. Violence spread across India. Police stations were burned, telegraph lines cut, railroad tracks torn up, and British officials murdered.

Gandhi had usually enjoyed life in prison because it gave him ample time to read and write. This time was different. The group was locked in the vast elegance of the Aga Khan's palace at Pune. The grounds were surrounded by a high barbed wire fence and no newspapers were permitted inside. A terrible blow came six days after the arrest when Mahadev Desai died suddenly of a heart attack. He had been Gandhi's secretary for twenty-four years.

"Bapu has lost his right and his left hand!" exclaimed Kasturba.

After the death, Kasturba, who had been quite fond of Desai, became depressed. At the ashrams she had had many children around her. She had enjoyed looking after them and other needy people. Locked in the palace, she could not do this kind of work. She was able to arrange for Gandhi's grandniece Manubehn Gandhi to keep her company, but this was not enough. As a diversion, Gandhi tried to teach her to read and write. He also attempted to teach her Indian geography, but she became hopelesly confused. At the age of seventy-four she could hardly be expected to develop mental skills she had never had before. She became weaker and weaker throughout the next year and had several bouts with pneumonia and bronchitis. Gandhi nursed her and treated her with natural medicines. But he refused to let her have penicillin when he learned that it would have to be injected by hypodermic needle. On the evening of February 22, 1944, Gandhi was about to take his evening walk in the palace grounds when he heard Kasturba cry out, "Bapu!" He hurried to her side. "I am going now," she said. "No one should cry after I have gone. I am at peace.'' A few minutes later, she died in Gandhi's arms.

The cremation, traditional in India, was accompanied by an elaborate Hindu ceremony. Afterward, Gandhi returned to Kasturba's bed. "I cannot imagine life without Ba," he said. "We lived together for sixty-two years." Bapu became so depressed he could no longer write. Six weeks after Ba's death he came down with malaria, which brought on a high fever and anemia. His doctors became seriously concerned about his health and on May 6, the Mahatma and his group were released from prison.


Within a few months, Gandhi became healthy again and returned to working toward Indian independence. In the course of his correspondence with the new viceroy, Archibald Percival Wavell, Lord Wavell, it became clear that there would be no independence before the war was over.

Aachi,

I don't agree with you. Nobody be should put on a pedestal. If anything should be put on pedestal, then it is the principles. Human beings are essentially weak and tend to contradict themselves or behave in an a way that is less than ideal.

The other argument against celebrity cult is that, once the celebrity is gone (as it usually happens), his or her ideas are lost as well. The coterie forms around a great leader and they totally distort the essential message. The nauseating spectacle that we see in politics and other spheres of life should be reason enough to give up on celebrity cult, but it hasn't been. A great leader should develop a whole generation of leaders perhaps even greater than himself or herself. Does this happen in real life? I think Gandhi came very close to this ideal. Was he totally egoless? I am not sure.

Here is a quote from Lao Tzu:

"To lead people, walk beside them ... As for the best leaders, the
people do not notice their existence. The next best, the people
honor and praise. The next, the people fear; and the next, the
people hate. When the best leader's work is done the people say, 'We
did it ourselves'"

Regards,

Ravi Kulkarni

I quote Harb: "Being a Gandhi is good but being a Gandhian is not." Unquote

I quote Desh: "Krish: Are you sure Gandhi was a LOT different from Modi or Bush?"
"He was a thoroughly opinionated and undemocratic person - which is reflected in his opposition to Netaji's election as COngress Prez and that of Sardar Patel as PM against Nehru.. and in how he messed up his own kids lives..." Unquote

I quote Ravi: "The other argument against celebrity cult is that, once the celebrity is gone (as it usually happens), his or her ideas are lost as well. The coterie forms around a great leader and they totally distort the essential message." Unquote

I agree with what Harb, Desh and Ravi have said. In an earlier post of mine, elsewhere on this forum, I had voiced a similar opinion. M.K. Gandhi succeeded in getting India its freedom and we must respect him for that till eternity. But I would certainly not tell my kids to emulate his ideals and philosophies as a person, coz he failed miserably on that front. The way he messed up his own kids lives is testimony to that. His philosophy of Charkha chalao and khaadi pehno had set India back by at least 25-40 years on the path of economic progress

Cheers!
Navin

ravi,

what u say isnt practical.

we need an image, an icon to identify a principle with. an icon and the principle it represents cannot be seperated.

we cant put principles on a pedestal without referring to an icon which represents them.

same too with Gandhi or even Lao Tzu for that matter.

In Gods Strange Earth, I must do battle
As blood doth flow and and drums do rattle
'fore my whim, men stray as cattle...
.......and thus a war is won!!
Of peace.. no piece do I possess
but anger shalt be mine own mistress
and plain I speak, in man's distress
...... doth shine my only Sun!!
How long, how far must mine own feet
soldier on ..in full retreat
from hearth and home and life's own beat
.......my soul be on the run..

from all thats love and joyfully good
do hide beneath my hoodlum's hood
I know that I should but long thatI could
....see my endless battle done!!

And then a Native gently spake..
soothing words my heart did rake
and bloody lust ... a loathsome ache..
.......into a happy web he spun

I knew right then, oh glory be,
no fear nor strife.. but harmony
thus shone His Light for all to see
.......our Father of Our Nation!!

I often imagine, in the twisted twilight that shone on the writhing mass of the newborn that was India in 1947 .. how it would have been for the Indian himself.

How it would have been to wind down ten score and more years of righteous anger, of endless pain, of bewildering injustices.. how could it all be so swept away in a moment of pride!

Perhaps, more than tye fact that Gandhi towered upon us all as the conscience of humanity, more than the path he led us on.. of peace and justice and a fierce pride of freedom, perhaps his divine gift was to awaken the Mahatma in all of us.

Somewhere, in our daily struggle for existence, (and yes, whether we are poor, or ugly, or rich or famous, or gifted or lucky.. life is all about doing battle with little inner evils...)
has not bapu taught us all, that however hopeless our world may feel, however angry our thoughts may be, there is hope for forgiveness to rear its holy head, and for peace to reign within our souls.

Yes, he may have been to many ,,a simple bald bespectacled old man, rather jerky of foot,perky of tongue.. to me and many more, he may forever be the inner voice that will speak to us when all is lost... and pray with us that there is always a future filled with hope, no matter how painful the past has been, or endlessly unforgiving the present may be.

And the Way to that Future will always be one of Peace..!!

Hi Nandita,

thus in my own way, I feel humbled by lessons so well earned by those that earned us our freedom... they paid with infinite sacrifice that we may grown up free !

I feel blessed as you appear to be, that we are all .. all children of one father of one nation.

Love, bloggerhogger

Hi Nandita, during my recent trip to India I bought the book and read it. He did not want to be put on a pedestal. He did not like the title Mahatma.He did not like all the attention, commotion.He so wanted to be ordinary.

Swami Yogananda writes about Gandhiji in his book "autobiography of a yogi", that Gandhiji was truly a Mahatma.Swamiji actually touches Bapuji's feet.I admire Yoganand Swamiji tremendously.I was so touched to read his impressions about Gandhiji.

The entire India is so influenced by Gandhiji, even people like me who were not born when he was alive,who have never seen him are so inflenced by the Gandhian ways of life.We, Indians do not like to waste, we believe in truth, non violence, and compassion.We, Indians do our own versions of satyagraha, our own versions of fasting, our own versions of brahmacharya in everyday lives.He lead the nation to free us from the British. He also lead us morally and spiritually.I love dear Bapuji,the father of India.

Nandita, bringing the audio cassette and CD is a great idea.May God bless you.

Aachi,

You must also be right.

Perhaps you are talking of the masses, I, of the individuals.

Masses must follow a leader, individuals must become a leader.

Or, as there are two ways to reach God or reach yourself i.e., surrender or inquire, perhaps you are talking of surrender I am talking of inquire.

Those who need to surrender need a diety, those who need too inquire need only themselves.

Those who need to surrender need an evolutionary highway because they have yet to reach SOMEWHERE.

Those who need to inquire need no highway because they have to go nowhere, they have to just discover themselves. They have to realize the Greatest Vision of Who They Really Are in themselves alone.

But,

I think the time is now in favour of the later. And here I will explain it with a story:

A man has many sons. When they are children he asks them to just surrender and follow him. But when they have become grown up he will have to ask them to not just follow him but find their own selves and through it their own calling.

I think as a culture we are now in this later position. We must now discover ourselves. Even if at the end of the day we discover the same truth, non-violence and compassion ourselves as Gandhi did, but this will be REAL truth, non-violence and compassion and not second hand.

Perhaps that is why Dalai Lama is supposed to have said somewhere: "Now each one of us must discover a Budha in ourselves. Now each one of us must become Budha ourselves. "

The whole idea of Nandita's blog too is, in fact, the same: That now we too can become a Gandhi and that means a Lao Tze, a Ramana, A Krishanamurti and so on. But just see, each one of the above great men discovered their own truths instead o following somebody else's. Each one discovered their own evolutionary highways, each one advised us to find the God within, to follow our own calling.

Harb.

Herb,

Excellent post. Ultimately if we were to achieve the utopia where everyone is a realized soul, we must all strive to find the Buddha within ourselves.

Regards,

Ravi Kulkarni

Sorry, I misspelt your name Harb.

Ravi

Harb,

i see ur point and must admit it is a more complete concept than what i had.

about the inquirers and the masses alike.

thank you.

Lol, Ravi, so what if you misspelt the name! I could well understand it. Anyway, thank you for the sensitivity shown as also for appreciating my post. Just next to the writer is the one who can understands his message so soon.

Aachi, sometimes we just cannot put our complete view point in writing. We have more in us than what we are able to write and then someone else's post only reminds us of that. Which is actually why we lose no time in recognsing the truth in it.
After all we are not giving some test here lol.

Harb

Dear Harb,
Hi. Out of the two stocks I recommended to you at around 138 levels couple of weeks back, Hiran Orgochem is today above 152 and Gujarat Alkalies is around 142 and on its way. Lot of upside left. Enjoy!

To Ron, Tiffany & others:
I will respond to your pending questions soon. Currently busy trading in the Stock Market. C u soon.

Cheers!
Navin

Lol, Navin,

We really seem to be rediscovering the Mahatama, only his bania aspect....

And the stock I recommended at 85 i.e, TvToday reached beyond 100 a few days back...

Seems stock market too is rediscovering the Mahatama - it thinks perhaps Mahatama stood for ECONOMIC swaraj and it indeed is taking us there.

Harb

Lol, I was just able to open Hiran Orgoch, you didn't tell me it is at upper circuit wow!

Thank you!!

LOL, Harb,
If the Mahatma was alive, we would still be weaving our own yarn at the charkha (handmill) and wearing Khaadi clothes instead of buying designer clothes at the Mall. (wink)
The corporate boom and the share market upswing (touchwood) would not have been possible had we not shunned Gandhi's preachings long ago.

Cheers!
Navin

PS: Yes, TV Today is a good momentum play and I had agreed wth you that it's a high risk high reward kinda stock. Enjoy.

FYI Navin;

Armani has started to use khadi in his collections, because it's one of the most beautiful and comfortable materials to be found anywhere in the world. Not sure where that leaves your argument.

Luke.

Sorry, I have some spare time and thought would put some more thoughts on "Rediscovering the Mahatama" here.

We live a life of self-deceptions.

We preach just the opposite to what we do.

We preach that we should not put Gandhi on a pedestal, but then put him on a pedestal in the form of his ideals. Was he ever intended to be put on a pedestal in flesh and blood?

We preach that the real story of Gandhi’s life inspires us to be Gandhi ourselves but then do and exhort other people to become his followers.

Did Gandhi become anybody’s follower? Had he become Gandhi if he was a follower of somebody else?

Not knowing this we unwittingly nip many a potential Gandhi in the bud. (I have always asked my sons to be THEMSELVES, there is none beyond them. Though now they are suffering silently like Gandhi, but I am sure that someday they will become ‘Gandhis’ themselves. And not those who will blindly follow Truth, Non-violence and compassion by reading such exhortations somewhere. They will arrive at their own truths and those will be the truths which will be the need of the tmes not some 100 year old truths. Don't we as individuals too need different truths at different stages of our lives?)

We condemn being celebrity-centric but in the next moment begin extolling the life and virtues of a celebrity. Was Gandhi not a celebrity?

We want to be not only a celebrity but a goody goody celebrity at that.

All great persons will exhort us to look within, The Truth is there, pseudo great will exhort us to look without, at somebody else’s truth.

Gandhi was only experimenting with Truth, not sure whether he finally got at it or not. We exhort people to follow truth as if we know it.

With Malice towards none,

Harb.

Hi Luke,
I don't let the Armanis of the world dictate what's fashion to me. You may find Khaadi the most beautiful and the comfortable fabric in the world. I don't. Period. Gandhi wanted everyone to weave their own khaadi yarn for the clothes they wore. Is that practical.

I don't know whether the rest of the Haute couture designers of the world would be on your side or mine. So, my argument is very much intact.

And you missed the point, buddy. It's not about the khaadi, it's about Gandhi's myopic vision as far as economic matters are concerned. Till 1992 India stupidly followed his philosophies blindly and we were a poor country on the brink of a vortex of debt and disastar as we had not opened our economy to the rest of the world. We were a closed economy. But since we opened our economy, we are the FASTEST GROWING ECONOMY IN THE WORLD with GDP growth of 7.5% this year and maybe a target of 8.3% next year. We have the best pool of talent available in Information Technology and Big Corporations are making India their outsourcing hub for both IT and Manufacturing. Could all this have been possible had we not opened ourselves to the world in the early nineties? Hell no.

I have said this several times on this blog before that we must respect Gandhi till eternity for bringing our country independence. And we do. We call him the Father of Our Nation. But that's about it. I don't think that his philosophies and way of life were a perfect example for generations to come. Nope.

I know what I'm talking about, Luke. I live in India.

Cheers!
Navin

Dear Harb,

I quote you:"Did Gandhi become anybody’s follower? Had he become Gandhi if he was a follower of somebody else?"

"All great persons will exhort us to look within, The Truth is there, pseudo great will exhort us to look without, at somebody else’s truth."

"Gandhi was only experimenting with Truth, not sure whether he finally got at it or not. We exhort people to follow truth as if we know it."

Well said. I'm not sure if people here will understand though. Maybe they just don't want to.

To all friends here,
I wish you all the best for the success of this audiobook and I would encourage everyone to go listen to it as you might find it interesting and useful. But pls don't turn Gandhiji into a Demi-God. He wasn't.

Cheers!
Navin

Nandita,
I was one of the journalists at the launch in Chennai (the ink-blot card), but couldn't make it for the Mumbai one as originally expected.

Something you mentioned during the event has stayed with me, something that Gandhiji had said - You must be the change you wish to see in the world.

It's a simple yet profound statement and has had me thinking deeply about my purpose.
Saritha

Desh, will respond to your post as I have to run for a meeting now.

The very existence of Ravi etc is a proof that Indian society needs a Gandhi. We need someone to sanitize these Hindutva brainwashed people. Harb seems to be way to confused because of his spirituality. Navin, don't confuse Gandhi as a dad and Gandhi as a nation's leader. He is a miserable failure as a dad but definitely not a failure as a leader. All ye modern day libertarians should understand that Gandhi is more of a libertarian than you guys. Just try to understand (if you guys can) and you will know how he is more libertarian than you guys.

Great souls become great by being
ordinary.
Putting on pedestals is not bad idea
but at the same token we need to
follow them in theit footsteps
for good things, isn't it so

Navin and Harb:

Good posts!

One thing that amuses me is the loose way in which people use the word "truth". For most part, people pass off their opinions as "truth".

ANother corollary to this is the OFTEN repeated assertion that only a "True Guru" can get you to "truth". To me that is the height of Circular Logic. If "Truth" was standing in a room of 4 room - I couldn't distinguish it from "non truth"! Then how can I figure out who is a "True Guru"? Heck.. Truth is the noun for True, the adjective! How come I would not get a clue of the NOUN without guessing out the adjective??

So, in that sense, I have always had issues with the title "My Experiments with Truth". They were basically his opinions and expressions. He was a genius.. at his work... but someone with a messed up psychology. For example, his "experiments in sexual control" where he used his nieces as guinea pigs - would have landed him on trial as a child molestor if he was alive today and continuing his "experiments". And of course if he was NOT living in India - THE heaven for idol worship by close minded despots.

Cheers,
desh
Drishtikone.com

Desh, I am opposed to extremism in the form of violence. I believe that ONLY cannibals will use violence as a tool. Having made my position on violence clear, I do agree that Gandhi took the extreme step of non cooperation with the British as a part of strategy to get freedom for India. How can this be equated with an extremist who uses violence as a tool. Protesting in a non violent form against something which you consider as illegitimate is needed to uphold your rights (as a human being). I don't see any reason why it should be wrong and also I don't see how this kinda non violent protest can be compared with violent cannibal like attitude of Narendra Modi. I don't see any correlation.

Also quoting from your blog

"Gita, on the other hand, views it differently! Krishna argues about the dichotomy of Body and Soul. Arjuna was stressed because he thought he is "killing" his enemy camp warriors. Krishna argued - YOU CANNOT! What you are killing is the BODY.. and Body is NOT the truth! The truth is the soul... and it cannot be harmed or killed or hurt or poked! It was never born and will never die!"

I consider the above interpretation as just a piece of crap. First there is absolutely no proof about the dichotomy of body and soul. Second, using such concepts to justify killing is just nonsense. In taking a part from Gita to justify your argument, you have conveniently left out the earlier part of mahabharatha. It is a well known fact that in the story (which you people consider as sacred), Krishna did everything to prevent the war. He even tried to get just a few houses for Pandavas to avoid war. If you have read it correctly, he did everything possible to avert the war. But what you are quoting is an intepretation of what Krishna told Arjuna in the form of Gita and the above quote (which is interpreted in a wrong way. Please understand that Krishna didn't exhort Arjuna for a war. He told Arjuna not to backtrack after you enter the war zone. In fact, Gita is applicable now to tell extreme democrats that we cannot cut and run from Iraq now. However gita doesn't justify Bush's war in the first place), when Arjuna tried to backtrack from the battle field. He said that it is not fair to do so after entering the battlefield with thousands of soldiers whose life is at stake. The situation is different. Please don't use Gita to justify the killings of Hindutva forces or any other violence. Violence can only be supported by cannibals. No civilized person will support violence.

Hindutva people and people who subscribe to Hindutva ideology try to twist not only history but also Gita to suit their propaganda.

"THE heaven for idol worship by close minded despots"

I find the above statement strange. It is coming from a person who believes in spirituality and who also believes in idol worship as a part of his religion.

Krish:

I agree with a lot of your stuff on what Krishna did in Mahabharata and THAT was precisely MY POINT!

And hey Excuse me but your Halo's Bright light is a bit blinding! Can you please adjust it a bit for me?? I have NEVER justified what you call "Hindutva" kilings! I do not! But on the same token I do NOT endorse the hypocrisy of those who try and look for Kar sevaks in a burnt kid or a woman like Teesta so popularly did!

I said it before in my comments and I will say it again - Violence AND Non Violence ARE NOT VIRTUES in their OWN rights!

To me there is little difference in taking up arms and killing 10,000 people and asking 10,000 people to NOT take arms and thus be vulnerable to violence and death! Whether I hit a lamb with a slaughter knife or vice versa - doesnt help the lamb much!

But, like you said.. BEFORE you pick the arms.. you have to make SURE beyond the shadow of doubt that Violence is the ONLY aternative! It often is NOT!

As far as I am concerned, Krishna is NOT necessarily a God - I dont know who he/it was? To me he is a concept.. just as Jesus or Guru Nanak Dev or Buddha is. It is IRRELEVANT to me if they existed as humans or divine. They said things by their actions that are worth looking upto.

Now, I have also said that Gandhi was a genius until early 1940's - then he lost it. Earlier his idiosyncracies affected a few people - after that it affected a NATION's FUTURE generations. His mistake was that he put his "Principles" ABOVE the Good of the people. To me, that is a sign of a despotic guy.

TO fully understand the import of this above para - just ponder over the following:

1. A Civil War to stop the partition at THAT time (like what Lincoln was able to do) would have killed in some thousands or lacs. Today ONE bomb will kill millions!

2. Muslims in the sub-continent today are WORSE OFF than they were BEFORE partition. AND RSS has NOTHING to do with that! They are merely opportunists. I have PERSONALLY travelled at least 60 villages in UP on a research project to inquire about the socio-eco development of Muslims and interacted from Madrasa head to the people in Darul-uloom. I have seen the frustration of the youth at the lack of opportunities because they cannot get into the mainstream due to backwardness of madrasa education and the insistence of the elders on precisely THAT future for them! I have seen the revolutionary among those - just 20 somethings - start Co-Eds in small towns and villages start English mediums for GIRLS And BOYS and have their OWN curriculum to create Indians rather than "Minorities" (where Krishna, Guru Nanak Dev, Buddha are listed as Prophets along with Mohammad). And I am CONVINCED BEYOND any doubt that India will NOT progress UNTIL its minoroties CAN! And when I see the likes of SHABANA AZMI go around shouting hoarse about Shiv Sena - I cant help but feel sad for those kids I saw there in those villages! Shiv Sena IS LEAST OF THEIR PROBLEMS!! They need SOMEONE who can ARGUE FOR THEM in front of the HEADS of Darul uloom and other big Madaris TO CHANGE and offer these Kids a FUTURE OTHER THAN that of a Hafiz in a dillapidated Mosque in some rural area!

And Krish: When you cannot parse or understand an argument - please stay away from using labels, stereotypes, or titles as arguments! I am not sure what Hindutva is for you.. for me it is all meaningless.

So to me what you talk is just a stand of a person who just wants to kill the argument by quickly jumping onto the high horse while adjusting his BRIGHTLY shining self manufactured Halo!

I have said this before on Idol Worship and I will say this AGAIN - so do get it RIGHT this time..

To me Idol Worship is NOT a sin.. it is a lower level of spiritual existence.

I just feel that people who feign "independence" from all close minded pursuits and superstititions like the pseudo-secular are so wont to do - BUT have a close mind (using self manufactured titles and halos) and revere whom they wish for whatever reason are even worse. THOSE are the ones - I call close minded despots!

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

I got it right last time itself. But again my argument is the same. VIOLENCE is NOT the last alternative. For me, violence is NOT a solution under any circumstance. If violence can be considered as a last alternative, then even terrorism can be justified. For me violence is not an alternative at all. For me Hindutva need not be just RSS, BJP and its chamcha parties. For me Hindutva is anything that justifies violence using religion/religious philosophies. RSS et. al. use religion in one way to justify the violence and you use the religious philosophies to justify the action of violence (even if it is in an extreme case). In this context, I used the label. You don't have to be a RSS sympathizer to be included in Hidnutva label. if you use Hindu philosophy to justify violence, it is another form of Hindutva (violence with Hinduism as justification). As far as myself is concerned, violence will be used by only cannibals (whetever be the circumstance). A civilized society CANNOT justify violence whether it is used from the start or as a last resort.

In my opinion, second amendment is unncessary. It is NO violence under any circumstances. I will claim the necessity for 1st amendment while ridiculing 2nd amendment. Hope I convey my point clear. If opposing violence as a tool is "clsed mentality", I am happy about it because I consider that violence is a stigma in a civilized society.

Desh,

I also agree with your previous argument that one cannot see everything as just black or white and we have to consider hues. But this argument cannot be applied to violence. Whether you are 20% violent or 100% violent, you are just violent. Whether you kill 1 person or you kill 1000 people, it is killing and the person is a killer. When it comes to violence, you are either violent or non violent. The hues you are talking about applies to other issues or in the combination of various issues. You cannot apply your "hue theory" when it comes to violence. Whether you support violence or you are against it. You cannot be in between saying I support in certain cases while I oppose in others.

Krish:

Bravo for such a clear mind on Violence! But now lets take this argument of yours a little further.

1. When you talk of being "against" Violence "period". This is Violence against?

2. And what extent do you go to stay away from Violence?

I had once heard of an "Incident" .. I aint sure if its true.. but in fact I dont care if it is. It conveys what I want to say.

After partition, Nehru came, along with Indira, to some Punju folks who had just come in from the other side of Ravi somewhere in a camp in Delhi and was repeating the assertions of Gandhi about not to express their anger and remain peaceful (Now, that doesnt NOT mean that I am against this. I dont condone violence as a necessary reaction to Violence.)

There was this elderly Sikh gentleman. He walked up to the platform and slapped Indira. Nehru ran fuming with anger towards him holding his hand up.

All that Sikh man said to him was "I just slapped your daughter and look at your anger. My daughter was raped in front of me and killed! And you want me to be quiet?"

I am sure you have an answer for him - fictional character if he was - I DONT!

Vivekananda said in one of his lectures that complete good and complete Evil is NOT possible! I agree. And the example he gave was - that while delivering his lecture he was probably giving some good knowledge. But, on the other hand, he said, I am killing millions of microbes. Now, if Violence is any virtue then I am committing a sin!

Thats why I ask - AGAINST WHOM and WHEN does Violence cease to be called Violence?

Now, about your Hindutva - Krish - you are just playing with words! All you want to say is Facist but you are using Hindutva as a synonym of Facism. Well you are in your complete right to Simplify the world. I cannot. To me I would ALWAYS like to look at the "trigger" that created an Artist into a monster called Hitler (yes, his only ambition in life was to go to the Berlin School of Art.. where he was rejected. And the Board happened to be dominated by Jews.. and so his long and infamous animosity knew no end.) Or why, despite the "good" that Gandhi wanted to do through Violence .. ended in Millions of deaths and millions potentially more ANY DAY? Why is it that despite the goodness of Buddha, Guru Nanak Dev, Krishna, and Jesus.. followers of ALL have ended up killing USING THEIR NAMES AND WORD?

If THAT IS the final RESULT ANYWAYS no matter WHO the messenger is - then is Complete Good possible? Is there ANY VIRTUE that we can call CONSTANT AND ABSOLUTE??

The only answer I have found was in what Vivekananda said - there is NO complete Good or Evil. THAT is why I say - World lives in the Hues not the extremes. You may believe so - but like Ghalib said

"Dil ke behlane ko Ghalib ye Khayal achha hai!"

(The thought is good to kid your mind, Ghalib)

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

I thought I made it clear that by violence I mean physical violence. If Nehru tried to slap back when Indra was slapped (if it is true. Not sure if it is one of those RSS twists you have heard), then he is not following what he is preaching. Thatz all. It doesn't make the concept of "non violence" hypocritical. The person who preaches it may be hypocritical but the concept is not.

You are right in a way. I did use Hindutva to mean facism. But I consider Hindutva to be just a subset of facism.

A few typos I made - here is the errata:

1. "Vivekananda said in one of his lectures that complete good and complete Evil is NOT possible! I agree. And the example he gave was - that while delivering his lecture he was probably giving some good knowledge. But, on the other hand, he said, I am killing millions of microbes. Now, if Violence is any virtue then I am committing a sin! "

Last line should have read "Now, if Non-Violence is any virtue.."

2. And "Or why, despite the "good" that Gandhi wanted to do through Violence "

"should have read Or why, despite the "good" that Gandhi wanted to do through Non-Violence "

3. And "You may believe so - but like Ghalib said "

should have read "You may NOT believe so - but like Ghalib said"

"(if it is true. Not sure if it is one of those RSS twists you have heard),"

Well.. Krish - When you have a way to put a point across other than calling names as opposed to "looking" at the merit of an argument in a dispassionate manner - then.. I believe we will have a more meaningful discussion.

Until then - I will await your answers on the two questions that I asked... and WITHOUT the use of words like RSS, Hindutva, Sangh Parivar or Fascism. Argue your point WITHOUT hiding behind the shield of these bogies... FOR ONCE!! try it.. I can assure you it will be liberating!

"then he is not following what he is preaching."

WHO DID?? NAME ONE person WHO committed NO VIOLENCE .. EVER! of course, if you can 'twist" the meaning of violence as the pastors in Church do when they change "Thou shalt not kill" to "Thou Shalt NOT murder!"

In other words - who can you kill when you DONT CALL it violence? Is violence against a microbe any less of a violence THAN against a man? If yes, then WHY?

Principles are principles when they stand the test of Extremes. Anything short of that has a word in the dictionary... Its "Compromise"!

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

1. When you talk of being "against" Violence "period". This is Violence against?

I meant I am against physical violence. I don't want to bring in play of words to prove the point. If being "against" physical violence is some form of violence, I don't care. As long as it doesn't physically hurt anybody, I am fine. If you take the argument to a level where even the word "against" is termed as violence, then it goes nowhere. Such arguments will continue for the sake of continuing. I am not interested in it. The violence I am talking about is physical violence and I don't care if somebody calls my stance against physical violence as another form of violence. I am against physical violence and I call this physical violence a stigma in the civilized society. I am not interested in the philosophical aspects of what constitutes a violence.

2. And what extent do you go to stay away from Violence?

I do agree that no one can be 100% non violent. However it is my argument that we should move towards a society of zero violence by using the concept of non violence. I am against anything that disturbs this progression of the society. Hope I made my argument clear.

PS: In all my discussions above and in future, violence means physical violence unless explitily noted.

Typo: it should be "explicitly noted".

Krish:

Thanks for the response.

But my first question still wasnt answered. When I ask violence against? I am looking for the "Object" of the Violence. For any action - mental, verbal or physical - there is a SUBJECT and an OBJECT. For example, your "Hindutva" friends are the Subject and the hapless minorities are the Object of violence.

I am asking a simple question - against WHICH OBJECT is Violence Kosher?

"As long as it doesn't physically hurt anybody"

Are you sure? Mental torture of third degress that can make a person mentally useless in the cells of jails WITHOUT physical harm - like the ones in Abu Gharaib are FINE?

How is that any different from the "RSS twisted protoganist" Hapless Father who loses a daughter in rape but asked to do nothing?

How is Killing as a MEANS "Violence" but as a RESULT "Non Violence"? How is Violence of Physical a sin and that of a mind NOT?

"If you take the argument to a level where even the word "against" is termed as violence, then it goes nowhere"

Why NOT?

So, I am just saying that

OBSERVANCE of Non Violence is a MATTER of PERCENTAGE and NOT a PRINCIPLE!

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

Desh,

I have sort of answered your first question too.

Now to the remaining issues you have raised.

"Are you sure? Mental torture of third degress that can make a person mentally useless in the cells of jails WITHOUT physical harm - like the ones in Abu Gharaib are FINE?"

This is part of physical violence too. Not sure if you follow my arguments in various posts. I don't separate mind from body. I associate the "behaviour" of brain to the concept of "mind". Using the argument, Abu Gharib kinda stuff constitutes physical torture. Then don't ask me how law enforcement will get the info out of crooks. My answer will be "we need to find a way under the realm of what is perceived as non violent methods. I agree this is a grey area. There should be an evolving process towards these issues based on non violent methods. To explain this, letz consider the Indian police and police in the developed world (again with a disclaimer that there might be individual instances against my claim but I am talking about the general picture). See how they deal with a person who commits murder. There is a big difference in the way it is handled. So I would call the tactics in the western world to be more refined than India. However, we need much more refined ways so that Abu Gharib kinda stuff doesn't happen.

"How is that any different from the "RSS twisted protoganist" Hapless Father who loses a daughter in rape but asked to do nothing?"

Go to Law enforcement people (with the assumption that law enforcement is effective and their methods are refined) and govt. (again with the assumption that govt. is efficient enough to handle such issues). Ordinary joes cannot take law enforcement in their hands. We need a clear demarcation as to who has the power for law enforcement and who cannot take law enforcement into their own hands.

How is Killing as a MEANS "Violence" but as a RESULT "Non Violence"? How is Violence of Physical a sin and that of a mind NOT?

Death as defined and accepted by the whole world is as follows

Death is a process in which all the biological and chemical processes is stopped.

Killing is an action that results in death as defined above and accepted all over the world. This "killing" happens only by violence and not by non violence. If you are confused about the concept of death, mind and body, I cannot help.

""If you take the argument to a level where even the word "against" is termed as violence, then it goes nowhere"

Why NOT?"

Just the sheer number of posts between us explains this.

"OBSERVANCE of Non Violence is a MATTER of PERCENTAGE and NOT a PRINCIPLE!"

This is the case for people who subscribe to the concept that the violence as a last resort. But it doesn't apply to people who don't subscribe to the concept of "violence as a last resort".

There are many typos. The one I want to point out is

"This is the case for people who subscribe to the concept that the violence as a last resort. But it doesn't apply to people who don't subscribe to the concept of "violence as a last resort""

should be

"This is the case for people who subscribe to the concept of "violence as a last resort. But it doesn't apply to people who don't subscribe to the concept of "violence as a last resort""

krish:

Honestly, I appreciate your effort at being honest. At least this time you did not bring up the regular bogies and thought on your own. However, I urge you to sit down tonight and please do read your response once again.

And while you do that ..besides the screen keep a paper with your principles written down. Keep comparing and see if what you said here appears consistent with them. Or if those principles stand the scrutiny?

"My answer will be "we need to find a way under the realm of what is perceived as non violent methods. I agree this is a grey area. There should be an evolving process towards these issues based on non violent methods."

The world has seen the best of Non-Violent minds. I wonder who else can suggest the more evolved methods?

"This "killing" happens only by violence and not by non violence. If you are confused about the concept of death, mind and body, I cannot help."

It was Feb 1947. When my Mothers father came back from Amritsar and told his Mom that he was sure Pakistan was inevitable and they should LEAVE to Amritsar because violence was also going to happen. His mother cursed him and reminded him the words of Gandhiji - That partition will happen on "his dead body".

Well came August 1947... the family was forced to move. She was the first one to be stabbed.

She was gone. But the person on whose "dead body" depended her existence and hope, roamed around to give false and blinding hope to some more.

Killing happened here. Violence occured. He did not do it. He just let it happen and someone became a victim.

Now, until today I have had a tough time figuring out - who was the killer? The person who stabbed or the person who COULD NOT stop the sword but WOULD NOT ADMIT IT and STILL INSISTED she BELIEVE HIM?

That is why I am asking again - Is Violence of means the ONLY Violence? or is Violence of result also THAT?

At least in case of Jesus and Guru Teg Bahadur - they were the OBJECTS of Violence and did not urge OTHERS to follow to their fate. Non-Violence was a personal value.

Gandhi, on the other hand, LED others to death urging Non-Violence as a mass-principle.. while he was secure.

Non-Violence CANNOT be used as a Principle of Leadership or Statecraft (and your dilemma in the statements on Law enforcement amply demo that!)

Non-Violence is TURNING YOUR OWN second cheek - NOT lead others to do while YOU sit and refuse to drink Juice when HE/SHE DOESNT!!

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

Desh,

I am convinced that I am clear on my principles and I am consistent with that.

"The world has seen the best of Non-Violent minds. I wonder who else can suggest the more evolved methods?"

It is because of these non violent mind, our society is more civilized than ever. Please take your time to read the history and see how the society has progressed. The progression is from cannibalism to civilized society. Great non violent minds have played a CRUCIAL role in that. History is clear about it. By history I mean the real one not the twisted one.

"Killing happened here. Violence occured. He did not do it. He just let it happen and someone became a victim."

Your grandma's story is sad but it doesn't prove that Gandhiji is responsible for violence. Gandhiji agreed to partition eventually even after he claimed that it will happen only on his dead body because he, unlike Bush and many others who support violence, was more pragmatic and didn't hesitate to change his mind when he realized that partition is inevitable. Also, it is a VERY NAIVE to suggest that Gandhi is responsible for the violence during partition. It is the fundamentalistic attitude of the people of India which is responsible for the thousands and thousands of death. In fact, it could have gone to a much higher level if not for Gandhi. Don't blame Gandhi for the fundamentalist nature of human beings in India at that time. This is a typical of the twist I hear from RSS and its supporters blaming Gandhi for the deaths in partition. If I hear the same from you and identify your philosophy with Hindutva, you get pissed off.

"Is Violence of means the ONLY Violence? or is Violence of result also THAT?"

As I have told already, the deaths in partition is the result of fundamentalism that existed in both Hindu and muslim society. Blaming it on Gandhi is ridiculus. Why would Gandhi take responsibility for the fundamentalist nature of the society. I would agree if you say that Gandhi failed to remove fundamentalism from the society but it is ridiculus to claim that Gandhi is responsible for the violence. Since it is a fact that violence erupted due to the inherent fundamentalistic nature of the Indian society, your question "is Violence of result also THAT" has no validity.

"Gandhi, on the other hand, LED others to death urging Non-Violence as a mass-principle.. while he was secure."

This is the most funniest statement I heard. How else did he die. He also died to violence and this violence is ALSO due to the fundamentalistic nature of the Indian society. If your argument has to hold, there were several thousands who died in the independence movement due to British atrocities. If your statement has to hold true, even Tilak and Dadabhai Nauroji (whom you quoted in the article you mentioned) should have died long before they actually died. If I extrapolate your argument, I can ask why didn't they die much earlier then. I know this rationale is stupid. Thatz why I don't underestimate the role of Tilak and Dadabhai even though they died much later than many of the ordinary citizens in the independent movement. Suppose if a son of a mother who is against rash driving dies in car accident before she could die, then based on your argument, we have to ask why she didn't die before him or along with him. Does this argument makes sense? No. It is the same with your argument and it doesn't make any sense.

"Non-Violence CANNOT be used as a Principle of Leadership or Statecraft (and your dilemma in the statements on Law enforcement amply demo that!)"

"Non-Violence is TURNING YOUR OWN second cheek - NOT lead others to do while YOU sit and refuse to drink Juice when HE/SHE DOESNT!!"

I would just say that either you haven't read history or your ideas are similar to the RSS kinda guys (I am using similar to distinguish you from RSS guys). Thatz all I have to say.

for much of my life i never understood gandhi
it is only in recent times that i realised that maybe one of the greatest lesson he left us was to stop finding excuses and get on with what we have to do, and if one door is closed then instead of banging her heads against it, just go look for another one..
or put otherwise just do what the other does not expect you to and thus disarm him completely till he become useless..
i have never looked back since that day

krish:

I urge you to go read History for your benefit. I do not recall Tilak or Naoroji asserting that they will be leading others to victory based on some principles to be followed at the expense of their lives.

The question I raised of Gandhi in case of my Mom's grandmother is of Integrity. To me it is hypocritical of me to lead someone based ON my principles, however altruisti, to the extent of giving their lives and then conveniently agreeing to exactly the course I lead others to believe I WOULD UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES agree to!

Either he should have assessed his powers of making Jinnah and his band of criminals agree on no Violence or should have just kept quiet. Cant find how it was ANY different than Bush leading the clueless Americans to a War and asking for their blood for the nation while being COMPLETELY CONVINCED that he is RIGHT!

In my 37 years of life - I have NOT HEARD, READ, SEEN an opinionated person who WAS NOT CONVINCED that he/she was RIGHT! AND on the other hand, I HAVE YET TO MEET a person who can WITH UNAMBIGIOUS CERTAINTY say that world is better off than 5, 15,50,100,200, 500, or 1000 years ago! So where is the disconnect?

If you think the Non-violent minds in any way improved the world - I cannot see that reflected in the Violence figures. All of them thought they had answers.. had some people follow - sometimes out of reverence .. sometime out of compulsion - but never for EVER.

And regarding the Violence - There was a day in July - dont remember the EXACT date - when Jinnah had announced that Violence would start if Nehru or Gandhi DID NOT agree to Partition. So, as far as I can see, it was a blackmail. And something that was the BEGINNNING of Violence that was unleashed.

THAT is where the story of that "Hypothetical Sikh Gentleman" comes in. What is an entire population supposed to do when attacked?

To even suggest that Gandhi's death was in anyway in line with his words of martydom is as fundamentalist as you suggest RSS's role was.

And those who justify Godse's trial the way it took place in COMPLETE secrecy and no public word - SHOULD DO WELL to keep shut up about Guantanamo and Saddam trial. For if Saddam has RIGHTS .. so DID GODSE. He may have been a Criminal... but suppressing his voice made Nehru and all others around him and the rest to follow EQUALLY CRIMINAL.

For like I said - a Principle has to be applied in ALL situations for it to even remain one. Otherwise its a hypocritical compromise!

So, tonight Krish - please do open the History books and YOUR principles book.. if you are Honest.. you will surely find a lot of revisions to do. but if you are convinced that you are right and others Hindutva-followers - then I honestly have a tough time separating you from a Rush Limbaugh.. for you display an equal "Contempt for Diversity".

Cheers,
Desh.
Drishtikone.com

I am pretty clear about the history and LOGIC.

I never claimed I am right and others are Hindutva people. I do understand the diversity and verious shades in between black and white. But it doesn't mean that I cannot point out similarity between your argument and that of RSS. You are the one who is using label now. I just pointed out the similarity between your voice and the voices of RSS. The more you talk about these issues, I am pretty much convinced the history you are holding on to and it is definitely the twisted history of RSS. Anyone who has read the real hostory and the RSS version can see my point. People who believe only on the RSS version will believe your point. I don't have anything more on this as I don't want to discuss about the "twisted history" to which you and few others hold on too.

So, your version of History is the True history.. and the other person's version of History is bigotted?

Thats a fairly rhetorical statement that I have heard many make.

Hitler made it. British made it. Americans make it. Mughals made it. And so does every other person who is so convinced of him/herself that they believe its within their right to DEFINE "truth" for all.

The very "pedestalizing" that Nandita argues against is something THAT each one of us ends up doing. Have we ever stood in our way ... looked back... and asked if there could be an alternative argument or way to look at events?

Maybe ... just maybe.. there could be a need to rethink.. or to do OUR OWN experiments with ... even "Untruths" if not self created Truths?

But in this world where you can easily categorize everyone who argues against Gandhi and his Brand of non-violence in one stroke as "RSS-centric" without the need to indulge in the rigor of testing our own values or beliefs.

I wish you all the best.. but for God's (or whoever) sake dont feign "Open Thought" when you can be as bigotted as the "enemy" you profess to be against.

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

I never said it is my version of history. I am holding on to a version of history which has been accepted all through the world. Also I never said that people who oppose Gandhi or RSS centric. I made that statement when you pointed out that Gandhism is a failure and the violence in partition is the example for this. Anyone who has been following RSS will know that this is what they claim to show that Gandhism is a failure. In this post, you have made THE SAME arguments and hence I categorized your version with RSS version. It is pretty easy for people who keep their ears open to different versions of history to understand that your argument in this post is in sync with RSS version.

Typo

It should be "Also I never said that people who oppose Gandhi are RSS centric."

" I am holding on to a version of history which has been accepted all through the world."

Are you sure this is the MOST accepted version?

Before it was convincingly proved that Aryan-Dravidian theory was BUNK in the West - the VERSION that YOU have HELD onto made it blasphemous to even question it!

Despite evidence for a case of MAJOR cover up of Bose's living beyond the "air crash" that never happened (as the Taiwan Govt. has now categorically said!) - we still HOLD ON TO our theories of "what History SHOULD be". (check http://missionnetaji.org/)

Before Saraswati's geological existence was proved through scientific means it was an RSS-centric belief of idiotic pandits not even worth a discussion.

Godse shouted hoarse that he was the CLOSEST to Gandhi when he killed him and Gandhi said "AAAH" and NOT "Hey Ram" - but then its his word against the "Halos" so who cares! Besides he put down a pedestal so he was not fit for normal democractic Human treatment that everyone thinks even a mass murderer like Saddam so "rightfully" deserves. Ostensibly in the VAST Arithmetic of Violence and Non-violence - thousands of Women and kids do not weigh enough to our Apostle of peace.

How I wish, Krish.. I could believe you. But the fact is that there really is NO "real" History. It is a story that people in power make up to suit their needs. Some of us become convinced. Some still want to question.

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

"Anyone who has been following RSS will know that this is what they claim to show that Gandhism is a failure.'

was it a success? In which way? if he had done NOTHING.. absoutely NOTHING.. are you sure we would be worse off than today?

if you think that our Freedom was ONLY possible because of him - then please also list the "Gandhis" in hundreds of African and Asian Nations which got freed after us.

If you think that the rage of partition would have anhilated us - wait till someone drops a Nuclear bomb in that area. And the need for a Nuke or its "creation" is NOT a BJP phenomenon - its a reaction of mistrust and hatred (Bhutto in his rage after Bangladesh surrender had determined that this was THE course!)

Where.. and how was he a success?

If questioning common "folk-lore" the ONLY test for a category - then you can by all means say or write what you wish. but again.. DONT go around flashing your "Liberal" badge!! It looks phony!

Desh
Drishtikone.com

Vijay Sappani posted a link to a site called the Political Compass a couple of weeks back. Looking around on the web site, I found the following attributed to Gandhi:

He blocked the marriage of his son (Harilal) and disowned him, saying "How can I, who has always advocated renunciation of sex, encourage you to gratify it ?" Harilal subsequently became a homeless alcoholic.

"I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as he is depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing and seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed." (May 1940)

"The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs."
(On absolute non-violence, speaking to biographer Louis Fisher, June 1946)

In my opinion, it does not diminish the greatness of Gandhi one bit. If these are not pulled completely out of context, it shows that he was very human and capable of flawed thought.

I don't care if you live in Shangri La, Navin.

I think you need to take a break from your trading and try and develop just a modest sense of irony.

Dear Luke,
I wish I lived in Shangri La. It is a luxurious hotel here in New Delhi. LOL. Modesty is certainly not my middle name, sorry if I was blunt. I usually am. But my points were precise.

Cheers!
Navin

Redsicovering Gandhi - I doubt if there could possibly be a more pertinent title to this piece.

The Gandhi of my school text books was a man, no a super human, an idol, someone we revered without question, someone we held in awe and were in awe of.

Life's journey led to the rediscovery - a strong, deeply religious, fearless, ideal leader but one who was absolutely human, seemingly contradictory, compassionate, fallible and above all without malice. No longer an icon or someone to be in awe of. I prefer my rediscovered version.

A man who did the impossible, covered the chasm between the rich and poor, the high and the lowly, and gave them a collective mission to fight for freedom with dignity. A man who became the Father of the nation yet suffered the pain and guilt of not being there as a father for his children. A man of seeming contradictions who taught a whole nation the lesson of non-violence because he believed in it and yet again, because he believed in it, considered it right for India to actively support the British in the war. A man who considered himself a failure in his life's mission bearing witness to mindless communal carnage and the partition of his country. Yet, to most of his people, he emerged a hero and continues to remain so many generations later.

A man who never raised his voice at an adversary yet never gave in maintaining both his own dignity and that of those who opposed him. I often wonder how Gandhi would have coped with the world today and even more, I wonder how the modern world would cope with Gandhi? Whether having coined the 'swadeshi' and 'be Indian wear Indian' slogans, would he today see globalisation and the trend for being trendy, rather than Indian, as positive signs of progress? I would like to think he would.

I think we have all of us rediscovered our own Gandhis and see him smiling away up there observing our different versions of him. If Hitler was the face of the savagery and inhumanity, Gandhi for me was the light of the last century.

Dear Nandita,

It is interesting what you say about silent Gandhians. When I visited Kolkata a few years back, I came in touch with a few people. Some were truly Gandhian scholars (unlike the pseudo scholars in this post arguing like the "blind men and the elephant")and some farmers applying Gandhi's principles to their vocation.

What amazed me was how they continued doing what they were doing in a self-effacing manner. They were not interested in proving anything to anybody, just that they believed what they were doing was the best possibility.

Shall buy and listen to the audiobook. Thanks for sharing this.

Dave

That's very gracious of you Navin. Thanks :)

But what I wanted you to appreciate was the irony.

Whilst you regard designer clothes and khadi as being from opposite ends of the spectrum, they're meeting round the back somewhere, and khadi is becoming designer. Although maybe not for you.

I also want to stress the key role that khadi played in the history of Indian Independence.

It allowed people to turn their backs on the enforced economy the British had imposed upon India, fuelled by the factory produced cloth from northern England. It was immensely strategic and sybolic.

I also think khadi is of great relevance today. Whilst you're Indian stocks and GDP surge ahead there has to be one eye on the economic welfare of the rural masses. And by supporting enterprises such as KVIC you help support them; which in turn slows down the displacement of
people to cities which is such a big issue in India.

And as somebody who's married to India and who spends half his life in England (surrounded by old cotton mills) and half in India (wearing khadi), I feel the ghosts of our history and our present disposition close at hand all the time.

With respect,

Luke.

the book has been a fundamntal source of inspiration for me..especially in its integrity of express....glad it has been converted to a audio format...

"In my opinion, it does not diminish the greatness of Gandhi one bit. If these are not pulled completely out of context, it shows that he was very human and capable of flawed thought"

Well said AK. He is a normal human being with the usual pitfalls associated with any human being. His mistakes in life doesn't mean that the concepts he advocated are a failure. The individual instances in which he failed doesn't matter in the bigger picture. In fact, it is his own admission of his failures which lead to this book.

Desh, You can happily live in your fantasy world believing Gita gives you a justification for violence just like how George Bush lives. Gandhi's ideas are strong enough to withstand even thousands and thousands of people like you.

AK:

I agree with you on most part. I have yet to see any person in flesh or in History who was without flaws. Thats what makes Gandhi a genius and a flawed personality.

Regarding his non violent methods however, I have only this to say:

Non Violence in its true sense can only be a PERSONAL VALUE.. it aint something that you can expect others to live by because YOU believe in it! Values and Principles are for your own self. When they are used to judge and command or direct others - they become dictats or tools of power!

Krish:

I think I am done with you.

During the course of your own comments you have been fairly inconsistent - condoning law enforcement acts sometimes and questioning elsewhere, criticizing Bush but taking issues with the questioning the motives and fairness in dealing with Gandhi's opponents - and inherently fundamentalist in approach who follows a clear principle of "My way or Highway".... something that I found so prominently present in your icon - Gandhi - too.

Just by calling your own methods as timeless do not make them so. If we could have even a thousand of people who could question our own existence in an open and fair manner in India.. Gandhi would evolve into a genius - flawed albeit - "human being" that he was.. and NOT the deity that he, Nehru or likes of you would have us believe he was. You cannot plead others to bring him off the pedestal and shut off the questioning of his flaws.

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

Desh,

I will have to take some issue with you on this one. It is no doubt Gandhi had flaws, it is no doubt he could not prevent many of the tragedies that took place in his lifetime. But he was one leader who united a whole generation of people around a common theme with a simple message: seek truth.

The message of non-violence, while it is important, is not his main contribution. The biggest contribution he made was that he always demonstrated that he was on the side of the truth. That integrity alone would have made him a great man. But he went further. He actually worked with people at their level and won their confidence. This absolute dedication to a cause combined with his integrity and message of non-violence did boot British out of India.

Did he fail in his endeavor? History is not black and white. He developed a whole generation of leaders, who alas, turned out to be much less competent than he. He definitely made some mistakes during the final decade of independence struggle and while choosing his heirs. His ideas of rural self reliance and simple living may seem anathema today, but I betcha they will come back with a vengeance, perhaps in our lifetimes. He was a leader the likes of who come only once in a rare while. Don't just look at the state of India today; I am sure many of his principles will become relevant again and we as a humanity are better off because Gandhi lived amonst us.

Having said all this, I still say it is bad idea to put him on a pedestal. It is his ideas we need to embrace not the man. The cult of hero worship never does any good, because many times, we may choose wrong heroes. It is the principles that are important, not the people who embody them. People come and go and they have flaws. Just look at the congress party to see what a hero cult does. They have to rely on a person who has no qualifications whatsoever to lead them. If congressmen and women had not put Nehru and Indira on a pedestal they would have worked to develop next generation of leaders. These flawed leaders encouraged hero worship and hence destroyed their own leagacy.

Regards,

Ravi Kulkarni

Dear Luke,
I appreciate your Indian connection and love for India. I quote you, "It allowed people to turn their backs on the enforced economy the British had imposed upon India, fuelled by the factory produced cloth from northern England. It was immensely strategic and sybolic." Unquote

I have said this many times here that Gandhiji got India its independence and we have to respect that fact. The methods he used at that time whether of weaving khaadi or Amaran anashan (fast unto death) were great strategic weapons to defeat the enemy, but AT THAT TIME. They were mere strategies to defeat an enemy, those practices or principles are not advisable to be followed at an individual level by human beings as a way of life. This is all I'm saying.

I quote you:"Whilst you're Indian stocks and GDP surge ahead there has to be one eye on the economic welfare of the rural masses. And by supporting enterprises such as KVIC you help support them; which in turn slows down the displacement of
people to cities which is such a big issue in India." Unquote

I carefully thought about this and yes, you do have a point. But this is also a fact that if India had continued to follow his shortsighted approach in managing its economy, we would not be the fastest growing economy in the world, well on the way of becoming a superpower within the next 10-15 years. He was not an expert on how to run the economy, in fact, was far from it.

Dear Krish,
I quote you:"Navin, don't confuse Gandhi as a dad and Gandhi as a nation's leader. He is a miserable failure as a dad but definitely not a failure as a leader." Unqote

That's precisely what I said, buds! You just don't read carefully. LOL.
After reading your posts on various threads having dialogues with various people, it seems to me that you are too hasty in giving labels to people. It seems to me that you have some block somewhere in your conscience which is stopping you from moving ahead.

I have a meditation for you which can be of immense use to you. If you consider me a friend, just do it.

Starting today, you go to a secluded place close to nature, like a park or a river or something depending upon where you live and when there is no one around you let out a scream.....let it be the most blood-curdling scream that anyone has ever screamed! Do this for 10-15 minutes daily at a time convenient to you for 7 days. And after seven days you let me know how you feel. Then I'll tell you the next step.

Cheers!
Navin

Ravi:

I am with you. I admire Gandhi for his ability to LIVE by the principle of Non Violence. Its nearly impossible to do so.

The issue I have with his practice is - that he expected OTHERS to live by HIS principles in their worst of times.

Complete Non Violence of the type practiced by Jesus or Guru Teg Bahadur is possible when the I in a person completely disappears as expressed by Guru Teg Bahadur in

"Tera bhana meetha laage"

(saying to his Guru: That your gift is dear to him)

To give up natural instincts in face of extreme and mindless violence is NOT a work of an ordinary human being.

There are several levels of Non Violence.

1. Being Non Violent in face of provocation to person.

2. Being Non Violent in face of Violence to person.

3. Being Non Violent in face of atrocities generally

4. Being Non Violent in face of Violence against one's dears and kin.

Gandhi, in my opinion went to the third level... and that makes him ONE in a millenium kind of person!!

But he expected the general public to operate at the 4th level. That he himself could do it, would have been demo-ed if he would have been able to hug a guy who may have raped and killed Kasturba.

That is why I said - Values and Principles are personal. I believe in Non Violence for myself strongly. Does that mean I will ask you to follow it? or would I follow it under all circumstances even when it is obvious that it is against the good of others I am answerable to? I dont know.

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

Mahatma is a Great Soul
And perhaps a great soul he was!

While downstairs he lay in bed
Making love to his wife

Upstairs in his deathbed
His father lay dying

So guilt ridden was this Gujrati Gandhi
Hating sex he passed his life

He hated blacks in South Africa
Not humans, animals they were to him

But in his beloved India
Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Isaahi were all bhai-bhai

He experimented with many things:
Sex, hatred, medicine, mantras, ahimsa

Making fool of himself in all things
Only he succeeded in ahimsa

In his ashram full of women
He would often give them enemas

He too would cleanse his bowls
Taking salty watery enemas

For how could a holy soul
Live in a foul body?

He forbade other eating meat
Fried fritters, spices or sweets

They could all make you beasts
Running amuck all time in heat

Did he get freedom for India
By his non-violence ahimsa?

Ruined in World War two
Britain had nothing to hold on to

His sexual prowess he always doubted
To prove it all youth he waited

When old he slept naked
With naked young women in bed

His nieces as they say
Remained unmolested, un-assaulted

So was Mahatama
The Great Soul, the great man

I acknowledge your point Navin: Cometh the hour, cometh the man. And India's situation today throws up new questions to be answered by others, who may be partly inspired by Gandhi, but not with such a dogmatic reverence.

But maybe you can still pay the KVIC a visit and pick yourself up a khadi kurta? The Delhi shop is pretty good as I remember. Feel how wonderful it is as a material.

Do that and you can issue me a pledge in return; I'll donate to a charity you choose or I'll try your screaming mediatation ;)

Take it easy,

Luke.

AS per my understanding Emperor Asoka dissolved the army after the war. Yet nobody attacked his country during the period.

If an idea is propogated with strong but gentle means from an 'authority", the society largely accept it and goes with it.

During Gandhiji's time, the forces - the kind of forces against which he was working - at work were strong and could not be overcome easily and he failed to certain or to a great extent.

He said: "Wherever there is an injustice, I always believe in fighting. The question is: do you fight to change or do you fight to punish?"

It is clear. When there is an injustice, we should register our protest. But the protest is not to punish them. IT is to invoke a feeling, a feeling of shame in what they are doing and to help to start the change right from the mind. And no-violence is one of the best method. That is it.

Questions like whether it is possible to apply principles of non-violence fully is just easy chair philosophy.

Newton's third law states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Consider a river flowing to the westward. In its entirety, it is an action. So according to Newton, there must be another river, flowing eastward, having exactly same volume of water, flow rate etc. What would we say if a guy argues in this line? It is very plain - he has not understood what Newton said.

I feel compelled to say this too: It is very crude to say that there is no difference between Gandhiji and Narendra Modi.

"When old he slept naked
With naked young women in bed

His nieces as they say
Remained unmolested, un-assaulted"

I have heard this too. Dont know how much of it is true. But if it is, then in today's world he would be booked as a Child Molestor.

Every Gandhi fan I have talked to on this subject - eulogizes him at his "humility" to have told the "truth" at least.

The Object of issue is NOT Gandhi but those girls.. I want to understand how were THEIR pysches destroyed FOR EVER?

I know bringing this subject itself is blasphemy enough to get a ready SAFFRON tag being handed out with folks with Halos around here ;-)

...but what the heck.. "Experiments with Truth" may VERY WELL BE IT! Complete Unvarnished Truth and NOT a stage-managed one!

Desh.
Drishtikone.com

Hi Luke,

LOL. I've worn a khaadi kurta many times and let me tell you that I do not particularly like it. I'd rather avoid it as it is not to my taste. No offence to you.

I do my own charity and don't like talking about it. And the screaming meditation is not for everyone. I'll give you something different if you ask me. And for that I'll have to get to know you better. Keep posting.

Cheers!
Navin

Hi Desh,
Your post to Ravi is so complete! I wish it could it be posted again! and again :)

Among Truths, as I know it - one cannot mandate behavior for another.

This is clear. And as you say about Gandhi. And the embodiment of non-violence which was his practice, and belief system - to bring freedom to Mother India.

One must be free to choose, and this includes non-violence. One cannot be 'coerced' to choose Peace. It is, indeed an individual choice. One by one by one.

Gandhi gives the way of his life, and compelling reasons. The result is in the history book. And in the hearts and minds of those present to history in the making, as well as the inspiration that remains, long after his death.

I do believe he was an incredible inspiration. And by his example, many have indeed cultivated the practice of peaceful means to bring about change.

Krish, in the relative, there will be times when violence may be a way of protecting oneself, or a family member, or a community.

In the absolute, which is above the opposites, there is no violence at all. May we all find ourselves in that 'place.' I believe one 'day' we shall be there. Yet, I have discovered, there are moments of nonduality, right here, right now.

Blessings,
~~ Kate

Navin,

A very good place to screamitate (scream + meditate lol)is when you are driving alone in your car. I have done it myself.

Then, talking of non-violence, there are other aspects of violence which nobody has touched upon. And hence of non-violence as well.

Sometimes you kill the other emotionally.

Some other times you go still deeper and kill the other intellectually or with an idea.

And the most subtle but the most potent form of violence is when you kill the others spiritually. You play the great, goody goody, sacha sucha soul and the others around you simply feel non-existent.

Which is why the wisest will not even be distinguishable from the usual people.

They live by becoming one with the people, they live by flowing with the flow.

People feel greater in their presence than smaller not to talk of non-existent.

Harb.

PS: BTW, note the address of the khadi shop. I sometimes enjoy being seen like a leader by wearing khadi so I may ask you to accompany me to the one when I come to Delhi.

"A very good place to screamitate (scream + meditate lol)is when you are driving alone in your car. I have done it myself."

It is a risky proposition to do it while driving a car, Harb. The drivers driving around you might think you are screaming at them and might run you over!! LOL.

I know where the Khaadi shop is, no need to note it. LOL. You sure you wanna be seen like a politician?

Cheers!
Navin

Gandhi's Non-violence
---------------------

"I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as he is depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing and seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed." ~ Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

***

"The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs." ~Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

"After reading your posts on various threads having dialogues with various people, it seems to me that you are too hasty in giving labels to people. It seems to me that you have some block somewhere in your conscience which is stopping you from moving ahead."

I find it funny when people whine at being given a label. But each one of you who have criticized me for this have used labels.

You (by you, I mean people who whine when they get labels) give a label called terrorist to people who resort to killing. You attribute the label "bible thumping evangelicals" to people who use christianity to achieve their means. You call people who oppose Hindu hypocrisy as "pseudo secular" and "anti hindu". However when you are labelled, you start whining. My labelling is no different from what you guys do. So it is not worth whining. If you belive in your principles, labels shouldn't hurt you. Be proud in being a conservative if your ideals are conservative in nature.

Desh, as I have already told in my last comment, you can live in your fantasy world. I am pretty consistent in what I am saying. I didn't make illogical arguments either (you may want to check the lack of logic in your arguments). Your and other people's scream here will only strengthen the Gandhian values. It is not going to diminish it.

For all ye people who whine against Gandhi, lemme just quote him to convey the point

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win

-Gandhi

Krish, buds,
I can't talk about others so I'll just speak for myself here. Did I ever give you any label? I am your friend. Just do what I suggested to you for seven days and let me know what happens.

Cheers and love,
Navin

I am not saying people give label to me and hence I give back. I am saying that the use of label is an universal phenomenon but it hurts people when they are labelled.

kate: Thanks for the good words. I agree with you.

Najeeb: Everything was well said. All I can say is there is a need to "parse" out a person's personality to see all his/her aspects.

As a personal value of Non-Violence - there is little doubt about Gandhi's greatness. Now, does that transfer into his greatness elsewhere?

He attempted something difficult through his actions. Great! I admire him for that.

As soon as those actions enter politics they start affecting others. He may not have cared for his Son or Family or close ones' lives or well being.. but to expect that other Fathers will mess up their sons just as he did to Harilal and make good on this principle is not necessarily a good message.

Re: Equating him with Hitler or others - I came up to that equation .. when I was trying to understand for myself - as to what is at the HEART of strife. The answer was "I" and "me". "My" way .. My country.. My word.. is important... and hence inherently better than yours.

Comparing mine vs yours and sitting in judgment in a categorical manner to me was the key... which is what I termed as "Contempt of Diversity".

After that I did not distinguish the "color" of a person's celebrity persona.... and Gandhi really fell in the same cell as Hitler.

Is it politically correct? I dont know.. should it even be?

Desh
Drishtikone.com

Thanks Nandita for the post. We have had a lot of interest on the page and the audiobook. Unfortunately, the audiobook was not listed in the shopping cart during the weekend.

Here is the link once again for those interested. Online ordering from and shipping to any part of the world is available.

Gandhi Audiobook

Sorry, here is the link...

Gandhi Audiobook

Trying without html again
http://www.karaditales.com/articles-expwithtruth.html

Has anyone else tried the audio books from Karadi tales? We have several of them and they are awesome of toddlers and little children.

Regards,

Ravi Kulkarni

Vish:

Are you Viswanath of Karadi Tales? I've read some of your comments on this blog and you sound nothing like someone who makes such wonderful stuff for kids. Still as Ravi says, Karadi Tales is awesome.

I can understand people having differences of opinion over certain philosophies of Gandhi, his principle of abstinence for example.

But in a world where we see violence begetting more violence, how much intelligence do we need to see that there is just no option to non-violence. If this is not the cornerstone of every conflict resolution process, there is no possibility of resolution.

Violence is bad, only for cannibals one wise-guy says.. I feel life is about balance, every value has its place.. I better not speak on Gandhi yet.. But first I'd like the endorsers of non-violence as mr gandhi says to answer one simple question: would non-violence have worked against Hitler? Mr Gandhi did send the British his advice to surrender to dear Hitler or the Czechs to do "Satyagraha" against Nazis or to Jews to "offer their throats"... Wonder why they did not listen.. World would be such a better place. Right? The statements are callous for any world-class stateman to make..
The idea of Gandhi and not Gandhi holds relevance today. ie the idea that he has been projected as. What he was or not does not matter for the millions who worship him. or the leftist or sanghis who hate him. If at all we want to learn frm him, we need to humanize him first..
Had it not been for WWII+emergence of anti-colonial US & USSR, things could have been more delayed, Gandhi or no Gandhi.
non-violence should include the self, if u know what that means..
I don't deny Gandhi did some ( actually many) brilliant things. He was charismatic and knew the pulse of people. What he lacked was vision, the ability to say he is wrong and the ability to keep quiet about things he knows not.. Mahatma, as in Raj Dharma, can b Raj Guru but not the Raja. He is to advice and not meddle.
More some other time.
cheers!

Gandhi was a very, very controversial figure and I think it is wrong to put him on a pedestal. No doubt he was an extraordinary person and we can give him credit for many things, specially his simple lifestyle. But overall I find it hard to respect him for many of the reasons outlined above specially by Desh.

In addition to the points already made, Gandhi's sexual experiments were extremely creepy. India has a long history of sages, saints and householders who believe in controlling their sexual desires for spiritual growth. Nobody found it necessary to sleep with naked women under the pretext of testing their control. Gandhi was the only pervert who did this. Not only that, he did it with very young, impressionable women many of whom suffered from serious emotional disorders for the rest of their lives. His sexual experiments were a gross abuse of power. It is very wrong for an influential person (he had rock star status for these women) to have women half their age sleep naked in their bed, no matter what the pretext. I can never forgive Gandhi for this.

Also, his belief in non-violence was carried to ridiculous heights and actually had a reverse effect. If people had been adequately armed and ready to fight there may have ultimately been fewer killings.

Pradeep, well said.

Orion asked if you can take out Hitler with Gandhism. I have heard similar questions from other people too. To all ye violence subscribers here is my reply. It may be good on paper but it is achievable if everyone of you start doing it on a personal basis.

When I say non violence is the path to follow, I am not asking a subset of people to follow the path. I am saying that the whole world should follow it. If it happens, there won't be any hitler, there won't be a person who will rape a old man's daughter, there won't be Osama, there won't be sadaam and in fact, there won't be Bush or Modi. To achieve this, you have to start with yourself. This is easy to wash off saying that I am foolish. Asking "why should I change when xyz is violent" is like Indians asking why should I be sincere when abc is corrupt. It is up to you to take. As long as people subscribing to violence are present in this world (you can see many in this thread itself), the danger of another Hitler is still there. I would only use one word to people who subscribe to violence. IGNORANT.

Dear Ravi... thanks for your kind words about Karadi Tales. This audiobook is part of our series for adults, Charkha audiobooks.

Dear Rita... thanks for, what i presume, were compliments.

Hey Krish

I appreciate your idealism. But I feel you are a little too quick to jump to conclusions.. I don't subscribe violence and I definitely believe in compassion. All I say is violence has its place in nature, in society. It is a tool, like non-violence. And one needs discrimination to use either of them. Even when the "neeti" says, it is fair to kill somebody who (1) tries to poison you (2)tries to burn you (3)takes away your property, money by force and fraud (4) tries to take women by force (death penalty for rapists I guess!). It also says to never have mercy on enemy once war starts, to never under-estimate the enemy. Even then it says that killing is not good and should be avoided at all costs. Lord Krishna gave peace every possible chance before going for the war.

I'll just tell you a story from Jataka Tales in short(form Bodistvas, which were the ultimate form of compassion). Once there was a beautiful elephant. A mahout saw him and wanted to own it. So it sat on a tree and jumped on the elephant as it passed. With some difficulty the elephant was able to throw the mahout on ground and wanted to kill it. But took mercy and let it go. The mahaout ran for his dear life, but kept following the elephant. Got a pit dug in the elephant's way, in which the elephant fell. Finally was captured and tormented by the mahout..

I know for every example of deceit there will be an example of gratefulness. That's why I say it really depends on who is on the other side of the table.. Violence does not work everywhere. Same with non-violence. I hope u get the point..

If God wanted only non-violence, why do we have so violent animals in nature as lions? In the end even they help in maintaining the balance, without them earth would die. On the other hand if there was only violence, the result would be same, the destruction would be faster I agree. But either way destruction will come in equally devastating measures...

As Adam Smith says in the wealth of nations,people, in general, work for their own betterment. In doing so they unknowingly contribute to the greater good. We need idealistic people like u who can talk about non-violence. And the soldiers who defend till your day in Shangri-la arrives (which I can assure u is not that near..). But the ruler and decision makers can be neither if something good has to happen.

Viloence and non-violence..In the end we need both.. And more than them we need discrimination to apply them in the right place at the right time. Lack of awareness of either one is ignorance... Stubborn adgerence to either causes destruction, be it non-violence (as Gandhi) or violence(as Hitler).

cheers!

I don't claim to be a scholar. But the confidence and judgemental way in which some of the bloggers seem to be passing opinions with, suggests that they must all be people with great scholarship.

If a person in a loincloth, without holding political office, without wealth, without an army to back him, with nothing that would bestow power, could get millions to follow him, not only in his geographical vicinity but in several parts of the globe, isn't there possibly much more to him than we can possibly conceive?

Shouldn't we be a little more humble before making such sweeping negative statements? Isn't the purpose of our participating in Intentblog to search and grow as individuals?

Do raise questions, but leave a window of "i am open to correction" open.

Hey Pradeep

I agree that Gandhi, or rather the concept of Gandhi as people think of it to be has influenced people. A lot of them. They hate him, they love him. Either way the influence is there.

To get a following just indicates u r charismatic or appear right. It no way guarantees that u r a saint or the only reasonable/good guy possibly there. People were ready to die for Hitler. He has also influenced ppl around the globe positively and negatively. His "Mein Kempf" still sells. Doesn't prove anything. In the end the world judges you by the results you get.. U may say all the right things but if ur actions bring nothing but disaster, only the gullible may call u good.

No person can be a perfect saint. Even Jesus cursed the poor fig tree (as a friend tells me), if u want to find fault u can. If u want to worship, u still can. The choice is always there.

The road to growth is always somewhere in between. Never on extremes. I say that Mr Gandhi had an extreme stress on non-violence (and some other things like "controlling senses" of taste, obsession with sex and enemas etc). And any extreme is bad. A holier than thou attitude will not get anyone anywhere.

In the end ppl are stuck with what they have and what they dont have. I guess the windows have to be open at ur side too.. Just a gentle reminder.. If somebody makes a comment that doesn't vibe with ur thinking, to assume them "scholarly" is what.. Can the stmt be reversed for the other side?

cheers

Dear Nandita,

Listened to the audiobook last night at one stretch. Just great. You are great and Shekhar kapur is surprisingly brilliant. The music just strings it all together wonderfully. thanks

Pradeep

100!

Nandita,

Got a chance to get a copy of this wonderful AudioBook. It was very interesting and well done.

Congratulations to you and others on the team.

Karadi/Charkha, congratulations to you as well.

:D

The first prophet of post-modernism?

Nandita has clearly hit a major chord with the her experiences with the Mahatma’s truth, and provoked a veritable flood of reminiscence, thought and streams of consciousness, if not of conscience.

The great Truths are presumably eternal and invariant. Justice, equity, social harmony - and, indeed, the concept of truth itself - would be difficult to deny in most viable societies, even by those whose behaviour grossly violates such basic values.

Yet, each generation has to reinterpret these Truths for itself. It will try to place its own meaning in these veritudes and this meaning will be coloured by the light of its circumstance and history.

What is true for each generation is equally true for each individual.

Which is why the image of Mahatma Gandhi has gone through so many extraordinary metamorphoses over the decades of this century and in different sections of our society. And why he evokes such a variety of responses, particularly today. Few in India would be heard to express disagreement with what he stood for. But even fewer practice the examples of thinking and living that he set. Political leaders find it expedient to pay lip service to his teachings but go on to do the exact opposite. Privately, many -- particularly influential -- people in our country consider the Mahatma to be a naive anti-technology, anti-development traditionalist, irrelevant to the needs of the modern world.

As a result, we now have a nation that finds itself careening towards the brink of a millennial disaster. The technologies we have chosen, the institutions of governance we have designed and the economic systems we have adopted are totally alien to either our culture or to our natural environment. Our destruction of the fabric of our society and our life supports during the short period since Gandhiji died would have done credit to the marauders of Genghiz Khan. The results bear little resemblance to the dreams of the founding fathers of our country.

Take for example, technology. The Mahatma’s powerful analysis of western production systems and consumption patterns led him to the need for a totally different relationship between man and machine. (Man, because as he fully understood, if machines had been chosen and designed by women, things might have been quite different). His was a world of machines that were smaller, more accessible and less destructive - of people or of the environment. Technology with a human face, working to build a society where people were the masters, not slaves.

What did we get instead? “Modern” technology and megaprojects that caused destruction all around, devastating the nation’s forests and soils, poisoning the rivers and waters and squeezing the life out of our villages and cities.

Gandhiji was not for a primitive, back to the land, life in the forest. Rather, he was a firm believer in technology as one of the means to improve the lives and livelihoods of our people. Mindless technological innovation was not for him, but being one of the great innovators of the twentieth century, he fully understood the need for constant effort to better the lives of people. He was particularly sensitive to the need for improving the productivity of the workplace, and the central role of technology in achieving this. He even offered one of the largest prizes of his time for a technological innovation.

The Mahatma’s vision of the institutions of governance was even clearer and more direct. For him, the inexorable logic of a viable social order lay in participative democracy. And this, in turn, led him to the inevitability of local, community based systems of decision making. People were, for him, the purpose of development, not the means -- “human resources” -- as they are now taken to be. Government with a human face, of the people, for the people and by the people. It is no coincidence that his political solutions are so similar to those of Thomas Jefferson – they both had a fundamental faith in the common person.

How different from the way things have turned out today.

Gandhiji’s view on business are also widely misinterpreted. He never expressed himself against private enterprise -- only against the large, the powerful and the exploitative. Was he not the champion of local entrepreneurship, extolling the virtues of hard work and underlining the importance of serving the customer?

And, of course, he was a pioneer of the conservation movement, bringing to it an ethical basis -- ahimsa -- that remains even now ahead of its times. His concept of trusteeship takes our relationship with nature and its resources to a diametrically opposite corner from the dominant mindsets of today.

Mahatma Gandhi’s insights on technology, economics and governance may well be the most valuable source of the wisdom we need to survive into the twenty first century. Far from being primitive or obsolete, he will then be recognised for what he clearly was, the first post-modernist.

Dear Ashok,

"The first prophet of post-modernism?" You may have hit the nail on the head. It is quite interesting though, how we believe that the economic, social, industrial, political and power order in the world will move in the same direction as the present, endlessly. For a very large no. of people, there is no "post-modernism"

To take a very small example of Gandhi's awareness and vision, "satyagraha" and "ahimsa" were irrefutable truths for him, but his communication of the same to the people around him, reflects sophisticated brand strategies and positioning.

This hit me when we were doing the background work for this audiobook with the result that my next guest lectures for management students if going to be on Gandhi's branding strategies.

hi,
it was nice to see someone reviewing the mahatama.But there remains a "lots of question to be asked about his charater and integrity".
Let us connect it with dissappearence of "NETA JI".there are times in history when most important people are forgotten.
I bet anyone that if we have a survey of who was the most ifluential face of freedom struggle than most will support "NETAJI".
I had failed to understand one basic pont that why "MAHATMA" not killed by the britishers.Connecting it with great uprising or great mass unrest will not justify the answer because that would have not been worse than simon commisson,non coooperation movement all other movements ignited by him.After all there are people who need to know the truth.why "WE DID NOT HAVE "NETA JI"as our father" .

I WISH WE WOULD HAVE NATIONWIDE DEBATE ON THIS.

with regards
ravi

Dear Nandita,
Its been a long time since you last appeared on screen. Now I came to know why ! You hardly come acroos such committed and socially responsible actors these days. Its a duanting task indeed for you, but I am sure you will ultimately carry it off in your inimitable style.
You are absolutely right in observing that we have made a grave mistake in raising him to a pedestal. To me actually he represents a social worker doing his bit for the upliftment of the poor and the downtrodden. His teachings of Love and Non-violence are as relevant today as they were at his time and probably they are more required today, when all the moral standards are declining and our social fabric is falling apart. More than anything else, he is being missed for the honesty and strength of character that he so rightly represents.
Kudos to you for taking up this challenge. I wish you the very best in your endeavour.

hi nandhitha

this is the site i came across while i was searching some blogs for info on gandhi ..... u have really donre a good job in this blog and great way to connect with various people and their thoughts..... i have tell u u r really gorgeous and really good in your acting.... keep it going....

and about this article u have written it is really nice u r writing abt gandhi and making many to think about that individual but i think it is not just thinking about this guy but incorporating and in this busy world no one even cares to think about this and every one is busy to earn a living and media and cinema is jus entertaining public with unnecessary politics and unnecessary glamour in the name of commercial aspect ....... so instead of talking about gandhi it is high time to that each individual has to revolutionise his own space by implementing gandhian way of living and it is upto each individual to do .....and we have to know that no one now can live like gandhi but we can implement one simple thing ........ LOVE ..... love others ..... u too do that and try to take subjects that focuses on love other people ,which is highly needed at this point of time.

take care

Hi Nandita,

Read your Blog...Mind blowing to know that atleast you try to be little different from other celebrities...

If you have read well the Gandhi"JI"'s autobiography you will remember that in a chapter called AT SCHOOL he ends up with the great truth that "A MAN OF HONESTY MUST ALSO BE A MAN OF CARE!!!" ....

How relevant those words are in this frenzied world of hustle and bustle....!!!

It is true what Einstein had said "Such a man of brittle bones had ever existed in this world!!!"

I apologise for using your space for the following.

http://premalathakombai.blogspot.com/2006/03/calling-human-race.html

I am an Indian and a blogger. I hail from Tamil Nadu originally. I live in UK these days.

I read this news today and I feel helpless. Helpless is the right word. I understand there are so many like this and it is close to impossible to do something about everything. As my friend says,

" It's shocking, yes. I was talking to my husband about it. And we both wished we could do something. And yet felt quite helpless. See, the trouble is, there are so many things to be outraged about that one doesn't know where to start."

I cannot put it better than her.

Again, her words speak my mind better,


"I was appalled, angry and vowed I'd do something about it. These days, I've settled down to mentioning it once in a while. Is it lethargy? Complacency? Or just sheer lack of will (Everything's fine in my backyard. So why bother? kind of an attitude).
Anyway, the point of my ramble is this. Tell me what we can do. Would this count as human rights violation? Should we alert the local Human Rights people about it? Press? Ananda Vikatan?
Still thinking."

I would like to do something. Don't know what, but something. I want to start. I am tired of going silent. I don't want to involve activists, political parties.. I just want something useful done for the girls.

Why I am contacting you?
Last time when Tsunami hit, Celebrities help played a vital and powerful role. So, I thought may be I could get somehelp here. May be in the form voice, or .. don't know actually.

A post on this issue in your site?

Anything basically. any help is appreciated.

THANK YOU VEYR MUCH.

A reply would be greatly appreciated, any reply.

Thanks indeed,

Regards
Premlatha

Nandita,

When you talk about Gandhiji's philosophy and its relevence, you cannot be selective. You only seem to talk about non violence and ingoring - infact acting opposite Gandhiji philosophy, in whole life. Gandhiji advocated total prohibition. I do not know any body in File industry or society where you and othesr like you come from practice it. You make fun of it.
He stood for village industry, it is all forgotten. In fact real murderer of gandhi are Congressman, Communist and other celebrities like you. You can talk about relevance of philosophy while making fun of others.
First start prohibition, encorage village industry, then remaining things will become relevant by itself.

Nandita,

When you talk about Gandhiji's philosophy and its relevence, you cannot be selective. You only seem to talk about non violence and ingoring - infact acting opposite Gandhiji philosophy, in whole life. Gandhiji advocated total prohibition. I do not know any body in File industry or society where you and othesr like you come from practice it. You make fun of it.
He stood for village industry, it is all forgotten. In fact real murderer of gandhi are Congressman, Communist and other celebrities like you. You can talk about relevance of philosophy while making fun of others.
First start prohibition, encorage village industry, then remaining things will become relevant by itself.

Nandita,

You need to understand that you cannot be selective while applying phiolsaphy. When you talk about Gandhi's philosophy, you only talk about what is convinient to you, while making fun of others.

Dear Sootradharji ,
Whose English is it? The Autobiography was written in Gujarati and the translation was not done by Mahatma himself.
Even http://www.karaditales.com/articles-expwithtruth.html does not mention the translator. Please mention his name with due respect.

From Wiki:

The only English translation of The Story of My Experiments with Truth was done by Gandhi's friend and assistant Mahadev Desai. By modern standards Desai's translation is flowery and liberal, turning passages such as "Everyone should fast and stop work" into "Let all the people of India, therefore, suspend their business on that day and observe the day as one of fasting and prayer." It also bowdlerises the original in places.

Mahadev Desai (1892—1942), a journalist, was born in 1892 in the Surat district of Gujarat state in India. He graduated from the Bombay University with B.A. (first class), majoring in Philosophy and Logic. This was followed by a Law degree, and in 1915 he qualified as a lawyer.

Owing to his love for literature and to support his education, Mahadev Desai elected to translate John Morley's book On Compromise into Gujarati language in a competition for best Gujarati translation sponsored by Forbes Gujarati Sabha (See: Alexander Kinloch Forbes). After winning the prize, he went to meet with Gandhi (who returned to India in 1915) in Ahmedabad to seek his advice. Some authorities, however, suggest that Desai met with Gandhi in relation with a letter that the former has sent expressing his views and criticism on Gandhi's proposed ashram in Ahmedabad. Anyhow, this was their first meeting, and in November 1917, Mahadev Desai decided to join Gandhi on a full-time basis – an intimate association that lasted for nearly 25 years until the early death of Desai in 1942.

In Verrier Elwin's words:

“ ... [Mahadev Desai] was much more than [Gandhi's official secretary]. He was in fact Home and Foreign Secretary combined. He managed everything. He made all the arrangements. He was equally at home in the office, the guest-house and the kitchen. He looked after many guests and must have saved 10 years of Gandhi's life by diverting from him unwanted visitors...."

What a good idea, Irv. resurrect some of the more interesting threads.

You are Genius.....never a dull moment. Your ideas are legion.

Thanks Irvine.No thanks Ed.Sootradhaar and Shekhar should get publicity for this but Mahadev Desai should not get any credit ! दुनिया बहुत स्वार्थी और संकीर्ण हो गयी है !

Should we consult a famous contemporary translator of our time whether the Audio book should mention the name of the translator ?

I believe that long before men or women were portrayed to earth, 'The' "Ideas" were prevalent and it still does.

There are no good Ideas or bad ones. It is only that the Ideas which govern other ideas are manipulative. It is Ideas that create The Big Bangs and make a Big Crunches.

As is the case of violence and non-violence. One era saw that the Idea called violence flourished and another part saw its counterpart flourishing.

I personally believe in the Le-Chatelier's principle.

"If a system at equilibrium is disturbed by changing one of its environment's variables, then the system will readjust itself in such a way so as to nullify the effect of that change."

Every system be it politics, spirituality, mind, or body each one follows this unwritten rule. They readjusts by means of ideas. The ideas that can destroy or create (Or in other words Ideas are bulletproof: V for vendetta)

I have always felt that the system has in-built chaos mechanisms.

I consider Mahatma as one of those adjustment or more specifically one of the "Ideas" made by the system in order to nullify the effect of an unwanted change.