Gandhi – the law of truth

Sep 27, 2009 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Today, we see the use of racial incitement to sustain a predatory political culture in Guyana. Known political operatives, the media, and now hate literature are the main conduits of racial provocation. These nefarious activities come to the fore, albeit in a camouflaged way, in the name of seeking political power.
In the end, we have a political culture embracing the elements of distortion, expediency, and opportunism. Think of these distortions of Guyana’s political history: the distorted labels of fragile state, failed state, and elective dictatorship without appropriate substantive evidence.
Certainly, this is not the way to cultivate a new and evolving political culture of inclusivity; but undoubtedly an effective method to careen a culture of mistrust. Self-interest, not the people’s interests, continues to mar the political life of this nation.

October 2 is Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi’s birthday. And so, given this background in Guyana, I thought it useful to look at a few of Gandhi’s ideas through the eyes of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. And I present these ideas randomly, not for integrative purposes.
Nehru admired Gandhi’s constant focus on the ‘right way’ of doing things; using the correct methods for doing things. Stress on using the right means to achieve ends was one of Gandhi’s great contributions to public life. Where most people think about ends, it seems strange that Gandhi would concentrate on means; but it is an extraordinary way of thinking; thinking linked to the moral law of truth that may have hugely impacted India. Nehru endorsed the use of an ethical or moral perspective on life; and both Nehru and Gandhi sought to infuse this moral law of truth in politics.
Gandhi’s moral approach to problem solving brought a significant new dimension to Indian political behaviour; Nehru observed the moral impact on politics; Nehru noted too the cultural impact on India of a Turkish invasion, an Afghan invasion, and a Turco-Mongol or Mughal invasion; and highlighted ‘purdah’ (seclusion of women) as one new cultural development, among others; ‘purdah’ possibly emerged during the Mughal times.

Isolating women in both public and private life was noticeable in Delhi, the United Provinces, Rajputana, Bihar, and Bengal.
Gandhi spoke out against ‘purdah’; through the Indian Congress Party and with the help of thousands of middle-class women, Gandhi advocated that women should have the same freedom and opportunity for self-development as males; and an end to domestic slavery.
At the beginning of World War I, Pandit Nehru asked “How could we pull India out of this quagmire of poverty and defeatism…?” Nehru captured Gandhi’s answer and teaching, thus: “…He did not descend from the top; he seemed to emerge from the millions of India, speaking their language and incessantly drawing attention to them and their appalling condition.
Get off the backs of these peasants and workers…all you who live by their exploitation; get rid of the system that produces this poverty and misery.”
For Gandhi, the squalor of poverty and the great divide between the rich and the poor owed their existence to foreign rule and foreign exploitation, and capitalism through introduction of technology; Gandhi was not opposed to technology per se, but believed that it should be applied to absorb labour and not produce new unemployment.

To alleviate some poverty, Gandhi devised a programme of the spinning wheel and village industry to address the problem of India – scarcity of capital and abundance of llabour. Gandhi believed that the ends, as profitability from technology, cannot justify the means, as unemployment to attain prosperity; he understood that moral values must first triumph, as the ends cannot substantiate disreputable means, no matter how good the ends are.
But Nehru believed that the real meaning of Gandhi’s teaching was fearlessness and truth with allied action, at all times upholding the welfare of the masses. This was the period of British rule of India, at a time when deep-seated fear stalked the land; fear of the power of British institutions.
Gandhi’s voice on truth and fearlessness brought some change and a psychological reaction that enabled people to feel ashamed about their long capitulation to foreign rule; and indeed the desire to do something about it. And this is true, too, of his nationalism, inevitable for the freedom of India. It always has been the norm that a country will first protect its national interests before it considers the international community’s interests. And Nehru noted that Gandhi’s nationalism deviated from that norm; for the longevity of foreign rule and exploitation in India became an irritant to the mind and distorted all thought and action; producing frustration and bitterness.

But Gandhi’s nationalism had a world outlook; where he visualized a world federation of interdependent states; and Gandhi created a nationalist movement that reduced irritation and animosity that Indians felt against the British. Nehru remarked that he had not seen any other nationalist movement as Gandhi’s, largely devoid of hatred.
Through Nehru’s eyes, we saw how Gandhi’s passion for democracy transformed the Congress Party into a mass movement; becoming an agrarian organisation; how the quantity and quality of benefits the masses receive determine the success of anything; a unique and quiet kind of democracy for the masses, definitively linked to the freedom of India.
The distortions, expediency, and opportunism running haywire in Guyana, clearly, devoid of a Gandhian moral law of truth, will do great damage to the fabric of its democracy and political culture.
Prem Misir

---

---