By Deepa Majumdar

Dedicated to all meek soldiers of non-violence.

Yet another anniversary of the assassination of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (Gandhiji) (1869-1948) has passed by … On Jan 30, 1948, Nathuram Godse, a Hindu fanatic, shot Gandhiji point blank, his being the sixth assassination attempt against Gandhi. It is once again Jan 30, a somber day … and the world is, to say the least, no less violent. If anything, the more sophisticated our technology becomes, the more sophisticated are our forms of violence. Yet, sophistication in itself can be a moot point. For, notwithstanding the technological gulf that separates a drone attack from a beheading, and despite the difference in the scale of violence pertinent to each, they become equated at the level of hatred in the human heart. It is in the context of this mindless hatred … whether in Syria, or in Afghanistan … whether domestic, or public … whether towards humans or towards the world of animals and plants … that Mahatma Gandhi … the meek soldier of non-violence and India’s gift to the world … must be invoked.

The significance of a Mahatma, or Great Soul lies not so much in his personal moral grandeur … but in how other perceive him. Often we perceive those who are great with adolescent rebellion … seeking perfection in them … seeking to belittle them … pointing to their flaws … But a mature soul, who neither eulogizes, nor finds faults, approaches the Great Soul with equanimity. She avoids as well the cynical egotism of the west, where the “critical thinker” is supposed to find fault … to never admire moral greatness in anyone (barring activists and intellectuals). Instead, such a mature soul perceives moral greatness with independence … seeking neither an object of adulation, nor one of revulsion. She perceives with objectivity … not expecting perfection … overlooking faults … expressing admiration and gratitude for the virtues in the Great Soul … all the more if she happens to lack these qualities.

In the case of Mahatma Gandhi, the flaws are not difficult to find. For Gandhi, like St. Augustine of Hippo, was a confessional soul. I admire such souls because they have the courage to admit their faults. They put these in writing, for all of posterity to see. Gandhi is to be admired for his frank self portrait … After all, he called himself a “scoundrel.” As a woman it is hard for me to forget his patriarchal flaws. But as a human being I admire his admission of these flaws, his astute understanding of the virtue of chastity and its relevance to the performance of great work, and his maturation process … from jealous husband to an idealistic/ascetic feminist. I find far greater wisdom in his type of feminism than in today’s rights laden, blind, worldly, body conscious feminism that runs the risk of degrading men. I admire Gandhiji’s qualities, because I know I do not possess the courage to confess my flaws in writing for all posterity to see.

But more than this, I admire Gandhiji for two reasons … for his elegant synthesis of religion and politics and for his actions of non-violence. Gandhi presents us with a sophisticated theology that becomes imperative to his type of political action. Indeed he can say with confidence, “… those who say that religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion means” because he defines religion in its mystical essence: “By religion, I do not mean formal religion, or customary religion, but that religion which underlies all religions, which brings us face to face with our Maker.” The sophistication of his theology begins with his philosophical definition (based on contemplative experience) of the Divine as Truth itself … that Truth for the sake of which he was prepared to jump off a mountain. Moreover, it is in Gandhi’s sophisticated understanding of Truth that we find an enlightened definition of democracy. Truth is but one, Gandhi asserts, but many are the perspectives of it … and we must tolerate the less mature perspectives … in this lies a hidden democracy, as far as I can see. Even the atheist, Gandhi asserts, is pursuing Truth, from his perspective and at his level of maturation.

Gandhi’s idealism is drawn from his mystical assertion that the divine is radically omnipresent. For Gandhi’s God is advaitic or non-dual … for God is the only Reality, or “God alone is” … Yet, despite this “absolute oneness” of God … … despite this radical monism, or perhaps because of it … this “indefinable, mysterious Power” is perfectly ubiquitous. It “pervades everything,” resides in “our hearts,” cannot be found “apart from humanity” and is radically omnipresent. For, the “forms are many, but the informing spirit is one.” Indeed it is this conception of the Divine as radically monistic and totally ubiquitous that prompts Gandhi to say, “to see the universal and all-pervading spirit of Truth face to face one must be able to love the meanest of creation as oneself.” It is this vision of the Divine that leads him to find his own vocation as a Servant of Humanity. It is this vision that enables him to integrate religion with morality (“true religion and true morality are inseparably bound up with each other”) in a manner that would leave the fundamentalist nonplussed. It is this vision that enables him to integrate religion with politics. And it is in this context that Varnashrama (not j?ti) must be understood as something entirely distinct from the petrified caste system (j?ti) that stands as its gross caricature. For unlike the latter, which ignores human nature, the former asserts the reality that human beings are fundamentally different in their essential natures … so much so that for each individual, there exists a specific vocation (not the petrified caste occupations dictated by lineage) suited to his inmost nature. If Plato divided humanity into lovers of money, lovers of honor, and lovers of wisdom, organizing his Republic along these “caste” rules, then so did the system of Varnashrama, many centuries before Plato. It is therefore hardly the case that because Gandhi was realistic enough to recognize meaningful differences in people, that he defended the horrible caste system. His not-so-veiled criticisms of the ugly side of Hindu orthodoxy are clear enough in his writings. It is utterly contradictory to Gandhiji’s assertion of radical monism (drawn from enlightened Hinduism) … that God is the only reality … to subscribe to the petrified and divisive caste system that essentializes caste hierarchy. Gandhi follows in the footsteps of a long line of great Hindus who have protested the caste system from within the religion and in a mystical fashion … after envisioning the Divine as Absolute Love. After all Gandhiji extended his use of the virtue of ahimsa, or non-violence, even to insects: “Complete non-violence is complete absence of ill will against all that lives. It therefore embraces even sub-human life not excluding noxious insects or beasts.”

Gandhiji was able to articulate the highest vision of politics ever … a politics synthesized with mysticism, or a numinous politics … a politics of Love and courage … a politics of radical forgiveness … precisely because he understood the omnipresence and absolute monism of the Divine. He could therefore say with confidence, “we are out to be killed without killing. We have stipulated to go to prison without feeling angry or injured … Even a Nero becomes a lamb when he faces love.” He could assert with confidence, “If I am a follower of ahimsa, I must love my enemy … ” As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. understood so well, Gandhi was the first person to demonstrate that Jesus’ injunction of “love thy enemy” could be practiced by groups.

In the end I admire Gandhiji because he was able to do something I cannot as yet … to take physical blows upon his own frail body, without hitting back physically or mentally … without experiencing hatred for the enemy. For, his was a politics of sacrifice and duties … not of isolated rights. I am grateful to him and to other freedom fighters for their courageous sacrifices that brought about a free India. For me Gandhiji remains one of the key Fathers of the Nation – for multiple reasons – but primarily because he executed an exemplary ethics of protest that won India the admiration of the world.

By Sondip Bhattacharya

The likes of Mayawati and Ram Vilas Paswan pounce on one of the country’s finest academics and long- standing friend of the Dalits, one who has consistently spoken up for the disempowered, the lower castes and the marginalised. The call for Ashis Nandy’s arrest for atrocities against the Dalits is perhaps a fitting tribute to the confused Indian republic on Republic Day. It shows how pathetic our populist pursuit of politics is, and underlines how we have failed to protect freedom of thought and expression that our Constitution guarantees. Over the years, we have grown used to being attacked for expressing our views. The dominant, empowered lot — like the Hindutva brigade — resort to vandalism, the chosen weapon of the morally weak and ideologically decrepit. From film theatres to art galleries, publications to libraries, every space for public debate is attacked by hooligans just because someone disagrees with an idea, an argument or an image. Very often, these vandals belong to a political party and are protected by the powers- that- be. Thus, simple criminality turns into a complex political game of power that erodes our democratic rights. The disempowered, thankfully, do not resort to vandalism. But they choose powerful weapons nevertheless, weapons they have been given to fight wicked monsters, to protect themselves from evil demons waiting to pounce. The weaker sections, like certain sections of Dalits and STs and OBCs, choose to hit out with laws. Thus the violent suppression of ideas we do not wish to encounter increasingly rules our public space. And it is such a knee- jerk reaction that we don’t even stop to hear or understand what is being aired. It does not matter, as long as there is a big protest, as long as certain political leaders get to flex their muscles, mobilise their supporters, feel energised, and get their 15 seconds of fame.

Against this background, it is unjust that his comment at the 2013 Jaipur Literary Festival stating that “people belonging to OBC, SC and ST communities are the most corrupt” should turn controversial. The reaction of the BSP supremo, Ms. Mayawati, the LJP leader Ram Vilas Paswan and politicians from all other political parties is politically understandable. The disproportionate and monumental wealth amassed by them and many others is an open secret. Filing of criminal case and invoking the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act needs to be condemned. The Dalit activists need to understand that Nandy is strongly hitting out at corruption and raising the voice to protect the Dalit from falling a prey to many of their leaders whose mind, heart and lifestyle has totally alienated from their cause.

The statement is neither casteist nor in any way maligns Dalits and OBCs. It is definitely nasty to the few corrupt belonging to these communities. It is true that corrupt people are in all communities. Greed and exploitation knows no caste or religion. The forward castes or classes and more particularly the Brahmins have received a beating from Dalit politicians, thrashing from progressive intellectuals and black branding from social activists for corruption, exploitation and following the philosophy of exclusion. In fact, not a day goes without a stone being hurled at the forward castes despite the fact that a major section of the forwarded castes today practise renunciation from the unjust and unfair practices of the past. It is not just Nandy but many social thinkers have rightly observed that the ‘Brahmanical’ tendencies have gripped the “advantaged forward sections” amongst the OBCs, SCs and STs. The lavish and prodigal lifestyle of persons belonging to these communities who have got hold of executive, administrative and political power would put the erstwhile Brahmins to shame. Usurpation of lands, real estate deals, extortion and demands for kickbacks has led to the emergence of a handful few Dalit lords surrounded by a sea of Dalits living on subsistence. Feudalism in a reformed form and hero-worship of the absolutely undeserving is gaining ground in these backward communities. It is observed that those who have gained power have amassed fortunes through the same methodology as the officials of the much maligned forward classes. Nandy has not said anything wrong or blasphemous. It may not be politically right but definitely not factually erroneous.

Politicians of all shades will stab their communities stealthily and at the same time use the community label as a shield to protect themselves. Hence, any criminal proceeding or even an unpalatable comment on a Dalit politician would be projected as an insult or attack on the community. The few beneficiaries will also use the community tag as a ladder to move up in the executive and political hierarchy. This is natural and unavoidable. To a large extent, this approach is also acceptable. But, what should be castigated are illegality and the failure to espouse the causes and aspirations of the dispossessed with commitment for upliftment of the majority in the community. The landlords and corrupted beneficiaries belonging to the SC/ST community should not be spared.

Just as the Congress party leadership has desecrated Mahatma Gandhi, the Dalit top management has defiled Ambedkar and Jyotiba. No issue on this with the BJP since it is their dharma to decimate these leaders through slow poisoning. The Dalit leadership will trample upon the teachings and principles of their idols but will raise a hue and cry on fleeting aspects such as statutes, paintings and writings. Kamal Hassan’s Vishwaroopam, a thriller film, is under attack from similar leadership holding sway over the Muslim community. It would be wrong to consider this as resurgence of the underprivileged and minorities. This is decadence and attempts to take these segments for a jolly good ride to serve the personal and selfish interests of a few leaders. The community as a whole is destined to lose more freedom and opportunities of social development as long as they remain in the clutches of such self-centred leaders. This small group in the community will reap gains by keeping the community away from the mainstream.

Probably, corruption is a phase of transition in the backward classes and scheduled communities. The opening of access to political, economic and governmental opportunities generates sharp inequity in a community. Initially, the benefits are cornered by a few forward amongst the backward. These beneficiaries emerge as the nouveau riche and in their bid to retain their power resist further redistribution and advancement of others in the community. INAV