Who needs Gandhi?

Who needs Gandhi?

Generations to come,"

Albert Einstein, referring to Gandhi, wrote,

"will scarce believe that such a one as this walked

the earth in flesh and blood."

Do we in India share the wonder and awe expressed

by the greatest physicist of our times?

Far from sharing Einstein's thoughts,

a growing number of Indians consider Gandhi

no longer pertinent to today's India with its emphasis

on economic reforms, competition, and globalisation.

For an India

that is emerging as a global power with

its envied growth rate of 8 percent,

and seeking a permanent seat in the UN Security Council,

there is nothing much to gain from harking

back to Gandhi

who served a historical purpose in a specific historical setting.

Since the contention is that Gandhi is not relevant to our times,

let us look closely at the condition of India now.

There are many Indias.

There is the Shining India

that failed to get a ruling party re-elected.

There is the Incredible India used for attracting tourists

from abroad, indeed a legitimate characterization.

There is yet another India

with a growing number of globally recognised rich individuals.

There is an intellectually rich India

making admirable progress in science, technology, and management.

There is a resurgent India with some Indian companies

buying up foreign companies.

There is the Sensex India that responds to the ups

and downs of the New York Stock Exchange

with a predictable conditioned reflex.

Which among the many Indians do

we choose for our discussion?

To choose correctly as we are a democracy

we should ask ourselves about the condition of the

majority of Indians.

If tomorrow India gets into the Security Council

as a permanent member what difference

will it make to the vast majority of Indians?

As pointed out by the Arjun Sengupta Commission

on the unorganised sector,

77 per cent of Indians live on less than Rs 20 a day.

At the bottom of the pyramid are 69 million living on Rs 9 a day.

It follows that for 77 per cent of our people,

our getting into the Security Council

will not make any immediate material difference.

They will not get access to safe drinking water

as a result of our Security Council membership.

The intention of the argument is not to find fault with

the project to get into the Security Council,

but to drive home a simple, obvious, and yet neglected fact.

The 836 million we are talking about

do not take part in sms surveys conducted by TV channels.

However, since we claim to be a democracy,

we have to take note of the opinion of the 77 per cent of us.

Let us ask them whether

Gandhi is relevant to them.

Suppose we tell them of Gandhi's immortal words

meant for those in charge of public policy,

written in 1948 shortly before his assassination:

"I will give you a talisman.

Whenever you are in doubt,

or when the self becomes too much with you,

apply the following test.

Recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man (woman)

whom you may have seen, and ask yourself,

if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him (her).

Will he (she) gain anything by it?

Will it restore him (her) to a control over his (her) own life and destiny?

In other words,

will it lead to swaraj (freedom)

for the hungry and spiritually starving millions?

Then you will find your doubts and your self melt away."

Let us tell them further that

if successive governments and bureaucrats

had kept in mind Gandhi's words while implementing poverty

alleviation schemes the face of India

would not remain disfigured by poverty.

There should not be much doubt as to their reaction.

Is Gandhi relevant to the

rest 23 percent?

To answer this question

let us look at some other aspects of the

Indian society and polity today.

We are proud to be the largest democracy on the face of the earth.

Our electorate at 671 million is more than

twice the population of USA.

By and large we have conducted elections

peacefully and the voter participation

at 60 percent in 2004 has been much higher than in many older

Western democracies.

As we look around,

the part that got separated from India in 1947

has sadly failed to build a democratic polity.

But,

the quality of our democracy leaves

much to be desired.

Criminals get elected again and again.

Individuals against whom credible corruption charges

have been made are able to go scot-free.

The business of the parliament and of the

state legislatures often gets interrupted

on account of deliberate disruption caused by members

who rush to the well of the house despite repeated pleas

from the chair.

Again ,

for any one who cares about such matters,

Gandhi is relevant.

He taught and practiced values in politics.

So,

the percentage of Indians for

whom Gandhi matters goes up from 77 percent.

If we want to build a better India,

true to the eloquent words

in the preamble to our constitution,

we need to remember and practice

what Gandhi stood for.

He urged us to be truthful,

to be fearless, to be serious in our purpose,

and to be non-violent.

His economic philosophy had elements in it that need modification.

He did not believe that a state can be non-violent

as conceptually the state is based on violence.

But, that does not mean that state should not

do its utmost to reduce the level of violence it resorts to.

As Gandhi

put it violence begets counter violence

and if you apply the principle of

an eye for an eye the whole world will be blind.

We, therefore,

conclude that for all of us in India

who want a better India, Gandhi is relevant.

Is Gandhi relevant only to us in India?

Take the case of terrorism and the unsuccessful global war on terrorism.

The war is unsuccessful mainly because

if X number of terrorists are killed,

more than X number of terrorists replace them,

as pointed out by Rumsfeld.

Gandhi ,if he were present,

would have told us that terrorists did not come

from another planet;

they are misguided men from among us;

we have to talk to them and find out what their concerns are;

to the extent they are legitimate,

they have to be dealt with.

Gandhi would not have expected the state not to use

counter violence against terrorists,

but

he would have cautioned the state about the limited

usefulness and the risks in doing that.

Gandhi

would have pointed out that there is need

for a civilisational dialogue between the West and Islam.

There is no doubt at all that he would have condemned terrorism,

but he would not have stopped at condemnation.

We conclude that for all human beings

who want a better world Gandhi is relevant.

It is not that there are ready made Gandhian solutions

to every problem.

But

there is much in Gandhi that makes good sense.

He is to be understood and acted upon and not to be worshipped.

As Gandhi put it,

"I have nothing

to teach the world.

Truth and non-violence

are as old as the hills."