Mahatma Gandhi articulated his sva-dharma ("my dharma") using a few key Sanskrit words that do not have an exact English equivalent. One of these is satya, his practice of truth. Unlike truth in the Western sense, satya is not an intellectual proposition but a way of life which has to be actualized and embodied directly by each person. There is no place for the reification or codification of satya, because truth is not held in some book or set of laws; it lives in oneself, and cannot be separated from oneself. This philosophical distinction is at the heart of Gandhi's dharma.
He insisted that satya-graha, or "truth-struggle," is a civil disobedience method that has to be individually lived, as opposed to being theorized or institutionalized. Later, this method inspired the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s civil rights movement in the U.S. as well as revolutions in South Africa, Poland and elsewhere. He not only advocated a sustainable society, he lived sustainably. The Gandhi library in Delhi contains the sum total of all of his personal belongings: his glasses, a pair of sandals, a pen and a few dhotis.
Another fundamental component of his dharma is captured in the term ahimsa, which is translated too simply as "nonviolence" but is not the same as the common idea of "pacifism." It is much larger. Himsa means harming, and ahimsa means non-harming. Harming the environment is himsa, as per the very deep dharmic idea that all nature is sacred. Harming animals is also himsa, and so vegetarianism is an important quality of ahimsa. Gandhi argued that vegetarianism has a lower impact on the environment than a meat diet, and hence a vegetarian society is more eco-sustainable than a carnivorous one. The modern eco-feminism movement was galvanized by Gandhi's ideals brought to America in the 1960s.
To achieve ahimsa requires enormous activity, including confrontation, such as he used while challenging the mighty British Empire that caused himsa on a large scale. Paradoxically, it takes a fighter to actualize ahimsa. Gandhi was such a fighter. He is falsely depicted as "passive" and non-threatening. In fact, he was audacious, outspoken (what we today call "politically incorrect"), and refused to be appropriated by anyone.
Ahimsa also applies to cultures taken as a whole. Cultural genocide is the systematic and complete elimination or suppression of the native religion, language, dress, way of life, customs and/or symbols of one people by another. Even though the people in question might be given material benefits through humanitarian aid, education and medical facilities, it is still himsa if there is systematic destruction of their identity, sense of history, ideas of ancestry and relationship with nature. This kind of himsa goes on today under the name of "development." In the United Nations laws of genocide, the phrase "cultural genocide" was dropped from the earlier drafts.
Gandhi fully understood cultural violence and often talked about it. He believed that cultural difference is not to be erased but celebrated, another old dharmic idea. The universe is built on diversity. In fact, that is what the word "uni-verse" means: the many-in-one. Every species has sub species and sub-sub species and this nesting of diversity goes on and on. Cultural homogeneity is therefore unnatural and unfeasible. There should not be one single religion or way of life. Everyone should have his or her own sva-dharma depending on personal circumstances and tendencies.
Gandhi fought against cultural colonization as much as against its material and political manifestations. Although he was not against Christianity (and in fact often quoted Jesus), he opposed Christian missionaries in India. He said they should only do selfless work and not convert people. If they desired to run a school or hospital, or give the poor food, these things should not become a tool for conversion.
Embodying the principle of diversity, he wore a traditional dhoti, went barefoot and bare-chested and felt comfortable sitting on the floor. Even when he went to England in 1931 and King George V held a reception in his honor at Buckingham Palace, he wore the same frayed sandals that carried him on his famous march of civil disobedience to defy the British law banning Indians from making salt. He spoke in simple village language and lived with the poorest people, accentuating his different aesthetics from the elites.
Yet another Sanskrit term that Gandhi emphasized was svadesi, meaning "from the soil," a native product, similar to the "buy local" movement which is now fashionable in the West. The preference for local production and seasonal eating was based on the ideal of ahimsa. Svadesi is better for the environment and for the health of individuals because they are acclimatized to local things and have a relationship with the natural setting in which they live. Svadesi entails eating locally grown food, wearing locally made clothes and, where possible, buying locally made goods. He produced his own cloth, milked his own goat, etc.
He advocated a dharmic society based on traditional decentralized governance built from the bottom-up at the village level. This conflicted directly with the top-down British system. Western approaches to human rights also operate in a top-down power structure in which the political activists, aid workers and NGOs with access to global media and funding are positioned as agents, and take "the burden" and responsibility of others' agency upon themselves. This approach is incompatible with the ideal of empowering the people for their own truth-struggle.
Ahimsa is not something merely to be talked about or legislated; it must be lived by every individual. This requires bottom-up social activism whereby the people themselves embody the change they want to see in the world. Hence, one must have a functional, sustainable society in which the people at the bottom are free to embody their satya. It was for this reason, and not just as an end in itself, that he demanded swaraj or self-rule from the British.
Self-rule is thus much more than mere political independence and involves both "freedom to" and "freedom from." In the West, freedom is conceived as freedom to own a car, to travel, to shop, to speak. In other words, it is extroverted. But such a pursuit does not produce freedom from anger, or from desire, jealousy, habits and compulsions. In the latter notion, one is free from the conditioned self or ego. Gandhi always worked toward personally embodying this state of freedom from internal and external dependencies.
He frequently explained that there was indeed a deep ideological clash of civilizations between Britain and India. The unsustainability of British industrialization was prominent among his concerns, making him arguably the first modern proponent of sustainability. He was troubled that the ever increasing consumption in an industrial economy depletes the natural resources and destroys the self-sustaining villages which comprise India's social fabric.
When he turned his attention to the British way of life, criticizing its exploitative practices, hierarchies and industrial consumerism, he was "reversing the gaze" -- quite provocatively -- on another civilization. In the dharma traditions, this kind of informed analysis of another worldview is called purva-paksha. His short book Hind Swaraj (Indian Self-Rule), published a century ago, is a magnificent example of purva-paksha directed toward the British Empire. It examines colonialism from an Indian perspective, including criticism of those Indian elites who had joined hands with the British.
He took the Bhagavad Gita's notion of kurukshetra (battlefield) and lived his dharma in terms of the battles to be fought. Unfortunately, after his death, many of his ideas were translated so completely as to lose their original nuance of meaning. In this way, Gandhi has been domesticated, replaced with "Gandhism." Many so-called "Gandhians" do not embody the truth-struggle and are part of centralized power structures. This is himsa to Gandhi.
Gandhi, ahimsa, shanti, dharma, love in action, service, karma yoga
My Varnashrama Dharma by Mahatma Gandhi - Reviews, Discussion ...
I can understand how some would think that he was "blackmailing" by encouraging a way of life. If we think of all people that are outspoken as blackmailers then we have no leaders, no one to represent mankind's best interest. For evolutions sake who will bring us to agreement on anything if it isn't spoken?
I think modern "improvement" creates a kind of dependancy & destruction of natural resources. Maybe that is what he didn't want for us all & that doesn't sound so bad. Again it is our decision (personal truth), but admittedly improvement does white wash over culture. It is our choice (personal truth) but I think it was Gandhi pointing out where "improvement" usually leads. He probably watched in his life time a peace & independence lost by industrialization.
There has to be a modern way to integrate convenience into healthy living without the squandering of natural resources. We absolutely have the ability to help the poor live healthy lives without monetary dependence. Look at Heifer International- a great example.
His term "svadharma" could mean either "one's own duty" or "one's nature". His use of the term "satyagraha" or "exertion or, literally, "agraha" or "enthusiasm," or "eagerness" for truth has to be construed as either a moral exercise for self-improvement or an ideological-political principle for "determination" or "resolve" to persis in one's belief. In all this we cannot insert any meaning of "dharma" standing for "religion." Gandhi's sparse outfit which brutalized the British sensibility of Sir Winston Churchill was a political/ideological "costume" representing the poor majority, that is, "true India". Gandhi's entire career was that of righteous patriot rather than that of religious enthusiast or fanatic.
Cheers!
Narasingha Sil
May 27, 2011
http://www.dailypioneer.com/338673/Questioning-the-Mahatma.html
"Rama had Vasishtha, Chandragupta had Chanakya, Shivaji had Ramdas, but Gandhi never solicited the guidance of any Hindu rajguru. By contrast, in his long formative years, he read Christian authors and welcomed the advice of Christian clergymen. This way, he imbibed many monotheistic prejudices against ‘heathen’ Hinduism, to the point that in 1946 he insisted for the new temple on the BHU campus not to contain an “idol”."
" Gandhi made a caricature of Hinduism by presenting his own whimsical conduct as quintessentially Hindu, such as the rejection of technological progress, maintaining sexual abstinence even within marriage and, most consequentially, extreme non-violence under all circumstances. This concept owed more to Jesus — “turning the other cheek” — than to Hindu-Buddhist ahimsa. He managed to read his own version of non-violence into the Bhagavad Gita, which centres on Krishna rebuking Arjuna for showing Gandhian passivity. ."
"However, once educated SC people started coming up and speaking for themselves, his response became abusive. Thus, a letter is reproduced in which the Mahatma with chilling pedantry belittles an admiring Constituent Assembly candidate from the scavengers’ caste for his “bookish English” and because “the writer is a discontented graduate”. Gandhi further insults him when he says that “I fear he does no scavenging himself” and thus “he sets a bad example” to other scavengers.
I for one have tried and was succeessfull with some of my "experiments with truth" in areas of liqour, cigarrettes, meat but not so successfull in other areas.
In "The Audacity of Difference" book, I explicitly address this very issue. Demanding sanskrit for the discourse is not feasible at least in the immediate future.
So I identify certain NON-TRANSLATABLE words in sanskrit that should be added to English and not translated. These words contain a huge metaphysics, cosmology, context, etc which is inseparable from them. Control the discourse through these critical terms of reference. If permitted by the editors I want to post blogs here on each such word. The problem is that a critique of the western equivalent idea is UNAVOIDABLE if one wants to explain the value and uniqueness of such a word.
The real challenge is to train dharmic scholars to understand the multi-faceted western thought, and not over-simplify it into a few slogans and lots of emotions. Every guru and other dharmic leader I know is very superficial in their understanding of western thought. That's why we don't have purva-paksha on our terms, and such leaders end up escaping the embarrassment (of ignorance) by resorting to "everything is the same" or some other foolish stance.
I agree with you that demanding Sanskrit without having a strong hold among the uttarapakṣas(within Indic) these days, makes English the only viable option. Yes! the best is to use Sanskrit term as it with it's all linguistic merits.
The problem with Dhārmic scholars attitude towards understanding of western thought is the belief that reading their culture degrades our knowledge. This might even be true for many self proclaimed scholars lack skills to interpret even the core Dhārmic ideas and adding western thought might lead to a dangerous paradox - "alpa buddhiḥ bhayaṅkari" (Little knowledge is dangerous) situation.
And for remaining ones, the literature that needs to be consumed for this type of discourse is vast given the width and depth that he must master. It needs time and devotion to argumentatively refute the pūrvapakṣa, but today that's difficult as many are under a siege of secularism, poverty(scholars are poor by design) etc.
- sheer laziness
- fast-buck, and get famous with little solid foundation
- awe of the west
-
Gandhi's understanding was consistent with Hindu understanding of life of recognising autonomy of an individual and hence diversity.
Hinduism is about practices and not about books. If one refers text like that by Manu or any other author and limit Hinduism to only that then it is likely that one would draw wrong conclusions.
Understanding Gandhi and Hinduism requires wider perspective. I hope people would adopt unconventional approach to understand Gandhi. This article will be certainly useful for those you want to understand Indian reality.
Nevertheless, I do not presume to say much about Gandhiji authoritatively, simply because have not studied enough of his writings. I hope that Mr. Malhotra is correctly reporting Gandhiji when he writes sva-dharma as "my dharma". I invite him to expand on this and talk about what Gandhiji meant by my dharma.
Sva-dharma does not mean "my dharma" in traditional sense. The defiinition of sva-dharma is svabhava-niyata-dharma, i.e., dharma regulated by svabhava. It is related to varnashrama dharma, but not the same thing. I could explain the subject if anybody wants, but this place does not look very scholarship friendly to me.
Made me wonder what effects the philos. & actions of Gandhi and others are having on what's going on in the so-called 'Arab Spring'.
Might be a timely subject for you to explore in a future blog, Rajiv.
Part 1:
I DO NOT agree with Gandhi on Islam and Pakistan at all. Unfortunately many Indians today wish south asia would be reunited, i.e. reverse the partition. I am against that. That would be like a healthy man eating a cancer. Indian would get talibanized and turned into a bigger version of Pakistan. In fact, India should make clear that it WOULD NOT ACCEPT SUCH A REUNIFICATION even if Pak begged for it.
I also DO NOT agree with Gandhi on his anti-industrialization policy. He was right at that time that britain used industry to dominate others. But thats not true today and wont be in the future. Also the environmentalism imperative should become part of the industrialization policy, not in opposition.
Here's what I DO LIKE about Gandhi. I like the way he did purva-paksha of the West. That is what I try to do today - to a very different kind of west. I find that most gurus and civic leaders are simply ignorant about western civilization, when asked they claim that it does not matter. This kind of lofty other-worldliness is escapist. This is why I use the work purva-paksha a lot before gurus, as thats our tradition and nothing un-dharmic about doing it. Sri Krishna does a solid purva-paksha of the battlefield.
Part of Gandhi's purva-paksha was his use of certain Sanskrit categories that he wanted to keep un-translated. The idea is not to study the other by losing one's selfhood. Too many Sanskrit words have become translated into banal English substitutes and hence we have lost a great deal of our tradition. I am not saying stop using English. I am saying we should introduce certain Sanskrit words into it in their pure form.
I also admire that Gandhi walked the walk, not just talked the talk. Simple living is more sustainable than the automobile culture Indians are becoming proud of, because of the habit of imitation - thereby increasing dependence on imported oil.
Most USEFUL of all Gandhi elements, I feel the Gandhi vs. Nehru clash has not been brought out enough. It is Nehru who destroyed post-independence India because he wanted to get the Nobel Peace Prize (which he never did). Unfortunately some of our mega-gurus are chasing the same dream and ending up diluting their message just to impress others.
If the Gandhi/Nehru clash were brought it would make undermine the Eurocentric Indians who dominate India today. Use Gandhi's critique of Nehruvianism to critique present-day Nehruvianism.
You really haven't adddressed the historical Gandhi at all. Isn't it important to address Gandhi actions against Blacks in Africa when you yourself proclaim to write about notion of truth? I mean where is the truth and 'Satya" for Gandhi?
Gandhi was the Sargent-Major in British Army participated in four wars in his life. How was he then a non-violent follower of "Ahimsa" as you put it?
In S Africa, Gandhi campaigned for Aparthied against Blacks and addressed Black people as sub-humans during his campaign of "satya-graha''. Where is the truth about this in your article?
What is the reason for Gandhi's hatred for Blacks?
Lastly, how does Gandhi admiration of Bhagwat Gita correlates to his purported nature of non-violence when Gita condones violence in protection of Dharma of Caste?
Evidence?
"addressed Black people as sub-humans during his campaign of "satya-graha''.
Proof?
What am I saying? If you had proof of anything, you would have given it ages ago Vachoa. Instead, you simply drop in, crap a little and run away without any basis for your bile.
BTW: When you mention this pūrvapakṣādi debate ? You have always illustrated that pūrvapakṣi were Buddhist, Vedanti etc ? Who were uttarapakṣi in those examples ?
What is needed is multitude of bloggers and authors using Indian English to inform the West. Indian English that uses enough Sanskrit (not more or not less, just adequate) to convey the true essence of Indic thoughts.
"Humanianity" is correct, however. See http://www.humanianity.com if you are interested.
The Harijan dated May 11, 1935 published an interview given by Gandhiji to a missionary nurse before that date. The nurse asked him, would you prevent missionaries coming to India in order to baptize? Gandhiji replied, If I had power and could legislate, I would certainly stop all proselytizing. It is the cause of much avoidable conflict between classes and unnecessary heart-burning among the missionaries.
a living being(and not just human beings). If non-violence increase passivity, weakness of heart,and destructive forces, then its worse than violence. Violence is required when there is need to protect an environment where such spiritual principles are nurtured among people. Non-violence will not be of any use in such situation. Some views hold that it was Gandhi's passive idea of non-violence that led Jinnah to become more demanding of a separate state. If our leaders would have been more firm in dealing, we might have not seen a divided India.
However, Gandhi's views on industrialization and economy are still relevant in an age characterized by environmental and ethical degradation. In his view, an ideal civilization was one which was self-sufficient,and produced men of high character. Unfortunately, these views were neither shared or integrated in policies formulated by his contemporaries who became the political masters of India. On the other hand, the idea of non-violence, although self-destructive, led them to make a passive defense and diplomatic policy which led to a near-debacle of India in the China war of 1962.
So, Bhagwat Gita in essence advocates violence to protect the Caste-Dharma..right? And Gandhi was a lover of Bhagwat Gita and its protection of Dharma of caste with violence. How does that make Gandhi non-violent?
So, when you say "ethical degenration" "non-violence"etc - it seems to be a really Hindu sense of non-violence , one which could be violence.
Your keyword-laden trollery will not work Vachoa.
Sadly, ahimsa (a.k.a. Gandhianism) has come to mean "pacifism", or worse, appeasement. Even a bold stand for high principles is not tolerated by the self-proclaimed, "fanatical" Gandhians in India. Perhaps they need to read this article.