India; enouncing the word
itself will cause goose bumps to many of us. For ‘outsiders’ it is a unique
phenomenon kindling interest among laymen, scholars, leaders and researchers
alike. From an object of ridicule and skepticism about its existence per se India
has become an entity of awe and grandeur. All these said and done India has
been a nation in making for decades and it will remain so for decades.
If we notice keenly we can
observe a coherent trajectory the nation had followed from its strong
foundation. There were many noble founders of the modern India. A nation will
give birth to great leaders during its own genesis or crisis. In turn the
leaders will make the nation, a pious circle of fecundity. It is evident for
anyone looking at the south Asian nations to the least that the foundation is
so important from which there will hardly be much absolute deviation. Hence,
amidst the region of instability and political chaos India remains a democratic
oasis.
The nation making which set
off during 19th century since the Bengal renaissance became so enormous during the first half of 20th century. The journey of our
Independence movement was not just to oust British but also to utilize a great
opportunity therein. The greater purpose was perceived ‘among others’ by a man
who engineered his own novel methods to attain the same. The man was Mr. Gandhi
and the methods are history. No, this article is not penned around him or his
methods. The following is about different approaches of the diverse leadership
which advertently became part of nation making. What I mentioned as the greater
purpose was imparting political and social discipline in the masses and training
them for democracy.
During the struggle for
independence we could see different ways of fighting against injustice. Diverse
ideologies had clashed with one another whilst fighting with their common foe
and they exerted pulls from different directions. The nation moved in the
resultant direction.
Any nation which is determined
to fight for its cause has to tread through the path of ‘aggression’. But the
violence (aggression) not necessarily has to be a physical one. In this article
I’m juxtaposing the ‘level’ (or kind) of aggression followed by different
leaders of the time. In a way I’m pondering over causal historic linkage that
could be the reason for people’s attitudes of today regarding the ‘right’ way
of aggression.
The articulation is
seemingly important in this time when one section is glorifying Mr. Godse by
erecting his statue, spearheading suppressive attitude against free speech,
glorifying violence in the name of valour and lot more. The beauty of democracy
is that it relies on human reasoning and hence, over time progressive and
liberal thoughts sustain amidst continuing ideological rivalry. But the
trajectory depends on which thought we ‘commons’ are embracing not just as a
personal opinion but also collectively through literature, films, political
leadership etc.
It’s too much introduction
huh. Let us enter into the theme now. Whenever I see the national leaders as in
the above picture I’m seeing not just faces but different ideological
attitudes. We could roughly arrange their methodologies in a sequence based on theirviolence’ content.
To start with, let us
consider the famous and vigorous patriots of the time; Mr. Bhagat Singh,
Sukhdev and their comrades who took the revolutionary path of arms and daringly
fought the gallant British. They showed unflinching courage against the British
and devotion towards the nation. Despite ‘the Majesty’ viewing these people as
terrorists fighting against their ‘own’ government these men fought to liberate
millions. Though the courage and selfless sacrifice is to be honoured the
approach has to be questioned. Even many of the cadres themselves opined
against ‘individual terrorism’ and proposed for ‘united mass action’ in their
later days.
Ironically Mr. Bhagat
Singh and his comrades became national heroes not after their murder of a
police inspector in Lahore or after throwing bombs in the Legislative Assembly
in New Delhi but during their practice of hunger strikes and non-violent civil
disobedience within the walls of Lahore’s prisons in 1929–30. His Assembly Bomb
Statement put forth revolution as “the one which did not mean the cult of the
bomb and the pistol; it meant that the injustice inherent in the present order
of things had to end.”
[Disclaimer: The axes won’t intersect
at zero, of course. It’s my lack of creativity or time I stopped perfecting itJ]
The trio Lal, Bal, and Pal
forms the next bead in our string. These great fighters were revolutionary in
action and had no belief in ‘petitioning the deaf ears’. They didn’t directly
recourse to extreme violence themselves, but were admiring such actions. Tilak especially through his Kesari (in Marathi) and Mahratta (in English) had glorified a kind of
valour which was not actually farther from violent bloodshed. Despite his metaphysical defence of
altruistic violence, Tilak never preached political murder.
He proclaimed
‘As our fight is going to be constitutional and legal, our death also must, as
of necessity, be constitutional and legal. We have not to use any violence’. One could sense even more
mellowed views in Mr. Tilak after release from prison in 1914.
Next is the major
influencer and non-violent proponent Mr. Mohandas Gandhi. Gandhiji and Mr.
Tagore had a great understanding of human nature and aspired for a ‘political
culture of masses’ which would result in perpetual peace and prosperity of moral
(and material) life.
Gandhiji believed that if
one chose the violent path it would set bad precedence and evolve the political
and social culture of the masses in that direction. Violence would have been
the answer for even internal issues wherever differences occur. Especially in a
country like India with huge diversity the approach is deadly. A simple
parlance here could be is that, our ‘brother nation’ which aspired to go alone
and for partition had got itself partitioned in a quarter century.
To a great deal its
Gandhiji’s legacy that till date an unmet demand is mostly met with non-violent
protests in India. It extends from demanding petty services to protesting for issues
of national scale. Violence by naxalites and some miscreants are still an
exception rather than the norm. It is not to say that Gandhiji’s methods were
without flaw but they seem the best among ever human-invented methods.
In other hand Mr. Tagore
went a step further and considered that the methods of Gandhi were a kind of
psychological violence and also would detract the masses from the required
political discipline. His stance could be surmised as below,
Don’t get as alms anything you want – you will loose it
Don’t get it thru arms either- You will ruin it
Earn it! Strive for it! Period!!!
Tagore stood for much more disciplined and ‘legitimate’ i.e.
constitutional methods. Tagore was correct in his prediction as we can see
‘fast-protests’ become ‘order of the day’ not least as a political gimmick and
also hurdling the progress. But those hurdles are a ‘necessary evil’ in a
democracy as feedback loops and mandatory checks.
There is no limit in
conception of any ideal. Jain ascetics and fruitarians are ‘more non-violent’ than
Mr. Gandhi and vegans. To live a ‘worldly life’ certain level of violence is
necessary. Yes we can’t abandon agriculture! Can we? If u wonder what
agriculture has to do with violence, Jainism’s Occupation-related violence
(UDYOGI HIMSA) holds the answer. As agriculture involves killing of many micro
organism, pests etc some schools of Jainism view it as a form of violence. But
for a country and civilization to live in peace, harmony and progress there
should be a line drawn. Yes! The contention of today is where to keep that
‘line.’ Is it not a worthy case to contemplate over the need of violence in our
personal, social and political life?
Actually I thought of
having a pattern with different factors roping in and including many more leaders
especially Messrs Jinnah, Savarkar, Syed Ahmed Khan, Vivekananda etc but I
realized that I would need a minimum of 4 or 5 dimensional graph. So I
restricted myself to including two other important leaders without which I
couldn't feel satiated. Those are Mr. Subhash Chandra Bose and Mr. Ambedkar.
These two great men had entirely unique approaches to realize their cherished
‘goal’, especially for the later the ‘goal’ itself was different from the
others being discussed.
Some may wonder why I
can’t place Mr. Bose in x-axis itself. I couldn’t perceive his methods as mere
violence, because in violence there will be an element of hatred or vengeance
and the action will be more of an impulsive decision. But in the case of our
Man, he took a more organized, far-reaching and concerted action. He went upto
the extent of meeting Fuhrer, voyaging in submarine across oceans and much
more. Hence I couldn't put him in the ‘x-axis’ per se.
The other reason goes like
this. The proponents whom I placed in the positive ‘x-axis’ worried about the
violent methods that they will gradually imbibe as a “national character” and
implicate the nation badly. This is true in the case of methods chosen by
leaders in negative x-axis. But in the case of Mr. Bose the concern is not
fully valid. Because his approach might have influenced the political culture
of the leaders post independence and hardly would have affected the masses
character directly. The so called idealism of India and its foreign policy
during Nehru’s era wouldn’t have been existed. Nevertheless the need for such
idealism is always debatable. I for one stand for idealism even in foreign
affairs rather than cunning-selfishness in the name of realpolitik.
Finally when I think about
Ambedkar, his composition was unique viz., high national stature (more now than
then); distinguished legal acumen; working alongside the British but for the
determined goal of uplifting the socially downtrodden. He never considered the
‘need’ to ‘drive away’ the British because the British rule was perceived more
conducive for the Dalit upliftment than the ‘native elite’s’. Hence even until
the final years of independence Mr. Ambedkar was supportive of the British
rule. But our takeaway here is that, in his fight against caste-Hindus for
eliminating caste discrimination he always adhered to non-violent means.
I perceive this convergence
of attitude towards violence and democratic ethos among great leaders is the
reason why India not just exists but prospers. Whilst we shall not adhere to
non-violent path just because some leaders had advised to do so, but their
reasoning behind it demands a serious consideration. Then why I have put heavy
emphasis on the path leaders followed? As you can see in the graph I have
placed ‘people’ at the origin(0,0) because people in general are always aligned
with the existing social institutions and beliefs and are directed by the
leadership. The leadership I denote comprises a wide range, viz. family elders,
teachers, regional leaders, national leaders, writers. The people moves in the
resultant direction.
I’m done. One may ask, why
this motley of various stuffs? Simply the articulation of national leaders and
their ‘stewardship’ is an inspirational and a productive one. After all, the
pondering on the ‘need’ for ‘violence’ in a society has to be done by the
masses of all time. The exhibition of shallow water like this I hope will help
deep dive for the readersJ
