MK GANDHI AND DEMOCRACY
When we use any word, it is possible that it may not carry the same meaning for others.
When we use the word “democracy” it may carry different meaning. If needed a person has to define/describe the meaning of the word he/she uses as and when the meaning creates any dispute.
Democracy is a process where truth is heard.
The truth unless it is challenged logically, it is honored.
In democracy everybody has freedom to express one’s opinion.
One has to be ready for exchange of information on which its own opinion to have been based.
Freedom of expression must not be based on pressure of violence or power.
The freedom expression has to be based on non-violence.
It is the liberty of a person/the people to accept some body’s opinion with logic or otherwise. But it is not the liberty of any person or a mass of the people to be violent.
The people having one ideology can prepare a group. The group can spread its ideology. It is up to individuals to accept the ideology and to join to it with logic or otherwise.
But one has to be always ready for discussion. There should be some systems for all these processes.
The group which has majority following, will control the governance. The aim of the governance is the welfare of the people, geographically confined to an area of activity.
Now let us take the Congress.
The ideology of Congress, once upon a time was to establish democratic rights of the people of India through Non-Violence.
Thereby Gandhi had promoted that if we want such change we should involve mass of India for better communication and depth.
Gandhi had introduced the methods of protest in the struggle of freedom. All the protest were non-violent. The protester/s need to have faith in non-violence.
COURT OF LAW
In democracy, if any law provides injustice, then that law becomes null and void. But this thing has be proved before a qualified and constitutionalized third party. This authorized third party is the Court of Law. The Court of Law is the authority to interpret law and the authenticity of the relevancy of the event based upon which a case of injustice has been produced before it.
It is not only a party member has a right to express and a liberty to opine. It is the liberty of the party too, to either follow some body’s opinion or not to follow that opinion.
WAS GANDHI DEMOCRATIC?
If a person is not exerting any “power pressure” and expresses his views, such freedom is allowed in democracy.
What is “power pressure”?
One may hold an executive power by virtue of law. One may hold the muscle power by law or otherwise.
One can oblige a person by using its executive power which he/she held by the law. This law can be supported by state constitution or by the party’s constitution as the case may be. If there is a breach of law of any type, one has a liberty and right to approach the court of law.
If one holds the muscle power and it uses out of law, then it is undemocratic, and thereby the user can be convicted by court of law.
HAD THERE ANY “POWER POST” BEEN POSSESSED BY MK GANDHI?
No… A BIG NO.
Gandhi had only citizen’s right to express his opinion.
Whenever MK Gandhi had been alleged for his so-called non-democratic approach, he held no power whatsoever.
Yes he had moral power. The moral power is a logical power. As for holding a logical power a person is open for discussion. The rest have to come forward for discussion. The persons who come forward for discussion, they have also the liberty to discard his opinion.
It is just like this. You have options. You accept one’s opinion and follow to it, in accordance to the said opinion. Or you reject his opinion and don’t follow. Or you can modify its opinion. It is your liberty and right to discuss with him or to not discuss with him. You can have your own opinion. For any action based on any logic, it is the responsibility of person who is taking action.
CHAURA CHAURI EPISODE
Now let us take the example of “Chaura Chauri incident where Mahatma Gandhi had withdrawn his agitation which he had launched to protest against Rowlatt Act, in 1922 through civil disobedience. Under the Rowlatt Act, the government had acquired a power to arrest protesters for indefinite period. Some leaders of the protesters were arrested who were protesting against some price rise. Then some people of Chauri Chaura agitated against the arrests and they become violate.
Violence is banned under the principles of Non-violent struggle. You can demand the release of the leaders but you cannot become violent.
In fact whosoever protesting, has to be ready to face the consequences and should be ready for punishment under the law of the land.
Since the call of civil disobedience was made by Congress and MK Gandhi was in Congress holding a post in working committee, he felt himself indirectly responsible for violence. He, on this ground, felt that the mass has not understood and grasped the meaning of civil disobedience. Hence he withdrew the agitation. Off course this was a hypothetical conclusion. But Gandhi could convince himself that it was premature call for agitation.
NOW LOOK AT THE OTHER INSTANCE
In 1934 MK Gandhi had resigned from the Congress. But the Congress had free will to take advice of Gandhi. This was mainly due to the principles adopted and constituted by the Congress that the Congress would fight the struggle for complete independence under the principles of non-violence.
There were many groups in India and within the Congress. But mainly two ideological groups. One had faith in Non-violence. Other had no faith in non-violence. These two groups were otherwise also having conflict. MK Gandhi naturally with the group having faith in non-violence.
Some people had a false belief that Nehru was come up due to MK Gandhi only.
Nehru, Jinna, Subhash, Sardar Patel, Pant, Maulana Azad of second generation were equally popular. Nehru was having a starting lift due to his pop Motilal. Nehru was not a fool in politics. He had political skills. He was capable to side line his opponents. He therefore had made a group within Congress. This group was socialistic group. But many had left his group due to his hypocrisy. It is a long story. Nehru could defame his opponents through his group. Nehru had disguised his group as ideological group as he used to speak philosophical language. Even after independence he side lined his critics like Chakravarti Raj Gopalachari, Jai Prakash Narayana, Vinoba Bhave and lastly Morarji Desai without breaking Congress. (Indira Gandhi was not that skillful. Under her quest of power, she could not avoid breaking of Congress. But she could manage with media till she could win the 1969 elections). The other difference between Nehru and Indira was that Nehru was not much thankless. Indira Gandhi was thankless and totally self-centered. This was mainly because Nehru had a back ground of good contribution in freedom struggle, whereas Indira was totally with nearly zero contribution. Leave this aside.
Nazies were not favored by most leaders of India because Hitler was not democratic and he used to insult Indian leaders. Subhash met two Nazi’s leaders to not insult Indians. But there were rumors that Subhash had no faith in Non-violence. However Subhash was equally popular to that of JL Nehru or he was even more popular than JL Nehru.
In 1939 Nehru had no courage to submit his candidature for the Congress President ship elections against Subhash. Maulana Azad once submitted but he withdrew in favor of Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya. The delegates defeated Dr. Sitaramayya by marginal votes. Since Sitaramayya was MK Gandhi’s suggestion, Gandhi said that it was his own defeat. He said after congratulating Subhash that Subhash should form his own working committee.
Now what was the legal position?
Subhash could have taken over the Congress by forming his own working committee. But the delegates verdict cannot be reversed. All the members of the then prevailing working committee submitted their resignation because they had faith in non-violence as per the basic principles of the Congress. It was a big task for Subhash to have the working committee members of his choice to get elected by re-calling Extra Ordinary General meeting. Had he done so, he would have been defamed as hungry of power.
Compare: Indira Gandhi had no majority in working committee in 1969, but she called EGM and bifurcated the Nehruvian Congress. As per constitution of Congress, anybody is authorized to call EGM with 20% supporting members. But the Congress president has to be convinced. This was not done through proper channel. There was a court case. Court ruled that in democracy the people are supreme, and since majority of MPs have supported Indira, her Congress is the real Congress. But the property went to Organizational Congress where the working committee owned by the old Congress president due to his majority support in the working committee. The ruling of the Court was controversial. Piloo Modi a good parliamentarian, made a joke. Suppose in next election in case of Congress (I) get less seats and if Congress (O) gets more seat then would the Court reverse its ruling?
IDEOLOGY THAT DECIDES THE FATE
Subhash Chandra Bose could have done similar to what Indira did in 1968-69. Subhash could foresee the bifurcation of Congress. Since Subhash did not want to weaken the Congress, he resigned from the post of the President of the Congress. Subhash was not after power. He was not hungry of Power.
Gandhi and Subhash both of them had the purely ideological conflict.
The evil of Vote Bank politics is “Love thy enemy” for sharing the power.
The democracy is “love thy enemy “, do communicate and discuss, but do not negotiate on ideology.
Gandhi and Subhash has great respect for each other.
THEN WHY SOME SO-CALLED ELITE HATE MK GANDHI?
It is matter of surprise as to why some of the supporters of Subhash have no respect for Gandhi?
It is possible that these pro-Subhash have not read MK Gandhi.
It is their mind set to not read anything in favor of MK Gandhi, and not to apply mind. That is why they simply produce conclusive remarks. At the most they would base their conclusion on a matter that itself is controversial.
These people do not know that they themselves become inauthentic. Not only this, the group they belong to, or as they disguise to belong to the group, that group itself becomes untrustworthy. i.e. Some of them disguise they are pro-BJP, but they make BJP leadership itself inauthentic by virtue of their prejudicial and illogical approach.
e.g. If you say Gandhi had asked Congress leadership to Boycott the Crips Commission.
This M-Phobia would ask an irrelevant question, as to “why did Gandhi not put a single favorable condition for Hindus before British?”
These people with M-phobia thinks it is better to be emotional because common men in most cases go with emotions, then why to take a pain of further reading.
“It is better to show our mental braveness by exhibiting conclusive remarks to abuse a personality. This is the best style to exhibit their sensitivity. By this way we can establish that we are so much keen on national interest that we can even derogate MK Gandhi.
The aim of these “M”- phobia persons is to devaluate the strategy and wisdom of MK Gandhi that too on hypothetical base. If you would give some material they would not read it. If you become logical they would jump to other point.
One more fake conclusion of this lot is that “Gandhi was puppet and an agent of British government.”
You cannot argue with this lot. They know that Churchil was most genius in making strategy. But he was afraid of MK Gandhi, because he knew that Gandhi would not get trapped. He was so much scared of MK Gandhi, that he had refused to give an appointment to MK Gandhi. He had insulted MK Gandhi on his dress. Yes when one has prejudice and lesser intelligence than his opponent, then he would avoid the opponent who has clear concepts. Now if in reality MK Gandhi had been an agent of British Government, he was supposed to be in a good book of Charchi and Churchil would have never refused MK Gandhi for an appointment. On the contrary Charchil and Gandhi could have met several times. But you know, logic does not work for those who are determined to abuse MK Gandhi.
Better you recall Chanakya’s stement that with whom one should discuss and with whom one should avoid the discussion.
Can you convince a Nehruvian Congi leader on logic? No. They would find fault with PM Narendra Modi for his failure within 60 days of his rule. But they would not see any fault of Nehruvians of their 60 years of rule. Because they do not want to use sense of proportion.
These people use to speak the language of Jinna.
Don’t hate them. Have a mercy.
NATURAL TREND IS TOWARDS NON-VIOLENCE
Earlier a king had a right to be emperor. He can invade other country. Now it is not.
The world going towards non-violence. If not then current Muslims would have been highly honored worldwide.
One should understand from the history that violence results into violent society. The violent political society promotes dictatorship.
The black and white example is the status of Pakistan. Jinna had promoted “Direct Action”, though Jinna had believed in democracy. Jinna had fought a lot cases of the freedom fighters. Jinna was secular also. But the ultimate result we see in Pakistan is that the people of Pakistan are all confused and a lost mass.
The Similar example is USSR where Lenin uprooted Czar Empire with violent struggle. The rein captured by Stalin. USSR had shortages and non-transparency.
WHY THE DEMOCRACY WITH ALL ITS BAD QUALITY IS SUPERIOR TO AUTOCRACY?
The main reasons are:
Autocracy cannot survive with non-violence, autocracy has to be violent,
Autocracy cannot survive with transparency,
Autocracy cannot survive with all the time with conducting elections,
Thereby Autocracy is prone to corrupt a society.
The ruler has the full scope to get improved in democracy. This is not possible in autocracy where the ruler does not know as to where what battle is being fought.
Why the democratic way or so to say the Non-violent way is superior to the Violent way of struggle is superior for freedom struggle?
If the ruler is committed to democracy then Non-violent movement is more advisable.
The non-violent struggle is fought on moral ground
The non-violent struggle can even be played by individuals
The non-violent struggle is always with understanding the each element of issue,
The non-violent struggle provides awareness and supplements your logical brain,
The non-violent struggle makes a person courageous morally, physically and strategically,
In non-violent struggle, an individual’s human rights are maintained because it is being made against a so-called democratic ruler.
During the non-violent struggle, the mass gets educated. The mass can be trained at many places, whereas for violent struggle you have to carry out the practice in a forest or in a secret area,
The non-violent-struggle can be made much more transparent due to ease in communication, whereas the violent struggle cannot remain transparent,
The non-violent-struggle has a capacity to involve more and more persons progressively as soon as the mass- awareness gets spread, whereas this is not possible in a violent struggle to that extent,
In non-violent struggle, you can do your normal work till you get arrested, whereas in violent struggle you have to engage yourself full time,
In non-violent struggle you can feel supremacy over ruler, because you have moral grounds and you have gained moral courage and physical courage both,
During non-violent struggle you can foresee the likely time and action of the ruler, thereby you have more option for future plan, whereas during violent struggle you have all the way uncertainty,
IS OUR COUNTRY A DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY?
Simply routine elections cannot make a country fully democratic.
We need to have constituted voters’ council,
We need to have a constituted system for “Calling the representative back” as and when he/she loses our faith,
We need to have transparency in the draft of the bills which are proposed by a party in its election manifesto. This is essential because a party if does not show its transparency in the draft of the bill, the party at a later stage can play mischiefs in bill at the time when it put the bill before the parliament. That is why the public must know the draft well before the elections.
We need lot of changes in governance and judiciary.
IS DEMOCRACY COMMITTED TO TOTAL NON-VIOLENCE?
A punishment on a breach of law cannot be non-violent in totality under present situation,
If a person attacks you, you have the right to protect yourself. To protect the right to live and right to live peacefully, you can be violent and you can kill the person,
The Indian government has a right to arrest Omar, Farukh and all other leaders who had power to execute to protect the human rights of 5-7 lakhs of Hindus of Kashmir. Because these leaders have been remained inactive in performing their duties . The responsibilities lies with the Officials of Human Right Commission too. The Human Rights Commission can be de-recognized by the Indian Government.
THEN WHAT IS ABOUT RAMA?
Rama was democratic, much more than any of the present democratic leaders. Rama heard the opinion of a washer man. Rama and his ministry could not reply logically. They honored the opinion of the washer man.
But Rama comes after several thousand years. Our life is for 100 years.
A RUSSIAN JOKE
Three persons were in a jail. e.g. “A”, “B” and “C”
“C” asked to “A”, why are you in jail?
“A” said I was favoring “Popovich”
“C” asked “B” , “Why are you in jail?”
“B” said, “I was against “Popovich”
Then “A” and “B” asked to “C”, why are you in jail?
“C” replied “I am Popovich”
This is all about socialism without transparency.
Shirish Mohanlal Dave
Tags: Gandhi, violence, non-violence, struggle, independence, contribution, principles, ideology, faith, democracy, truth, Subhash, popular, transparency, human rights, constitution, politic, party, Congress, Nehru