Is it time to let the 'historical Gandhi' fade into the background? At first this question may seem absurd . Pro-democracy protests in the Arab world have recently demonstrated the pervasive influence of Gandhian methods in challenging oppressive regimes. Anna Hazare's recent fast at the Ramlila Grounds was heavy with Gandhian allusions. All these protests draw on a relatively easy-to-admire dimension of Gandhi, the one that gives people confidence in truth and non-violence as a force more powerful than guns and swords.
But it is the catastrophe at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant that compels us to focus more closely on the 'civilizational Gandhi'. Naturally, this is an extremely difficult endeavour. Every generation since Independence has been taught to revere Gandhi's persona but assiduously ignore or ridicule his critique of modern civilization.
The historical Gandhi was a mere mortal, born in 1869, who grew to extraordinary heights before he was assassinated in 1948. Methods he devised for speaking truth to power will continue to inspire struggles against oppressive and corrupt regimes for centuries to come.
The civilizational Gandhi is a philosopher and visionary who poses fundamental and troublesome questions. Is civilization about increase of material comforts or is it about moral and spiritual evolution? Is civilization to be equated merely with clever machines or with greater harmony between human systems and the natural world?
In the first half of the 20th century, when Gandhi was constantly raising these questions, the conventional or dominant wisdom rejected him as being backward, a throwback to the antimachine Luddites of the 19th century. Today, with severe depletion of biodiversity and a red alert on climate change, Gandhi seems ahead of his time. But even then, the historical Gandhi has a much larger presence. Why?
First, challenging the brute force of a political class and its bureaucracy is a relatively simple matter. There are offensive rules or policies and actions people mobilize to oppose them. While he excelled in such mobilization, Gandhi repeatedly said that the departure of the viceroy and his British officers would not give us true swaraj.
Second, Gandhi did not merely equate swaraj with moral renewal. He linked it to challenging and overthrowing "modern civilization". By this he meant, primarily, the amoral nature of modern science and industry. Gandhi perceived a profound violence at the heart of modern science . He abhorred the practice of vivisection scientific experimentation that inflicts pain on 'lower' forms of life and justifies it as a valid means in the pursuit of knowledge.
This, Gandhi believed, is wrecking havoc far greater than the old forms of "might over right". It would not have surprised Gandhi to learn that the second atomic bomb, the one dropped over Nagasaki, was partly a means of experimentation. Closer to home, people displaced by industrial projects are even today being told that someone has to pay the price for progress.
Third, since all this is seemingly remote from our everyday lives, it is generally deemed to be imperative that we continue to ignore Gandhi's civilizational vision. Even disasters like Bhopal, Chernobyl, Deepwater Horizon or Fukushima Daiichi are meant to be taken in our stride as part of an inevitable element of risk in human existence. There is room to ask for better safety standards but virtually none to question the definition of progress.
Yes, the catastrophe in Japan might trigger a comparative review of risk assessment between different forms of energy. But what's needed is a collective introspection not about specific technologies but about basics. Just how much energy do we need, rather than want? How much is being wasted? How might we seek that vast realm between the extremes of involuntary deprivation and born-to-shop consumption?
It might help to focus on just two dimensions. Distinguishing needs from wants can be creative rather than frustrating. And respecting all forms of life need not be a ticket back to the Stone Age. But working with these possibilities might become easier if we look at developments outside the BRICS nations' growth story.
Bolivia is about to pass the world's first law granting nature equal rights to humans. The Law of Mother Earth is the work of Bolivian President Evo Morales, the first person from an indigenous tribe to lead that country. The law will redefine the country's rich mineral deposits as "blessings" and is expected to lead to radical measures to reduce pollution and control industry. Even Ecuador has changed its constitution to give nature "the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles."
Such measures are not complete in themselves. They are part of a larger striving to redefine progress. It is commonly argued that India does not have the luxury to travel down this road it must concentrate on the known model of growth and progress. In any case, where is the alternative model?
But we don't need a ready-to-install alternative model. Answers have to be found by individuals, groups, companies and governments by re-examining goals putting functional convenience in the background and values in the foreground . We could then engage with the civilizational Gandhi, not as an oracle who has all the answers, but as someone who can help us think things through.
But it is the catastrophe at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant that compels us to focus more closely on the 'civilizational Gandhi'. Naturally, this is an extremely difficult endeavour. Every generation since Independence has been taught to revere Gandhi's persona but assiduously ignore or ridicule his critique of modern civilization.
The historical Gandhi was a mere mortal, born in 1869, who grew to extraordinary heights before he was assassinated in 1948. Methods he devised for speaking truth to power will continue to inspire struggles against oppressive and corrupt regimes for centuries to come.
The civilizational Gandhi is a philosopher and visionary who poses fundamental and troublesome questions. Is civilization about increase of material comforts or is it about moral and spiritual evolution? Is civilization to be equated merely with clever machines or with greater harmony between human systems and the natural world?
In the first half of the 20th century, when Gandhi was constantly raising these questions, the conventional or dominant wisdom rejected him as being backward, a throwback to the antimachine Luddites of the 19th century. Today, with severe depletion of biodiversity and a red alert on climate change, Gandhi seems ahead of his time. But even then, the historical Gandhi has a much larger presence. Why?
First, challenging the brute force of a political class and its bureaucracy is a relatively simple matter. There are offensive rules or policies and actions people mobilize to oppose them. While he excelled in such mobilization, Gandhi repeatedly said that the departure of the viceroy and his British officers would not give us true swaraj.
Second, Gandhi did not merely equate swaraj with moral renewal. He linked it to challenging and overthrowing "modern civilization". By this he meant, primarily, the amoral nature of modern science and industry. Gandhi perceived a profound violence at the heart of modern science . He abhorred the practice of vivisection scientific experimentation that inflicts pain on 'lower' forms of life and justifies it as a valid means in the pursuit of knowledge.
This, Gandhi believed, is wrecking havoc far greater than the old forms of "might over right". It would not have surprised Gandhi to learn that the second atomic bomb, the one dropped over Nagasaki, was partly a means of experimentation. Closer to home, people displaced by industrial projects are even today being told that someone has to pay the price for progress.
Third, since all this is seemingly remote from our everyday lives, it is generally deemed to be imperative that we continue to ignore Gandhi's civilizational vision. Even disasters like Bhopal, Chernobyl, Deepwater Horizon or Fukushima Daiichi are meant to be taken in our stride as part of an inevitable element of risk in human existence. There is room to ask for better safety standards but virtually none to question the definition of progress.
Yes, the catastrophe in Japan might trigger a comparative review of risk assessment between different forms of energy. But what's needed is a collective introspection not about specific technologies but about basics. Just how much energy do we need, rather than want? How much is being wasted? How might we seek that vast realm between the extremes of involuntary deprivation and born-to-shop consumption?
It might help to focus on just two dimensions. Distinguishing needs from wants can be creative rather than frustrating. And respecting all forms of life need not be a ticket back to the Stone Age. But working with these possibilities might become easier if we look at developments outside the BRICS nations' growth story.
Bolivia is about to pass the world's first law granting nature equal rights to humans. The Law of Mother Earth is the work of Bolivian President Evo Morales, the first person from an indigenous tribe to lead that country. The law will redefine the country's rich mineral deposits as "blessings" and is expected to lead to radical measures to reduce pollution and control industry. Even Ecuador has changed its constitution to give nature "the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles."
Such measures are not complete in themselves. They are part of a larger striving to redefine progress. It is commonly argued that India does not have the luxury to travel down this road it must concentrate on the known model of growth and progress. In any case, where is the alternative model?
But we don't need a ready-to-install alternative model. Answers have to be found by individuals, groups, companies and governments by re-examining goals putting functional convenience in the background and values in the foreground . We could then engage with the civilizational Gandhi, not as an oracle who has all the answers, but as someone who can help us think things through.
