Arthur Freeman- Gandhi and Churchill

A book of Epic proportions.

Arthur Freeman’s book on ‘Gandhi and Churchill’ seeks to unravel two mighty colossus’s of a bygone era. Churchill’ persona has been unraveled to a great extent, but Gandhi still remains an enigma to me, inspite of 600 plus pages on him.

Churchill’s personality appeared to be a rather uncomplicated one.

A die-hard imperialist ,he believed in the ‘White Man’s Burden’ and the racial superiority of the Anglo-Saxons, and was totally unapologetic about it. If he had his way India would have still been part of the ‘empire where the sun never set’.

But we can thank the World Wars, Hitler, Pressure from USA and of course Gandhi for our freedom.

Gandhi’s contribution to the freedom struggle, I believe is essentially two-fold.

Firstly, his genius in evolving the concept of ‘satyagraha’ or ‘truth force’ for which the colonial masters appeared to be clueless to deal with.
How do you deal with ‘Non-violence’ if you have been brought up to believe in the British sense of fair play and justice?

Secondly, his instinctive belief that ‘if enough Indians stood up and said ‘Go home, white man’ then the public opinion in Britain will sway in favour of granting India Independence.

And that’s what happened, and Churchill could only stand and watch his empire disintegrate.

The ‘information Warfare’ unleashed by Gandhi in driving the message home that ‘India is for Indians’ was in the form of spectacular mass movements like ‘the Non cooperation Movement’ of the 1920’s,the Salt Satyagraha of the 1930’s and the Quit India movement of 1942.

Yet, all these movements failed spectacularly to achieve their objectives, as brought out in the book . The non cooperation movement whittled out due to lack of public support after a while, the salt tax was never scrapped, Dandi march notwithstanding and Quit India movement only sizzled to deceive.

But Gandhi had achieved his objectives. He got India united (Hindu’s, Sikhs, Muslims and most importantly the Untouchables) to speak in unison and the message was driven home to the Empire that the time had come for them to pack their bags.

Of course its always debatable and a ‘what if’ whether Gandhi would have succeeded ‘if’ Britain had not been visibly weakened by the Wars and ‘if’ our colonial masters had been Germans or Japanese.

But that’s unfair. Given an enemy ‘X’ (Britishers) -Gandhi’s formula worked. Period.
Whether it would have worked against ‘Y’ -we can keep debating till cow’s come home.

But what has been mentioned above is the popular image of Gandhi……

There’s definitely more to him….and that’s why he remains an enigma to me. Sample a few cases as brought out in the book.

Gandhi’s take on Indians , Blacks and Anglo Saxons.

In South Africa Gandhi fought hard to get the Indian elites the same status as whites. He reminded his masters that ‘ Anglo Saxons and the Indians sprung from the same superior stock i.e ‘the Aryans’ and hence were entitled to same status as the ‘whites’ unlike the Indian laborers(mostly Tamilians) and Native Blacks. (the 'superior stock' opinion was echoed by Hitler later on)

His ‘Green Pamphlet’(1896) talks of the woes faced by the Indian elite in south Africa; how they were forced to use to use the same lavatories and entrances to buildings as the Blacks.

In ‘Indian Opinion’ Gandhi wrote ‘if there is one thing that Indians cherish it is the purity of the races.’ Blacks and Indians should not be forced to live in the same Johannesburg suburbs as ‘it would be unfair to the Indian population’.

In repeated interviews given to ‘London times’ and other press, Gandhi appealed that Indians be not treated as a barbarous race, as they were an ancient civilization.

So what does one make of that?

Hind Swaraj(1909)

Gandhi’s only political & moral treatise- ‘Hind Swaraj’ –crystallizes his beliefs.

The way forward for India ,Gandhi believed was to go back to the roots ,to ancient India,with its idyllic villages and Rishis and Fakirs. We did not invent machines ,not because we did not know how to ,but because our forefathers realized that if we set our hearts to such things then we will lose our moral fibre and become slaves to these machines.

Indians, as per Gandhi, needed to reject all modern influences to move forward. This included rejecting modern medicine, avoiding schools, closing textile factories and wearing only hand spun clothes made at home and avoiding railways.

In addn, as proponent of non Violence, During the period when Hitler was carrying out his pogroms against Jews, his message to the Jews was ‘to pray for Hitler’.

Gandhi remains an enigma to me. But if we discount the written/spoken word of Gandhi and just see his political achievements then he appears as a genuine master political strategist.

The book is however a great and inspiring read. The travails that Gandhi and Churchill had gone through would have broken an ordinary man. Its their firm belief in their ideals that stood them apart and changed the course of world history.

Musings on The Buddha

Just finished two books on the Buddha.

One was “A spoke in the wheel” by Amita Kanekar and the other “Buddha “ by Karen Armstrong.

Both were good. But I liked the one by kanekar better. Her prose is almost cryptic and powerful, and you need to re-read at times to understand full import.

Armstrong tends to get too verbose at times. Can’t blame her really…. she is trying to make sense of the metaphysical and its always better to hide your ignorance behind verbosity.

Kanekar on the other hand makes no pretense and she aims at something very simple. A teacher of architectural history and comparative mythology, she, after reading all works available on the Buddha and being privy(as a teacher of history) to the life and times of the era when Buddha was alive, attempts to re-create a fictional life account of Buddha as his life could have been.

And its an engrossing read ,I for one, got lost in the book and was transported back in time for sure.

Buddha in his youth is shown as an extremely conscientious and sensitive person who turns out to be a misfit. Portrayed as a mediocre, he doesn’t really excel in martial skills and is disinterested in learning his princely duties. In the myth about Buddha ,as brought out by Armstrong, he is said to have been completely shielded from reality and led a life of luxury, till one day he sees misery and sorrow (death, sickness etc) and realizes the futility of it all and proceeds to abandon his life and heads to the jungle in search of answers.

In all likelihood kanekar’s version is probably closer to the truth.

But that’s just semantics.

What’s actually interesting is the journey of the Buddha to enlightenment. Both kanekar and Armstrong are on the same wicket when they bring out what a radical he was and how he questioned all conventional wisdom.

Buddha went to all known seers of the day (alara kalama, udakka ramaputta) and subjected himself to severe yogic disciplines in an attempt to find an answer to his quest…… but it eluded him.

Here Buddha displayed his radical and questioning intellect.

Of course, as the Buddha agreed, in the course of his meditations and other yogic disciplines followed, he achieved peace. But he maintained that this was transitory. When he came out of his trance and mingled with people, his old desires, needs and wants came back with renewed vigor.

So how does one get everlasting peace. That’s what he wanted to know. How do you achieve a state of ‘self’ which doesn’t behave like the weather and is stable and unchanging?

Having rejected all schools of thought, Buddha decides to give it a shot himself. He does severe penances and almost starves himself to death and eats his own excrement. But at the end of four years he is successful and achieves enlightenment.

To quote kanekar:
“Buddha sat and thought and thought, till he was satisfied that he had found some answers. Such was his enlightenment”.

Armstrong ,of course gives the colorful myth of the demon Mara and his conversations with Buddha to spice things up.

But Buddha’s message of four noble truths and path to salvation of noble eight fold path is rather mundane .Indeed his ‘life is full of suffering’(noble truth no 1) is downright depressing.

Kanekar is silent on Buddha’s message to the world and just hides behind a few interesting allegorical tales of the Buddha....which is a disappointment.

And Armstrong goes on a hyper drive trying to explain Buddha’s message in vain. Armstrong herself admits that Buddha’s message seems quite unimpressive to a lay individual at first ,but these messages, it seems, are to be understood as a ‘ direct yogic experience’ to realise its full import.

Ya! Right!

What is this state of ‘self realization’ that Buddha achieved?

Buddha himself avoided the answer saying that known sensory perceptions and limitations of language does not permit him to give an answer.

But he states that, once achieved, you lose your individuality and you simply cannot go back to your normal human state. Having seen the ‘truth’ and hence transcended the limitations of existence, he therefore achieved everlasting peace and contentment.

That’s rather unhelpful, isn’t it? I am not evolved enough to understand what he meant.

But how was the Buddha post enlightenment? He lived for almost 45 years post enlightenment and did he ever exhibit any human tendencies of pride, prejudice, pettiness etc.?

Surprisingly , the answer is yes. Armstrong narrates an incident when Buddha’s stepmother tries to be a member of the ‘Sangha’. The Buddha adamantly refuses initially, wanting to keep the ‘Sangha’ a male only preserve.

But relents subsequently, and admits women into the ‘Sangha’ with draconian rules imposed upon them. The women are clearly treated as inferiors ,with rules such as all women to rise in front of male counterparts and that they cannot hold ceremonies on their own etc.

Armstrong hints at the patriarchal nature of the society of the day and how even the Buddha might have been influenced.

So if even the Buddha could have been influenced post his ‘enlightenment ‘, then what does it mean?

You would expect an individual who has ‘crossed over ‘ and achieved ‘enlightenment’, to be free from such mundane pettiness and at the very least advocate something as basic as ‘equality’?

My belief , as the Buddha tried in vain to convince people, is that :

he was just a human being. And you cannot take away basic traits.

He learnt a path to achieve peace. Which subsequent chroniclers called ‘self realization’ and ‘freedom from bondage’ and hence freedom from the 'cycle of rebirths.'

Buddha himself had no time for such abstract questions. He refused to entertain any question pertaining to God, the nature of God, reasons for existence, whether there is rebirth or not etc.

He maintained this was his path, and that this path might not work for everybody. and each one needs to choose his own path.

So which path would appeal to me?

I am not very sure. But the path definitely should require that I submerge myself in whatever the world has to offer and not renounce it.

Because I definitely don’t believe that life is ‘full’ of suffering.

Some suffering.....yes. But not ‘full’.

And if I get reborn because of my sins......I don’t mind.

I look forward to it.