Mahatma Gandhi’s principles stay strong

I watched the film Gandhi several times when I was in school, and his ideologies influenced me strongly. Whenever I see the Tricolour, I feel the adrenaline flow. Had I not been an actor, I would have reacted differently on some social issues on screen too. Sometimes I get an opportunity to endorse his ideologies in some way. I did a few films like Kanche and Anthariksham that are high on patriotism. Gandhian principles are relevant forever because they are instrumental for success. Ideologies like being truthful and individual self-development have had a direct influence on my upbringing. My father always tells me not to react immediately to something that’s directed at me. He wants me to think, be truthful and then act. Also, he tells me to constantly update, work hard and build on my potential to create my own identity, and not rest on laurels.If there is anything relevant for the society to follow, it is the Gandhian principles. Unfortunately, the influence of western culture is too much and we need to remember the simplicity which Gandhiji taught us. Gandhian principles hold true now. I am a big admirer of Gandhi. To get freedom without any violence, is something brilliant. Nowadays, there is a lot of violence. A lot of people don’t remember why we wanted independence. The principles Gandhiji followed are very important for Indians to follow and emulate.It is pertinent to know why he has been the butt of so much of criticism. Gandhiji called for maintaining morality in politics in all situations; he was, therefore, criticized by his political opponents. His mass activities led on the basis of Ahimsa - non-violence were also criticized, as no one believed in the strength of non-violence, thinking it to be the weapon of the weak. Critics did so, being ignorant or indifferent about the basic spirit of morality, and Ahimsa (that is active goodwill towards living beings) and its acid test (that is intent underlying the act). They do so even today.

Gandhiji was targeted by social scientists for his cultural ideas and also views related to nationalism and socialism. For this reason, his book, Hind Swaraj was rigorously criticized. His critics saw with their closed eyes, narrowness and isolation in his views related to nationalism rather than noticing the broad outlook persisting therein. They did not try to go deeper to catch the importance of Gandhiji’s statement in which he said, “For me patriotism is the same as humanity. I am patriotic because I am a human and humane.” (Young India, March 16, 1921) They overlooked nationalism of Gandhiji knowingly-unknowingly and criticized assessing it in the light of nationalism of the West. Not only this, his critics found orthodoxy in his views ignoring one of his most progressive statement in which he clearly said that for large scaled welfare of humanity man should continuously step forward on the pathway of progress with co-operation, co-ordination and harmony of fellow beings. Hence, stepping forward is necessary, therefore, Go ahead, (if not so), fall is inevitable. In India, a country of villages, cottage industries played a vital role for self-sufficiency of people. For centuries small industries provided livelihood to the masses; agriculture and related cottage industries still immensely contribute to the nation’s economy. Gandhiji preferred cottage industries over heavy industries; therefore, his ideas were disliked by those supporting heavy industries -including economists, industrialists, supporters of socialism of the West and communists. Gandhiji was a self-realized one and he accepted the reality of equality of all. He rightly comprehended that progress -welfare of one remained in the welfare of all. That is why; through his concept of Trusteeship he expected capitalists, industrialists, Zamindars or those who owned resources, to considers themselves as the Trustees of their wealth or resources and to take it as their moral duty to use all gains thereof in larger benefit of the people. Through this, he also called for Antyodaya -uplift of the last and Sarvodaya -rise of one and all so that everyone could get appropriate opportunities in life to have her/his all-round development. But, how could his ideas be liked by individualists or those who had mentality that they were only born superior and gaining prosperity was their birthright? Gandhiji, on the other hand, wished to change hearts of capitalists, industrialists and landlords filling in them the high level of morality; thus, through the process of reform he undertook to transform them into the Trustees of capital or resources. But, even after a remarkable success of the Bhoodan Movement after Gandhiji’s passing away, the importance of his ideas is not accepted till today by those who still believe that no fundamental change or transformation in society is possible without the use of violence.

Many did not like Gandhiji’s statement related to culture in which he said, “I do respectfully contend that an appreciation of other cultures can fitly follow, never precede, an appreciation and assimilation of our own.” Although Gandhiji mentioned in the beginning of this statement, “nothing can be further from my thought than that we should become exclusive or erect barriers”, but without comprehending well his views -the basic spirit at the root of his statement and also the true meaning and sole purpose of a culture knowingly-unknowingly and connecting culture with a particular religious community or a sect, they could not digest Gandhiji’s ideas. India is still replete with such people even today. I have already talked about the fact that Gandhiji is not accepted as a scholar in the academic sense; however, in my view, his ideas on education are matchless, and for this he emerges as a distinctive educationist. His views presenting a four sided education plan paves the way to all-round development of one’s personality. His idea of Buniyadi Shiksha (basic education) is not only significant in current perspective, but is effective to achieve the goal as per the basic spirit and the purpose of education. His concept of education is all timely; therefore, worth following even today. In short, despite many accepting Gandhiji as their ideal and icon and following non-violence-based way of life shown by him in their struggles for equality, freedom, justice and rights, his ideas and actions and even his personal life remained subject to criticism. Currently it is so. Unfortunately, he is more criticized for his ideas and actions baselessly in his own country.

One can, I will repeat time and again, make critical analysis of ideas and actions -works of Gandhiji on solid grounds. A critical analysis of one’s ideas cannot weaken them or shrink their significance. Rather, a critical analysis of one’s thoughts, or his way of life makes it healthy and strong, brightens the importance of his ideas. Gandhian views and Gandhiji’s way are also not the exception to this reality. Not only this, ideas, or the way of Gandhiji after its critical analysis deeply appeals all of its critics, small or big, to realize the basic spirit and the intent of the Gandhian thought and the way. Martin Luther King Junior in the beginning did not agree with the Gandhian way of non-violence. But, after going into its root, getting familiarity with the basic spirit and intent of the Gandhian way he realized all-timely significance of it. He had said that in Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violent resistance he found the most practical and morality-bound method available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom. In the first half of his public life Nelson Mandela also did not agree with the non-violent way of Gandhiji ultimately dedicated to the Satya. All those who are familiar with the series of events of South Africa especially related to struggles of Mandela, and also subject specialists, they are well aware that there was a time when he went far away from the Gandhian ideology. But, in the second half of his life -at the door of the freedom of his country, he accepted that there was no alternative to the Gandhian way - the Ahimsa-Marg. Both the affirmations - statements of Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela were not spontaneous. Both of them had continuously fought against suppression of their compatriots - for justice for millions in their countries, the United States of America and South Africa respectively. Confirmations of King and Mandela were, undoubtedly, the result of their comprehensions of the basic spirit and prejudice-free analysis of the non-violent Gandhian way, and experiences they had had from their continuous struggles for justice in their respective countries and achieved successes thereof.