Saturday, September 23, 2006

The Yagna Of Mahatma Gandhi

By Swami Chidanand Saraswati
India Heritage Research Foundation, Rishikesh

(In this article the author explains the spirit of Gandhi's life. According to him Gandhi's life was one of sacrifice for his country unto his last breath. His belief in God was unshakeable and his humbleness was legendary. He devoted his life for his country and never considered whether he would personally gain or loose. What one can learn from his life is to give something worthwhile and useful to the world during our lifetime).

In August 1997, we celebrated the golden Jubilee of India's Independence, and on January 30 1998, we observed the 50th anniversary of the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. The former was an occasion for somber reflection. We won our Independence, but we lost a beautiful soul, a true Mahan Atma (Great soul). As we revel in the joy of India's freedom, we must not forget the message of his life.

As we reflect on the greatness of Mahatma Gandhiji's life and the tragedy of his assassination, let us look not only at facts but at meanings. What was the meaning of his life ? What was the message of his death? What does he have to teach the world of today?

We can answer these questions with the world of "Yagna". Yagna was the spirit of his life, including the last, was an oblation to his country, his principles and his faith in God. The theme of his life was truly sacrifice.

Sacrifice for his country

Mahatma Gandhi could have been a healthy attorney. He could have had a life of relative ease and prosperity. However he was a man devoted to his country and to her freedom. Through his tireless efforts and his simple piety, he led India to independence. However, in spite of national and international acclaim, he never lost his humility, his dedication and his spirit of sacrifice. Rather the flames of his true Yagna to Bharat Mata seemed to grow until he himself was the poorna ahuti, or final offering.

When I was young, a great saint said to me,

It means that we, as people, always want to be in the center. We always want the focus on ourselves, the recognition for ourselves and the reward for ourselves. We do not actually work or accomplish anything meaningful, but we expend great effort trying to convince all those around us of our inestimable worth. However Gandhiji was different. He did everything. Yet he worked with such piety that he never put himself in the centre. This is a great message of his life: "work, serve with every breath, but remain a simple humble, unattached child of God".

There is a story of a man traveling by train to Porbandar in the same coach as Gandhiji. However the man did not know that the old man in his coach was Mahatma Gandhi. So all night long this man lay down on the seat, occupied the entire seat in the coach, pushed Gandhi, put his feet on him, and left Gandhiji with barely enough room to sit upright. However Gandhi did not fight, or complain. How easy it would have been to proclaim, "I am Mahatma Gandhi. Give me room in the coach", But that is not the spirit of Yagna.

As the train pulled into Porbandar, the man mentioned that he was going to see the famous Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhiji still remained silent. As Gandhiji descended from the train to the welcoming crowd of thousands, the man fell at his feet, begging for forgiveness. Gandhiji of course, blessed and forgave him, telling him only that he should be more respectful of others, regardless of who they are. This is the spirit of Yagna. This is the spirit of India that we must maintain in our hearts.

Another beautiful example of Gandhiji's humility, his selfless sacrifice for his country is how he celebrated his victory. When India won Independence, when Gandhi was the hero of the country, he could have been in New Delhi receiving boundless honors and appreciation. However he was not. He was not in New Delhi, nor was in Bombay, nor in Calcutta. He was nowhere that would shower him with love and esteem. Rather he was in East Bengal where Hindus And Muslims were fighting bitterly. He was not content to have "fulfilled his mission". If humans were still suffering, then he still had work to do. So while the rest of the country celebrated. Gandhiji continued his tireless work to heal the wound between Hindus and Muslims. This is the spirit of Divinity ... Even when all external circumstances throw you to the center, you remain simple, you remember for whom your Yagna was performed. Gandhiji's Yagna was for his country, not for his own fame.

Sacrifice for the principles of right living:

However, his life was not only a sacrifice for Mother India. It was also a Yagna of morality, of, dharma, of ethics and of truth. How easy it would have been to fight with weapons; how easy to kill the enemy. How easy to carry a gun to protect himself. Yet the flames of Gandhi's Yagna were fuelled by non-violence. Wars throughout history had been won with weapons. Gandhi was devoted to proving that peace could only come through peace. People criticized him vehemently for refusing to take up arms; they claimed he was forfeiting India's fight for freedom. Yet, he simply kept pouring truth, piety, and dharma into the fire of his life's Yagna, and the flames rose in victory. This is the true meaning of Yagna, for Gandhi sacrificed an easy-win (or at least a quick loss) for India by refusing to engage it in armed warfare. He sacrificed his status as a fighter. Yet the truth prevails and he is remembered as one of the greatest leaders- both political and spiritual - that the world had ever known.

Sacrifice to God

Mahatma Gandhi's life was in service to God. His work for his country and his tenaciously held values were part and parcel of this complete sacrifice to the divine. The Gita was his closest companion, and his most trusted guide. So many people today claim that their lives and their work are "God's". Yet they use this as an excuse to lie, to cheat and even to kill. And at the end it is clear that they merely used God's name in the service of themselves. Yet Gandhiji was pure and his death is the clearest example. Due to his tenaciously held belief in ahimsa and his true surrender to God he refused to employ a bodyguard. Hence, he was gunned down on his way to a prayer meeting. As he breathed his last, there was no sign of fight, no break from his lifelong dedication to non-violence and to the divine. He did not scream, "Who are you ?How dare you ? Somebody help me!!" Rather the only words that escaped from his lips were "Hey Ram Hey Ram" This is the spirit of Yagna"

What can we Learn:

So many people come and go in this world. So many people become famous through valiant efforts to "make a name for themselves". Yet how many of these people have really left lasting impressions or have really changed the course of history? Very few. When we depart this Earth, when we cremate our bodies, what is it that remains? It is that which we have given to the world. It is that for which we had sacrificed. It is the love and the peace that our presence brought to those around us. Gandhiji's name will live eternally not only because he brought independence to India. He will be remembered forever and revered forever because of the way he brought peace, because of the message of his life.

When Gandhiji was in South Africa he was traveling by train and the conductor came and rudely told Gandhi to leave. "But Sir, I have a ticket," Gandhi replied. The conductor violently threw him from the train and yelled, "You do not deserve to ride on this train!" Gandhi, however did not raise an arm in his defense. And today, does anyone know the name of the man who threw him from the train? Of course not. But today the name of the station is "Mahatma Gandhi Station"! That is the spirit of Yagna.

Gandhi would not have wanted to be remembered only in History books. He would not want to be remembered only as the politician who led India to independence . He would want his message to live on; he would want his Yagna to continue burning, to continue bringing light and warmth to all the world. In fact, when someone once asked him for a message, he replied, "My life is my message"

So as we remember this Mahatma this, "great soul" let us take his message to heart. Let us live our lives as a sacrifice to world peace, as a sacrifice to our principles and as a sacrifice to God, then and only then, will our lives truly make a difference.

We make many choices in our lives without ever questioning "why?".

Gandhi's Love For Children

By P. D. Tandon

(The author, Mr. Tandon, being associated with Gandhi has written this short and enlightening article about Gandhi's love for children. The anecdotes given in this article were witnessed by the author and hence hold greater importance than that which is written on the basis of hearsay. We realize that Gandhi truly believed that children were "flowers of God's garden" and accepted them as they were. He was able to get down to their level and play with them whilst at the same time taught them values. Today's method of 'learn while you play' was in fact being practised by Gandhi half a century ago.)

Gandhijiwas a poet of patriotism and prophet of humanity. It was said about him thatwhenever he walked, it was a pilgrimage and wherever he sat it acquired thesanctity of a temple. Children from all over the world wrote to him. It washe who aspired to wipe out every tear from every eye and it was he who hadsaid that "God dare not appear before the starving man except in theshape of bread.' He was the greatest lover of children in the world. Hebecame a child in the company of children. He was a giant amongst men.

Gandhiji'slove for children was deep and abiding. It was no ordinary love that most ofus have for them in more or less degree. It was unique in its depth andastonishing in its hilarity.

Whenever he was withchildren, he became a child. He doted on them. They boxed his ears, theyclimbed on his shoulders they called him 'mad'. They told him that he was'brainless' and they put all sorts of funny questions to him, but hethoroughly enjoyed them and he fully relaxed in their company. During playand laughter too, he taught them many things. He considered them 'flowers ofGod's garden'.

Once he had told KingGeorge V that 'children are my life'. One day in Kingsley hall, London, someBritish children called him uncle Gandhi. They were extremely happy in hiscompany. As a token of their affection for him, they sent him toys andsweets. Gandhiji was extremely happy when he received these presents,but he had no time to thank them for their love and kindness, because he wasin a great hurry to return to India. When he reached his country he wasarrested, however the little ones who had played him in London and gave himpresents were very much in his thoughts. He did not forget them and longedto write to them and thank them for their lovely gifts. Whenhe got an opportunity to write to them, he wrote the following from jail:-

Dear Little Friends,

I often think of you and the bright answers you gave tomy questions when that afternoon we sat together. I never got time whilst I was at Kingsley Hall to send you a note thanking you for the gifts to the Ashram children. But I was never able to reach theAshram.

My Love to you all.

Yours whom you call Gandhi."

Those children who had the privilegeof playing with Gandhi or had the occasion to see him were really lucky. Menlike Gandhiji are seldom born. They come to this world with some message that endures and guides mankind.

Bapu always heartilywelcomed children's company. One day, Smt. Indira Gandhi went to see him withher son Rajiv. The Mahatma was delighted and observed. "It is good thatnow you are going to take possession of my mind. My head was filled withthorny problems in the company of several people who came to see me and Ifeel fagged".

Gandhiji readily admittedhis mistakes. Once due to Acharya Kripalani's persuasion on my behalf, heagreed to write a foreword to my book, 'Nehru Your Neighbour'. Formonths I reminded him about it but I neither got the foreword, nor anyreply. I told Acharya Kripalani about it and he one day asked Bapu thereason for it. He said that Nehru's younger sister had advised him not towrite the forward. The Acharya said, "You should have first asked meabout it and not lent your ears to someone else in this matter!" Bapu realised that Acharya Kriplani was right. Promptly he sent me a niceforeword and a kind personal letter.

He said, "BrotherTandon - I am sorry that I could not send anything for your book earlier. Onereason was that I am short of time and the other was my unwillingness towrite anything. But how was it possible for me to refuse to write anythingon brother Jawaharlal ? Now I only hope that my foreword will notreach you too late."

Yours

M. K. Gandhi

Once a child called Gandhiji mad, to the great embarrassment of his parents, when he was eating some fruit. Bapu was amused and asked the child to tell him why he (Bapu) was mad. The little boy said that his mother had called him mad once when he ate something and did not share it with others. "You are eating alone, and that is why you are mad," the child declared. Gandhiji told him that he was right and he offered some fruit to him.

Gandhiji was a unique man of his age. This conviction will continue to grow as long as his writings survive and little stories and anecdotes of his deep love for man are narrated to us.

When Gandhi was assassinated, it was once again realized with a tremendous shock, that 'it was dangerous to be too good'. Each one of us registered in our hearts the death of a part of ourselves, and the world seemed a vast cremation ground, a wasteland of burning hearts'.

January 1897: Attack On Gandhi By A European Mob In Durban

[This article by Hassim Seedat was published by The Leader, a weekly in Durban, South Africa, on 31 January 1997 in connection with the centenary of the attack on Gandhi by a European mob.]

Mr. Hassim Seedat, the author of this article, brings to our attention a slice of history which may have remain hidden all these years quoting from various South African newspapers of that time. He has given us facts as they happened and leaves it to us to draw our own conclusions about the harmful effects of racism and violence. He emphasizes the fact that black Africans could be incited to act violently by the very race who were their subjugators and therein lay great danger.

A HUNDRED years ago an incident took place in Durban that demonstrated tangibly for the first time in all its ugliness the racialism of the white colonist against the Indians.

It could have been forgotten save for the fact that Gandhi had become the focus of the agitation and against whom all the pent up racial emotionalism and hatred was vented.

Returning to Durban with his family from India in January 1897, Gandhi and the Indian passengers aboard the Courtland and Naderimet with a hostile reception.

The white agitators alleged that Gandhi had, whilst abroad, maligned and lowered the fair name of the whites in Natal through calumny.

Furthermore, he was now flooding Natal with undesirable Indian settlers loaded on two ships. On both scores they were wrong, but then racialism and truth have never been compatible companions.


Rescued

After a long quarantine period and receiving assurance that it was safe to land, Gandhi disembarked. At the Ship Hotel in West Street he was assaulted and worse could have befallen him had it not been for the timely arrival at the scene of the wife of the Chief Constable Richard Alexander.

She shamed the white pack that had knocked Gandhi to the ground to retreat after having protected him from the missiles being hurled at Gandhi with her parasol.

The other incident outside Parsee Rustomjee’s house in Field Street has also become famous. The saving of Gandhi’s life from a baying mob by Chief Constable Alexander who secreted Gandhi out of the house dressed as an Indian constable is well known. This incident has been quoted extensively. The Indian community as a token of thanks and appreciation gave gifts to both the Alexanders for their deeds.

But other details of the incident reveal the intense racial bigotry of the whites against the Indians. It reveals that it could have ended in tragedy of a greater proportion than just the loss of Gandhi’s life.


The Cast

Firstly, a closer look at the dramatis personae; Amuster of those who had gathered at Alexandra Square to destruct the landing of the Indians reflected that there were nearly a thousand railway men. The yacht club, the point club and rowing club had 150 in attendance, carpenters and joiners 450, printers 80, shop assistants about 400, tailors and saddlers 70,builders and bricklayers 200 and from the general public, about a 1,000.

But far more ominous was the recruitment by the whites of over 500 blacks armed with sticks which they brandished whilst singing war songs.

(Natal Advertiser, January 15, 1897).

Before the meeting this crowd of over 5,000 had lined the entire waterfront and as the Naderi and the Courtland approached, the crowd moved to the North Pier and thereafter moved to Alexander Square.


Prominent

The leaders of these contingents were some of the most prominent members of society. Solicitor Mr. J. S. Wylie and Captain of the Durban Light Infantry Dr.Mackenzie, Captain of the Naval Carbiners and Harry Sparks, Captain of the Natal Mounted Rifles of the Volunteer Force were the driving spirit behind the formation of the demonstration committee.

The names of the other prominent citizens are recorded in The Natal Advertiser of January 16, 1897, that reflect a virtual who’s who of the time.

At the meetings held earlier in the Town Hall, inflammatory and racist speeches were made by these men.

Dr.Mackenzie’s remarks for example, that “Gandhi had returned to India and dragged them (the whites) in the gutters and painted them as black and filthy as his own skin” and “the hold of the British on South Africa would not be maintained by slumming them with the miserable refuse of the social gutters of India” met with such applause and so did the other derogatory remarks of the other speakers. This aroused the emotions of the public to fever pitch.


Atmosphere

Tension was running so high in the town in the first week of January 1897 that the memorial that was later sent to the Secretary of State Joseph Chamberlain by Abdul Carim Hajee Adam and thirty-one others who represented the Indian community stated that “it was the time of terror and anxiety for the Indian residents, and collision between the two communities was to be feared at any moment.”

The demonstration itself proved in the words of one of the newspapers an utter fiasco and came to an ignominious termination.

But the recruitment of Africans against the Indians was a matter of grave concern to some of the more responsible members of the community.

Mr.G. A. Labistour, a leading burgess writing to the Town Council, said that he, together with other burgesses, had viewed with concern the rowdy behaviour of the Africans who took part in the demonstration.

The race hatred he said must not be countenanced and other gatherings of a large force of Africans was a source of great danger to the town.


Responsible

He called for an enquiry to be made as to who was responsible for the massing of the Africans and that the town should pass special by-laws if they were to “cope with the evil.”

The Natal Mercury (Jan. 16, 1897) commenting on Labistour’s letter said rather surprisingly that it believed that the demonstration committee was not responsible for the impi being at the Point and since the Africans did not go there on their own initiative the matter should be fully investigated.

It agreed with Labistour that the African element at the demonstration “was a blot on the fair name of Durban and might have been productive of the most dire results.”

The Mercury also commented on another incident that has not been generally known. It said “An even more disgraceful incident was inciting the natives to attack Indians after Mr. Gandhi landed and was lodged in Field Street.”


Averted

“Hadthe police not been on the alert and succeeded in dispersing the natives, Wednesday night would have ended in one of the most disgraceful riots any British Colony ever witnessed.”

And to twist the racial dagger in the wound it added “In so far that a savage warlike race had been set upon a more civilised, peaceful people by men of a higher race than either.”

The inciting of racial prejudice covertly and overtly by the whites against the Indians continued in one form or other, leading to a terrible sequel to the 1897 episode.

In January 1949 the so called ‘Durban Riots’ took place.

Space does not permit an in-depth analysis of that unfortunate occurrence where 147lives were lost, thousands were injured and massive destruction of property and looting took place. Except for one white, the rest who died were Africans and Indians.


Inquiry

The Riots Inquiry Commission set up after the ‘riots’ failed to address the question of the tardiness of the authorities and the police to quench the tide of killings.

It found that the white looters and inciters, many of them women who went dancing up the streets in encouragement, were “degraded specimens of their race.”

One is loath to draw comparisons of that kind to the 1897 incident but one fact stares us all in the face.

Racial prejudice is a destructive force and whatever form it takes it must not be allowed to suppurate.

There was an intervening period of fifty-two years between the two incidents. The zeal of the Natal whites to legislate against Indians to curb their development, never diminished over the years and paved the Nationalists’ path too and gave meaning to apartheid long before that word was introduced into the lexicons of the world

Are Gandhi And Ford On The Same Road?

By Drew Pearson

[Mr. Pearson (1897-1969), a prominent American journalist, columnist and radio commentator, visited India in 1923 and sought to interview Gandhiji, then in prison. His request to the Governor of Bombay for permission to see Gandhiji in prison was refused. This article by Drew Pearson shows the similarity between two people, Mahatma Gandhi and Henry Ford, who are completely opposite in their lifestyles and thoughts and yet were working towards the same goal (each without knowing or having met the other) i.e. to make villages self-sufficient so that village dwellers are not dependent on the city for their livelihood and survival during the slack period.]


If you were to search the four corners of the world, you would not find two men superficially more unlike than Mahatma Gandhi and Henry Ford. Gandhi is a small, frail man, brown-skinned and naked to the waist. He sits cross-legged on a straw mat, serene and unflustered by what goes on around him. Ford is a tall, angular dynamo of energy, who cannot sit still a minute. While talking to you, he leans back in his swivel-chair, sits forward, crosses his legs, uncrosses them. Gandhi is visionary; Ford is practical. But both men are idealists, and it is in their ideals, their desire for human welfare, that they are strangely close together.


Mahatma Gandhi lives on the cool-running Sabarmati River at a point where it drops down from the Aravalli Hills and spreads out upon the plain of Ahmedabad. Henry Ford lives beside the river Rouge, muddier perhaps than the Sabarmati, but meandering down through the hills of Michigan to the lake plain near Detroit in the same lazy fashion. A dam across the Rouge generates electricity to do Ford's cooking and grind his corn; but from up behind Gandhi's house the steady thump-thump of a wooden mallet pounding corn in a hollowed stone is evidence that nothing more than sleepy, grunting buffaloes or shadowy forms stealing down to bathe at the dusk of dawn disturbs the Sabarmati.


Ford lives at the end of a vistaed driveway in a palace that the stranger is barely allowed to glimpse before a guard challenges him. Across the street from Ford's estate is his Dearborn office, down at the mouth of the river the blast furnaces of the Rouge plant loom black against the sky, and the modern machinery at Highland Park, Detroit, covers two hundred and seventy-eight busy acres. Within a radius of four miles, one hundred and forty thousand men toil for Ford - so many that the closing of their shifts must be carefully timed lest their exodus choke the streets. Gandhi dwells within walls of mud and straw, with red-tiled roofs and stone floor. The family sleep on straw mats spread upon the floor or upon the ground outside. So I found them when first I stumbled into their compound at ten one night. I was a stranger and from a strange land, but they took me in. Gandhi's home forms the nucleus of another industrial centre. It is called the Ashram, which means a cooperative settlement, and is made up of his nephews and cousins and grandchildren and nationalist students from every corner of India, who live in whitewashed cottages and toil at plough or loom. I heard their melodious chanting of Hindu prayers at four in the morning as I lay dozing on my mat beside the Sabarmati, and I knew their day's work was about to begin. Before breakfast they bathed in the river, ground the day's corn, cleaned their cottages. At seven the Ashram began to resound with the click-clock of the shuttle and the whir-whir of the spinning wheel. No whistles, no smoke nor dust, no endless chains carrying four-cylinder motors past lines of men, each with a screw to tighten, a bolt to place. Just the zip-zip-zip of the cotton-carder from a room where a Bengali student squatted upon the floor, and outside the droning of the Indian summer.


Ford is fond of children; so is Gandhi. Ford has three grandsons in whom he is trying to arouse an interest in mechanics with every toy that money will buy. The latest is a miniature threshing-machine with an eight-horse-power steam-engine, which I saw efficiently sorting grain from chaff, to the great glee of its small owners. Gandhi's six-year-old granddaughter, lacking such elaborate toys, seized upon my tooth-paste and managed to decorate her pet dog with streaks of white from ear to tail before he could make a chagrined exit. Then, quite carried away with the novelty of exploring a gentleman's travelling-case, she pounced upon my razor and was about to slash off one dainty eyebrow when I intervened and nearly broke up our friendship.


Both Ford and Gandhi are early risers and both are abstemious. Ford is up at six and out on his farm. He seldom bothers about breakfast. Gandhi also eats but two meals, at sunrise and sunset. His diet consists chiefly of goat's milk and fruit and is limited to five kinds of food a day. If, for instance, he uses salt and pepper in his soup, he considers these two ingredients, together with the soup, as three kinds of food, and eats only two more during the remainder of the day. Gandhi is no poseur and does not mean to be a food fanatic. He adopted this ration many years ago because he felt that mankind in general ate too much. When he was a popular young lawyer, he was invited to so many banquets that he sickened of the sight of men gorging themselves and resolved that he would not eat after sunset. He uses no knife and fork, but eats in the orthodox Hindu fashion, with the thumb and the first two fingers of the right hand and without letting the left hand touch the food.


Gandhi has fought the machine age as ardently as Ford has championed it. Henry Ford is not only a railroad-owner but a speed-demon. One day he told me that he had just driven from Grand Rapids to Dearborn - one hundred and seventy miles in four hours. On this subject of locomotion, which Ford has done more than any other man to make cheap and easy, Gandhi remarks, "Nature requires man to restrict his movements as far as his hands and feet will take him." To Gandhi both speed and railroads are anathema. "Good travels at snail's pace," he says. "It can, therefore, have little to do with the railways. Those who want to do good are not in a hurry; they know that to impregnate people with good requires a long time. But evil has wings. To build a house takes time. Its destruction takes none. Furthermore, the railways have spread bubonic plague. Honest physicians will tell you that where means of electrical locomotion have increased, the health of the people has suffered."


Yet, these two men, differing so widely - for Ford's mode of life would jar the nerves of Gandhi, and Gandhi's would drive Ford crazy with inactivity - these two, though seven thousand miles apart, have concluded, by separate processes of thought, that the greatest problem confronting their countries - India and the United States - is the big city. And, while pursuing the problem, each in his own peculiar and individualistic way, they have arrived at the same solution.


The remedy, Henry Ford has figured out, while experimenting with his Dearborn farm and factories, is the removal of industry to the village, where it can be combined with farming. "The farm has its dull season," he points out, "when the farmer can come into the village factory. The factory also has its dull season. That is the time for the workmen to go out on the land to help produce food."


And Mahatma Gandhi, sitting cross-legged upon his mat in the Sabarmati Ashram, declares: "What the Indian peasant needs is not a revolution in agriculture, but a supplementary industry. India has almost seven hundred fifty thousand villages scattered over its vast area. The great majority of the people face a hand-to-mouth existence. Because of the rainy monsoon seasons and the droughts between, millions are living in enforced idleness at least four months of the year. The most natural solution is the spinning wheel, which was an essential in every home a century ago, but was driven out by deliberate economic pressure. Its restoration solves India's economic problem at one stroke. It saves millions of Indian homes from economic distress and is a most effective insurance against famine. Moreover, in weaning thousands of women away from factory life and the prostitution of the cities, the spinning wheel is also a moral instrument."


Gandhi is a doer as well as a theorizer. He has worked out his theories under a few open sheds in his Ashram. Under one of them a half-dozen carpenters with a set of clumsy hand tools are making spinning wheels. Crude and inefficient affairs they appear to be, but in a demonstration given by Gandhi's able nieces, they turned out an incredible amount of cotton thread. The spinning wheels are stacked up inside the shed and have overflowed to great piles outside, from which they are sent to every corner of the land, until the spinning wheel on a background of red, white and green has become the national emblem of India. But Gandhi has not stopped there. Across the road from the Ashram a white school building of rather imposing proportions houses a hundred students sent from the various provinces of India to learn the ancient arts of carding, spinning and weaving and then to return and spread their knowledge among the farmers.


Gandhi's logic seems sound. Raw cotton is India's chief money crop. Why should it be packed up in bales, to be shipped four thousand five hundred miles to England, turned into cotton cloth in the mills of Lancashire, packed up and sent four thousand five hundred miles back again? Let each ryot, Gandhi says, make cotton homespun on his own farm. Furthermore, let him do it during the slack season.


Ford uses similar logic. He asks why men should be herded into streetcars to hang by straps for an hour twice a day to and from the city, instead of staying in the country and having the materials shipped to them. Furthermore, what objection is there to employment of the farmer during his slack season?


When I questioned him regarding the success of his village industries, he said: "Go out and see for yourself. Have a good look around. Talk to the foremen and see how they like our experiment. Then come back and I'll talk to you."


Accordingly, I went up the river Rouge, once harnessed by a half-dozen mud and timber dams with overhead water-wheels and old-fashioned mills, which ground the grist of the countryside. Today, re-harnessed by new concrete dams, supplying power to modern turbines in clean white factories, the river Rouge is grinding out carburetor valves and generator cut-outs and magneto parts for Ford cars the world over. The first of these, located at Nankin, a metropolis of fourteen houses, employed eleven men - incidentally a substantial majority of the male population - in making a hundred and three thousand five hundred vibrator-cushion-spring-spacer-rivets per day. The Rouge at this point gave only fifteen horse-power, but a few miles further up, at Plymouth, a larger dam supplied a hundred horse-power and employed thirty-three men. Phoenix, with a hundred and fifty girls, and Northville, with three hundred and eighty men, complete Ford's village industries on the Rouge. At each, workers and foremen told the same story.


"I wouldn't go back to the city for twice my pay here," one man said, "and my wife wouldn't go back for three times as much. We've got a truck garden and a cow. Then, too, the children are outdoors all day long and only have to go round the corner to school. And say," he added, waving his hand toward the mill reservoir, which reflected in its blue depths the clean concrete of the factory and its surrounding grove of green, "who could want a more beautiful place to work?"


"How have the farmers taken to Ford's new idea?" I asked one foreman.


"Well, we've got lots of 'em working here, paying off their taxes and mortgages. Most of the boys have about twenty-five to fifty acres. It's pretty hard for a man to manage a big tract after working eight hours at a machine. During low water, we've been working only four days a week, and most of the boys are tickled to death to get an extra day in the fields."


The foremen all agreed on another point, equally important: cost of production, since they moved to the country, had been cut at Phoenix eighteen per cent, at Plymouth thirty-three per cent, at Nankin and Northville fifty per cent. Why?


I put the astounding cost reduction to Ford when I returned to his Dearborn office.


"Labour turnover was cut down," he explained. "In a big city, labour is performed by transients, usually single men. They come and go, and it costs a lot to break them in. Out in the country we can employ married men, who own their own homes and are with us the year round. They become skilled workmen.


"In our Highland Park plant we first cut down the cost of production by taking the work on an endless chain to the man. Now we go one step further. Instead of having the man come to the city, we take the work out to him. Certain heavy industries, of course, must be centralised, but small parts can be made just as easily forty miles from the assembling-plant.


"Industry is going to decentralize. When it does, the modern city is doomed. In a small community where a man can have his own garden and the strain of living is not so tense, there are less unrest and less violence, less poverty and less wealth. Besides, every man is better off for a period of work under the open sky. I sometimes think that the prejudice and narrowness of the present day are due to our intense specialization. We all need changes, and while we cannot afford to dawdle around summer resorts, we can escape routine and monotony by labour exchange during slack seasons."


All of this is essentially what Mahatma Gandhi has been preaching throughout the length and breadth of India. Gandhi would go at it in a different way, it is true. He hates machinery and bitterly denounces it as having brought "ruination knocking at the English gates and begun to despoil Europe." He would have the Indian farmer gain his economic emancipation through the ancient spinning wheel rather than the machine. But were Gandhi to visit the sleepy, fourteen-house village of Nankin, see its ancient grist-mill, remodeled without disturbance to the hand-hewn beams and oaken pins of the pre-nail age, and fitted with the cleanest and most modern of water-driven machinery, or had he lolled about on the green bank of the mill-pond, watching small boys catch perch, or later splashed with them in the clear water, he might have concluded that the village mill was accomplishing much the same end as the spinning wheel and that he and Henry Ford, for all their differences, were working along the same end.

Gandhi, The Prisoner

A comparison of prison experiences and conditions of Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela in South Africa(1)
By Nelson Mandela

Gandhi threatened the South African Government during the first and second decades of our century as no other man did. He established the first anti-colonial political organisation in the country, if not in the world, founding the Natal Indian Congress in 1894. The African People's Organisation (APO) was established in 1902, the ANC in 1912, so that both were witnesses to and highly influenced by Gandhi's militant satyagraha which began in 1907 and reached its climax in 1913 with the epic march of 5,000 workers indentured on the coal mines of Natal. That march evoked a massive response from the Indian women who in turn, provoked the Indian workers to come out on strike. That was the beginning of the marches to freedom and mass stay-away-from-work which became so characteristic of our freedom struggle in the apartheid era. Our Defiance Campaign of 1952, too, followed very much on the lines that Gandhi had set.

So in the Indian struggle, in a sense, is rooted the African. M.K. Gandhi and John Dube, first President of the African National Congress, were neighbours in Inanda, and each influenced the other, for both men established, at about the same time, two monuments to human development within a stone's throw of each other, the Ohlange Institute and the Phoenix Settlement. Both institutions suffer today the trauma of the violence that has overtaken that region; hopefully, both will rise again, phoenix-like, to lead us to undreamed heights.

During his twenty-one years in South Africa, Gandhi was sentenced to four terms of imprisonment, the first, on January 10, 1908 to two months, the second, on October 7, 1908 to three months, the third, on February 25, also to three months, and the fourth, on November 11, 1913 to nine months hard labour. He actually served seven months and ten days of those sentences. On two occasions, the first and the last, he was released within weeks because the Government of the day, represented by General Smuts, rather than face satyagraha and the international opprobrium it was bringing the regime, offered to settle the problems through negotiation.

On all four occasions, Gandhi was arrested in his time and at his insistence - there were no midnight raids, the police did not swoop on him - there were no charges of conspiracy to overthrow the state, of promoting the activities of banned organisations or instigating inter-race violence. The State had not yet invented the vast repertoire of so-called "security laws", that we had to contend with in our time. There was no Terrorism Act, no "Communism Act", no Internal Security Act, or detentions without trial. The control of the State was not as complete; the Nationalist police state and Nationalist ideology of apartheid were yet to be born. Gandhi was arrested for deliberately breaching laws that were unjust because they discriminated against Indians and violated their dignity and their freedom. He was imprisoned because he refused to take out a registration certificate, or a pass in terms of the Transvaal Asiatic Registration Act (TARA), and "instigated" others to do likewise.

When apartheid was still in its infancy, we too, like Gandhi, organised arrests in our own time through the Defiance of Unjust Laws Campaign, but by the end of the sixties, the violence of the State had reached such intensity that passive resistance appeared futile. We were literally pulled out of our beds and dragged into prison. Our Defiance, instead of bringing relief, provoked the Government into passing the so-called security laws in a bid to dam up all resistance. This should not mislead the reader into thinking that Gandhi's resistance did not provoke harsh measures against him and his followers. The Indians suffered terrible reprisal - they were deported to India and several groups spent time navigating back and forth, between the ports of Bombay and Durban in third class steerage because they refused to disembark in India, insisting they would only do so on their mother soil, South Africa.

Most of those deportees had in fact been born in South Africa and India was for them, a foreign country. Others like Ahmed Cachalia and E.I. Asvat lost their lucrative businesses and were forced into insolvency by their white creditors, not because their businesses were not doing well, but because they resented their 'defiance' and forced them to liquidate their assets and pay them back. Others had their property auctioned, just so that the government could extract the fines the satyagrahis refused to pay for defying unjust laws. Gandhi himself was treated with utmost indignity on several occasions, the like of which was not heaped on us. On two occasions, while being moved from Volksrust to Johannesburg and Pretoria respectively, he was marched from the gaol to the station in prison garb, handcuffed, with his prison kit on his head. Those who saw him were moved to anger and tears. For Gandhi, it was part of his suffering, part of the struggle against inhumanity.


Prison Conditions

There is great similarity in the conditions of imprisonment during our days and Gandhi's. Prison conditions changed dramatically only in the 1980s, despite the pressures exerted at the beginning of the century by Gandhi and his colleagues, and in the latter decades by my colleagues and myself. Access to newspapers, radio and television were allowed, in stages, only in the last decade as, too, were beds. In a sense, I was eased into the prison routine.

My first time in a lock-up was on June 26th, 1952 while I was organising the Defiance of Unjust Laws Campaign. I was held for a few days in a police cell before being released on bail. Gandhi's first imprisonment was without hard labour, in January 1908, and though sentenced to two months, he was released within 19 days. General Smuts, fearful of the momentum the passive resistance struggle was gathering, had him brought by train, from Johannesburg, to his offices in Pretoria to work out a settlement.

I too, was called out with a view to a settlement by the then head of state, Mr. P.W. Botha. They drove me to Groote Schuur, but that was in my twenty-sixth year of imprisonment - when the Nationalist Government saw that they could no longer govern the country on their own. Gandhi spent his first term of imprisonment in the Fort in Johannesburg, so did I - in the hospital section as an awaiting trial prisoner in 1962.

Gandhi describes his apprehension on being first convicted: "Was I to be specially treated as a political prisoner? Was I to be separated from my fellow prisoners?" he soliloquized. He was facing imprisonment in a British Colony in 1908, and he still, at the time, harboured a residue of belief in British justice. My colleagues and I faced imprisonment in the cells of apartheid; we had no expectations that we would be given privileges because we were political prisoners. We expected the reverse - greater brutality because we were political prisoners. My first conviction was for five years in 1962, following my incognito African "tour". I began serving in Pretoria. Like Gandhi, we experienced the insides of the major Transvaal prisons. Gandhi, however, was never on Robben Island in the Cape, and we were never in Volksrust in the Transvaal.

Gandhi's approach was to accommodate to the prison conditions since, as a satyagrahi, suffering in the path of freedom and justice was part of his creed: We were never satyagrahis in that sense. We did not accept suffering, we reacted against it. I was as unco-operative on my first day of prison as I possibly could be. I refused to wear the prison shorts and I refused to eat the prison food. They gave me long trousers, and food that was somewhat more palatable, but at a heavy price. I was placed in solitary confinement where I discovered that human company was infinitely more valuable than any material advantage.


Clothing and Food

There was practically no difference in the issue of clothing given to us in 1962 and that given to Gandhi in 1908. He records, that "After being stripped, we were given prison uniforms. We were supplied, each with a pair of short breeches, a shirt of coarse cloth, a jumper, a cap, a towel and a pair of socks and sandals." (Indian Opinion, 02-01-1909) Our issue was almost identical.

Neither was there any difference in the diet, basically porridge, save that we were given a teaspoon of sugar; Gandhi's porridge had no sugar. At lunch, we were served mealies, sometimes mixed with beans. He spent one and a half months on a one-meal-a-day diet of beans.

He did not think it proper to complain, writing:

"How can we complain when there are hundreds who accept these things. A complaint must have only one object - to secure relief for other prisoners. How would it mend matters if I were occasionally to complain to the warder about the small quantity of potatoes and so get him to serve me a little more? I once observed him giving me an additional helping from a portion meant for another, and thereafter I gave up complaining altogether."

He declined any favours offered to him exclusively but accepted improvements when these were shared with his fellow political prisoners. On Robben Island, we observed the same principle.

We took up issues on behalf of all the prisoners, political and non-political, never on behalf of an individual, except when an individual was personally discriminated against. In prison, one's material needs are so straitened that they are reduced to almost nothing, and if in that condition one can still think of one's fellowmen, one's humanity excels and passes all tests for fellow feeling. Gandhi passed that test superbly. I am grateful that I maintained my humanity throughout my internment as did too my immediate colleagues.


Cells

The cells in 1962 were comparable to those during the early 1900s. Gandhi describes his cell in Volksrust:

"It had fair ventilation, with two small windows at the top of the cell, half open apertures in the opposite wall. There was no electric light. The cell contained a dim lamp, a bucket of water and a tin tumbler. For natural convenience, a bucket in a tray with disinfectant fluid in it, was placed in a corner. Our bedding consisted of two planks, fixed to three inch legs, two blankets, an apology for a pillow, and matting." (Indian Opinion, 07-03-1908)

We were similarly locked up with a bucket for a commode and drinking water in a plastic bottle. Though we had electricity, the lights, controlled from outside, remained on throughout the night. We had no raised planks for sleeping. We slept on a mat, on the floor. Communal cells, in Gandhi's time and ours, usually accommodated 15-20 prisoners, but that varied. The worst Gandhi experienced was sharing a cell, with accommodation for 50, with 150 prisoners. (Indian Opinion, 28-03-1908)

The ablution facilities in Gandhi's time were worse than in ours, two large stone basins and two spouts that served as a shower, two buckets for defecation and two for urine - all in the open, since prison regulations did not allow privacy. The one grilling routine that some of his compatriots suffered was absent from ours. Ahmed Cachalia, for instance, was left in a cold bath with other prisoners for hours and developed pneumonia as a consequence.


Prison Routine

Our prison routine and Gandhi's were remarkably similar, but then why wouldn't they be? In prison everything stands still. There is one way to treat prisoners, and that way doesn't change. During my first decade of imprisonment, we were up at 5.30 a.m., we rushed through our ablutions, folded our bedding and lined it against the wall and stood to attention for inspection.

Once counted, we filed for our breakfast, and then filed to be counted again before being sent to work. Work stopped at 4.30 p.m., when there was further counting; when we reached the compound, we were stripped naked and searched. By 5.30 p.m. we had had our supper and were locked up for the night.

Now let us look Gandhi's account of his prison routine:

"The prisoners are counted when they are locked in and when they are let out. A bell is rung at half-past five in the morning to wake up the prisoners. Everyone must then get up, roll up his bedding and wash. The door of the cell is opened at six when each prisoner must stand up with his arms crossed and his bedding rolled up beside him. A sentry then calls the roll. By a similar rule, every prisoner is required to stand beside his bed, while he is being locked up [at night]. When the officials come to inspect the prisoners, they must take off their caps and salute him. All the prisoners wore caps, and it was not difficult to take them off, for there was a rule that they must be taken off, and this was only proper. The order to line up was given by shouting the command fall in whenever an official came. The words fall in therefore became our daily diet. They meant that the prisoners should fall in line and stand to attention. This happened four or five times a day. The prisoners are locked up at half-past five in the afternoon. They read or converse in the cell up to eight in the evening. At eight, everyone must go to bed, meaning that even if one cannot sleep, one must get into bed. Talking among prisoners after eight constitutes a breach of Gaol Regulations. The Native prisoners do not observe this rule too strictly. The warders on night duty, therefore, try to silence them by knocking against the walls with their truncheons and shouting, Thula! Thula!" (Indian Opinion, 21-03-1908).


Hard Labour

Hard labour is hard, and made infinitely harder by the warder who stands over you and forces you to work beyond your endurance, beyond human endurance. Gandhi, like us, had plenty of hard labour, and both his comrades and mine, survived to tell our tales. He describes a particular day in Volksrust prison.

"The day was very hot, all the Indians set to work with great energy. The warder was rather short of temper. He shouted at the prisoners all the time to keep on working. The more he shouted, the more nervous the Indians became. I even saw some of them in tears. One, I noticed, had a swollen foot. I went on urging everyone to ignore the warder and carry on as best he could. I too, got exhausted. There were large blisters on my palms and the lymph was oozing out of them. I was praying to God all the time to save my honour so that I might not break down. The warder started rebuking me. He did so because I was resting. Just then I observed Mr. Jhinabhai Desai fainting away. I paused a little, not being allowed to leave the place of work. The warder went to the spot. I found that I too must go and I ran." (Indian Opinion, 09-01-1909).

They splashed water on the fainted Jhinabhai and revived him. Jhinabhai was taken to his cell by cab. That hot day repeated itself on Robben Island in the early sixties.

We, like Gandhi's Indians, had been working at a brisk pace for three hours one day, when fatigue set in and some of us stopped to stretch our bodies. The warder was on to us, swearing and shouting. Then he turned to Steven Tefu, old enough to be his grandfather, very erudite, highly educated, and shouted at him, "Get on boy!"

Tefu drew together his dignity and reprimanded the warder in high Dutch, thoroughly confusing him. The outcome for Tefu was better than that for Jhinabhai.

As was the experience of Gandhi, we were marched off to work in groups of 30. He writes,

"At seven, work starts. On the first day, we had to dig up the soil in a field near the main road for purposes of cultivation." (Indian Opinion, 29-5-1909).

They quarried stones and carried them on their heads. We worked on the lime quarries, and the sun shining on the whiteness blinded our eyes. There were times when Gandhi agonised and wondered whether he had done the right thing by exposing his compatriots to the pain and indignity, but his firm conviction came to his rescue.

"If to bear suffering is in itself a kind of happiness, there is no need to be worried by it. Seeing that our sole duty was to break free from our fetters by enduring every hardship rather than remaining bound for life, I felt light in the heart and tried to instill courage in the others."


African Prisoners

During his imprisonment in Pretoria, all his fellow prisoners were Africans (Natives as they were then referred to, even by ourselves), and they, seeing him so different from them, were curious to know what he was doing in prison. Had he stolen, or dealt in liquor?

He explained that he had refused to carry a pass. They understood that perfectly well. "Quite right," they said to him, "the white people are bad." Gandhi had been initially shocked that Indians were classified with Natives in prison; his prejudices were quite obvious, but he was reacting not to "Natives", but criminalised Natives.

He believed that Indians should have been kept separately. However, there was an ambivalence in his attitude for he stated,

"It was, however, as well that we were classed with the Natives. It was a welcome opportunity to see the treatment meted out to Natives, their conditions (of life in gaol), and their habits."

All in all, Gandhi must be forgiven those prejudices and judged in the context of the time and the circumstances. We are looking here at the young Gandhi, still to become Mahatma, when he was without any human prejudice, save that in favour of truth and justice.


Confrontations With Criminals

Political prisoners are prisoners of conscience, and as such, very different from other prisoners. The two are bound to meet and mix and the experience can have unpleasant consequences. Gandhi had such experiences, so did I. After my first conviction, I was transported to Pretoria prison in a closed van with a member of the notorious Msomi Gang and as the van reeled and lurched, I was swung against him. I could not trust the man for I feared he was a police plant.

Gandhi writes about a night he spent in Johannesburg prison in 1909. His fellow prisoners appeared to be wild and murderous and given to "unnatural ways". "Two of them tried to engage him in conversation. When he couldn't understand them, they jeered and laughed at him. Then the one retreated to a bed where another prisoner was lying. The two exchanged obscene jokes, uncovering each other's genitals." (Indian Opinion, 1909)

On another occasion, he was assaulted by a prisoner in a lavatory.

"The lavatories have open access. There are no doors. As soon as I had occupied one of them, there came along a strong, heavily-built, fearful-looking Native. He asked me to get out and started abusing me. I said I would leave very soon. Instantly, he lifted me up in his arms and threw me out. Fortunately, I caught hold of the door frame and saved myself from a fall." (Indian Opinion, 1909)

Gandhi and I shared one great good fortune - we were very much in the public eye and once it got out that some undue suffering or indignity was heaped on us, there was public reaction. The assault on Gandhi became an issue of protest in India and the British parliament and from some liberal white quarters in South Africa.


Solitary Confinement

Gandhi suffered solitary confinement in Johannesburg in 1908 and in Pretoria in 1909, not because he was defiant and uncooperative: Gandhi was a model prisoner; but because the authorities wanted to separate him from his comrades: they feared his influence upon them. His cell was 70 square feet, the floor was covered with pitch, at night there was a constant dim light and the warders switched it on and off four to six times as a warning that they were around. The cell was completely bare. He paced the floor, up and down, and the warder shouted at him, "Gandhi, stop walking about like that, my floor is being spoilt." "Even when I went for evacuation, a warder stood by to keep watch. If by chance he did not know me, he would shout, Sam come out now." Every Indian man was referred to as Sam, or Sammy in those days and much after, even as every African male was John: every African woman was Annie and every Indian woman, Mary.

I recall my own periods in solitary confinement and they were no different. The worst aspect of solitary confinement, apart from being cut off from human company is the deprivation of exercise and fresh air. It tells on your health. You are given hard labour in your cell, instead of going out with the prison gang. Gandhi's hard labour was sewing together worn out blankets and being the person he was, he tackled it with meticulous care, sitting on the floor and bending over his work, week after week. He developed severe neuralgia and his lungs were infected, but he never shirked his duty.

Gandhi taught himself Tamil in prison, I taught myself Afrikaans. Gandhi writes that one of the most important benefits he derived from being in prison was that he got the opportunity to read books. He read voraciously, whenever he could, even standing below the dim globe, snatching whatever light he could. In three months, he read 30 books, ranging from works by European philosophers like Thoreau to religious scriptures, like the Koran, Bible, Gita, and Upanishads. He read in English and Gujarati. Books were also my refuge, when I was allowed them. Gandhi writes that they rescued the mind from wandering off "like a monkey" and dwelling on unpleasant thoughts. The worst punishments are those unpleasant thoughts, concerns over families, about those who are ill and those in want. Both Gandhi and I went through periods when our spouses were also in prison. On several occasions, his sons, Harilal and Manilal, were also in prison.

Gandhi's most painful experience must have been when he was told that his wife, Kasturbai, was critically ill. He was given the option to pay his fine and rush to her bedside. His commitment to satyagraha would not allow him to do so. He wrote her a letter in Gujarati - it was embargoed by the prison authorities because they couldn't read Gujarati. He had to content himself with sending her a message in his letter to his son. My most trying times in prison were when my son was killed in an accident and when my mother died. I mourned alone.

So endured Gandhi the prisoner at the beginning of our century. Though separated in time, there remains a bond between us, in our shared prison experiences, our defiance of unjust laws and in the fact that violence threatens our aspirations for peace and reconciliation.

1. From: B. R. Nanda, ed., Mahatma Gandhi: 125 Years. New Delhi: Indian Council for Cultural Relations, 1995.

Courtesy : http://www.anc.org.za/ Official website of African National Congress. South Africa.

The Sacred Warrior

[The liberator of South Africa looks at the seminal work of the liberator of India]

- Nelson Mandela

India is Gandhi's country of birth; South Africa his country of adoption. He was both an Indian and a South African citizen. Both countries contributed to his intellectual and moral genius, and he shaped the liberatory movements in both colonial theaters.

He is the archetypal anti-colonial revolutionary. His strategy of non-cooperation, his assertion that we can be dominated only if we cooperate with our dominators, and his nonviolent resistance inspired anti colonial and antiracist movements internationally in our century.

Both Gandhi and I suffered colonial oppression, and both of us mobilized our respective peoples against governments that violated our freedoms.

The Gandhian influence dominated freedom struggles on the African continent right up to the 1960s because of the power it generated and the unity it forged among the apparently powerless. Nonviolence was the official stance of all major African coalitions, and the South African A.N.C. remained implacably opposed to violence for most of its existence.

Gandhi remained committed to nonviolence; I followed the Gandhian strategy for as long as I could, but then there came a point in our struggle when the brute force of the oppressor could no longer be countered through passive resistance alone. We founded Unkhonto we Sizwe and added a military dimension to our struggle. Even then, we chose sabotage because it did not involve the loss of life, and it offered the best hope for future race relations. Militant action became part of the African agenda officially supported by the Organization of African Unity (O.A.U.) following my address to the Pan-African Freedom Movement of East and Central Africa (PAFMECA) in 1962, in which I stated, "Force is the only language the imperialists can hear, and no country became free without some sort of violence."

Gandhi himself never ruled out violence absolutely and unreservedly. He conceded the necessity of arms in certain situations. He said, "Where choice is set between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence... I prefer to use arms in defense of honor rather than remain the vile witness of dishonor ..."

Violence and nonviolence are not mutually exclusive; it is the predominance of the one or the other that labels a struggle.

Gandhi arrived in South Africa in 1893 at the age of 23. Within a week he collided head on with racism. His immediate response was to flee the country that so degraded people of color, but then his inner resilience overpowered him with a sense of mission, and he stayed to redeem the dignity of the racially exploited, to pave the way for the liberation of the colonized the world over and to develop a blueprint for a new social order.

He left 21 years later, a near maha atma (great soul). There is no doubt in my mind that by the time he was violently removed from our world, he had transited into that state.

No Ordinary Leader - Divinely Inspired

He was no ordinary leader. There are those who believe he was divinely inspired, and it is difficult not to believe with them. He dared to exhort nonviolence in a time when the violence of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had exploded on us; he exhorted morality when science, technology and the capitalist order had made it redundant; he replaced self-interest with group interest without minimizing the importance of self. In fact, the interdependence of the social and the personal is at the heart of his philosophy. He seeks the simultaneous and interactive development of the moral person and the moral society.

His philosophy of Satyagraha is both a personal and a social struggle to realize the Truth, which he identifies as God, the Absolute Morality. He seeks this Truth, not in isolation, self-centeredly, but with the people. He said, "I want to find God, and because I want to find God, I have to find God along with other people. I don't believe I can find God alone. If I did, I would be running to the Himalayas to find God in some cave there. But since I believe that nobody can find God alone, I have to work with people. I have to take them with me. Alone I can't come to Him."

He sacerises his revolution, balancing the religious and the secular.

Awakening

His awakening came on the hilly terrain of the so-called Bambata Rebellion, where as a passionate British patriot, he led his Indian stretcher-bearer corps to serve the Empire, but British brutality against the Zulus roused his soul against violence as nothing had done before. He determined, on that battlefield, to wrest himself of all material attachments and devote himself completely and totally to eliminating violence and serving humanity. The sight of wounded and whipped Zulus, mercilessly abandoned by their British persecutors, so appalled him that he turned full circle from his admiration for all things British to celebrating the indigenous and ethnic. He resuscitated the culture of the colonized and the fullness of Indian resistance against the British; he revived Indian handicrafts and made these into an economic weapon against the colonizer in his call for swadeshi - the use of one's own and the boycott of the oppressor's products, which deprive the people of their skills and their capital.

A great measure of world poverty today and African poverty in particular is due to the continuing dependence on foreign markets for manufactured goods, which undermines domestic production and dams up domestic skills, apart from piling up unmanageable foreign debts. Gandhi's insistence on self-sufficiency is a basic economic principle that, if followed today, could contribute significantly to alleviating Third World poverty and stimulating development.

Gandhi predated Frantz Fanon and the black-consciousness movements in South Africa and the U.S. by more than a half-century and inspired the resurgence of the indigenous intellect, spirit and industry.

Gandhi rejects the Adam Smith notion of human nature as motivated by self-interest and brute needs and returns us to our spiritual dimension with its impulses for nonviolence, justice and equality.

He exposes the fallacy of the claim that everyone can be rich and successful provided they work hard. He points to the millions who work themselves to the bone and still remain hungry. He preaches the gospel of leveling down, of emulating the kisan (peasant), not the zamindar (landlord), for "all can be kisans, but only a few zamindars."

He stepped down from his comfortable life to join the masses on their level to seek equality with them. "I can't hope to bring about economic equality... I have to reduce myself to the level of the poorest of the poor."

From his understanding of wealth and poverty came his understanding of labor and capital, which led him to the solution of trusteeship based on the belief that there is no private ownership of capital; it is given in trust for redistribution and equalization. Similarly, while recognizing differential aptitudes and talents, he holds that these are gifts from God to be used for the collective good.

He seeks an economic order, alternative to the capitalist and communist, and finds this in Sarvodaya based on nonviolence (AHIMSA).

He rejects Darwin's survival of the fittest, Adam Smith's laissez-faire and Karl Marx's thesis of a natural antagonism between capital and labor, and focuses on the interdependence between the two.

He believes in the human capacity to change and wages Satyagraha against the oppressor, not to destroy him but to transform him, that he cease his oppression and join the oppressed in the pursuit of Truth.

We in South Africa brought about our new democracy relatively peacefully on the foundations of such thinking, regardless of whether we were directly influenced by Gandhi or not.

Gandhi remains today the only complete critique of advanced industrial society. Others have criticized its totalitarianism but not its productive apparatus. He is not against science and technology, but he places priority on the right to work and opposes mechanization to the extent that it usurps this right. Large-scale machinery, he holds, concentrates wealth in the hands of one man who tyrannizes the rest. He favors the small machine; he seeks to keep the individual in control of his tools, to maintain an interdependent love relation between the two, as a cricketer with his bat or Krishna with his flute. Above all, he seeks to liberate the individual from his alienation to the machine and restore morality to the productive process.

As we find ourselves in jobless economies, societies in which small minorities consume while the masses starve, we find ourselves forced to rethink the rationale of our current globalization and to ponder the Gandhian alternative.

At a time when Freud was liberating sex, Gandhi was reining it in; when Marx was pitting worker against capitalist, Gandhi was reconciling them; when the dominant European thought had dropped God and soul out of the social reckoning, he was centralizing society in God and soul; at a time when the colonized had ceased to think and control, he dared to think and control; and when the ideologies of the colonized had virtually disappeared, he revived them and empowered them with a potency that liberated and redeemed.