Compassion, Thirukkural and Gandhi

This is one of my favourites from Thirukkural. I had the joy of immersing myself in it while translating it on Facebook (here).

Even after seeing poison being poured, they will consume it
and converse cordially,
they who seek to be captivatingly civilized and compassionate. [580]

[பெயக்கண்டும் நஞ்சுண் டமைவர் நயத்தக்க
நாகரிகம் வேண்டு பவர்.]

This is a fascinating kural, with Thiruvalluvar at his poetic best. It grows variously in the reader’s imagination and can be interpreted in many ways.

I like to interpret it this way :
The compassionate, even when they know that poison is being served (poured, not just dropped!), they understand why it is being done and go two steps ahead by drinking it and then having a friendly conversation. They understand the intention behind a hurtful deed being done to them – whether the intent is good or bad doesn’t make a difference to the way they act. They are still full of compassion. Tough indeed!

As with most other kurals that appeal to me, I am reminded of this incident in Gandhi’s life:

When Gandhi was thrashed by the angry Pathans in South Africa for agreeing for a compromise with General Smuts on registration of Indians, he lived out this kural. He understood their intentions, he was going ahead to register himself though he anticipated an assault, he bore the assault without defending, he refused to lodge a complaint against them and bore no ill-will towards them.
What did he gain by such an extreme act of non-violence and compassion? Respect of the Whites (who anyway prosecuted his assaulters on other counts) and his fellow Indians in SA. While there is no stated connection, it is no surprise that his staunchest supporter when he came back to India was a Pathan (Pashtun) – Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan.

We can see such incidents of personal valour (not just political leadership) throughout Gandhi’s life – when the Whites attacked him at Natal, during his many prison stints, in Rajkot when he stood firm when surrounded by a violent mob, and in Noakhali, Calcutta, Bihar and Delhi amidst immense religious violence.

Gandhi on Agni V

Well, Gandhi was lucky enough, not to live this long to say anything about the chest-thumping around the launch of Agni V. But, the book I was reading yesterday, gave me enough indications on what he could have said.

‘My days with Gandhi’ by Nirmal Kumar Bose is a very unusual book on Gandhi. It is unfortunate that Nirmal’s book is often used to sully the Mahatma, but it paints a wonderful picture of the man, Gandhi, and demystifies him for us, even while exalting his principles higher.

Nirmal, an anthropologist who acted as a translator and secretary for Gandhi in Bengal during 1946-47, narrates a meeting with Raymond Cartier, a French journalist.

‘Cartier asked him, how could France survive if it didn’t defend herself against the Germans? Gandhi retorted by saying that the Maginot Line had failed in its purpose. Cartier remarked that the fault was not in the principle but in some technical imperfection. “Yes”, Gandhiji quickly replied, “that is what I mean. Unless you can beat Hitler by superior violence, you cannot obtain victory. But then Hitlerism wins. That can be liquidated only by something which its opposite in character, not by superiority of arms.” ‘

There is another incident where Gandhi is forthright in his views on what should be India’s stance on  nuclear weapons.

‘One professor of science asked Gandhiji what scientists should do if Free India ordered them to produce atom bombs, for instance. Without a moment’s hesitation, he replied : “Resist them unto death. Scientists to be worth the name should only do that.” ‘

Before we dismiss his statement as coming from an impractical old man, who was anti-science, we must know that some eminent scientists and thinkers, including none less than Einstein, had come to a similar conclusion with the Russell-Einstein Manifesto.

Even in those dark days of partition-related violence, Gandhi had the conviction to hold strong views on the efficacy of non-violence. He was only ready to concede the imperfect implementation of his non-violence.

“It was the duty of Free India to perfect the instrument of non-violence in resolving collective conflicts if its freedom was going to be really worthwhile.”

Jayaprakash Narayan (JP) proposed meeting Chinese aggression in 1962 with his non-violent Shanti Sena. It didn’t materialize then but that must be the last brave proposal at confronting violent, external aggression with peace. (The Shanti Sena : The philosophy, history and action by Thomas Weber is a wonderful book on this subject.)

We started burying Gandhi long before he died, and having gradually buried all claims to moral superiority on the world stage, we are only digging the grave deeper now. Hitlerism rules.

Rajiv’s Ghost and Srilankan Tamils

Why did India not bomb the under-seige Taj and Oberoi Hotels, to flush out all the terrorists? Why did Indian foreign minister escort a top terrorist to Kandhahar to get the hostages released? Why is Indian army not launching an all-out war against terrorists, even in Kashmir, where they are accused of extreme excesses? Why did India not support Israel’s rampage in Gaza? Any sane Indian citizen will dismiss these as questions of a lunatic.

But then, by the same rationale, should Indian government not be condemning Srilanka for its utter disregard for human lives in its war against LTTE? Why then, is the acting Prime Minister reading out a statement in the Parliament that eerily resembles Srilankan government propaganda material?Yes, LTTE is a proscribed organization, which may have indulged in acts of terror. Yes, LTTE may have assassinated a former Indian Prime Minister. Yes, Pirabakaran needs to be tried in a court of law in India. Yes, LTTE may be holding over a lakh Tamils as ‘hostages’.  But how does any of these make the actions of the Srilankan government justifiable? Will any government put the onus for the lives of its citizens on the terrorists? If the Government doesn’t care about a lakh citizens perishing during its pursuit of a thousand terrorists, why would the terrorists care – after all, these are people who have least regard for their own lives? How can India endorse such an act, particularly when the Indian connection is so strong for the victims through their sympathising brethren in Tamilnadu? Is it because the victims have a stronger ‘Tamil’ association than a ‘Hindu/Indian’ association?

It is time Rajiv Gandhi’s ghost is exorcised. One hundred thousand people cannot be allowed to languish anymore because of one man’s unfortunate death a decade ago. Mahatma Gandhi’s ghost was buried with the ascent of BJP to power. Indira’s ghost was bid adieu with the Sikh pogrom orchestrated by Congress. Rajiv’s ghost still dictates India’s policy on Srilanka and by being approvingly nodding, indirectly presides over the mass man-slaughter occuring in Srilanka. How many more lives need to be sacrificed before India exorcises Rajiv’s ghost and asserts itself as a moral and regional power to rescue the thousands of innocents caught in the cross-fire between a suicidal rebel group and an irresponsible fascist government?

Gandhi on Jews

I was ploughing through the vitriolic comments that had flowed in for the post on Israel and the subsequent apology (more of a clarification)  by Arun Gandhi (Mahatma’s grandson) on The Washington Post, when I stumbled across this link in one of the rare comments in support of the Gandhis. Mohandas Gandhi’s views on both the creation of Israel and the persecution of Jews, are so balanced and in retrospect, so full of foresight. Mohandas Gandhi is one person, who can easily be quoted, completely out of context, as many many have done in their comments. Any sentence, highlighted in isolation, can sound insensitive but in the context of what he has written, will carry deep insight.

Contrary to what most comments claim (that the Mahatma has been shamed by his grandson), I thought Arun Gandhi had shown immense courage in countering a complex and sensitive issue, and sounding right:

“Any nation that remains anchored to the past is unable to move ahead and, especially a nation that believes its survival can only be ensured by weapons and bombs.”

More importantly, he had the grace and courage to apologise for the only error that he was willing to concede in his article, without compromising on the core premise. He seems to be a man who has understood what his grandfather stood for and is not just, as alleged by so many in those comments, living off an illustrious surname.