Much like the rest, I too have been spending a significant amount of time reflecting on 9/11 today. Ironically, today marks the 100 year anniversary to the day that Mahatma Gandhi launched the nonviolent resistance movement, or the “Satyagraha.”
The date was September 11th, 1906. Speaking before 3,000 Indians gathered at a theater in Johannesburg, Gandhi organized a strategy of nonviolent resistance to oppose racist policies in South Africa. Satyagraha was born and since then, it has been adopted by many around the world to resist social injustice and oppression.Gandhi used it in India to win independence from the British. The Reverend Martin Luther King used it in the United States to oppose segregation and Nelson Mandela used it in South Africa to end apartheid. [link]
<
p>Democracy Now! recently did a fabulous interview of Arun Gandhi, Gandhi’s grandson and co-founder of the MK Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence in Memphis, TN. He talks about that day, but it’s interesting to see how applicable the words are to today’s resistance.
[P]eople were wondering, how can we resist with the state so powerful, and we don’t have any weapons, you know, because every time, even today, when somebody talks about resistance, everybody thinks in terms of weapons and war and fighting. And that’s when grandfather explained to them that we don’t need any weapons of mass destruction. We have the ability to respond to this nonviolently and with self-suffering. And that’s what he encouraged the people to do. And they came out into the streets with love for the enemy. You know, grandfather didn’t tolerate any hate for the enemy or any anger for the enemy. He said nonviolence has to be complete nonviolence. We have to have love and respect for the enemy, and that is the only way we can overcome them. And that’s what he showed in his work.And I am amazed that the prime minister of South Africa, General J.C. Smuts, later on he admitted that grandfather was the greatest. He called him a saint, and he said, “It was my misfortune that I had to be against him,” you know. And it was that kind of feeling of reverence and awe that he inspired even in his opponents. And I think that’s what we have to remember and try to make it a part of our lives, because violence is destroying us. You know, we’re seeing violence growing every day in our streets, in our homes, in our towns, in our cities, in the world itself. Everywhere we turn, we see violence and hate and prejudice and anger and all of these negative emotions that are destroying humanity. And we have to wake up and take note of this and try to change our course, so that we can create a world of peace and harmony where future generations can live happily together.[link]
<
p>In many ways, I feel the parallels of these two landmark events on 9/11 is not just ironic, but symbolic. Five years ago to the day, we lost what privilege we had as the ‘model minority.’ The xenophobic attitude towards desis felt in the post-9/11 backlash are somewhat parallel to those felt by desis in South Africa during Gandhi’s time. Different magnitudes of hate, but similar all the same.
<
p>
<
p>Immediately after 9/11, no longer were we expected to be the meek/silent good-at-math kids, but we became evil doers/ terrorists by association of our ethnicity. But, in this backlash, is where the solidarity within the South Asian American community really developed, and much like the non-violent resistance movement, the South Asian American ‘movement’ if not created, was significantly redefined. I know now, looking back at the past five years, that it was the events after 9/11 that really defined how I approached my identity as a South Asian American, and defined my involvement in the ‘movement.’ Five years later, as South Asians in America, we have many more resources, people, organizations, and allies to be a strategically organized community. We still have a ways to go but if a glimmer of hope can be found in the devastations of that day, for me, it is this new sense of being a part of a ‘movement’ that I could finally relate to.
<
p>Is non-violence and showering our enemy with love a way to end this “war against terror”? I don’t know. I don’t think anyone really knows how to get us out of the mess that we are in. But I like what Sundar had to say…
Violence within manifests as violence outside and each of us is a critical link in the creation of the world as we see it
Maybe we need to remind ourselves more of a man who told us, “Be the change you wish to see in the world”. [link]
Gandhi made sandals for Jan Smuts.
Smuts could never bring himself to wear them.
If you get a chance, please visit ANC site on Gandhi. ANC has an amazing African prespective – emotional as well as academic, at some points critical and all. There is very touching article by Nelson Mandela. He also wrote on him in Time Millenium issue.
Maybe our community has become re-racialized post-9/11 (at the same time our music has become the hottest exotic thing around) and people have been extra diligent in working with us, but the question is, do we have a vision that would truly bring about some mass change in the way people look at us? Has this newly fangled awareness of the color of our skin and its terroristic associations started to overcome our math geek/silent/cooperative/nonsubversive selves enough to build sustainable organizations that actually work with the S.A. community?
I happen to be travelling thru delhi on September 11 today, whats ironic is the amount of time and effort in the media still devoted to the 9/11/2001 in tragedy in the US and what the US goverments intention is now… front page news stories on the most of the major national papers too, while the spark of the event by MG on 9/11/1906 only had brief mentions and some summary articles of Gandhiji’s teachings.
What was interesting to note is now there is a Satyagraha peace fun run, which seems to embody simliar fun runs/5Ks and 10K fun runs in the states. Does anyone know of a 9/11/01 fun run going on anywhere this week?
The owner of a shop I walked into the other day in CA is was a South African Sikh. He had pictures of black members of his family (cousins). He said that he hates Gandhi for driving a wedge between the desis in SA and the Blacks. He said that the original Indians in SA were slaves and they did not consider themselves above the Blacks (I have a tough time believing this consider the racist attitudes towards Blacks that exist even today among many Indians). Then the traders came and fancied themselves superior. Gandhi, he said, could easily have chosen to be allies with the Blacks, instead he wanted Indians to be above them. Anyway, he shouted such obscenities at Gandhi, they made my ears turn a darker brown. I mean words that have never been written on SM 🙂
Now I don’t hold it against Gandhi he didn’t have a golden heart from the very beginning. He learnt his lessons from SA and did great things and taught us many great things. However, he left SA and I don’t think he was involved with SA later. What effect did all that have on the relations between desis and Blacks in SA? Does anyone here have any idea?
As a minority in America, looking back at 9/11 and its aftermath, we the people of Indian origin lost our innocence. Before 9/11 we were viewed as a community of doctors, engineers, convenience-store owners and such, people that were many a times the butt of silly hollywood humor. However, after 9/11 we had to endure something a lot more sinister, the suspicion of many whenever we travel on a plane, long stares from people that doubt our intentions.
I think we need to do what Gandhi did back in South-Africa for the Indians, we need to unite to make our voices heard in the halls of congress. We need to be more involved in OUR government. We need to be loud, we need to be proud, both as Americans and as people of Indian-Origin.
Thanks for the ANC link, Kush. Here are some excerpts from the article by James D. Hunt on the ANC site.
etc.
Thanks to you too, Thomas for reading the article by James Hunt. It is quite well written. Read the conclusions:
His son Manilal was one of the leaders of Great Defiance Campaign in South Africa in 1952. It is considered to be one of the earliest all-inclusive South African campaign.
The turning point in Gandhi’s career as more inclusive was Khilafat movement, and especially for poor people was Chambaran.
xomad said:
there are quite a few, actually. but they’re named “memorial” or “rememberance” run, rather than “fun” run.
XNomad, Even if there was you know that my racing partner and I would still beat you and yours. Chumps. 🙂
Kush, I did read the conclusions. His transformation and subsequent contributions to the struggle against injustice are indeed remarkable. Some of his ideas were and methods were unprecented in all of history. All the more respect if he was bigoted before and then made a big change. But what about the situation in South Africa regarding Indians and Blacks? I think his involvement with SA ended after he left SA. What I’m really curious about is, which of the following is true?
a) “He did fail to change South Africa very much,” as stated in the conclusions of the article by Hunt or b) He made the situation worse by his actions there.
I realize this may not be a great place to find the answer, though, unless there are SM readers who live in or are familiar with the communities in SA.
I meant to say
b) He made the situation worse by his actions there – as the shop owner in my story says.
Sorry for multiple fragmented comments. But thanks for info on Manilal again, Kush. I did know not anything about him, except for his name. Found this site which says something about his efforts, although it does say “In real terms, Manilal achieved very little in his struggle against apartheid in South Africa in spite of going to jail dozens of times.” – not his fault.
Harilal, Gandhiji’s son is better known. Gandhiji had a very troubled relationship with him as portrayed in the excellent play “Mahatma vs. Gandhi” (Naseeruddin Shah played the senior Gandhi).
As I am from South Africa, I’ll try to answer some of the questions raised in this discussion.
As a growing democracy, South AFrica is still coming to terms with the changes with regard to attitudes towards different races. The Indian community in SA is a pretty tight community. From what I have read, they stuck together right from the beginning, when they were brought over as slaves. I’m not sure if Ghandhi’s ideas created the wedge between the black and Indian communities. I have a feeling that that wedge existed before, I dont think it was necessarily discrimnatory in nature. Merely a case of ‘birds of a feather stick together’. I do know that the Indian community did pull together as a unit and created schools for themselves and even a univeristy for tertiary education for the Indians. I’m not sure if these schools were closed to black people (although I highly doubt it), but because of the group areas act, alot of the Indians were segregated from the blacks, they each had their own living areas. And since the Indian schools were in these areas, they students were predominantly Indian.
The Indian areas are to this day, very secular in nature. To give an example of how secular it is: The biggest concentration of Indians in South Africa is in Durban, and a lot of them moved away to other towns and cities to pursue their tertiary education. I live in a small university town in another province, and it has one of teh best pharmaceutical departments in the country. So many Indians come through to the town to study at the university. And one of the most fascinating things about them is that most of them have never had any interaction with white people. When I visited some of my friends in their homes in Durban, I was fascinated by the fact that there are no other race groups living in those areas. Only Indians. I guess it was more fascinating for me because I lived in a town which was very multi-cultural/racial. I grew up with whites & blacks.
As for the struggle against apartheid, well I think both races were very much involved in that. I dont think there was any discrimination in terms of the struggle for freedom. You can see that in the number of Indians that were involved in the political struggles, and in the ANC.
So the tensions that may exist between the Indian and black community may be a result of each community wanting to retain it’s own sense of identity.
These are just my opinions, based on what I have read and some of the conversations I have had with my friends. I’ll have to do a bit more research to find out more about the issues underlying the race relations between black and Indians living here.
Gandhi was no saint in all sorts of ways – he was really quite conservative about caste (and other elements of Hindu traditionalism – called himself a “proud Sanatani”), wouldn’t allow his son to marry a Muslim and shared many prevalent negative stereotypes of Muslims, used big business (esp the Birlas) all the time for money and to get his supporters jobs, while making a big show of shunning material wealth and modern industry. But I agree with TK above that what he did was all the more admirable because of this. He was human, a politician, not a saint, and while his saint-like image may have been effective in mobilizing anticolonial action and delegitimizing British rule, it is as a politician that he can really offer us continuing inspiration, IMO.
Is that why he fought for the rights of the “untouchables”?? Is that why he made everyone on the “Aashram” do all of their own work??
I was waiting for this. I knew that Gandhi baiting will start as soon as a post about Gandhi comes up.
Wow I think you have it completely wrong !!!! Politics was the weakest part of Gandhi. No politician in the world ever would let a victory go away because it came from violent means. (1920 Chauri-chaura incident). Gandhi was more spiritual leader and hardly a politician. Only due to the spiritual appeal people of India rallied behind him.
i think you may have meant “insular” rather than “secular”… if so, i beg to differ because insular has somewhat negative connotations. there shouldnt be anything negative about sticking together especially if the indic communities are defined by religious-cultural practices distinct from the rest of the world… and by and large, barring political ambition, one can make more money by leveraging one’s community – and money is good.
i have to visit your part of the world some day. my best friend is from jo’ and he raves about it all the time.
Taz – respect for doing this post!
I think the idea that non-violent resistance is irrelevant really shows a lack of imagination on our part. In 1906, the idea that that the greatest empire in history could be brought down by turning the other cheek must have seemed even more ludicrous than the proposition that this has a role to play today.
It would not be effective against people who think that killing “infidels” wins them bonus points with God and facilitates their entry into Paradise after they die.
You can treat the enemy with basic human respect and ensure that you do not violate any humanitarian ideals in terms of how you fight them and what you do with them if they are captured (or what you do with their bodies if they are killed), and you can continuously make overtures to hear their grievances. However, you simultaneously have to defend yourself and other innocent parties against their aggression, using warfare if necessary.
….In terms of attempting to get some kind of viable dialogue started. I wasn’t referring to targetting the militarily, although of course that is relevant too.
“i think you may have meant “insular” rather than “secular”… if so, i beg to differ because insular has somewhat negative connotations. there shouldnt be anything negative about sticking together especially if the indic communities are defined by religious-cultural practices distinct from the rest of the world… and by and large, barring political ambition, one can make more money by leveraging one’s community – and money is good.”
I don’t recall implying any negative connotation to the idea of wanting to keep the community together. If I did, that was certainly not my intention. In fact, I think that they have benefited a lot from keeping their community tight knit, and I mean that in the positive sense 🙂 I was merely pointing out the fact that there isn’t much (or maybe limited?) racial interaction in some areas in South Africa where there is a concentration of Indians. It doesn’t apply just to Indians, it applies to almost all the races that live in South Africa.
I do think that more interaction between the races can only lead to more educated individuals, and you can see that in the younger generations where racial interaction takes place, especially in their educational environment.
Jo’burg is a fantastic city if you like a fast paced lifestyle. Cape Town is where you come to relax 🙂 It is one of the most beautiful cities in South Africa – and I’m not just saying that because I live here now! 😛
Jai, this is where I think our imagination fails us. This is an unfortunate portrayal of these people who, aty the end of the day, are also human beings. However, with today’s reactionary rhetoric, to even say somethign like this is to open the door to being accused of “taking their side”. I think recapturing the humanity of these Others is the first step towards a non violent solution. A second step would be to recognize that the societies in which actions like suicide bombings occur are societies in which there are voices of protest – that they like us find these actions immoral and horrific and taking a stand with them. Why is it that we have marginalized moderate voices in the Middle East?
Increasingly I think people here are comign to the realization that this is also a war of ideas. Tariq Ramadan was on BBC’s HardTalk yesterday, speaking of the need for not just strategic, but also moral leadership, because this would significantly turn the tide of popular opinion in the Middle East. A good place to start that leadership is to cease military conflict and start talking peace. Jack Layton, leader of the New Democratic Party in Canada, has talked about sitting at table with Taleban leaders and talking peace – something that he has been severely criticized for in the Canadian parliament. But I do think that five years on we need fresh ideas.
umm… i think you’re missing the nut of the gandhian filosofee.
turning the other cheek, is equivalent to paying no heed, doing the invisible man a la ellison, to the oppressor.
the one who forgives is taking the stance that you’re a crumb, i’m the lord of the manor, stay out of my way you piece of offal, and dont be messing with my pride.
“loving the other” isnt really about loving the other, but a means to get around harboring feelings of revenge. tis a feeling that burns low but never dies. when it erupts, it feeds on all it consumers.
the root cause of all war is desire. desire can not be obliterated. it can be tempered. to do so, the differences between interfacing planes need to be reduced to the best extent possible.
agreed. did you hear the cbc checkup week before last. do listen to it if you get the chance at http://www.cbc.ca/checkup. layton signed on and was asked some tough questions by murphy. i think layton is a fruit loop but for once i paid heed because it was fresh thinking (exactly what you said). the highlight of the program was an afghan named najeeb who came on and said that a few years back the people were with the canadian forces, but now the feeling has changed because canadians are fighting the people of afghanistan… the point to be taken away is that there are no clear demarcations in the philosophical leanigns of the afghan people… and when you turn your guns on the people, there’s no way in hell a win is in sight.
btw, malalai joya, who’s one of the few female members of the loya jirga has openly come out against the canadian forces deplyment because there is th eappearance we are tools of the americans, who have a bad rap anyway for their past involvement in thre region (arms trafficing, drug-ops etc.).. it’s a pretty sordid affair. it’s not about what’s wrong or what’s right… but i agree with layton that we need a roadmap of what’s going on. the bulk of the “war” effort is on quelling the insurgency, and very little going towards reconstruction.
i heard hillier on the radio the other day and nearly yanked the steering wheel off. the guy’s a typical meathead. maybe we need bullheaded military leaders like that, but their leash should be kept in the hands of the people. i think harper’s plaing a waiting game – he’s too smart to let this go on too long – but we need a shift now.
I see non violence as a tactical practice, similar to Stokely Carmichael’s opinion:
“[Commenting on Dr. King] He saw nonviolence as a principle, which means it had to be used at all times, under all conditions. I saw it as a tactic. If it was working, I would use it; if it wasn’t working, I’m picking up guns because I want my freedom by any means necessary.”
Non violence really only works when two things are in place:
Badmash,
I some aspects we’re actually saying the same thing. Remembering the other party’s common humanity with us is integral to what I am saying (indeed it’s fundamental to the Sikh approach in such matters, as you probably recall from my comments on previous discussions on the matter). I talked about this in more detail on the original 9/11 post — see here. (Apologies for the length of my post there, but if you have a couple of minutes to wade through it then you’ll get a better undestanding of what I’m saying, particularly as it includes the need for a more holistic all-round approach not just limited to warfare, and the critical need to maintain the moral high-ground at all times).
I agree completely about the necessity for a non-violent solution, which is why I mentioned the need to open a two-way dialogue so that grievances can be heard. However, this will not be accomplished by Western coalition groups immediately laying down their weapons; remember that Al-Qaeda attacked us first, and amongst other things, their goal is the establishment of a Caliphate/Khilafat which will include parts of what is modern-day Spain. During the late 90s, OBL also said that there will be no negotiation until America converts to Islam; I don’t know if this condition still holds, especially bearing in mind’s AQ’s offers of a “truce” last year, but it’s still worth remembering.
Peace and universal justice are indeed better alternatives to ongoing warfare, and this is something I wholeheartedly support, but this cannot be achieved while the other party is bent on committing ongoing terrorist outrages against the West and its allies, including civilian targets. I’m assuming you know about Al-Zawahiri’s statement yesterday about Western powers “stealing Muslim oil”, and the fact that AQ will now directly target Western interests in the Gulf states too.
You need to leave the door open for dialogue, but in the meantime you have to defend yourself and others against jihadi aggression. It is entirely possible to do both simultaneously.
By the way, yes I saw the HardTalk interview last night too and found it to be an excellent discussion.
Jai, hairy_d – I’m off to a meeting right now. Good comments – will respond in a bit.
hairy_d – I agree. Canada’s role in Afghanistan (in the public understanding) seems directionless apart from the rather vague goal of maintaining the security of the country. As casualties mount, Harper will have to 1) announce a definitive game plan with a timeline for withdrawal and/or 2) face the political cost of staying the course int he next election. Either way, it’s not going to be an easy choice for him.
Jai – I see what you’re saying, but my point is that some of what OBL is ssaying is much like some of what our leaders are saying – overblown rhetoric that has a purpose to provoke rather than delineate. There a larger priorities than asking OBL to the table – he needs to go to an International Court to answer for his crimes first. And the same applies for Zawahiri and others like them. However, I think it is more than reasonable to pursue a course of bringing moderate voices other diverse voices to the table to marginalize people like OBL within their own communities and cut the support out from under them. Bombing the hell out of a country merely increases their support.
If you guys are successful in getting the Taliban & ISI to make peace using Gandhian methods, I’ll become the donut king of Kabul and give you satyagrahis free bear claws for life:-)
If you fail I’ll get right on the phone with Jesse Jackson and get him to spring you from your new cavernous crib in the mountains of Waziristan :-()
Hairy_d in comment 22
“the root cause of all war is desire. desire can not be obliterated. it can be tempered. to do so, the differences between interfacing planes need to be reduced to the best extent possible.”
Yes, desire is the root cause of all suffering and avidya, or ignorance, is the root cause of desire.
All sides of this conflict need spiritual guidance. The reason why desire cannot be obliterated is because it is an intrinsic quality of the atma. It just needs to be focused in the right direction.
Louiecypher – shame on you, trying to tempt us with your devilish treats. We satyagrahis eat only eat gruel with daal and beans!
Relations between Indians and blacks in Durban have been uneasy for a long time. Durban is the capital of KwaZulu Natal province, which is the Zulu heartland, and there are some 800,000 Indians (nearly 80% of South African Indians) in and around Durban. Riots and racial attacks between Indians and blacks were a feature of Durban’s history throughout Apartheid.
The original Phoenix Settlement–Gandhi’s house, school, printing press, etc.–was until 1985 an Indian township, but a riot consumed the area, with blacks forcing the Indians out and taking over their homes. Gandhi’s sites were destroyed. Today, re-creations have been built, the area has been restored, and apologies tendered. The Indian government kicked in some money. You can take a tour of these facilities, led by a black man (all the guides are black). The area around Gandhi’s site is a black slum.
South African cities’ township model promote the segregation of racial and tribal groups. It’s rare to find anything resembling a mixed neighborhood. Indians in Durban live in a number of different townships, including one called Phoenix (near Gandhi’s site, where they settled after the riots in 1985), Chatsworth, and other places, some wealthy, some not.
When I was in Durban photographing in 2005, I could not get an Indian cab driver to take me to Gandhi’s site. They were convinced that we would be attacked as soon as we arrived–despite the fact that things have been calm for 20 years and that the area is a well-known tourist site. Fear runs deep. One cab driver who took me around to some other Indian neighborhoods proudly showed me the stack of business cards he carried in his glove compartment. “All the important visitors in Durban use my cab,” he said. On top was one from an American arms dealer, maker of the “street sweeper” automatic shotgun, developed in South Africa by the Apartheid government to pacify restive townships. Once the tool of the oppressor, the weapon is now available for private purchase to protect your property. There’s a lot of money to made in a security state, even after the old laws have been taken off the books.
… rumor has it… that the first instance of kenyan-indians regarding themselves as kenyans first was after the terrorist attacks in nairobi. said to be the turning point of the indo-african relationship – fairly cool till that time.
would be interested in the kenyan bhai/bhenjis’ points of view.
which is why the way out of the quagga’s mire is economic growth. unemployment breeds frustration which in turn leads to envy and rage. warm hearth’s do not cold hearts breed.
now excuse me while i sway to promiscuous girl.
In 2005 the South Africa Insitute for Race Relations prroduced a big summary report. The director was asked by the newspapers to name the most surprising finding. Answer #1 was the fact that in five of SA’s nine provinces median household income for Indian families was higher than that of whites.
Indian diaspora communities in poor countries (and even some rich ones) are “market dominant minorities” (link), amassing and controlling greater wealth than the larger, poorer indigenous population, which leads to resentment (most places), violence (South Africa, Kenya), or expulsion (Uganda). All of this despite the fact that everywhere in Africa, Indians have been leaders in resistance struggles against colonial or minority rule, champions of civil rights, etc. Some Indians were jailed on Robben Island with Mandela and Tutu.
South African Indians in particular have been keen to be viewed as locals with a stake in the future of the country and not foreign elements siphoning funds out of the economy (this was Gandhi’s view, too), But it’s hard to function in a place like South Africa today, where government policies to redress nearly a century of wrongs place racial quotas for blacks in business and hiring practices. Yet blacks are still poor and unemployed, while Indians are better off, even without the preferential treatment. But, make no mistake, plenty of Indians especially in Durban are poor and unemployed. Indians are just perceived to be richer, hoarding gold in their mattresses.
Um, Hairy_d, are you insuating that I’m promiscuous?….
…”now excuse me while i sway to promiscuous girl.”
array nahin yaar… i am just sharing my good humor with the junta-at-large.
’twas playing on the radio as i walked to the cafe… and i’m enjoying a delicious cup of dark colombian as i write this.. pray dont draw me in with your charms, ’cause macaca’s got rupiyahs to make . and no i am not alluding that you are a dark colombian.
now, excuse me while i tap to ella.
Ever since you started commenting here last week I have been pondering why you chose a handle so close to my nom de plume…….Now I know!! YES, I think you are promiscuous, in fact not just promiscuous but coquettish and sly and coy and flirtatious. Naughty naughty you 😉
Oh OK, that’s you.
First of all ,racism in SA which was confined to segregating everything(trains,housing etc) can in no way be compared to zealots committing mass murder against innocent civilians. You mention that Gandhi fought against racism in SA,but ironically he was very casteist himself. He condescendingly referred to “lower” caste people as Harijans. The MLK example is pretty lame, that was just the culmination of a 200 year struggle against slavery which finally reached fruition & MLK was fighting discrimination not indiscriminate slaughter of people(9/11).The quote by Gandhi’s grandson or whoever he is,is plain riduculous. So u suggest that people should love crazies who slaughter innocent civilians(women & children)? Love is not something for the irrational,illogical people driven by hate who seek to take the world back to the middle agaes. As a south asian living in america I have faced no problems after 9/11, I’m more concerned about some islamic fanatic blowing up the plane I fly in than a security guy at an airport frisking me(who by the way is just doing his job). This is the fundamental problem with pacifism(which is undeniably what u recommend),it can never offer any real practicable solution. And finally,if someone u knew died on 9/11 would u even consider loving the perpetrators of the atrocities of 9/11? Please,check ur premises before making inane recommendations.
I’m not a followr of Gandhi, nor have I subscribed to all of his philosophy, but the term “harijan” literally means “God’s own people” and was given to them by Gandhi to uplift them in the eyes of all other Indians. It is not a condescending term, but one of honor, which previously was reserved for people who were revered as spiritually evolved persons.
I have heard the accusation before that Gandhi was casteist as well as racist (against blacks in South Africa), but I have yet to come across anything written by him to confirm this. Granted I am not thoroughly read in all of his literatue, but what I have read so far, seems to indicate that he was against discrimination of all kinds. He also worked for the upliftment of women and prostitutes in India.
First of all ,racism in SA which was confined to segregating everything(trains,housing etc) can in no way be compared to zealots committing mass murder against innocent civilians.
Would you agree to be a poor black person in S.Africa during Aparthied? How about a slave in the cotton-fields of the deep-south in the US during the early 1800s? Millions were killed when they were brought over from Africa to the new-world. Millions more perished due to the inhumane conditions after they got here. Lets not trivialize what happened in the past to so many millions to justify your myopic perspective on what is going on today.
As people that care for America and what it stands for, it is our right and duty even, to criticize what is being done in our name by our government. The fight against terrorism is clearly a war that cannot be won by merely bombing your enemies. Almost impossible. There has to be a war to change perceptions. What Gandhi stood for was non-violence as a means to achieving social and political change. Look at the alternative to non-violence: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict which has been going on for decades now shows no sign of being resolved because of the entrenchment of violence. Many other conflicts rage on as a result of violence being used. Using force sure is necessary sometimes, like the US did in Afghanistan, which is something that almost everyone in the world universally supported. However, you can’t win a war of ideas with weapons, which is what the war on terrorism is.
How would you go about making people in America safer, Sri? Would you go bomb every middle-eastern country? Better yet, how about just taking every person that looks middle-eastern, south-asian etc and kicking them out of the country? No problems then right?
It’s not Gandhi-baiting to acknowledge and confront the real problems and inconsistencies with Ghandijji’s form of pacifism.
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/fascism/gandhimistake.html
I think the Al-qaeda brand of terrorism is akin to fascism. The only difference is that fascism was state policy or had state sanction. Could Satyagraha or any other form of peaceful persuasion/dialogue have prevented the holocaust? I am all for non-violent methods to resolve problems, but in this context, I’m not sure if it can work. I also think that seeking justice for victims of 9/11, Bali, Madrid, London, Mumbai etc is perfectly acceptable even in a non-violent society. Non-violence shouldn’t be a dogma.
Gandhi is the first Indian of his time to show us how to bridge the divide of varnam and jati – not by theorising airily as some intellectuals did (who claimed dalit status although they belonged to a fairly upper class segment of the order) but by living and working with them. At Sabarmati Ashram everyone took turns at everything from the kitchen to cleaning the privies.
Non-violent resistance (satygraha) against the tyranny of the British Empire in India has it’s origins in the 19th century, not the 20th. While an infant Gandhi was first being fitted for his trademark swaddles, mutinous Sikhs “spun their own cloth and dressed in pure white cotton, and boycotted all that was even remotely British.” For this the British rewarded them with brutal and bloody reprisals and only intensified their stranglehold on India.
http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/people/gandhi/hunt.html
I found this site, which gives some interesting information in the role Gandhi played in South Africa, especially in terms of the relationships between the Indians the Blacks in the political landscape of the country. It also talks about relationships between the Indians and other races and how Gandhi felt that even though all the different races were goign through the same experiences (with regard to oppression), the remedies to solve the situation was different from race group to race group.
At the end of the day, Gandhi was merely a human being. A person who came from a certain background, with certain beliefs and ideas based on the experiences (and education) he went through, but what makes him an extraordinary human being is his ability to learn from experience, change, adapt and grow beyond his limitations, and finally to apply these changes to the causes he fought for. That, I think, is one his most admirable qualities.
Gandhi’s racist views on black people, as well as his casteist views, are well documented in his own works…. here is a collection of his quotes:
On What Gandhi wanted
The last week has been very busy. We have not had a moment’s leisure. We saw Mr. Theodore Morison of Aligarh and the well-known Mr. Stead of the Review of Reviews. Mr. Stead has boldly come out to give us all the help he can. He was therefore requested to write to the same Boer leaders that they should not consider Indians as being on the same level as Kaffirs
Indian Opinion, 15-12-1906, CWOMG Vol. 6, pg 183
private delete
October 4, 2005
On What Gandhi wanted (3)
CLASSIFICATION OF ASIATICS WITH NATIVES
The cell was situated in the Native quarters and we were housed in one that was labeled ‘For Coloured Debtors’. It was this experience for which we were perhaps all unprepared. We had fondly imagined that we would have suitable quarters apart from the Natives. As it was, perhaps, just as well that we were classed with Natives. We would now be able to study the life of Native prisoners, their customs and manners. …Degradation underlay the classing of Indians with natives. The Asiatic Act seemed to me to be the summit of our degradation. It did appear to me, as I think it would appear to any unprejudiced reader, that it would have been simple humanity if we were given special quarters. …the Governor of the gaol tried to make us as comfortable as he could…But he was powerless to accommodate us beyond the horrible din and the yells of the Native prisoners throughout the day and partly at night also. Many of the native prisoners are only one degree removed from the animal and often created rows and fought amongst themselves in their cells.
Indian Opinion 7-3-1908, CWOMG Vol. 8, pg 120
Apart from whether or not this implies degradation, I must say it is rather dangerous. Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized — the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty, and live almost like animals. Each ward contains nearly 50 to 60 of them. They often started rows and fought among themselves. The reader can easily imagine the plight of the poor Indian thrown into such company
Indian Opinion, 7-3-1908, CWOMG Vol. 8, pg 135
private delete
October 4, 2005
On What Gandhi wanted (2)
INDIANS ON PAR WITH KAFFIRS
There, our garments were stamped with the letter ‘N’, which meant that we were being classed with the Natives. We were all prepared for hardships, but not quite for this experience. We could understand not being classed with the whites, but to be placed on the same level with the Natives seemed too much to put up with. I then felt that Indians had launched on passive resistance too soon. Here was further proof that the obnoxious law was intended to emasculate the Indians.
It was, however, as well that we were classified with the Natives. It was a welcome opportunity to study the treatment meted out to the Natives, their conditions [of life in the gaol] and their habits. …We were given a separate ward because we were sentenced to simple imprisonment; otherwise we would have been in the same ward [with the Kaffirs]. Indians sentenced to hard labour are in fact kept with the Kaffirs.
Apart from whether or not this implies degradation, I must say it is rather dangerous. Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized — the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty, and live almost like animals. Each ward contains nearly 50 to 60 of them. They often started rows and fought among themselves. The reader can easily imagine the plight of the poor Indian thrown into such company
Indian Opinion, 7-3-1908, CWOMG Vol. 8, pg 135
private delete
October 4, 2005
On What Gandhi wanted (1)
I have, though, resolved in my mind on an agitation to ensure that Indian prisoners are not lodged with Kaffirs or others. When I arrived at the place, there were about 15 Indian prisoners. Except for three, all of them were satyagrahis. The three were charged with other offences. These prisoners were generally lodged with kaffirs. When I reached there, the chief warder issued an order that all of us should be lodged in a separate room. I observed with regret that some Indians were happy to sleep in the same room as the Kaffirs, the reason being that they hoped there for a secret supply of tobacco, etc. This is a matter of shame to us. We may entertain no aversion to the Kaffirs, but we cannot ignore the fact that there is no common ground between them and us in the daily affairs of life. Moreover, those who wish to sleep in the same room have ulterior motives for doing so. Obviously, we ought to abandon such notions if we want to make progress.
Indian Opinion, 6-1-1909, CWOMG Vol. 9, pg 149
On What Gandhi wanted (9)
Gandhi’s disdain for black people continues:
It is one thing to register Natives who would not work, and whom it is very difficult to find out if they absent themselves, but it is another thing and most insulting to expect decent, hard-working, and respectable Indians, whose only fault is that they work too much, to have themselves registered
What is a Coolie, Indian Opinion 2151904, CWOMG Vol. 4, pg 193
CWOMG: Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi
private delete
October 4, 2005
On What Gandhi wanted (8)
The whole affair is as much a disgrace to the Indian community as it is to the British Empire. The British rulers take us to be so lowly and ignorant that they assume that, like the Kaffirs who can be pleased with toys and pins, we can also be fobbed off with trinkets
Indian Opinion, 29-2-1908, CWOMG Vol. 8, pg 105
CWOMG: Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi
private delete
October 4, 2005
On What Gandhi wanted (7)
More on SEPARATE AND UNEQUAL theory of Gandhiji…
His Excellency has, moreover, justified the definition of ‘coloured person’ on the ground that it is a legacy from the old Government. But British Indians object to the definition for that very reason. Their position is this. The ordinances will not in practice apply to them. The Boer Government insulted the Indians by classing them with the Kaffirs. Now there is no occasion to perpetuate a needless insult
Indians in the O.R.C, Indian Opinion, 6-1-1906, CWOMG, Vol. 5, pg 177-178
Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi: CWOMG
private delete
October 4, 2005
On What Gandhi wanted (6)
More on SEPARATE AND UNEQUAL theory of Gandhiji…
His Excellency has, moreover, justified the definition of ‘coloured person’ on the ground that it is a legacy from the old Government. But British Indians object to the definition for that very reason. Their position is this. The ordinances will not in practice apply to them. The Boer Government insulted the Indians by classing them with the Kaffirs. Now there is no occasion to perpetuate a needless insult
Indians in the O.R.C, Indian Opinion, 6-1-1906, CWOMG, Vol. 5, pg 177-178
Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi: CWOMG
private delete
October 4, 2005
On What Gandhi wanted (5)
It reduces British Indians to a status lower than that of the aboriginal races of South Africa and the Coloured people.
Indian Opinion 15-9-1906, CWOMG Vol. 5, pg 419-423
On What Gandhi wanted (14)
On Minority White rule in South Africa:
We, therefore, have no hesitation in agreeing with the view that in the long run assisted Asiatic immigration into the Transvaal would be disastrous to the white settlement. People will gradually accommodate themselves to relying upon Asiatic labour, and any White immigration of the special class required in the Transvaal on a large scale will be practically impossible. It would be equally unfair to the Natives of the soil. It is all very well to say that they would not work, and that, if the Asiatics were introduced, that would be a stimulus to work; but human nature is the same everywhere, and once Asiatic labour is resorted to, there would not be a sustained effort to induce the Natives to work under what would otherwise be, after all, gentle compulsion. There would be then less talk about taxing the Natives and so forth. Natives themselves, used as they are to a very simple mode of life, will always be able to command enough wages to meet their wants; and the result will be putting back their progress for an indefinite length of time. We have used the words ‘gentle compulsion’ in the best sense of the term; we mean compulsion of the same kind that a parent exercises over children
Indian Opinion, 9-7-1903, CWOMG Vol. 3, pg 359-360
CWOMG: COLLECTED WORKS OF MAHATMA GANDHI.
private delete
October 4, 2005
On What Gandhi wanted (13)
On Minority White rule in South Africa:
We, therefore, have no hesitation in agreeing with the view that in the long run assisted Asiatic immigration into the Transvaal would be disastrous to the white settlement. People will gradually accommodate themselves to relying upon Asiatic labour, and any White immigration of the special class required in the Transvaal on a large scale will be practically impossible. It would be equally unfair to the Natives of the soil. It is all very well to say that they would not work, and that, if the Asiatics were introduced, that would be a stimulus to work; but human nature is the same everywhere, and once Asiatic labour is resorted to, there would not be a sustained effort to induce the Natives to work under what would otherwise be, after all, gentle compulsion. There would be then less talk about taxing the Natives and so forth. Natives themselves, used as they are to a very simple mode of life, will always be able to command enough wages to meet their wants; and the result will be putting back their progress for an indefinite length of time. We have used the words ‘gentle compulsion’ in the best sense of the term; we mean compulsion of the same kind that a parent exercises over children
For Beej who is apparently BLIND: Indian Opinion, 9-7-1903, CWOMG Vol. 3, pg 359-360
CWOMG: COLLECTED WORKS OF MAHATMA GANDHI.
private delete
October 4, 2005
On What Gandhi wanted (12)
What the British Indians pray for is very little. They ask for no political power. They admit the British race should be the dominant race in South Africa. All they ask for is freedom for those that are now settled and those that may be allowed to come in future to trade, to move about, and to hold landed property without any hindrance save the ordinary legal requirements
Petition to Natal Legislature, CWOMG, vol3, pg 330
private delete
October 4, 2005
On What Gandhi wanted (11)
Ah… and they said Plessey Vs Ferguson was bad…
Well here is Gandhi with his theory of “Separate and Unequal”
…The petition dwells upon “the co-mingling of the Coloured and white races”. May we inform the members of the conference that, so far as the British Indians are concerned, such a thing is practically unknown? If there is one thing, which the Indian cherishes more than any other, it is the purity of type. Why bring such a question into the controversy at all?
The Transvaal Chambers and British Indians, Indian Opinion 24-12-03, CWOMG Vol. 4, pg 89
private delete
October 4, 2005
On What Gandhi wanted (10)
More on Gandhi’s theory of “separate and unequal”
Why, of all places in Johannesburg, the Indian Location should be chosen for dumping down all the Kaffirs of the town passes my comprehension. …Of course, under my suggestion, The Town Council must withdraw the Kaffirs from the Location. About this mixing of Kaffirs with the Indians, I must confess I feel most strongly
Indian Opinion, 10-4-04, CWOMG Vol. 4, pg 130-131
Other Gandhian Statements that we need to consider…
‘Sanghtan is a really sound movement. Every community is entitled, indeed bound to organize itself as a seperate entity’ : Mahatma Gandhi
(Young India January 6th 1927)
A translation of a Gujrati essay he wrote in 1922 for Niya Jawan
(1) I believe that if Hindu Society has been able to stand it is because it is founded on the caste system. (2) The seeds of swaraj are to be found in the caste system. Different castes are like different sections of miliary division. Each division is working for the good of the whole….
(3) A community which can create the caste system must be said to possess unique power of organization.
(4) Caste has a ready made means for spreading primary education. Each caste can take the responsibility for the education of the children of the caste. Caste has a political basis. It can work as an electorate for a representative body. Caste can perform judicial functions by electing persons to act as judges to decide disputes among members of the same caste. With castes it is easy to raise a defense force by requiring each caste to raise a brigade.
(5) I believe that interdining or intermarriage are not necessary for promoting national unity. That dining together creates friendship is contrary to experience. If this was true there would have been no war in Europe…. Taking food is as dirty an act as answering the call of nature. The only difference is that after answering call of nature we get peace while after eating food we get discomfort. Just as we perform the act of answering the call of nature in seclusion so also the act of taking food must also be done in seclusion.
(6) In India children of brothers do not intermarry. Do they cease to love because they do not intermarry? Among the Vaishnavas many women are so orthodox that they will not eat with members of the family nor will they drink water from a common water pot. Have they no love? The caste system cannot be said to be bad because it does not allow interdining or intermarriage between different castes.
(7) Caste is another name for control. Caste puts a limit on enjoyment. Caste does not allow a person to transgress caste limits in pursuit of his enjoyment. That is the meaning of such caste restrictions as interdining and intermarriage.
(8) To destroy caste system and adopt Western European social system means that Hindus must give up the principle of hereditary occupation which is the soul of the caste system. Hereditary principle is an eternal principle. To change it is to create disorder. I have no use for a Brahmin if I cannot call him a Brahmin for my life. It will be a chaos if every day a Brahmin is to be changed into a Shudra and a Shudra is to be changed into a Brahmin.
(9) The caste system is a natural order of society. In India it has been given a religious coating. Other countries not having understood the utility of the caste system, it existed only in a loose condition and consequently those countries have not derived from caste system the same degree of advantage which India has derived. These being my views I am opposed to all those who are out to destroy the caste system.
Pietermaritzburg is the capital of Kwa-Zulu Natal, not Durban!
Gandhi’s words on caste and “kaffirs” doesn’t surprise me. The interesting thing is, “kaffir” is an Arabic word that means “non-believer” (in Islam), yet it seems the Brits had co-opted it at the time to mean what they thought was “uncivilized” (un-Anglicized) folk.
Bearing this in mind, I find nothing offensive in the above qouted words of Gandhi because, if looked at from a cultural/sociological perspective, it reflects an attitude that is born from and reflects the social realities of India at the time.
In fact, reading his words above is almost like reading Prabhupada’s (founder of ISKCON) words, except that Gandhi’s words are much more benign and politically correct, believe it or not.
What Gandhi is referring to above as “caste system”, I believe is the simple definition as laid out by Krishna in the Gita, wherein there are only 4 varnas mentioned – Brahmin, Ksyatriya, Vaisya and Shudra, not the current system where there are literally hundreds (if not thousands) of castes and sub-castes. The reason I believe that Gandhi is referring to the simple varna system as mentioned in Gita is because he uses the word “eternal” in conjuction with “caste” and in Gita Krishna states “these 4 varnas were created by me and are eternal”.
As Gandhi stated, each caste could serve to EDUCATE their young in the skills of the caste so that the young would have employment upon reaching adulthood. This is old school apprenticeship as has always been practiced around the world since time immemorial. Nothing shocking there.
I think we have been conditioned to have such a strong and vehemenent reaction to the word “caste” that even when it is being used in a good way or as a substitute for a more accurate word/phrase, we all hoot and holler over it.
RE: Gandhi not wanting Indians to be lumped in with “kaffirs” (the African natives). I am sure he is not talking about ALL African natives, but rather the ones the Indians were thrown in jail with, who, as Gandhi described above, were behaving in unbecoming manners.
I’m not a cheerleader for all things Indian, but there is one thing I appreciate about Indian culture and that is the way it does indeed have a very organized family and social structure – protocols in behaviour. I can understand for Indians who would have grown up with many rules around cleanliness, food, this, that, and the other, living closely with others who did not have the same such rules would have been trying, to say the least. I find it trying and I’m not even Indian.
RE: his comment about eating or not eating together – I agree. As a vegetarian I am not eager to sit down at the table with flesh eaters. What can I say? It appalls me and makes me sick. Moving on….
RE: inter-marriage. It is difficult for us in the post-modern West to understand places and people that have alot of culture. India is a country with what – 40 officially recognized languages – and hundreds of unoffical ones? Hundreds of cuisines, thousands of customs, traditions and rituals. In USA we have one language – English. Thank God for “ethnic cuisine” otherwise we would have a pretty mono and bland menu as well. Whatever our colors or ancestry, we are all speaking the same language (for the most part) and eating the same sh*t, literally, the SAD, or Standard American Diet. So for us “inter-marriage” doesn’t really exist, because we are almost all the same.
But in other places this is not the case and it is wise for marriages to be arranged according to same or similar languages, cuisines, customs, etc.
If you take off your uber politically correct rose colored glasses and try to understand the “essence” of what Gandhi is talking about here, with respect to his particular time and culture, it is not at all offensive.
And Gandhi also showed by example that EVERYONE regardless of caste or status, should clean their own toilets, so he definetly was NOT in favor of keeping the scavengers and toilet cleaners of India “in their place”. He worked for their upliftment and dignity in society.
Gandhi was just advocating a return to the simple 4 varna system that Krishna talks about in Gita.
Now, someone please pull up Gandhi’s comments about “rape”. That is one area where I disagree with him. But again, considering the time and place from which he was speaking, what more could we expect?