GANDHIJI"S SATYAGRAHA
MOVEMENT
There is a saying - “Release the devil from the confinement by opening the
trap door of the chamber and face its consequences.” What Mahatma Gandhi did one
century ago, was the same in its essence, when he started
the Satyagraha Movement of non-co-operation and agitation against the
British Government. The British Government was not elected by the people
of India, to govern India. It was an
authoritarian Government by default. As
such, there was justification for breaking the law at that time; this has been
the opinion of many people in the past and present. But today, to achieve their objectives, the
same weapon of agitation and non-co-operation, in the various forms of dawn to
dusk Hartal, lightning strikes and blind destruction of public and
private properties are adopted by the same people who voted the government to the
seat of power. There is no one to
compensate the losses. If there is any
dissatisfaction with the elected government of the day, the people should wait
patiently for the end of the term of the government. It is their own mistake to elect an
undeserving government to remain in the seat of power. For all the wrong doings, appropriate Praayaschitta
i.e. atonement in the form of repentance should be gone through. But today, the Satyagraha Movement introduced
by Mahatma Gandhi is deliberately misused at all levels. There is no justification for violent
agitation of any sort in a democratic rule.
But most agitations helplessly turn into an anarchic rebellion, by which
totally innocent people, who remain mere passers-by, are seriously affected, even
meeting with accidental deaths on many occasions.
Even though I don't welcome the Movement of Satyagraha,
still I have to accept it, when I would be left with no other options.
In such a situation, my only worry and concern will be that, the Movement
should never turn counter-productive. Here, the majority of Indians are
likely to contradict my statement by saying that Gandhiji intended and also
expected, from his heart of hearts, the Satyagraha Movement to be truly non-violent
in its letter and spirit. To this remark, my rejoinder would be that, the
person introducing such risky Movements should be farsighted enough and should
be able to contain and bring that devil back to confinement at his will. From our past and present experiences, it has
to be said with great emphasis, that Gandhiji miserably failed in containing
the devil of Satyagraha Movement, even during his life time, when the Movement
was no more required to be continued further.
This is evident from his statement that Indian National Congress should
be liquidated forthwith as it had served its purpose fully. In this statement itself, it is implied that
Satyagraha Movement also has served its purpose and as such, that also should
be discontinued forthwith. But how many
among Gandhiji's followers were willing to listen to his advice? Even his chief disciple, Jawaharlal Nehru was
unwilling to liquidate INC, because Nehru very much wanted INC to ascend the
throne of power in Delhi; in such a state of affairs what is there to talk of
others? Initially, before the devil is
released from confinement to vanquish the enemy, one should realise that the same
devil will have to be constantly engaged in the same combat mood against
different opponents, one after the other; otherwise the devil would surely turn
against his own master, when he is asked to keep quiet finally.
Satyagraha Movement, in general, produces lazy and cowardly
people, who would be devoid of fortitude in the long run. The people who take part in Satyagraha Movements
can never feel within themselves, that they have done something constructive
and really great, as it is a passive movement altogether. That was the reason for Netaji Subhash
Chandra Bose to organise an active Movement to achieve India's freedom by
fighting and defeating the enemy of British-rule, through armed conflict and sheer
valour, like the Americans defeating the British and gaining their independence. That would have saved the country from terrible
indiscipline and psychic perversion of its own citizens, especially the youthful
community, in the long run during the post-independence period. This is the reason for the comparatively much
less agitation-incidents and anarchic protests in USA, against their own elected
governments. Generally, we see them more
hard-working when we compare them with India's youth who are far less
enterprising.
Gandhiji started his Satyagraha Movement as a
powerful weapon to fight and defeat the British as, in his opinion, he had no
other options to achieve that goal. At that time, remaining
short-sighted, he could not foresee what a terrible harm it would bring to India's well established Sanatana Dharma
and its continuously inherited social balance. This clearly proves that Gandhiji
was only a pawn in the hands of India's destiny as the Cosmic Will alone is
acting everywhere and at all times, the individual free will being an illusion. By this statement of mine, the readers would be
extremely happy that I have relieved Gandhiji from all the blames, that
Satyagraha Movement brought with it to India's post-independence social life. But the matter doesn't end there. Now the same readers will have to agree that
the credit for India's independence goes to the Cosmic Will and not to Mahatma Gandhi,
in such a hypothesis; and if it is so, Mahatma Gandhi cannot become राष्ट्र-पिता Father of the Nation.
If Gandhiji should be accepted as Father of the Nation, all the blames
also should go to him and not to anyone else.
Even though Gandhiji had attained Satva Guna
(purity of psyche, by the observance of prolonged fasting and other severe austerities
and disciplines) to a very high level, still he was not a Gyaani in the
true sense of the word, a Self-realised person, endowed with a totally
objective outlook in all matters and at all times. If he were a Gyaani, he could not have
led the Freedom Movement at all. For, a Gyaani
will have no Karma to be exhausted after Self-realisation. This clearly reflects in his policy of
Ahimsa for all occasions. He insisted that, the goal and the means to
achieve the goal, both should be noble and well established in non-violence. This is quite contradictory to the teachings
of Bhagavad-Geeta where Bhagavaan Krishna tells Arjuna that he
can achieve lasting peace through violence also sometimes, and he should choose
this option of violence, in other words, the full-scale bloody war, on that particular
occasion of the great Mahabharata-War.
Dhrutaraashtra was advising Yudhishtira to remain as a
true Saint forever, in the forest, as his son Duryodhana would not agree
to return the legitimate share of kingdom in a peaceful manner. Krishna advised Pandavas that it was not the Dharma
of Kshatrias to observe non-violence when the situation demanded bloody violence
badly. Non-violence is the exclusive
Dharma of the Braahmanas. As
such, we can conclude that, against Saatvic opponents only, the weapon
of Ahimsa i.e. non-violence will produce welcome results. Against Taamasic adversaries like
ISIS, Al-Qaida, Boko Haram and Taliban, non-violence will not only be
inappropriate but also will prove to be counter-productive, which we are experiencing
these days, all over the world.
As a result of this flaw, Gandhiji remained short sighted.
He should not have assumed the role of an arbitrator when he could control only
the Hindus and not the Muslims, during the terrible Hindu-Muslim battles,
turning into arson and rioting violence, which took place in front of his very
eyes, immediately after India's independence, from the British rule in 1947. In Noakhali, East Bengal, Gandhiji was
witness to Hindu community's unimaginable suffering at the hands of the unruly
Muslim community and he could not open his mouth after that incident. Gandhiji would have realised that his policy
of non-violence was not a sane idea for all occasions; but he didn't dare to
admit it and it was also too late for him to admit it, when his life was coming
to its unexpected and shocking end in a few months thereafter, as a bolt from
the blue. Truly speaking, Gandhiji's Satyagraha Movement was
purely a subjective idea, suitable only for pre-independence days. Again, it is totally against the spirit of PRAPATTI in
Sri Vaishnavism. The age-old doctrine of Prapatti is nothing
but a total and unconditional submission of a Jeevaatman to the
inviolable Will of God which should reflect in submitting oneself totally to
the will of Destiny. Now, at the moment
of the final judgement in this matter, Gandhiji's Sankeertana of Ram-Naam
didn't forsake him; it definitely stood with him when he could say "Hey
Ram" before breathing his last.
Actually, Gandhiji was intuiting his most beloved Ram in the human frame
of Godse; otherwise Ram-Naam would not have come out of his mouth at
that critical moment. What a thrilling
end to a profitable life! This surely
made him a true Mahatma and the Father of the Nation as well.
As Gandhiji could register great success through his Satyagraha
Movement, during India's freedom struggle, we have to accept it unreservedly as
proper, in our hindsight, as it had the backing and blessing of God. Otherwise it would not have turned successful
at all. In the 10th chapter of Bhagavad-Geeta,
Krishna says नीतिरस्मि
जिगीषतां (BG/10/38) "I am the policy, that
indicates the means to victory, of those, who desire to be victorious and who also register victory
ultimately."
As such, it is finally left
to the next popular and most powerful reformer, Bhagavaan
Kalki, who is expected to become manifest at any time in the very
near future, to contain and defeat the dreaded devil of agitation and
anarchic behaviour (to achieve anything and everything irrespective of it being
just or unjust) and confine the devil again, to his chamber and seal the
trap door very tightly, so that the spiritual and social balance in
India's Sanatana Dharma doesn't get unduly vitiated for a
long time to come.
सनातन-धर्म एव जयते; न पाखण्ड-धर्मः ||
Om Shaanti, Shaanti, Shaanti.
ॐ शम्
No comments:
Post a Comment