Site Title

Tag: gandhi

  • Commonalities between three greatest Indian spiritual philosophers

    Lately, I have started to wonder whether the tools for professional success are the same as those required for spiritual success. Knowledge, hard work, perseverance, ambition, expressiveness, and tenacity are well-known, well-documented ingredients of success in the business world, but are they enough to grow in the spiritual realm? In search of an answer, I embarked on an endeavor to read about those people who, in my view, have reached the pinnacle of this vast, invigorating, mystical, and intricate world of spirituality. To initiate my journey, I did not had to look beyond our great nation, India. Although the geographical boundaries of a country are defined and well marked, the “spiritual boundaries” of a nation, like India, are limitless and permeate the vastness of the universe.

    This ancient civilization, spanning more than five thousand years, has produced some of the most profound thinkers in the world. These thinkers have impacted the lives of millions of people not only in their country of origin, but their thoughts have touched the “soul” of scores of people around the world. I think the three most thought-provoking and inspirational spiritual philosophers that the subcontinent, once called “sone ki chidiya”, has produced are M.K Gandhi, Swami Vivekananda, and Guru Nanak. Reading and learning about them made me draw a few common grounds that connected their thoughts and ideas. The bedrock of these eternal ideas that changed how an ordinary Indian views religion, society, and spiritual progress stands on a common platform. Some of the commonalities where the minds of these three great “spiritual giants” meet are:

    A modern view of religion: “The Story of My Experiments with Truth” is one of the most uplifting books that I have read in my life. In one of the instances mentioned in the book, Gandhi describes his experience of visiting the Kashi Vishwanath temple situated in the “holy” Indian city of Benares. His spiritual expectations were devastated in observing the uncleanliness and chaos in the bazaars leading to the temple. The noise, the swarming flies, the slippery lanes made his stopover “perfectly insufferable”. No wonder that the unkempt shrine made him question “how Indians could successfully manage self-government if they could not even keep their most sacred places of worship clean and peaceful.”

    If one studies Swami Vivekananda in depth, one would be enlightened by the fact that the “reverent monk” was one of the biggest critics of the social evils and rigid rituals of Hindu society in particular and Indian society in general. He famously gave the term “Kitchen religion,” which he associated with “don’t- touchism”, which, in his own terms, was “the obsession with ritualistic purity, such as what to eat or touch, rather than spiritual depth”. In this context, he went even further and stated that many Indians have taken their faith to their kitchens and made “cooking utensils” their religion. In a gist, he harshly censured the existing religious dogmas in Indian society and placed enormous emphasis on internalized spiritual growth rather than just blindly following the nonsensical practices in one’s creed and belief system.

    Although founder of Sikhism (one of the youngest religions in the world), and its first Guru, I prefer calling Nanak the “Guru of the entire humanity” rather than just a Sikh Guru. There is a narrative from his “Janamsakhi” (literally meaning birth stories) when he was lying down with his legs towards the “Kaaba”. When an offended Arab priest objected to this perceived “blasphemy,” Nanak calmly replied, asking the priest to turn his legs in a direction where God does not exist. This reflects how shallow the conviction is of those who find God only in a few man-made structures. Nanak’s message was vividly that God is omnipresent.

    Another notable incident from his life was when he visited Haridwar and on seeing people throwing water eastwards towards the rising sun. Upon his inquiry, people told the Guru that they are quenching the thirst of their ancestors who live in the heavens towards the east. On hearing this, Nanak entered the Ganges and started throwing the water towards the west. Baffled with this act, people asked him why is he dousing water in that direction. The Guru replied that his fields in Punjab were in dire need of this water. With even greater perplexity, priests started laughing and said how can the water go that far. Nanak, with all his calmness and composure replied that if the water can go millions of miles towards the heavens in east, it could surely reach his fields just a few hundred miles away. The “first master” was a proponent of sensible thinking and was a champion of religious unity. This reminds me of the following famous adage:

    “Nanak Shah Fakir – Na Hindu Na Musalman”

    In essence, what connects these aforementioned episodes is that each of these figures of titanic spiritual strength critiqued the religious dogmas that existed in the society during their lifetimes. I have a firm opinion that reform, whether it is personal or societal, cannot be implemented without critiquing one’s own set of principles and practices. In other words, constructive criticism opens doors for reforms and reforms in turn provide an innovative and modern alternative to existing inflexible doctrines.

    The views and perspectives of these three leaders make an incision into our doctrinaire Indian society, where people follow religion with an unquestioning mind. In my own humble experience, I have seen people making a trade or a business deal with their God. The mode of worship that largely exists in our society is just ringing bells in the places of worship, reciting scriptures, or rotating prayer beads, and that too is geared towards the fulfilment of their personal objectives. Although, there is nothing immoral in that but it certainly cannot lead to a spiritual enlightenment. On the contrary, the lives of these three great men introduces us to a path where the true form of worship is the one which is tied to public service. “Sewa parmo dharma” is the highest duty and way towards spiritual elevation.

    Being an agnostic, I am still skeptical as far as the existence of the “almighty” is concerned, but what I am unequivocal about is that if there indeed is a superpower, then the ledger on which his evaluation of our lives would be based would not be as to how many times we have recited a “mantra” or visited a place of worship, but on how many destitute lives we have impacted and changed. In a spiritual journey, one should free himself from the shackles of following a rigid methodology with absolutely no rational basis and adopt an experimental mindset towards enlightenment.

    Unbounded Intellect: I have a strong intuition that God (if one exists) does not like people who worship him out of fear but would appreciate those who could intellectually argue with him. Intellect is after-all the biggest and greatest gift of the “Lord” to homo sapiens that distinguishes him from the animal world. On these lines, a related parallel that I draw is that all three luminaries were well versed in the philosophical texts and religious scriptures that belonged to the ideologies of different societies and sects than their own. This confirms to my personal belief that in order to understand religion and spirituality at its core, one has to dive deeply into the unbiased and unfeigned analysis of all the major religions and prominent thinkers of the world. Let’s take the case of Swami Vivekananda. It is well documented that while in college, he thoroughly studied Western philosophers like Immanuel Kant and Herbert Spencer. He was also well versed in the holy scriptures of Christianity and Islam.

    Same was true of Gandhi. Although during the days he thought his life was ending due to an illness , he regularly listened to Bhagwat Gita, he possessed intense knowledge of the world religions and even believed that he has made the religions of world his own. I regard Gandhi as one of the most erudite Indians of all times. Not only was he widely read, but as a copious writer, his legacy also includes a tome of published work. Similarly, when we talk about Guru Nanak, it is believed that during his youth, he “soaked” himself in the study of both Hinduism and Islam. He was also a great poet. In the words of Khushwant Singh, “Nanak was a poet of uncommon sensitivity who could turn his pen from gentle satire to rapturous praise “. The nucleus of my argument being that in order grow spiritually, it is vital to have an understanding and an appreciation of all major faiths in the world. This provides an intellectual depth and in my modest opinion, intellectual growth and spiritual upliftment are mutually inclusive.

    The philosophy of detachment: This is the most challenging but at the same time, an absolutely essential ingredient of attaining spiritual awakening. As per Bhagavad Gita, “Detachment is engaging fully with your duties while remaining free from anxiety of the results”. As per the same sacred book, detachment is like a “lotus metaphor, being in water but being untouched by him”. In my view, reaching this state of mind is tantamount to reaching an emotional state which is extremely arduous to achieve in our contemporary “dog eat dog” world. However, all the three foregoing spiritual philosophers I discussed about led their lives free of attachment and through their works, showed the world how to conquer this formidable “demon” of attachment that resides within our hearts.

    I have just initiated on my spiritual expedition and my steps and efforts are still at a very nascent stage. However, as I set out to this life long voyage, I have found these three spiritual philosophers who can become my beacon of light towards this demanding yet exhilarating journey. In that regards, I quote this relevant “doha” from the great Kabir:

    “Guru Govind dou khade, kaake lagun pay.Balihari guru apne, Govind diyo batay.”

  • Why Gandhi would have championed Open Source Software?

    One of the greatest polymath and genius of all times, Albert Einstein, once said about the political views of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, called as Mahatma Gandhi by his millions of followers, that “I believe that Gandhi’s views were the most enlightened of all the political men in our time.”. Going over his autobiography, “The story of my experiments with truth”, I find Gandhi as one of the most inspiring personalities that I have read about. As someone who works in the Information Technology sector with a keen interest in Open source in general and Linux Operating system in particular, I could vividly draw parallels between the ideology of this great political and intellectual Giant and the ideology that powers the Open source methodology.

    I have come to a conclusive opinion that had Gandhi lived today or during the times of technology and software boom, he would have become a “brand ambassador” and a thorough supporter of the open source movement. The principles that this “saintly leader having a global impact” followed and practiced in his life have several parallels with the foundations on which the open source was built. These ideals continue to stimulate and motivate millions of people around the world. Here are three resemblances between the modus operandi of Gandhi and open source that in my view reverberates with everlasting impact in the world we live in:

    A Community driven approach : Gandhi, during his days in South Africa was deeply inspired by Ruskin’s book “Unto This Last“, which he read and put into practice by establishing the “Phoenix Settlement”. Later, he was inspired by Leo Tolstoy’s work “The Kingdom of God Is Within You” and established “Tolstoy Farm” near Johannesburg. The common aspect of both these establishments were that they were community driven places, an approach also central to the open source developmental framework. Communities form the nucleus of all the software written in the open source world. People who were members of the aforementioned communities formulated by Gandhi participated with a desire fueled by an intention of embedding a novel approach to life while making the society a more participative and responsible place to dwell. Participation is key in the open source world as well. Both these systems transmogrified the basis of the human thought.

    A Do-It-Yourself (DIY) approach to life: The world of open source software is a world of experimentation. It is a world where the concept of DIY is implemented to its fullest and brought into its fruition. Engineers, hackers and software enthusiasts develop products that millions of people can play with, modify and recrate completely new innovations out of those products. Zealots can follow easily accessible in depth documentation to “break and make things”. This creates an enterprising environment benefitting technology, the business and the society as a whole. As I read his autobiography, I see the actions of Gandhi imbibing the same DIY scruples as the one’s described above. The “spiritual giant” was adept in experimentation and trying out new concepts himself and energizing people around him to do the same. Whether it be practicing as a Lawyer, working as a public servant, his explorations in dietary (especially his inclination towards earth and water treatment) or even learning geometry, Gandhi took the existing knowledge, mastered it, and inspired the world to implement the same in their lifestyles. It also implies the broad applicability of ideals and principles that forms the backbone of the open source realm.

    Power to the people : Through Free Software Foundation, the software pioneer Richard Stallman advocates to distribute the software in such a way that it is free for people to use and modify its source code. In 1989, he co-founded “League for Programming Freedom“, through which he campaigns against the software patents and restrictions on the use of “digital software products”. In a nutshell, he is a proponent of giving power to the people. On the same platform, Gandhi’s whole life was dedicated to empowering those who were deprived of exercising their rights. The core of both these ideologies was to challenge the existing norms and protocols and bring about a “constructive revolutionary change” in the lives of people and the world we live in. Evolving and nurturing the expression of individuality forms the spinal cord of both the philosophies.

    Whether it was the relentless pursue of truth which Gandhi immersed with the struggle for independence during colonial era or the software upheaval and revolution brought by the open source methodology to create a better technological ecosystem, I see deep affinity in both these approaches to tackle the pressing problems of the world from which we all can learn.

  • Factors that led the Britishers to leave India

    There is an entrenched belief among many Indians that the country got its independence from the Britishers because of the non violent, non cooperation movement led by M.K Gandhi. Many also believe that it was a combination of the “peaceful protest” led by Gandhi and the revolutionary forces led by the likes of Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad and Subhash Chandra Bose that paved the way for India’s freedom.

    Before I ponder on the real factor that ended the “Raj” in the Indian subcontinent region, I would like to opine on how effective civil disobedience movement based on non violence can be. I do agree that Gandhi did played an instrumental role in unifying the country giving it a sense of identity and that his efforts focused on empowering the distraught peasants and promoted the religious pluralism but was it enough to free India from the shackles of British rule? Were his anti colonial measures potent enough to give that knockout blow to the powerful imperialist regime? I would argue they were not. Non violence can undoubtedly create civil disobedience in a society, but it is not impactful to an extent where it can cause a ruler to fret and run away.

    Like his personality, Gandhi’s mechanism of protest was controversial too. He preached peace and “Satyagraha” to the world but launched a campaign to enlist Indians to join the British efforts during World War – I. He encouraged Indians to stop using the British clothes but was invited by the Britishers to attend the second round table conference in London. There is a famous picture of him posing with British ladies with a smile on his face. On one hand, the revolutionaries or the so called “terrorists” as the Britishers labeled them, were brutally tortured in the jails, Gandhi was given the “luxury” of writing his autobiography during the time he spent in jail. What kind of an agitation is that?

    More than a foe, I think Gandhi was a confidante of the Britishers. If that would not be the case, why would the Britishers “invite” him and sit with him on the negotiating table? Did the Britishers had the same “soft corner”for Bhagat Singh or Bose. These people were a greater threat to the the empire than the non violent Gandhi. I do agree that there is a merit in the argument that since Gandhi exerted an influence on the Indian masses, it was a diplomatic strategy for the Britishers to negotiate with him. But was it an impossible task for the “cunning” and politically dexterous British officers to subdue him? I think it was not.

    The rise of Bhagat Singh and Subhash Chandra Bose and more importantly, the rise of communist ideology fostered by the Hindustan Republican Army posed a serious threat to the empire. The influence of Bhagat Singh on the youth of the country and the formation of Indian National army by Bose fueled nationalism in Indians. However, Britishers were extremely canny in their approach in handling Indians. The famous (or I would say notorious) “Divide and Conquer” method proved successful for them in segregating the Indian society. India, unfortunately has a history of producing its “Jaychand’s“. The British think tank was extremely apt in pitting Indians against Indians. For an empire as powerful and as shrewd as the the British empire, it was not impossible to crush the revolutionary movement.

    The aforementioned factors did played a role in the Indian independence, but they were not suffice in sending the Britishers back home. I strongly believe that what really led the Britishers to “quit” India was World War – II and the impact it had in weaking the empire. To run and administer any region, especially a region as vast as the Indian subcontinent, a country requires massive resources. Let me draw a parallel with why the Nazis were not able to hold off the Allied invasion during D-Day in 1944. It is widely believed that had the Nazis not launched Operation Barbarossa, the allied army would still have been fighting the Nazis. A lot of Nazi army units got “chewed up” in the eastern front in the conflict with the Soviet forces that they could not maintain their hold on the western front.

    World War – II dented the British economy gravely. Their foreign reserves dwindled and the Debt grew enormously. Adding to this quandary, the country lost approximately four hundred thousand soldiers in the war with many more injured. The country’s infrastructure was damaged and it took them several years to rebuild it. This depletion of resources was the primary reason that the empire lost its grip on its colonies, especially India. This, along with the growing internal pressure against colonialism, consequently ended their reign.

    The notion that we “seized” the control back from the Britishers is falsified and not based on the complete analysis of the factors that resulted in our Independence.