Impact of Ahimsa on independent India
Somehow the Gandhian concept of Non-Violence i.e. do not get angry, wish him no harm or
cause him no physical hurt to someone who has injured you has got so embedded into our
minds that we either do not respond or do so inadequately inspite of grave
provocation’s. In today’s world it is perceived to be weakness.
Inadequate response even in the face of grave provocation does not appear to be because of
people great respect for Gandhi or his definition of Ahimsa. It is pure selfishness.
Trying to protect ones self interest in various circumstances. This is due to absence of
true knowledge of Dharma. Such tendencies are because of weakness & insecurity. Can
the average Indian learn about Dharma? He is taught The Merchant of Venice, Shakespeare,
Romeo and Juliet in school. Kalidasa, Aryabhatta, who! The Holy Geeta, I am too young to
read it.
I share with you some examples on how Gandhi has influenced our thinking.
- Quoting Nehru from the book Defending India “Gandhi found himself unable to give up
his fundamental principle of non-violence ever in regard to external war. He could not
give up the faith of a lifetime. He wanted Congress to declare its adherence to the
principle of non-violence even in free India. He realized that a government of free India
was not likely to discard violence when questions of defence were concerned and to build
up military, naval and air power. But he wanted if possible, for Congress at least to hold
the banner of non-violence aloft and thus train the minds of the people and make them
think increasingly in terms of a peaceful solution”.
- Quoting K. Subrahmanyam from Defending India “In order to develop an understanding
of our policy in post-independence India, it is essential to look at the roots of that
policy during the freedom struggle, since Gandhi was a fervent advocate of non-violence,
Indian defence preparedness was not given the attention it deserved. There is also the
view that Nehru was anti-militarist in his orientation and as, as an advocate of peace and
non-alignment, neglected the role of military power in international relations”.
- Another issue was the Moral aspect. Quoting Nehru’s speech to the Constituent
Assembly on 7/0/1948 from the book Defending India “When the question of Jammu and
Kashmir invasion came up, I sought guidance from Gandhi, the apostle of non-violence who
was not a suitable guide in military matters and he said so - but he undoubtedly always
was a guide on moral issues. I nevertheless mention this matter merely to show how the
moral aspect of this question has always troubled me”.
- Quoting from the book Defending India “ If Nehru bent backwards in accommodating
China it was not out of fear of what it would do but of the common belief among gentlemen
that human nature being essentially good, one sided favors done to our neighbors would
fill them with gratitude and would cause them to reciprocate. This is a direct outcome of
Nehru’s idealistic romanticism”.
- To be fair to Nehru he did make some references on the necessity of defence expenditure.
Quoting Nehru’s speech in Lok Sabha in November 1962 he said “defence and
development were two sides of the same coin”.
- Inspite of being warned by Patel, Nehru continued to ignore Chinese movements in Tibet
and after its conquest he warned of potential troubles between India and China. Nehru
however, chose to ignore these warnings and made Chinese appeasement the cornerstone of
his policy ably followed by Atalji in his earlier dealings with Pakistan.
- Nehru believed that with India’s spiritualism and history of non-violence it could
play a leading role in world’s affairs. He was a founder member of the Non-Aligned
movement, introduced the mantra of peaceful coexistence. Yet what came out of it was the
blunder of 1962.
- We ignored defence expenditure continuously in the 1950’s. Said noted Gandhian
Acharya Kriplani speaking on the Defence Budget in the Lok Sabha in 1957 “The
mounting expenses on the Army must be cut down. The followers of Gandhi and adherents of
universal peace should not increase military expenditure”. These are idealistic
words. Defence Minsiter Krishna Menon was a pacifists and not cut out for the role of a
world leader. In 1947 there was plenty of equipment, which had deteriorated by 1962. He
did not prepare or provide for the warfare at high altitude resulting in unnecessary lives
being lost and the humiliation of 1962.
How has the Nehruvian legacy weakened India?
- Throughout the fifties and the nineties we grossly ignored the needs of our armed forces
while Pakistan, China have armed themselves continuously. As a % of GDP, our defense
expenditure has always been around 2.5% while the number for our neighbors is in excess of
3%. The results of these were visible in the debacle of 1962 and the high casualties in
Kargil. Gen Malik, the Chief of Army Staff said at the time of Kargil “We will fight
with what we have”. With the election looking large in 1999, am sure that the Army
was pressurized to win at any cost.
- “Human nature being essentially good” referred to by Nehru in para 4 above
have cost us dear. With the Chinese we went to bed as Hindi-Chin-bhai-bhai only to be
stabbed in 1962. With the Pakistanis we went overboard during the famous Lahore visit of
Atalji in 1999. What we got was Kargil. In a strategic sense we do not start with a
premise that the other person is a crook. We do not think that way! To us friendship means
letting your guard down. What will happen if your adversary does the opposite of what we
expect him to do? Crystal ball glazing is a word that is alien to most of us.
- Nehru’s belief that appeasement, taking soft options solves problems has become
part of our thinking. Successive Congress govts and now Shri Vajpayee have made unilateral
concessions to Pakistan, like granting it MFN status, to Bangladesh, trade concessions,
soft-pedaling the recent incursions in Meghalaya and some say the Farakkha Accord but what
have we got in return. Pakistan’s obsessed with ruining India while Bangaldesh is
believed to tactically support the ISI and has changed the demographic composition of the
population in parts of the NorthEast and Bengal by supporting infiltration.
- Nehru was obsessed with foreign policy and what the world thought of him, even if it
were at the cost of domestic opinion, policies. Indira and Rajiv Gandhi followed in his
footsteps. Atalji is nearly there but a slight improvement. Nehru made all subsequent
PM’s dream about becoming International Statesmen just like what he had become till
the debacle of 1962 brought him down to mother earth.
- We have become highly moralistic (speak the truth) in foreign affairs e.g. for nearly
fifty years we were perpetually on the defensive for alleged violation of the U N
Resolution on Kashmir, not holding the plebiscite or alleged human right violations. If I
remember correctly, it is only after the advent of the BJP govt or a couple of years
before that India has told its countrymen from the rooftops that the UN Resolution
requires Pakistan to vacate from Pakistan Occupied Kashmir before a plebiscite could be
held. In the realm of foreign policy there is only one mantra, National Interests!
- Pakistan has been supporting terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir for over a decade but we
have failed to give an adequate response, continue to be bullied. Tolerance, suffering,
morality is fine but what is required is to increase the cost of terrorism for Pakistan by
either a military attack or an economic boycott. That is something I am afraid we have not
successfully done. We talk of playing by the rules, not emulating the deeds of our
illustrious neighbors. Have we forgotten the story of Mahabharat. The Kauravas had cheated
the Pandavas in the game of chess, tried to burn them alive. So when it was the Pandavas
turn, Dharamraj Yudhister on the advice of Lord Krishna, lied to Guru Dronacharya that
Ashwathama was dead. It was the elephant Ashwathama who was dead while Dronacharya thought
it was his son. So taken by grief was the Guru that he took Samadhi and was eventually
slain.
- We have become mothers of compassion. When Indira Gandhi returned to Pakistan 93,000
POW’s in 1972, she did so after Bhutto told her that any concessions by him on J and
K would make life difficult for him back home. Nearly 30 years later, after Bangladeshi
Rifles killed 16 Border Security Jawans on the Meghalya border, we have not asked the
Bangladeshi govt for a written apology or explaination but are busy procrastinating about
how pro-Pakistani, Islamic forces must have engineered this attack to embarrass Sheikh
Hasina on the eve of their Parliamentary elections. Does anybody value the lives of our
soldiers? What about the impact on their morale? Why would anyone want to join the armed
forces and sacrifice his life so that some politician becomes an International Statesman.
- We are told, how can a country that has over 25 % of its population below the poverty
line, afford a Nuclear Bomb? What no one asks, is that if we do not have a Bomb, would
every Indian be above the poverty line. As Nehru rightly said, Development and Defence are
two sides of the same coin. We seem to forget that the savings that have accrued from
lower defence expenditure get frittered away in Internal Security. During the ten years
1988-1998, the Government spent Rs 64,500 crs on internal security to combat the cost of
ISI terror.
- Nehru’s legacy has probably produced Kargil, the biggest foreign affairs failure
after the debacle of 1962. Our beloved Atalji visited Lahore in February 1999 with a
Baraat as I call it. He professed peace, non-violence, made all the right noises, accepted
the creation of Pakistan. What we got was Kargil. To read about the similarities between
Nehru and Vajpayee, please visit www.esamskriti.com/essays/wars.
- This world only respects those who, have Military Power, are Winners. Vijay Amritraj
symbolizes Indian attitude aptly. He had the potential to become the best player of his
time but he lacked the killer instinct, had perfect on, off court manners, applauded his
opponent when he played a good short but rarely won matches. Surely Vijay was not born
with this attitude but imbibed it from his countrymen, past and present.
- Nehru has had another important effect on the Indian psyche. We like leaders who are
idealists, good orators, become international statesmen, profess peace even at the cost of
getting hurt themselves. We do not like and remember leaders who talk tough, speak the
truth, profess violence to those which is the only language they understand. How many of
us remember Sardar Patel today or know his contribution to the unification of India.
Subconsciously Indians tend to idolize the Nehruvian types and ignore leaders who talk
tough even if it is for the nation’s benefit.
- Nehruvian Secularisim has come to grant extraordinary rights to the minorities in this
country incomparable to what is granted by any other nation of the world. To the English
media today, torchbearers of Nehruvian secularism, a member of the minority community can
do no wrong. Think carefully since Independence, the Christians have taken to the gun in
the North-East, the Punjabi Sardars in Punjab and the Muslims everywhere more so in Jammu
and Kashmir. Some people might have genuine grievances but is taking to the gun going to
give a solution. Because of this the Indian State has had to devote time, energy and money
to manage these forces of violence. Surely the Hindus have made mistakes too but have they
taken to the gun like others?
- The Indian govt too supports all Indians who take to violence, be it the Christian
Rebels in Mizoram, Muslim rebels in the Kashmir Valley but ignores the non-violent voice
of the Kashmiri Pandits. Yet we claim to profess the benefits of Ahimsa as none other.
Long live Ahimsa, Dharma is dead.