Turning a deaf ear

Thursday , Sep 17, 2009 at 0351 hrs
Gandhiji’s rules

As usual, Gandhiji’s rules, sprinkled throughout his writings, speeches, letters, are an excellent guide, even though for us pygmies, trying to abide by them taxes one to the limit.

“I do not read newspapers as a rule, but look at the enclosed in The Leader...” writes Gandhiji answering a series of letters from C.F. Andrews against the Khilafat movement that Gandhiji has launched. Those first few words — “I do not read newspapers as a rule.. .” — are the gem that should be our first rule! For one thing, it is not just that the rule is much easier to follow than the others, it is something to which the media itself pushes us these days. In Gandhiji’s case the reason, of course, was that the newspapers dealt with matters so ephemeral that they had little bearing on his quest — of freedom for India, of the inner search. Today, obsessed with the “breaking news” of the moment; obsessed with any and everything that they can inflate into the sensation of the moment, the media deals in even more evanescent flickers.

Second, as for calumny, Gandhiji never answered it, his rule being, “Public men who wish to work honestly can only rely upon the approbation of their own conscience. No other certificate is worth anything for them. . .”

Third, as for criticism, a letter from him to Rabindranath Tagore at the height of the agitation against the Rowlatt Acts has a typical gem. It was well known that Tagore had not been well disposed towards the new methods that Gandhiji was introducing into Indian public life. Tagore had not been well. But Gandhiji had just learnt that he was giving lectures at Benares. Hence the letter requesting a message: “...I venture to ask you for a message from you — a message of hope and inspiration for those who have to go through the fire. I do so because you have been good enough to send me your blessings when I embarked upon the struggle. The forces arrayed against me are, as you know, enormous. I do not dread them for I have an unwavering belief that they are all supporting untruth and that if we have sufficient faith in truth it will enable us to overpower them. But all forces work through human agency. I am, therefore, anxious to gather around this mighty struggle the ennobling assistance of those who approve it. I will not be happy until I have received your considered opinion in regard to this struggle which endeavours to purify the political life of this country. If you have seen anything to alter your first opinion of it you will not hesitate to make it known to me. I value even adverse opinions from friends for though they may not make me change my course, they serve the purpose of so many light-houses to give me warnings of danger lying in the stormy paths of life. . .”

As for misrepresentation, Gandhiji’s rule is prudence itself. “I am used to misrepresentation all my life,” he writes in Young India in a typical passage. “It is the lot of every public worker. He has to have a tough hide” — and then the operational rule: “Life would be burdensome if every misrepresentation has to be answered and cleared. It is a rule of life with me never to explain misrepresentations except when the cause required correction. This rule has saved much time and worry.”

Insulating circumstances

Given what we might call their “status”, the party spokesmen must have been mighty thrilled at the strong words they were launching. As the words I have used in the preceding part — “swine,” for instance — themselves indicate, I am as yet far from adhering to Gandhiji’s rules. Even so, the pejoratives of the spokesmen had absolutely no effect. And that for a reason. Since I began writing in India thirty-five years ago, at every turn, smears have been hurled at my associates and me: the result is that I no longer care for them. But it isn’t just that I have become used to them.

To begin with, I wear two thick layers of insulation.

The first insulation — the impenetrable one — is that very child; and his love which has made him the centre of so many lives; and his laughter which you can hear three houses away. I lose a job? I have but to compare my circumstance with that of our son — and I at once see the occurrence to be a trifling one in comparison. Someone hurls abuse? I have but to ask, “Does it affect this child’s love for all of us? Will it dim his laughter?”

Second, because of our circumstances, my wife, our relatives, and I lead cloistered lives. We get next to no magazines. As for Indian newspapers, we get just two, and we just about skim through them. We don’t, therefore, get to hear of or read most of what commentators and others have said. On occasion, some well-wisher will ring up and say, “Have you seen the vicious piece X has written about you? You really should read it.” But why should I? I am not looking for a job that I should worry about what prospective employers may think after they have read the piece. One of the greatest beings of our times, the Dalai Lama provides an excellent example even in so mundane a matter. In his instructive book, The Wise Heart, the American Buddhist teacher, Jack Kornfield narrates:

“A reporter once pressed the Dalai Lama about his oft-quoted statement that he does not hate the Chinese communists, in spite of their systematic destruction of Tibet. In reply, the Dalai Lama explained, ‘They have taken over Tibet, destroyed our temples, burned our sacred texts, ruined our communities, and taken away our freedom. They have taken so much. Why should I let them also take my peace of mind?’...”

When the Dalai Lama will not let even the Chinese communists rob his peace of mind even after the horrors they have inflicted, why should we let mere mouthpieces ruffle us with mere adjectives?

Mention of the Dalai Lama, of what has been done, and is being done to his people and culture and religion leads one to the next antidote: a sense of proportion, of humility. Recall for a moment the lives of the Buddha, of the Lokmanya, of Gandhiji, of Solzhenitsyn, of Mandela, of others who stood up. The worst kind of smears were hurled at the Buddha: those whose grip was being loosened by his teachings even got a young girl to say that the Buddha had made her pregnant; at least two attempts were made to kill him. The Lokmanya was not just traduced and reviled, he was sent off to Mandalay to spend six long years in solitary confinement, years that broke his health — so much so that when at long last he reached his abode, the watchman would not let him in, so unrecognisable had he become. The years and years that Solzhenitsyn and Mandela spent in prison, in the former case in deathly labour camps. Jesus and Gandhiji were not just reviled, they were killed. When this is what has been done to these giants, who are we ants to complain, and that too just because some adjectives have been flung in our direction?

A bit of conceit also helps! As the pejoratives are hurled one’s way, we are bound to ask, “Who are these persons who are saying all this?” Are they the Seervais of their field, of any field? That is, are they scholarly authorities so that one has to take their opinion seriously? Is a Baba Amte saying, “No, this was not expected of you?” — for then one would naturally have to reflect on one’s conduct. Quite the contrary. So many of them are lawyers — who will argue either side of the case, if the reward is right! Most of them are official spokesmen for political parties — they take it to be their duty, ex officio, to twist facts and turn out opinions that the party’s convenience requires. And when parties make lawyers their spokesmen? We are entitled to feel doubly secure!!

This time round, their mettle was put on display sooner than I could have expected, for they had but to hurl their epithets, and the unexpected happened! Shri Mohan Bhagwat, the sarsanghchalak of the RSS, came to Delhi. The BJP was reeling from the aftermath of Jaswant Singh’s expulsion and the ban on his book. My interview with Shekhar Gupta had been broadcast. Newspapers predicted “strong action” against me; some forecast expulsion from the party. The RSS office announced that Shri Bhagwat would address the press. Hosts of journalists from TV channels and newspapers were present. It was one of the most widely watched press conferences. In my case, Mohanji was asked as part of a question, “. . .do you think it was appropriate for a senior leader of any party to speak in the language that he used against his colleagues?” The expectation — in several quarters that I know! — was that the sarsanghchalak would express strong disapproval, and that would give grounds for the leadership to act. To their great confusion, the head of the RSS pronounced, “You see, Arun Shourie is a very respected, senior intellectual. So I don’t want to comment on what he has said about others, he should think about that.” That certainly was not what the spokesman had been anticipating. Hence, their resolve to give me the opportunity for martyrdom, suddenly deferred! Should we be in awe of men with such stern resolve?!

There are two further facts that give one heart. First, people do not go by a single deed, and most certainly not by the single smear. If, after decades of work, the credibility of a writer is so fragile that a sudden smear can shatter it, then it isn’t worth worrying about in any case. On the other side, can the smearing of the one who has revealed the facts, suddenly burnish the image of ones whose misdeeds have been in the public eye for decades, the consequences of whose negligence are before everyone at that very moment? Second, even in a society like ours — one in which so many want to believe the worst about everyone else; one in which the media broadcast anything anyone says about anyone — people must at some stage see that smears do not refute facts.

For all these reasons, smears have little effect. I have come to conclude that, till we can learn to follow rules such as the ones Gandhiji prescribed, the best response to smears is the one that I was once told was the stock answer of a Marathi writer to his detractors’ vituperations: Believe every vile thing that they are saying about me, he would say; believe the worst about me, the very worst they say, the very worst you can imagine about me — but what about the facts?

Hence, to begin with, we must be right on the facts. Second, we must have that thick hide so that we are not distracted by calumny. Third, as the ones we are exposing are definitely going to strike back — on the count of my friend, S. Gurumurthy the number of cases, inquiries, raids, prosecutions, actions of various kinds that Rajiv Gandhi’s government instituted against The Indian Express exceeded three hundred and twenty — our conduct must be, it must for decades have been, immaculate. And the reason is not just that the Empire will strike back. The even more vital reason is that the issue will be decided in the public mind not so much by the minutiae of evidence as of the relative reputation of the writer and the ones he has written about. That is why we should always bear in mind Vinoba’s warning: “A single hole makes the pitcher unfit for holding water.”

But there is an even more significant positive reason also.

(To be continued)

The writer is a Rajya Sabha MP from the BJP

Talk at India First Foundation

Arun Shourie

A 40-volume book series project, India: Religions and Political Challenges was launched on 23rd August 2002, by the India First Foundation. Among those present at the launching ceremony included Minister for Disinvestments, Arun Shourie, Gyanpeeth Awardee Nirmal Verma and Thinker and Social Worker S. Gurumurthy.

Excerpts of Arun Shourie's Inaugural Address at the Launch:

In the sense American intellectual activity has been built on foundations. Agar aap koi bhi ek American scholar ko dekhen, he is one of the great psychologists today. They work the most on the physiology of the mind on consciousness. If you read any book of his, in its first five pages aap yeh dekhiye ki woh kin-kin ko acknowledge karte hain. The unknown foundations and it has been one of the great omissions of the Indian tax system that we have not allowed, not made it profitable for business houses and other people to set up foundations for intellectual activity. I also feel in the sense that we underestimate, what Ramswarup Ji used to call, the seed value of ideas. In India, intellectual effort is not gaining the attention that it should. I believe that no movement can be sustained for any length of time without a continuous influx of new ideas. Its very good example is the conservative revolution in economic and social policies in the UK and the United States. Ms. Margret Thatcher's coming, and Ronald Reagan's accession were turning point and, it was a result of twenty years of strenuous intellectual efforts. The settings of institutions like the Institute of Public Policy and so on, in which they themselves worked for twenty years ki ek taxation policy par aapko chaahiye there is an answer that has been worked out. It has been debated for a day. You want something on ecology, it has been worked out in detail. That kind of effort we must put in and foundations are the real way to do it because they bring persons together.

I also feel that there is a second lesson in India. Mr. J.P. Nayak khehte they ki India mein problem aata hai we don't looked at it for many years. So that problem grows, it swells, it balloons, and explodes. Dekha... are problem hai isika. So what do you do? You set up an institution to deal with the problem. Ten years later the problem is still there and the institution is become another problem. The Institute for Advanced Studies, Nirmal Verma knows this very well. Hamaare yahaan advanced study nahin hai to Princeton ka naam lekar wahaan ki institution ek beautiful viceries ke lounge ko ruined kar ke institution banati hai. Institution has become a problem very little has come out of it. So may be there is another model and that is, we should not set up an institution which in a conventional sense has a building and a corpus. Those then become a points of contest. Jaise property inheritance per fight ho jaati hai families mein, isi tarah sansthaoon mein un cheezoon per fight ho jaati hai. May be what we should attempt in India is an Institution which disburses funds to individual scholars to meet there needs wherever they are. There are many examples of this kind that we should do and that requires a minimal need only connected with that particular work and it should be made available to the scholar wherever he/she is. There are two rules and this one is regarding in selecting the scholar. We must be brutally objective. Yeh lihaaz ki, he is a good person, he has a difficult times should not to be a criteria. The main issue is the objective of the series or of the books that we are planning and if it is able to do that, fine, and if it is not able to do it well, because he is starving then, we have to find some other way of helping him. We should not sacrifice the objectives of the institution etc. The second is that, there must be absolute strictness in standard and in delivery. If the time has been given January 2003 it must be January 2003, a particular date. In India, too many journals come up and they fade away. Foundations are set up and they fall into disuse. So that beginning is a good thing but it must be preserved. I think, the third point, which strikes me is that it is said that for intellectual work, actually very few persons are required. Aaj kal probably more are required because our mind was bombarded with impressions and images from all sides. But if you go back to 19th century the number of British Civil servant, who worked and actually forged the spectacles through which we came to see our history and our own tradition, was probably 25 or 30 percent. But the interesting thing was, that they did sustain work of the highest standard. Even today, India terms Dawson's volumes are masterly thing and that time koi woh nahin thi district mein, koi electricity nahin thi, koi communication nahin tha, koi railway line nahin thi. A scholars was sitting on his own working day and night and producing things which would last for ages. So, that kind of sustained effort is very necessary. The second point in that individual's effort is excellence. In India shoddiness is regarded as proof of commitment. Hamara libaas vaisa ho, jhola phata hua ho. That is regarded. Room untidy hai, contrast to Gandhiji's meticulous ways, so that is excellence and actually in India excellence is under assault. Today mediocrity is the norm and that is why I feel this is very important especially in groups that are disciplined or dedicated and therefore they are groups on to themselves. They become deaf to others. So that striving effort that absolute determination that whatever I shall do will meet the approbation of the experts in that field. It is true the experts may be motivated. Often it is Marxist historians who will comment adversely on what this group produces for on history. But that is separate matter.

So, excellence should be one. I think the next point is that a group is that our work must add up. It must reinforce each other's work. Kyonki ek aatish baazi jalaane se diwali to hoti nahin. Gurumurthy once used a very important phrase to me. He said a revolution is that when can we find that their is a revolution on that is when a million persons are spontaneously doing something that contributes to a particular phase and this is one of Gandhiji's many incomparable skills that whatever any individual was doing he roped him/her into the national struggle. If somebody could give up his life he was the part of the nation, if he couldn't but could go up to jail he was the part of the nation struggle, if he could not but could wear Khadi, he was the part of the nation struggle. Still if you couldn't but only spin at home because he was a government officer could not go to Khadi and become black ball in the office he could spin at the home and still be the part of the nation's struggle. If you couldn't do that and you just did Sandhya which was roped into the nation's struggle. It was accumulation and therefore the work of scholars must also add to each other that is why the importance of what Dina Nathji has initiated of doing -- a series and not just an individual book.

We had many great examples of series for instance, Max Muller's fifty volumes on "The Secret Books of the East" changed the west view about the east because it was a series and not just one book. In our own time the corpus that Sita Ram Goyal has produced has presided over has got it the people doing to Voice of India publications actually are cumulated. They reinforce each other from different direction. That is why they provide a pair of spectacles. One of the best examples I have seen, is by the Dalai Lama's initiative there is a thing called the Library of Tibet. It's a series of books and the second is that you know its great truths need to be restated in a language and example and medium and addressing problems of the time. We just keep reading the classics. Many of us may infer the lesson that holds our life at this movement. We often discover that in the reading The Dhampad or The Gita or any thing that this is the phrase that oozes into my heart today because my circumstances has allowed me to see the truth of that but most people will not be able to do it most of us are not as reflected. Therefore the great truths have to be restated and that's a very interesting point in this library of Tibet series. They are just not reprinting the Tibetans religious literature the Dalai Lama and the other Lama's are giving discourses on those teachings and thereby introducing them into our current labs. That is why the spectacles that we may have or the truths that we may have internalise or which we want to propagate and share with others. They have to be restated in the medium and contact of our child's.

I end by reflecting on the point of books. I think the first point that I have learnt Nirmal Verma and others are creative writers so they think spontaneously. But people like me are bookish writers and we read books and write our own books. Two, for example stood are in good steps one is reading is the enemy of writing. Many of us continue to read and accumulate. I have a sister in law who has done a book on The Ramayana and Indonesia because she discovered a temple of Shiva in a remote Island in Indonesia. But she has gone eight years on that book but can we even right the perfect book. One of the greatest in world influential economics and trade marshal wrote a principles of economics which we all memorize, which is the great text book on micro-economics but he never wrote the second volume because he was always perfecting this particular volume and reading more about it. So we should read to accumulate evidence and then just not wait to write for a charity. Second thing I found is re-writing is the secret of good writing. It is very necessary but that we should try to re-write even ideological works. I feel that strong words detract from the force of the argument. I give an example of a friend. Look at Baljit Roy's work on Bangladeshi infiltration. It is very important. It contains primary evidence but it uses strong words and thereby the words over come the facts. So while writing the books one has to remember that the facts speak for themselves.

Thank you.

India First Foundation