Dr Arun Gandhi in Edinburgh

Dr. Arun Gandhi is one of the grandsons of Mahatma Gandhi who is keeping himself busy by taking Gandhiji's message across the world. Recently he was made to resign from the University of Rochester in the US for his remarks against Isreali violence. He is a journalist and his column appears in The Washington Post.

He was in Scotland for a couple of weeks and our university chaplaincy brought him to Edinburgh for a talk and then a workshop. I had an opportunity to listen to his message and even dine with him and ask him a few questions. At the outset, I must confess that I haven't read much about Gandhiji: neither his books nor books about him. But I have a huge respect and admiration for him and I do believe (with the limited knowledge about him that I have) that he was more than a mere politician. He was a visionary who wanted to build a stable and mature India. He saw India as its multi-cultural multi-religious people and wanted to create an atmosphere of equality, respect and understanding. He didn't see India as its borders as a piece of land bound between the Arabian sea, the Bay of Bengal and the Himalayas as others did. Indian independence was not the only thing in Gandhiji's mind. He had other things too and in the process of achieving that he mixed his pursuit for his other goals with that of independence, which many didn't like. And once India got independence from the British, the Congress party abandoned Gandhi's ideals but he kept going and worked towards his other goals like eradication of untouchability, Hindu-Muslim unity, etc. I was very much delighted at the idea of meeting Dr. Gandhi in person and talking to him. Much to my surprise, I was even invited to dine with him as I was the president of the University Vedic Society (a student society in pursuit of Reality taking the path as suggested in the Vedas, i.e. Hindu society). Along with me, the presidents of all other faith societies were invited. I will try to describe the essence of his message below to the best of my recollection.

In his talk, he talked to us about non-violence. It was not so much about non-violence as much as it was about root causes of violence. That struck with us well as he talked not about what not to do but about why violence happens. He mentioned three causes for violence: anger, passive violence and religious mis-understanding and disrespect. He said that anger is a good thing, but the way we react to it may not be always optimal. He suggested that we turn the reactive energy in to a positive one. May be we should try to understand why we are getting angry, get to the root cause of it and fix it there.

Many of us don't understand the concept of passive violence. But he told us that its one of the most important causes for physical violence. When you waste resources or overuse them mindlessly, what we do is called passive violence. He narrated a small story of his experience with his grandfather. This happened when he was a little boy in South Africa. He had a small pencil, which he thought is too small to write with. So he threw it away and went running to his grandfather and asked for a new one. He thought that his grandfather was so loving that he would certainly get one. But instead what he got was a good long lecture. He was asked thousands of questions like why he threw it away, where he threw it, etc. It was dark but it didnt stop his grandfather to ask him to look for the pencil he threw away. Disappointed, Arun looked for the pencil with a flashlight and brought it back to his grandfather. His grandfather then told him that there were two lessons for him - one, even in a small piece of pencil so many natural resources have been used and throwing it away is violence against Nature and two, that there are people who cannot afford even that short pencil and mindlessly throwing it away is violence against humanity. Arun understood that these are examples of passive violence, which we all commit either consciously or unconsciously that it becomes our second nature. His message was that we should carefully scrutinize our action, big or small, and avoid passive violence. He suggested that when we overconsume resources, we are depriving our brothers of that which is rightly theirs.

In the final part of his talk, he talked about religious intolerance. He said what we need is not tolerance but mutual understanding and respect between people of different faith. He suggested that we all take some time to learn and understand the teachings of other religions and respect them for what they are. That doesn't mean you abandon your beliefs and accept theirs. You can be yourself, but still understand and respect the other faith.

And when I met with him personally, I asked him a couple of questions. He agreed with me that the Indian govt has abandoned Gandhian ideal and is only doing lipservice to him. When I asked him, how in today's world a country like India could embrace Gandhian ideals of non-violence, he answered that it might not be possible to dismantle our defences immediately but it could be a step-by-step process of building trust and friendship among nations and that India along with the whole world move towards a non-violent world. He said that violence is acceptable when there is a very short time to respond and stop a larger violent act. For instance, he said the passengers fought with the terrorists on the ill-fated airplane which crashed in Pittsburgh during 9/11 and that is an act of non-violence, because they had to act quickly to avoid a major catastrophe.

Overall, Dr. Gandhi's visit to Edinburgh, his talk and workshop, his message were simple but profound and I am very glad that I got this opportunity to interact with him.

Why 2 governments?

Sometimes when I think about the state of our nation, I wonder why are there two governments on top of our head. If you are still wondering what I am talking about, I am talking about the state government and the union governments. Why do we need two? Why can't there be one? One union government that rules the different states using the governor as the highest executive authority in every state. Or just state governments coming together in the central as a federation of states, by which I mean that the state governments of the day will be a part of the central government. At the moment this is not the case and that is my problem.

One argument against my opinion would be that the governments share responsibilities. I may be ok with two governments if they shared responsibilities but they do not. They kind of do redundant work. What I am trying to tell here is that there are certain portfolios in which both governments have their say, say for example, education, health, etc. So what happens if the central govt announces a health scheme for all Indians, they might not be implemented in some states as the state govt does not want the central govt to score. Similarly when the state govt want to implement a scheme, the central govt can simply refuse to fund it. And this is not a hypothetical situation as it is very much happening in our country and is quite possible because the govts are run by opposing parties.

Why should we elect two representatives, one to the legislative assembly and another to the national parliament, when both of them simply stop each other from doing any good work at all for the people that they represent. Not only that, they blame each other when we question them. Its like, the dual govt setup has become an alibi for them to escape the wrath of the people.

I think it would be better if there is a clear demarcation between the responsibilities of the two governments. For instance, the union govt could take care of foreign affairs, defence, railways, aviation, etc and the state govt takes care of health, education, etc. This way any citizen can identify who is responsible for what and there will be no competing and subterfuging schemes.

I would even say that one govt is sufficient to take care of the people and some would agree. But that will mean that I am undermining the role of either one of the government today. India is already divided in terms of cultural identities and in order for each of these communities to have their say in the national forum, state govts are essential for it gives them the sense of autonomy. Ans how far India would last as one entity as a federation of states given the constant quarrel between neighbouring states is anyone's guess. So I would definitely not take that lane to suggest that only one govt would do.

Therefore, it is my humble opinion that although we are in a state of compulsion to have two govts, we atleast need to make sure they share their responsibilities and not be redundant in any sense.

Who should be a minister?

It seems strange to me that our representatives in legislative assemblies and the national parliament are made ministers even when they are especially not very well aquainted with their portfolios. A lawyer or a judge being made a law minister is perfectly acceptable to me. In the same way, wouldn't you agree with me that a person like Dr. Kalam be made the Science and Technology minister? These portfolios are there for a reason. They signify different dimensions of development in a country. Doesn't it make perfect sense to put an expert incharge of the ministries? Why should an MP or an MLA be given ministerial responsibilities in addition to the constituencies that they represent? Does an MP or an MLA not hold two offices when he also becomes a minister? How will he or she be able to fulfill their duties being in two offices? In my view, the different portfolios must have ministers who are experts in the respective domains. For instance, a retired army general could become the minister of defence, an economist from a university can be made the finance minster and so on. Of course, they can be nominated selected after a careful scrutiny of their credentials by the honourable members of the house. What do you think?

Who should I vote this election?

I am a believer in democracy and therefore in voting. Elections are the only decent feedback avenues that we as people of a democracy have to create change in the way we live. I have thought about how our voting system can be modified to best express what we want to convey to our governments. First, we vote for only one candidate. Many voters do not have a strong inclination towards the candidate they vote for. We could instead rank the given list of candidates, as in what our first, second, third choices are. This way we can not only say who is the best person to represent me in the parliament, but also who the worst person in the list is. Later, these ranks can be consolidated and the person who is ranked the best can be selected to represent the people in the constituency. Well, as you guessed it right, this method will take time and is not very practical. Another thing I keep thinking about is, who do we vote for? the candidate or the party. This is an important question. If we look at our political system, we actually choose MLAs and MPs and not our Chief Minister or Prime Minister. The MLAs and MPs choose our CM and PM. But the way elections work is completely opposite. They ask us to vote for the PM/CM. We are asked to completely ignore who will be representing us in our contituency. Why does that bother me? Well it does because, I feel that one should make sure that one doesn't vote for a corrupt and incompetent candidate just because he happens to be in the same party or coalition as that of their preferred PM candidate. By overlooking who we elect at the lower levels (like MLAs and MPs) we are giving our approval to incompetent/corrupt candidates to climb the ladder of power and governance. In a few years, these people who we unknowingly elect will become ministers and even the PM. Do we want that to happen? Therefore, I believe that we should weigh the pros and cons of the candidates in our constituency and vote for them instead of checking the credentials/achievements of their party as a whole. This way we can ensure that only good and competent candidates are sent to assemblies and the parliament. By rejecting the worthless candidates put up by various national and regional parties, we can tell these parties that candidate profiles matter. This could make them stop fielding corrupt/convicted/incompetent people in our constituencies.

Whether to vote for the candidate or the prime ministerial candidate is for u to decide.