II MEMORIES ARE MADE OF THIS...
Dandi March - A woodcut by Nandlal Bose
Singanapalli Balaram Gandhi’s Retrieval of Indigenous Culture “Why didn’t Gandhi wear a shirt?” “Because he believed in Freedom of movement. If you ask me he was a big hindrance to our Independence” This reply, given by a youth in Delhi in a magazine survey reflects the cultural mindset of the present generation in this country, It also reflects the role of Gandhian symbols in that mindset. Intentional or not, the point made by the pun in the youth’s reply is significant. ‘Freedom of movement’ is a fashion statement. Freedom movement on the other hand is not a statement. It is an action; a great political struggle which required immense sacrifices of millions of people and their lives. The former is an opulence based on a commercial phenomenon, while the latter is based on a crying need of the poor masses. They both reflect cultural values at different times of Indian history—of the preindependent and the post-independent era. While investigating the roots of culture, it is necessary for one to seek clarity of the term itself. The term culture, like all magnificent terms, is obscured due to over use. One of the obscurities is that it is often misunderstood as religion, and at other times as tradition. While culture has connections with religious practices and traditional processes, it is too limiting to consider these as culture itself. Culture, simply put, is an accepted way of life; a habit of a people, in any group, community or a country; its boundaries extending and contracting depending on the acceptance and commonality. Mahatma Gandhi is remarkable in his understanding of the indigenous roots of our culture, its power and influence on people. Like a true scientist, he, after understanding the roots of the culture, tried to change them and use them towards a greater cause. He spent his life on these trials and thus rightly titles the autobiography of his life as My experiments with truth. The Intangible Over the Tangible Gandhi is not unique in recognising the immense significance of cultural forces. There are millions before and after him who knew it and articulated it. But Gandhi is unique in applying these forces which are intangible against tangible forces such as military force or violence. Interestingly, this is what Lord Krishna did in the great Indian epic of the Mahabharata*. There are three essential reasons for this power of the intangible over the tangible, and here lies the cause of Gandhi’s difference with Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, who wanted to fight the colonial power with military force in a conventional war. Firstly, behind every physical action, there is a thought. The root is therefore in the thought and not at the tip of the barrel of a gun which is no more than mere materialisation. Secondly, a material can be destroyed because it is a physical entity, while an idea or thought is a non-physical entity, and indestructible. Thirdly, material is possessed by the fortunate few and it could be seized transacted, amassed etc, and controlled. It is not accessible to all—while a thought or idea is available to every human being. Its access is unlimited and easiest.
However thought is located in a human being who is physical; and he can be destroyed. This is where the role of culture becomes vital. An individual can be destroyed. But his thought, once expressed, is held by a group in practice and made into a habit; it becomes a culture and then it is undestructable—at least not by physical force. During the emergency in India, while traveling in a crowded train, I heard a revolutionary song against the Emergency—from a beggar. I was shocked because during those days any author or speaker against the Emergency was jailed. On enquiry the beggar told me—”No one knows who wrote this sir, we take from each other. People like this song. How can it be stopped?” An idea cannot be arrested and if arrested, it would only be further strengthened. Thus an idea gets its sustenance and strength from the number of people holding it. Gandhi realised this and deliberately searched for ideas so simple that even the most ignorant person can hold to them and the poorest person can afford to express them.
Death of Materials It is a fact that Gandhi’s insistence on travelling in third class compartments cost the nation so much more because of the security involved; his insistence on staying only in a mud-hut cost Rabindranath Tagore more because he had to build a mud-hut specially for his visit to Shantiniketan; and his stubborn refusal not to use dentures cost more in terms of his food care. Those who criticise Gandhi on these factors have missed the core idea behind his insistence. He knew that in fact his idiosyncrasies cost more; but he was not as bothered about the material costs as he was about the intangible image. The image and its preservation and promotion is worth many times the physical cost. Quite interestingly, death of the material seems to be the emerging world order of the future. The technological revolution caused it and industrialised nations are already experiencing it. In America, if one pays $ 100 for a Levis trousers he is paying $10 for the trouser and $90 for the Levis label: the intangible image. It is called the brand and even people who knew these facts don’t complain.
The Power of Culture over Power and Politics Though Gandhi spent his life and death in politics, he never acknowledged himself as a mere politician. In one court case he declared his profession as “Farmer and Weaver”. His aspiration had been to reach beyond politics, to the level of culture. It is not difficult to reason out this attitude. Power and politics are limited in their time and space. A culture transcends time; is more pervasive, and lasts. Gandhi firmly believed in integrated approaches. He vehemently argued that a one sided progress is not a progress and it could even be dangerous. Before Independence, inspite of struggling so hard and sacrificing so much for freedom, he once declared that he was not in a hurry to get freedom to his people. He felt that his people should be educated first so that they could handle freedom properly. Freedom is such a boon; in the hands of un-educated people it is not
only worthless but could be misused and made destructive. Reflecting over more than half a century of our freedom, one cannot agree more with Gandhi: A recent Times of India’ poll of young students in elite institutions across the country has put Adolf Hitler in the third place, as the kind of leader India ought to have. Such thinking of India’s future citizens is the result of the value-starved education— wherever it is given—and no education to the majority of the people. Democratic freedom in the hands of uneducated masses is a sword in the hands of a child. India can only claim to have obtained political freedom in 1947; but without education, without economic development and without cultural transformation, there is no real freedom.
The main aspect of culture is that it is democratic, while politics and power by their very nature are hierarchical and control-oriented. Culture as a way of living can only be influenced and accepted. Gandhi emphasised cultural transformation for these reasons. Culture also lasts long. Though Gandhi was assassinated more than half a century ago, the ideas and symbols developed by Gandhi continue even today. Of course their meanings have changed with the changes in social, cultural and political contexts; but they very much exist and communicate to the old and the young. Everyday Objects as Symbols Gandhi is intensely aware that ‘functional’ communications such as speeches and writings have limited application in India, where people are mostly illiterate. He therefore deliberately chose to communicate with people through symbols— the symbols which the masses can identify easily and clearly. He also had to make sure that these symbols are indigenous. It is obvious that these very symbols may not work in another culture, with another group of people. Another great facility with a symbol or symbolic action is that it does not demand unaffordable sacrifices. For instance, if one is donating for the struggle he can give only a little as a symbolic gesture. The power of gesture is more important to Gandhi than the size of donation. Among the prominent symbols used by Gandhi was the ‘charkha’ as the object symbol and ‘spinning’ as the action symbol. A bit of cotton is available to even the poorest Indian and the charkha is also common in households. If the charkha is not available, one can use the simple Takti to spin. What will become of the cotton yam thus produced? It has lead to the creation of another strong symbol—khadi. By asking all people to spin irrespective of their caste, creed, sex, religion or geographical location, Gandhi instilled in them a feeling of unity; a solidarity which the colonial ruler had no way to break. People need not come to Gandhi’s meetings. By being where they are, but doing the same action—spinning; they could feel oneness. Khadi both in terms of functionality and life may be inferior to mill-made cloth; but as a symbol it is superior. During the freedom struggle it sent out the strong message that the wearer is a freedom fighter and the colonial rulers must give him his freedom. Gandhi who was interested in integrated development added many other messages with it such as truth, sacrifice, self-reliance and non-discrimination. He complimented the above with other easily practicable actions such as prayers and fasts. He knew that his message of change will be more accepted if constructed around the prevailing socio-cultural milieu. He was perhaps intuitively aware that the Indian mind is religious no matter, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh or Christian. His meetings always had prayers; speaking in the local language (even a few local words as a token) and his speech would make use of metaphors from the Indian epics and God.
Values in a Product or Action Every product, communication or action can be said to have four values in the following order. Their emphasis however varies according to the way the product or action is designed and promoted. • Functional Value • Aesthetic Value • Symbolic Value • Spiritual Value Take the every day example of a watch. Its apparent value is functional: to indicate time. But it has an aesthetic or decorative value of adding beauty to the wearer. These two values are physical. The next two values are non-physical and Gandhi is unique in realising the power of these values, and focusing on them in his culture promotion. A watch also expresses symbolically the wearer’s personality, depending on the brand of the watch; the material used for the strap—gold, stainless steel, leather or simple cloth. It also speaks of the wearer’s taste; his special status; his modem or conservative attitude and even his age and sex. It is a huge multiplicity of expressions, which Gandhi rightly realised and consciously applied, effectively. The last and the highest value in a watch is spiritual— whether it has nobility or benevolence in its making, or in operating or in its disposal. If the watch is made by orphans, or it is a memento or gift of your late mother, or it is made of recyclable or biodegradable material, then it has more spiritual value. It is particularly interesting to note that Gandhi was conscious that these values apply to actions as much as to products and communications. Take a daily task such as eating. Eating to nourish the body is at the functional level, and taste is the aesthetic level. The symbolic level is the brand of food or the restaurant, the way we eat, the plates and cutlery we use, the variety, opulence or lack of it and so on. Gandhi, in his food habits, strongly identified with the poor who had very little to eat. He followed this principle so staunchly that even in London when the Queen arranged a banquet in his honor, he ate none of the royal food and stuck to his bowl of curd and peanuts. For Gandhi, simplicity like sharpness was a virtue in communicating with the Indian masses. If simplicity of the object symbolised was his first principle, spotless, undiluted maintenance of it was his second principle. When he fasted or advised fasting to people, he was aiming at the spiritual value involved in the act. He wanted to stir the souls of the British rulers as well as world humanity through such actions. Power of the Transparent Image A goal set in terms of a transparent image has enormous effect in strengthening the individual’s resolve. Indian history sets the example of Chanakya who vowed not to tie his hair till he overthrew the Nanda Dynasty. Gandhi used this method frequently; and the most notable one is his vow of wearing only the loin cloth until he attained
swaraj for India. None of his followers except Vinoba had the courage to wear only the loin cloth, considered indecent in society. Gandhi chose to wear it also as an act of identification with the poorest of the poor among Indians, who could only afford that. He knew the risk of upsetting the sentiments of people, particularly women, who visited him; so he explained at great length the symbolic significance of his act. He also made sure that his cloths were spotless, emphasising the importance of cleanliness. He communicated not only through symbols but also through the absence of certain symbols. He gave up wearing the sacred thread, which he saw as a symbol of inequality which set him apart from his people. Turning the Mundane into Mega Power The best known example of Gandhi’s action is the Dandi March, which proves his third principle: that a well understood, undented symbol will have better acceptance and thus will have enormous power. Gandhi saw great opportunity in a symbolic defiance of the British imposed Salt Tax. Salt is very mundane and its importance understood by the most ordinary people. Thus it has immense symbolic strength. The misery caused by the tax was not of consequence. It was a simple act designed around an issue, which every India could understand and identify with, regardless of caste, class or religion. It unified the entire country. The method he selected was a march so that he could reach out to people and mobilise them. It was participatory, giving time for the symbol to grow. He gave the march worldwide publicity because he believed in the power of world sympathy. At the age of 61, with few colleagues, Gandhi conducted the 241-mile march as a symbolic action to culminate at the Dandi seashore—culminating with the simple act of picking up a handful of salt. As the walk progressed, the crowds and world opinion gathered more and more momentum, the British Empire started to shake because they did not know how to fight this new symbolic battle. How many people could they put in jail? People can be put in jail but a symbol cannot be. Gandhi also asked his people to observe nonviolence. So, when a non-defending, unarmed, ordinary man was being beaten and put in jail, Gandhi was symbolically sending the message to the world that this is ‘might against right’ . He was appealing to the inner humanity in all human beings, and the power of that appeal, is irresistible. As mentioned earlier, every action is rooted in a thought; and if that thought influences others, the action is bound to change too. Gandhian Symbols Today Symbols need constant reinforcement because they are affected by atrophy. Symbols also need contextual re-shaping so that they remain relevant to the changing sociocultural contexts.. Many thinkers believe that Gandhian symbols started loosing their power even before Gandhi’s death. One of the reasons is that with the attainment of Independence, the greatness of that cause, the prime force of motivation, had ceased. The symbols thus lost their potency. They could have been reshaped to become tools in the great nation building that followed; but the overwhelming complexities
of problems of partition and power politics of democracy obscured the Gandhian ideology. More out of sentiment and gratitude than respect to his ideas, the nation in general attempted to perpetrate some of the symbols, particularly the charkha and khadi. Both these objects conveyed a totally different meaning before the Indian Independence. Before Gandhi, the charkha was a symbol of violence and compulsion because in the past, throughout Indian history, the kings and sultans down to the East India Company took forced labour from women and depressed classes through the use of the charkha. Gandhi attempted to reverse the meaning of this symbol of the masses by making the charkha a tool of voluntary spinning—to convey to the oppressor that people want to be self-reliant through the non-violent route. Gandhi maintained that “just as arms symbolize violence the charkha symbolizes non-violence. In the sense that we can most directly realize non-violence through it”. Gandhi was instrumental in the several designs of the charkha: to make it compact, portable and eight fold more efficient. These physical improvements immensely increased the charka use by people, and thereby the role of the symbol. Gandhi introduced khadi cloth as an extension of the charkha. Khadi was the most popular symbol of the freedom movement perhaps because of its ease of use and very high visibility, requiring very little sacrifice from the user. It was the most eloquent of Gandhian symbols. But when khadi started being sold in Khadi Bhandars in the cities and being looked upon as an occupation to earn a livelihood, Gandhi realised its shift of focus and he was much concerned. In 1944, in his talks with the trustees at Sevagram, Gandhi stated, “What I am quite clear about is that Khadi should not be for sale but for self-consumption.” I first introduced Khadi and only later studied its implications and experimented with it. I find that I have been deceiving myself. What I gave to the people was money but not the real substance-self-reliance. I gave them money in the form of wages and assured them that it contained Swaraj. People took me at my word and believed me, and continue to believe me. But I have now my own misgivings as to how far such Khadi can lead to Swaraj. I am afraid that Khadi has no future if we continue it as today. At least this much should be clear to all that Khadi is not an occupation or craft merely to earn a livelihood. None of us should harbour this idea. For if Khadi is an industry it would have to be run purely on business lines. After India’s winning of swam], the significance of charkha and khadi as symbols of swaraj has been lost. The nation however tried to retain them for sentiment—without promoting them for the values they stood for. The result has been the inevitable corruption of the symbol.
Corruption of Symbols After Independence, economic and industrial developments gave way to the freedom struggle and social reform. In the changed milieu, people started using khadi either for its superficial material qualities or for reasons of government subsidised cheapness. Politicians started using them to convey their status of belonging to a party—as an extension of the past reputation rather than their belief in Gandhian principles and Ahimsa. As a result the symbols got corrupted and the reverse of what Gandhi intended has happened. Since most khadi wearing politicians are corrupt, people now perceive khadi as a symbol of corruption. Films and plays started showing the khadi-clad person as a standard icon of a corrupt man. The charkha in pre-independence India was a symbol of self-reliance and freedom. In the new economy, which is no longer based on cottage industry, the concept of self reliance has changed. Since the context changed, the charkha is now seen merely as “nostalgic mnemonic of the days gone by”. From a symbol of non-violence and the poor, it has now become an exotic show piece for the rich elite— symbolising their taste and as quoted in a 1987 advertisement, “ a fine conversation piece that will add a touch of class to any decor”. Idolatry Replacing Ideals The assassination of Gandhi, the apostle of non-violence, with heartless violence is an irony. But perhaps the more saddening irony is that after Independence we as a nation are too busy building monuments to Gandhi to listen to his voice once more— to understand the true spirit of his ideas communicated through actions and symbols. We run the crippled Khadi Bhandars with subsidy crutches. The symbol is lost for the object. There are efforts more recently to promote khadi as a fashion fabric, so it can be sold to the elite Indian and foreign buyers. This is also the opposite of what khadi stood for in the hands of Gandhi. This is nothing but ‘branding’ Gandhi to cash in on the old associations of patriotism and sacrifice. One wonders whether it is respect or disrespect to the great man? There is vested interest. The same vested interest which prevents, us the “free Indians”, from empowering people by making the country fully literate even after fifty five years. It is easy and convenient to kill a man, make a statue of him and worship him ritualistically, rather than keeping the man alive or the principles alive. How can the young generation of India be blamed then for their misinformed disrespect to the father of the nation? Relevance is more important than respect. Early this year, there were unprecedented communal riots in Gujarat in which thousands died. And every moment Gandhi’s principles of non- violence were remembered by the conscientious world. At this year’s the World Summit on sustainable development at Johannesburg, Gandhi’s words on world greed and need set the tone. The 2001 Global Summit on water and sanitation remembered Gandhi’s exemplary habit when living at Sabarmati Ashram. He would take only a tumbler of water out of the overflowing Sabarmati river to do his morning ablutions.
Gandhi’s principles of truth and non-violence are relevant in this strife torn, violent, digitally divided and eco-struggling world. Practising his principles properly, adapted to the changed context, would be the paying of real respect. References and Notes 1. S. Balaram Thinking Design National Institute of Design, Ahmedabad, 1998. 2. The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, volume 24, Publications Division Govt. of India, 1967. 3. Outlook, 9 August 2002, Akash, Arora, 17, Delhi. 4. Gandhi M.K. “Reorientation of Khadi” Sarvodaya Prachuralaya, Tanjavur, 1964; p.53.