Essay

• The unexamined life is not worth living. – Socrates
• “समर शेष है, नहीं पाप का भागी केवल व्याध,
  जो तटस्थ हैं, समय लिखेगा उनका भी अपराध” ― Ramdhari Singh ‘Dinkar’

(The battle still remains and the hunter/killer alone is not the sinner, but the time will note the crimes of bystanders as well)

• Sahbdon ke sang na behna, Hai chhal se bhari har bhasha- Ravindra Jain
  I
  (Never get swayed by words, all the languages have deceptive goals)

Are talks and interviews apolitical?

Socrates believed that things in life need to be examined and scrutinized and not be taken on the face value of it. In an era of commercial media and fake news, nothing should be taken on face value. There is an increasing trend among all politicians and many intellectuals to claim that interviews and talks given in media are apolitical. This kind of claim and tendency require some examination because these interviews and talks are being conducted in increasingly large numbers by politicians across the board. The topics range from telling self stories, discussing issues like health, education, universal basic income, patriotism, naxalism etc. One of the pertinent points is to think why such kinds of “apolitical interviews and talks” are taking place during the time of general election in India with an increasing trend? Are they really apolitical? Or even if they are political, is politics that bad? Why even the most entrenched politicians claim to be apolitical; is it because they consciously resort to all kinds of gimmicks and unethical things to win the power game, and in spite of that they still long for stature of statesmen? There are many intellectuals who also indulge in this so called “apolitical talks and interviews”. On the face of it, apolitical interviews and talks may claim that they are apolitical and neutral, but the underlying goal in all such talks and interviews is influencing people by hidden propaganda and creation of unreal images. Why the politicians and intellectuals do not have the courage and conviction to stand by their professed principles, ideas and activities? Why are they afraid to take responsibilities of their principles, images, visions and activities? Is being apolitical or neutral is always the best policy or isn’t there times when we need to take sides? There are many questions. The vast millions of innocent Indians may or may not be able to understand this method of subtle propaganda, but those who are educated and accomplished must spare some time to understand this phenomenon and help people to save themselves from being “sentimental and emotional” and “overwhelmed or misled.”

What is politics?

Encyclopedia Britannica defines politics as follows:

• :the art or science of government
• : the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy
• : the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government

None of the above mentioned definitions make politics a dirty game. Politics has good purposes behind it. Then, what’s the reason that politicians and intellectuals like to tell people that they are apolitical. The most apparent reason is that politicians do many unethical and immoral things for holding control over government and they are aware about that. Just think, if politicians take consistently a principled, ethical and utilitarian stance, where is any reason to be ashamed or afraid of anything or image crisis? But image management is needed when politicians are not sure about their thoughts and deeds.

Intent and motives are important for both politicians and intellectuals

The times, in which we are living, it is simply very difficult to find people with pure intent and motives- neither politicians nor intellectuals. The problem is multiplied and aggravated when media becomes a propaganda platform and news becomes fake news. Talks and interviews are stage managed. The slogan shouting crowds and the problem mongers in opponents meeting and talks are hired and rewarded. Images are created and demolished. Perceptions are blurred and polluted. That is the role a major part of media is playing and the main actors on these platforms are politicians and intellectuals of our times. There are turncoat politicians and sold out intellectuals and journalist who bring a bad name to the profession. Politics should be done with values and intellectuals should be honest and principled. But alas! We are living in a different time. Albert Camus defined intellectuals thus: An intellectual is someone whose mind watches itself. I like this, because I am happy to be both halves, the watcher and the watched. “Can they be brought together? This is a practical question. We must get down to it.” He however sounded against intellectual bias and rigidity by adding, “I despise intelligence” which really means: “I cannot bear my doubts.” ( it means I have set my conclusions beyond any doubt and I will not tolerate any further enquiry) But when intellectuals become palpable and malleable to the interest of ruling elites, the situation does immense damage to truth, humanity and development. Intellectuals have the capacity to prove “wrong as right” and “myth as reality” by arguments and counter arguments. If they are saleable like products for a price, then the decline of the society is sure and imminent. See the modern day television anchoring; you do not need any evidence further about decline of intellectualism. While expressing his harsh criticism against modern day conservatism and Keynesian economics, Naom Chomsky, in his Culture of Terrorism, has given an extreme view which rightly brings the state of modern day intellectuals, “There are few genuine conservatives within the U.S. political system, and it is a sign of the intellectual corruption of the age that the honorable term ‘conservatism’ can be appropriated to disguise the advocacy of a powerful, lawless, aggressive and violent state, a welfare state for the rich dedicated to a lunatic form of Keynesian economic intervention that enhances state and private power while mortgaging the country’s future.”

The Real and the Portrayal

There is difference between the real and the portrayal in the so called apolitical talks and interviews. A leader may require Chanakya Niti or Machiavellian traits to come to power and rule, may be a conservative, revolutionary or evolutionary, but there is no place for being dishonest unethical and misleading. The problems arise when people fail to use their power and authority for public welfare and national good in true sense and also when there are gaps in promises and performance and precepts and practices. In such a situation, they need to give several clarifications through stage managed talks and interviews. It is quite understandable why biopics are made, why television channels are hired and why so called apolitical talks and interviews are conducted and telecasted and published. These talks and interviews not only portray selected realities and romanticize them to create favourable perceptions about a leader and dwarf and destroy images of others- and this is claimed as apolitical interviews. George Orwell rightly points out about intellectual dishonesty: “When I talk to anyone or read the writings of anyone who has any axe to grind, I feel that intellectual honesty and balanced judgment have simply disappeared from the face of the earth. Everyone’s thought is forensic, everyone is simply putting a “case” with deliberate suppression of his opponent’s point of view, and, what is more, with complete insensitiveness to any sufferings except those of himself and his friends.”

It is not easy to be honest intellectually. Marvyn King has tried to define intellectual honesty thus: To set aside one’s prejudices, one’s present needs, and one’s own self interest in making a decision as a director for a company (or leader of a country emphasis added) is an intellectual exercise that takes constant practice. In short, intellectual honesty is a journey and not a destination.” However, those who have decided to portray them as “Buddha” or “Jana”, the journey comes to a dead end. Then there is possibility of only false claims, propaganda or even tyranny against people having different perceptions and ideas. It is not difficult to understand that these apolitical interviews tend to prove that somebody is “demi god” and all others are “dwarfs”, that somebody is sensitive, sensible and visionary, an efficient task master and what not, while others are stupid and dullard! The motives behind such kinds of interviews are easy to understand whether they are done by hand-picked journalists or artists.

How to judge Politicians/Leaders

Can politicians be judged alone by their mono-dialogues on Radio, television or election speeches, or on the basis of what they have actually done for the people and nation, how much they have delivered on their commitments and promises and whether they are unprejudiced, just, fair and democratic? The answer is self explanatory. The problem is not about being “philosopher king” of Plato or being “Machiavellian” or about being “Gandhian” or “RSS” follower or “Marxist”. Problem lies in the honesty of purpose and purity of motive; and being principled or not. Problem is about gap between slogans and real performance on ground. Will Gandhi ever be forgotten by human civilization even if all the pages of history books bearing any reference to him are tore down? Will any amount of re-writing history ever be able to justify Hitler or Stalin and succeed to portray them as ideal alternatives of Gandhi or Nelson Mandela? Propaganda is based on Machiavellian understanding that truth is “what appears” and not “what is underlying”. Nevertheless, in the information age if there is possibility of telling a lie hundred times to make it appear as true, there is also chance of counterbalancing by diversity and ease of getting information, enhanced possibilities of research and enquiry etc. Abraham Lincoln was eternally right when he said, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.”More so in the information age! In other words in the information age the Machiavellians have limited scope for frequently sending across untruth by propaganda or fake news. It is only a matter of time that untruth is detected. History has its own way of judging people and it hardly matters how many stage managed interviews and talks you did and how many artificial images you created. Media honchos may make lot of money, but history will not judge them on the basis of their ill begotten wealth and closeness with the seat of power, but on their courage, conviction, service to knowledge and truth, and finally how much they contributed to change and development. Deeds speak better than words and people in the end know the difference between Gandhi and Hitler! Just think, had there been social media during Hitler and Gandhi’s times, could Hitler use it to manage more respect and following than Gandhi?

The dictionary meaning of trust is “firm belief in the reliability, truth, or ability of someone or something.” The synonyms of trust give fairly broad idea about the meaning of trust. They include confidence, belief, faith, freedom from suspicion/doubt, sureness, certainty, certitude, assurance, conviction, credence and reliance etc. Whether it is friendship or relationship all bonds are built on trust. Without trust life is hopeless, uncertain and meaningless. But breaking the trust is common occurrence, more observed in real life than keeping the trust.

Relationships are about trust. Stephen R. Coovey says, “Trust is the glue of life. It’s the most essential ingredient in effective communication. It’s the foundational principle that holds all relationships.”  Trust gives hope, a kind of certainty in our existence and a reason to live, serve and give. It is so defining for a good and happy life that Frank Crane said, “You may be deceived if you trust too much, but you will live in torment if you don’t trust enough.”

Trust is necessary for individuals, societies, institutions and even for nations. A system without the element of trust always operates below its potential and it has no life. Trust brings out the best from all participants in a system and so it enhances productivity, efficiency and effectiveness. Trust is built through a bond of love, care and concern. Trust is built by honesty, integrity and sensitivity. It is also built by transparency and accountability. Trust is built by conviction and consistency in your ideas and practice. Trust is earned when actions meet words. In life perfect people are not needed as much as honest, dependable and consistent people are.

There is no halfway in trust—there is trust or no trust. Trust should not be blind, nevertheless. Everyone cannot be trusted. One needs to be very selective about the people to be trusted. Verification of facts and experiences need to be reckoned while trusting.Trust is a positive attribute, but it is prone to be belied and broken. There are trust issues because people have got lying issues.  Great existential philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre said, “The worst thing about being lied to is knowing you are not worth the truth.” This means that if somebody befools you by telling a lie or doing a false promise and you just believe without verifying, the onus of broken trust lies on you to a great extent.  The saying goes like this: Don’t trust what you see, even salt looks like sugar” or “everything that glitters, is not gold.”  In other words Stephen King explains, “The trust of the innocent is the liar’s most useful tool.” Innocence or ignorance is thus no excuse for heartbreak or deception caused to you by somebody else.

There are many ways to verify. One practical test is that whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters. Where there is no truth, trust would be a wrong choice because trust starts with truth and ends with truth. One of the important cautions in maintaining trust is analyzing real evidence from the past and present about a thing or person. Actually it’s hard to trust when all you have from the past is evidence of why you shouldn’t. Those who keep their promises and commitment should be trusted. Those, whose speech and actions do not match, cannot be trusted. But there is a caution, you can’t trust a promise those who are under the influence of intense emotion or out of their senses. If somebody who makes promises while s/he is drunk, in love, hungry, or running for office, s/he cannot be trusted. Aesop also said, never trust the advice of a man in difficulties. This statement presumes that the poor lack the strength and mental state to positively and meaningfully commit or do something. Contrary to this, E. M. Foster says, “To trust people is a luxury in which only the wealthy can indulge; the poor cannot afford it.” This again presumes that trusts are broken rather than maintained and the poor people may be ruined, if they trust (because they do not have the capacity to withstand shocks). This is again a situational statement. This statement nevertheless is true only in particular contexts, not always. One of the modern state makers Mussolini remarked that it’s good to trust others but, not to do so is much better. Joseph Stalin also had a similar kind of weird idea about trust. He said, “ I trust no one, not even myself.” These are situation and context based statements. These statements do not encompass the positives of trust, but only personal experiences and surroundings.

Words of wisdom say that people may only be trusted only if they are able to see three things in you: the sorrow behind your smile, the love behind your anger, and the reason behind your silence. To be precise people can be trusted only if they are sensitive, sensible, sincere, honest, consistent and truthful. Sometimes you don’t know who you can and cannot trust. It is a continuous process; trust is learning over and over again. Some commentators say that a trust is a fragile thing— easy to break, easy to lose and one of the hardest things to ever get back. Such kind of opinions is based on personal experiences and surroundings. William Shakespeare suggested a wise strategy — “Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none.”

Despite all this, Trust is that rare and priceless treasure that wins us the affection of all and our heavenly Father. It is said that if people like you, they’ll listen to you, but if they trust you, they’ll do business with you. Trust is an attribute, which a moralist should carry and so trust should be the basis for all our moral training. Trust leads to approachability and open communications. To conclude in the words of Gary Hamel, “Trust is not simply a matter of truthfulness, or even constancy. It is also a matter of amity and goodwill. We trust those who have our best interests at heart, and mistrust those who seem deaf to our concerns.”

In the past, predictions about future warfare have often put too much emphasis on new technologies and doctrines. In the 19th century the speedy victory of the Prussian army over France in 1870 convinced European general staffs that rapid mobilization by rail, quick-firing artillery and a focus on attack would make wars short and decisive. Those ideas were put to the test at the beginning of the First World War. The four years of trench warfare on the western front proved them wrong.

In the 1930s it was widely believed that aerial bombardment of cities would prove devastating enough to prompt almost immediate capitulation. That forecast came true only with the invention of nuclear weapons a decade later. When America demonstrated in the first Gulf war in 1990-91 what a combination of its precision-guided munitions, new intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance methods, space-based communications and stealth technology could achieve, many people assumed that in future the West would always be able to rely on swift, painless victories. But after the terrorist attacks on America on September 11th 2001, wars took a different course.

This special report will therefore offer its predictions with humility. It will also limit them to the next 20 years or so, because beyond that the uncertainties become overwhelming. And it will not speculate about the clear and present danger of war breaking out over North Korea’s nuclear weapons, which with luck can be contained. Instead, it will outline the long-term trends in warfare that can be identified with some confidence.

In the past half-century wars between states have become exceedingly rare, and those between great powers and their allies almost non-existent, mainly because of the mutually destructive power of nuclear weapons, international legal constraints and the declining appetite for violence of relatively prosperous societies. On the other hand, intrastate or civil wars have been relatively numerous, especially in fragile or failing states, and have usually proved long-lasting. Climate change, population growth and sectarian or ethnic extremism are likely to ensure that such wars will continue.

Increasingly, they will be fought in urban environments, if only because by 2040 two-thirds of the world’s population will be living in cities. The number of megacities with populations of more than 10m has doubled to 29 in the past 20 years, and each year nearly 80m people are moving from rural to urban areas. Intense urban warfare, as demonstrated by the recent battles for Aleppo and Mosul, remains grinding and indiscriminate, and will continue to present difficult problems for well-meaning Western intervention forces. Technology will change war in cities as much as other types of warfare, but it will still have to be fought at close quarters, block by block.

Even though full-scale interstate warfare between great powers remains improbable, there is still scope for less severe forms of military competition. In particular, both Russia and China now seem unwilling to accept the international dominance of America that has been a fact of life in the 20 years since the end of the cold war. Both have an interest in challenging the American-sponsored international order, and both have recently shown that they are prepared to apply military force to defend what they see as their legitimate interests: Russia by annexing Crimea and destabilising Ukraine, and China by building militarised artificial islands and exerting force in disputes with regional neighbours in the South and East China Seas.

In the past decade, both China and Russia have spent heavily on a wide range of military capabilities to counter America’s capacity to project power on behalf of threatened or bullied allies. In military jargon, these capabilities are known as anti-access/area denial or A2/AD. Their aim is not to go to war with America but to make an American intervention more risky and more costly. That has increasingly enabled Russia and China to exploit a “grey zone” between war and peace. Grey-zone operations aim to reap either political or territorial gains normally associated with overt military aggression without tipping over the threshold into open warfare with a powerful adversary. They are all about calibration, leverage and ambiguity. The grey zone particularly lends itself to hybrid warfare, a term first coined about ten years ago. Definitions vary, but in essence it is a blurring of military, economic, diplomatic, intelligence and criminal means to achieve a political goal.

The main reason why big powers will try to achieve their political objectives short of outright war is still the nuclear threat, but it does not follow that the “balance of terror” which characterised the cold war will remain as stable as in the past. Russia and America are modernising their nuclear forces at huge expense and China is enlarging its nuclear arsenal, so nuclear weapons may be around until at least the end of the century. Both Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, in their very different ways, enjoy a bit of nuclear sabre-rattling. Existing nuclear-arms-control agreements are fraying. The protocols and understandings that helped avert Armageddon during the cold war have not been renewed.

Russia and China now fear that technological advances could allow America to threaten their nuclear arsenals without resorting to a nuclear first strike. America has been working at a concept known as Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS) for over a decade, though weapons have yet to be deployed. The idea is to deliver a conventional warhead with a very high degree of accuracy, at hypersonic speeds (at least five times faster than the speed of sound), through even the most densely defended air space. Possible missions include countering anti-satellite weapons; targeting the command-and-control nodes of enemy A2/AD networks; attacking the nuclear facilities of a rogue proliferator such as North Korea; and killing important terrorists. Russia and China claim that CPGS could be highly destabilising if used in conjunction with advanced missile defences. Meanwhile they are developing similar weapons of their own.

Other potential threats to nuclear stability are attacks on nuclear command-and-control systems with the cyber- and anti-satellite weapons that all sides are investing in, which could be used to disable nuclear forces temporarily. Crucially, the identity of the attacker may be ambiguous, leaving those under attack uncertain how to respond.

Rise of the killer robots

At least the world knows what it is like to live in the shadow of nuclear weapons. There are much bigger question-marks over how the rapid advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and deep learning will affect the way wars are fought, and perhaps even the way people think of war. The big concern is that these technologies may create autonomous weapons systems that can make choices about killing humans independently of those who created or deployed them. An international “Campaign to Stop Killer Robots” is seeking to ban lethal autonomous weapons before they even come into existence. A letter to that effect, warning against a coming arms race in autonomous weapons, was signed in 2015 by over 1,000 AI experts including Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk and Demis Hassabis.

Such a ban seems unlikely to be introduced, but there is room for debate about how humans should interact with machines capable of varying degrees of autonomy, whether in the loop (with a human constantly monitoring the operation and remaining in charge of critical decisions), on the loop (with a human supervising machines that can intervene at any stage of the mission) or out of the loop (with the machine carrying out the mission without any human intervention once launched). Western military establishments insist that to comply with the laws of armed conflict, a human must always be at least on the loop. But some countries may not be so scrupulous if fully autonomous systems are seen to confer military advantages.

Such technologies are being developed around the globe, most of them in the civil sector, so they are bound to proliferate. In 2014 the Pentagon announced its “Third Offset Strategy” to regain its military edge by harnessing a range of technologies including robotics, autonomous systems and big data, and to do so faster and more effectively than potential adversaries. But even its most ardent advocates know that the West may never again be able to rely on its superior military technology. Robert Work, the deputy defence secretary who championed the third offset, argues that the West’s most enduring military advantage will be the quality of the people produced by open societies. It would be comforting to think that the human factor, which has always been a vital component in past wars, will still count for something in the future. But there is uncertainty even about that.

(This article appeared in the Special report section of the print edition under the headline “The new battlegrounds”)

(A very well researched article on relation between alcoholism and sexual assault written  by renowned journalists in prestigious news daily The Statesman is reproduced here for the benefit of students)

 While widespread concern has been expressed regarding the increasing trends of sexual crimes and assaults, not enough attention has been given to the significant role of alcohol and drugs in the escalation of sexual violence. Several significant studies in various countries have clearly pointed out that nearly 50 per cent of sexual assault cases involved the use of alcohol or drugs or both.

According to a widely cited paper on ‘alcohol and sexual assaults’ by Antonia Abbey, Tina Zawacki and others of the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (USA), “at least one half of all violent crimes involve alcohol consumption by the perpetrator, the victim or both. Sexual violence fits this pattern. Thus across disparate population studies, researchers consistently have found that approximately one half of all sexual assaults are committed by men who have been drinking alcohol. Depending on the sample studied and the measure used, the estimates for alcohol use among perpetrators have ranged from 34 to 74 percent. Similarly, approximately one-third of all sexual assault victims report that they were drinking alcohol at the time of assault with estimates ranging from 30 to 39 per cent.”

However, these researchers also point out that while a woman’s al

cohol consumption may place her at increased risk of sexual assault, she is in no way responsible for the assault. The researchers rightly say that the perpetrators remain legally and morally responsible for their behavior.

Moreover, it also needs to be pointed out that while the data about alcohol consumption by perpetrators is relevant to almost all situations, the data about alcohol consumption by victims is not relevant to those social contexts such as several parts of India where alcohol consumption by woman is very low. In such cases the main issue is the alcohol consumption of the assaulter only. In many of the most serious cases of sexual assault reported in India in recent times, alcohol consumption by the assaulter has been established.

The study by Abbey and Zawacki also points out that perpetrators embrace stereotypes about women who drink being sexually available and appropriate targets. Drinking is used by them as an excuse for socially unacceptable behavior. The researchers say that alcohol’s cognitive impairments enhance misperception of a woman’s friendly cues as sexual and facilitate an aggressive response if the man feels he has been ‘led on’.

These researchers say that alcohol’s cognitive impairments reduce the victim’s ability to evaluate risk. Alcohol’s motor impairments reduce her ability to resist.

The researchers say that when a man is intoxicated he can more easily focus on his immediate sexual gratification, sense of entitlement and anger, rather than on his internalised sense of appropriate behavior, future regret, the victim’s suffering and the possibility that he will be punished for his actions.

Another tragic fact to which these researchers draw attention is that in cases of sexual assaults involving alcohol consumption, the victim’s injuries are likely to be more serious.

Another study titled “Alcohol consumption and woman’s vulnerability to sexual victimization – can reducing woman’s drinking prevent rape” by Maria Testa and Jennifer A Livingston has stated, “a review of the literature on woman’s substance use and sexual victimisation points to woman’s heavy episodic drinking as a risk factor, particularly amongst college samples. At least half of sexual victimisation incidents involve alcohol use and the majority of rapes of college women occur when the victim is too intoxicated to resist (incapacitated rape). Despite the importance of woman’s heavy episodic drinking as being a risk factor, existing rape prevention programs have rarely addressed woman’s alcohol use and have shown little success in reducing rates of sexual victimization.”

Finally, these researchers suggest that given the strength of the association between heavy episodic drinking and sexual victimisation any prevention programme targeting drinking may also prove a more efficacious way of reducing the vulnerability of women to sexual assaults.

Remedial aspects these may differ from one social-cultural context to another. Nevertheless, two broad aspects can be discussed here:

1. Keeping in view the widely recognized and highly adverse health and social impacts of alcohol and drug consumption, there is a clear and strong need for stepping up efforts to reduce overall consumption of alcohol and drugs in society. According to the WHO, 33 lakh net deaths are caused in a year by alcohol alone while 200 diseases and injuries are related to alcohol consumption. There are also specific problems of alcohol related to women. The overall reduction in alcohol and drug use, a reduction which is anyway needed by society for various reasons, will also help to reduce the vulnerability of women in terms of sexual exploitation.
2. Secondly, some more steps can also be taken for the protection of women from alcohol related sexual crimes as various high-risk situations have been identified by different research studies. Clear instructions should be used to increase the safety of women in these high-risk situations and to fix responsibility.

What matters is what you are and not what you appear to be. We are living in a demonstrative world where there is more focus on our outer appearance than what we are actually from inside. These are such times when the line between the ideal and the cunning is blurred. We as a nation are proud of the fact that the country has produced many people who believed in simple living and high thinking and Lal Bahadur Shastri is outstanding among such people. It is an ideal occasion to remember the virtues of this great son of India on his birth anniversary. In fact, it is seen that the public psyche and mental space is occupied mainly by the Father of Nation, Mahatma Gandhi in the month of October as the 2nd October is the date of birth of both the great leaders of India.  It is not a matter of comparison between these two great sons of India, but to remember them together and get inspiration from the virtues of both of them.

The great leader, who is popularly known for his slogan Jai Jawan, Jai Kisan (“Hail the soldier, Hail the farmer”), had joined the Indian independence movement in the 1920s. He was deeply impressed and influenced by Mahatma Gandhi and was close to Jawaharlal Nehru. Following independence in 1947, he joined the latter’s government and became one of Prime Minister Nehru’s principal, first as Railways Minister (1951–56), and then in a variety of other functions, including Home Minister. He led the country during the Indo-Pakistan War of 1965. The war formally ended with the Tashkent Agreement on 10 January 1966; he died the following day, still in Tashkent, the cause of death still not deciphered clearly. He died on 11 January 1966.

Sharada Prasad Srivastava, Lal Bahdur Shastri’s fathyer was a school teacher who later became a clerk in the revenue office at Allahabad, while his mother, Ramdulari Devi, was the daughter of Munshi Hazari Lal, the headmaster and English teacher at a railway school in Mughalsarai. There was an imprint of a teaching background on Lal bahadur Shastri’s ideals and simple living. When Lal Bahdur Shastri father died (1906) in an epidemic of bubonic plague while he was at a young age, his family supported his mother Ramdulari Devi to rear her children presenting an instance of high level of family values of India. The greatness of the traditional Indian joint family system, and the traditions of family responsibility and kinship, are deeply evident in Shastri’s case, where the orphan child of a penniless widow was raised by his distant relatives in a manner which enabled him to become Prime Minister of India.

Early inspirations of Lal Bahdur Shastri

In his young age Lala Bahadur Shastri was inspired by his teachers at Harish Chandra High School, especially Nishkameshwar Prasad Mishra, who was an intensely patriotic and highly respected teacher. He also gave Shastri much-needed financial support by allowing him to tutor his children. Inspired by Mishra’s patriotism, Shastri took a deep interest in the freedom struggle, and began to study its history and the works of several of its noted personalities, including those of Swami Vivekananda, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Gandhi and Annie Besant. In January 1921, when Shastri was in the 10 standard and three months from sitting the final examinations, he attended a public meeting in Benares hosted by Gandhi and Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya.

Inspiration of Mahatma Gandhi

Inspired by the Mahatma’s call for students to withdraw from government schools and join the non-cooperation movement, Shastri withdrew from Harish Chandra the next day and joined the local branch of the Congress Party as a volunteer, actively participating in picketing and anti-government demonstrations. He was soon arrested and jailed, but was then let off as he was still a minor. Shastri’s immediate supervisor was a former Benares Hindu University lecturer named J.B. Kripalani, who would become one of the most prominent leaders of the Indian independence movement and among Gandhi’s closest followers. Recognising the need for the younger volunteers to continue their educations, Kripalani and a friend, V.N. Sharma, had founded an informal school centered around “nationalist education” to educate the young activists in their nation’s heritage. With the support of a wealthy philanthropist and ardent Congress nationalist, Shiv Prasad Gupta, the Kashi Vidyapith was inaugurated by Gandhi in Benares as a national institution of higher education on 10 February 1921. Among the first students of the new institution, Shastri graduated with a first-class degree in philosophy and ethics from the Vidyapith in 1925. He was given the title Shastri (“scholar”). The title was a bachelor’s degree awarded by the Vidyapith, but it stuck as part of his name.

Political Activism of Lala Bahdur Shastri

Lal Bhadur Shastri became an active member of Congress in 1928 and participated in the Salt Satyagraha in 1930. He was imprisoned for two and a half years. Later, he worked as the Organizing Secretary of the Parliamentary Board of U.P. in 1937. In 1940, he was sent to prison for one year, for offering individual Satyagraha support to the independence movement. On 8 August 1942, Mahatma Gandhi issued the Quit India speech at Gowalia Tank in Mumbai, demanding that the British leave India. Shastri, who had just then come out after a year in prison, travelled to Allahabad. For a week, he sent instructions to the independence activists from Jawaharlal Nehru’s home, Anand Bhavan. A few days later, he was arrested and imprisoned until 1946.

Creative Years in Jail

Shastri was not deterred by the fear of being imprisoned. His courage and creative was also not bogged down in the prison because he was well aware that the cause of freedom struggle was historic and no price is bigger to pay for that.   He spent almost nine years in jail in total. During his stay in prison, he spent time reading books and became familiar with the works of western philosophers, revolutionaries and social reformers.

Lal Bahadur Shastri after Independence

Following India’s independence, Shastri was appointed Parliamentary Secretary in his home state, Uttar Pradesh. He became the Minister of Police and Transport under Govind Ballabh Pant’s Chief Ministership on 15 August 1947 following Rafi Ahmed Kidwai’s departure to become minister at centre. As the Transport Minister, he was the first to appoint women conductors. As the minister in charge of the Police Department, he ordered that police use jets of water instead of lathis to disperse unruly crowds. His tenure as police minister (As Home Minister was called prior to 1950) saw successful curbing of communal riots in 1947, mass migration and resettlement of refugees.

Rising up In the political hierarchy and mobilization of support for Congress

In 1951, Shastri was made the General Secretary of the All-India Congress Committee with Jawaharlal Nehru as the Prime Minister. He was directly responsible for the selection of candidates and the direction of publicity and electioneering activities. His cabinet consisted of the finest business men of India including Ratilal Premchand Mehta. He played an important role in the landslide successes of the Congress Party in the Indian General Elections of 1952, 1957 and 1962. In 1952, he successfully contested UP Vidhansabha from Soraon North cum Phulpur West seat and won getting over 69% of vote. He was believed to be retained as home minister of UP, but in a surprise move was called to Centre as minister by Nehru. Shastri was made Minister of Railways in First Cabinet of Republic of India on 13 May 1952. Jawaharlal Nehru died in office on 27 May 1964 and left a void. Congress Party chief Minister K. Kamaraj was instrumental in making Shastri Prime Minister on 9 June. Shastri, though mild-mannered and soft-spoken, was a Nehruvian socialist and thus held appeal to those wishing to prevent the ascent of conservative right-winger Morarji Desai.

Main Ideas of Lal Bahadur Shastri

On simple living and high thinking

Irrespective of his humble statement, that ‘I am not as simple as I look’, he was an apostle of simplicity. His simplicity like Mahatma Gandhi was not a mark of his misery and helplessness, but a strength chosen deliberately by them as a way of life. But he was a man of ideals. He did not like any gap in precept and practice. He said. “I had always been feeling uncomfortable in my mind about giving advice to others and not acting upon it myself.” He cherished the dream of freedom for all the nations and said, “We believe in freedom, freedom for the people of each country to follow their destiny without external interference.” He believed in   the dignity of man as an individual, whatever his race, colour or creed, and his right to better, fuller, and richer life. He was against violence and exploitation even during freedom struggle. He said, “We want freedom for our country, but not at the expense or exploitation of others, not us to degrade other countries…I want the freedom of my country so that other countries may learn something from my free country so that the resources of my country might be utilized for the benefit of mankind.”

Pacifist Leader

He once remarked, “We must fight for peace bravely as we fought in war.” He believed in peaceful coexistence and freedom from external control of any country or colonialism. He believed in freedom, freedom for the people of each country to follow their destiny without external interference. He was against war mongering and irrational military expenses. Shastri ji said, “We cannot afford to spend millions and millions over nuclear arms when there is poverty and unemployment all around us.” During the peak of the cold war period he said that Non-alignment would   continue to be the fundamental basis of our approach to world problems and our relations with other countries. Today we are observing the dangers of arms race, particularly nuclear arms. Way back he said, “It is most regrettable that nuclear energy is being harnessed for making nuclear weapons.” He expressed his belief in in peace and the settlement of all disputes through peaceful means, in the abolition of war, and, more particularly, nuclear war. He remarked, “We must fight for peace bravely as we fought in war.”

Patriotism

Lal Bahadur Shastri said, “Loyalty to the country comes ahead of all other loyalties. And this is an absolute loyalty, since one cannot weight it in terms of what one receives.” For Shatri ji patriotism did not mean zealot and extremist nationalism that loves itself and hates others. For him patriotism had a broad meaning. In his mind the meaning of patriotism was to have zeal to surmount the difficulties that face the country and work steadfastly for the happiness and prosperity of our country. For him patriotism meant dedicated work towards national development. We all have to work in our respective spheres with the same dedication, the same zeal and the same determination which inspired and motivated the warrior on the battle front. And this has to be shown not by mere words, but by actual deeds.

According to him unity is strength and patriotism. He expressed satisfaction that our country has often stood like a solid rock in the face of common danger, and there is a deep underlying unity which runs like a golden thread through all our seeming diversity. He said, “We believe in peace and peaceful development, not only for ourselves but for people all over the world.

Strength of a nation

Lal Bahadur shastri believed that strength of a nation lies in discipline and and united action. He often said that there the unique thing about India is that it has Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Parsis and people of all other religions living in peace and brotherhood and fraternity. There exist all kinds of places of worship – temples and mosques, gurudwaras and churches, but still India does not bring these into politics. He expressed happiness that Our country has often stood like a solid rock in the face of common danger, and there is a deep underlying unity which runs like a golden thread through all our seeming diversity.  According to him this was one of the differences between India and Pakistan. Pluralism is secularism is strength of India.  Unity in diversity is the main feature of the Indian nation. According to him “Our country has often stood like a solid rock in the face of common danger, and there is a deep underlying unity which runs like a golden thread through all our seeming diversity.” In all the above assertions Lal Bahadur Shastri was basically articulating what we today call “the idea of India.”

Common man centre of all development activities

According to Shastri ji preservation of freedom is not the task of soldiers alone. The whole nation has to be strong. As long as people remain deprived, a nation cannot be strong. His pet statement and slogan was Jai Jawan, Jai Kisan. Although he was not against bigger projects, bigger industries, basic industries, but in his development model common man, the weakest link in society, should be given utmost importance. Shastri ji said, “Our way is straight and clear – the building up of a socialist democracy at home, with freedom and prosperity for all, and the maintenance of world peace and friendship with all nations abroad.” He believed that we could win respect in the world only if we were strong internally and can banish poverty and unemployment from our country. He was against social discrimination and insisted that India will have to hang down her head in shame if even one person is left who is said in any way to be untouchable.

On Ideology

There comes a time in the life of every nation when it stands at the cross-roads of history and must choose which way to go. But for us there need be no difficulty or hesitation, no looking to right or left. Our way is straight and clear—the building up of a socialist democracy at home with freedom and prosperity for all, and the maintenance of world peace and friendship with all nations. According to him, the economic issues are most vital for us and it is of the highest importance that we should fight our biggest enemies – Poverty, unemployment.

Father of Nation, Mahatma Gandhi was a virtuous man, a beacon of light for leaders all around the world, especially those who lead freedom movement or movement for democracy. He was the role model for Martin Luther King and also Nelson Mandela. Albert Einstein, a great scientist of all times, said, “Generations to come, it may well be, will scarce believe that such a man as this one ever in flesh and blood walked upon this Earth.”Gandhi was a self actualized leader. He was never guided by anger, raze, hate and violence. According to him revenge and retribution were negative qualities. He believed in opposing the evil with non-violent but resolute protest. He always stood in the side of truth and justice. Gandhi’s method could be seen critically as many do, but there is universal respect for his truth, honesty and dedication to just and fair causes.

Gandhi’s role in the Freedom Struggle

Born on October 2, 1869 and raised in a Hindu merchant caste family in coastal Gujarat, western India, he was trained as a lawyer at the Inner Temple, London, Gandhi first He gave fillip to freedom struggle after he came to India in 1915 from South Africa where he fought against racial discrimination. He employed nonviolent civil disobedience as an expatriate lawyer in South Africa, in the resident Indian community’s struggle for civil rights. After coming to India, Mahatma Gandhi led the freedom struggle through his method of non-cooperation and civil disobedience based on non-violence, but resolute protest and indomitable will against the colonial powers and their injustice. He set about organising peasants, farmers, and urban labourers to protest against excessive land-tax and discrimination. Gandhi’s first major achievement came in 1917 with the Champaran agitation in Bihar. The Champaran agitation pitted the local peasantry against their largely British landlords who were backed by the local administration. He believed in Hindu and Muslim unity and so he invited the Muslim leaders to dovetail their khilapahat movement with India’s fight against British colonial regime. Gandhi felt that Hindu-Muslim co-operation was necessary for political progress against the British. He leveraged the Khilafat movement, wherein Sunni Muslims in India, their leaders such as the sultans of princely states in India and Ali brothers championed the Turkish Caliph as a solidarity symbol of Sunni Islamic community (ummah). Way back in his book Hind Swaraj (1909) Gandhi had declared that British rule was established in India with the co-operation of Indians and had survived only because of this co-operation. If Indians refused to co-operate, British rule would collapse and swaraj would come. Assuming leadership of the Indian National Congress in 1921, Gandhi led non-cooperation and civil disobedience movement with nationwide campaigns for boycotting foreign goods and raising protest against brutal British police. Later the same movement was directed by him to many social causes and achieving Swaraj or self-rule. Gandhi led the 400 km Dandi Salt March in 1930 to oppose the British-imposed salt tax and later led the masses in Quit India movement in 1942. He was imprisoned for many years, upon many occasions, in both South Africa and India. He lived modestly in a self-sufficient residential community. His simplicity evoked a statement from British Prime Minister Churchill about Gandhi- the half naked fakir. He wore cloths woven with yarn hand-spun on a charkha. He ate simple vegetarian food, and also undertook long fasts as a means of both self-purification and political protest. He enjoyed the faith of the people of India because he himself followed what he preached others. Although his method was based on non-violence, he always led from the front. Gandhi’s vision of an independent India based on religious pluralism and tolerance.

Gandhi, the Mahatma, is today more relevant for India and the world. When there are bloody wars and hate campaigns taking place in all the parts of the world, and market led growth has resulted into environmental imbalances, Gandhi is more relevant. He can be seen as a beacon of light in these confusing times of post truth. In the post truth era, morality and ethics are on the back seat and truth is the casualty of propaganda and fabricated lies appearing as true. The youth do not find any role model who consistently remains committed to noble values and ideal principles. The youth are often shocked by duality and hypocrisy of their leaders quite unlike Mahatma who followed what he preached and he loved even if he had disagreement of opinion. In these tough times of Machiavellian competition in the name of real politics and extremist nationalism bereft of tolerance we can only say “Aja re Baapu” (Father of Nation Please Come!) and help us in finding the right path and right karma.

Here are some of the thoughts of Mahatma which we recall at his birth anniversary to recommit ourselves with noble values and humanism based on love, non-violence and truth.

On thoughts

Mahatma Gandhi believed that the purity of our thought determines our dreams, aspirations and actions. A clear heart, good motives and intents never fail us in doing our duties. Mahatma opined that the moment there is suspicion about a person’s motives, everything he does becomes tainted. By having good thoughts we allow our pure and inner conscience to express. In fact he believed that ‘a man is but the product of his thoughts what he thinks, he becomes’. If you hold a good idea and if you stand in the side of truth, you need not bother what people say and feel about you. You should carry on because people would see truth eventually. He said if you come with new idea and start acting, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” The main purpose of life, according to Mahatma, is to live rightly, think rightly, act rightly. We should not just be guided by our own well being that leads to self centeredness. When we become totally self centered, then our soul suffers- “The soul must languish when we give all our thought to the body.”

 On morality and ethics

Mahatma Gandhi was the greatest moral thinker and practitioner of our time. He believed that morality is the basis of things and truth is the substance of all morality. He was a liberated soul as clear from one of his statements- “you can chain me, you can torture me, you can even destroy this body, but you will never imprison my mind.” He was never afraid of standing in the side of truth. Mahatma said that even if you are a minority of one, the truth is truth. My religion is based on truth and non-violence. Truth is my God. Non-violence is the means of realizing Him. According to non-violence and truth are inseparable and presuppose one another. Non cooperation with the evil is as much a duty as cooperation with the good. For truth, Mahatma was ready to stand against the majority. He said. In matters of conscience, the law of majority has no place.” He believed in synchronization of belief and action. He defines happiness as harmony in what you think, what you say and what you do.

According to Mahatma Gandhi, a progressive society must have space for discussion and dissent. Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. Mahatma said, “The pursuit of truth does not permit violence on one’s opponent.” Gandhi ji was very clear about the purpose and meaning of religion. Mahatma Gandhi had a very broad definition of religion and said that the essence of all religions is one. Only their approaches are different. He asserted, “My religion is based on truth and non-violence. Truth is my God. Non-violence is the means of realising Him.” He said, “I reject any religious doctrine that does not appeal to reason and is in conflict with morality.” He was against exclusivist system and said, “No culture can live if it attempts to be exclusive.”  Mahatma believed that intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit. He opined that the essence of all religions is one. Only their approaches are different. There is no need to panic from the rising trend of post truth. Mahatma said, “Truth stands, even if there be no public support. It is self-sustained.”

Action, struggle and endurance

According to Mahatma our actions express our priorities. In our actions it is not necessary that we are always successful. There are rocky roads in realization of our goals and dreams. In the end what counts is our indomitable spirit and endurance. Mahatma said, “We may stumble and fall but shall rise again; it should be enough if we did not run away from the battle.” Mahatma was above the mundane and believed in karma without attachment. One should not be let down by reverses and keep on hoping even in the most adverse circumstances. Hope should become out habit- it begins from individuals and become a habit of the whole society.  According to Mahatma what is true of the individual will be tomorrow true of the whole nation if individuals will but refuse to lose heart and hope. India today requires hope to realise its potential.

He said, “Satisfaction lies in the effort, not in the attainment, full effort is full victory.” The younger generation must learn from Mahatma what Gita calls “Nishkam Karma”. In fact the journey of life with virtuous path is the thing that brings happiness and satisfaction rather than achievements.  And even if fail in our efforts we should not be disappointed, but try again if we really love our goals. Our actions should be guided by educated and learned decisions. And we must enjoy the work which we do. We must be inspired and passionate in pursuing our goals. Mahatma rightly says, “Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever.”

Mahatma Gandhi believed in the power of determination. He said, “A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history.” And freedom struggle of India stands as an outstanding example in this respect.

Mahatma Gandhi believed in the importance of patience and perseverance. He said, “ If patience is worth anything, it must endure to the end of time. And a living faith will last in the midst of the blackest storm.”

On leadership, change and progress

Mahatma Gandhi said about him, “My life is my message.” Mahatma Gandhi believed that change cannot come by preaching others, but change is possible only by practicing what you preach, i.e. leading by practice. Mahatma said, “To believe in something, and not to live it, is dishonest.” This increases the authenticity of a person and also the path one takes. A person’s authencity and credibility rises high if s/he has good motive and intent, but these last only if the gap between precept and practice of a person is as less as possible. Mahatma said, “You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” He believed in harmony between precept and practice as the path of happiness. He said “Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony.

We see today ideology and conviction are easily given up by the leaders for acquiring power. They do not stand committed to any ideology in the name of pragmatism, but in actuality this is many a times permissiveness for petty gains. Adjustment and negotiation are potent tools for finding solutions to problems, but in the process we should not give up our fundamental principles.Gandhi ji was clearly against such an approach. He said, “All compromise is based on give and take, but there can be no give and take on fundamentals. Any compromise on mere fundamentals is a surrender. For it is all give and no take.”

Leaders are not known only by the power they have, they need authority and credibility. It comes from their public image and public faith in them. Mahatma Gandhi said, “I suppose leadership at one time meant muscles; but today it means getting along with people.”
To him man becomes great exactly in the degree in which he works for the welfare of his fellow-men. He said power is of two kinds. One is obtained by the fear of punishment and the other by acts of love. Power backed by love is a thousand times more effective and permanent than the one derived from fear of punishment. This is a guide for leadership, governance and administration.

Humanism

Mahatma Gandhi was one of the greatest humanists that modern civilization had ever seen. Service to humanity was the purpose of life for Mahatma Gandhi and even the Indian freedom struggle was guided by this objective. Mahatma Gandhi’s fight against the colonial regime was not a fight against the British. It was a fight for liberty, justice and equality and fight against exploitation, subjugation and cruelty. It was a fight for human values and service to humanity. Service to humanity was his motto. He said, “The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others.” We must think beyond our body. When Mahatma talks about service to humanity, he does not mean a compulsive act, but an act of joy. He points out, “Service which is rendered without joy helps neither the servant nor the served. But all other pleasures and possessions pale into nothingness before service which is rendered in a spirit of joy.”

He was aware that such a high ideal is not easy to find always in our interaction with the world. But human values should be practiced in all circumstances; even if the results are not coming soon we should not lose faith. He said that we should not hate the wrong doer, but the wrong act. We should not lose faith in virtues. He said, “You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.”

He believed that human beings may commit mistakes, mostly inadvertently and sometimes because they are not aware of the consequences of their wrong acts. Mahatma said that freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err.
He believed in the dictum that to err is human, to forgive divine. By forgiving somebody, we do not become weak. He said, “The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.”

On Non-violence

Mahatma is called Mahatma for his ardent belief in the principle of non-violence, even while protesting and resisting against injustice. His statement reflects the broad vision he had about peaceful and happy coexistence in the world. He was against revenge and retribution by medieval methods. His remark that “an eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind” is reflective of his vision. He believed that ‘non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man’. There are many explanations about his principle of non-violence. Mahatma believed in basic goodness of man. He says, “We should meet abuse by forbearance. Human nature is so constituted that if we take absolutely no notice of anger or abuse, the person indulging in it will soon weary of it and stop.” Another reason why one should shun violence is that strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will. The main reason that makes us intolerant and violent is anger. Mahatma said, “Anger is the enemy of non-violence and pride is a monster that swallows it up.” According to Mahatma, anger and intolerance are the enemies of correct understanding.

 He ardently believed that goodness has an impact in the long run and it changes the hearts. Mahatma opined that ‘in a gentle way, you can shake the world’. Mahatma believed that love is the greatest human value. And love can only be displayed by the brave. A coward is incapable of exhibiting love; it is the prerogative of the brave. According to Mahatma non-violence requires a double faith, faith in God and faith in man. He believed in egalitarian society and said, “Poverty is the worst form of violence.”Mahatma Gandhi believed that intolerance is against the spirit of democracy.  According to him intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to growth of true democratic spirit.

Non-violence is not a garment to be put on and off at will. Its seat is in the heart, and it must be an inseparable part of our being. According to Mahatma, non-violence is the article of faith. Non-violence and truth are inseparable and presuppose one another. Mahatma knew that practice of non-violence is tough, yet he said that this should be our ideal goal. He said, “We may never be strong enough to be entirely nonviolent in thought, word and deed. But we must keep nonviolence as our goal and make strong progress towards it.” He goes to an extremely ideal situation and says, “I am prepared to die, but there is no cause for which I am prepared to kill.”

On sustainable Development

Mahatma Gandhi supported small and cottage industries. He supported growth of self sufficient villages. He also believed in a need based and environment friendly production system rather than consumerism. He said that the good man is the friend of all living things. He said that the greatness of nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated. In his view, iIt is the health which is the real wealth and not precious metals like gold and silver. Mahatma believed that man should be rational in deciding about his need and not be driven by “animal instincts” or greed.  He opined that there is sufficiency in the world for man’s need but not for man’s greed.