Gandhi will succeed where others fail !
TALES OF TRAVESTY

By Dr. Jitendra Singh

‘‘With every breath I pray to God to give me strength to quench the flames or remove me from this earth.’’ This is how Mahatma Gandhi summed up his agony on his 78th birthday, October 2, 1947, when the entire subcontinent was on fire and the country lay divided by communal hatred, violence, anger, suspicion, vengeance and mutual sceptism. Later, when Gandhi resolved to go on an indefinite fast in an attempt to pacify the enraged tempers, he declared on January 12, 1948, just a fornight before his tragic death, ‘‘No man, if he is pure, has anything more precious to give than his life, I ask you all to bless my effort and to pray for me and with me’’.

To a world lost in error and beset by the illusions of time, can there be a tale of greater travesty than the story of an incredible Mahatma who sought to redeem human race and to reassert human dignity through faith in the eternal significance of man's conscienceness and in the supermacy of the timless forces of truth !

Torn between light and darkness, between confusion and suffering, between reason and unreason, between selfishness and rivalry, between love and hatred, we masquerade today as loyal disciples of Bapu and remember him on his birth anniversary with the hypocrisy of those proverbial wolves who can barely survive on a diet of rice and vegetable and yet claim to be protagonists of peace and non-violence. Very skillfully, we have reduced yesterday's Mahatma to a mere tool for manipulating electoral verdict.

In the enthusiasm to dwell on Gandhi's superhuman sagacity, we often fail to appreciate his more human virtues. His immaculate sincerity. His incredible tolerance. His modest charm. His childlike simplicity. His infinite patience. And above all, has abiding faith in Truth and non-violence. All these virtues, together comprise the ideal of Gandhism which is today more exploited than emulated.

In contemporary times, Gandhi's doctrine assumes a universal relevance, and holds the promise of succeeding where Marx and Lenin have failed. We often overlook the fact that Gandhi was not simply another ‘Mahatma’ or a saint but a deep rooted, far sighted philosopher who prescribed lasting ethics for the world in general and for an upcoming, heterogenous Indian nation in particular.

Gandhi's creed of non-violence was an extremely active force with no room for cowardice or fear. Defining his ideology in 1920, Gandhi said, ‘‘non-violence in its dynamic condition means conscious suffering. I have ventured to place before my people ancient laws of self-sacrifice, for the Rishis who discovered the law on non-violence in the midst of violence were greater geniuses than Newton and greater warriors than Willington.’’

Gandhi could foresee the long-term benefits accruing from the practice of non-violence when he recommended a non-violent resistance to the physical forces that were out to perish the dignity of man. At the same time, Freedom, for Gandhi, was not merely a political goal but an absolute social reality and ‘Truth’ was to him, an instrument for overcoming the inconsistence of human flesh and the discursiveness of human nature. ‘‘To find truth completely,’’ wrote Gandhi, ‘‘is to realise oneself and one's destiny, in other words, to become perfect.’’

Today, Gandhi as also Gandhism are a part of a fading heritage. Gandhi may appear totally irrelevant when terrorism and violence are an accepted way of life. Gandhi may also appear irrelevant to the present generation who have known Gandhis of a different genre--from Indira Gandhi to Rajiv and Sonia Gandhi, and down to Priyanka and Rahul Gandhi.

But, as the struggle for human decency, for the avoidance of physical strife, and for a world without narrow domestic walls becomes more intense, as we come closer to the goal of the oneness of our purposes and aspirations; as the dream of civilization prevails, Mahatma Gandhi will ultimately stand out as the torchbearer of a moral and spiritual revolution which is the only hope of peace in a distracted world and the only path of salvation for an erring humanity. The only hope for common man. The only redemption for Umapathy. The only tribute to the Mahatma describing whose brutal assassination, poet Kaifi Azmi had thus writtten ‘‘Khoon Jitna Bhi Tha Seene Mein Bahut Kaam Aaya; Ho Gayee Surkh Har Ek Gul Ki Kaba Mere Qatl Ke Baad’’.

Woman and divorce

By Uma Ramachandran

The ministry of social justice and welfare figures for 2004-05 make alarming reading as more and more educated Indians are resorting to divorce in the name of "a better future, in the event of matrimonial unhappiness. They are rejecting society's dogged determination to sustain marital ties which tradition had clothed in an aura of religiosity."

The Hindus Marriage Act 1955 and its subsequent amendments, while responding to the needs of the Hindus, especially women, has somehow failed to take note of the social reactions to situations emerging out of a divorce. This is especially noticeable in the disapproval shown by several sections of society who continue to view those involved as deviates deserving ostracism and criticism. No one emerges from a divorce unscathed, nevertheless in a society, predominantly male-dominated, the plight of women is always worse. They face a new set of problems - first and foremost uncertainty regarding where to live, child management, employment and possible re-marriage.

The existing social environment is such that neither friends nor relatives consider it their ethical responsibility to furnish material or emotional support to women, during and after the period of disintegration. Even when these women are able to gain financial and affectionate anchorage, society places hurdles in their way to re-establishing links with their former kin or social groups. Regardless of whether women are prepared for the final break-up or not, a large majority among them feel incapable of living in a different environment to the one to which they have been accustomed. It is true that, in several cases, the unpleasant experience of a family break-up is by their own choice and therefore not totally unexpected. They are mentally prepared for the separation after having gone through a period of tension, bitterness, fights, physical and mental cruelty. Nonetheless, not being habituated to living independently, they are emotionally disturbed at the thought of life without a male support.

The immediate problem after the final break-up is, therefore, with regard to somewhere to live. The choice is limited, either to setting up an independent establishment or returning to the parental home. By and large, over 80 per cent of women opt in favour of the protective umbrella of parents - possibly due to the unconscious hold of tradition, financial difficulties or child management. No one single factor influence a woman's decision in respect of her residence after the marriage disintegrates. Indications however relatively speaking are that it is only women who are mature in age, employed, with school-going children and coming from non-conformist backgrounds who opt for living independently. Others mostly seek the shelter of their parents' homes, perhaps to gain reassurance that it was not through any fault of theirs that the marriage broke down.

Opting for parental security reveals that in the majority of cases, paucity of funds compels them to seek the shelter of the parental roof. Other factors which play an important part are fear of social stigma, being accustomed to dependency upon the kin-group, having young non-school-going children, or being pregnant. However, in most cases, the women indicated that going back to parents is not out of choice but necessity.

The other family members, regard the presence of a separated/divorced woman in the house is an economic burden. An offer to contribute towards family expenses by such women who get employment is reluctantly accepted, but later the amount contributed becomes the butt of criticism - "She thinks she and her children have bought us with the measly amount she pays. Rani Saheba wants milk and eggs while we live on dal and roti". Discriminatory behaviour is very often reflected in the treatment of children - the sister-in-law quietly feeding her own on fruit or other luxuries while the divorcee's children are deprived of them.

In this plight some women attempt to improve their education and/or develop efficiency in a job so that they can carve out a better future for themselves. In consequence, they spend less time on household chores which obviously is not taken kindly by the sisters-in-law. Taunting remarks are a daily occurrence.

The decision to lead an independent life of her own is no easy task for a divorced woman especially if she has to look for a rented house. Very often, rents in the better localities are beyond their reach. Even where they are prepared to pay the rent demanded, landlords openly express reluctance to rent premises to single-parent families headed by women. They remark, "Last time I rented out my home to a single woman, she virtually, turned it into a 'call girl den'. Men came and went at all odd hours and there was music or dancing daily. Several times, arrears went unpaid. You know how important it is for us to have a man living in so that "good behaviour" and regular payment of rent is assured."

Honesty, in the view of divorced women, scarcely pays them the dividend of good accommodation. To overcome this obstacle, many of them either pose as windows or take along some male member who stands surety for them. Despite all the precautions taken by them in respect of their social life, as long as they live alone "women continue to look upon them with suspicion and men with anticipation." Married women hesitate to befriend them for fear of losing hold over their own husbands, while men feel that such women are in a state of perpetual sexuality. Deprived therefore of a normal social life, these social isolates either fall back upon the company of such male colleagues who are prepared to meet them "discreetly" or relegate themselves to a lonely existence immersed in work and childcare.

Despite the changing pattern of family life, marriage through legislation, economic and sociological development, individuals in society continue to view the structure and function of family life in conventional terms. The option to choose a pattern of living, other than in matrimony is denied to women. In the absence of established cultural norms for the behaviour of such individuals, society continues to disregard their problems.

In the present transitional period, society's 'negative' attitude is perhaps understandable. Nevertheless, today, when the rate of increase in family disintegration is becoming significant, the problem is not peripheral. Would it not then be desirable for society to create a more congenial atmosphere for such women who under duress are compelled to opt for a non-traditional term of life? INAV