Ramblings: On Gandhi’s Talisman and the Lockdown
“I will give you a talisman. Whenever you are in doubt, or when the self becomes too much with you, apply the following test. Recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man whom you may have seen, and ask yourself, if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him. Will he gain anything by it? Will it restore him to a control over his own life and destiny? In other words, will it lead to swaraj for the hungry and spiritually starving millions? Then you will find your doubts and yourself melt away.”
Whatever be your views and thoughts on the life and work of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, this talisman is the one thing which unites all. Even the staunchest critics of Gandhi’s methods and principles would not disagree that these words carry a lot of weight and its importance in the daily life of an individual cannot be stressed enough. The test laid down by Gandhi becomes especially relevant in this age where the economy of the country is driven primarily by capitalist forces who are willing to go to any extent and cross all moral boundaries to exploit the very last drop of profit out of each and every situation.
Simply speaking, Gandhi’s talisman urges a person, stuck in a situation of grave doubt and confusion, to decide the further course of action by bearing in mind the consequences and effects which his/her steps will have upon the poorest and weakest sections of society. Gandhi asks us to recall the face of the weakest individual whom we have seen and then ponder whether our contemplated actions will be of any benefit to such an individual. The test proposes a simple question, whether our actions will help the poor retain control over their lives and give them freedom from the shackles of starvation? The answer to this question, according to Gandhi, will melt away all doubts.
In my opinion, this talisman should be the guiding principle not only for the common folk, but also for our government(s). It cannot be called into dispute that the government in a democratic country is supposed to function for the welfare of its people. The government is supposed to be the custodian of the well-being and happiness of its people. It is quite clear that a government is not elected to advance the selfish interests of a few industrialists and corporates who have concentrated most of the wealth of the country in their hands.
Any government would be expected to strive for the attainment of certain ideals such as the promotion of education among the masses and the development of a scientific temper in society. These ideals are also enshrined in Part IV of the Constitution of India in the form of certain Directive Principles of State Policy. Although not enforceable by any Court, these principles are important as they are fundamental in guiding the governance of the nation to fight inequality and exploitation. Article 38(1) of the Constitution obliges the State to promote the welfare of people by securing a social order whereas 38(2) directs the State to strive towards minimising inequalities in income and to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities.
Jeremy Bentham’s principle, maximum benefit for the maximum number, should be interpreted in the context of governance to imply that the government must function in a manner where it confers maximum benefit upon the maximum number of people. Therefore, policies and decisions of the government must also be based on the touchstone of this principle, i.e., they should be based on an outlook of promoting the interests of the poor and alleviate their sufferings.
Recent events that have been taking place in light of the Coronavirus outbreak in India have compelled me to deliberate whether the government actually gives a dime about the welfare of the persons whom it is actually supposed to look after, i.e., the poor and weak. After the Prime Minister’s announcement of a nationwide lockdown, mass transit systems were immediately shut down and thousands of migrant labourers were left stranded with no food, money or work. In metropolitan cities like Mumbai and Bangalore, it is very difficult to survive for even a week without any source of income. With all industries, factories and construction work grinding to a complete halt, daily wage earners were left lurking between the devil and the deep sea, i.e., to die either from the virus or from starvation. That is definitely not a choice which I would want to make. Had they been permitted and given time to go back to their hometowns, they would at least have had a roof over their heads along with two meals a day. It was also very distressing to see migrant labourers and their families leave Delhi for their hometowns on foot, an arduous journey of more than a few hundred kilometres.
While the mainstream media is blaming these poor labourers for breaching the lockdown and putting the entire country at risk, they fail to understand that without any work, these people would end up dying of hunger before they die of the coronavirus. How will people survive without any employment? Did the government not think this through before they took the step to enforce a lockdown? It doesn’t seem so from the chaos that followed in most metro cities where the working class began a mass exodus to their respective hometowns post the announcement. The lack of thought by the government towards the plight of the poor is evident from these incidents and seems to be evil, to say the least.
The imposition of a draconian lockdown on the entire country has put us all into unfamiliar circumstances — staying at home all the time! We have all been subjected to a new normal, where we must become accustomed to not stepping out of the bounds of our houses, or the Lakshman Rekha in words of the Prime Minister. When I breached this Rekha for the first time in a week for buying groceries, I was greeted immediately by the new world order — the age of lockdowns. An eerie atmosphere of silence shrouded the misery of the situation. In spite of all the clatter that we have been generating on social media about social distancing and self-isolation, the silence on ground was truly deafening to my ears. As I walked swiftly towards the grocery store, I pondered over the scenes of the movie Bird Box. Will things come to such a stretch that people will begin decimating others in a bid to ensure survival? Was Darwin pointing to this when he propounded the ‘survival of the fittest’ theory? The answer gave rise to fear of a far higher degree than the question itself — we can only wait and watch the events unfold before our eyes.
Amidst all the raging discourse on social distancing and self-isolation, I plunged myself into the world of the young lawyer, from Anton Chekhov’s short story ‘The Bet’, who goes into voluntary solitary confinement for fifteen years as a part of a bet made with a banker. After a debate on whether the death sentence is better or worse than life imprisonment, the young lawyer agrees to spend fifteen years of his life in prison and if he manages to make it through the years, the banker agrees to pay him two million roubles for his trouble. The confinement was completely voluntary and the lawyer could exercise the option to leave anytime, which made the bet even harder for him. Initially, the lawyer suffers from loneliness and depression, which is eventually overtaken by his desire and eagerness to read books and gain knowledge. He studied books of a large range of subjects and learnt new languages with a great passion, so much so that about six hundred volumes were purchased for him in the span of four years. However, just before the completion of his confinement, the lawyer escapes from his cell, leaving behind a note addressed to the banker.
In the note, the lawyer declares that he now despises freedom, life, health, wisdom and all other blessings of the world. He goes on to say that in the past fifteen years, through all the books provided by the banker, he had studied earthly life, tasted fragrant wine, sung songs, gone hunting in the forests and loved women. He elaborates that “beautiful women, like clouds ethereal, created by the magic of your poets’ genius, visited me by night and whispered to me wonderful tales, which made my head drunken. In your books I climbed the summits of Elbruz and Mont Blanc and saw from there how the sun rose in the morning, and in the evening suffused the sky, the ocean and lie mountain ridges with a purple gold. I saw from there how above me lightnings glimmered cleaving the clouds; I saw green forests, fields, rivers, lakes, cities; I heard syrens singing, and the playing of the pipes of Pan; I touched the wings of beautiful devils who came flying to me to speak of God… In your books I cast myself into bottomless abysses, worked miracles, burned cities to the ground, preached new religions, conquered whole countries…”
The lawyer concludes that “everything is void, frail and delusive as a mirage” and that irrespective of the beauty and wisdom that one may possess, death wipes out all from the face of earth. He further says that he now despised the very two million which he once thought of as paradise and which were the very object for which this whole exercise was undertaken. The lawyer had grown to detest all transient material desires and he felt contempt for all those who lived in the constant desire of money and other material luxury.
At this point of time, there seems to be no end in sight to this lockdown until the virus shows signs of slowing down. Like the young lawyer in Chekhov’s story, some of us may end up on the other side of the lockdown with a new perspective on life and despise all earthly wisdom, beauty and blessings. Yet, the rest of us will simply resume our previous lives with a renewed vigour to attain our goals and fulfil our dreams. Having seen through this disaster, I hope the world that emerges is filled with more love than ever before and the survivors work hand in hand to make this world a better place to live in.
