On the subject of Leadership Doc wrote passionately his thoughts about
Hitler as being a 'fit' subject on such a discussion. At the end there was
appended the following,
"A mind once stretched by a great idea or new understanding will never
fully return to its original dimensions." --William James
Maybe, if we incorporate the idea of a 'collective mind', and accept that
'great' and 'new' understanding might incorporate 'evil' as well as 'good'
we might be better placed to resist next time? Understanding more fully in
the round is one guard against the birth of the totalitarian regime that
thrives too often on all too simple slogans that feed on fear, as it moves
imperceptibly from information to propaganda. (Having followed the latest
Yugoslavian tragedy it was terrifying to hear supposedly educated young
people in Belgrade call their paramilitary, 'defenders of their state' and
had no idea of the orgy of violence that was the impetus and driving force
behind the NATO response. I think At' has pointed us more than once to
complacency in that regard?)
A few others seemed to want to list those figures in history that could be
called leaders. Ghandi is always prominent. As I happen to be lightly
studying the man's life right now and was this morning immersed, I offer
the following. It is a poor substitute for the book I am currently reading
from.
-----
'Let sleeping dogs lie.' (William the Conqueror supposedly speaking of the
native British upon his conquest.) 1066
1926-27 India.
A quiet time politically -" India- is disrupted and demoralised. It seems
like a good time for silence." Ghandi.
Mmmm.
After numerous communal riots at the close of the year Swami Shraddhanand a
Hindu and friend of Ghandi who was also a Hindu was murdered by a zealot
Muslim called Rashid. All India was horrified. Ghandi learning of the murder
and acutely aware of the turmoil that might ensue in both communities, Hindu
and Muslim, said,
" My brother Abdul Rashid is not guilty." - " the guilty are those who
incited feelings of hatred against one another."
Later that year he was confronted with a similar dilemma, the subject was
'dogs'.
The industrial magnate Ambalal Sarabhai had ordered the rounding up of some
sixty stray dogs from his complex and in the absence of guidance as to what
to do with them from the ruling municipality he had them killed. The
gentleman was distressed to have taken the course of action but asked Ghandi
what, else he could have done, since they represented a real threat of
communicating rabies to his employees?
Ghandi consoled him thus, "What else could be done?"
Within days the Humanitarian Society of the region were at Ghandi's door,
" Hinduism declares it to be a sin (to take anything's life), do you think it
right to kill rabid dogs for the reason that they would bite human beings and
by biting other dogs make them also rabid?"
"Yes," he replied, " What else could be done?
Imperfect erring mortals as we are, there is no course open to us but the
destruction of rabid dogs. At times we may be faced with the unavoidable duty
of killing a man who is found in the act of killing people."
These comments evoked a howl of outrage. Letters, some angry poured in.
Others went to his ashram to argue with him. Some were insulting.
Ghandi replied,
" If (you) people were really religious, dogs would have ownersb
regular science of dog owning in the West, we should learn from it."
The mail continued to pour in. "I do not mind the outburst of anger, I
appreciate the motive behind it. I must reason with them patiently."
Ghandi felt that if the state did not care for the dogs and people were
indifferent to the menace the strays represented then it was his "-innermost
conviction that they should be relieved from a lingering death.-This is a
bitter dose, I agree, but true love and compassion consist in taking it."
Still the letters and ill feeling did not abate; Ghandi was not above a touch
of anger.
" Cows we cannot protect, dogs we kick about and belabour with sticks, their
ribs are seen sticking out, and yet we are not ashamed of ourselves, and
raise a hue and cry when a stray dog is killed. Which of the two is
better-that five thousand dogs should wander in semi starvation, living on
dirtb
the rest in a decent condition? It is admittedly sinful always to be spurning
and kicking the dogs. But it is possible that a man who kills dogs that he
cannot bear to see tortured thus may be doing a meritorious act. Merely
taking life is not always 'himsa' (violence), one may say that there is
sometimes more 'himsa' in not taking a life.
It is a sin, it should be a sin to feed stray dogs. It is a false sense of
compassion. It is an insult to a starving dog to throw a crumb at him. -
Roving dogs do not indicate the civilisation or compassion of the society;
they betray on the contrary the ignorance and lethargy of its members."
Later Ghandi was involved in another bitter controversy over the killing of a
distraught calf on the premises of an ashram. The calf lay in agony upon the
ground with possibly two days of suffering and then certain death. The
leading ashramites discussed what they should do. A forthcoming collection
for the ashram would receive no money if they killed the calf. Let nature
take its course they resolved. Ghandi said, it would be cruel and advised, "
there is no reason why a fellow creature should be denied the last and most
solemn service we can render it.'
The calf was put to sleep.
Again, people from all over India wrote upon hearing of this, accusing Ghandi
of abandoning 'ahimsa' (Non-violence).
The cow was 'sacred' they said.
Indeed.
And just in India can we find 'sacred' cows?
A Jain correspondent wrote, " Ghandi, you killed that calf, you killed that
cow, and if I do not kill you in return, I am no Jain."
Aha!
Ghandi 'turned' himself and set his eyes again upon the humane problem of the
'untouchables'.
" I must not touch upon the problem of Hindu-Muslim amity. -It has passed out
of human handsb
wisdom."
When Ghandi himself had passed out of 'human hands', General Douglas
MacArthur, then Supreme Allied Commander in Japan asserted, "In the
evolution of civilisation, if it is to survive, all men cannot fail
eventually to adopt Ghandi's belief that the process of mass application
of force to resolve contentious issues is fundamentally not only wrong but
contains within itself the germs of self destruction."
Ah!
What force.
Best wishes, Zindabad!
Andrew Campbell.
(The text quoted is from, 'Rediscovering Ghandi' by Yogesh Chadha)
-For evil to flourish it is only enough that good men keep silent-
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>