Advice for Leaders, courtesy the MahAtma
Thoight-provoking excerpts from Arun Shourie’s We must have no price… (emphasis mine):
In one who will stand up to power…conduct and character are everything.
1. ..the first thing to do is to avoid: to avoid the activists’ virus — one that attacks newspapermen as much as activists. There is a real injustice, a real case of wrongdoing. The activist or newspaperman chances upon the evidence. He takes up the issue. As he succeeds, more and more persons reach out to him, and point him in the direction of other wrongs. More and more information about such issues comes to him. He takes up issue after issue. One campaign of his succeeds after another. He now feels compelled to live up to the reputation he has acquired. So, he goes looking for issues. He discovers some, though they be of dwindling significance. When he can’t discover them, he invents some…
…I am not a knight-errant, Gandhiji said once. My job is not to redress every wrong.
We must not be grasshoppers. We should be crocodiles: If someone is so foolish as to put his leg — his wrongdoing — in our jaws, we must not let go — till the reader has been brought to a conclusion, a matter about which, as we shall see in a moment, Gandhiji is again an excellent guide. For the moment, Lenin will do: “Fewer, but better.â€
.
2. Second, we must never take up an issue because we think doing so will please our employer or leader, or our party or group…The reason is simple: the calculations of the employer, of the leader will change; the interest of the people will shift. For us the tests should be two — both are ever so visible in Gandhiji’s campaigns. First, the issue, to use his phrase, is “an intolerable wrong.†Second, we are personally committed to undoing it. “Committed†not in the sense that we are prepared to shout slogans about it. Committed in the sense that we are prepared to shoulder the consequences of taking a stand on it.
3. Third, Gandhiji insisted that we must pitch our demand at the minimum. In Champaran, his demand was merely that the government appoint a committee to look into the distress of the indigo cultivators. That was enough to put the British rulers into a bind. If we set up the committee, they reasoned, everyone will conclude that we cannot stand up to this little troublemaker. When, on this reasoning, they don’t set up the committee for months, the people get to see the nature of the British government in India: if they won’t even set up a committee to examine our condition, how can we believe their professions about being our concerned guardians?
4. Fourth, and we have all read about the infuriating lengths to which Gandhiji went on this, every non-confrontational avenue must be explored before a confrontational course is adopted.
But once the conciliatory avenues have been blocked by the rulers and controllers, all options that one may personally have must be closed. Vinoba characterises this as rassa kaat dene ki neeti — “Cutting the ropes policy.†He recalls an incident. With their band, two brothers have stormed the adversary’s fort. The battle is about to go either way. One of the brothers runs over the ramparts — severing every rope that the band had used to climb into the fort. Neither the brothers nor their followers now have any way to escape. They fight as if to death… They vanquish the foe.
5. Little can be accomplished without associates and colleagues: even a Solzhenitsyn needed, to use the title of his memoir about them, Invisible Allies — the ones who copied his manuscripts, who secreted them, who smuggled them to the outside world; every one of those actions, if discovered, would have entailed cruel imprisonment for indefinite periods, at times even torture and death. The next lesson, therefore, concerns not issues and evidence but associates and colleagues. They are indispensable, and ever so often the cause of the greatest anxiety.
The first step must be to expect the least of anyone else: if others join, good; if they don’t, well they don’t. I remember how very upset I used to get, and soon learnt how needlessly I was upsetting myself, when I saw life continue as usual in Delhi’s social circles during the Emergency.
The second element must be continuous, incessant, uninterrupted communication with colleagues. Many are liable to be geographically dispersed. Each will be undergoing experiences different from the others, and will, accordingly, be reaching different conclusions about what should be done next. In any case, each will be completely preoccupied with his special responsibility.
…But communication is not going to be enough. There must be at all times be trust — the presumption that our colleague is doing only what is best for the cause.
…But the greatest bitterness comes not from backbiting. It erupts when a colleague leaves the endeavour. When he “desertsâ€. That is the bitterness one must shield oneself against most of all — for in a protracted engagement, some will leave. …Gandhiji counseled them (his followers, when the Ali brothers left the Khilafat movement) to shed bitterness. “We must not be upset that they are no longer with us. On the contrary, we should be thankful that they travelled with us this far…â€
And to round off, a story about Diogenes, from the article:
A burning hot afternoon. Diogenes is sitting as usual beneath the tree, sweating, scooping pasty gruel from a weathered bowl. At a distance, the court philosopher is being carried home in a palanquin for his lunch and afternoon siesta. He lifts the curtain. “Who is that beneath the tree?†the richly robed philosopher asks his bearers. “No one of any consequence, Sir,†they answer. “A fellow called Diogenes. A waster. All he does all day is sit under that tree, and yap with whoever comes along.â€
“Take me to him†the philosopher directs.
He is lowered. He addresses Diogenes: “What are you doing, Diogenes?â€
“Why, I am eating this gruel†Diogenes answers.
“You fool. If only you would learn to get along with the King, you wouldn’t have to spend the rest of your life eating that miserable gruel.â€
“My dear Sir,†answers Diogenes, “If only you would learn to eat this gruel, you wouldn’t have to spend the rest of your life trying to get along with the King.â€
We must learn to eat that gruel.
We must have no price.
And everyone must know that we have no price.
***
Related Posts:
The Importance of Small and The Power of InsignificantÂ
Somewhat related to Khilafat, Global Islamism, Jihadism etc. “Global Islamism, jihadism and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, my defence lawyer” by Tufail Ahmed, 29th Aug ’16
It drives me crazy when I see people making up controversies or scandals. As if the world doesn’t have enough legitimate problems to deal with we have to listen to that nonsense.
Jai
What’s this crypto comment supposed to mean for persons without much imaginary power?
Shantanu
An excellent set of guidelines. There is much leadership literature but it boils down to this: total integrity; simple but persistent strategy; trust and goodwill towards all; working with teams. Many other good things listed above are valid as well: constant communication, for instance.
I had proposed a first draft of a set of leadership aspirations for FTI but haven’t had time to revisit these. Would appreciate your reader’s comments:
http://sabhlok.blogspot.com/search/label/Leadership
We must develop a set of criteria of leadership for FTI. A recent draft comment I had suggested on FTI:
Level 3: Good at one’s work and proficient in getting things done. Intent on short term results. People trust the leader and take him by his word. Works well as a team member and engages respectfully with others but not yet focused on developing others, the institution, or the country because limited by personal ego and over-sensitivity to other’s comments. Example: Most people on this group today (including me)
Level 4: Level 3 + able to show many people the bigger picture about India’s future and bring about a shift in perspective among many people including those on on FTI. Works as a democratic decision-builder, builds consensus, challenges people to grow out of their personal limitations while keeping them focused on the main goal. Able to generate consensus and common strategy which leads to significant achievements for India. However, intent on medium term results. Emphasis on developing leaders but not yet interested in succession planning because of limited time horizon. Example: Rajaji/Masani.
Level 5: Level 4 + able to show the world a new and more effective way of thinking, able to gain consensus across the world and deliver significant global change + focused on leadership development and succession: intent on long term results. Zero personal ego (in terms of personal aggrandisement) with 100% focus on results for India and the world. Example: Lincoln/ Gandhi (not completely level 5, though, possibly 4.5).
Would be happy to get comments on these ideas on the above blog.
Regards
Sanjeev
Very interesting read for a social worker. I suppose they have their share of issues as well. Nice to know some of them can feed of Gandhi’s knowledge and experience in these matters.
Having the least expectation for example ensures that you’re not demotivated and give up the cause in disgust…
Have you ever climbed a mountain? Lets say you have to climb a mountain and you are lost. Along comes this guide who promises to help you climb the mountain but forces you to throw away all the equipment and food and climb with your bare hands. Throughout the way, he keeps nagging and pontificating while maintaining a double standard for himself.
Finally when you do reach the peak, he still keeps nagging and forcing you to give away other possessions and does not allow you to have the satisfaction of reaching that peak.
If you have not got my analogy so far, the climb is the independence struggle and the guide is MK Gandhi.
Great Dirt Digger, that was one of the best comment with great sense of humor on Gandhi. Kudos! I need to improve my sense of humor too for my posts seem to disturb people especially Hon. Dr. Sanjeev Sabhlok.
Rohit,
I think you need to offer some positive solutions to problems India is facing. All I get from your comments is complaints, complaints and complaints. I don’t learn anything new. You hijack the conversation onto a totally different plane. Please, propose something POSITIVE instead of derogatory remarks, it gets us nowhere. Also, you still haven’t explained your views on theory of evolution by natural selection.
Shantanu, did you steal the Diogenes story from Atanu’s blog. http://www.deeshaa.org/2009/09/18/learning-to-eat-gruel/ Never mind 🙂
Oops, I didn’t pay attention. Both of you quoted it from Shourie’s article. My bad.
Dear KK,
Here is first… Stand for Section 49 O, right to reject to send politicians of varying degree of evilness to hell.
Dear KK,
Sorry for some crypto message in my congratulatory message to Dirt Digger… I congratulate him, because he is able to point with fine sense of humor, that there is more to Bharat than MK Gandhi and one apply common sense and look for overall contribution of a person. I need to develop such unoffensive sense of humor. I am working on it KK and you will find my posts more thought provoking and filled with wit and humor, if you read them without prejudice.
@ DD –
Interesting analogy of Gandhi – I know you do not think highly of him – but, can you substantiate a couple of issues with your analogy –
1. How did Gandhi practice double standards? From everything that I have read about him and what he has himself written, he never asked anyone to do anything he had not done himself first. What am I missing?
2. Gandhi’s moral compass said that both means and ends were equally important – his view, written in many, many essays and letters, was that the most moral of ends could not be justified by immoral means. In this, you could say that he did differ from the morals practiced in the Kuru war. However that was *his* way – you can reject it if you want – like Bose and Singh and Azad and Rajguru did – and go your own way. But, I do not think you can be condescending to the man and his means, just because you do not agree with them or can not follow them – this man had the utter conviction of his beliefs, and he lived his life accordingly.
I am no follower of Gandhi in the manner in which he lived his life but I respect him immensely that he actually lived his beliefs. It is very easy to die for your beliefs (almost trivial, I would say, if you were a hot head) but to live your beliefs – that takes real strength of character.
Cheers
(PS: you should also watch this movie – Gandhi My Father – which explores what effect Gandhi’s beliefs had on his eldest son’s life and is based on letters written by the two and Ba – very critical, very powerful movie)
Patriot,
Please don’t point to movies which use selective use of facts to show their vision. It is a flawed argument.
“Non-cooperation with evil is a sacred dutyâ€- MKG.
This from a same person who fought the British empire for most of his life, but chose to support them during the wars for narrow political gains.
“And that it is important to save the (human) life and not to destroy it”. -MKG
Same person who would not actively request the British Govt. not to save Bhagat Singh. Selection of Nehru over the real elected leader of Congress Subhas Bose.
There are innumerable instances of inconsistencies between what he preached and practiced, examples of which you could find in many sources including this blog.
@rohit,
Thanks !
guess truth often needs to be put in a sweet pill for it to be swallowed.
@ DD –
Gandhi My Father does not praise Gandhi. Please watch the movie first, or better still read the book. You will probably get more ammo for your Gandhi denigration campaign.
“This from a same person who fought the British empire for most of his life, but chose to support them during the wars for narrow political gains.”
Have you read his thoughts on the two wars? And, why he chose to support the British in the first world war? And, why he was convinced to support them in the second?
“Same person who would not actively request the British Govt. not to save Bhagat Singh. Selection of Nehru over the real elected leader of Congress Subhas Bose.”
Bhagat Singh – issue of means vs the end? No one is a black and white philosopher, not even Gandhi.
Bose – yes, he behaved like a petty politician once he found that Bose would take Congress on a road that he did not approve of …. and how is this relevant to your comment about human life?
Cheers
@Patriot,
Speaking with evidence has more credibility than without; for all your speak there has been nothing more than generic speech befitting an Indian politician.
Another example on his double standards was his tacit silence to the genocide in Kerala during the Moplah riots (among other similar incidents) which Gandhi claimed was part of the Khilafat movement, an issue with little relevance to Indian political situation.
As far as Bose goes perhaps you should read Indian history about the INA and what happened and perhaps understand the loss of human life which couldv’e been avoided.
Again please read up and analyze real facts not books and movies by sympathizers.
@ DD –
Good job in attacking the person, rather than the argument.
I am happy to look up any links that you wish to point me to.
@ DD –
“As far as Bose goes perhaps you should read Indian history about the INA and what happened and perhaps understand the loss of human life which couldv’e been avoided.”
Also, did not understand this part, at all – are you saying that if Gandhi had not deposed Bose, he would then have not formed the INA, with its implied consequences for the Indian PoWs in Japanese custody?
Or are you saying that Gandhi did not stand up for the rights of the INA soldiers who were tried for mutiny?
Or are you saying that Bose would have led Congress and India down a violent armed revolution against the British during WWI (with consequences that we can only imagine at now) leading to India becoming free earlier, though under a fascist banner?
What exactly is it that you are saying?
@ DD –
Also, please explain what you mean by Genocide (much abused and over used term) in Kerala in the Moplah riots in 1921 –
By all accounts that I could find, the British put down the rebellion by Moplah muslims and “low caste” hindus, in which an estimated 3,000 people died. Locals estimated the deaths at 10,000. Hindu Nair Landlords sided with the British and helped in putting down the rebellion.
And, your point was?
Was the “Moplah Riots” a part of the Indian Independence Movement ? Let the reader judge from the facts —
1. The event was part of the the “Khilafat movement” or the “Khalifat movement” (take your pick, both terms seem to be in use), an attempt to bring on an Islamic Caliphate. It was not about Indian self-determination.
2. It was violent, and the arsonists later turned to attacking civilian Hindus. Martial Nairs retaliated when Police could not offer sufficient protection to life and property.
3. The major outbreak of clash was between Malabar Special Police and Moplahs after a wagonful of Moplah prisoners suffocated to death. The suffocation was gruesome, but the death of 3000 Moplahs could have been avoided if there was proper leadership.
And for further study and research re: Gandhi and his support for the Khalifat movement, here is a 1922 article from the well known “The Atlantic Monthly” — Mahatma Gandhi ((not that I am 100% in agreement with the article!)).
@ A –
Thanks for the link to the article in the Atlantic Monthly – very interesting read.
I was intrigued by the following bits:
“I had been drawn into controversy with him in the press,—or he with me,—and we had exchanged several open letters. The point at issue was the Khalifat question. If it was hard to believe that the Apostle of Peace was innocent of the incitement to carnage, the association of the Mahatma with the Khalifat party1 was still more difficult to explain away. The inveterate cleavage between the Mohammedans and Hindus has always been recognized barrier by Indian patriots as the main barrier to the attainment of swaraj.2 The politician who could unite these incompatible currents in a combined stream would have won half the battle of independence. Thus the Hindu-Moslem Entente, from the Indian point of view, is the most important political movement of the century. …………..
When, on November 24, 1919, the Hindu, Swami Shradhanand, ascended the pulpit of the Jama Masjid, at Delhi, and addressed the people, the precedent was described in the Mohammedan press in India as the most remarkable event in recent Islamic history. Then in December Gandhi was elected President of the Khalifat Conference at Delhi. It was about this time that the political catchword, ‘Allahu Akbar and Om (the mystic Hindu formula) are one name,’ began to be repeated everywhere, and the Mussulmans, to appease Hindu sentiment, forsook the slaying of kine”
Gandhi was clearly an astute politician … the question that should be asked here is …. were his *means* to forge hindu-muslim unity in India unethical or immoral? Is this behaviour of Gandhi really an indication of double-standards? If yes, how?
That is the question for people to answer who point to his involvement in the Khalifat movement with disdain or horror or shame.
***********************************************
@ A and DD – re: Moplah Riots
Your comments also led to dig some more into the whole Moplah Rebellion/Riots incidents and I now think that my original comments were wrong. It does seem like that both DD and you were right in saying that the riots harmed hindus and had a religious inspiration to it, rather than my original reading that economics was the key reason for the riots, and the Khilafat movement just a trigger. Seems like the latter was a Marxist interpretation of those events.
Here is a quotation I dug out from Anne Besant commenting contemporaneously on the riots:
“Annie Besant stated: “They Moplahs murdered and plundered abundantly, and killed or drove away all Hindus who would not apostatise. Somewhere about a lakh (100,000) of people were driven from their homes with nothing but their clothes they had on, stripped of everything…Malabar has taught us what Islamic rule still means, and we do not want to see another specimen of the Khilafat Raj in India.”[2]”
Source: Besant, Annie. The Future Of Indian Politics: A Contribution To The Understanding Of Present-Day Problems
And, here is a military account of the British Army’s actions against the rebels:
http://www.keepmilitarymuseum.org/malabar.php?&dx=1&ob=3
I think the mountain analogy is flawed.
There was never one idea of a single mountain (of independence). Gandhi always led campaigns for selective goals. First it was Rowlatt Act in 1919, then for Khilafat and Swaraj (not exactly independence) in 1920, the 11 points including repeal of salt tax in 1930 and finally Quit India in 1942. For every campaign, his approach was different, driven by the issue and circumstances.
Gandhi had his beliefs which you consider as throwing of all the equipment. Fair enough. But he said this was my way, follow it if you want to. Never forced anyone. If people didn’t go his way, he fasted and didn’t force others. His movements attracted the masses, but not the majority of the population. In fact, more Indians fought in the World Wars than any of the non-violent campaigns.
Another point to be remembered is that Gandhi never thought of the British govt as the single enemy throughout. He opposed them on issues which he thought were unjust and supported & cooperated with them on issues he thought were right. I think there is a lesson to be learnt from this in discussions here where often attacks are made on the person and not the argument/issue.
Well said Salil! MK Gandhi was only a man fighting for right of consumer of good governance for common man. Problems erupt because people portray him as a leader who gave us freedom and then go ahead to say that job of governance is to walk, fast & spin.
Based on what little I know, I would say that Gandhi was a great tactician. These bits of advice sound more like tactics than anything else but they are a gentleman’s set of tactics if I may say so.
Unfortunately India suffers even more short-sighted tacticians in power today, and those who do not subscribe to any gentleman’s credos. They have appropriated Gandhi’s image and continue to enslave India thrusting his icons at us as proof of their legitimacy.
In Singapore, a local official remarked looking at a curious and somewhat out-of-place Gandhi statue (yes, there is one in Singapore) that while the Indian kind of iconism and persona-oriented displays are a bit unusual in the local culture, much of what Gandhi said is probably relevant. I think this kind of “sympathetic resonance” that Gandhi induces is misleading. What it means is at best that, most people find something agreeable in Gandhi. Gandhi is so lovable. If that is so, I wonder what is Gandhi’s message ?
Then I came across an old article by Sauvik Chakraverti — Liberals must dump Gandhi (http://www.ccsindia.org/ccsindia/sc_bastiat3.htm) which is very short, but illuminating.
Chakraverti takes aim at the “self sufficient” model of Gandhi. I think that is the crux of the matter. If every village is self sufficient, none needs another, and there is no community beyond that of the village. I don’t think Gandhi saw the importance of trade.
Gandhi’s tactics are possibly still relevant, including the Satyagraha which is also often misused. Even the communists of India are so Gandhian at that. But I would say that his economic ideas are yet to be tested even in India.
I will have a look at Sauvik’s article…thanks..I agree that “…(Gandhi’s) ecoomic ideas are yet to be tested even in India“