Assignment on Indian Ethos and Business Ethics

Topic: Impact of Political Violence and Hartal on Indian Culture

Submitted By, Abraham Joseph Roll No: 02 MBA - FT

Introduction According to Sidney Verba Political culture is the subjective orientation to politics or the system of empirical beliefs expressive symbols, and values which define the situation in which political action takes place. The concept of political culture refers orientations -cognitive, affective and evaluative, towards, political objects and actions. Indian political culture bears the impact of the ideology of democratic socialism. Sometimes, the difference of ideological interpretations may lead to internal discontent and disaffection and eventually destroy rather than enhance the unity of the collectivity. The socio-economic factors always play a deterministic role in laying down the foundation of the political culture. A predominantly urban, industrialized society is a more complex society. Putting a premium on rapid communication, limits of poverty, employment, urbanization, literacy etc, play a leading role in shaping the political culture of the society. A predominantly urban, industrialized society is a more complex society, putting a premium on rapid communication. There is a proverb in French which says: "La raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure." (The reason of the strong is always true); this is usually translated in English as 'might is right'. If one looks at the history of the past 2000 years, it is an unfortunate fact that might has ruled the world. Ahimsa and Indian Culture The concept of ahimsa or non-violence ("or abstention from the use of physical force to achieve goals") has ancient roots in India. The Buddha was one of its first proponents. Politically the problem is simple: it was vividly expressed by the Thirteenth Dalai Lama (predecessor of the current Dalai Lama) at the beginning of the 20th century. Chased by Chinese invading troops, he decided to flee Tibet and take refuge in India. Before his arrival, he cabled the British Trade Agent posted in Gyantse, the last large Tibetan town before the Indian border. He sought British protection because: "Large insects are eating and secretly injuring small insects." History has a tendency to repeat itself: 'large insects' seem to always devour 'smaller ones'. Many years later, the same Dalai Lama wrote in his Testament: "As a result of our past meritorious karma and the numerous prayers and services that were conducted in Tibet,

internal strife took place in China. It was no problem, therefore, to completely drive out the Chinese force from Tibet." This remark introduces an interesting new dimension; it is possible for 'small insects' to fight 'bigger' ones, by means other than pure physical force. Prayers and spiritual practices can also bring success and undoubtedly more permanent results. Since fleeing into exile in 1959, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama has tried to 'liberate' his country and his people in a truer way. He is today recognised the world over as the greatest proponent and practitioner of non-violence. Example of Ashoka Ahimsa can be seen as a moral principle, as well as a practical tool to defeat or convert an enemy. The first world leader who put this principle into practice in the political and administrative field was probably Emperor Ashoka in the 3rd century BC. Three centuries after the Buddha was transfigured by the discovery that there was a way out of human suffering, the Mauryan emperor had a powerful experience on the battlefield of Kalinga. He had just won the war and instead of rejoicing, he unexpectedly faced a searing question what is the meaning of conquest, victory and annexation when I see misery and suffering everywhere around me? He pondered: "For the sake of my pride, not only have thousands lost their life, but many more have been taken prisoner and deported. They are now separated from their dear ones and they suffer." Broken and alone, Ashoka took a decision: one conquest alone is worthy of a great king, the conquest of oneself. The spread of the Dharma became his mission. To quote from one of his Rock Edicts: "After the Kalingas had been conquered, Beloved-of-the-Gods (Ashoka) came to feel a strong inclination towards the Dharma (He) feels deep remorse for having conquered the Kalingas. "Indeed, (he) is deeply pained by the killing and deportation that take place when an unconquered country is conquered Even those who are not affected (by death) suffer when they see friends, acquaintances, companions and relatives affected This pains Beloved-of-theGods." For the first time, the great emperor accepted the Dharma as his own sovereign. After his spontaneous conversion, the king spent the rest of his life putting into practice his new belief.

The idea was not new to Ancient India; Sri Aurobindo has thus described it in the Foundations of Indian Culture: "A greater sovereign than the king was the Dharma, the religious, ethical, social, political, juridic and customary law organically governing the life of the people. This impersonal authority was considered sacred and eternal in its spirit and the totality of its body, always characteristically the same, the changes organically and spontaneously brought about in its actual form by the evolution of the society being constantly incorporated in it, regional, family and other customers forming a sort of attendant and subordinate body capable of change only from within, and with the Dharma no secular authority had any right of autocratic interference." This 'organic law' was based on the respect of all members of the society, rich or poor, high or low, small or big. The immediate consequence was there was no question of killing or subjugating people: they should be their own masters; they should just be encouraged to practice the Dharma. Ashoka was the first ruler to introduce this concept on the scale of an empire. As Sri Aurobindoexplains, the "subjection of the sovereign power to the Dharma was not an ideal theory inoperative in practice", but for the first time it was a living reality at the scale of the greatest empire. The Edicts of Ashoka deal not only with the importance of good and fair governance, but also with the deeper meaning of non-violence - taking life from any living being has a karmic effect which generally goes against the noble objective of bringing happiness to all. Probably the time had not come for this experience to continue on such a vast scale and the Mauryan Empire collapsed 70 years after the death of Ashoka. Perhaps a critical mass of human beings first needs to be converted (or at least convinced) for the experiment to succeed. This nevertheless remains as an attempt and an example. Two aspects are crucial for a larger success: one is what Sri Aurobindo termed "changes organically and spontaneously brought about", and the second is a critical mass of beings accepting a higher truth. If one looks at contemporary examples, particularly the spread of the dreaded disease called 'terrorism', it is mainly due to a refusal of certain cultures (or sometimes States) to evolve and adapt to the present days. Another cause of violence is when a religionist (or a State) refuses to tolerate the existence of other laws or ideologies or he believes his own to be superior to others. If laws,

beliefs and religions were able to evolve and adapt to the shrinking planet and admit that we are one human family, we would certainly witness fewer cases of violence. Gandhian Non-Violence Non-violence as a principle (or a tool) that can change the face of a political conflict resurfaced during India's independence struggle. Mahatma Gandhi's practice of ahimsa is too well known to be detailed here. However, some interesting questions should be raised: does nonviolence work in all circumstances? What are the limitations of non-violence as a tool to win a just cause? Let us take some historical cases. Shortly after Independence, the Indian Army Chief of Staff had drafted a first paper on threats to India's security. The paper contained recommendations for dealing with the newly independent nation's security and defense policy. When General Sir Robert Lokhart took this paper to Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first Prime Minister told him: "Rubbish. Total rubbish. We don't need a defense plan. Our policy is non-violence. We foresee no military threats. Scrap the army. The police are good enough to meet our security needs." The new Indian government which had championed the principle of non-violence against the British was keen to show to the world that conflicts could be solved without recourse to force. But Mahatma Gandhi, the apostle of non-violence, was in many ways more realistic than his disciple. He was not against sending Indian troops to defend Kashmir from Pakistani invaders in September 1947. He said that, "War was not a joke, that way lay destruction but I could never advise anyone to put up with injustice." The words of Mahatma Gandhi raise the important issue of self-defense. It is generally admitted that self-defense with the proper motivation is an acceptable means to protect one's life or territory against belligerent 'big insects'. Another aspect of ahimsa should not be brushed aside: when non-violence becomes synonymous with appeasement, the aggressor may take advantage of the person/nation professing ahimsa to increase his violent aggression.

There is a famous story in a Buddhist sutra: Once, the future Buddha was traveling along a river with 500 companions. They reached a gorge where a gang of 500 bandits was waiting to waylay them. As he happened to be an acquaintance of the bodhisattva, one of the robbers was sent couting. When he met the bodhisattva, the robber informed him of the projected attack. The bodhisattva thought, "If I warn my companions of the danger of the bandits, they will certainly kill this informer and all of them will attract serious karmic retributions upon themselves; but if I don't say anything, the 500 bandits will massacre the caravan and they will accumulate very bad karma also." He decided to kill the bandit before him, bear the karmic retributions himself, and save both his companions and the bandits from bad karmic consequences. This story shows that it is always important to keep a sense of proportion before deciding upon any particular path and study carefully all future consequences of one's actions, keeping in mind that non-violence is the highest possible course. The changing face of Indian Politics "The service of India means the service of the millions who suffer. It means the ending of poverty and ignorance and disease and inequality of opportunity. The ambition of the greatest man of our generation has been to wipe out every tear from every eye. This may be beyond us but as long as there are tears and suffering, so long our work will not be over. from Jawaharlal Nehru's address to the Constituent Assembly, August 14/15, 1947 In the couple of decades after Nehru made his famous 'tryst with destiny' speech and the makers of our constitution took the pledge dedicating themselves to the service of India and her people, there was a marked change in the quality of life that the people led. The improvements were not merely in the realm of economic indicators but also in the political sense. The welfare state seemed to work. Better levels of nutrition and healthcare did lead to a fall in the mortality rates and this was among the reasons behind the increase in the population over the years. Those were times when the men who presided over the political establishment inspired those in the bureaucracy into building a democratic edifice. The legacy of the freedom struggle inspired the nation building process then. Things began to go wrong, within the political establishment, in the 60s. Participation in political activity turned into a means to living for the lowly worker and to riches in case of the

leaders. The money meant for poverty alleviation and other such schemes were siphoned out. The welfare state model was distorted. But then, the 60s were also a period when there were instances of mobilisation against this distortion. And thus it was ensured that the system kept working. The fragmentation in the political realm and the emergence of the regional political formations also witnessed a widening of the scope of the welfare model. The extent of income poverty levels was sought to be brought down by way of increase in food subsidies. This helped in achieving a substantive reduction in poverty levels. There were also instances of the judiciary turning pro-active to expand the welfare state agenda. These went on until the 80s. The couple of decades since then, however, are marked by a pronounced retreat of the welfare state. And this has made individual efforts and initiatives most necessary for the ordinary people. For, the political establishment has turned insensitive to the task of making the welfare state work. As a result the civil administration too is no longer concerned with ensuring that ideas that worked in the past are made to work even now. This makes the individual initiatives remain what they are. Even where they work wonders, we find many instances where such proactive members of the bureaucracy are hounded out for having done what they did! Even such schemes as the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) or such radical legislations as the Right to Information Act (RTI) are sought to be frustrated by sections that had defeated similar attempts in the past. The NREGS has certainly helped save the rural poor from forced migration to the towns and far away cities in search of livelihood. But then, the absence of a concerted campaign to unravel the nexus between the small time politician and the works contractors in our villages, the scheme is turning the same way as such of the older schemes as the food for work. The trouble is that any such campaign will necessarily have to involve the organisation of the political parties. The RTI too is in the same boat. A bureaucracy that refuses to part with information to the citizens is condoned by the political establishment. And even the higher judiciary is willing to play ball with such tendencies. The apex court, as of today, is a litigant before itself seeking exemption from the ambit of the RTI a rule. And so is the bureaucracy. The political class that brought about the RTI in 2005 (which is indeed a radical version of the Act of a similar nature

that existed between 2002 and 2005) is now unwilling to push the idea to its conclusion and showing signs of caving in to the pressure from the bureaucracy and the judiciary. If one is to believe what was heard last in this regard - that Sonia Gandhi has shot down all proposals to chip the RTI's scope - it is good news. The good news, however, is only in small measure. For the NREGS and the RTI do not belong to the same league as the various other schemes that have worked where we have had dedicated men or women at the helm. These are, instead, meant to infuse the rights perspective in the domain of governance. The NREGS, for instance, contains a clause to penalise the official including the District Collector in the event he fails to create jobs on demand. It is hard to find even a single instance where this has happened since the scheme came into place. It cannot be taken as the officials have not been at default. The fact is that the rights perspective is yet to sink in. And this is a task before the civil society while the civil administration will have to wake up to the need to protect the whistle blower. We have seen some of them being killed with impunity. The contractor-politician-criminal nexus has ensured that poverty, bad roads and dilapidated primary health centres survive even the best of schemes to set things right by way of bumping off the whistle blower.

Violence and politics in India Recently, the Kerala chapter of the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) said a single day's shutdown costs the state a staggering 7 billion (or 700 crore) rupees. Politics has come to acquire a bad odour and generally implies unfair, underhand dealings, exploitation of the poor and the ignorant, though it need not necessarily be so. Since it generally involves the attainment of certain objectives, such as the seizure of power by all available methods, violence often becomes a part of it. Of course, violence need not be a vital or essential part of politics even in the most ill-governed country, but there is no doubt that unscrupulous politicians seldom hesitate to resort to violent methods to achieve their aims. Whenever the practitioners on the art of politics find that normal and socially acceptable methods and practices have not brought them the desired achievements, they stoop to unethical methods, including incitement of sensitive people to violence.

It is tragic reflection on civilization that with the much-publicized progress in various spheres of human activity the resort to violence has also increased. In fact, one of the dominating factors in the postwar years is the growth of the spirit of violence. Even in India, where the apostle of peace and non-violence, Mahatma Gandhi, preached that violence is both degrading and derogatory to human beings, the menace has been increasing. Proof of this dismal phenomenon is found in the sharp increase in violent crimes in the country, including murders, stabbings and other manifestations of cruelty. The concept of "might is right" is being practiced with a callousness. That is highly disgraceful and a sorry reflection on civilization. It is poor consolation that violence has been on the increase not only in India but also all the world over, even in the most civilized countries, such as the U.S. A. and Britain. Naked, unabashed violence has even been glorified in certain continents; the number and intensity of armed clashes between various classes of people is yet another proof; and so is the increasing number of communal riots, many of which have their roots in politics. In fact, there would be no communal disturbances in the country if the spirit of non-violence were universally accepted as a guiding factor of human life. It is indeed a sorry reflection on the state of our civilization that more politics has come to imply more violence; what is worse, violence begets violence. When one party adopts violent means to achieve its objectives, the other follows suit in the firm, though unwarranted, belief that the only answer to violence is greater violence, not peaceful overtures or nonviolent satyagraha which Mahatma so earnestly advocated. Yet another tragedy of modern civilization is that politicians refute by their actions the sound principle that a State based on force and violence is built on foundations of sand. There can be no social, economic or political stability where the entire polity is based on force and violence, not on the people freely expressed and frequently affirmed (through periodic elections) support and consent. Ousters of one group by another are sometimes accompanied by force and violence, together with reprisals in various forms. Violence in politics also takes the form of coercion, which is

another form of compulsion, and compulsion involves or implies the use of force or threat of force. It is not surprising in such circumstances that politics of peace is becoming uncommon, and politics of war is replacing it gradually but surely. Some of those who are very much in politics, and seldom hesitate to adopt violence as a means to an end, quote Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru. Even though moral force is more effective at times, the Mahatma conceded that in certain circumstances, the refusal to fight violence adequately might smack of cowardice. Why does India maintain a large police force and ever-expanding military forces? The State has to use force to quell riots of various types and has to be in a constant state of preparedness to meet aggression by hostile countries. Violence then becomes inescapable. Ironically, both peace and politics have become difficult to ensure without adequate preparations for fighting violence. This genuine peace in politics has become uncommon and the spirit of violence is abroadlike an infection that has seeped into all areas of human activity. Reference 1) Times of India 2) Population, Resources and Political Violence: A Sub-National Study of India 1956-2002 by Henrik Urdal 3) http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/