Gandhi lives on

The idea of putting Gandhi on the Budget cover page by Kerala Government may have many connotations, but one thing can certainly be said. More than seven decades after his death, Gandhi refuses to die. Some may find fault with Gandhi’s ways, some may make uncharitable remarks against him and some may move the Supreme Court to direct the government to confer Bharat Ratna on Gandhi. Either way, Gandhi lives on. Evaluating Gandhi is a tall order. It is better to try and understand him. The beauty of Gandhi’s personality is that even his sworn detractors realise that you cannot negate Gandhi. As a course instructor teaching Business Ethics to management students for over two decades, I have found Gandhi fitting in the curriculum even without a mention of the name. The same is true for the Ethics course for the Indian Administrative Services. There cannot be a course on Ethics without Gandhi. There was a time when Gandhian thought was a part of the curriculum for the civil services. Even if it is not so today, Gandhi’s ideas remain the essence of the course. The things Gandhi stood for are difficult to capture in a piece or even a volume and naturally people find it difficult to understand him. The Ahimsa centre at California State Polytechnic University in Pomona, US has been actively pursuing Gandhian ideals ever since it was established in 2004. It is rather strange that Gandhi is less researched in his own country. One opinion that is often expressed to describe Gandhi’s views are that they are too idealistic to be practiced. Nothing can be further from truth. Gandhi was a practical idealist. Those trying to dismiss him as impractical are simply trying to negate the truth. Even if Gandhi’s ideas were too ideal, the point is that there is little sense in setting a wrong benchmark in the name of practicality. Lest we forget, at the turn of the millennium two decades ago editors of several globally reputed periodicals asked historians to rank the greatest leader of the twentieth century. Gandhi’s name figured at the top. In Gandhi they found the right leadership qualities. Isn’t it fallacious that you know what is right and advocate what is wrong? The debate on Gandhi often veers around wrong points. Gandhi was a votary of values based leadership, and a practitioner, too. Practicality and morality can harmoniously go together. Machiavellianism and Gandhism are two different approaches and both are possible. Only one has to believe. Realism may not necessarily be non-idealism. Gandhi epitomised the most desirable managerial quality that is widely talked about these days in management jargon as ethical leadership. It is not about idealism versus realism but idealism as realism and it can provide answer to most of the problems the world faces today. The problems of the world in the present times are problems of faulty leadership styles than anything else. Ego driven rather than ethics driven. Gandhi accomplished what he could by sheer dint of his moral courage. That is what we need today. Gandhi is recognised as a global icon and will remain so whether people like it or not.

The apocalypse: It is coming…

First the assertion — the climate change is not coming; it is already there. Greta Thunberg may then be rather a belated warning symbol. The time for activism is over. It is now time to act. We had enough of activism ever since the world leaders gathered at Stockholm in 1972. We have been talking, discussing, blaming but not acting. Every party is responsible, yet no one is owning. And the time is ticking. To quote the Halifax Declaration, supposed to be a mile post on the issue of climate change: “Human demands upon the planet are now of a volume and kind that, unless changed substantially, threaten the future wellbeing of all living species”. Universities must be significant actors if those demands are now to be shaped into the sustainable and equitable forms necessary for a wholesome future environment. This was December 1991 at the Conference on university action for Sustainable Development, Halifax, Nova Scotia, where Vice Chancellors and President from 33 universities in 10 countries and representatives from business, banking, government and non-government organisations were present. Little has been achieved except that some courses on Environment Science and a big number of seminars have been floated. The Halifax meeting was to add voice to many other worldwide which are greatly concerned about the rampant and growing degradation of the earth’s environment, the persuasive influence of poverty on the process and the unsustainable environmental practices which are now widespread. In 2005, at the G8 climate change round table in the World Economic Forum in Davos, the following were reiterated: “Our earth is heating up due to human over consumption”, the developed world is responsible for all this and the developing world must take note of all this. But it seems things are still quite the same, only the activists seem to change. If it was Dr Tony Grayling then, it is Greta Thunberg now in this year’s Davos. We need action not activists. And action on the part of the entire humanity. There is need to go beyond and change attitude and behaviour of every human being. This year the 50th Annual meeting of the World Economic Forum was held in Davos again with a very noble theme — stakeholders for a cohesive and sustainable world. But neither the cohesiveness nor the sustainability were anywhere in sight. This is the problem. Bland sloganeering and popular catch phrases are the highlights while there is no light at the end of the tunnel. We need to take the matter to the grass roots. What was mentioned in the Halifax Declaration still holds good. It is the persuasive influence of the poverty that must be talked first. The answer may be found in the “time to care” report of Oxfam which suggests that the richest 2,153 people control more money than the poorest 4.6 billion combined, that is around 60 percent of the humanity. Single use plastics are just part of the whole story. The two words that sum up the whole issue are faulty consumption. The world still has enough for humanity’s needs. It is the greed that is endangering the world. And the point to ponder is who lives if the world dies.