 University of South Shrinapurva, respected Dr. Oruji Choudhury, my colleagues from the University, colleagues from other colleges of Dwokati and student friends. Today I consider it a very sacred occasion, sacred because of three reasons. Firstly, because I am standing here to deliver a lecture at the prestigious Krishna Kanta Phadikoi University, named after the illustrious son of Assam. It is a, as you all know, a very upcoming university and I can see the progress. I am very happy to see the progress of this university. I am standing here to deliver a lecture at this place. Secondly, this university is celebrating the World Philosophy Day. The World Philosophy Day is actually on 19th of, also 19th of November, which is supposed to be the birthday of Socrates. But due to some technical reasons it is celebrated today. It is a very auspicious occasion. And thirdly, because the lecture is on the relevance of Gandhian philosophy, the father of the nation, and who is the most prominent personality of India. Mahatma Gandhi, so famous, not only in India but abroad, throughout the globe. He was not a very intelligent person. He himself said that he was not a very brilliant, he didn't have a brilliant academic career. Neither he was physically very strong. Neither he was a great professional person. Neither he was a very handsome person. But he was the most charismatic person of the world. A person clad in a dhoti up to his knees. The question is, what makes this person such a fray-looking person so very great? And indeed, there are answers to this question. It is known that Mahatma Gandhi was chiefly known in our country and abroad as a person who is responsible for bringing about the independence of India, freeing India from the yoke of the British. But that is not the only contribution of Mahatma Gandhi. His contribution, I feel, is particularly for his character. The ideas, the thoughts that he gave to the nation as a whole, to the people of the nation. We must know the fact that though Gandhi is often described as a politician, it is not the politics that made him great, but it is the spiritual outlook behind all the activities of Mahatma Gandhi, be it in the political field, be it in the economic field, be it in the social field, and so am I and so forth. I will take the relevance one by one. First I will deal with the spiritual aspect of Mahatma Gandhi. Mahatma Gandhi's faith in God is well known. To quote Gandhi, I will be quoting Gandhi now and then. You may pluck up my eyes, but that will not kill me. You may chop off my nose, that will not kill me either. You may cut off my hands and arms, but I will still continue to live. But blast off my belief in God and I am dead. So it is this belief in God, the belief in the spiritual outlook, that has given the strength to all the activities of Mahatma Gandhi. It is the spiritual outlook which is always at the background. His ideas of Swadeshi, his ideas of Brahmacharya, his ideas of Ahinsa, his ideas of Swaraj, all are from the background of the Hindu religion. But he himself claims that it is not only the Hindu religion that has influenced him, the religions of Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Jainism, were all at the background of his ideas. Gandhi said, I have nothing new to give to the world. What I say is as old as the hills. The politics, well, I say uniqueness of Gandhi. If all that Gandhi said is found in the Vedas and the Upanishads and the Bhagavan Gita, where lies the uniqueness? Where lies the readiness? Gandhi himself gave answer to this question, that the only thing that I did was to apply these universal principles to the day-to-day activity of the people. So Gandhi was the most practical philosopher, I should say. He was the philosopher. Yes, he did not give us anything new. We find them in our scriptures. We find them in the Bhagavan Gita. We find them in the Upanishads, in the Vedas, in the Quran, in the New Testament, and so on and so forth. But he was the first person, maybe there were other person, but never did a person strongly enforce or strongly apply these spiritual principles to the life of a day-to-day man. It is not only the individual man that has been influenced by the spiritual outlook. It is the countrymen, the people as a whole, because Gandhi believes that the Swaraj of the individual is the Swaraj of the people, is the Swaraj of the sum total of all the individuals. Because it is the, basically it is the grassroots, the individual, which is important. If one individual changes, the world can be changed. Because he can influence his neighbor. He can influence his students, if he is a teacher. Parents can influence their children, and so on and so forth. So the grassroots, the individual, is very, very important according to Gandhi. Gandhi did not try to find religion in some, in some solitary place. He said, in search of God, I did not go to the Himalayan cave or to the forest. Because Gandhi believed that God can be found amidst humanity. That is why he found the cause of the poor people, the Kibharayan as he called it. His Dharma is known as Mano Dharma, because religion lies amidst the people. If we serve the people, we serve God. So that aspect of Gandhi is very, very important to make religion practical, to carry religion to the people at large. And in all his activities, two important spiritual principles of Gandhi were very, very important, truth and nonviolence, as we all know, Satya and Anishina. Taking the case of truth, Gandhi denoted the sentence, the sense of God. He said that God is truth. Now this important sentence, God is truth, has a far greater significance than is ordinarily thought to be. Because when he said that God is truth, truth is something which is applicable to everybody. There may be nonbelievers in God, but there cannot be any nonbelievers in truth. Truth is universal in character. Truth is universal. And even the atheist who does not believe in God believes in truth. So he gave a secular outlook to this concept of God. It is not the God of Hinduism which he prizes. It is not the God of Islam or any particular religion that he prizes, but it is the universal truth to which every religion leads. And when he says God is truth, he gives a secular outlook to the whole concept. Coming to nonviolence, Gandhi converted this nonviolence as a special meaning for Gandhi. It does not mean that nonviolence means only doing non-arm or non-injury to any living being. That is the ordinary sense in which we use the word nonviolence. But according to nonviolence, it has a far broader meaning. Nonviolence is nonviolence in thought, nonviolence in word, nonviolence in deed. So the word nonviolence has a far greater significance. And this nonviolence and truth are the foundation of Gandhi's great building on which Gandhi has built on these two great foundations, truth and nonviolence. Now this nonviolence also has certain exceptions, no doubt. Now the question is, the most common question is, as Professor Sheena Garwa has already pointed out, how far is this nonviolence applied today? Is it relevant today? Now Gandhi also has certain answers to that problem. He has certain answers, how far is the concept of nonviolence relevant? Because physical life that we are living today, that we are alive today, also involves certain violence. We are thriving on non-mediterranean food, which means that we are indulging in some form of violence. We take meat, we take fish, we take certain things. And for our own benefit, we have to kill lives. We kill mosquitoes, we kill ants. So we have to kill germs. So our very existence entails some amount of violence. And Gandhi too admits that. And Gandhi too says that the law of nonviolence, which is a great law, has certain, definitely has certain exceptions. For example, the lady, the lady who was gang-raped. Gandhi said in such cases, long back years back Gandhi said that every woman who is assaulted has the right to defend her honour, even by applying violence. She has to save her dignity at any cost, even if it means by killing the person who is trying to rape her. For example, an animal which is living in pain, which is living and suffering from a disease which is incurable. We have every right to end the life of that particular animal. So Gandhi gives certain exceptions where non-violence as an ideal can be violated. Can be violated. And there was a comparison between non-violence and cowardice. Gandhi said, if you ask me which alternative to accept when there is a conflict between non-violence and cowardice, Gandhi said, I would definitely prescribe violence than prescribing cowardice. In other words, cowardice is even worse than violence. Gandhi mentioned does not mean physical injury. If I hate somebody, greed, lust, hatred towards anybody, if I have filth in my mind and I am physically non-violent, it does not mean anything. My non-violence must find expression in love, in positive love. So love towards everybody, not only towards human beings, not only towards my neighbours, love to even the meanest of creation, the animal kingdom, Gandhi fought for clout against the slaughter of cows. But it is not only the cow slaughter that he prohibited. It is in a broad sense the prohibition of the slaughter of animals, doing violence to animals. So it is positive love towards every creature on earth. And this concept of non-violence, Gandhi said, is based on the essential Advaita principle that is aham brahmashmi. That is, I am the Brahman. The whole creation is one because it is the creation of Brahman. Brahman sattva jagat mitya jiva brahmayi brahmabhara. So everything is identical, that is the unity. And this principle is the background of Gandhi's philosophy of truth and non-violence. But coming to the political field, let us come to the political field. Gandhi gave us the important concepts of Swaraj, Sadeshi, and so on and so forth. Now, one important fact must be noted here regarding politics. People generally believe that politics is a dirty affair, and therefore it is to be avoided. Gandhi said that politics is as sacred as any other aspect of human life. In a famous book, Mahatma Gandhi, 100 Years, the famous writer, Tewin B, has given us an expression, he has written in that book, Mahatma Gandhi, 100 Years. He compares Gandhi to Buddha, Ashoka, Muhammad, Jesus, and so on and so forth. And at last comments that Gandhi excels all of them. Ashoka, Buddha, they were born beings. Buddha ran out of politics. He just ran away of politics. Ashoka did become a king. But after the famous Kalinda battle, he gave up warfare. He was seen only in name, but he was more interested in the Buddhist principles and the philosophical or spiritual principles. Jesus and Muhammad, they were, they indulged in politics due to the need of the time. During Muhammad's time we know how it compelled Muhammad to take some part in the political affairs of the country due to political unrest. But Mahatma Gandhi himself became too part in active politics. This was because Mahatma Gandhi purified politics. There was a political mud as we find today. Political mud, political impurities, even in those days it was there. Though it is more today, the political corruptions and other things, though it is more today, it was prevalent even in older times. The story of Mahabharata, we see that dishonesty, deceitfulness were so much present, were so much prevalent even in that age. But Mahatma Gandhi died his best to purify politics. He waded through the political mud and purified them himself. He stayed away from the political sluggishness, from the political mud, from the political impurities and showed to the world, presented to the world that politics can be sacred as any other aspect of human life. Gandhi gave us the concept of a stateless society. A society without a state, but this I should say was merely an ideal. How far it is relevant today, it is a question. No doubt there cannot be people without a state. But Gandhi himself said that it is only an ideal. It is only an ideal because people should be there, try to govern themselves. And you believe in the principle that that government is the best which governs the least. Because political interference, too much of political interference saps the freedom and the creativity of the people. If you have the fear that somebody will interfere with your freedom, somebody will interfere with your acts and what you do and what you do not do, then like Communism, the creativity will be lost. He has strongly had that feeling. And therefore ample freedoms should be given to the people so that each person can rule himself. Suraj, what is the meaning of Suraj? Suraj essentially is a word which was not coined by Mahatma Gandhi. It was a word found in the Territory of Kanisha. In the Territory of Kanisha we find a beautiful sloka which says, Pranara mana anandam shanti samvindham Swarajya. So what is Swaraj? Swaraj is a state, a condition of mind actually where there is peace, complete bliss and happiness. Pranara mana anandam, that which gives ananda to your mind. Shanti, peace, samrithi, samritham, Swarajya, that is Swaraj. So Swaraj is actually the rule of the self. Gandhi believed that if I am ruled by my own self, self means not simply my body, my individual self, but the spirit within me, which is so pure, which is so simple. If I am ruled by that self, it is used in the spiritual sense, in the philosophical sense, not in the ordinary sense. If I am ruled by myself, then I will rule myself in such a manner that I do not need any external interference. So that government is the best which governs the least. Yes, government is necessary, a state is necessary because without a minimum interference of the state, mind will become right, we will go back to the ancient state of a lawless society, a society without law. So certain ideals, it is a kind of utopia, it is a kind of ideal. Ideal may not be always actualized, but definitely it points out to a condition which should be our aim, which we should strive for. Gandhi's idea of Swadeshi, Swadeshi is something that we should keep our wants limited to a particular place. And Gandhi spoke of the principle of minimization of human wants. Again here he was influenced by the Isha Upanishad, Isha Vaishya Midam Salma, Yatkin Chha Jagatyaam Jagat, Tena Taktena Bunjita, Mahagrita Kassa Siddhanam. He said that we must first renounce, you have the right to enjoy, but enjoy only by renouncing, by your sacrifice, which is not seen in today's world. Today the ideal is only to earn and earn and earn, earn for whom? For myself. Do I care for others? Not at all. This is the scenario of today's economic life, today's political. I am earning for myself without being concerned about my neighbor, for anybody. My only ideal is, my only worry is to amass the huge amount of wealth for myself, which was against Gandhi's idea, which was against the idea taught by our sages and steers long back from the ancient times. So that very ideal of the Isha Upanishad, that you must first sacrifice, you must first renounce in order to enjoy. The basic minimum economic comfort is a must. I have to eat and live. I have to eat, drink and live. I have to clothe myself. I need a decent house to live in. These essential things are necessary. I need proper education. I need proper medical facilities, no doubt. As Swami Vivekananda said, you cannot teach philosophy and metaphysics to a hungry man. But the only thing that a hungry man needs is invigorating food. Yes, the minimum economic necessity must be fulfilled. But beyond that amassing the huge amount of wealth is a crime. Crime not only to myself but crime against the society. So Gandhi gave us the wonderful concept of trust-ship. Trust-ship is a method invented by Gandhi, discovered by Gandhi. And what is the other? I should keep for myself only as much as I need. And the rest of the property should be used for the welfare of the society. Does it happen? It is a very, very relevant thing for today's India. India which is described as a socialistic pattern of society is not at all socialistic. Is this neither socialistic nor democratic in the true sense of the term? Though India has been described as socialistic democracy. It is neither democracy nor capitalism. Because everybody is running after wealth, abundance of wealth. So this is the greatest crime of which we should try to get rid of. And trust-ship is the beautiful principle which if it could be practiced could have solved many of the problems of today's India. But the most often quoted question or given question against trust-ship is that is how far is the concept of trust-ship relevant in today's India? Because this method of trust-ship must also be implemented according to Gandhi by means of nonviolence. We cannot coerce a force of person to give up his wealth. I cannot use violence to compel a person to give up his excess wealth and then also I have to apply the method of nonviolence. If I apply the method of nonviolence, then when a person give up his wealth then the honesty of the trust-ship must be assumed. I have to assume that a particular person is honest and he will declare that he has so much of wealth, he has kept for himself this much of wealth and he has given that excess wealth for the measure of the society. Are the people that honest? We have to assume it. This is a question, a thoughtful question that I pose to this house. Coming to the other aspects of Gandhi's economy, he gave us his theory of production, he gave us his theory of consumption, he gave us his theory of distribution. Production according to Gandhi should be production by the masses, by the masses and he was against, as we all know, against large-scale industrialization. He was always for the, for the betterment of the society, he wanted to set up fortage and small-scale industries. He encouraged it. Because he pointed out many reasons why he was in the famous book in Suraj, Gandhi gave us many of the reasons why he opted for small-scale industries rather than large-scale industries. Because large-scale industries lead to many problems, problems of overcrowding, problems of exploitation, problems of pollution, atmospheric pollution, problems of exploitation of one class, the labourer class, by the capitalist class and so on and so forth. So these are some of the problems of large-scale industrialization and Gandhi did not want to encourage large-scale industrialization. But there also he gave us certain exceptions because it is obvious that certain things cannot be produced locally or by means of small, cottage and small-scale industries. For example, certain medicines, certain drugs that are used for the saving of human life. It must be imported from other countries. Electricity, shipbuilding, etc. The examples he had given in those times, nowadays there are so many items that we need and we cannot do without it. So I think this part of Gandhi is a bit irrelevant in today's society because in the present age of globalization, we cannot always implement the concept of solidarity and excessive influence, excessive importance to cottage and small-scale industries only ignoring the large-scale industries. So I think this part needs some amount of revision of Gandhi's ideas. I have to point out certain revisions that are essential also. I cannot say Mahatma Gandhi is 100% relevant in modern India or in today's times. So that part I feel that emphasis on industrialization, that's too much emphasis on industrialization, leads to certain problems even in present times because it leads to the problem of unemployment. The work that is done by a machine replaces the work done by 100 people. So the work done by machines is needed because it is more faster, time-saving and it saves a lot of money also. But it leads to the problem of unemployment and in dealing with the solution in trying to solve the problem of unemployment, the emphasis on cottage and small-scale industries has to be divided. That part is important because now we have come to a position or a condition in India where so many youths are unemployed and the government we know is going back to the Gandhian policy of helping the modern youth to set up certain small-scale industries be farming, cultivating a small plot of land, growing vegetables and fruits within their limits and weaving cloth in their own house and so on and so forth. So many such avenues are pointed out by the present government by giving loan and other facilities. But it has to go further in order to solve the problem of unemployment. Then regarding the concept of distribution, Gandhi pointed out that the maximum of equal distribution that is, it preached the concept of economic wealth. Everybody should get equal amount of wages, equal amount of things. Gandhi prescribed that whether it is a farmer or a doctor or an engineer or a barber or a cultivator, he should get equal wages as far as practicable. But this getting of equal wages, how far is it practicable in today's society? Is it practicable? With the getting of equal wages, a teacher, a doctor, an engineer, a scavenger, a daily laborer, can they all get equal wages? In this concept of equality, Gandhi said that we have to take into consideration the need of the people. How much do I need? A bachelor definitely needs much less than a person having 10 members in his family. Because he gave an example in this aspect, he said, an elephant needs a thousand times more food than an ant. The amount an ant consumes and an amount the elephant consumes cannot be made equal. Similarly, a person having 10 members in the family cannot be given equal wages as a person having 2 members in the family. Moreover, there are other considerations that one should take note of, whether he has small children, whether he has elderly parents. Because elderly parents need more care, they need medicine, they need medical facilities. And younger children, small children need education and other things. So it differs how much he or Gandhi himself pointed out that these considerations must be taken into account. But as far as practicable, I am quoting Gandhi, as far as practicable, we should try and should be a maximum to give equal wages to all. Now here also I pose a question. Let the audience, let everybody think, is it possible to give equal wages as far as practicable? Now regarding consumption again, we come back to the concept of minimization of human wants that we should keep our wants limited as far as practicable. Now there have been so many other concepts of Gandhi in the economic field, which needs to be re-evaluated. We have to see whether they are applicable in today's society or not. In the social aspect, Gandhi was against the prevalent custom of untouchability. Gandhi gave so much importance on untouchability that he even forced his wife to clean the toilet of an untouchable for establishing equal rights of all the people in the society. And he was the person responsible for elevating the status of the scheduled caste and the scheduled tribes. The preamble of the Indian constitution to establish justice, social, economic and political, liberty, fraternity and equality of status and opportunity, promoting welfare of all, these are some of the issues which have been enshrined in the famous constitution of India. Article 45 and 46 of the Indian constitution gives right to the scheduled caste and scheduled tribes. Now these, this is the fruit what we have in the constitution today. The fundamental rights and the directive principles of state's policy enshrined in the constitution are the fruits that we have reaped due to the Gandhian ideals. But how far there are with so many amendments in the Indian constitution? You will know how many amendments in the Indian constitution that have taken place. But I feel that there should be further amendments so that the ideals do not remain near ideals. Yes, if you go to the court, you file a suit. If you are not given justice, if you are not given justice, you go to the court and file a suit. But you know the system, legal system of today, years and years pass by and people do not get justice. Yes, it is very much there in the constitution, but does it happen practically? Do people get real justice? Many a times we see that people simply die without their cases being solved. So, promptness, promptness in judiciary is a very essential factor. It is not enough that I write something in a book and just keep it as a scripture. But I must be able to implement what I believe in. This fact of implementation is something that we are lacking in today's India. Ideals, Indian ideals are beautiful, Gandhi's ideals are beautiful. We have beautiful ideals. Even in our scriptures we have beautiful ideals. But how far are we implementing those ideals? In the true sense of the term, the delay, the delay in receiving justice is a very important matter that we should think about. Gandhi's ideals are such that it prescribes certain important things. Gandhi says that there should not be worship without word. There should not be trade and commerce without morality. There should not be politics without principles. There should not be economics without justice. Yes, morality must be very much there. It is not enough that we secure, we strive for a good end. Gandhi discussed this question about means and ends. Most of the cases what we see are ends are noble, we have noble ends. The means that we employ to secure that end is important. He gives us a beautiful example for this. That a tree, tree bearing fruits of poison cannot give us nectar. If the fruit is poisonous, then the nectar from it will be poisonous. The means must be so yearly differs with Karl Marx and Lenin. According to Marx, the end justifies the means. But to secure social equality, to secure unity and brotherhood, according to Marx we can employ him in violence. But Gandhi does not prescribe to that view. If the end is good, the means employed must also be good. In other words, the means employed to secure a good end must also be a non-violent means. So if you want independence, if you want to have our rights, if you want justice, we cannot go and simply kill people for the sake of justice, for the sake of equality. We have to win it by method of non-violence and he prescribed the great idea of satyagra, non-cooperation movement. And the Indian War of Independence was secured by that powerful weapon, the weapon of satyagra. Not only here, even in South Africa, people imitated it. In the West, people imitated the mass of Savarva, already parted out. Even in the West, Gandhi is a morgon. Of course, again, it's a debatable fact that Gandhi did not want to use the word ism for his philosophy because he has not said anything new. But for our workers, we call it Gandhi's, or we call it Gandhian. Gandhism or Gandhian philosophy is more implemented in the West as he pointed out. And so many countries in the West have imitated Gandhi. He is praised and we have the statue of Gandhi even in the famous museum in London. Everywhere he is worshipped. But in India, the relevance of Gandhi, which is so very important, is not practiced in the way as it should have been practiced. Violence, confusion, intolerance, exploitation, murder, killings, so many facts. As we see in today's India, they are growing and growing and people live in fear, in the grip of fear, everywhere. And we should always try this, when this fear is within us. No, I'm reminded of the famous poem by Rabindranath Tagore where the mind is without fear. Where Rabindranath pointed out that the condition of our country should be such that there is no fear, any kind of fear. Spiritual fear is the greatest hampering factor to our development. We should have our condition in a society where the society is not broken up by narrow domestic walls, Rabindranath's language. So we move about when we go out at night, ladies go out at night, we are always in the grip of fear that we move about. Even after so many years of the Indian independence, people are not safe. People's minds are not without fear. People are always thinking of what will happen to tomorrow, whether I'm going to live tomorrow or not. Corruption is so rampant today that I cannot trust even my near and dear ones because people are so full of corruption. So I feel that in order to solve the present-day problems, Gandhi is the only alternative. True, Gandhi is not relevant in certain cases. For example, Gandhi and I don't know if Sadeshi may not be able to implement Sadeshi to the extent Gandhi wanted. Today we cannot have the idea or grammar of Gandhi's times. Because Ram Raja is a condition where all will have enough to eat, drink, he will be happy, he will be in... there will be no misery anywhere. It is just a condition of heaven. It is a condition of heaven which we cannot expect to have in today's society with so much of population everywhere around us. Population is a great barrier. Gandhi spoke at a time when there was so... the population in India was much less. So there may be certain deficiencies in Gandhi. He is not a God. He was an ordinary human being like all of us. So every ideology has a plus and minus, has both a good side and a bad side. There may be certain drawbacks. He gave us a system of education. He gave us a system of education where he preached of education, imparting education in the mother time, in one's own mother time. This was a very noble idea. What we see today, our own... I am ashamed to say that even my own sons, they cannot speak as a means properly in the sense that they do not know some of the words. My own son, when he was young, he used to ask me, what is that word called... Certain Asami's words, which we don't understand, which we often use, what is needyatom? I was so ashamed that I could not teach my son what needyatom is. What is onukham dhan? These are some of the words which I could not teach my son when he was very young. Now, of course, they know. But that was the reason why Gandhi said that after a certain age, one should get education through the medium of one's mother time. English is a must. We have become slaves to English. We cannot get rid of it very soon. We go around the world and see German people do not know how to speak English. French people do not know how to speak English. They are all European countries. But English is not their medium. English is not their medium of instruction. They have beautiful books in their own language. We are slaves to English. We cannot get rid of it soon, no doubt. But at least some emphasis can be given to our mother time. There can be good books in our mother time. And Gandhi spoke about all-round development of education, of a person by means of education. So this all-round development means development physically, mentally, spiritually in all aspects. University degrees or college degrees does not mean simply offering a degree. But the all-round development of a child, all-round development of a student is very, very important. And especially emphasis should be given on character building. So these are some of the things which we think are, which appears that it is not something great. But they are very useful. They are very useful for the present-day society. And we should take note of all those things. So if our society, if India has to be a good, a real India, if our society has to be a good society, we have, there is no alternative to Gandhi. We have to follow the Gandhian method, only with certain modifications. So if we want that untouchability should go, then we should have faith in the maxim that all men are mothers. If we want that this proportionate wealth and income should go, then we should have faith in the principle of minimization of human bonds. If we want to have a proper education, we should have faith in the ancient system of education which gave more importance to spiritual upliftment rather than economic upliftment. So Gandhi is very, very relevant today. And he was a person who gave us, who gave us the beautiful ideals, who gave us beautiful structure and how far we implement them. It depends on the individuals who form the society because it is the individuals who are going to implement the Gandhian ideals. And with these remarks, I conclude my lecture. Thank you.