Every individual life is a message to someone –Gandhi, Hayek and Osho!

There is a wider belief among the first generation of independent India that the Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi “life was his message” it may true for his some of simple ideas, like “simple living, high thinking”, fighting for freedom by non violence, disobedience, etc. 

What was happened or still happening is that some his ideas become dangerous to present society including the “self sufficient”, the “disobedience”, the “self rule”, etc. 

It may be worth to ask our self that is there any country in the world which is “self sufficient” of all goods and services? Clearly the answer is no. And what people misunderstood is not only the Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi ideas but the whole process of freedom fighting. 

People now wolf cry that the present generation have terribly “misunderstood” and the “great injustice has been done to Gandhi, by Gandhians, who deified him and made him into some kind of a cult figure; by his opponents who simply dismissed him as obscurantist, outdated and irrelevant; and by those who have used him as a stamp to justify and legitimised their own agenda. Gandhi needs to be rescued from all three. That would do justice to him”. 

What is more terrible is the saying of “he never tried to impose it on the Congress organisation. In fact the famous Congress resolution passed at Karachi in 1931, advocating centralised planning and large-scale industrialisation, was predictably drafted by Jawaharlal Nehru. But it was Gandhi who moved that resolution, primarily in order to create consensus around it. Gandhi never insisted on his economic ideas to be at the centre of Congress programme”. 

What is the meaning of stressing to “create consensus” when his life is message to the people of this country or the world where he think that the “centralised planning” will kill the people instead of saving from it. 

Let’s not forget that the true Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi ideas will be perished by time alone, including the everyone else’s who think that they wanted to replace his ideas. 

Who does not understand whose language? It is the another barely a year old (or close) newspaper Mint which says “Much before the first five-year Plan was launched, economist Freidrich Hayek had highlighted the pitfalls of centralized planning. More than Hayek, it was Gandhi’s influence that curbed the worst excesses of that process. Nehru did not make mistakes of the kind that caused Soviet-type political disasters. He did not shake the foundations of private property in India that might have led to serious political problems”. 

It is important to say at least two points. First it has been now understood that “it was Gandhi who moved that resolution” of “centralised planning” and the Mint no, no “more than Hayek, it was Gandhi’s influence that curbed the worst excesses of that process”. It does not give when and where he “curbed” it that process? 

Another naturalist Osho says “I wrote Gandhi another letter: "On the one hand you say you are non-violent, and on the other hand you worship the Gita, which teaches simply violence and nothing else." The whole book is a teaching for violence. Krishna, to his disciple Arjuna, is teaching, "You go to the war, fight, because that's what is the will of God, because without his will nothing happens. So if this big war is happening, it cannot happen without his will." Krishna tries in every way to persuade Arjuna. Arjuna argues but he is not a great logician, otherwise it was so simple.” 

No doubt it is now questionable as I posted here yesterday. 

And there is no doubt that we all like or don’t like we respect the man who fought for us but if his ideas become impracticable or more harmful let’s reject it honestly. 

Don't forget to read full article by Osho here