Gandhian philosophy in diurnal life

One of the most famous quotes by Benjamin Franklin, one of the founding fathers of the United States, is that, 'There was never a good war or a bad peace'. Many politicians and world leaders have made similar statements.

These kinds of propositions are expressions of the ideals of Pacifism. Although traditionally pacifism is the opposition to war and militarism, in a broader sense, pacifism is the belief that any sort of violence is unjustifiable, whatever the case may be.

 And that any kind of dispute should be settled by peaceful means. It took off as a political ideology in the late nineteenth century and especially in the early twentieth century. Lots of reputed people of various professions had adopted and advocated pacifism throughout their lives.

Scientists like Albert Einstein, musicians like John Lennon, writers like Leo Tolstoy, Oscar Wilde, political leaders like Martin Luther King Jr., Helen Keller are some of the world renowned pacifists. There is one leader in particular, who embraced pacifism not only in his political activities, but also in every aspect of his personal and public life. And that is Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi or more commonly known as Mahatma Gandhi, was the leader of the Indian independence movement and the father of the nation.

Gandhi developed his philosophy based on the core ideas of pacifism. He embodied those ideas so incessantly to the point that he got critiqued quite a bit. During his years of being politically active, not only did he induct his strategies in those activities, but he tried his best to universalize those measures and approaches by adopting and practicing them in his personal life as well. Politicians and leaders often do deeds to symbolize their values, but Gandhi, known for his 'Satyagraha', did more than that, by creating a legacy with peace as its basis.

Of course, in a modern world where the approaches of realism is more welcomed and widely practiced than idealism, where violent means get better and faster outcomes than peaceful ones, that legacy is hard to implement. As difficult as Gandhi's ways may be to imply in political activities, they are quite effective when it comes to the social lives of the general people.

The competing interests of nations and regions may make it tough, but those approaches can be implied in people's personal lives since the vast majority of the people simply want justice, security, some basic freedoms and dignified lives. Questions may arise that if that is the case, then why do people encounter so many disputes in their everyday lives? This is where Gandhi's value system comes in.

Traditionally, it is seen as though the clashes of interests is what leads to most conflicts in all the spheres of human lives. This insight results in either one party of the conflict winning the dispute, all the parties involved coming to some kind of agreement, or the worst case scenario, every involved party's net loss being way more than their net gain.

But in Gandhian approaches, conflicts are not accepted at face value, rather the roots of them are traced way back to many complicated causes. After everything said and done, most individuals have one thing in common, and that is the desire to live a content and peaceful life. And the implementation of Gandhian methods in one's life can actually help them turn that desire into a reality.

 It drastically changes a person's attitude, personality, characteristics, and even lifestyle, which in turn leads to them having a peaceful life that consists of satisfactory relationships with their family, friends, colleagues and other acquaintances.
 
Gandhi had three primary principles, which were Truth, Nonviolence and Self-suffering. In any given situation, beholding the truth helps to avoid any conflict in the first place. In a condition where two opposing parties, in this case two disputant people, are making contradictory propositions, recognizing the truth can demolish the conflict before it even causes any trouble to anyone.

Of course what the problem is, is that most people want to advocate self-interest before recognizing the truth, which takes justice out of the picture. Because being truthful in solving a conflict means being just. Nonviolence on the other hand, can be pretty effective if executed properly. For instance, when two people refuse to be violent, the path they naturally turn to are somewhat diplomatic, which may solve the problem without causing any damage.

Violence on the other hand begets violence. One party being violent in a conflict makes the other party abandon reason and engage in more violent actions. It's a vicious cycle. Self-suffering, although sounds somewhat of a difficult action, it necessarily is not.

The willingness to endure suffering in lieu of avenging a violent act with a violent act breaks that vicious cycle of violence. And the ability to do that requires courage and self-control to some extent. But this could really mean anything from realizing one's faults and lacking to reforming one's interests. These actions may seem too 'selfless', but in the long run, they do bring the best outcome with the maximum gain on each party's part.

Gandhian process of solving conflicts is parted into a few steps. Understanding the conflict is the first step. People often tend to make quick judgments without clearly assessing the situation. Self-interest involved or not, forming a belief about an issue requires being informed about it. And not being completely informed or not assessing the situation from a neutral point of view leads to biased judgments and fault beliefs. Ergo, the first step in resolving any conflict requires plainly understanding the conflict.

 The second step is confronting the opponent. Gandhi said, 'We must resolutely refuse to think of our opponents as enemies'. Gandhi believed that addressing the opponent as enemy only makes the situation worse. In case of confronting the conflict he said, 'Whilst we may attack measures and systems, we may not, must not attack men. Imperfect ourselves, we must be tender towards others and slow to impute motives'.

Refusing to embarrass the opponent, refusing to make the opponent the reason of the conflict should be practiced because it helps the case a lot. Refusal to cause of suffering to the opponent and building an understanding relationship with them increases the chances of peacefully resolve of the conflict at a good pace.

The third step is confronting oneself. Being honest, and being true to oneself about the situation helps the case as well. Addressing one's own faults and unjust demands and interests clears the slate quite a bit. When people recognize their inadequacy and dearth, their behaviors with other people change.

They become more tender and pathological. And last but not the least, looking at the case from the other's point of view. While judging the conflict and the parties' interests from a neutral point results in the reduction of aggression and offensive behavior, seeing it through their lens makes one more appreciative of others.

While most methods used in resolution of problems results in win-lose or lose-win situations, Gandhi's methods are developed in such a way that they ensure win-win outcomes for all the parties involved. Granted that they do not provide all the benefits that could have been achieved through violent means, but as agreed upon by scholars and understood by most individuals really, one act of violence leads to another. It's a wheel that keeps on rotating, bringing gain to one and loss to other for a certain period of time. But when the wheel turns, so do the outcomes, until it is entirely stopped.

And the most effective and proper way to do that is to take every party's interest into consideration before taking decisions. Therefore, it appears that in a broader course, Gandhi's insights do serve the purpose. His means demand that people meet violence with nonviolence, unreason with reason, injustice with justice and inhumanity with humanity. All these words may sound too idealistic to imply, they may seem the actions of a protagonist of a Hollywood movie, inapplicable in the real life.

But they seem farfetched only because most people think of them to be farfetched. There's a popular quote that, 'Whatever you believe, you can achieve'. So, whether the acquisition of contentment through peaceful and nonviolent means is possible or not really depends on whether people believe it to be possible or not. And if a happy and peaceful life is all that a person wants, then assessing that question is not supposed to be difficult.

The writer is a student of Department of Peace and Conflict Studies at University of Dhaka

---Rifat-E-Rabbi Alex