A Ghandian Perspective on Peace Education: An Interview with Rajmohan Gandhi

Writer(s): 
Armene Modi

Following in the footsteps of his illustrious grandfather, Mahatma Gandhi, Rajmohan Gandhi, an internationally renowned peace activist, has worked tirelessly as a crusader for peace, actively promoting dialogue and reconciliation among various groups in conflict both in India and abroad. Moreover, he is a distinguished author, journalist, and biographer, and has served as a senator in the Indian Rajya Sabha. During his term, he chaired a parliamentary committee of the Indian National Integration Council that dealt with issues pertaining to some of the most marginalized sections of Indian society: the Untouchables, and lower castes. He also led the 1990 Indian delegation to the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva, and organized a Yatra (journey) by African Americans and others along the route of Gandhi's historic Salt March.

Mr. Gandhi has used his journalistic talents to further the cause for peace in the troubled Indian sub-continent. He launched the Himmat Weekly, which focused on various human rights issues, and was, for several years, editor of The Indian Express, one of India's primary newspapers. In his book Understanding the Muslim Mind (1987), he has attempted to study the Hindu-Muslim relationship. Among a number of books he has authored, two are biographies of his illustrious grandfathers: The Good Boatman (1995) portrays the life of his grandfather Mahatma Gandhi, while Rajaji: A Life (1997) focuses on the life of his maternal grandfather, Chakravarti Rajagopalachari, who was a freedom fighter and India's first Governor General after independence. The following interview with Mr. Gandhi took place at Obirin University in Spring 1997 while he was a visiting professor there. In this in-depth interview on the themes of peace and peace education, Rajmohan Gandhi shares his views and vision for a future of peace, and offers some food for thought to educators and language teachers interested in bringing peace issues into the language classroom.

Thank you for taking the time to do this interview despite your busy schedule. You are presently teaching courses at Obirin with a focus on peace studies. What, in your opinion, should be the essential elements of a course on peace education?

Peace education, first and foremost, must include reconciliation and conflict resolution. The two must go together. I don't myself see one without the other. Conflict resolution should include scope for non-violent struggle, and non-violent struggle must have scope for negotiation, dialogue and a settlement. Peace education, however, needs to include not only strategies for non-violent actions and conflict resolution, but also peaceful, non-violent struggles for justice, as well as education about different races, different religious groups, different cultures, and different civilizations.

There is a particular need to include an emphasis on listening to each other. From my experience, the greatest blocks to peace are when people are not prepared to listen to the other side. And the greatest breakthroughs are achieved when we do listen to the other side. That is to my mind, a crucial ingredient of peace education.

Obviously peace education is not something that can be done in the classroom alone. The home is a crucial place, as is the neighborhood. Politicians, entertainers, sports figures and media people all have a great impact on children. Education in the classroom can be negated by the "education" that children receive from the media, so, we have to widen our orbits to include all these areas.

Do you think then that peace education can be a viable means of helping people overcome violence and achieve human justice? What do we as educators need to do?

These are vast questions, but it seems to me that living with one's neighbor, eliminating hatreds and prejudices, coping with different versions of history, coping with incomplete or false representations of different religions; these do require immense effort in the school room as well as in the world outside. I don't know whether I can recommend a simple formula or proposals for this, but obviously the ultimate goal is that each person sees himself or herself clearly. It's very easy for all of us to have strong feelings against injustices and discriminations in the world outside, but perhaps, not so easy for us to see whether our own hearts harbor some discrimination, some prejudice, some bias. One thing we must teach students is to look at themselves, to turn the search light inwards.

Apart from training a child to look at herself, himself, maybe we need to see whether we can train each citizen to be something of a reconciler, something of a healer, as well as something of a fighter. If there is something wrong, we have to fight. But if two people are determined to fight each other, to take revenge on each other, then we must do more than fight; we must help the two groups to reconcile with each other. Now these arts are not so easily taught. It's not a question of a curriculum being devised. This needs a lot more study and sensitivity.

You have often described yourself as "primarily committed to the bridging of human divisions." Could you share with us some of your own personal experiences as a bridge-builder in India and elsewhere?

I would certainly describe myself as one with a great desire to be a bridge builder. I can't say I have been very successful, but I am keen on bridge building. In India, I have attempted to deal with the Hindu-Muslim divide, with the rich-poor divide, with the divide between separated political parties, and with the tension between different language and ethnic groups. Sometimes these experiences have taken place in areas of tension: in Assam, in Kashmir, in the Punjab, and elsewhere. In other parts of the world, I have attempted bridge building between India and Pakistan, and between Tamils and Singhalese in Sri Lanka. I have also, in a limited way, been involved in bridge-building efforts in other parts of the world, such as South Tyrol, where German-speaking and Italian-speaking people were involved in a very deep division, and in Ireland.

I would say that one lesson I have learned is how easy it is and how constant it has been throughout history that people have tended to blame a neighboring group for many of their problems. This seems to be in India a very strong feature. In the northeast many tribal groups such as the Nagas, the Bodas, and the Assamese, blame each other for their own lack of political and economic clout, alleging linguistic and cultural suppression. In the north, between the state of Punjab and the state of Rajasthan and Haryana, there are fierce disputes over water distribution. Incidentally the distribution of water, which is a scarce resource in India, is a very major source of conflict. And sometimes there is a very strong perception that our need is greater than their need. Very often the other side has almost the opposite perspective.

So what do we need to do to develop sympathy and empathy among people for "the other"?

I have always found that stories do more than theories. And my own story does more than anybody else's story. I guess every teacher must have discovered that. I've often found that if I can tell an honest story about some prejudice in me that I have overcome, that impact is very strong. Certainly that has been the impact on me of others who have told me their stories. Then I can straight away live into that person's situation, I know that I am listening to something authentic.

I often tell a story about myself, when I first as a boy heard of a Pakistani Prime Minister who had been shot. My initial reaction was negative: I felt glad it had happened, and hoped that he would soon die from the shot. This negative reaction stemmed from the general prejudice I had against Pakistan, the same prejudice that many of my fellow countrymen shared. And then I considered that Pakistani Prime Minister or not, he was first and foremost a human being, and saw my reaction for what it was, namely that it was a very mean and petty kind of reaction, and when I saw that, a stereotype against Pakistanis in my own mind was broken. I would like to believe that when I have told the story, maybe some stereotypes in other people's minds also have been edged out, I hope.

In terms of attempting reconciliation with "the cultural other," for example in India, with the high caste Hindus and the Untouchables, what sort of way can we help to have the two sides look beyond the divisions that create the barriers, and see each other as human beings?

If there is a possibility of a dialogue with the other group about whom there are stereotypes held, then I think that's probably one way of really introducing the cultural other, physically if that's possible. It's always interesting to find out if we have actually met any of the cultural other that we have strong views about. I think when a child discovers that he or she has never actually met that group but yet has such negative views about them, they may feel that that's not all there is to it.

What advice do you have for would-be peacemakers?

One thing we have to recognize is that so many people have a stake in continuing divisions, in continuing hate, so peace-making isn't all this popular. You may have a very large constituency for peace on both sides, but often you have powerful interests who would like the hating and the fighting to continue. So you have to reckon with opposition to peace efforts, sometimes even from the media. If it is not easy for an outsider to serve the cause of peace, we can imagine how much more difficult it could be for an insider, surrounded by a neighborhood of angry people to work for peace. Often the peace-maker, especially if he or she is one of the involved parties, faces tremendous hostility from their own side who don't want to let go of their anger or hatred. They regard a peacemaker as a compromiser, or a traitor. But there is almost always a very strong constituency for peace. After all, violence destroys normal life, people want peace, and a way out of the destruction.

Yet, if the world is to become a better place, we need many more people who can be peacemakers. Consider Rwanda where hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, where children have seen their parents hacked to death and parents have watched their children massacred. Yet, in many cases, they have to live with the people who may have done the killings. How do those people live together? In India we have the Hindu-Muslim situation and in some areas, there has been terrible violence. Again, people have to live in the same neighborhood. Where else can they go? Although they go away for some time, they return to their homes for jobs and to resume their shattered lives. So the world very much needs healers, reconcilers.

Another thing that any would-be peacemaker has to realize is that many people are engaged in peace making. Discovering who else is involved, and working with them is also important. Luckily there are some amazing examples of healing, such as the remarkable change in South Africa. Another is what has happened between France and Germany. Considering the long history of terrible wars and hatreds and vengeance between Germany and France, the present situation is quite astonishing.

In recent history, major changes have been accomplished non-violently, for example, in South Africa, where in 1994, apartheid was ultimately eliminated through non-violent means. You just mentioned the remarkable changes in South Africa as one example of healing. Perhaps, one of the factors that brought the South African government around was the international boycott of South Africa. The overthrow of Marcos in the Philippines in 1986, is another example. Millions of people there united under the Peoples Power Movement to finally oust Marcos dictatorial regime, bravely facing the soldiers tanks and machine guns with non-violence. How do you interpret these events?

I think we have to credit not only Mandela and his colleagues in the freedom movement of South Africa but also De Clerk and others and the white leadership for the change. There was a long history of opposition to apartheid outside South Africa in the United Nations and elsewhere. The Nobel Peace Prize was also used very strategically. First, Chief Lutuli of the ANC was given the Nobel Peace Prize in 1960, then Archbishop Tutu in 1984, and of course the economic boycott to which you referred. We also should recognize that the change in South Africa took place following dialogue at numerous levels. In a number of cities, across many layers: trade unions, teachers, industrialists, sports people, and of course politicians, and media people, they all held dialogue across race. So it was ultimately a triumph of common sense and sanity over foolishness.

It was also a manifestation of the power of non-violence. Non-violence should be understood to mean both peaceful direct actions such as boycotts or disobedience of unjust laws but also dialogue, conversation, listening, and negotiation. That also is very much part of non-violence, so both these aspects of non-violence were to the fore in the South African situation. In the Philippines, too, there was great popular dissatisfaction with the excesses of the Marcos regime. Again, there was international discontent, and then people like Aquino and his wife and many others, Cardinal Sin, the church, as well as citizens in the Philippines turned to disciplined non-violent action which ultimately triumphed.

Why has India unfortunately, not succeeded in learning the lessons of non-violence and tolerance that Gandhi taught and died for?

I think one reason is Gandhi's lesson was a difficult lesson to learn; we'd rather not learn it. One way of answering your question is to say the Indian people instinctively understood that Gandhi was a very effective leader of the freedom movement. His non-violent strategy against the British appealed to Indians. The British were baffled by it. If they used force against the non-violent movement, the movement would became stronger, the anger against the British would grow not only in India, but world-wide, because the world said this non-violent movement should not be crushed through force. If they did not use force, then the movement would expand and expand. So, it was a highly effective strategy.

One might even say with some truth that Indian people very knowingly used Gandhi to attain Indian independence, but they had no wish to follow him in his deeper challenges. He asked Muslims and Hindus to forgive each other, not to dwell on the past, but to focus on the future. Shortly before he was killed, there was Hindu-Muslim tension and some Muslims in India wrote an article in a Muslim journal saying that what the Muslims of India needed was another Ghazni who had come and destroyed the Hindu temple at Somnath a long time ago. When this article was brought to Gandhi's attention he commented that he was very surprised and pained that Muslims should write like that. Then he added that neither should Hindus dwell on the wrongs done by the Muslims. Rather, Muslims themselves should dwell on the wrongs done by the Muslims. That's very difficult teaching.

But as you said earlier, non-violence was successful.

As a strategy, yes. Gandhi himself said, "They followed me because this was an effective approach." In fact Gandhi is on record as saying "If Indians could have made the atom bomb, they would have used it against the British.'' They did not follow Gandhi because of a deep faith in non-violence. Of course a few people did have a very deep faith, but the vast majority knew only that non-violence was more effective than bombs.

Can you comment on what the Japanese can learn from the experiences of the Indian people?

Japan compared with India is really more comfortable in terms of ethnic relations or homogeneity. I'm sure there are problems, but they are minor in comparison. I think the question is not so much what people in Japan or the Western world can learn from the experiences of people in India, but how many in Japan and the Western world will be prepared to give of themselves to heal the problems in India, in Africa, in other parts of the world. That, to me, is the real issue.

Can you tell us how language teaching has promoted peace? Or perhaps touch on your positive or negative experiences when you were learning a language?

My experience of language teaching or language learning is very meager, almost non-existent. But I do know this, that even if I understand a few phrases in another language, it does build a bond between me and that speaker and the culture of that speaker. The fact that I have learned some Urdu phrases for example, enables me to have a conversation with not only some Muslims in India but the people in Pakistan too. So I can see the usefulness of that. I know of so many areas where deep feelings of hurt seem to be linked to the question of language.

Can you elaborate, just give us some examples?

I know of many French people who knew German but were unwilling to speak it, many German people who knew French but were unwilling to speak it, many Koreans who knew Japanese but were unwilling to speak it, many East Europeans who knew Russian but were unwilling to speak it because of their hurts. I suppose language brings to mind, or is the first introduction of, another culture, so any deep feelings we may have are attracted by that.

The goal of language learning is ultimately to be able to communicate. In your opinion, what is good communication?

Good communication is when you reach the other person's well-protected, well-concealed heart, and the other person penetrates through all the things that you have protecting your heart and reaches you. Part of it is in breaking through all the layers of politeness, correctness, prejudice, ignorance, preconceptions, in reaching the other person's heart and letting that person reach your heart. I suppose if I were to think more about it, I would even say that good communication must not only reach the other's heart, but somehow touch it and even heal it. But that's really asking for a very great deal.

What is the role that communication can play in promoting or obstructing peace?

I think when a German is touched by a French story; that incident of communication builds a bridge. When I read a newspaper or a magazine about some simple incident in Pakistan that moves me, then very effective communication has been carried out. If I listen to a teacher talking about something in some other part of the world, in a way that I'm moved, then that class has built a wonderful bridge between me and another country.

In terms of obstructing peace, in India, and Pakistan, we do have incomplete, sometimes quite inaccurate, completely false, or purely fabricated stories in the media about the other country which feed poison in the minds of the people. So the effect is obvious. And I guess the same kind of block or hurdle can be created by a teacher in a classroom if he or she purveys negative information about another country. I don't think we need to censor out bad information. I think that would be bad communication. But even bad information about another part of the world can be presented in a constructive way and in a way that does not create divisions but creates some kind of desire to correct whatever may be wrong. So, I would say a good communicator would not withhold disturbing information but would place it in perspective.

Some language educators feel that language learning should enable students to achieve "communicative competence." Others feel that perhaps, what we need to aim for in language teaching is "communicative peace." What, in your opinion, are the implications of "communicative peace" for language teachers who want to empower their students?

First, let me say that I'm very impressed by the fact that language teachers have decided that their teaching must do much more than just teach a language, but that the opportunity should be used for something much deeper, perhaps much greater, for communicative peace. Although I don't feel qualified to comment, I can see instinctively that a language teacher obviously is teaching a language other than the student's native language which immediately suggests cultural tolerance, understanding, sensitivity, and other such values. It will need a lot of reflection, a lot of exchange of teaching experiences.

People are often taught that the other side, the they are the enemy. In many places in India, and indeed in the world, this phrase is so common; "If you run into a snake or you run into that particular tribal, or 'the other', deal with 'the other' first, because he's more dangerous than the snake." This seems to be a way of thinking in every part of the world; it's very strong in India. Parents seem to instill these prejudices in children, and children grow up with these. Sometimes we interpret current events in accordance with these prejudices which sometimes tend to confirm these prejudices. A person in Israel, for example, reading about some things happening with the Taliban in Afghanistan or some things in Iran or Iraq may say, "well there you are, the Muslims are so narrow-minded." Likewise on the Arab side, vis-a-vis some news items that comes from Israel. We often, in our daily acts, give evidence to confirm other people's prejudices about us: that's also true. To inculcate some wisdom in this sort of situation, some sanity, some long-term perspective, faith, hope, I guess it takes a long time. Maybe it takes more than just methods, formulae, and approaches. I think, perhaps in some cases, it needs prayer, it needs humility.

Is there anything you have to say to language teachers in their role as peace educators?

I am quite moved to see that a group of language teachers have decided to have this great aim, and not confine themselves just to teaching the technique of another language. Since obviously language teaching takes place in the interface of cultures, and the interface of races, it could be so important in reminding people of the commonness of humanity which is divided into different groups; divided not to create tension, but to create charm and beauty.

Are you optimistic or pessimistic about the chances for a just and equitable world order in the future that will respect the human rights and dignity of all?

I guess I am, when it comes down to it, optimistic, because I do believe that this world was created for a plan, and that there is a divinity behind this world. So, that gives me faith in a better future. On the other hand, I see how we human beings so often make wrong decisions, angry decisions, or impatient decisions and create problems for ourselves, for others around us, and for future generations.

I'm of the view that much of our future is to be built by us. Whether we have a future of justice and dignity or its opposite, depends on how all of us, millions of us, are going to decide along the way when the choices come before us. The future is in the hands of humanity and the way humanity decides will govern the future. Having said that, I believe humanity will decide well and boldly and for the things that will produce dignity, justice, satisfaction, and peace.

Thank you very much.

 

References
  • Gandhi, R. (1987). Understanding the Muslim mind. New Delhi: Penguin Books.
  • Gandhi, R. (1995). The good boatman. New Delhi: Penguin Books.
  • Gandhi, R. (1997). Rajaji: A life. New Delhi: Penguin Books.