Few other public figures have inspired artistic imaginations as sustainably as Mahatma Gandhi had done. Here was a man who hardly watched films, rarely attended a concert of classical music and demonstrated no great interest in Western-style modernism in the visual and performing art forms.&nbsp;

To understand Gandhi’s psyche, therefore, one has to visit his ideas on the arts, literature and their creators.

On December 10, 1931, he told Romain Rolland: “I am against the formula of ‘art for art’s sake’. For me, all art must be based on truth.” Seven years later, he said, “We have somehow accustomed ourselves to the belief that art is independent of the purity of private life… I can say that purity of life is the highest and truest art. The art of producing good music from a cultivated voice can be achieved by many, but the art of producing that music from the harmony of a pure life is achieved very rarely.”

Beauty, to Gandhi, emanates from truth and purity of life. “Truth is the first thing to be sought for, and beauty and goodness will then be added unto you…” His love and appreciation for the works of Tolstoy, Ruskin, Thoreau, Tagore and for the painting and artwork of Nandalal Bose as well as the musical renditions by M S Subbulakshmi, Juthika Roy and Pandit Omkarnath Thakur should perhaps be seen in this context.&nbsp;

While Gandhi was steadfast in his ideas, he was not unaware of his own limitations. About Nandalal Bose of Santiniketan, he commented, “For, he is a creative artist and I am none. God has given me the sense of art, but not the organs to give it a concrete shape. He has blessed Nandalal Babu with both”’ On another occasion, “I am not an art student… I do not write or speak about it because I am conscious of my limitations. My functions are different from the artist’s and I should not go out of my way to assume his position.” He used the services of Bose for the Congress sessions and exhibitions and was all praise of his artistic genius.

About Oscar Wilde, his comment, “Wilde saw the highest art simply in outward forms and, therefore, succeeded in beautifying immorality…” may appear dated and puritanical in the context of today’s sensibilities, but Gandhi hits the nail when he says, “On the other hand, truth may manifest itself in forms which may not be outwardly beautiful. Socrates, we are told, was the most truthful man of his time and yet his features are said to have been the ugliest in Greece. To my mind, he was beautiful because all his life he was striving for truth…”

Gandhi read and wrote extensively, and travelled incessantly. He was self-luminous, experimenting continuously with himself, and was so immersed in the ‘real’ issues of life, that he hardly had time or perhaps even the inclination to be enriched by ‘fiction’. His once observed, in the context of Gujarati literature, “The less we revel in the realm of the fiction, the better for us.”

His aversion to the cinema and his refusal to see any good in it stemmed from his understanding that cinema, of dance and music, is primarily for amusement and exerts a malefic influence on society.&nbsp;

He was persuaded to meet Charlie Chaplin, impressed him a great deal, but never showed any interest in his work. Late in his life (1943-44), he condescended to watch two movies, Vijay Bhatt’s Ram Rajya and Curtiz’s Mission to Moscow. He apparently did not comment on either.&nbsp;

During his lifetime, many socially relevant films were made on issues dear to him, but he refused to see much merit in cinematic art. Gandhi’s attitude to the theatre was also almost similar.&nbsp;

He was more interested in music, but of a special variety. Invited to a performance by the great Ustad Abdul Karim Khan at the residence of Dilip Kumar Roy, Gandhi reportedly started collecting subscription for Congress party in between.&nbsp;

On Gandhi’s request, Gauhar Jaan performed for a charity show, but Gandhi eventually shied away from attending the function himself. He may not have had an interest in the subtleties of pure classical music, but he used to enjoy bhajans. Subbulakshmi’s rendition of a Dikshitar Kirti Mamava Pattabhirama…was deeply appreciated. Post-independence, Gandhi wanted her to sing and record Hari Tum Haro… and reportedly said that he would rather have her speak the bhajan than have anyone else sing it!&nbsp;

Gandhi also liked the devotional songs by Juthika Roy whose records used to be played before his prayer meetings. Vishnu Digambar Paluskar composed the music for Gandhi’s favourite Raghupati Raghava…About Omkarnath Thakur, Gandhi is believed to have said: “Pandit Omkarnathji can achieve through a single song of his what I can achieve through several speeches.”

He was also fond of the singing of Dilip Kumar Roy and named his protégé Uma Basu as the ‘Nightingale of Bengal’. No wonder he admitted that he would have died of the crushing burden of work “if there was no music and no laughter in me.”

Gandhi read Tagore in translation since his yearning to learn Bangla had to wait till the last days of his life. His favourite song ‘If no one responds to your call, walk alone, walk alone’ used to be sung during Gandhi’s days at Noakhali. After the Poona Pact was signed, Gandhi’s fast was broken with Tagore himself singing ‘When the heart is hard and parched up, come upon me with a shower of mercy’.&nbsp;

He was often criticised, misunderstood and not considered a connoisseur of the arts, but he continued pursuing his own goals. This may be reflective of an orthodox attitude that almost borders on the spiritual, not in sync with the prevalent western mores, but Gandhi’s approach in this regard has not been inconsistent with his philosophy of life. 
 
(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-little-known-side-of-mahatma-2761238">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

Few other public figures have inspired artistic imaginations as sustainably as Mahatma Gandhi had done. Here was a man who hardly watched films, rarely attended a concert of classical music and demonstrated no great interest in Western-style modernism in the visual and performing art forms.

Few other public figures have inspired artistic imaginations as sustainably as Mahatma Gandhi had done. Here was a man who hardly watched films, rarely attended a concert of classical music and demonstrated no great interest in Western-style modernism in the visual and performing art forms. To understand Gandhi’s psyche, therefore, one has to visit his ideas on the arts, literature and their creators. On December 10, 1931, he told Romain Rolland: “I am against the formula of ‘art for art’s sake’. For me, all art must be based on truth.” Seven years later, he said, “We have somehow accustomed ourselves to the belief that art is independent of the purity of private life… I can say that purity of life is the highest and truest art. The art of producing good music from a cultivated voice can be achieved by many, but the art of producing that music from the harmony of a pure life is achieved very rarely.” Beauty, to Gandhi, emanates from truth and purity of life. “Truth is the first thing to be sought for, and beauty and goodness will then be added unto you…” His love and appreciation for the works of Tolstoy, Ruskin, Thoreau, Tagore and for the painting and artwork of Nandalal Bose as well as the musical renditions by M S Subbulakshmi, Juthika Roy and Pandit Omkarnath Thakur should perhaps be seen in this context. While Gandhi was steadfast in his ideas, he was not unaware of his own limitations. About Nandalal Bose of Santiniketan, he commented, “For, he is a creative artist and I am none. God has given me the sense of art, but not the organs to give it a concrete shape. He has blessed Nandalal Babu with both”’ On another occasion, “I am not an art student… I do not write or speak about it because I am conscious of my limitations. My functions are different from the artist’s and I should not go out of my way to assume his position.” He used the services of Bose for the Congress sessions and exhibitions and was all praise of his artistic genius. About Oscar Wilde, his comment, “Wilde saw the highest art simply in outward forms and, therefore, succeeded in beautifying immorality…” may appear dated and puritanical in the context of today’s sensibilities, but Gandhi hits the nail when he says, “On the other hand, truth may manifest itself in forms which may not be outwardly beautiful. Socrates, we are told, was the most truthful man of his time and yet his features are said to have been the ugliest in Greece. To my mind, he was beautiful because all his life he was striving for truth…” Gandhi read and wrote extensively, and travelled incessantly. He was self-luminous, experimenting continuously with himself, and was so immersed in the ‘real’ issues of life, that he hardly had time or perhaps even the inclination to be enriched by ‘fiction’. His once observed, in the context of Gujarati literature, “The less we revel in the realm of the fiction, the better for us.” His aversion to the cinema and his refusal to see any good in it stemmed from his understanding that cinema, of dance and music, is primarily for amusement and exerts a malefic influence on society. He was persuaded to meet Charlie Chaplin, impressed him a great deal, but never showed any interest in his work. Late in his life (1943-44), he condescended to watch two movies, Vijay Bhatt’s Ram Rajya and Curtiz’s Mission to Moscow. He apparently did not comment on either. During his lifetime, many socially relevant films were made on issues dear to him, but he refused to see much merit in cinematic art. Gandhi’s attitude to the theatre was also almost similar. He was more interested in music, but of a special variety. Invited to a performance by the great Ustad Abdul Karim Khan at the residence of Dilip Kumar Roy, Gandhi reportedly started collecting subscription for Congress party in between. On Gandhi’s request, Gauhar Jaan performed for a charity show, but Gandhi eventually shied away from attending the function himself. He may not have had an interest in the subtleties of pure classical music, but he used to enjoy bhajans. Subbulakshmi’s rendition of a Dikshitar Kirti Mamava Pattabhirama…was deeply appreciated. Post-independence, Gandhi wanted her to sing and record Hari Tum Haro… and reportedly said that he would rather have her speak the bhajan than have anyone else sing it! Gandhi also liked the devotional songs by Juthika Roy whose records used to be played before his prayer meetings. Vishnu Digambar Paluskar composed the music for Gandhi’s favourite Raghupati Raghava…About Omkarnath Thakur, Gandhi is believed to have said: “Pandit Omkarnathji can achieve through a single song of his what I can achieve through several speeches.” He was also fond of the singing of Dilip Kumar Roy and named his protégé Uma Basu as the ‘Nightingale of Bengal’. No wonder he admitted that he would have died of the crushing burden of work “if there was no music and no laughter in me.” Gandhi read Tagore in translation since his yearning to learn Bangla had to wait till the last days of his life. His favourite song ‘If no one responds to your call, walk alone, walk alone’ used to be sung during Gandhi’s days at Noakhali. After the Poona Pact was signed, Gandhi’s fast was broken with Tagore himself singing ‘When the heart is hard and parched up, come upon me with a shower of mercy’. He was often criticised, misunderstood and not considered a connoisseur of the arts, but he continued pursuing his own goals. This may be reflective of an orthodox attitude that almost borders on the spiritual, not in sync with the prevalent western mores, but Gandhi’s approach in this regard has not been inconsistent with his philosophy of life. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Blog: Little known side of Mahatma Gandhi

In India, prime ministers (PM) have always been more than just primus inter pares (first among equals). The most effective among them have personified the combination of three main roles — as a public figure of mass appeal, as one who is not merely a leader of the ruling party in the Parliament, but one having considerable influence on it and as the head of the government. &nbsp;

Each of these three roles influences the other two. Despite differences in personality and style of functioning, as between Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi, AB Vajpayee and Narendra Modi, the success of the prime minister has depended to a large extent, on one’s ability to balance these functions. &nbsp;

Hopes and aspirations of multitudes of people have to be raised by the nation’s most important functionary in such a way as can be substantially met by him as the head of the government. &nbsp;

Herein lies the problem. Our best PMs have all been tall in stature, but their performance records, almost inevitably, have been mixed and short of expectations. &nbsp;

There are a few reasons for this. Whenever a government takes charge, the hype attached to the electoral process creates an impression, aided by the media, that things would start changing big time.

Nothing revolutionary happens for the simple reason that government is a continuum, that the elected leaders have to work with the same instrumentalities of the state, and that the freedom to make new capital investments is often rather limited.&nbsp;

In a short time, the executive arm will get to grapple with the serious business of governance, where the PM’s stewardship can make a major difference initiating paradigmatic changes, as happened during the nation’s short tryst with capitalistic ideas from the early nineties.

As one symbolising public hope, the PM has to constantly interact directly with the people, and frequently so, explaining what is expected to be achieved in the next five years, admitting failures and errors in judgement and specifying how the problems are sought to be overcome. &nbsp;

During the early election years after independence, Nehru converted every public meeting to an exercise in adult education, explaining to people the nation’s experiments with democracy and secularism, the need for industrialisation and large irrigation projects, among others.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Softly and persuasively, the PM has to seek public support in the nation’s resolve to fight corruption, promote communal harmony and improve relationships with neighbouring countries. &nbsp;&nbsp;

The body language should be accommodative, not combative, exuding the aura that he is the leader of the whole country, not merely of his party, which might have obtained less than 50 per cent of the votes polled, and direct endorsement from a much lesser percentage of the country’s population.

In his second role as one having an influence over the party, the PM should seek the party’s support in keeping a close vigil on the performance and integrity of individual ministers. Axiomatically, if the minister is honest and efficient, the higher bureaucracy always follows suit. &nbsp;

In cases of direct conflict between the sectarian goals of the party and the inclusive idea of the government, the PM should act as a wise mediator and gradually steer the party towards the latter. &nbsp;

The PM alone, by virtue of his moral authority and wide public acceptance, can reduce the areas of potential conflict between the government and the party.&nbsp;

Another area where he can make a difference is by way of influencing the national discourse on issues that constitute the idea of India like a pluralist democracy, a federal structure, a mixed economy and of course, tolerant secularism that embraces and respects all faiths equally.

All these ideas, when sought to be shaped by public action led by the state, invariably get modified in some way or the other. The ideals that the Father of Our Nation espoused in respect of all the above have been substantially reshaped since independence. &nbsp;

As the chief executive of the nation, the PM has to persuade and inspire, facilitate change and prioritise action - often in combination. As the head of government, he has to focus on legislations of significance, social and economic, that require to be urgently passed through Parliament, as for instance, on land and labour reforms and women’s reservation issues.

On the executive front, his leadership for action is even more direct and pervasive. How to reduce poverty and income inequality, address farm distress, attract investment and enhance export to spur growth, keep inflation under control, generate employment through skill development as a movement, ensure national security, resolve the contentious NPA issue to enable banks to increase lending and how the Millennium Development Goals be achieved ahead of schedule, are among the umpteen concerns that would require his immediate attention.

Certain areas that are crying for reforms relate to augmenting the state’s capacity to carry forward the government’s mandate. Civil service reforms and strengthening of institutions such as the recently-constituted Lokpal fall into this category.

In this Herculean endeavour, the PM and his ministers must take advantage of the counsel of the best minds, inside and outside the government, within the country and from abroad. &nbsp;

If &nbsp;everyone is humble enough to understand the limitations of one’s imagination and capacity and is therefore prompted to seek advice from the knowledgeable, if only his team appreciates that electoral victory is merely the starting point of a process that requires to be carefully and pragmatically nurtured through the cooperation of all - then only will the prime minister of this complex and diverse country be able to make a lasting impress on the nation’s collective consciousness and be respected by all his countrymen as a statesman. 
 
(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-more-than-first-among-equals-2756868">original article)</a>

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

 
 
&nbsp;

In India, prime ministers (PM) have always been more than just primus inter pares (first among equals). The most effective among them have personified the combination of three main roles — as a public figure of mass appeal, as one who is not merely a leader of the ruling party in the Parliament, but one having considerable influence on it and as the head of the government.

In India, prime ministers (PM) have always been more than just primus inter pares (first among equals). The most effective among them have personified the combination of three main roles — as a public figure of mass appeal, as one who is not merely a leader of the ruling party in the Parliament, but one having considerable influence on it and as the head of the government. Each of these three roles influences the other two. Despite differences in personality and style of functioning, as between Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi, AB Vajpayee and Narendra Modi, the success of the prime minister has depended to a large extent, on one’s ability to balance these functions. Hopes and aspirations of multitudes of people have to be raised by the nation’s most important functionary in such a way as can be substantially met by him as the head of the government. Herein lies the problem. Our best PMs have all been tall in stature, but their performance records, almost inevitably, have been mixed and short of expectations. There are a few reasons for this. Whenever a government takes charge, the hype attached to the electoral process creates an impression, aided by the media, that things would start changing big time. Nothing revolutionary happens for the simple reason that government is a continuum, that the elected leaders have to work with the same instrumentalities of the state, and that the freedom to make new capital investments is often rather limited. In a short time, the executive arm will get to grapple with the serious business of governance, where the PM’s stewardship can make a major difference initiating paradigmatic changes, as happened during the nation’s short tryst with capitalistic ideas from the early nineties. As one symbolising public hope, the PM has to constantly interact directly with the people, and frequently so, explaining what is expected to be achieved in the next five years, admitting failures and errors in judgement and specifying how the problems are sought to be overcome. During the early election years after independence, Nehru converted every public meeting to an exercise in adult education, explaining to people the nation’s experiments with democracy and secularism, the need for industrialisation and large irrigation projects, among others. Softly and persuasively, the PM has to seek public support in the nation’s resolve to fight corruption, promote communal harmony and improve relationships with neighbouring countries. The body language should be accommodative, not combative, exuding the aura that he is the leader of the whole country, not merely of his party, which might have obtained less than 50 per cent of the votes polled, and direct endorsement from a much lesser percentage of the country’s population. In his second role as one having an influence over the party, the PM should seek the party’s support in keeping a close vigil on the performance and integrity of individual ministers. Axiomatically, if the minister is honest and efficient, the higher bureaucracy always follows suit. In cases of direct conflict between the sectarian goals of the party and the inclusive idea of the government, the PM should act as a wise mediator and gradually steer the party towards the latter. The PM alone, by virtue of his moral authority and wide public acceptance, can reduce the areas of potential conflict between the government and the party. Another area where he can make a difference is by way of influencing the national discourse on issues that constitute the idea of India like a pluralist democracy, a federal structure, a mixed economy and of course, tolerant secularism that embraces and respects all faiths equally. All these ideas, when sought to be shaped by public action led by the state, invariably get modified in some way or the other. The ideals that the Father of Our Nation espoused in respect of all the above have been substantially reshaped since independence. As the chief executive of the nation, the PM has to persuade and inspire, facilitate change and prioritise action - often in combination. As the head of government, he has to focus on legislations of significance, social and economic, that require to be urgently passed through Parliament, as for instance, on land and labour reforms and women’s reservation issues. On the executive front, his leadership for action is even more direct and pervasive. How to reduce poverty and income inequality, address farm distress, attract investment and enhance export to spur growth, keep inflation under control, generate employment through skill development as a movement, ensure national security, resolve the contentious NPA issue to enable banks to increase lending and how the Millennium Development Goals be achieved ahead of schedule, are among the umpteen concerns that would require his immediate attention. Certain areas that are crying for reforms relate to augmenting the state’s capacity to carry forward the government’s mandate. Civil service reforms and strengthening of institutions such as the recently-constituted Lokpal fall into this category. In this Herculean endeavour, the PM and his ministers must take advantage of the counsel of the best minds, inside and outside the government, within the country and from abroad. If everyone is humble enough to understand the limitations of one’s imagination and capacity and is therefore prompted to seek advice from the knowledgeable, if only his team appreciates that electoral victory is merely the starting point of a process that requires to be carefully and pragmatically nurtured through the cooperation of all - then only will the prime minister of this complex and diverse country be able to make a lasting impress on the nation’s collective consciousness and be respected by all his countrymen as a statesman. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

As the chief executive of the nation, PM has to inspire, facilitate change and prioritise action

Author

Zee News Rajasthan

Editor

Amitabha Bhattacharya

Home

Live Tv

Latest

World

India

Business

Entertainment

Sports

Opinions

Videos

Photos

Gravitas

Lifestyle

Science

Tech

Rajasthan News in Hindi: In-depth coverage of Rajasthan Crime, Political News, Education, Rajasthan Weather Update and Latest Rajasthan News on Zee News Rajasthan.