Courage of convictions - rare in real life?

sowmyapbhat · Jan 21, 2010

Right and wrong. The scales of justice teeter with uncertainty between these two objectives.

Right from childhood we are taught that Gandhiji wrested independence from the British by standing up to their atrocities. However, was Gandhiji right in doing that?

Many people were happy under British rule. The British themselves, for example. And also the various kings and queens of the princely states who lived comfortably under British patronage. And not to mention the bureaucracy and the salaried, educated classes who enjoyed job security by following British diktats.

Weren't Gandhiji and the other freedom fighters doing a grave injustice to these people by demanding that the British leave?

I know, that the answer came from the masses who were on the other side of this prosperity. Every coin has two sides. What is right for some is wrong for the other. Nevertheless, what I would like to talk about here is courage of conviction, particularly in the family setting.

Courage of conviction means you follow what you believe is right, provided it is within the boundaries of law. In the 1970s, several movies came out in the Kannada language, which showed family life from the woman's perspective. Two of these stand out in my opinion. I would like to elaborate on their plots here.

Ranganayaki

Ranganayaki had a woman protagonist, the daughter of a stage artiste, who helped her father run his drama company. She was fond of the stage too, and her father encouraged his daughter's pursuit. The daughter fell in love with a sophisticated urban gent, and they got married. By and by, though, a clash of cultures featured. The husband didn't think much of her creative abilities, and he particularly didn't care for her stage aspirations. He wanted her to stop this career of hers, and be a good wife to him - he was rich and all the luxuries of life were hers for the asking.

However, the wife did not see things his way - she loved the stage. She didn't see anything wrong with what she was doing, and refused to give it up. One thing led to another, and the man left her for another woman. Now, was she right in sticking to her conviction, or should she have given it up to be a good wife?

:coffee

Upasane

This film was even more groundbreaking, in that the wife is a very strong character - a gifted vocalist, she charmed her way into her in-laws hearts, with her mellifluous voice. She even regularly held concerts and gained appreciation from music enthusiasts all over. Her husband and in-laws encouraged her initially. But vested interests in the form of neighbors and competitors spread rumors that the wife was having an affair with her unmarried music teacher. The wife denied all these, but no one believed her. Her family insisted that she give up her concerts and practise music solely at home. This wasn't agreeable to the wife, so she continued to give concerts. One day she returned home only to find that her family would not let her in. She sought refuge in her parents' house, but they too refused, citing the wrath of society. Finally she knocks on her her music teacher's door, where the music teacher being unaware of all the rumors, shelters her.
But bad news travels quickly. People hound the music teacher's house and demand that the woman be thrown out. The music teacher gives in under the pressure.

What did the woman do? She didn't go back to her husband or parents, instead she joined an ashram and continued to sing.

:?:

Both the women in these films were strong characters who stood by their convictions, defying their families. It is not very different from what Gandhiji did. Yet, I am sure not many are going to support the act of the woman!

Gandhiji himself struggled with this duality - he expected Kasturba to follow his lead, even when she didn't want to - there is an instance mentioned in his autobiography to substantiate this. Gandhi had two visitors staying with him overnight. In those days, chamber pots were common, as going out in the night to answer nature's calls was inconvenient. Gandhi insisted that Kasturba clean their chamberpots. Kasturba refused, and Gandhi dragged her out of the house, almost telling her to leave. But better sense prevailed on him just in time, and he repented for his actions.

How many of us would encourage our family members to follow their hearts? Parents would do it, because parental love has no boundaries, but spouses and siblings? Can we stick to our convictions both outside the house and within? Or do we have to be good family members and stifle our greater callings in order to keep the peace in the house?

Is democracy an idea that has its merit only in the public sphere?

ojaantrik · Jan 21, 2010

Dear Sowmyapbhat:

I had been looking forward to reading a new post by you. And thank God I noticed this. Hopefully, I may even be the first one to send you an fb. Of course, that's not the reason I am responding. Winning races don't matter to me so much, because when you do something to win a race, you do it badly.

The first reason I wanted to read you again is of course that I like your style. I know you are capable of excellent stuff as far as writing style goes. And let me be frank, even though the present post is competently written, I am dead sure that this is not the best you are capable of. You have great potential and I hope you realize it and keep extending the boundaries further and further out.

Secondly, regarding the subject matter. Since you brought up one of the most controversial and charismatic characters from Indian politics, the Mahatma himself, I have little doubt that many persons will have things to say about your ideas. I too have often thought about his ideology. I was particularly moved by the film Gandhi, My Father. The balance between good and bad is brought out in that film quite brutally. If you haven't watched it, I recommend it strongly.

I am not terribly sure how to evaluate people with principles. There are two kind of people with strong convictions. The first kind sticks to principles in private life and the second kind, like Gandhi, affect public life too.

The private life ones make an impact on people inside the family -- the films you mention are examples of such people. It is difficult to judge, needless to say. If you are endowed with a vision or a talent, it is so hard to give it up for something as absurd as social conformity. In Bengal, we have the case of a great singer, Alpana Bandyopadhyay, who literally turned into a psycopath because her husband and his family wouldn't let her perform in public. Much later in life, when her daughter grew up, she took her mother's side. She did make a few appearances on TV, but the best part of her was dead by then. It was a disaster if you look at the thing from the point of view of music lovers. It is very hard not to end up hating the hubby, but then who knows, may be he had a point too, however hard it may be for us to grasp.

The public life ones, such as Gandhi, Lenin, Mao Tse Tung and others have a far, far greater impact on the lives of small people. I recall a passage from Dr. Zhivago, where the man comes back home to discover a group of "vulgar" commoners thumping on his favourite piano. He had no right to protest. Mao Tse Tung's cultural revolution banned Shakespeare in China. And Gandhi too propagated a philosophy of semi-renunciation for the whole country.

If you look at where we are standing today in India, the mad pursuit for globalization and growth, the ostentatious life styles, they are a far cry from Gandhi's "ambar charkha" culture. We won freedom from British rule, thanks partly to Gandhi and his followers, but in the final analysis, the whites are the ones who won out. NRI's are literally worshipped in India today, despite their questionable command over the English language! No one will have the guts to downgrade Gandhi needless to say, but few today believe in his philosophy. I don't think anyone will pronounce judgement on him. But social behaviour has pronounced a silent judgement. It's not a question of right or wrong. It's more a question of what's convenient, what's more comfortable.

You have brought up a very serious issue in your post.

oj

Jpatma · Jan 21, 2010

Dear Sowmya,
I must admit this a very very beautifull post. I liked your style and i love to watch people's thought process which is excellent here.
Feather in your cap is OJ's fb. You don't need any more accredition, this one fb from OJ san is suffice.
Oj has given a frame work for your topic dividing into private and public convictions.
The story you have narrated are both private, but it takes a himalayan courage to stick to your conviction when the tide is against you. I always salute those hero/heroine. Yes ! many have buckled under pressure. They are also unsung hero/heroine.
Initially Gandhi did have some tough time to make his family live to his conviction, slowly there was some following for him and so later on it may not be that difficult.
If you are the head of the family, you may be able to impose your conviction, but if you are a small member your convictions may be set aside. So it becomes easy for leaders . Even in personal conviction both the members you had mentioned were subordinate in the family circle. So it was upstream ride for them.

What ever it is, to have strong conviction is strength of character.
Take a scenario, where the head of the family has strong conviction abt taking commissions and tips. The family is large and he is unable to meet both ends, his spouse may encourage him to earn a bit more thro what i call it as side income. In this case to buckle under pressure of the members is very easy though he may be the head of the family. Here the position doesn't come into play or may be his inability to meet both the ends makes him a subordinate/subservient.

In a nut shell, it is a trait to be recognized.
I really have a great pleasure in reading such a lovely post
Jaya

Tubelight · Jan 22, 2010

Dear Sowmya
You have dared to touch a subject that is too hot to handle ! Truly thought provoking, or, for some minds used to the comfort of traditional, handed down convictions, just provocative !

Its true that many Indians of the educated elite layer had it cushy under the British. Princely states were particularly non committal towards all early rumblings of the freedom movement. But then, the majority had a tough life. Besides, the very idea of an alien race lording over our land is ideologically repugnant. Take the very recent instance of the furore over Sonia Gandhi's nationality, when it came to the crunch.
The freedom movement was not started by Gandhi and his friends. It began in the 18th century itself , strengthened in the 19th. and by Gandhiji's time, it was ripe for a denouement. He was one of the catalysts.

Powerful, idealistic men make difficult spouses. In his autobigraphy, Gandhi has admitted as much. However, if you ask whether he had any right to impose his views on Kasturba, there can be no clear cut yes or no for answer. For starters, one has to factor in the Period , the setting. At that time, a wife was still seen as subordinate to the man. He was responsible for her, for her character, her behaviour. Much as today, we mothers feel responsible for our children. (The time may not be far off when children claim Human Rights and demand freedom from parental "dominance" ;already we read cases of kids suing parents in western countries !) So trying to "educate" a wife as he saw fit cannot be held against a man of that generation. Of course, Kasturba too was a strong woman . She acquiesed only if she wanted to ! Besides, she would have had the nobility, practicality even, not to put herself and her dreams above the interests of family.

I have seen both Ranganayaki and Upasane. In the former, the woman was shown to commit suicide, because the director obviously could not take sides ! It was left to the viewers to decide whether she killed herself out of repentance or out of sheer frustration with a regressive world !

One courageous lady was Akkamahadevi. She had the guts to take up her calling. So what does society do ? Deify her , so that she may NOT serve as a role model for mortal women !

We have come a long way since Gandhiji's times. Many women ( certainly, not all) enjoy a measure more democracy at home now. Historically, events happen more because of the pressures of the time and circumstance than because of personages. I feel, it is not fair to judge people, who were products of their time, after much water has flown, through filters available to us now .
Having said that, i am bound to agree that for many people, the public avatar is a total antithesis of the private reality. We are all, equally, parts of the masquerade !
Thank you for presenting a stimulating post.

apar_ram · Jan 22, 2010

Sowmya... i commend you for taking such a topic to write your thoughts. I liked your analysis. very thoughtful indeed.
things have come a long way since the days of Gandhi.. let alone that long ago, in a decade we have seen so many changes. 15 years back not many girls were sent abroad for work. But now most families have a daughter or niece abroad. It has become a norm... When things are uncommon it takes a lot of courage to stick out from the ordinary.
wonderful responses by OJ ji, Jayamma and TL..
It takes a brave and strong heart to stand against your loved ones and the community.. the passion in your heart gives you the courage i guess.

I would like to nominate this for the Fp this month..

aparna

monifa13 · Jan 22, 2010

Dear Sowmyabhat - As OJ has said each one will have their own say regarding Gandhiji and the other freedom fighters and this is what I think. If my neighbour occupies my house,steals my food and wealth, treats me like a slave and abuse my family I won't silently put up with all that. I would fight to get back what is rightfully mine and this is what Gandhiji and other freedom fighters did for us and our country. It was not a political stunt and they never made money out of it and sacrificed their everything for this cause. But how we handled our hard earned freedom is a different story!
Ever since women started going to work they have their much needed exposure and they are not like the women of previous generations. I don't think women are scared of the society and it's dogmas anymore. Still many of us succumb to the pressure given by our own familiy because we women are softies and it's not our mind but it's our heart that rules our lives. I think we still are the willing slaves!
Thanks for making us think.

knot2share · Jan 22, 2010

I am quite enjoying reading this post along with the feedbacks. Thank you so much for bringing up an interesting topic Sowmyapbhat. Can we stick to our convictions both inside and outside the house we live in? If one can, they are probably lucky is what I would say. Its the choice we make in our lives and I am not sure if we are willing slaves but I think because of the decision that we make, the family moves ahead smoothly. Interest of the family and the well being of the family is always in our minds. Only a woman can make or break a family, they say and that is so true. Only we have the strength to face crisis and only we have the strength to even give up our passion for the well being of people who are associated with us closely, in the name of family. We are actually leading the family by not staying ahead of all but from behind the scenes so to speak. We bind them all together. I find the statement "its not our mind but our hearts that rules our lives" very interesting. I am still trying to find out if it is really our heart that helps us with this decision that many make. Heart has the passion but isn't it the mind that makes us think practically? Anyways, that is not what this post is about.Having said all this, it is wonderful to see many women these days who are taking up their dreams and passion and pursuing further. That was my two cents...... I would surely follow what everybody has to say here. Thankx again Sowmya!

sabarimathi · Jan 22, 2010

sowmyapbhat hi,

what an absurd post! I wonder if women could write such posts! I've a question for u - do u know anything abt Gandhiji? Had u known him ? Have u been close to him to talk the way u feel abt him?

This is a total chaos. Only u can do it! U're nothing but a total confusion. :bonk As Swami Vivekananda said "there are a bunch of ppl who say there is no God and lead their own way of life that pleases them - " I see many such ppl.

Kamalji · Jan 22, 2010

Dear Sownmya,

Very well written, a blog that makes u think a lot.

We live in a socieity and bound by many customs.Gandhiji, well, he wanted everyone in his family accept his doing, which i dont agree to.I guess one of his sons committed suicide.

Today harsha my wife , does not agree with my blogging, fine i dont force her to blog, each to their own.Gandhiji should have cleaned the toilets himself, if he wanted.

And regarding the first instance u wrote about, the rich husband wanting his wife to be just his wife, what was wrong in that.He did not need her name and fame or money, dont some men want a housewife,too ? Some men want working women, bcs they want the wife to suppliment the income.

all these things are mutual, and i think these things should be discussed before marriage, of what each person's role should be.Later on conflicts occur.

A good post.Regards

kamal

sowmyapbhat · Jan 22, 2010

Dear OJ,

Call it intuition, or mere educated guessing, I was sure you would be the first to comment on this one. You have very high expectations from my writing, and I hope one day I will fulfill them!

I haven't seen the movie Gandhi, My Father, but your reference to it drove me to dig up it's storyline from the web - intriguing, isn't it? It only goes to show that people think very differently, even if they have lived under the same roof for decades. It is very difficult to come out of the shadow of a successful father, especially one who doesn't see eye-to-eye with you.

Alpana Bandopadhyay is just the real-life figure I was hoping to find through this exercise! Really, whose loss is it if the nightingale is stifled? If you remember the movie Sholay, there was this excellent dialogue between Jaya Bhaduri's Father-in-law (essayed by Sanjeev Kumar) and her father (played by Iftekar) - Sanjeev Kumar asks Iftekar if the widowed Jaya can marry Amitabh. Iftekar is not keen on it, adding that society would frown upon it. Sanjeev Kumar comes up with the rejoinder that society was created to give man company, not to keep him alone all his life.
Indeed, it is still difficult to judge who paid the higher price in Alpana's case.

You have very neatly separated convictions into public and private ones, as others have commended you for it! True, India certainly does not follow Gandhian thought anymore, except for making sure his portrait smiles down at us everywhere. More than NRIs being worshipped, it is purchasing power that catches everyone's fancy, don't you think?

In the end, you have summed it up so aptly - it is not about right or wrong, it is about what is convenient...and that is exactly why those who chose the inconvenient path end up having to pay.

When I started writing this post, I just put down whatever came to my mind. Later I realized that I could improve it in many ways, give it a structure, a proper flow, as you have implied..Lesson taken!:thumbsup

Thanks so much for your very generous and insightful feedback..

Best,
Sowmya