Arya Samaj

Shishya · Posted: Mon May 22, 2006 3:01 pm Post subject: US Civil Rights: 'Made in India'

US Civil Rights: 'Made in India'
by
BBC's Nick Bryant

The debt the US civil rights movement owes to India

Completing a book in South Asia has been anything but dull.

Much of the conclusion was written in a maharajah's palace; the final typos were corrected in a military encampment high in the quake-affected mountains of Pakistan's North West Frontier Province.

The first academic reviews came through at an internet cafe in rebel-controlled territory in northern Sri Lanka, with a stern portrait of the Tamil Tiger leader Vilupillai Prabhakaran frowning down on me; and the finished manuscript went to print just as Nepal's 'Ringroad Revolution' was reaching its climax.

Take the morning of Saturday, 8 October 2005. With the final deadline less than 48 hours away, I had awoken uncharacteristically early so that I could be seated at my desk before dawn.

Three hours later, when my laptop began to wobble from side to side I strongly suspected that I needed a screen break. Moments later, when my desk began to shudder, I realised that South Asia must have been struck by a major earthquake.

Appropriate Setting

That afternoon, I boarded the first flight to Islamabad, clutching a printout of the final chapter and the latest wire copy from Reuters: 'Dozens are feared dead in a major earthquake', a figure which had risen to over 70,000 by the end of the week.

The book, The Bystander: John F Kennedy and the Struggle for Black Equality, focuses on the often fraught relationship between Jack Kennedy and the American civil rights movement, seemingly an unlikely topic for a correspondent based in Delhi.

But, as it turned out, the setting ended up being entirely appropriate.

As I quickly discovered, many of the main heroes of the book - the often isolated officials in the Kennedy administration who called repeatedly for the President to mount a much more aggressive assault on racial segregation in the American south - all spent formative portions of their careers in India.

They were committed Indophiles - or more accurately, Gandhiphiles.

Chester Bowles, the Deputy Secretary of State in the Kennedy administration, laboured hard to prevent barbers, restaurateurs and real estate agents from discriminating against African diplomats based in Washington and New York, cities which were then considered a hardship posting.

Mr Bowles also dedicated himself to making sure the State Department and Foreign Service, which were almost all-white enclaves at the end of the 1950s, recruited a greater number of black applicants.

Prior to taking up the post, Mr Bowles had served as the US ambassador to India and Nepal in the early 1950s.

'Last Chance'

The same position was occupied by the much-lamented J K Galbraith, the cerebral Harvard economist who had long argued that America would never live up to its democratic ideal unless its system of racial apartheid was completely dismantled.

From the ambassador's residence in Delhi, Galbraith watched in fear and dismay as black fury broke loose in the spring and summer of 1963, and demonstrators took to the streets in over a thousand American cities, both north and south.

"This is our last chance to remain in control of matters," Mr Galbraith wrote to attorney general Robert Kennedy in June of that year, "and of avoiding the most serious eventuality which is the possible need to use force to restrain Negro violence."

Then there is Harris Wofford, who toiled as Kennedy's chief civil rights advisor before resigning in frustration in the early summer of 1962 because of the President's moral timidity on the fissile question of racial reform.

The author of India Afire, which was published in 1951, Wofford became a keen student of the philosophy of Gandhian non-violent action, the highly-successful strategy which had driven the British from India.

On returning to America in the early 1950s, Mr Wofford discussed these ideas with a young preacher based in Montgomery, Alabama, the so-called 'cradle of the Confederacy.' His name was the Reverend Dr Martin Luther King, Jr.

Dr King himself made the long journey to India in 1959, three years after the famed Montgomery Bus Boycott had made him a hero on the subcontinent.

"To other countries I may go as a tourist," he declared on touching down at Delhi airport, "but to India I come as a pilgrim."

'Made in India'

So when Dr King sent children onto the streets of Birmingham, Alabama, in the spring of 1963, in the most climactic confrontation of the civil rights era, he used the same tactic of mass civil disobedience which Gandhi had pioneered with the Dandi Salt March 33 years earlier.

Both men knew that to reveal the hatred of their opponents was to demonstrate the righteousness of their cause - in Gandhi's case, dismantling British rule; in King's, dismantling segregation.

There are even contemporary parallels between the struggle for black equality and the ongoing battle in India challenging the inequities of the caste system.

The recent furore sparked by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's speech exploring the possibility of reservations (affirmative action) for India's lower castes in the private sector has loud echoes of the controversy surrounding President Lyndon Johnson's support for the preferential treatment of racial minorities in a famous commencement address at Washington's Howard University in 1965.

As Mr Johnson declared: "You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race and then say, 'you are free to compete with all the others', and still justly believe that you have been completely fair."

As I write now, the finished book is sitting on my desk - with the insignia of its New York publisher on the jacket but hopefully with signs inside that it was ultimately 'Made in India'.

(Source)

Ashtangi · Freshman Member Joined: 27 May 2006 Posts: 23

Namaste, Shishya.

Thank you for posting Nick Bryant's article to this forum. India's influence on the US Civil Rights movement has been ignored for far too long. Years ago; I read an interview with Admiral Stansfield Turner, the head of the CIA under President Carter, in which he mentioned that African-Americans "fit the profile" of a classic insurgency movement. According to him, what kept the community from organized, armed rebellion were leaders like Martin Luther King.

What if Dr. King hadn't been influenced by Gandhiji? Obviously, African-Americans couldn't have overthrown the US Government. But insurgents don't have to win battles. They just have to inflict enough casualties to weaken the state. I believe that India indirectly saved the United States from a "race" war.

Om Shanti.

Ashtangi

Shishya · Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 4:26 am Post subject:

Namaste, Ashtangi:

Indeed, I think you make a valid point concerning the pivotal yet hitherto unrecognized role Gandhi's message of Ahimsa played in the development of the civil rights movement in possibly diverting an armed uprising in the U.S. We know that M. L. King Jr. studied the Satyagraha-philosophy of Gandhi in great depth while still at Boston University and that he made skillful use of it's principles to win in his struggle for equality under the law. (Though this fact usually receives very little attention from mainstream media - which is why this article is so long overdue.) And I think this point is strengthened even more when one contrast Martin Luther King Jr. with the figure of Malcolm X. As you probably know, Malcom X was a proponent of the ideology of the Nation of Islam, and supported the winning of the rights of the Blacks "by any means necessary", including violence. Yet, despite all his fiery rhetoric, Malcolm X has largely been swept under the carpet of the historical memory of mainstream America, while M. L. King Jr. is practically a national hero. Satyagraha was the thing that differentiated the two of them. It was the thing that made the moral conscience of white America wake up to the injustice of the policies of segregation and discrimination. Malcolm X was more or less a militant, and had he had more followers, could have easily started a 'race-war' which would have ended in tragedy.

It is indeed a shame that people aren't more aware of Gandhi's role in all of this. But, it's somehow typical, no? Neutral

I think it is also worth while to compare the Principles of Gandhi's Satyagraha Movement with the 10 Principles of the Arya Samaj:

The Code of Discipline for Satyagraha

Harbour no anger but suffer the anger of the opponent. Refuse to return the assault of the opponent.
Do not submit to any order given in anger, even though servere punishment is threatened for disobeying.
Refrain from insults and swearing.
Protect opponents from insult or attack, even at the risk of life.
Do not resist arrest nor the attachment of property, unless holding property as a trustee.
Refuse to surrender any property held in trust at the risk of life.
If taken prisoner, behave in an exemplary manner.
As a member of a satyagraha unit, obey the orders of satyagraha leaders, and resign from the unit in the event of serious disagreement.
Do not expect guarantees for maintenance of dependents.

(Source)

The 10 Principles of the Arya Samaj

The first (efficient) cause of all true knowledge and all that is known through knowledge is God, the Highest Lord (Parameshwar).
God (Ishwara) is existent and blissful. He is formless, omnisicient, unborn, endless, unchangeable, beginningless, the supporter of all, the master of all, omnipresent, immanent, unageing, immortal, fearless, eternal, holy and the maker of all. He alone is worthy of being worshipped.
The Vedas are the scripture of true knowledge. It is the first duty of the noble (aryas) to read them, to teach them, to recite them, and to hear them being recited.
One should always be ready to accept truth and to abandon untruth.
One should do everything according to the dictates of righteousness (dharma), i.e. after due reflection upon right and wrong.
Doing good to the whole world is the primary objective of this society (samaj), i.e. to look to its physical, spiritual and social welfare.
Let thy dealings with all be regulated by love and justice in accordance with the dictates of righteousness (dharma).
One should promote knowledge (vidya) and dispel ignorance (avidya).
One should not be content with one's own welfare alone, but should realize one's welfare to reside in the welfare of all.
One should regard one's self as being under obligation to follow altruistic rulings of society. Yet in following rules of individual welfare, all should be free.

Of course, it must be noted that, while Gandhi was writing rules for the civil disobedience movement, Swamiji was writing the fundamental principles of the religious and cultural reform of the world. Despite this, I think Principles 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10 correspond well to the underlying principles of Gandhi's Satyagraha philosophy.
_________________
Namaste,

Shishya
ॐ

ॐ सह नावतु । सह तौ भुनक्तु । सह वीर्यं करवावहै । तेजस्वि नावधीतमस्तु मा विद्विषावहै ॥
"Together may we be protected. Together may we be profited. Together may we do a hero's work. May we learn intelligently. May we never hate one another."
-Brihadaranyaka & Taittiriya Upanishads

Deepan Abisuriya · Junior Member Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 66

Namaste,

Slowly and steadily the people of the world are coming to know that our Vedic dharma is the true source of all knowlege and knowledge of the strong is the practice of ahimsa. This practical implimentation of dharma, which is ahimsa will lead to a peaceful world. Vedas are everlasting and are relevant to the modern times as they were to the ancient.

As per my study, I found that , every country which has fought for independance with guns, still have guns ruling over them. But all those countries which followed the non-violent means, have established peaceful socities.

Deepan.