Home

Projects

History

Events

Contacts

Publications

Friend

Photo Gallery

I believe in the fundamental Truth of all great religions of the world. I believe they are all God given and I believe they were necessary for the people to whom these religions were revealed. And I believe that if only we could all of us read the scriptures of the different faiths from the standpoint of the followers of these faiths, we should find that they were at the bottom all one and were all helpful to one another.
- M K Gandhi

Annual Lecture 2006
We were extremely privileged to have The High Commissioner for India, His Excellency Kamalesh Sharma, deliver the Lecture.  He read English at King's College, Cambridge and has served over 20 years in the Indian Foreign Service.  He was India's Permanent Representative and Ambassador to the United Nations (1997-2003) and then Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General to East Timor (2003-04).  He was appointed UK High Commissioner in 2005.  He is currently involved in many forward thinking organisations including The Loomba Trust, The Ditchley Foundation and The Imperial War Museum.  

Often quoted, he came to fame when he said, before the Afghani Taliban actually destroyed the huge Buddhist rock carvings in Bamyan, that "If [they] did not wish to retain the country's inheritance, his Government would be happy to arrange for the transfer of the artifacts to India, where they would be kept safely and preserved for all mankind, in the full knowledge and clear understanding that they were treasures of the Afghan people themselves."

In The House of Commons, he announced his Lecture as "Encounters with Gandhi".  His articulate and eloquent talk ranged over many of our global crises pointing out where and how Gandhi's exemplary model of courteous diplomacy and deep respect for his opponents had been successfully applied in our own times and when, and sometimes why, it had failed.  These were the telling insights of a diplomat at the peek of a very distinguished career.  He made it very clear that he had advocated and practised non-violent approaches to resolving differences throughout.  We ignore at our peril the wisdom that such experience has clearly brought.

Shri Kamalesh Sharma spoke to nearly 200 people packed into Committee Room 14 of The House of Commons.  This had been organised for us by The Prime Minister's envoy on inter-faith matters, John Battle MP PC.  The meeting was chaired by Lord Bhikhu Parekh, a Patron of The Gandhi Foundation.  Bhikhu spoke concisely of Gandhi's actual and potential contribution to the 21st Century.  Lord Parekh's family trust, The Nirman Foundation, sponsored this year's Lecture and will do so again for a further 2 years; this will allow The Foundation to expand its horizons and your suggestions for this year's Annual Lecturer will be gratefully received. 
John Rowley


The Annual Gandhi Foundation Lecture 2005 by Mark Tully

Was the Mahatma too Great a Soul? ­ Pulling Gandhi off his Pedestal

Sir Mark Tully had a very distinguished career as BBC Correspondent for South Asia for 25 years.
He has a vast knowledge of and respect for Indian culture and has written a number of books on the subject. 
This is a summary of the Lecture delivered on 1 September 2005 in City Hall, London. 

It has been said that it is dangerous to be too good. To illustrate this by two stories: 
I once heard a sermon on the Bible story about selling everything and giving it to the poor,
and this was being interpreted literally ­ I was left with the feeling that this teaching was
impossible and so irrelevant; the other is a cartoon of two Indian Congressmen leaving a 
cinema after seeing the film 'Gandhi' and one asks: "Did such a man ever exist?" 
In other words there is a danger when great people get put on pedestals that their lives 
and teaching seem so far from the reality of us ordinary people and our lives that we 
dismiss them as impractical.

If Gandhi is so impressive, for example in his austerity, one may say to oneself: "This 
is wonderful but I can't be like that". One effect of this is that Gandhi is not greatly 
followed in India today. Tagore thought that the West would support Gandhian ideas 
before the East because the East had not gone through a materialist phase and become 
disillusioned, but in the West also Gandhi is put on a pedestal. And the danger is that 
he will lack influence because he is seen as too removed from the real world. In fact 
he always insisted that he was not a saint and he was sometimes justifiably criticised 
in his lifetime and has been since.

Even now he is questioned by some about his rejection of all sexual relationships, and 
also his sometimes harsh treatment of his family. Moreover, nonviolence and 
trusteeship of wealth are both often seen as unrealistic. If we put Gandhi on a pedestal 
it makes it difficult for us to question him when we should. Gandhi once said "I do 
not believe industrialisation is needed in any country", but it could be argued that 
India was under-industrialised at independence. While aspects of industrialisation are 
to be criticised, complete rejection is unwise. Also the growth of cities is 
attacked by Gandhi, but not everything about cities is bad; nor in contrast are villages 
ideal: for example in India today the panchayat system being promoted is breeding 
corruption at the village level showing that villages are not ideal republics. Taking 
some of Gandhi's sayings literally would mean rejecting sex, taking a luddite 
economic position, and being absolutely nonviolent. 

But we should remember the humanity ­ and humour ­ of Gandhi and see him as 
belonging to the Indian tradition of dialogue, argument, discussion, as a means to the 
search for truth, which involves the courage to compromise. He saw himself as a 
pilgrim, journeying on the path of truth. He said: "Insistence on truth has taught me to 
appreciate the beauty of compromise". Politics and the media need to learn from this today.

If we understand Gandhi's meaning but do not take the message too literally we will 
find he is still highly relevant today. I would like to look at three fields in which that 
is true. They are nonviolence, the economy and religion.

War is no answer to anything as we can see from its use by the mightiest power of our 
time in Vietnam, and the first and second Iraq wars. The military might of the USA 
was unable to resolve the issues in these places to its satisfaction. Declaring a war on 
terrorism does not eliminate terrorism. It requires some understanding of the terrorists' 
position, listening to them, without however supporting their violence. Essential also 
is to look at ourselves to find where we have gone wrong and contributed to the 
creation of terrorists. One example of misunderstanding is with regard to women, 
where seen from a devout Muslim position, Western societies have an obscene 
culture. In contrast Western societies see conservative Muslim societies as oppressive 
to women. It is not easy to resolve these differences but attempts must be made. 

Western culture can be felt as a threat to traditional cultures such as Indian and 
Muslim. While violence may be used in a good cause it must be the absolute 
minimum possible. A politician should always work to dampen the flames of conflict.
From a Gandhian perspective our economy is violent. The basis of it is consumerism 
which in turn is based on greed and envy. Without greed the consumers won't 
consume enough. Greed and envy, bad in themselves, may provoke violence. Is it 
moral to encourage debts? What about some of the signs of a healthy expanding 
economy which we hear about so much on radio and television ­ are they really 
healthy in themselves? Should we want higher house prices? Who does it benefit? Not 
young couples trying to get a mortgage, not lower income people in rural areas. Is a 
healthy society one which keeps the tills ringing on the High Street? There is some 
virtue in free-trade but taken too far it exploits poorer workers in developing 
countries, and it does violence to nature through degradation of the environment. 
Gandhi's belief in the local economy is very relevant ­ we should support enterprises 
such as farmers' markets and transport fewer goods around the globe. India's 
development has been top-down, the opposite of what Gandhi advocated.

Religion can be a divisive factor in society but an aggressive secularism creates 
disrespect for religion which impoverishes society. Banning the wearing of head 
scarves by schoolgirls in France or directives not to celebrate Christmas in some 
hospitals in the UK, contrast with the tolerant approach of India where symbols of all 
are accepted and found side-by-side. Rowan Williams has called the former 
"the agenda of nervous secularists". Importantly this increasing secularisation can 
produce fear in adherents of religion which may encourage development into a more
fundamental form of their religion. Indeed Karen Armstrong has said that extreme 
secularisation is in symbiotic relationship with religious fundamentalism. This change 
in the West is also leading to a loss of the awareness of the transcendent.

If we are to respect Gandhi we should do so in the context of Indian thought. Gandhi 
was a Hindu and steeped in Indian culture. That is a culture which does not believe in 
absolutes and Gandhi certainly didn't see himself as absolutely good or absolutely 
right. We shouldn't see him in absolute terms either. Then maybe today's India and the 
West will realise his relevance and the relevance of the Indian culture he stood for, a 
culture which would not take secularism, globalism, or any of the other isms of today 
too far but try to find a middle way between their advantages and their disadvantages. 

Sadly even in India they are forgetting the great principle of the middle way. When I 
speak of Hinduism, secularists don't see that I am advocating a middle way between 
religious and secular intolerance; to them the mention of Hinduism automatically 
implies fundamentalism. I came to India as a Christian, and I still am a Christian, but I 
came to believe with Gandhi that there is more than one way to God. It is possible to 
live side-by-side with those of other faiths and not just tolerate them but appreciate 
them. This includes non-believers ­ after all Hinduism has an atheistic school of 
thought too. 

The poet Kathleen Raine was a great admirer of Indian culture and suggested that the West should
should learn from it. Living in India and seeing the spread of Western consumerism and materialism 
I begin to wonder whether we are not doing the opposite and undermining Indian culture. 
To respect Gandhi and make him relevant in the cultural crisis of today we should not go too far in our 
appreciation of him and place him on a pedestal but discuss his ideas among ourselves ­ and sometimes argue 
with Gandhi himself. That I think is what he would want because, as I said, he did not 
regard himself as a saint. 

We are delighted that Sir Mark Tully has kindly agreed to be a Patron of the Gandhi Foundation.

*****

The 2004 Annual Lecture was given by Helen Steven from Scotland who, together

with Ellen Moxley, also received the Gandhi International Peace Award on this occasion.  

Both have campaigned tirelessly over 30 years against WMDs

and the arms industry, and set up and run The Scottish Centre for Nonviolence.  

The Gandhi Foundation is delighted to honour them in this way.

'Our World at the Crossroads:  Nonviolence or Nonexistence'

The title of our talk, ‘Nonviolence or nonexistence’ is a  quote from that

other great example of non-violence in action, Martin Luther King.  It

sounds extreme, a choice that is too stark, too uncompromising, too dramatic

for our more pragmatic day and age.  I would like to draw attention to

Mirabai Narayan writing recently in ‘The Gandhi Way’ who likened humanity to

a person deeply in debt shoving the bills under the bed and hoping they will

go away. 

That our world is in crisis is in no doubt.  Global warming is now a

recognised scientific fact.  And we can see its devastating effects in

Haiti, the Dominican Republic and Florida, reeling after hurricane after

hurricane, or the people of Bangladesh whose land is doomed to permanent

inundation if predicted global water levels rise.  Or does it need to come

closer to home to Boscastle in Cornwall before we appreciate the seriousness

of our situation.  Many years ago I heard the theologian Jurgen Moltmann

say, ‘Nuclear disaster is a possibility; ecological disaster is a

certainty’.  True, the planet may shrug off us mere humans, but as Chief

Seattle said ‘To harm the earth is to heap contempt on its creator.’

The ‘New Scientist’ of 13th March 2004 was quoted in the ‘The Gandhi Way’ last

month giving the following statistic:

The world’s output of meat increased fivefold in the second half of the 20th

century.  We now have 22 billion farm animals. (and 6 billion people) … by

2050 the world’s livestock population, on present trends, have to grow to

the point where the plant food it consumes could feed an extra 4 billion

people, if it wasn’t hived off for meat production.

To many the threat of nuclear annihilation would seem to have receded.  It

is no longer the issue of the day as it was in the 1960’s and 80’s.  And

yet, if anything, the danger is far more acute now than it ever has been.

Britain still has four Trident nuclear submarines, each armed with nuclear

warheads giving a potential capacity of more than 1000 Hiroshimas.  These

submarines are not simply a deadly threat that we would never contemplate

using.  Whenever there is an international crisis, as in the recent war on

Iraq, these subs leave their base on the Clyde and are deployed in full

readiness for use.  When questioned, Minister for Defence, Geoff Hoon, said

that the U.K would be prepared to use its nuclear weapons if necessary.

Next year the Non Proliferation Treaty is up for review.  According to U.N.

sources some 40 nations are believed to have the capacity to build nuclear

weapons, and there is always the very real fear of terrorists developing and

even using nuclear capability - not too unlikely considering a recent

shipment of tons of weapons grade plutonium across the Atlantic from the

U.S. to France.  And if the superpowers can play at nuclear terror, why not

anyone else.  At every Trident Ploughshares camp at Coulport, where the

warheads are stored, some of the protestors have swum into the high security

area around the Trident subs with apparent ease.  When we are asked if this

doesn’t increase the risk of terror, our response is always that the only

way to be totally safe from the nuclear threat is to ban them altogether.

In his book The Fate of the Earth  Jonathan Schell said:

In weighing the fate of the earth, and with it our own fate, we stand before

a mystery, and in tampering with the earth we tamper with a mystery.  We are

in deep ignorance.  Our ignorance should dispose us to wonder, our wonder

should make us humble, our humility should inspire us to reverence and

caution, and our reverence and caution should lead us to act without delay

to remove the threat we now pose to the earth.

When we returned from Vietnam, Ellen and I were both absolutely clear that

the task lying ahead of us was to put all our strength and talents into

playing our part in ridding Scotland and the world of nuclear weapons.  I

leave it to Ellen to tell her part of the story.

Ellen’s story 

So many amazing people have contributed to my history that I don’t know

where to start!  Albert Schweitzer put into words my feeling about

“reverence for life”; Martin Luther King’s winning his opponents through

suffering; Martin Buber’s “All living is relationship”; Rosa Park’s “I’m

tired of being tired” and sitting in the front of a segregated bus, in spite

of the consequences. And Gandhi’s concrete example of a better way of

life -- a man with such an uncluttered life that whenever someone (even a

complete stranger) called for his help, he went miles and miles to help. He

chose to remain vulnerable, placing his own health and welfare as his lowest

priority. Mohandas K.’s life  expressed indeed “the propaganda of the deed”

(George Lakey). He spun khadi, he made salt, and didn’t just talk about it.

Though only 10, when Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened, the full enormity of

these events penetrated through to me, and by the time of the U.S.’s  part

in the Vietnam War, I had become fully conscientized. Though my mother and

stepfather were U.S.ers, by the age of 19 I was looking for another country

to which to emigrate!

In 1963, I left the U.S. with no intention of ever again living there, and I

have not. Between 1972-74 I worked with a British Quaker team in Vietnam,

running preschool playgroups in orphanages. There I met Helen Steven, and my

adopted daughter, Marian. There I was faced with the full impact of a

ghastly war upon innocent civilians. I determined to work as fully as I

could for peace. Until 1998, working for peace meant writing letters,

marching, praying, vigilling. Many of our affinity group’s (the Gareloch

Horticulturalists) demonstrations were very imaginative, like stretching a

hazard tape the length of a Trident submarine (4 football pitches) through

the pedestrian precinct of Sauchiehall St. in Glasgow. But nothing we did

actually dented the nuclear arsenal, whose firepower is equivalent to more

than 1000 Hiroshimas.

A big milestone for the security of the world occurred in July, 1996, when

the International Court of Justice in the Hague declared the threat and

possession of nuclear weapons are illegal, because they are by nature

indiscriminate. Because of this judgment, Angie Zelter was able to issue to

peace groups around Britain an  invitation to participate in citizens’

disarmament. Previously, she was one of four women who had disarmed a Hawk

aircraft which had been sold by the British Government to Indonesia to bomb

the East Timorese. Her credentials were impeccable. Always she acted

accountably, openly, safely, and without violence to any living being. The

women were acquitted on the grounds that the “crime” they had committed was

to prevent a greater crime.

The same principles used in the Hawk action were also applied to Trident

Ploughshares. 

The thought of myself doing the disarmament was scary and exhilarating .

Angie had found the web page of the Defence Evaluation  and Research Agency. 

On it the work of two platforms in Loch Goil, Maytime and Newt  were

described. They tested the sonic capability of the Trident submarines, to

make sure that they moved noiselessly through the waters. The site was a

very isolated and beautiful loch, and after months of reconnoitring, Angie,

Ulla Roder, a Danish peace activist, and I went there,  June 8, 1999  7

o’clock, a most beautiful evening. Helen pushed out the rigid inflatable

boat, our press officer, David Mackenzie was photographing on the opposite

bank, and in spite of a dicky engine the boat arrived at the platform. We

moored our boat, and climbed the ladder. To our amazement, a window in the

laboratory was  partially open! We  climbed in, turned off the power supply,

and unplugged all the machines, faxes, keyboards, screens, telephones, and

handed them out to the waiting arms of the accomplice on the deck waiting to

throw them into the loch. As I let them drop, my first thought was,”Gosh!

wouldn’t  these be useful at The Scottish Centre for Nonviolence?” 

But a look from Angie banished that thought. As they splashed into the water, I  thought of

our nuclear capability being destroyed bit by bit, of these computers

representing globalisation, child pornography, the mechanisation which

destroys jobs and relationships being drowned in the bottom of the loch, and

I was very happy. Afterwards, I was aware that there is a good precedent for

weapons destruction in my own Quaker tradition. In 1776, during the American

War of Independence, William Rotch was asked  for a consignment of bayonets

which he had been given as quittance of a debt. They were to be used by the

Americans. Rotch explained that he could not put into the hand of another

man a weapon which he was not prepared to use himself. The persistence of

those asking him was so great that he ended  up by throwing them into the

sea. 

We three left  the laboratory “sanitized” as the master of the boat

explained during the trial. We did not touch the First Aid equipment, the

drinking water dispenser, nor the life saving equipment. We did destroy the

model submarine winch, and we cut several antennae. After three hours we had

time to eat our sandwiches and grapes topside. Although quite capable of

“escaping”, it never occurred to us, as the whole point of an accountable disarmament  action 

is to bring it to court, and to stress the illegality of nuclear weapons.

In the police boat back to Coulport, we chatted amicably to the police, and

told them about our campaign and the illegality of nuclear weapons.

Throughout the time of the arrest, the four months in Cornton Vale Prison on

remand, and the trial, I don’t believe we were ever disrespectful or abusive

to anyone. In fact as much as possible we tried to establish dialogue with

everyone. 

In October we finally got our trial. Thanks to Angie, our case was well

prepared. We had Professor Francis Boyle, an international lawyer, Rebecca

Johnson, from the ACRONYM Institute, Ulf Panzer, a German judge who had

blockaded the Pershing missiles at the Mutlangen  Base in Germany, Professor

Jack Boag, a nuclear scientist.  And, based upon the international law

evidence, Margaret Gimblett, the Sheriff of Greenock Court found us “Not

Guilty”.  

She said, “I have the invidious task of deciding on international

law as it relates to nuclear weapons. I am only a very junior sheriff

without the wisdom or experience of those above me. I have a knowledge of

the repercussions which could be far reaching. As a sheriff I took an oath

to act without fear or favour in interpreting the law … I have to conclude

that the three accused in company with many others were justified in

thinking that Great Britain’s use and deployment of Trident … could be

constituted as a threat ... and as such an infringement of international and

customary law. I have heard nothing which would make it seem to me that the

accused acted with criminal intent. Therefore I will instruct the jury that

they should acquit all three accused.”

Of course, the British Government could not let this judgment stand. But in

spite of the adverse and politically biased  Lord Advocate’s Reference,

which stated that the legality of Trident could only be judged  during  the

period when it might be used, Gimblett’s monumental judgment has reactivated

the peace movement, so that between the time of the opening ceremony of

Trident Ploughshares, July 1998, when no-one was prepared to get arrested,

and the last Coulport Camp, August 20-September1, the numbers have swelled

to the latest count of  a total of  over 2000 arrests, 1970 days spent in

jail, and fines totalling over £60,000 imposed.

More and more young people have become involved in the Campaign, not only in

an activist capacity, but in the considerable administration of the

campaign. I would not be surprised if Trident Ploughshares largely

contributed to the 80,000 marching in Glasgow in the February before the war

on Iraq. We are exploring very widely what we can contribute to the raising

of the issues connected to the G8 Meeting at Gleneagles, in Scotland , next

July. Like the tiny plants which slowly creep through hardened concrete and

break it up, those who care about the earth and its future are becoming

stronger. 

As Gandhi said, “ The difference between what we do and what we can do could

solve the world’s problems”.

Helen 

Gandhi’s life exemplified non-violence in action as the only valid and

lasting alternative to the disastrous negative spiral of greed and violence

in which our world seems to be trapped.  Environmental awareness of the

one-ness of life expressed in a lifestyle of total simplicity.  The value

and uniqueness of each individual recognised in his ability to engage fully

at every level of society from the humblest ‘untouchable’ to King George V.

Recognition of the inequality and economic injustice of society led to a

well thought out programme of social reform and education.  And campaigning

for political change involved a total commitment of his whole life. Daniel

Berrigan, that great American activist expressed this total demand thus;

‘Because we want peace with half a heart, half a life and will, the war

making continues.  Because the making of war is total - but the making of

peace by our cowardice is partial.’ Some challenge!

So for us committed to peace and social change more is required than

symbolic action, vital though that is.  Gandhian non-violence involves

moving behind the action to the motivation; to changing hearts and minds

into the creation of a non-violent state of being.  For example, we might

cancel Trident next Tuesday, and indeed it probably will be declared

obsolete during the next electoral term - but unless we can change people’s

attitude to militarism and their concepts of security, our government will

soon be seeking more deadly and efficient weapons - as indeed they are

already doing in the new facilities at Aldermaston.  We are often accused of

being unrealistically idealistic in the peace movement, but this is the only

way forward.  

Gandhi said “Heart and mind are one, but the heart must rule”

It was with this kind of endeavour in mind that Ellen and I started our

venture at Peace House in 1987.  Peace House was a residential centre in

Scotland near Dunblane supported by The Iona Community and the Quakers,

where people could participate in workshops and trainings on a whole variety

of aspects of non-violence.  In the course of twelve years at Peace House

over 10,000 people took part in our courses, ranging from issues of fair

trade and LETS schemes, campaigns against the arms trade, to training for

non-violent direct action and prison support.  Many of them still speak

warmly of the good food and welcome that they received - surely as much part

of non-violence as direct action.

Eventually we reached a point where we were running out of energy.  It was

at this stage in 1999 that Ellen retired, thus freeing her up to undertake

the nefarious deeds she has already recounted.  We were very keen that over

twenty years of expertise in non-violence training and a whole library full

of resources should not be lost, and in fact should be made more widely

available.  And so we founded The Scottish Centre for Nonviolence situated

in Dunblane in the grounds of Scottish Churches House, the ecumenical centre

for Scotland.  I worked there for over three years until I retired in 2002

to be ably succeeded by Liz Law.

The work of the Centre addresses non-violence at many levels.  

We were very keen to introduce the concept of non-violence into the academic mainstream, 

and were delighted to be able to work with the Centre for Human Ecology in Edinburgh to offer a

module in ‘Nonviolence from Theory to Practice’ as part of a Masters degree

accredited by the Open University.  This was a most demanding piece of work,

requiring that we explore behind the familiar area of non-violent activism

to the theoretical and historical background.  However, because the course

was set in an academic context, many who were familiar with the more

theoretical aspects of non-violence were challenged by the tutorials,

case-studies and workshops that introduced them to the practicalities of

non-violence. 

Perhaps at the other end of the spectrum is the work we have been doing

training people to go as part of the international peace teams working in

Palestine.  Preparing and delivering these courses challenged us in a most

profound way to explore the realities of non-violence in situations of very

real danger and violence.  We have a huge admiration for the participants of

those programmes, and are eager to develop the whole concept of teams of

non-violent peacemakers providing a practical and positive alternative to

military intervention.

Conflict resolution, anger-management, mediation skills, planning a

campaign, working with women against violence - all these are the everyday

work of the Centre.  With the G8 meeting being held next July in Gleneagles,

just some 10 miles away from the Centre, there will be an exciting

opportunity to be involved in training the non-violence trainers.  After

five years in existence the Scottish Centre for Nonviolence is beginning to

prove itself; it has put non-violence on the map in Scotland.  As ever of

course the perennial problem is money and working there calls for a constant

living in faith.  I’m sure Gandhi would have approved, but it doesn’t make

for sound sleep at night!

One aspect of Gandhi’s life that I have always particularly admired was the

totally fearless and yet gentle way in which he ‘spoke truth to power’.

Nonviolence is based on the premise that change is always possible, and that

that change comes about through our actions, enabling another (our opponent,

if you will) to change position without loss of face or humiliation.  Gandhi

spoke of ‘pouring love into the institutions’ and that can only be done

through personal engagement.

Over the years I have been privileged to have had opportunities to meet with

top level people in the military and the diplomatic service and have

frequently known intense moments of understanding.  NATO generals in

Brussels, Russian strategists during the Cold War years, a group of military

people meeting on Iona for a week to discuss ‘Options for Defence’; all have

shared very personal moments of understanding and have shared visions that

have moved me profoundly. A NATO colonel deeply moved by the music and

poetry of our group, saying goodbye with tears on his face, saying “I’m

sorry, I’m really sorry”. Or another man at our conference on Iona who

caused a little frisson of dismay when he described himself in the

introductions as ‘The father of flexible response, the nuclear programme for

Europe’ who gave us a sudden insight into the poetry in his soul as he

picked up a white feather and likened it to the nuclear programme.  A little