NATIVE CHARM
GANDHIJI- HERO AND CELEBRITY
All societies have their heroes. While most heroes are products of time and circumstances, a few stand out as the idols for long, and other societies too. And it also happens that many people celebrated as heroes at one time turn out to be undeserving. Thomas Carlyle held that the history of the world is but the biography of geat men. Of course, the notion of a 'great man' had a different connotation then.
Thomas Carlyle. Public Domain via Wikimedia commons.
Nowadays, with the sweep of the media and paid publicity management, there are far too many people parading as heroes. In fact, it is inappropriate to call them heroes. Alvin Toffler coined the phrase "instant celebrities" for such people. Some event makes a celebrity of someone, only to be discarded soon after. Our sports persons, authors, cine figures, politicians- most fall in this category.
Indians have a weakness for heroes and penchant for hero worship. And their heroes are found most in any place- right from local politicians, petty criminals, cine stars, sports persons, etc. But here , the yardstick is the popularity of the game, not the toughness of the competition, or the calibre of international players. Thus chess in India does not command the same following as cricket.
The very essence of hero worship is that it is not amenable to reason or logic. Take our highest national civilian honour- Bharat Ratna. One can say its conferment on a person recognises his or her services to the nation and makes him somebody of importance . Yet, consider some of the people who have received it- V.V.Giri, M.G.Ramachandran, Lata Mangeshkar, Sachin Tendulkar. What service have they rendered to the nation to be counted as figures of national importance? As one digs into the details, one understands the politics involved. And it is most evident in the case of Dr. Ambedkar. Is it not a matter of supreme irony that a person who opposed the freedom movement, and wanted the British rule to continue, and served the colonial govt precisely when Gandhi, Nehru, Patel and all leaders of the freedom movement were in jail,and used every opportunity to taunt them to prove his loyalty to the colonial powers, is made Bharat Ratna? (For more details, please see Arun Shourie's book: Worshipping False Gods.)
What about Gandhi and Nehru?
Gandhi and Nehru are modern sacred cows. They cannot be touched, criticised, analysed. Nehru is of course the darling of the self-styled intellectuals, leftists calling themselves liberals, 'progressive' elements etc, because he is counted one among them. Every policy that he pursued - be it domestic or foreign- ended in failure and fiasco. Yet, even today, not many would venture to critically assess them. Any one who does would be dubbed 'reactionary rightist' or saffronist sanghi.
In discussion in 1942.
Nehru was foisted on the country as the PM by Gandhiji, against the wishes of the overwhelming number of Pradesh Congress Committees, which wanted Sardar Patel. Since the party controlled by Nehru and his family and henchmen ruled the country for long, they have ensured that Nehru would get all the attention and prominence and positive coverage, at the cost of all other leaders, and at the cost of truth.Two generations of Indians- academics and administrators included- have been raised hero-worshiping Nehru and they have turned almost every one into a loyalist of Nehru and his clan, stuffing out all critical thought. Indian media too is largely a slave of the Nehru dynasty- well, that is where the money is!
The case of Mahatma Gandhi is even more revealing. All types of people take his name. Thus even left-leaning newspapers like The Times of India and The Hindu would be shouting for Gandhi. These are the papers which support every loony modern deviation: free sex, live-ins, open display of intimacy, rights of the night clubs, opposition to prohibition, opposition to public control on pornography, strict film censorship, codes of public morality, etc- in short every cause that would have been abhorrent to Gandhiji.Will they accept Gandhiji's ideas on Swadeshi, education, economics, drinks, drugs, gambling, constructive programme? Yet why do they jump on to the Gandhi bandwagon? And in the case of Gandhiji too, we are not prepared to be critical or even factual about his achievements in public life.
Why is he called a mahatma?
Gandhiji is called mahatma. But do we know the meaning of this term, and how or whether it applies to Gandhiji, really?
Dr. Radhakrishnan edited a volume of essays and reflections on the life and work of Gandhiji and presented it to him on his 70th birthday in 1939. Later, he added a memorial section in 1949 after the demise of Gandhiji. This volume contains writings and reflections from more than 60 thinkers and writers from all over the world, more than 50 of them being foreigners. All of them take the title 'mahatma' as given. Only one, Ananda K.Coomaraswamy critically examined the concept of 'mahatma' and whether it fitted Gandhiji! He observed:
The term "Mahatma" has been much abused, but has precise and intelligible meanings and a long history. Like many other of the technical terms of Indian metaphysics, the word has acquired vague or sentimental connotations; partly because in our general ignorance of all traditional philosophy and even of Christian theology we are no longer able to distinguish spirit from soul or essence from existence; and still more because of the absolute value we mistakenly attach to our boasted "personality", or rather, individuality, and consequent worship of "genius" in which we see much rather a deified humanity than the operational Spirit.....we think of "Mahatma" as meaning a "Great Man" or "Great Soul", rather than one who is "in the spirit", and more than a man.................
The name has been given to Gandhiji by common consent, perhaps in the general sense of "Saint". There can be no doubt that in some of its connotations , that of selflessness for example, it can be properly applied to him. But we have not had in mind to discuss the applicability of the term in its full meaning to any individual for that must ever remain a secret between himself and his God.
Extracted from: Ananda Coomaraswamy's essay in the volume "Mahatma Gandhi- Essays and Reflections" edited by Dr.S.Radhakrishnan, Jaico Publishing House, reformatted edition, 2012. The whole essay deserves careful study and reflection.
This is a very polished treatment of a sensitive issue! The term Mahatma applied to Gandhiji is a popular gesture, and not a technically appropriate application!
Gandhiji picking up salt at the end of Dandi March.
Perhaps the single most electrifying moment in our freedom struggle- a frail man challenging the mighty empire!
Two other thoughts are worth considering. Swami Vivekananda was the first national religious figure in modern times to grapple with the question of mass poverty, and he said in that connection that he would call him a mahatma "whose heart bleeds for the poor". Among all the modern political thinkers and activists, it is Gandhiji alone who engaged with this issue of mass poverty and found a solution! ( I have dealt with it fully in other posts.) In this sense, Gandhiji can be called a Mahatma- but it would still be in the sense described by Coomaraswamy!
Gandhiji with his spinning wheel.
Tamil national poet Namakkal Ramalingam Pillai sang that the charkha was our weapon, and khadi was our graceful attire! So we would march on a war without sword and blood!
It is a widely held belief that Gandhiji died with the words "He Ram" (or Rama,Rama) on his lips. He had often expressed a wish that he shoud die with the name of Rama on his lips. But did he actually utter those words?
We have several close sources claiming different things. Pyarelal, his secretary said that the words were 'Rama,Rama'. Manu his niece said the words were 'He Ram". V.Kalyanam, his assistant, claimed that Gandhiji said no words. The assassin said that Gandhiji made some guttural sounds but they were not decipherable.( Gandhiji had been fasting just a few days earlier, and his voice was weak.) All these persons were at the scene . Who is correct then? Some have suggested that the words were 'Rama-Rahim'! Thus we see that between Gandhi the man and his God, we do not know what exactly transpired at the last moment! It is a pity that even in respect of such a recent historical incident, we are not sure of the truth!
But this only leads to the next question: Is everything a "mahatma" does correct, or infallible?
Experiments with Truth!
Gandhiji called his autobiography "Story of My Experiments with Truth". It covered his life up to 1921, ie when he was about 52, though it was written in instalments, later. It only covers his early life and activities in South Africa.By his own admission, he was still experimenting, and had not found a solution or answer he was seeking.
It was at such a stage that he plunged into Indian affairs. And soon he was out of his depth, and elements. His first efforts at Satyagraha had failed- rather he abandoned the effort half-way. Till the Dandi March in 1930, he was groping. The Salt Satyagraha that he undertook individually succeeded, but it attracted the wrath of the govt in the aftermath. He was again frustrated. Thereafter whatever he undertook failed, including the Quit India movement in 1942. He was imprisoned, along with his entire team, and the freedom movement was without leadership! The British govt suppressed the whole movement within 6 months. When the leaders came out, Gandhiji was not in a position to provide effective leadership or ideas or solutions. Leaders like Nehru and Patel differed among themselves, and drifted from Gandhiji. The leaders were ready to accept Partition- even without knowing which areas would go to Pakistan, due to machinations of the Mountbattens. This was one of the main reasons for the violence later. Gandhiji was effectively sidelined.
I would also point out two other factors.
1. In 1908, Gandhiji had written a small booklet "Hind Swaraj" which contained his ideas on Indian independence. But he did not try to follow or implement them in his public life in India. All he worked for was the usual parliamentary system.
2. In the mid-20s, Gandhiji was conscious of his failure and asked Sri Aurobindo to return to politics and assume the leadership. Some other leaders also who were vexed with the impasse appealed to Sri Aurobindo to return, but he declined.
I have detailed these developments in earlier posts. In the light of this, can we say that the "Mahatma" provided leadership or it proved successful?
Will you consent to your doctor or lawyer experimenting on you? What will happen if the pilot of your plane starts experimenting with his control panel? Then why do we allow leaders to experiment on the nation? Or convert their private experiments into public policies?
Ahimsa- Gandhiji's blind spot
Almost all leaders/commentators commend Gandhiji's stand on non-violence. Leaders like Martin Luther King claimed inspiration from Gandhiji. Yet, is there any one instance in history of non-violence having succeeded as state policy or public action?
In India people believe that we got freedom because of non-violence. This is not based on record.. The last agitation announced by Gandhi- Quit India programme in August 1942- turned violent, because Gandhiji had not announced a detailed programme. And it ended in fiasco, as all the leaders were jailed immediately, and the active workers rounded up soon after, so that within 6 months the whole movement was completely crushed. The leaders remained in jail for 4 years!
Then why did the British leave? This too I have dealt with in other posts, but would say briefly here:
1. Second World War had made England debtor to India. This was complete reversal of the logic of colonialism, which Churchill did not like.
2.Japan had risen as a power in the East, and India's Eastern borders had become vulnerable. The British did not want to waste resources in defending India..
3. More than all, Netaji's INA had electrified Indians serving in the Army and Navy, and the Navy unit in Bombay even mutinied! Thus for the first time since 1857, Indians showed that they could rise in armed revolt. The colonial govt was no longer confident of the loyalty of Indian troops. The British were shocked, and decided to quit in a hurry.
This is a matter admitted by Clement Attlee himself, who was the British PM when India became Independent. This has been documented by R.C.Majumdar in his book on our freedom movement.
Thus it is ironical that Indians think Gandhiji's non-violence got us Independence, while it was Netaji Subhas Bose's approach and actions that resulted in this!
The blind loyalists of Gandhi-Nehru clique should wake up. Other Indians should study our history independently, undictated and undistorted by govt lies and half-truths.
What is the problem with Ahimsa?
Well, there is no problem with ahimsa. It is with people who proclaim it without understanding its limitations.
Ahimsa is no doubt extolled as the supreme virtue- Ahimsa paramo dharma: This is found in the Mahabharata.. But it is for sanyasins and sadhus, not for society at large and governments.
Of course, a person is not normally expected to resort to violence to settle every matter. But this is possible only if some machinery is provided for settlement of disputes and grievances. It is the govt which is that machinery and it contains as its units the judiciary, the police and the army. The entire govt machinery - including the so called civic government- functions because govt represents and controls and wields violence. This needs some explaining.
In his play Macbeth, Shakespeare has these lines:
Blood hath been shed ere now, i' th' olden time,
Ere humane statute purged the gentle weal;
Ay, since too, murders have been performed
Too terrible for the ear.
(Meaning: In the olden times, before laws were made to make society peaceful and safe, a lot of blood was spilled (in violence and murder). Yes, but since then too murders have been committed , which are too awful to talk about.)
Macbeth, Act 3, Scene 4, lines 75-78
Our bard makes it clear: since ancient times efforts have been made to end violence, but it still continues. The way they sought to end violence was through "statute" ie duly constituted law. Yet what does the law do? It establishes a system of courts to adjudicate cases, and the result is award of punishment. And the punishment for murder often is death sentence- which is murder or violence by the state! That is, whereas before the law is established, the individual tries to take revenge through violence, now the law has substituted private violence by public violence! Violence is not abolished, but the agency to execute it is changed. Violence still is or has to be used to prevent private or greater violence!
Friends, please think about this.
The State or govt. machinery represents violence in a concentrated if also disguised form! Why are laws obeyed? Because of the fear of punishment. Does that not amount to violence? Can a civil, democratic govt anywhere in the world run without police, courts, prisons, and punishment? Just check on the web the statistics about violent crime and imprisonment scene in the so called educated, developed countries!
Academic scholar Tony Tanner notes about ancient Greek Tragedies that they dealt with the issue of-
"absolutely essential transition from the revenge code (vendetta)- blood will have blood, an eye for an eye- to the impersonalization and institutionalization of revenge by the setting up of the courts of law (whereby, as we now say, the state has a monopoly of violence);"
From: Shakespeare: The Major Tragedies, Introduction. Everyman's Library, 1992.
The religious teacher will say- leave revenge to God. Modern society says: leave revenge to the courts ! They will act on your behalf and take revenge, if justified! But no govt throughout history has been able to stop violence or revenge, even as no religion has been able to stop violence , to make man "show the other cheek" . Well, someone should have told it to George Bush!
The point is, while non-violence is necessary for civic society to function (remember the sixth Commandment), govts have to resort to violence to prevent/ deal with both external and internal threats of violence.
The Indian dharma sastras deal with 3 aspects of governance: conduct/discipline/ civic order, adjudication of disputes, and award of punishment to the guilty.. This is called Dhanda niti. The king is enjoined to punish the guilty. This is stated explicitly even in the Tamil Tirukkural ( 549 and 550) which says that removing the wicked by death penalty is like removing the weeds to save the crop.
So long as all people do not abjure violence, no one can- for he can be a target of violence and can defend only by violence. But the history of humanity started with murder of brother by brother- if you go by the Bible, the most read religious book in the world!
Gandhiji's mistake was to turn a specific private discipline for specific people under specific circumstances into a public policy of unquestionable and unqualified virtue. Gandhiji did not realise that often violence ends only with the end of the perpetrators of violence. Alas, Gandhiji did not absorb this lesson of the Gita!
Gandhiji did not realise that when he undertook fast to make others agree with or accept his views, he was resorting to violence!
Ahimsa is for the spiritually evolved, not for everybody. And society at no time was fully or wholly spiritually evolved- except perhaps in the puranic Satya Yuga! But then, it did degenerate! Ahimsa is a spiritual ideal; it cannot become state policy.
Gandhiji spoke of Non-violence at a time when the West had suffered from two brutal wars among Christian nations and his words had instant appeal to the thinkers. But they hardly applied their mind to examine the idea fully.
Gandhiji spoke of Non-violence at a time when the West had suffered from two brutal wars among Christian nations and his words had instant appeal to the thinkers. But they hardly applied their mind to examine the idea fully.
State of Ahimsa since Gandhiji
Gandhiji witnessed the Boer war and the two world wars. The second World War ended with the deployment of the deadliest weapon invented by the best human intelligence. Since then, there has been continuous violence in the world. The UN itself has fought in the name of peace!
In India. the situation is pathetic. During Gandhiji's last days, Pakistan invaded Kashmir and India had to defend itself- Gandhiji had to acquiesce! Since then, the govt of free India has not honoured any non-violent demonstration. As we saw recently in Delhi, the Congress-led govt suppressed the non-violent agitation of Anna Hazare and Baba Ram Dev by sheer violence! Every political agitation in India- be it for a new state or reservation- has succeeded only when it was backed by violence- real or potential. And our ex servicemen are still agitating for OROP peacefully- for years now!
Thus the most celebrated legacy of Gandhiji is the least sensible,least defensible, least practical, and the least successful.
We have to honour our great people. But it does not mean uncritical acceptance of all they did, in the face of evidence to the contrary. It need not involve willing suspension of judgement or the critical faculty. Mahatma in some fields can be muddle-headed in others. Our respect for his person need not blind us to the faults or failure of his policies!
NOTE:
1.There is a huge mountain of resources on the subject. This is ever growing with more archival material being made available. I suggest the following books for immediate reference:
- biographies of Gandhiji, Rajaji, Sardar Patel by Rajmohan Gandhi, grandson of Gandhiji and Rajaji.
- 'Churchill's Secret War' by Madhusree Mukerjee
- 'Indian Summer' by Alex Von Tunzelmann
-'Mahatma Gandhi, the Last Phase' by Pyarelal (Gandhiji's secretary)
- 'Land of Seven Rivers' by Sanjeev Sanyal.
2. So called 'historians' first select some events, incidents according to their prejudices and call them "facts". Then they deal with then as their fancy dictates, or their doctrinaire convictions. Thus, followers of Gandhi-Nehru camp will only select the events connected with them and highlight those aspects which are favourable. They will ignore the role of others, or at least minimise them. Thus in their accounts, those who came before Gandhi like Tilak, Sri Aurobindo or those who differed from him like V.D.Savarkar and Subhas Bose will not get adequate or fair treatment. Even today, the free govt of India is not prepared to make available the papers connected with Netaji Bose. We do not know what black cat they fear! The leftists will interpret things from the Marxist angle. They will whitewash how the communists- including M.N.Roy- collaborated with the British govt against the nationalists, and how they changed after Soviet Russia was invaded! We should realise that most of the so called historians of the establishment are no more than paid propaganda agents of the govt. We should therefore avoid the govt. sponsored books and look for real facts elsewhere.
Even a cursory glance at his chronology will reveal how Gandhiji failed at important stages as a leader:
1919 : Starts satyagraha against Rowlatt Act but suspends it calling it Himalayan miscalculation.
- Gets involved in the Khilafat movement, which is about the Sultan of Turkey and nothing to do with India. But he thus provided an identity and platform for Indian Muslims as a separate communal and political force- a monumental blunder. And Gandhi looked foolish when the Caliphate was abolished by Turkey itself!
1922 : Calls off Civil Disobedience movement in the middle.
1928/30 : Agrees for complete Independence as the aim, having opposed it all the previous years. Sri Aurobindo had demanded it as early as 1906.
1930 : Salt March, picks up salt on 6 April, thus launching Civil Disobedience.
1931 : Round Table Conference- failure. Civil disobedience ends with a pact.
1932 : Civil disobedience resumed.
1934 : Civil Disobedience suspended. Resigns from Congress.
1935 : Becomes central figure in the congress again.
1937-39 : Congress forms govt in 7 provinces but resigns on the outbreak of Second World War, thus leaving the field for the enemies of the congress, national movement and the colonial govt. Muslim league got strengthened in this period,
1942 : Announces Quit India movement in August. Imprisoned on the same evening. All congress leaders arrested. Movement rendered without leadership. Crushed within 6 months.
1944: Released from prison in May. Has talks with Jinnah. Gandhiji visits Jinnah at his house for two weeks. Jinnah never reciprocates. Talks end in failure. But this enormously boosts Jinnah's stature and Muslims rally round him- unlike in the past.
1946-47 : Congress leaders accept the idea of Partition. "Gandhi does not block it. His political influence is clearly waning". Leaders like Nehru and Patel quietly ignore and bypass him, because he is not able to focus and decide on any issue .
1948 : In January, prepares a document stating that congress should disband itself as a political organisation and must take up social/national service. Assassinated.
This in brief is the chronicle of the failure of Gandhiji as a public leader on the basis of records. For a more detailed chronology, see:
Mahatma Gandhi: The Essential Writings by Judith M.Brown, new edition, 2008. Oxford World's Classics. pages xxxviii-xliii.
.
a
