Gandhi

Hi everybody.

I am not sure if anybody reads my blog but I have decided not to care about it. Writing for my blog not only gives me satisfaction but also gives me stage to express my views and thoughts. It doesn't matter if there are any viewers or spectators in the theater.

Recently I did a mini-drama on the life of Gandhi. It was a small play of around 50 minutes. But it while practicing for the drama I kept thinking about Mr. M.K. Gandhi. Its not secret that I am not a great Gandhi fan.(Its not secret to my friends!) Of course neither do I have any credentials nor I claim any in order to criticize him. But as a part of free India where freedom of speech is my right, I can certainly express my thoughts.

Currently any criticism of Gandhi will be labeled as fundamentalist, communalist and what not. Mr. V.D. Savarkar more than 35 years after his death, is still paying price of not towing Gandhi's line. Even though his contribution towards Indian independence is indisputable.

In this column I have tried to take critical approach of Mahatma Gandhi's action. The approach is certainly not comprehensive. I have discussed this matter with quite a few people and putting up my views for some real and constructive criticism.

Mr. Gandhi’s contribution to the struggle of Indian Independence is certainly exemplary. But British Government consistent efforts to label Mr. Gandhi as a sole torch-bearer of Indian independence seem to affected Mr. Gandhi’s judgment of contemporary situation

Independence struggle was united movement of Indian people not only against oppression of British imperialism but it also showed to the world that freedom is the basic human right. Mr. Gandhi was one of the most important leaders of this movement. His unique eminence among both Hindu and Muslim communities was certainly helpful in fostering these diametrically opposing communities together for the fight of Independence.

His non-violence certainly united whole India. As most of the Indians were wary of British force, it was quite improbable then, that whole India would rise up for violent revolution.(1857 war of Independace was first and last one!) Not only did Britishers took away all the arms from common citizens but they also subjugated Indian people mentally. One of Mahatma Gandhi's greatest feat was to root out this fear of Britishers from the mindset of people. His message was of to stand firm against Britishers because freedom is basic human right. This message proved to be hugely successful. Of course, the base of this struggle was firmly built by people like Bal Gangadhar Tilak but Gandhi definitely gave an explicit direction to the struggle.

But his insistance on Hindu-Muslim unity was bone of contention for both communities.

Hindu and Muslim religions are two ends of spectrum. The Muslim invasion that began 11th century almost destroyed the Indian civilization and had catastrophic effect on Indian culture. Allthough in the end Muslim plunderers failed in their stated aim of proselytizing whole Indian subcontinent into Muslim dominion. Given this violent History their unity beyond certain point is impossible, rather not feasible. Mr. Gandhi somehow failed to understand this. According to him Shivaji, Maharana Pratap and Guru Gobind Singh were "misguided patriots" because they fought valiently against on slought of Islam. (Mr. Nehru actually called Shivaji, a bandit. Gandhi gave lot more respect to Shivaji!) It seems that for Gandhi, any other method of struggle, apart from non-violence was not only incorrect but also nuisance

As Mr. Savarkar was trying to unite whole India under banner of Bhartiya, Gandhi insisted on giving strong and separate identity to Islam in India. Of course, nobody was robbing Muslim community of their Islamic identity but their first and foremost religion is Indianess and same applies to all the people in India, irrespective of religion.

Some of the above factors were main reasons why Gandhi failed to unite India. I certainly do not blame him for Partition. In current condition, it seems that partition proved to be good for country. Otherwise it would have been nightmare to run the country with huge fundamentalist muslim population as a part of it. But Gandhi almost attained sainthood in his life, if he had used his position more pragmatically in uniting people than clinging to ideology of "secularism" and non-violence then today's scenario would have been much different. Probably much better.

In later part of life, when he became Mahatma V.S. Naipaul correctly said that " He (Gandhi) became his own admirer" Thus he was so consumed by himself, that he stopped thinking rationally and did some great blunders, perticularly during partition.




Chinmay R. Rahalkar