Bapu

What does one think when he or she says the name ‘Gandhi’ in his mind? How does one see him - as a man, a phenomenon or a myth? Whatever you suppose him to be, how do you approach the entity, how do you make sense of him and his legacy, how do you understand what to do with it, how to put all of it together and even sum it up, if possible?

It is far from easy. Not just for an inexperienced, relatively uneducated youth like me but also, it seems, for people who have spent a lifetime ruminating over him.

The Gandhi Ashram today was not quite its normal, serene self. There was an air of activity around, more people than usual to be seen in the museum, around and inside Gandhi’s kutir, and on the edge of the Sabarmati River, admiring the view.

It was his 60th death anniversary, and there were to be a series of events taking place in his memory, from the morning Prayer to talks by eminent sociologists and Gandhians during the day. I reached the place at around one (thanks to three silly lectures in the morning), long after the Prayer and the first round of talks, missing the opportunity to listen to none other than Ashis Nandy speaking.

Anyway, I was fortunate enough to listen to some other esteemed speakers, including our own professors Tridip Suhrud and Ganesh Devy. Some talked of his relationship with religion and secularism, some of his take on nation-building, and some on counterfactual questions such as how different history would have been, if he had lived 125 years, as he jokingly (or maybe not) said he wanted to. I listened with unwavering attention, trying to grasp and understand as much as I could. And I daresay I followed much of the discussion.

But now, as I try to think of what I learnt from the day, how much it helped me to understand the man, his life and thought, I find myself at loss yet again. As before, when I try to gather my thoughts on him, to sum him up, there is nothing that comes to mind.

All blank.

And why is it so? Perhaps, the biggest reason why he eludes all reason is because Gandhi simply could not be classified. Humans rely on classifications for their understanding. We find it convenient and surer about a person once we see him as a part of something bigger. For example, the labels we put on the friends around us (like ‘Oh he’s a politician’ or ‘Saala nerd hai’) ease our mind, helping us to understand the person, seeing him as what we have defined him as.

In this sense, it is impossible to classify or label Gandhi. What would you call him – a religious thinker, a politician, a social worker, a designer, an educationist? What, if anything, defines him? This is almost beyond me to determine. And until I’ve decided on that, the approach, the man will continue to escape my understanding.

For some time to come anyway!

An Evaluation?

This is a ‘personal’ post. So, kindly bear with me.

When you’re 21, you are used to changing your views as frequently as your clothes. Views about everything, be it people, places, or events are under constant scrutiny sub-consciously, if not consciously. Things that you absolutely deplored as a teenager can be the very things you follow earnestly now, and needless to say, the reverse is also true.

Now that I find my self quite deeply engrossed in the phenomenon of Gandhi, courtesy the course I’ve been offered at my college on his ‘life and thought’, it was rather amusing to go through an article I wrote for the college magazine about two and a half years ago.

Two and a half years is a pretty long time. And for someone as philosophically inconsistent as I regard myself to be, it sure is a pretty long time! Anyway, the article was interestingly titled ‘Gandhi-An Evaluation’ and without being too boastful, I would like to say that I found myself more-or-less correct in my convictions even then.

I’ll leave the reader to make a better judgement.

Gandhi – An Evaluation

Gandhi – never has a name in history evoked so much admiration, yet so much disdain, so much faith, yet so much disbelief, so much love, yet so much hatred ! It is undoubtedly the most researched name in Indian history, yet the man and his thought process to this day remain enigmatic to his own countrymen.

No one would argue about Gandhi’s contribution to the Indian national movement, of which he was undeniably an integral part. His twin ideals of ‘Ahimsa’ and ‘Satyagraha’ formed the pillars of India’s struggle for independence. Gandhi, a man for whom public behaviour was simply an extension of the self can be credited with playing a leading role in the birth and realisation of that something we today call ‘Indian Nationalism’.

Then why, one asks, does he receive so much indignation at the hands of his own folk ? Why does a man who is generally accepted abroad as one of the greatest man to have set foot on this earth get so much disgust in the very own land he served ? Why doesn’t the “Father of the Nation” appeal to India’s youth, as India enters the new millennium?

The answers are quite hard to find. After all, Gandhi was the man who urged people to think about “India’s starving millions”, who gave Harijans their name, who stood for the emancipation of women, who dreamt of a proud and independent India, who in earnest, dedicated his life to public duty and sacrifice.

But Gandhi’s biggest flaw was a product of his ultimate source of inner power – his ego. Gandhi’s tendency to see public life as an extension of his inner self, his inability or simply the disinclination to keep those two separate was his biggest shortcoming.

One can cite various instances to provide proof of his self-obsession. His decision to call off the Non-cooperation movement after the incident in Chauri-Chaura, despite huge protests by the men who had wholeheartedly chosen to support him, gave way to the belief that he placed his own thoughts and beliefs above everyone else. Another example would be his refusal to keep away Bhagat Singh and co. from the gallows, when he was in a strong-enough position with the British to do so. The martyrs could have been saved, but unfortunately, they stood for principles Gandhi fundamentally opposed.

But his detractors often get tempted in taking criticism too far. Gandhi has often been indirectly held responsible for something as gory as the partition. The Muslims claim that Gandhi had a soft corner for Pandit Nehru and wouldn’t let Jinnah, the Muslim representative assume the highest political post in independent India. That, they say, was one of the biggest reasons behind the division which took the lives of millions. Interestingly enough, the Hindus on the other hand feel that he appeased the Muslims too much and often gave in to their “unreasonable demands”. It is not merely a co-incidence that Gandhi was murdered by one of his own religion.

But to understand Gandhi, to admire him, one needs to go beyond these actions to the underlying philosophy. It would be unfair to see him only as the architect of the Indian freedom struggle, as its greatest leader. The real greatness of Gandhi lies in his simplicity of thought, in his application of his “Experiments with Truth”, in his vision of India. Gandhi fought for an India independent, politically and economically. He dreamt of an India free from unemployment, illiteracy and fundamentalism. He envisioned a state without violence and terrorism of any kind. This unshakeable belief that violence bred more violence and it eventually led to the complete moral decay of the society was the foundation his thoughts and actions stood on.

Today, when the world is caught in a grip of hatred and violence, in a world where terrorism has become bigger and better than ever before, can we afford to forget that “half-naked fakir” ? His message, due to its simplicity and straightforward logic is ever-relevant, something that needs to be remembered if the human race hopes to avoid eventual doom.

As General Douglas MacArthur once said, and I quote him – “In the evolution of civilization, if it is to survive, all men cannot fail eventually to adopt his beliefs.”

And let us all hope that we don’t.