Why the world doesn't need Gandhi Bashing....

There was some Gandhi-bashing going on in the one of the Orkut Forums, so I thought I will give a rebuttal from the Gandhigramite point of view......

The bash, first :

gandhiji was no secular human being. and nathuram godse was no fanatic. gandhiji was a spent idea and his time for rest had come. because he never wanted to rest peacefully he was laid to rest in peace for ever. had gandhi been alive for another 5 years, india would have travelled 30 years back. he was gainst industrialization and he was killed for he wanted to donate another some lakhs to pakistan. hindu muslim unity was not feasible at that time for the nation was in war over kashmir. you dont run a nation with gita's quotes. gita is for personal growth. gandhi would have done well to read up arthashastra or the bhishma parva of mahabharata to advise nehru. he was a confused human being. agreed that he had contributed immensely to the national struggle but he overdid it. he indeed played politics when he preffered nehru rather than bose to be the president of INC. gandhi wanted only those who believed in his ideology. i will define him as a "non-violent hitler". he did the damage indirectly. he was not a democrat at all!!

My rebuttal :

People often confuse Gandhiji's personal belief in Hinduism with a wrong understanding of the word Secularism. A Hindu, however pious, ritualistic and religious, can still be secular, by allowing other people to have similarly strong beliefs in their respective religions. This is exactly what Gandhiji often sought to explain. He was among the first to use the word Secularism in the Indian context, to say that, while every person is entitled to his personal belief in X or Y religion, the state has no business to align itself to any one particular religion more or less and people should keep their religious belief as a personal pursuit. He admitted his liking for Hinduism and its traditions as openly as he advocated respect for all religions. He even dissuaded the State from spending government funds to renovate the Somnath Temple.

I wanted to handle this one first. I'll come to whether Nathuram was a fanatic or not, but, he was, imho, definitely a murderer. Just in case, people confuse this with the word martyr. I consider Bhagat Singh and others of his calibre as martyrs and Bose and Bal-Pal-Lal to be brave leaders, but I consider Nathuram a weakling. He didn't know how else to fight Gandhi's ideology, he thought let's just remove him from the face of the earth. What did Nathuram do ? He killed someone for differing with him on what's good for the nation. Thats not reason enough to kill someone. If you differ from someone and if you think he is capable of a widespread influence, you should be able to take on his ideology by attempting to start an influential movement yourself, build it brick by brick out of your personal strength and leadership skills and show people what you think is true. Instead of that, you just settle scores with the gun, I wouldn't think that to be a mature mind. I might give him some points for passion, he didn't do it for a selfish reason, he had the courage to surrender, but if the underlying approach is flawed and lacks maturity, all passion and courage turn out to be grayed with tension and rage.

This is what Gandhi himself demonstrated. No one had even thought of a non-violent approach before. When he stepped into the political scene, the previous wave had entirely been about extremism. The idea of non-violence was not his original idea, but he was the one who institutioinalised it as an idea for the Indian freedom struggle. You might differ on whether or nor it was more efficacious, lot of people believe Bose's approach would have been better. But even if someone doubts its efficacy, you have to credit Gandhi for his capacity to institutionalise an entirely new approach to the question and gather millions of countrymen in support. And the response he got from the public was truly sweeping at the time, though there were always some differing groups in pockets. Even if you disagree with Gandhi's insitutionalising skills, look at what Bose did. He too demonstrated how to differ with someone, in a great healthy way. He differed with Gandhi, he set out to start his movement to tell people about what he thought was right and did succeed in gathering a large momentum against the British. That's a great way to differ with someone. The point I am trying to make here is: Nathuram did NONE of this. He was looking at the teleprinter giving out the news about Gandhi's fast unto death, and he was frustrated, all his pent up hatred flowed and he took up the task. He had his own and only point of view on Hinduism and if someone didn't listen to him a few times nicely... booooom.... He was largely influenced by Savarkar's writings alright, but even Bhagat Singh and Bose were influenced by Savarkar's writings, it's not what one reads that matters but having read, how to apply one's mind and what one sets out to do. There is a difference between fighting the British for the freedom of a nation and killing your countryman for a political question of transferring money. If Nathuram had to take on Gandhi at his game, he had to demonstrate an equal amount of personal strength and leadership, which comes by the thinking of a rich mind and long term application of effort. He couldn't do any of this and just went for a short term finish Now you tell me, need I discuss whether he was a fanatic or not ? In my view, there is no difference between this and naxalite violence.

It might be pertinent to cover here the point regarding transfer of money to Pakistan here, since the event is one of the ascribed motives of Nathuram. For the record, the deal was part of the Partition Agreeement. India didn't want to fulfil it because of events that happened after the partition (rebel occupation of Kashmir by Pakistan). So it was purely a political problem between India and Pakistan that, by design, was a complex one to solve and it remains to this day. Gandhiji had his views on the matter and he expressed it and, typical of him, wanted to fast unto death. Medha Patkar goes on a fast unto death and let's say, the government decides to reduce the height of the dam or appoint a panel to study rehabilitation, and one of the construction partners gets irked by the fast-unto-death strategy working in her favour, can he set out to kill someone for that ? I can understand if the procession becomes a law and order situation and the state intervening to handle it by exercising its powers, but can individuals settle violent scores on a issue under debate ?

India would have travelled back ? Gandhi had his views on industrialization and the models village-centric rural development. I would even agree that his was one of the areas where he did not succeed much in getting support or widespread institutional acceptance. But to say that if he had continued to live, India would have gone back is not true. He was not at the helm of affairs of industrialization anyway. Nehru was incharge, it was well-known even at that time that Nehru and Gandhi had differences on a lot of issues and industrialization was one of them. Nehru had plenty of other friends in the science, engineering and policymaking circles and was also influenced by his study of the economies of other countries like Russia and Japan. Nehru had already firmed up his mind on the industrialization route and Gandhi had let him to differ and work in that route. Gandhi, on the other hand, still believed on a village-centric development working inside out, and thought, after freedom, he would "spend his ideas" working on changing the society at the grassroots level and leave the national policy to Nehru. So Gandhi or not, Nehru's industrialization agenda would have anyway prevailed. There are a section of people who now look back and review whether or not Nehru's approach was okay or not okay, but that's stuff enough for another thread. Gandhi, might have, probably gone on a few more fasts-unto-death to reverse any labour-hostile moves or any other moves by Nehru which affected people in a large way, but, in spite of differences, he believed in Nehru and had handed over the macrodirection of the nation-building to Nehru. Gandhi's model of village-centric development inside out still has its relevance in certain areas where it has been tried on a smaller scale, like in The Gandhigram Rural Institute, where I studied.

Confused man ? Every leader who wants to think deeply about the society in which he lives in, will have contrarian schools of thought conflicting in his mind at one point of time or another. Many of the basic problems that afflict society are easy to think about and solve at the individual level but extremely complex when it comes to institutionalising these solutions as a national policy. Gandhi was a well-read man, he wrote on almost every aspect of the individual and the society, he thought deeply and originally on many issues. The areas where he failed to make an impact, in my view, are those where he tried to institutionalise solutions that worked well at the individual level but may not work as a state policy. I can give a coin to the beggar, I might even give food to the same beggar all through the year, but to magnify those noble motives into a national policy on hunger is a different ball game. There were indeed some areas where he succeeded in doing this, (freedom struggle and untouchability) and some where he did not make such a great impact, like the Charkha and Khadi. He probably had a small set of basic beliefs and thought to resolve all the complex issues by deciding based on those beliefs, which he thought as "first principles". ( I might be wrong on this). Sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn't. Just because a leader of his stature failed in certain areas, to say that he was a "confused human being" is a sweeping over-generalisation. And the good thing about Gandhi, is he laid down, in writing, for public feedback, his conflicts and his own confusions if any, on issues that impacted the society.

Sidelining Bose : I don't think it's possible to run any political organisation, without sidelining someone or the other by political tact. Often, in politics, you have to choose between two equally vibrant minds. You have to choose one, because, both minds, though vibrant, work in totally different directions. Gandhi had approach A and Bose had approach B. It would have torn the Congress apart to have attempted to run one organisation with almost conflicting ideologies. Nehru, with all his differences, was more aligned to Gandhi. And Gandhi did not shoot Bose, like Nathuram did to Gandhi. He just said, if you want me at the helm, you know where I'll throw my hat. It so happened that at that point of time in history, Gandhi had an extremely strong following and backing in the party and in the country and large, and Bose had to move out. In fact, Bose went on to rise much much more in stature after he parted ways with Gandhi. Had he been stuck, he would have had to moderate all his vibrance in the service of something which he never believed and would have caused more frustration to himself and more trouble to the party. That Gandhi chose Nehru instead of Bose, is entirely within democracratic choice. People choose X against Y and align themselves all the time and quite often even part ways and succeed or fail. It so happened in history, that Gandhi's influence was so widespread and had greater following by numbers than the other schools of thought, so whatever Gandhi said, lot of people came on his side. You can't blame someone for his popularity, It's a numbers and ideology game, pitch your tent and count how many people listen to you, if it's more you win, if it's less try again next time. That's how politics works.

non-violent hitler who damaged indirectly ?: The phrase attributes an explicitly sinister motive to Gandhi's decisions. This is not true. Statements made by many current-day politicians make veiled references to taking things in "their own hands" and indirectly predict that they may have no option if the situation goes out of control etc. Gandhi never did any such thing. He announced his strategies against the British from time to time, all his announcements were clearly of the non-violent nature. In incidents like the Chauri Chaura, or in the case of partition violence, much damage might have been caused by how individuals interpreted and impulsively reacted to his declarations, but there was nothing in what Gandhi said that directly or indirectly hinted violence. Damage might have occurred as a cascading effect of various levels of interpretation by other individuals, but you can't place the responsibility for such acts on what strategy he announced, particularly when he openly exhorted all his followers to be strong but non-violent. Hindu Muslim Unity was not feasible at the time, agreed, so if someone espouses, is he wrong?, just because it wasn't feasible?. Producing environ-friendly cars or renewable energy in a cost-effective way was considered infeasible at one time, does it mean people who tried to explain to us were wrong ? In fact, I would like to think that they were forerunners in raising these to the people and telling them that if they wanted a good life, they have to choose their actions differently.

As to the statement that Gandhiji never wanted to rest, so he was laid to rest, I can appreciate only the pun. Let me take some rest now.

If you have the Will, you can serve the Pill

Last month I was chatting with one of my batchmates, who organises volunteer medical camps every month, in Bangalore. He works for one of the top 10 companies in the world, so I thought his schedule must be quite demanding. I was prodding him about the kind of people who volunteer for these camps. He mentioned about two kinds. The first kind, try and make an occasional appearance from time to time and do their best. What might be the reasons for their not being more regular? They usually say, weekends are the only times we get to spend with families, after our busy office schedules during the week. Though the camps are a noble thing, one also needs to spend time with the family. So they try and make it whenever they can. Also, travelling from one end of the city to another is a nightmare in daylight.

The other kind are a handful who attend every month no matter what. Some doctors, it seems, drop into Bangalore, from Kerala or Mangalore travelling overnight, at their expense, just for the sake of this camp, carrying medicines that can be used at the camp. They reach the camp after freshening up at the bus-stand hotels and grabbing a quick breakfast. They plan out their trips to the medical camp with the same anticipation as if they were planning for a campfire resort. They find it fulfilling to use their skills and services in the noble venture, in addition to the same kind of work they do during the week at their respective hospitals. Come on, everyone doesn't have this luxury, you might say. Luxury? Probably only the bus is luxury category, but the travel wouldn't be. One might think, they are singles or their families aren't demanding etc., but it isn't the case. Lot of people do that for a living. It's quite common to find people who work in one city the whole week, take the weekend bus to go home, spend the weekend and hop back to office on Monday. The weekend crowds on routes like Bangalore-Hyderabad, Chennai-Bangalore, Chennai-Madurai comprise a lot of these people and some of them even hop-stop-jump when the direct buses are full. These doctors might often be one of those non-descript commuters, just that they do it for a different motive. They could do the same kind of good work wherever they live, right?, but it seems they find these camps more fulfilling and want to be a part of it. These are matters of the heart, and as they say, your heart is in the right place when you vibe well with a community.

How do you manage, I asked him. This guy was a newlywed and I found his enthusiasm in bringing the camp together was as much the same before his marriage. He said, I have the same issues as the first kind. But I plan it out well in advance. I make sure the other weekends in the month are spent with the family and in great fun. Since I have a 5-day week, I spend the Saturday at home, fixing things, taking care of household stuff and taking the family out etc. So they actually don't mind when I shoot off to the camp one Sunday a month, he said. And I motivate myself by looking at these doctors. It's purely a question how you balance your different needs, give a certain amount of time to each of them. Although it may not be the same pattern, if on an average, each one is given its rough due, then there is no problem catering to all the needs. It's not easy, in the beginning you have to stick it out, but if you are juggling balls anyway, might as well catch one of those that might help you feel good at the end of the day. One might ask: what about life after kids are born? Or will the same motivation remain 5 years later? While these are hypothetical questions, I think that once someone learns this art of balancing all the needs and recognize nourishment of the soul as one of the basic needs, then the specific situations wouldn't matter, because you know how to will, and swim your way through.

Indians of the year

I had never thought of Former President Dr.A.P.J.Abdul Kalam as an attractive speaker, but he mentioned some nice points, in his usual simplistic style, while giving away the CNN IBN Indian of the Year 2007 awards. All those who were nominees and winners of these awards in the various categories have certain things in common, he said.

1. While still young, they had an aim in life.
2. They went on acquiring knowledge in their fields.
3. They worked hard, sweated it out for whatever they set out to do.
4. They were never cowed down by problems. They conquered their problems and went ahead.

The main winner, Mr.E Sreedharan, who headed the Delhi Metro and Konkan Railway projects, said :

1. The most important thing is to have personal integrity and honesty.
2. Achieve Professional Competence in whatever you do.
3. Finish work in time, time is money.

Mr.Arun Sarin of Vodafone was the winner in the Global Indian category and Shilpaji was one of the nominees. She was asked by the host "What it means to be a global indian". I thought she is going to say "Yoga", given her recent ventures. But she said, youknowwwwwat, "For me, it's Indian Values". Uf! Not that she sounded unconvincing, but the host made it a bit worse. While closing the question and moving on to the next nominee, he said "Values is what she says it means to be a global indian". Depending on where you give the emphasis, he sounded as if "Thats what she says, but I really don't know, Anyway let's move on." Is that why they say it's become fashionable to speak of values nowadays ?