The Man behind the Mahatma

It is the ultimate disservice the living could do to the dead. Great people when they are alive strive for the betterment of not only their country but the entire world and leave a legacy behind so as to be carried forward and remembered even after their death. But sadly, after their death most people - in the garb of reverence - instead of carrying their legacy forward try their best to bury the great man in books, photo frames, currency notes and what not, making sure his voice never gets heard to the world outside. The great man's life is turned into a legend - of fiction as it were - and future generations view the great man as though he never belonged to the real world and pay false homage to his deeds forgetting the essence of the man and what he really meant and stood for.

Over the years i feel we - in India especially - are doing the same disservice to the father of our nation Mahatma Gandhi. Few like to take an objective look at his life and works and understand what he spoke and some even go as far as discrediting him with whatever he achieved and worse blaming him for our ills and inadequacies. The aim of this post is to objectively assess the Mahatma and look at his contribution to the nation. Its not a defence for the Mahatma, as he needs no defence and moreover i am not in the least qualified for defending.

A lot has been said about the Mahatma-inspired non-violent struggle of India. What was the need for it, couldn't we all have taken up guns? Lets look at the relative powers of the Indians and British during the 20th century. A hundred years of British exploitation and Indian disunity had led to India becoming for the first time a vassal state of Britain whereby India's dependence on Britain stretched from governance, defence, till industry and law & Order. More over India unlike countries like Germany, France or Afghanistan lacked a real 'war culture'. This is proved by the fact that India never attacked another country. So, the picture the nationalists got was that of an emasculated India with no real army or a war-culture up against a global super power Britain which controlled most of world trade and was a superior military power as well. If you go by a certain section of the public who insist that India should have gone for armed resistance , then it would have been down right suicidal as India would have been blown away in no time. Though we had armed revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh they did not achieve more than 'irritating' the British for a few days and were never able to sustain their resistance for a long duration. And India could not sit quietly without resisting. The answer was provided by the Mahatma - Non-violent resistance.

Did it work? It did at several levels. Firstly, it pressurised Britain to initially accept the freedom struggle and later to grant basic rights and eventually to concede freedom. It took time in getting results owing more to our disunity and lack of focus than the failure of the movement. A student getting low marks does not mean the subject is bad. Also, Gandhi in following the non-violent path was furthering the great legacy of Indians before him like Buddha, Ashoka and Akbar who called for conciliation instead of conflict, peace instead of war and who wanted India to be a 'moral super power'. Gandhi's Non-violent struggle enabled India to continue to be a moral super power and garnered international support which as history proves was of great help later on. Also the fact that we attained freedom through non-violent means meant that their was relative peace in the country which enabled the mushrooming of Industries and institutes of learning which proved to be the foundations of our development in the post-independence era.

India's freedom struggle was a classical case of the means used for achieving the end being as important as the end itself. Take for example third-world countries like us who attained freedom by violent means - China , most of the African countries and even Pakistan. The violent streak in the people of these countries was prevalent even after they were free. Hence when ever an issue cropped up in their society instead of discussing and debating they again took course to violent means. Hence we see sustained periods of violence in these countries even after they became free and to this day. India on the other hand was the only country to achieve freedom through peaceful means. This helped in tackling conflicts in Indian society post-independence. Take for instance the secessionist movements in the south or north-east, the mandal and mandir agitations, terrorism in Punjab and Kashmir. In a lesser country each of these conflicts could have led to violence and maybe partition. But India owing to Gandhi's peaceful lessons used debate and conciliation instead to avert disaster and to retain unity. Hence it becomes a catch-22 situation and the Mahatma never gets enough credit because the people cannot see the disasters he averted as his legacy had prevented them from happening in the first place!

The Mahatma apart from being a freedom fighter was also a social reformer. Fighting centuries of social discrimination against the lower castes he espoused their cause and eventually gave them respect and a place in the society. It was he who enabled people like Ambedkar to come up with radical social reforms. Without Gandhi's backing and creation of awareness these reforms would never have got through. The measure of his success can be got from the fact that it has taken India only a hundred years to at least partially correct centuries of exploitation. Exploitation still occurs albeit sporadically but Gandhi's touch enabled that there was a change in the mind-set of the people and people acknowledged that all Indians are equal and all need the same opportunities to succeed. This in the long run could be the real achievement of Gandhi.

Lastly, the Mahatma makes the Indian feel couple of feet taller in the world's eyes. That is so rare in today's world. So even when we had/have poverty and other problems the world views us with respect. The Mahatma is commemorated by every country in the world and his ideals have been taken up by people as diverse as Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, Dalai Lama and even Barrack Obama who in turn have become aspirational figures for their countries. When they acknowledge Gandhi it makes every Indian proud. When the UN recognizes October 2 as the international day of non-violence, it makes us proud. When his statue is unveiled in most cities of the world it makes us proud. When a world mired in war and hatred hangs onto Gandhi for support and guidance it makes us proud. How many Chinese can feel the same way about Mao or how many Pakistanis can feel the same about Jinnah? We must not take the Mahatma for granted.

Hence it is up to each Indian to recognize the man behind the Mahatma and treat him not just as a figure from history but also a mindful person whose ideals must be adapted to the present times and practised. It is up to us to disinter the Mahatma from history books and bank notes and understand him and his teachings and strive to further his legacy of peace and non-violence.

The Past and the Present

As I slip into my solitude and retreat into myself , a multitude of thoughts run over me and i scramble frantically to handle them. The time around me rushes ahead at a furious pace as if in a hurry to catch a missing train. It speeds along, taking me with it. It does not take a break, neither does it give me one, it cannons along as if to fulfill a preordained appointment. In a bat of an eyelid days become weeks, weeks become months, months become years and i realize that i have come a long way and i look behind in awe at the distance travelled and sometimes fail to recognize my image in the past. As I realise how fast time flies by I ponder over the past , the present and how they get connected. What is this Past? How is it related to the present? What does it signify? These are some of the questions that get hurled at my ignorant mind to ponder.

The past gives rise to the present and the future runs from this present and together all three are inexplicably intertwined. Past actions and their consequences reflect on our state in the present and the actions of the present reflect in our future. We remember the past, experience the present and look forward to the future. Together they form the three edges of life's triangle.

In experiencing the present we sometimes forget the past and give no heed to it, as if indulging in the newly arrived guest ignoring your old parent. But still the past clings onto you like a good friend, there at every one of your beck and call, not changing a bit, ever the same. Whereas the present is a wily foe changing colours like a chameleon, slipping out of your grasp, always keeping you guessing.

We romanticize the past and praise it in Utopian terms. But didn't you curse that same past when you experienced it? Why does it look so rosy and perfect now? Maybe the present holds aloft a crystal clear mirror which shows up all the bad that exists in and around you and you curse it. In contrast, the past is like the shadow you cast , you only see a beautiful outline of yours, ignoring all your warts, inconruencies and miseries and so you fall in love with it. Probably that's why the past appears more attractive than it actually was when experienced. Hence we idealize the past and curse the present and say that everything was perfect in the past. The truth however is that we tend to ignore the ills of the past and remember only the good. The past is in our control and we see in it what we want to see. The mind plays tricks and we fall for it.

Whatever be the case, we all love to love the past. Sometimes the day-to-day drudgery of life becomes mundane and the present loses some of its dynamicity and lustre and i look back to the bygone past and get immersed in past events like in a trance and they in turn blow life into the dull present which again becomes lively.