The title is no doubt an unabashed lift from a popular and influential book "God is not Great" by Christopher Hitchens.
To India, is MK Gandhi (MKG) any less than God?!. For such an obvious target of potential iconoclasm, Gandhi still remains the holiest of holy cows of Indian political history.
So I tried to attempt this almost unyielding task of first examining the halo around the iconic reputation of MKG by means of this post published on Nirmukta.
Since that post (The Gandhism Dogma redux) is quite elaborate in picking apart and unmasking what is broadly termed as Gandhian ideology, which is nothing more a Hodge-podge of diverse yet incoherent opinions and ideas held together only by the consensus of Gandhian idol worship, I would appeal to Gandhian critics to give it a read and responses to it.
It also exposes Gandhian ideology to be what it really is, a walking, talking and loud quacking dogma.
Some of the elements of this dogma are reiterated here:
- While to the gentry, MKG is ‘father of the nation’, to the Gandhian intelligentsia, he is nothing short of an apostle and saint.
- To a Gandhian devotee, the moral and spiritual perfection of MKG is a sine qua non of his personality and is an article of faith for him.
- It is a normal trait of this ideology to look at history of pre-independence India with rose-tinted Gandhian spectacles and anoint MKG with almost sole credit of winning India liberation from British rule.
- To a Gandhian devotee, while assessing Gandhian legacy of pre-freedom era, the dividing line between, history, fiction and fantasy is very thin indeed.
- It is typical of its adherents to aggressively articulate a Gandhi-centric view of India’s freedom struggle where all who differ with MKG are to be dismissed as extremists and rebels. Critics like Tilak, Bhagat Singh, SC Bose, BR Ambedkar were at varying points of time in India’s history slapped with such labels.
- Comparing every leader and public figure of the past and the present with MKG, and dismissing them by pronouncing their inferiority and smallness with the towering persona of MKG.
- To concoct a veneer of ‘Dharma’ or moralistic dos and dont's around the alphabet soup of terms like ‘Satyagraha’, Ahimsa’, ’Truth’, ‘means and ends’ ‘universal love’ and what-not.
- To elevate Gandhian Satyagraha and fasting to the esoteric heights of a spiritual and purificatory purgatory, that bears the onerous cross of transforming the hearts and minds of the adversary.
- To confer the Gandhian patent and copyright on all methods of protest and agitation that does not involve use of arms and then subject them to a microscopic examination on their adherence to the Gandhian dharma
Gandhi's charisma, popularity and
the spirit of the times in which he reached his peak provided the intellectual
justification and rationalization for many of his medieval and outmoded ideas.
This notoriously common error of judgment and perception is the staple of many
biographical rhapsodies on many statesmen and political celebrities.
The problem in the case of
Gandhi is that his larger-than-life reputation, sainthood and 'spiritual'
baggage that always go with him, has clouded perceptions of most people and
ingrained a steep reverential bias that mostly preempts any objective
assessment of his legacy.
As much as the mouthpieces of the upper caste Indian
intelligentsia may loath it, MKG is an icon of their creation and an astute
apologist of their hypocritical ideas and mindset especially on religion and
casteism.
·
There are too
many religious, puritanical, irrational and overzealous admirers and devotees
of MKG who have erected high and almost impenetrable walls of reputation,
virtues, spiritual perfection and what-not around their idol, and also act as
rigid and unyielding guardians of that fortress of Gandhian perfection and
sublimity.
To those not
mesmerized by the shine and dazzle of the Gandhi cult, all this hyperactivity
of some opinion makers and media to embark on the path of Gandhian revivalism
seems to be a foolish and futile pursuit. This seems a symptom of the morbidity
of harking back to the past and seeking refuge in the phantoms of past glory,
perceived or real.
While not intending
to denigrate the legacy or contribution of MKG, he time and again has been the
object of intellectual voyeurism of a section of upper middle class elite,
which does not attest well to the intellectual and critical robustness of that
class of opinion makers.
I have not clearly understood, what you trying to say except that..you just want to convey him as an ordinary person..
ReplyDeleteBut, firstly, we need do understand why a person is called great. If we take Thomas Alva Edison, he is one of the greatest inventor in the human history..nobody can argue with that..and he is great. He spent his entire life in search of the unknown secrets of science and revealed them. He never did the things to become great..but the things he did..made him great.
In a similar manner..Gandhi had spent his entire life serving the common people. He did not do this for money or for name. He always wanted to help the people who are in trouble..as in the case of the Boer war, where he served the wounded people and also during the days of contiguous plague that was spread in South Africa. He just served them without expecting anything return.
As, with the case of the Chaparan Movement, he stood with the people of that area fighting against the tax laws. He had a prosperous life as lawyer, he could have made lot of money with it. But, he was never attracted to worldly pleasures. After returning to India, he roamed the entire country on the third class compartment train, only to understand the sufferings of the common people.This can go forever...
The saddest part in our article is that..no man will be 100% perfect, but to what extent he is ..does matter..you can find many great qualities in him..which makes him a Great without any question. Why you are looking at the minute things that do not stand in front of his extra ordinary persona..
Kiran,
DeleteMaybe I should have titled my post "Why Gandhianism is not Great"
Also Gandhi was not the only selfless and tireless patriot. But he got most of the limelight and support of the British machinery, that played no small role in propping him up to neutralize threats from radical reformers and freedom activists.
BR Ambedkar was as or even more selfless than Gandhi and you don't measure a leader's commitment and resolve by his or her sartorial frugality (or half nudity as in the case of Gandhi)
Calling a person extraordinary purely based on his reputation and anecdotes around him is akin to hero-worship.
The comparison with or illustration of a scientist like Edison is pointless because their domains are different.
The fallacy of this kind of false comparison has been pointed out in the main article that referenced in the post.
Edison can be judged by mostly objective criterion like his inventions and quality of research work.
Gandhi has to be judged on the basis of his ideology, political and religious beliefs, legacy and political actions (his refusal to condemn the caste system and disown it, Poona Pact blackmail of Ambedkar and how he let down the cause of Dalits) and not on the basis of his saintly avatar, sacrifice of his lawyership or his Boer war service track record.
If on these substantive points of contention, you have points to elaborate, I am willing to engage further