Something about Gandhi.

Who is Gandhi?

My school text books said he was the Father of the nation. The man who got India its freedom. He is a stuff of legends. He is a Mahatma. He was most respected of all the freedom fighters. The most respected of all the politicians of his time. A man of peace. The torch bearer of ahimsa, the non-violent warrior. And many more such.

You know what, I couldn't care less. To be truthful, I haven't read much about Gandhi. I have read none of his books. The man on the Rupee note does not interest me. I have read more on Genghis Khan and obscure artists than I have read on Gandhi. And I don't think, I will want to start now.

I have no idea when my animosity against Gandhi started. But I strongly doubt, it was when I realized (as a kid) Gandhi was sorely responsible for the partition and Hinduisation of Indian politics. I have never forgotten this nugget (I hardly remember how I got it.) But from those days on, I have always (been prejudiced?) considered and studied Gandhi's action as a politician than as a freedom-fighter or a social worker. And more I study that, more I am convinced he did really mess up some things, and well, at the same time he has lots of incomparable achievements in Indian polity and society of the time.

I respect that man as much I respect any other freedom fighter who have done so much for country, freedom and for us, the future generations. However, I refuse to idolize him over and above the countless millions whose stories of courage and sacrifice are forever lost. History books have been written, they are no going to change now. But if this sickly adulation of Gandhi were to stop, we will discover there are so many people we can be really proud of. People whose story is of true grit, courage, tenacity and ultimate sacrifice. People who we very much require for inspiring our zero-idol world.

Why should a politician be more respected and given credit for independence, over countless million people who gave up their everything to the cause of freedom? Is it fair that Gandhi overshadows almost all of his contemporaries?

Is Gandhi relevant?

There are many directions you can attack the issue of "relevance." Let me take relevance as a key takeaway from their actions that has immediate usefulness as a guide in present and future days.

Though I would love to tackle this, I am not at all equipped to do it. (Being not a Gandhian (while some very respected elders profess and live by) and being veritably biased in my views.) I wish somebody else would do it. 

Well, to venture anyway, what special do I learn from Gandhi. Nothing really, Nothing that our scriptures, our elders and the politicians of his own time have said and lived by. There is nothing that will differentiate Gandhi so much as to idolize him. 

The Gandhi-fixation in my opinion is entirely politically-driven and was a need of the that hour. Unfortunately  we, even after six-decades, carry that torch, while blind-siding a whole galaxy of inspiring stars - right from 1857 to 1947, and even earlier.

Was Gandhi a propaganda? Was it necessary?

Most probably yes. 

We are told to believe that Gandhi was a unifying factor and someone who had high visibility across India. Gandhi, by the virtue of his travels, was well-known across length and breadth of India than most other politicians or leaders, who mainly relied on media to carry their views and stories. 

Gandhi may have been the unifying message post-independence in country full of princely-feudal-dom and especially after his assassination  to keep the splinter groups together. It may also have been a ploy to anoint Gandhi as ultimate contributor to freedom struggle in order to avoid any one-upmanship among the surviving leaders. And this would have been an unanimous choice given the sympathy wave across India.

But there was a sad cost to this move. Countless other freedom fighters were summarily forgotten. Few of them are given a pages or two, or a foot note here and there, but majority of the people who contributed immensely just vanished from the social consciousness. Now, if we have to be grateful, we don't know whom we have to be grateful for. 

It is unlikely the Gandhi-figure became a mundane political icon for Congress until much later. The leverage of brand "Congress" was enough to easily carry them through several terms of elections. Probably, when the memories of freedom struggle began to dull did the Congress needed to start using the Gandhi as a political persona for election benefits.

Would India have been different had there been no Gandhi? Definitely yes. Would it have been better or worse? I don't know. We are definitely better off in some way that Gandhi chose to live in India and the way he did. 

All things said and done, he must surely have been a very good man, like our elders say he was, just that the present polity use that saintly down-to-earth image for their own political adventures.