LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT. 53.ANCIENT HEROES AND MODERN CELEBRITIES

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT

53. ANCIENT  HEROES AND MODERN CELEBRITIES

Every society has its heroes from ancient mythology  and history. It is the modern fashion to consider the mythological heroes as the product of human invention. Historical personalities regarded as great belong to many categories- some are local, some have  short-lived reputations, some are recognised late, but some never get their due. But as Shakespeare said many have greatness thrust upon them.

But the modern age also is prolific in creating its own heroes- but they are not all real life heroes. Cine stars, Pop stars, Sports stars: in the end, what is their achievement? Good writers , poets  and artists enhance the quality of life, but they are hardly regarded as heroes!

In India, cine stars are not only celebrated, but almost deified! Politicians are worshipped as heroes. Figures like Gandhi and Nehru are considered so high, no critical evaluation of their life and work is attempted. So is Dr.Ambedkar now. The full force of govt. machinery and educational establishment is used to foster a particular view , to project a specific angle as the whole truth, and millions of youngsters grow up with such officially-sponsored myth in the name of history.

Right from the colonial days, education has been used as the instrument of official propaganda. After Independence, our new rulers have just continued the line and strengthened it further. Independent thinking and critical evaluation are not only not encouraged, they are not even tolerated. If you have to study history or economics, you have to toe the leftist line! Go to JNU and attempt a little independent thinking and see for yourself!

Even the writings in the newspapers are one-sided. The editors allow mainly those writings which support their line. There is so little space for readers to express their views, especially if they express disagreement. 

Most of the people considered educated have no clear idea of even important issues. The United States of America was born as a result of a Revolution- war with England. Almost every American citizen knows the bare facts, the main events. This can hardly be said of the Indian War of Independence,1857, or even the Freedom movement. Mahatma Gandhi is regarded as the Father of the Nation. Yet, how many of us know precisely what exactly he did?  Nehru is regarded as a great freedom fighter; yet what exactly did he do? How does he compare with Sardar Patel? Or Subhaschandra Bose? Few of us ask such questions.

Take Mahatma Gandhi. We are taught he got us Independence due to his non-violent policies. But what are the facts? Did his policies work or succeed? Did he lead effectively all through? It is one thing to admire a man for his personal qualities of head and heart, but it is entirely another to evaluate him as a mass leader. Let us take a few facts and see how Gandhiji fared as a  political leader.

1919. Gandhi announced the first Satyagraha movement, in response to the Rowlatt Act. It was proceeding well. But  the British prevented Gandhi from entering Punjab, and forcibly sent him back to Bombay under escort, to protest which there were some violent demonstrations in Bombay and Ahmedabad. Then General Reginald Dyer indulged in cold-blooded massacre of unarmed Indians in Jallianwala Bagh. There was a natural, spontaneous outbreak of violence, and Gandhi suspended his Satyagraha, calling it a 'Himalayan blunder'. He also blamed Indians for their violence!

Khilafat. The Sultan of Turkey had been the Khalifa of the Muslims controlling the holy lands, to whom Indian Muslims owed allegiance.. After his defeat in World War I along with Germany, England was reportedly planning to deprive him of this position. Sensing his chance to unite Hindus and Muslims, Gandhi announced the 'Khilafat' movement in support of Turkey. But, the Moplahs of Malabar, who were of Arab extraction and fanatic, indulged in violence, arson and forcible conversion of Hindus, thus souring the chances of unity. In the meantime, the Sultan of Turkey had turned a puppet in the hands of the British. Kamal Ataturk led a successful revolution against him, dethroned him, ended the office of the Khalif and thus made Khilafat meaningless! Thus, Gandhi faced his second miscalculation.

1921.  In Bardoli, Gujarat, action was announced to refuse to pay land revenue. It was proceeding well. But in the distant Chauri Chaura in UP, an incident of violence occurred against the Police. Gandhi called off the agitation in Bardoli! This action completely confused and demoralised the ranks. (Later,in 1928, Sardar Patel successfully conducted it!)

1922-25 :  Hindu-Muslim rift widened. The famous Ali Brothers increasingly went away from Congress and Gandhi.
Gandhi could not unite all the leaders- esp. Motilal Nehru and C.R.Das ; later also Lala Lajpat Rai and Madan Mohan Malaviya.

There was comparative lull in Gandhi's political activities between 1925-30.(During this period, Gandhi sent his son Devdas to Sri Aurobindo, saying he was without a clue, and asked Sri Aurobindo to return to politics; Sri Aurobindo of course declined.)

1930. Gandhi announced Salt Satyagraha- which was 'individual' Satyagraha- Gandhi leading the Dandi march, and Rajaji leading the Vedaranyam march, with the active participation of Sardar Vedaratnam Pillai. This was successful, and resulted in the Gandhi-Irwin Pact. But soon Willingdon became the Viceroy and things worsened.

1931.  Round Table Conference failed. Gandhi was imprisoned at  Yerwada. There was the pact with Ambedkar.


8 May,1933: Gandhi released from prison. Coming out, he suspends the Civil-Disobedience movement.

1937- 39 : Congress formed provincial govts, but on the outbreak of World War II, Congress govts resigned.

Gandhi's differences with Subhas Bose emerged. Subhas Bose elected Congress President in spite of Gandhi's opposition, but Gandhi frustrates Bose's functioning.

Congress withdrawal from govt. gave Jinnah huge opportunity and advantage in cultivating the British, by supporting them at a critical time.

1940. Jinnah advocates Two-Nation theory.

( Jinnah had been a Congressman, but he did not like Gandhi mixing up religion and politics. Satyagraha, Ahimsa etc were seen by the Muslims as mainly religious (Hindu) concepts. Jinnah was a nominal Muslim with a modern, secular foreign education- almost an exact counterpart of Nehru- and he could not accept politics conducted on non-rational lines.For instance, when a devastating earthquake shook Bihar in 1934, Gandhi said it was God's punishment for people's sins!))

1942: Gandhi rejects Cripps proposals. This ended for ever the prospect of a united India. The Congress approach was confusing and tortuous.

1942: Quit India movement. Swiftly broken by the Raj. All leaders put in prison. Before his arrest, Gandhi had given the call: Do or Die. But he did not tell the people what exactly to do! With all leaders in prison, there was no one to guide the people. The BBC  made broadcast   suggesting  that people had been planning violent action, like attack on railway stations, uprooting telegraph lines, etc. People thought that probably this was what had been planned, and violence broke out. But the British brought it under full control within 6 months, and Quit India was totally broken.

1944:  Gandhi was released from prison on 6 May 1944 due to failing health ( as the British did not want him to die in their prison) . He wished to meet Jinnah on the question of Pakistan, and wrote to him on  17 July. Jinnah agreed for the meeting and they met in September. Rather, Gandhi went to Jinnah's house 14 times for talks,but  Jinnah completely outwitted him, knowing his mind fully, and refusing to give anything in writing about his own intentions! That Mahatma Gandhi sought the meeting with Jinnah and went to his house 14 times added tremendously to the image and prestige of Jinnah and made him the supreme voice of the Muslims! Even nationalistic Muslims were dismayed by this . That this was a great blunder of Gandhi can be seen by the fact that the Muslim League, which could not command the allegiance of the majority of the Muslims in 1937 had emerged as the sole spokesman of Indian Muslims in 1946 under Jinnah!

1945-47: Gandhi increasingly isolated . He was becoming erratic. Even Patel could not see eye to eye with him. In 1946, Gandhi made Nehru Congress President, though no PCC had proposed his name, depriving the chances of Patel and  Maulana Azad. Even then, a majority of PCCs wanted Sardar Patel as PM, but Gandhi foisted Nehru!  Congress refused to accept Gandhi's idea to make Jinnah form the govt and Jinnah refused to serve under Nehru. While his nominee in the govt was getting to know things from inside and frustrating them, Jinnah was carrying on secret correspondence with the British, which he had continued to do even when Churchill was out of office!


1947: Independence came, but with Partition and violence. By then, Gandhi was completely isolated and no one in the Congress listened to him.
Indian Unity failed. India was divided. Communal violence flared up.

 So, in the end, where did Gandhi succeed?

We readily believe that the old epics are mere myths, but we continue to create our own! All our leaders and heroes are products of media and literature. There is much literature on our freedom movement, but there is no one cogent account. Many issues are shrouded in mystery. We continue to go by strong impressions, or by some one account. Many facts cannot be cross-verified. Archives are now increasingly accessible, and new facts emerge, but these are lying scattered in isolated books. There is no consensus or common wisdom about how Independence came. And certainly, that is not available through official channels!

At least, did Gandhi succeed as a social leader? Let us consider a few facts:

• His idea of linguistic states has only promoted local linguistic nationalism and chauvinism. Neighbouring states cannot even share river water amicably. Persons not speaking the local language are treated as 'outsiders'. They do not even fully enjoy rights as linguistic minorities. I have lived in 7 states speaking different languages for 35  years and have experienced what this means!
• Language as the basis of state formation has also not worked as states speaking the same language have  been split, the latest instance being Andhra Pradesh, which ironically was the first linguistic state to be created!
• His insistence on Hindi as the national language has automatically made non-Hindi speaking people second class citizens in India! Hindi speaking people can do with two languages- mother tongue and English, but non Hindi speakers will have to learn minimum three! 
• While Ahimsa is prescribed for the sadhu, it has not worked as state policy anywhere in the world! When Pakistan invaded Kashmir in 1947, even Gandhi had to accept violence! We have seen how his own successors have dealt with peaceful, non-violent agitations and demonstrations- be it Sunderlal Bahuguna,Medha Patkar, Anna Hazare, Baba Ramdev!
• His economic ideas- Swadeshi, Village Swaraj, cottage and small scale industries, reversing the migration from villages to cities and restoring the economic health  and autonomy of the village- were dumped by his own anointed heir Nehru who plumped for the Soviet model!
• His idea of social upliftment has acquired a totally political dimension, with many communities clamouring for the 'backward' label. And even his 'Harijans' are now called Dalits.
• His idea of Ramrajya is anathema to most Congressmen.No  one will even mention it openly. His slogans like 'Ishwar Allah tere naam' will be repeated only by a few Hindus. Have you ever heard a Muslim say that?
• His prohibition policy, cow protection- how many state govts have accepted and implemented them? He warned against Drinks-Drugs-Gambling.How many states have accepted and implemented them?
• His programme of Satyagraha had a firm ethical base, with truth and ahimsa as the pillars. But in his own lifetime, they could only be followed by a few evolved individuals, and not by society as a whole. But its practical results were disastrous. It involved violence on the self, violence (though not physical) on others in forcing them to your point of view. For the mass mind, it only meant disobeying the authorities, diluting all respect for order and law. We have seen how this tendency has grown in free India. People now feel that if they organise themselves in sufficient numbers, they can force their way, and stall the govt.! This was a contingency anticipated by thoughtful persons like Mrs.Annie Besant and Rt.Hon'ble Srinivasa Sastri.
• Over 75 years ago, he warned us against the bad health effects of some white stuff- polished rice, white(refined) flour, white sugar, white (hydrogenated/refined) oil, etc. Today, scientifically they have been shown to be bad for health. Yet how many govts have sought to promote alternatives?

Such is Indian character that we worship the cow, but let it roam the streets and eat plastic, while we consume buffalo milk; we worship the Ganga, but pollute it; we visit temples but dirty the surroundings. Similarly, we call Gandhi 'Father of the Nation', but hardly follow any of his teachings! Godse killed his body once; we are daily killing his spirit.

There can be no doubt that Gandhiji was a real Mahatma. Swami Vivekananda said: 'Him a call a real Mahatman whose heart bleeds for the poor'. If there was one real Mahatma in our politics and public life, it was Gandhiji. He gave us a practical rule to help the poor. He said: Recall the face of the poorest man you have seen. When you are about to spend your money on anything, ask yourself: how that expenditure is going to help this poor man. If we follow this, will any farmer or weaver commit suicide? But we expect the govt. to end poverty, and allow the poor to end their lives!

Most political, social and religious ideas of Gandhiji are not sound or practical; they have also lost their relevance now. But his economic ideas are the ones which will save the whole earth! 'Nature provides enough  for every man's need, but not for their greed' is the basis of sustainable economics, or steady-state economy. But who cares in India?

Note:

1. There are many sources and writings on the life of Gandhi. I have here mainly relied on the works of Rajmohan Gandhi- the grandson of Gandhiji and Rajaji! He has written well documented biographies of Gandhiji, Rajaji and Patel. The book on Patel deals at length with how Gandhi lost his grip towards the end, how Nehru rubbed him, and how the Kashmir issue was seized from Patel and mishandled by Nehru.

2. The violence following partition was due not only to the mere fact of partition, but how exactly the border was divided and fixed- in Punjab and Bengal. We have no idea how exactly this was done, how arbitrary and atrocious it was, and  how adroitly and secretly Mountbatten managed it. For an account see: The Land of Seven Rivers by Sanjeev Sanyal; Penguin,2012.Sir Cyril Radcliffe, the British lawyer, who was assigned this job, had been nominated with the approval of Jinnah.See Tunzelmann, p.176

3. When we mention Mountbatten, can Lady Mountbatten and Nehru be far behind? Did Mountbatten influence or 'manage' Nehru through Edwina? We in India do not touch this subject, but the rest of the world is debating it. For a recent update, see: Indian Summer by Alex Von Tunzelmann; Henry Holt &Co, 2007. This book provides much important information on many issues.

4. The British not only decided to grant Independence to India, but they did it too soon-sooner than any one expected, and too soon for someone's liking. India had turned a burden and liability and emerged as a creditor after World War II, and Britain was eager to shed this load. This was prompted in part also by the rebellious mood in the Indian army and Navy, consequent on Netaji Bose's INA.Bose did not directly succeed, but the heroism and determination of his INA fired the youth of the country and showed them, for the first time after 1857 that armed resistance was possible! The British were no longer confident of their loyalty! See also: Churchill's Secret War  by Madhusree Mukerjee;Tranquebar,2010.This book busts the myth and halo around Churchill. It shows him as the chief conspirator for Pakistan along with Jinnah! 

Churchill hated Indians, especially Hindus. He starved millions of people in Bengal and caused their death.But he was a great man,after all. He realised his folly, and admitted it to Nehru years later, whose freedom from fear and hatred he admired,after independence, but by then all damage had been done!

But the Bengal famine brought out another curious aspect of Indians. Thousands of people starved and died in front of the grain shops! And the Bengal leaders strictly observed non-violence! Gandhi did not apprecate it fully. Bose wondered why the people starved and died, but did not loot the grain shops!

5. If you look at the issues unemotionally, it was Jinnah who had the last laugh! He wanted only one thing,  he was unwavering on that and he got it.. The Congress leaders were unsure of themselves, no one knew exactly what he wanted, too many voices spoke, they had no plan, and ultimately they settled for power at the cost of principles.