Gandhi: An icon in History's dustbin

Every time a famous person passes away, I hear the familiar phrase “An era has come to an end”. May be yes, when such things happen, an era does come to an end. Celebrities who live long and illustrious lives often represent the aspirations and ideals of a generation and when they die, some thing of that time does pass into oblivion. Still the phrase has become a bit of a cliché, one has to admit. But I did feel that an era had indeed passed when I read in CNN-IBN that the British government doesn't think that Gandhiji is historically not relevant any more. A new national curriculum prepared for British secondary schools has recommended dropping of Mahatma Gandhi, among others, from a list of key historical figures recommended for teaching.

Albert Einstein paying tribute to Mahatma Gandhi had said” Generations to come will scarce believe that such a one as this walked the earth in flesh and blood. Years later Gandhi was the person deemed as the Person of the 20th Century by Time Magazine. Einstein was right. A generation has come today in India and else where which scarcely believes that he existed or if he did exist that he has any thing to say to us today. And so slowly, the recollection of him is being rubbed out so that an age arises which will know nothing of his heroic contribution to the practice of ethical resistance and non violence through Satyagraha. And this truly is the end of an era for certain.

The Bible recounts the story of Joseph, who was kidnapped into Egypt, served as a slave and then eventually rose to be the Prime Minister of Egypt. At a time when the nation was under threat of seven consecutive years of famine, using God given wisdom and superb organizational skills, he was able to store and distribute food through out Egypt and its neighbors. Yet when the famine days were over and the victory was won and a new generation and a new king arose, they knew nothing of their history. For a while, it looked all was fine and all that history was irrelevant but in reality, without knowledge of the past and ignorant of its value in the present, their future was that of doom and destruction.

Questions have been raised in the past that Gandhi’s ideals were going to work only in the context of relatively genteel governments like the one the British provided or in the US civil rights movement where there was some desire to maintain a rule of law and basic fairness. Would it have worked against the Stalinist regime of the Soviet Union or the Nazi regime of Hitler? We don’t know for certain of course. There is always room for speculation that they might not have. Leaders like Netaji were possibly of the same or similar opinion – that they would either not work or take a very long time. How the Taliban might would have reacted to his non violence or may be the Naxalites? The fascist ideology fellow travelers that finally plotted and killed Gandhi provide us some clues of course of course about the kind of reaction that he aroused.

But then was Gandhi only a votary of non violence, a quaint but out dated idea whose time has come and gone? He was far more; at the least, he was a great mobilize of people, of a caliber that perhaps we may never see in a long while. A mediocre lawyer at best, he was able to get giants, aristocrats and commoners alike to take a relook at their lives and get them to undertake a costly and life long paradigm shift the likes of which are rarely seen. Besides he was an institution builder, a quasi spiritual leader an ethical conscience keeper and many other things beside. His Dandi march is considered one of the epic movements in civilization which connected with millions across of all of society.

It is possible to disagree with every thing that Gandhi thought and taught and still probably have to accept that Gandhi was an iconic figure. Such people will need to be understood and reevaluated in the context of the times they lived in and the times we live in , the audience they addressed and the audience before us today, the social realities and complexities today and then. All that is true. In 2007, we are evaluating the uprising of 1857 and so why not also apprise afresh Gandhi, who was born not too long after in 1869. Reassessing some one’s work, contribution and teaching from time to time is not only desirable but probably necessary. Declaring suo moto that some one is historically irrelevant is probably not

The Citizen and The Activist : Who is a Nationalist ?

The congress spokesperson Abhisekh Spokesperson, Abhisekh Manu Singhvi seems to have run out of his wits or arguments or both. For, in trying to mount an attack on Bhairon Singh Sekhawat’s candidature for President, he made a patently absurd statement. That in 1942 when the Quit India Movement was on, Sekhawat, instead of joining the freedom movement, joined the police force to earn a living. As long as the Congress talks about the involvement or the non involvement of the RSS in the freedom movement there may be some sort of a fig leaf of an ideological cover , though the elections for the presidency are all about upholding the constitution as it exists today an not about what the past might have held. That Sekhawat has done in his role as Vice President and earlier as Chief Minister of Rajasthan fairly eminently.

But by making this patently absurdly statement, the Congress has raised the question that requires some pondering – what constitutes patriotism, what constitutes love for the nation, what is responsible citizenship. Abhisekh Singhvi, having running out of ammunition might have been trying to make an under the belt attack on Sekhawat, but these questions arise. By saying that in 1947, Sekhawat joined the police when the Quit India Movement was on, what is he trying to say? That the whole country then should have abandoned their jobs, functions and roles and gathered on the streets doing hartal and contributed to social anarchy? Would that have been a helpful contribution to the freedom movement?

When doctors keep vigil in the hospitals , police fight crime and maintain social order, farmers toil in the fields and workers labor in factories, then are they doing some thing constructive or not ? do their efforts contribute to a nation’s economic, social and political progress and evolution or not? or to serve the nation one has to join some political party – and that too the right political party – (not any one mind, you ) and then block highways and train tracks, may be loot a few shops and make incendiary speeches to make the point that one is serving the nation and performing public service. Those who man telephone exchanges, air traffic controls, post offices, railway stations and numerous other utilities and in the process, also earn a living honorably for themselves, it would seem are not serving the nation, they are serving the devil.

Let us face it, a big mass of the so called national leaders who led the Quit India Movement had deep pockets or had backers like G.D.Birla who had such pockets. Without such silent backers who made their money doing jobs that Mr. Singhvi so disdains, no movement would have lasted. And those who did quit their jobs and hit the streets to agitate and run riot, often lived their lives out in penury after the Quit India movement had run its course, India had won its independence and the British had left.

While the leaders of the day jostled for their chairs and portfolios, no body gave a damn for the poor worker. Often they had to go back to school or college to make up for the years they had lost and the leaders of the day did not even create a fast track option for those who had sacrificed their years to get an education, get employed and get back on their feet. There was no Freedom Fighter’s Administration in India like the Veteran’s Administration in India to look after their interests. That meant that for bulk of the people who were participants in the Quit India Movement there was little option but to live off their relatives in abject dependence or off measly pensions and tamra patras which often had to be obtained by greasing palms. While honest, upright political national leaders are important and are an asset to any nation, the contribution of the sincere and silent worker, be it a post man or a police man is not to be disdained. Unfortunately, Mr. Singhvi has done just that.