Decoding Gandhi Part 7: Decoding Gandhi

Part 1: The Assassination

Part 2: The Beginning

Part 3: The Cult of Chakra

Part 4: The Practical Man

Part 5: The Sex Maniac

Part 6: The Miracle

Part 7: Decoding Gandhi

‘It has been my experience that I am always true from my point of view, but am often wrong from the point of view of my honest critics. I know that we are both right from our respective points of view. And this knowledge saves me from attributing motives to my opponents or critics. The seven blind men who gave seven different descriptions of the elephant were all right from their respective points of view, and wrong from the point of view of one another, and right and wrong from the point of view of the man who knew the elephant. I very much like this doctrine of the manyness of reality. It is this doctrine that has taught me to judge a Mussalman from his own standpoint and a Christian from his. Formerly I used to resent the ignorance of my opponents. Today I can love them because I am gifted with the eye to see myself as others see them and vice-versa.’ - Gandhi

One needs good IQ to justify criticising Gandhi, and a good EQ to love him. Legends like Tagore and Netaji had both. While they differed in their opinion, Tagore named him ‘Mahatma’ and Netaji addressed him as ‘The Father of the Nation’. It is only people who are both low in EQ and IQ, who can truly hate Gandhi. Gandhi once said to his confused followers, 

‘My language is aphoristic, it lacks precision. It is, therefore, open to several interpretation’.

 His words and actions are not always easy to understand. That’s the reason some people thought that he was too religious Hindu, while others thought he was anti-Hindu. Some considered him a lover of Dalits, while others thought that he was their enemy. He was indeed a riddle to many. For some Britishers like Churchill he was also a pain. Churchill mocked Gandhi as the Half Naked Fakir for the dress he wore and expressed his disappointment as Gandhi did not die in the hunger-strike. Gandhi wrote to Churchill  in  a letter dated 17th July 1944, 

‘ I have long been trying to be a fakir and that naked - a more difficult task. I, therefore, regard the expression as a compliment though unintended’. 

Gandhi had a brilliant sense of humour. He once met King George V in London wearing his usual attire. He was later asked what the king said about his attire. Gandhi replied ‘What could he say. He was wearing enough for the two of us.’ Another time someone asked what he thought about Western Civilisation, and his witty response was, ‘It is a good idea’. Without humour Gandhi would not have been able to survive the struggle. He himself confessed, ‘If I had no sense of humour, I would long ago have committed suicide.’ 

Alongside humour, he was also a very serious man whose strict principles could be hard to live by. There were eleven vows which were considered almost mandatory for those living in his ashram. They were: Truth (Satya), Non-Violence (Ahimsa), Chastity (Brahmacharya), Non-stealing (Asteya), Non-Possession (Aparigraha), Labour (Sharirashtrama), Control of Palate (Asvada), Fearlessness (Abhaya), Respect for all religion (Sarva-Dharma-Samanatva), Only use indigenous products (Swadeshi), and Removal of untouchability (Asprishyata Navaran). The strict principles led to friction between Gandhi and his son Harilal. He once confessed that his greatest regret was his inability to convince two people: Jinnah and Harilal. 

As a young man Harilal was deeply involved in the freedom movement. Between 1908 and 1911 he has been arrested 6 times. This earned him the nickname ‘Chotte (Little) Gandhi’. When he was 23 years old, he wanted to go to England for higher education and become a barrister. Gandhi himself had to fight against many to go overseas. The irony was that Gandhi was now against it. He did not want his son to get spoilt by Western education. Unfortunately, his opposition became the reason why his son got spoilt. In 1911 Harilal revolted against his father and renounced all family ties. He had problems with his wife, abandoned his children, became an alcoholic and gambler. Harlal started trading imported British clothes when his father urged the nation to boycott foreign goods. Even that business collapsed. Gandhi tried to make a saint out of his children and set example to the nation. He himself evolved over time, but Harilal was not given the time to mature. He broke under pressure. People must have always compared him to his celebrity father and reminded him what a failure he was. That would have left a deep psychological scar in his mind. In a letter Gandhi even accused Harilal of raping his own daughter. He wrote, 

‘Manu is telling me number of dangerous things about you. She says that you had raped her even before she was eight years and she was so much hurt that medical treatment was also to be taken’. 

The Father of Nation failed as a father.

After his death media and politicians left no stone unturned to turn Gandhi into a saint. Richard Attenborough’s 1982 epic film took it to a new level. With such a pure image any imperfections became easily visible. Quite naturally Gandhi’s critics, like  G. B. Singh and Dr. Tim Watson, started screaming to prove how bad a person he was. Time has made Gandhi more human. 

Gandhi was not a saint. He was an ordinary man who was put through extraordinary situations. Facing injustice from a powerful force, he did not accept it like most men—he revolted. Sometimes he was right and at times wrong. He was orthodox, discriminating towards the blacks, he was too religious, he was strict with his children, and he had flaws—like we all do. But what makes him different was that he stood for what he thought was right. He followed his heart and was not afraid to correct himself when he knew he was wrong. He did change his views about Africans, his religious beliefs evolved, and he constantly improved himself. He was a shy person who was afraid to speak in public but had the magnetic personality to attract millions of followers. 

There were thousands, and sometimes millions, of followers who came to watch Gandhi. They would thought and chant his name at the sight of him. Thats how much people loved him. But the moment he would rise his finger there would be pin drop silence. Thats how much people respected him. Only because of Gandhi, the freedom movement reached the poor and illiterate mass instead of being a monopoly of few foreign-educated lawyers. He brought in a new method of satyagrahya that taught the world about nonviolent protest. It is for these reasons that he is, and will remain, one of the greatest heroes of the world. To understand Gandhi we must follow what the man himself said, 

‘See me please in the nakedness of my working, and in my limitation, you will then know me.’

One can tell, based on what he wrote in 'Why I Killed Gandhi', that Nathuram Godse viewed his life's mission as a duty "above all to serve Hinduism and the Hindu people," a commitment that drove him through the ranks of the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha as, what he calls, a "soldier under the Pan-Hindu flag." His grievance against Mahatma Gandhi was that the latter appeased Muslims and was thereby responsible for the Partition of India. The truth, however, is that Gandhi strongly opposed the Partition, believing it contradicted his vision of a unified India, and sought to prevent it, though his efforts were ultimately unsuccessful.

Godse supported this claim by citing Gandhi's support for the Khilafat movement and instances like the Moplah Rebellion, the alleged attack on Arya Samaj, the separation of Sindh, and his 'pro-Pakistan fast,' all of which Godse considered pro-Muslim policies. Gandhi made mistakes, but not all allegations made  through a neutral lens.  Compared to the communal ambitions of the Muslim League, secular policies of Gandhi and Congress, and the opposition to Hindu Rashtra, appeared as appeasement to Hindu hardliners. India survived after independence because Gandhi’s values of tolerance and secularism survived. In Pakistan, where it did not, the outcome of religion based nationalism is obvious.

Godse’s anger peaked during the Partition riots when Gandhi's perceived support for Muslims in places like Noakhali (and protection of figures like Suhrawardy) "made his blood boil." The truth is, Gandhi saved a lot of Hindus by visiting Noakhali.

Direct Action Day, declared by Jinnah on August 16, 1946, led to widespread communal violence, especially in Calcutta. Communal violence then broke out in Noakhali, Bengal, where Hindus were brutalized in retaliation for the Great Calcutta Killings. Homes were looted and torched, families were encircled and trapped in flames, women were assaulted and raped, and many Hindus were forced to convert to Islam, wear lungis instead of dhotis, and attend mosques.

It is easy for an ordinary Hindu to get angry and go on a hate-killing spree in revenge. Only Gandhi could have the courage, and the power, to think of stopping such brutal violence with non-violence. Amid the swords and guns, Gandhi arrived on a "peace mission” with his walking stick, choosing to live among the local people without distinction of religion, staying in villages, holding prayer meetings, and emphasizing unity by even reciting from the Quran. His presence unsettled the rioters.

One wonders what kind of charisma a frail, almost naked, old man can have that made the violent protestors scared. Some of the Muslim rioters came to him in shame and sought forgiveness and allowed reconverted Hindus to return to their traditions. Survivors recall Gandhi preaching in simplicity, with his words translated into Bengali, and his influence was such that violence subsided and peace lasted long after his visit. Angry Muslims mobs listened to him because here was a man who did not call them monsters, but suggested they were taken over by a situation that made them behave monstrously.

Fundamentally, Godse was enraged that while Muslims were killing Hindus and Sikhs during the communal violence, Hindus in India were not allowed to retaliate, leading him to conclude that Gandhi was unequivocally anti-Hindu. This conviction culminated in his determination to assassinate Gandhi and "prove to him that Hindus can also be intolerant."

While critics accused him of being appeasing toward Muslims, survivors and participants, both Hindu and Muslim, remember his miracle in Noakhali, and the legacy he left behind. The proof of Gandhi’s success was in the lack of violence that followed in Bengal, in contrast to what happened in western India where he was killed before he could work his magic.

While Gandhi consistently opposed untouchability, he defended the varna system. He was a conservative Hindu, and sometimes superstitious. He wanted to reform varna system and believed different occupations, including those of Brahmins and Dalits, were spiritually equal if dutifully performed. Here I agree with Ambedkar, who condemned caste as a system of graded inequality that required complete abolition, not reform.

But at the same time Ambedkar sought separate electorates to secure Dalit political autonomy, just like Jinnah wanted for Muslims. The main clash between them was due to the 1932 Poona Pact when Gandhi’s fast forced a compromise. Separate electorate would have only divided India further.  

Gandhi is simultaneously attacked and venerated by varying groups for contradictory reasons. For some (Dalit, African, BLM activists), he is perceived as a symbol of racism and oppression; for others (activists opposing religious intolerance or environmental destruction in India), his methods and ideals are still inspirational. Mahatma Gandhi's legacy is complex, making it easy to fool the masses into hating him, and even killing him.

One can debate that many of Gandhi’s decisions were questionable—some because of his conservative mindset, others to protect the Brand Gandhi Image. As Sagan writes: "Thomas Jefferson and George Washington owned slaves. Albert Einstein and Mohandas Gandhi were imperfect husbands and fathers. The list goes on indefinitely. We are all flawed and creatures of our times. Is it fair to judge us by the unknown standards of the future?" 

Gandhi was not as intelligent as Tagore or revolutionary as Bose. But he stood by his principles till the very end, and saving Brand Gandhi was important because:

1. It united the masses:- The British had two strengths in India: the Indians in the Army and the poor laborers. Bose united the British Indian Army against the British; Gandhi did the same with the poor masses. The majority of Indians were illiterate and poor, lying at the bottom of the pyramid. They did not care who was at the top. Everyone would exploit them anyway, be it kings, zamindars, upper castes, or the British. The nationalist leaders were literate upper-caste individuals, unable to connect with the masses. That’s where Brand Gandhi came in. The brand had to be protected at all costs because without the idea of Gandhi, the masses would go back to ignoring the idea of India, just what the British wanted.

2. It made the world see us:- Gandhi realized that Indians were no match for British firepower. "We can’t win a battle by fighting them with guns and bombs." So we needed to fight them with our smile and show the world who the devil was in this war. To get the attention of the liberals and humanitarians of the world, Brand Gandhi was critical. One wrong move and your whole credibility would fall apart. And without a strong brand, no outsider was going to look at India’s struggles.

Brand Gandhi might be more important to India now than the man himself.

Gandhian values were in stark contrast to the image Pakistan. Without it, the hardliners are easier to criticise. On the world stage, the "Gandhi brand" provides India with "soft power," projecting an image of a nation founded on moral principles, spiritual depth, and an unwavering commitment to peace. This helps shape global perceptions and goodwill.

That’s why Brand Gandhi is still relevant, probably more than the man himself.

Back to the Beginning

References:

1. http://indpaedia.com/ind/index.php/Mridula_Gandhi#.E2.80.9CI_requested_Bapu_to_allow_me_to_sleep_separately.E2.80.9D
2. https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/cover-story/story/20130617-mahatma-gandhi-experiment-sexuality-manuben-discovered-diaries-763997-1999-11-30
3. https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/thrill-of-the-chaste-the-truth-about-gandhis-sex-life-1937411.html
4. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/01/gandhi-celibacy-test-naked-women
5. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-45469129
6. http://www.gandhi-manibhavan.org/activities/essay_elevenvows.htm
7. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1264952/A-new-book-reveals-Gandhi-tortured-young-women-worshipped-shared-bed.html
8. https://www.outlookindia.com/newswire/story/gandhi-the-man-with-a-great-sense-of-humour/862449
9. http://www.gandhi-manibhavan.org/activities/essay_elevenvows.htm
10. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2007/aug/10/india
11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harilal_Gandhi
12. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/mahatma-gandhis-letter-accusing-son-of-raping-his-own-daughter-up-for-auction-in-uk-562069
13. https://www.amazon.in/My-experiments-truth-M-Gandhi/dp/9387585204/ref=pd_sbs_14_t_0/260-3639262-6869921?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=9387585204&pd_rd_r=0d8cd17a-f987-4ec5-b9b0-525309023c06&pd_rd_w=f604U&pd_rd_wg=gzvz9&pf_rd_p=21bbdc4d-873b-48c5-a88a-70e643377944&pf_rd_r=AAQ1BZ6DZ5G5QH5EEW3Y&psc=1&refRID=AAQ1BZ6DZ5G5QH5EEW3Y
14. https://www.mkgandhi.org/bapumymother/bapumymother.htm
15. https://www.mkgandhi.org/ebks/an_atheist.pdf

Also Check Out:  5 Questions of the Inquisitive Apes 

Written by Subhrashis Adhikari

"Engaging and entertaining, this page-turner is remarkable in its narration and will give you a new perspective on various aspects of life. Wellresearched and heartfelt, the encouraging tone throughout the book tries to motivate towards a happier life." - Times of India

Link:

https://www.amazon.in/Questions-Inquisitive-Ape-Subhrashis-Adhikari/dp/9387022552/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=subhrashis&qid=1570535712&sr=8-1