The Revolt of 1857

REF:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Rebellion_of_1857

On 10th May 1857 numerous Indian sepoys from Meerut were imprisoned because they refused to use the new cartridges. Sir John Malcolm, witness to the Sepoy Mutiny, noted that the Indian sepoys were loyal to the EIC until 1796CE. What happened after 1796CE?

The structure of the regiments changed as more European officers joined the army and Indian sepoys got stuck in the lower ranks. They were also forced to travel overseas, something their religion prohibited. The already discontented sepoys, treated as second-class citizens in their own land, revolted. They killed few European officers in Meerut, crossed the Yamuna River, burnt down the tollhouse, and marched towards Delhi. The revolutionaries were in search of a leader, and who better than the king of Delhi to lead them. They were heading for disappointment. The poet king was in no mood for action in this old age, and he stayed silent. The gates of Delhi were closed. 

It did not remain close for long, however. The gates of Rajghat had to be opened after protests from locals who wanted to take their morning dip into the Yamuna River. There might have been more to the demand then just their morning dip. The locals probably helped the soldiers of Meerut sneak into Delhi when the gates were opened. Once the soldiers managed to get inside the city violence spread rapidly. More British officers were killed, and the unruly rebels did not spare even their families. All local Christians the mob could lay their hands on were murdered. British officers panicked and open fired at the sepoys, including those who were fighting for the EIC.

Things went out of control, and the next day, Zafar reluctantly accepted alliance of the sepoys. The support of a Mughal king gave the movement a much-needed momentum, and it spread rapidly across northern India. Nana Saheb and Tantia Tope led the fight in Kanpur; it was Begam Hazrat Mahal in Lucknow; in Bareilly by Khan Bahadur; in Jagdishpur by Kunwar Singh; and in Jhansi by Rani Lakshmibai. Occasional rebellions also took place in Bengal and Bombay Presidency while Chennai remained largely silent. The Sikhs allied with the EIC as their hatred for the Mughals was much more than that towards the British. The deaths of their gurus in the hand of Mughal kings were not forgotten easily. The British Army brought in all support that they could get from Britain, Persia, and those on their way to China to fight the Opium War. India was the crown of British Empire. They could ill afford to lose it. What followed was a ruthless battle.

 

The British officers burnt down villages after villages, killing rebels and civilians alike. As per the records, 100,000 Indian sepoys were killed. That statistics does not take into account the dead civilians, and the rebels who did not belong to the British Army. Amaresh Misra, in his controversial book, termed it as an ‘untold holocaust’ where the Britishers killed 10 million Indians in over ten years since 1857CE. Even though the British were slow to retaliate, Indians could not grab that opportunity. Lack of faith in one another, the resulting lack of coordination, and betrayals by own men led to the defeat of the Indians. The supply of artillery belonging to the rebels also exhausted. The British forces slowly regained all their lost territories. Delhi fell on September 1857 when Jafar was captured from Humayun’s tomb. Rani of Jhansi, called by a British officer as the only man among the men, died fighting on 17 June 1857. The old Kunwar Singh managed to escape the British troops till his death on 9 May 1858. Tantia Tope was betrayed by Man Singh and was captured and executed on April 1859. Galib managed to escape and survive. He would later mourn and write, 

"So many of my friends and relatives have died that if now I were to die, not a single soul would be left to mourn for me."

 

Though the revolt failed, it managed to achieve an impossible task of uniting the Indians, to some extent at least. Years later, it would inspire Indians in their fight for independence from the British rule. The war also marked the end of two great powers of India: the Mughals and the EIC. The Queen of England took over from the EIC and established the British Raj. As for the Mughals, the dynasty ended with the death of Bahadur Shah Jafar. He once wrote a prophetic poem as if he knew his end was near:

"Bar rahi hai hameshaa zakhm pe zakhm, dil kaa chaaraagaron khudaa haafiz

Aaj hai kuchh ziyaadaa betaabii, dil-e-betaab ko khudaa haafiz

Kyon hifaazat ham aur ki dhundhen, har nafas jab ki hai khudaa haafiz

Chaahe rukhsat ho raah-e-ishq mein, ai ‘Zafar’ jaane do khudaa haafiz"

(Increasing forever pain on pain, Oh healers of heart . . . Goodbye!

Today I am unusually impatient, Oh restlessness . . . Goodbye!

Why search for protection from others, When every part of me said . . . Goodbye!

Even if ceases the road to love, Oh ‘Zafar’ let go . . . Goodbye!)

Subhrashis Adhikari

Author: 5 Questions of the Inquisitive Apes

www.subhrashis.com

Also Check Out:  5 Questions of the Inquisitive Apes 

"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

Read More

How Stories Made Us...

“We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful what we pretend to be.” - Kurt Vonnegut

Why did we paint the caves? What's the connection between the rock arts of hunters and gatherers, the ‘fiction’ of Harare and the ‘Maya’ of Upanisads? How are humans related to Zebra flinch? Why do we create stories and how did it make us the top predator? How can stories limit our potential? Can we script a new story to create a better world?

Read More

How did Buddhism Die in India?

When I visited China and interacted with the locals I realized that most of them still think that Indians are mostly Hindus and Buddhists. They were shocked to hear that there are only around 9 million Buddhists in India that accounts for less than 1% of India’s population. China has over 25 times more Buddhist than the country in which Buddha was born. That was certainly not the case in our historical past when the land was indeed dominated by Hindus and Buddhists. What happened to Buddhism in India? How did it die?

LEFT VERDICT: Hindus destroyed Buddhism.RIGHT VERDICT: Muslims destroyed Buddhism.

Like with most debates, there is no simple answer to why Buddhism died in India. There is truth and propaganda in both left and right version. The downfall cannot be attributed to a single factor. 

Buddha was born to King of Kapilavastu, sometime between 2,600 and 2,400 years ago. The wealthy prince realized that all his wealth was not going to prevent him from the miseries of illness, old age, and death. Even the power of being the king does not give him control over his own body or mind. So, he left his wife and kingdom to find salvation. Some may blame him for leaving his family. We don't really know what actually happened. Even if he was wrong, one must not forget that he was not wise yet. He went away sacrificing everything in search of wisdom.

According to the Buddhist texts he renounced his wealth, power and wife at the age of 29 years to become an ascetic after seeing the miseries of old age, disease, and death. Gautama was desperate for a solution to the miseries. He met many sages, but none could satisfy his quest. Hungry, weak, and frustrated, he sat under a pipal tree in Bodh Gaya (Bihar) to meditate—to know the absolute truth. According to Buddhist texts the descendents of Mara, the demon of delusion, tried to torment him while Gautama was on the verge of enlightenment. Gautama vanquished the armies of Mara. On the eighth day of the twelfth month under the papal tree, the once prince named Gautama transformed to Buddha, the awakened one. He exclaimed with joy, 

‘How strange! Every human being is capable of getting this enlightment, but for their clingings of false thought’. 

From there, he went to Sarnath, where he gave his first sermon. Buddha was against the Vedic rituals, superstition, caste system, metaphysics, miracles, and priest crafts. He never wanted to create another religion, but only teach people in need about compassion and humbleness.

Buddha’s disciples were mostly educated and wealthy Brahmin priests, Kshtriyas and merchants, who were looking for peace. Buddha did not distinguish between different social classes, and he did have followers from humble backgrounds like Sunita the sweeper and Upali the barber. However, his philosophy was such that it attracted mostly the wise and wealthy. The poors were probably too used to sufferings. Buddhism grew after the death of Buddha. Kings like Ashoka, Milinda and Kanishka turned a local philosophy into a global religion. Ashoka helped the religion spread across India and Sri Lanka. 

Some Hindu kings did promote Hinduism favourably, the same way Buddhist kings like Ashoka and Kanishka favoured Buddhism. Rare occasions of persecution of Buddhists by more orthodox Hindu rulers cannot be discarded. According to Buddhist texts like Asokavadana, Pushyamitra ruthlessly persecuted the Buddhists. His ministers advised him that only by destroying Buddhism could he become more famous than Ashoka. Pushyamitra attacked and destroyed 500 monasteries, burnt down the Buddhist scriptures and killed all the Buddhist monks he could lay his hands on. Some scholars are of the opinion that his aggression against Buddhism was due to the alliance of Buddhist monks with his Indo-Greek rival. Buddhism survived the attacks of Pushyamitra and soon revived to become one of the most dominant religions in world. Buddhism flourished under Milinda and Kanishka. These foreign rulers settled in India and were impressed by Buddhism. They got converted and helped Buddhism reach far corners of Asia. It was during their rule that Buddhism spread to China. 

The Gupta Empire marked the revival of Hinduism, but at the same time, other religions like Buddhism and Jainism also flourished. Many Hindu gods found their way into Buddhist and Jain texts. Buddha himself was given the status of the ninth incarnation of Vishnu in Agni Purana. According to it, Buddha created a non-Vedic path purposefully to divert the mighty Asuras from the Vedic ways to ensure that they are thrown to hell, helping Devas regain power. Foreign rulers like Milinda and Kanishka came to rule India but later became influenced by Buddhism. These stories of Puranas were probably reflecting those sentiments. However, most Hindu texts were silent about Buddhism, reflecting the tensions between the two groups.

The White Huns gained more control of Western India after the fall of Gupta Empire. They were particularly harsh on the Buddhists. White Hun king Mihirakula, a Shiva devotee, destroyed many Buddhist sites. A new cult of Tantric Buddhism evolved from the dying Mahayana Buddhism. Such esoteric form of Buddhism had its roots in the teachings of Nagasena and his disciples. It became more popular in the 8th century, popularized in different placed by groups of wandering yogis called Mahasiddhas (great adepts). Tantric Buddhism became very popular under the Pala Dynasty of Bengal. Palas were patrons of Buddhism. Universities like Vikramshila and Nalanda flourished under the Palas.

 Buddhism did revive for a short time under the great king Harsha. Harsha, according to Hindu texts, drove away the Brahmins from the religious council held in Kannauj. They fled to Deccan from where they staged a comeback under guidance of Brahminical philosopher and Mimamsa scholar Kumarila Bhatta. Over the years Buddhism evolved into different sects that were often at conflict with each other. The Buddhist sanghas became corrupt and faced a tough competition from the rejuvenated Hinduism.

Buddhism gave emphasis on life of monks, and was difficult for an ordinary householder to follow that path. Buddhism also lacked a personality like Sankaracharya to unite and promote their faith. Sankaracharya declared that Upanishads already contain everything that was good in Buddhism. Buddhism declined as many Buddhists started to follow Adi Sankaracharya. Hindu scriptures also started negative propaganda against Buddhism. It was written in Manu Smriti that ‘if a person touches a Buddhist … he shall purify himself by having a bath’.

Hinduism started receiving support from the crown. In South, the Pallava Dynasty favoured Hinduism and Kanchipuram, a popular Buddhist Center of learning, turned into a Hindu holy site and the royal capital of Pallavas. In Bengal Buddhism received a major blow under the rule of Sena dynasty. Sena Dynasty was from Karnataka who migrated to Bengal and replaced the Pala Dynasty in 1174CE. Vijayasen was the first ruler of Sena Dynasty. His son, Ballalsen, consolidated the kingdom. He was an orthodox Hindu ruler under whose rule Brahminism strengthened in Bengal and Buddhism was discouraged. Many Buddhists fled from Bengal to Sri Lanka. Some of the Buddhist Tantric Yogis who stayed back simply adapted Shiva-Tantra elements of Shaktism to survive. This resulted in the mixed Saiva-Buddhist cult of Bengal.

The main reason for the downfall of Buddhism was not political or religious, but the mere fact that Hinduism managed to adapt better with time compared to Buddhism. This was the reason why Buddhist monasteries lost Royal Patronage. Any religion needs the support of the crown to flourish. Over the years, Buddhism lost that support and Hinduism became the preferred religion of the crown.

According to Indologist Johannes Bronkhorst,

‘Brahmanism offered, apart from supernatural protection, lots of practical advice to rulers: how to organize society, how to run their kingdom, etc. etc. Buddhism, still during the early centuries of the Common Era, offered nothing of the kind…Buddhism had no vision of society and of how it should be run’.

In an era when fights between neighboring kingdoms were common, message of peace and non-violence became irrelevant to the crown.  By the time tantric Buddhism became popular in Bengal, it was too late. Buddhism was already weak when Islam arrived in India. 

The final nail in the coffin of Buddhism in India came during invasion of Islam. Islam was enemy of ‘But’, or idol worship. While Buddha was against idol worship, idol worshipping and rituals became common in Buddhism over centuries. B. R. Ambedkar writes, 

‘Before Islam came into being Buddhism was the religion of Bactria, Parthia, Afghanistan, Gandhar, and Chinese Turkestan, as it was of the whole of Asia. In all these countries Islam destroyed Buddhism’. 

After Shahabuddin Muhammad Ghori successfully defeated the Indian kings in the west it opened up the floodgates. Turks went on to conquer Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat under leadership of Qutub-ud-din Aibak. The Chalukyas soon recaptured Gujarat, but the rest remained under Turk control. The raids led to the destruction of many villages, along with the Buddhist universities of Nalanda and Vikramasila. Many Buddhists fled to Nepal and Tibet. When the monasteries (vihara) of Bihar were raided, the monks were mistaken as ‘shaven soldiers’. All of them were slaughtered. The invaders called the whole country ‘Bihar’ after the looted viharas. That’s how the modern state of Bihar got its name.

It is said that during one such raid Bakhtiyar attacked and burnt down the famous Nalanda University in 1197-1198CE. India lost a huge amount of its literature as one of the oldest and largest libraries of the world was burnt to ashes. According to some historians Nalanda University was already in ruins because of the internal rivalry between Hinayana and Mahayana sects of Buddhism. Bakhtiyar probably destroys another Mahavihara that was inside the fort of the local king. Tibetan monk Dharmasvamin visited Nalanda in 1234CE and is said to have found a 90 years old monk still residing there and teaching a group of students. But the religion of peace had already died in the land of its birth.

One cannot deny or hide history. Let's accept that there were persecution of men of one religion by some kings of rival religion. There is blood is everybody's hand. No once can claim that we are pure and 'others' are violent. But one must not forget that Buddhism and Hinduism coexisted under most of the powerful kings of India. Peace is in coexistence.

"Sarveshaam Svaastir Bhavatu, 

Sarveshaam Svaastir Bhavatu, 

Saveshaam Poornam Bhavatu, 

Sarveshaam Mangalam Bhavatu, 

Om Shanti, Shanti Shanteeh" 

"May health abound foreverMay peace abound foreverMay complete abundance abound foreverMay auspiciousness abound foreverOm Peace, Peace Peace."

Written by Subhrashis Adhikari

Also Check Out:  5 Questions of the Inquisitive Apes 

"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

Read More

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

Read More

Decoding Gandhi Part 6: The Miracle

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

‘I find myself all alone, even the Sardar and Jawaharlal think my reading of the situation is wrong and peace is sure to return if partitioning was agreed upon . . . the future of independence gained at this price is going to be dark.’

After the end of World War II Mountbatten found himself in a country where civil war was inevitable. All Britain wanted was to leave India before it started. India was divided into so many groups, not just in terms of language, religion, and caste but, more importantly, politics. Russia was already sponsoring the Communist parties bringing India into the radar of USA. Jinnah wanted a separate nation for Muslims of India as they felt insecure in India dominated by Hindus and Congress. Ambedkar favored partition, acknowledging the huge differences between two communities. He wanted a separate constituency for untouchables who were victimized by the upper castes. The far-right Hindu groups like Hindu Mahasabha were against INC’s pro-Muslim attitude and at the same time opposed partition. The Sikhs wanted partition of Punjab instead of getting clubbed with a dominant Muslim province. INC opposed partition of India and rightly tried hard to represent all communities and all castes in a not so right way. Though everybody wanted freedom, there was no common consensus to earn it. Mountbatten wrote to British Prime Minister Attlee:

‘The scene here is one of unrelieved gloom. . . . The Cabinet is fiercely divided on communal lines; each party has its own solution and does not at present show any sign of being prepared to consider another . . . unless I act quickly I may well find the real beginnings of a civil war on my hands.’

It was no wonder that Britain wanted leave India quickly, and the only way to do that was partition. Reluctantly, Jawaharlal and Jinnah agreed with the plan. Only Gandhi was still against it. He said, ‘I find myself all alone, even the Sardar and Jawaharlal think my reading of the situation is wrong and peace is sure to return if partitioning was agreed upon . . . the future of independence gained at this price is going to be dark.’ The immediate future was one of the darkest indeed.

One-fifth of human race (400 million people) got freedom on 15 August 1947. Gandhi was not there to celebrate it. He was in Kolkata, trying to stop the riots. It was not the freedom he fought for. Nor was this freedom due to him. 

There are debatable articles that quote British Prime Minister Atelee, when he was asked about the reason for leaving India, as citing various reasons,

‘The most important were the activities of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose which weakened the very foundation of the attachment of the Indian land and naval forces to the British Government.’ 

When asked on the contribution of Gandhi, ‘Attlee’s lips widened in a smile of disdain and he uttered, slowly, putting emphasis on each single letter “mi-ni-mal”’. There is no solid proof that he actually said that. But even if he did, he would not be far off. This was not the freedom he was fighting for.

Here it was the Sikhs, in other places it was the Muslims or the Hindus, but the victims of this brutal form of revenge and counter-revenge were inevitably women. The few who survived had their hands and breasts cut off, genitals mutilated, or the name of their rapist tattooed on their body. 

It was August, and monsoon was yet to arrive. The hot Indian summer of 1947 was also a lot drier than usual. The weather probably reflected the dark evil that engulfed the mind of Indians. A large group of Muslim women were stripped not just of their clothes but their soul and paraded naked in Amritsar as violent mobs of Sikhs raped and murdered them. Few women managed to survive the ordeal, only because of some brave Sikh men who hid them inside the sacred Golden Temple. Sikhs were avenging the March massacre where the Muslims in Pakistan raped and murdered the Sikhs. Here it was the Sikhs, in other places it was the Muslims or the Hindus, but the victims of this brutal form of revenge and counter-revenge were inevitably women. The few who survived had their hands and breasts cut off, genitals mutilated, or the name of their rapist tattooed on their body. If they survived to cross the border in one piece, there were pimps waiting to gift them one of the oldest professions in a man’s world: prostitution. It was the lucky ones who died because a life worse than hell awaited the ones who survived. A very conservative estimate by the government of India suggests that 83,000 women were violated during partition. Gandhi was grief stuck by the events that were unfolding. He said on his birthday,

‘I have no desire now to live for 125 years. Today you must all pray to God either to take me away from this fire or to grant good sense to India. I had never been so downcast in any of my numerous fights with the British. But what am I to do today with my own kith and kin? People try to kill their own brothers nowadays. I don't want to live to see this fratricidal war.’

Imperialism, the new and more powerful enemy, had shifted our focus from our old foes. Now that the giant was slayed, the old wounds surfaced once more. Muslim extremist groups, Sikh Akali Dal, Hindu Mahasabha, and the likes fuelled the violence. Over 12 million people were displaced from their homes and had to migrate across the border with death chasing them at every step. It was the largest mass migration in human history. Around a million died in the process. The riots that began in Bengal took the most brutal form in Punjab. These were the two states partitioned by Radcilffe line. In Punjab the Sikhs, Hindus, and Muslims were evenly spread unlike in Bengal where the Hindus were dominant in the west and Muslims in the east. That made it that much harder to cut Punjab into two half. Bengal, which had already experienced partition, got its boundary declared couple of days before Punjab. This aggravated the violence in Punjab. More importantly, Bengal had Gandhi. It was in Bengal that Gandhi became a saint because it was in Bengal where he performed a miracle.

One could hear the resounding cries of ‘Hindu Muslim Ek ho’, ‘Jai Hind’, ‘Inquilab Zindabad’ in the streets of Kolkata. 

When India leaders were celebrating Independence Day, Gandhi was taking a difficult journey through the riot-stricken areas to calm people down. He first went to Bihar; and from there, he traveled to Bengal, which had been the heart of communal violence for a year since Jinnah declared Direct Action Day. Gandhi’s plan was to be with the Hindus of East Bengal during the partition. His plans changed when the terrified Muslim leaders in Kolkata invited him to stay with them. They assured him that if there was no riot in Kolkata, there would be no riot in the rest of Bengal. If the Hindus of Kolkata did not harm the Muslims, the Muslim-dominated regions of East Bengal would not harm the Hindus. With that assurance, Gandhi went to Kolkata and stayed in a Muslim house. Angry Hindu mob shouted at Gandhi, telling him to go back. They blamed him for supporting the Muslims and were asking for the blood of Shaheed Suhrawardy, the Muslim leader and ex-chief minister of Bengal. Gandhi brought Suhrawardy forward with a hand placed firmly over his shoulders. The crowd asked if he took the responsibility for the killings of Hindus last year. Surprising everyone, Suhrawardy accepted the blame and said that he was ashamed of it. By accepting his mistake, he won over the crowd. Soon there were Hindus and Muslims hoisting the Indian flag together amid the huge cheer from the crowd. On 15 August, Kolkata became the city of joy. The fairy tale did not last long as within a week violence returned. The old man, who had already distanced himself from politics and considered by many as a spent force, decided to go on a fast until people stopped killing one another. The city calmed down once more. Leaders from all faith came to him and put down their weapons and pledged not to fight. One could hear the resounding cries of ‘Hindu Muslim Ek ho’, ‘Jai Hind’, ‘Inquilab Zindabad’ in the streets of Kolkata. Lorries, buses, and taxis filled with Hindus and Muslims drove around the street, shouting the slogans of brotherhood. Bengal survived because of the old man’s miracle, but Punjab was not that lucky.

Seventy-year-old Gandhi started his journey towards Punjab to do what he did in Bengal. Meanwhile, riots spread to Delhi, breaking Gandhi’s journey in between. The emotionally charged Sikhs and Hindus migrating from Pakistan attacked the Muslims in Delhi. Fearing for their lives, the Muslims ran away to fortified places like Jama Masjid and Old Fort. A frustrated Jawaharlal warned people through radio, ‘We are dealing with a situation analogous to war, and we are going to deal with it on a war basis in every sense of the word’. Gandhi visited the hospitals to meet all victims. He requested Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs to stop the violence so that he could continue his journey towards Punjab. When violence did not stop, he resorted to another fast. Hindu, Muslim, and Sikh leaders came together and pledged to stop the violence. Gandhi broke his fast. Delhi, however, did not calm down like Kolkata. Two days later, there was an unsuccessful attempt to assassinate Gandhi. Gandhi ignored the attack and kept meeting the people in Delhi.  The life of innocents were more important than his own. On 30 January, ten days since the first attack, Gandhi began his fateful walk towards the prayer meeting ground. His destiny awaited him.

Part 7: Decoding Gandhi

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

Read More