In Defense of Gandhi

Today (started on January 30) is the 74th death anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi. I am currently reading his autobiography -- a long pending life assignment for me; I am halfway through. From some conversations I have been witness to recently, where his contributions to India and its independence was questioned, and he was called over-rated, I feel motivated to express my current views on him.

Victim of Idolisation

Like many of his likes, Gandhi has been a victim of idolisation. It mayn't be wrong to say that calling him 'Mahatma' has done more to damage his life's work than anything else. Calling him the father of Nation may have been an act of love done by his devotees and friends. But today, this title has little function beyond being a fodder to controversies.

Congress had a vested interest in projecting him as Mahatma and then claiming the inheritance of his political legacy. They ran their shop for a long time in large part by appropriating this false legacy. The result: The Gandhi we see is through a veil of misinformation, exaggeration, and data manipulation propagated through 7 long decades.

The common man has his own reasons for making a deity out of anyone leading an inspiring life. Giving a status of Godliness is the most potent method of stunting a teacher ability to teach. It becomes a free pass for devotees to keep the benefits of being under the wings of a great man without having to follow in his footsteps. Each time someone expects such a thing of you, you excuse yourself, calling yourself a mere mortal. You escape the real test, and get a point for modesty!

The Narrow Lens

Gandhi's most predominant fame is as a freedom fighter which is again a very unfortunate thing. Gandhi was really a public worker who would gravitate towards what he encountered around himself. He started his career as a public worker in South Africa where he fought a long battle for the upliftment of the conditions of immigrant Indians. His public work would often bring him against the authorities. And he kept going back to South Africa after returning to India whenever he was called.

Gandhi worked on almost all conceivable areas of public work: health and sanitation, education, rural emancipation etc. From what appears to me from reading his autobiography, freedom struggle must have been only a part of his life's agenda and goal. Probably, it mayn't be wrong to say that it was, like all other areas, an avenue where he put his theories of truth to test.

The Spiritual Seeker

Public work itself was the outlet that Gandhi's spiritual quest found. Gandhi was deeply religious person, achingly in search for the spiritual secrets of life which he interchangeably refers to as truth or God. This lay at the base of his extreme compassion, courage and tolerance on the one hand, and deep disconnection with many things external. Yet, Gandhi was blessed with great worldly wisdom and tact, which kept getting better over the years. Many of his decisions and choices, particularly in his personal life, weren't half as worldly.

Standing on the Shoulders of Giants

Early  twentieth century was to Indian social reawakening what it was to Western Science -- a golden period. There were many greats including Gandhi, Nehru, Madan Mohan Malwiya, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, Tilak etc. all on the political and social front. On the other side, we had the likes of Vivekananda, Tagore, JN Tata, JC Bose etc. all doyens in their respective areas. Gandhi was not the only great soul walking on the Indian soil.

One observation we could easily make is that Gandhi diligently worked towards developing a strong network with influential people. This may very well be his most distinctive characteristic which contributed to his immense influence. And, looking at his methods, far from getting a feeling of a Mahatma, I get a feeling that he followed the best practices of networking to an extent that today's IIM graduates would be envious of.

Unnecessary Comparisons

There are many unnecessary comparisons drawn  between Gandhi and many of his influential contemporaries. One of the most prominent of them is with Subhash Chandra Bose. And I upfront admit my very scant knowledge about Netaji except what was taught to us in our school textbooks and the conspiracy theories that never seem to settle about his death and afterlife.

Netaji was of the opinion that Independence should be snatched; we can't reason with the imperialists so they peacefully let go of their control on their prized colony. It goes without saying that his point of view wasn't without merit. However, his ideas couldn't coexist under the same roof with Gandhi's ideas of non-violence. So, they parted ways.

I would like to see this as nothing more than an intellectual difference between two great men. I don't find great merit in trying to insist to settle as to whose role was primary in India's independence. To the best of my understanding, it was neither. England was then a war torn country driven to the verge of bankruptcy. They would have been keen to invest their energies in rebuilding their nation rather than worrying about a colony which was already milked dry for 2 centuries, where the public faith on the Raj was at its all time low, and mutinies waiting to erupt anywhere and everywhere. I am sure, this would have already bumped up their willingness to leave us to the breaking point. Now what gave them the final push is neither easy to decide nor so important.

I am also aware that the relations between Gandhi and another great man, Dr. Ambedkar, weren't the sweetest. I have nearly no knowledge about the details of this disagreement. I am all too aware of the scholarly brilliance of Dr. Ambedkar, and the ground-breaking contributions towards drafting the Indian constitution and the upliftment of Dalits. Yet, he was no fan of  the other person who worked along with manual scavengers to improve the sanitary conditions of the city during plague, and worked towards their emancipation. This fails to perturb me one bit.

Consider how we do not make a big deal when statesmen or scholars of the present day debate and disagree vehemently with each other on matters professional, ethical and even personal or scientific. Why then does it perturb us so much when big guys we love who died decades ago didn't agree with each other? Because we are stuck with the idea of making gods out of them. It's we who make them into Gods, it's we who expect infallible behaviour from these Godly men, and it's we who fight like religious fanatics when our Gods don't agree with one another. It again us, who lynch out gods when they fail in living up to our picture perfect image of them. Isn't it stupid?

In other words, to pit two great souls against each other long after after they are gone is a vain debate fit for idle hero worshipers who contribute little to the real glory of either of them.

Non-Violence

Gandhi is often ridiculed for his overbearing fascination with non-violence. Non-violence, it seems, is all about giving your other cheek. I think, it's such an incredibly narrow interpretation of an unfathomably deep concept! Like truth, non-violence is open to interpretation. Gandhi didn't invent non-violence. It has found mention in many schools of thoughts over millennia. Gandhi just created a resoundingly successful experiment in using it as a tool to break the spirit of the mighty imperialists and empowering the teeming millions to think that they could take on the Britishers by coming out into the streets and filling up the jails in thousands.

Even if we look at non-violence as just a tool in the struggle for independence, it is not an exclusionary policy. I am sure there were people on both extremes and everywhere in between. Non violence was super effective in solving many complicated standoffs, and there are numerous examples of that. And admittedly, it wasn't a panacea for all issues.

A New Lens

Let's forget the Mahatma. Think of a shy, mediocre teenager from provincial Gujarat -- unsure of himself in everything: be it in his ability to speak English, his control on lust, his professional capability or his spiritual depth. And start tracing his journey from this state to when the whole nation starts looking at him as an imposing influence in some of the most stressful and controvercial of its social matters. You see that he made this big transformation possible through things which each one of us would -- in theory -- be able to do. The tricks he used were of study, self-examination, honesty, perseverance, non-violence, self experiments (in a variety of social, economic and religious austerities among others), networking with a wide-variety of people from various political schools, nationalities, religious backgrounds and races. These are none the qualities of a highly intelligent or talented person, but of a simple and ordinary person who just didn't know how to give up.

And that, in my eyes, is the most inspiring legacy of Gandhi. He essayed his life as a story of a simple man who reached dizzying heights of greatness using nothing but his pathetic experiments with truth. In front of these achievements, I count even his contributions to the National Independence as nothing.

So, let's give Gandhi a second chance. Let's liberate him of his titles and the unrealistic expectations of infallible public/political behaviour from him. Let's study his journey and his experiments with truth. Debate with his thoughts and opinions. Disagree with him, ridicule him, sometimes even feel a sense of revolt at his many naivetes and failings. But let's acknowledge him for his numerous merits which include courage, tact, willpower, resilience and so on. And then see if he fails to impress and inspire.

Is Religion Such a Ridiculous Idea?

You may count me as an atheist. Some reasons:

• I don't think all nature leads to any conclusive evidence of it having been created by a sentient/intelligent creator, or being maintained by one. I don't think that for a moral society, we need constructs like God.
• I don't consider religious rituals the only good or even the best way to bring camaraderie or cohesion among people.
• I don't consider spiritual experiences as necessarily religious.

But hello my atheist friend! Wait a moment before considering me one among you. Here's how I am not exactly like you:

• I don't think religion is a stupid construct, let alone being a vile one.
• I don't think science conclusively proves the absence of an intelligent creation.
• I don't consider religious people stupid in any way. I know extremely intelligent (and wise) people who are religious. And I don't count it as their failing.
• I don't reject the good deeds, qualities, thoughts of people just because they place it in a religious context.

Faith, like food habits, are not all cerebral in nature. They are handed down to us from our culture, and by the time we get the intellectual choice to question them, they would have played too critical a role in our making -- both in good ways as otherwise -- for us to have a total freedom to forsake them.
In fact, if one is a true sceptic, he will refrain from judging and ridiculing others, or passing blanket statements about someone's faith. When this restraint is broken, your atheism is no different than those religions you so eloquently ridicule.

Offending Art and Religious Tolerance

There was some controversy surrounding the movie PK which shows an alien taking on God men. The movie took a strongly critical stance against superstitious beliefs and traditions. All in all, there appears to be a fair degree of agreement that the movie is a good piece of satire. No wonder, the movie has already grossed more than 200 crores (in fact, just discovered that it's already become the highest grossing Bollywood movie ever!), a good portion of which can be attributed to all this controversy, I am sure. I wonder if, in general, it would not make sense for the producers to divert some of their advertising money into fabricating controversies around their movies. It seems like a very effective way of catching public attention.

It would be a pity if I didn't do a post on this topic. Particularly because I have already seen the movie, partially due to the curiosity the controversy aroused in me. And also because I recently got involved in a group debate on the same topic.

In my view, I didn't find anything religiously offending in the movie. An alien doesn't share with us the sense of shame and scandal that we usually attach to some notions or words. Example: sex, urination and nakedness. In fact, I consider it a really wonderful way to examine the objectiveness of cultural concepts by pretending to be an alien. It would force us to ask some truly fundamental questions: Why God? Why ask Him for anything? Why expect Him to give us a preferential treatmenet? An alien is a symbolic creature who is agnostic of our cultural biases and hence can ask questions that we can't.

I also don't see anything for which Hindus should take offence. All religions were criticised. In fact, it wasn't religion which was criticised. It was the practices followed in the name of a religion. Hindu practices got special attention simply because it's the majority religion of India.

One issue is that Aamir Khan is a Muslim. What if the dialogues which so offended some people were delivered by a Hindu actor? Would it have created the same reaction? I guess not. Protests which arise owing his religion are presupposing evil intentions on his part. That's a fundamentally racist thing to do. It's so easy to dismiss the perfectly admirable social work he does by saying that he is a showman, that he is showing off. There's no objective basis for such wording, and can be dismissed right away.

As a movie, as a work of art, I would give PK a complete clean chit if I had a say. In its less than 3 hours, it has to give impactful messages, some of them even jarring. But as a critique, I have to say that religion as a concept gets targeted a bit too often. And that's unfair. But this criticism is not for PK, rather for the entire popular culture which exempts so many other elements of our lives which more evil than religious malpractices. One was brought up by the dhongi God man played by Saurabh Shukla. Arguably, liquor and tobacco bring more grief to the society than religion (with all malpractices in its name) does. Why are these not targeted as much. There are many others: consumerism, vanity, anything that eventually results in wastage of natural resources, and therefore deprivation. How is bathing Shiv Linga with milk any worse than splurging thousands on liquor in a pub? Is there nothing wasteful that the makers of that movie, or anyone who criticises religion for promoting lavishness and wastefulness, have in their life? My personal take on the matter is anything wasteful is evil and should be criticised.

I would infer that many people criticise things which it is fashionable to criticise. Dowry, racism, terrorism, corruption ... evil though they may be, the reason why they meet such widespread public criticism is not so much their evil nature, but but the wide acceptability their criticism has attained in the popular culture. Various sections of society provide us with many examples of the fact that people at large do not have a very original moral code. There are people who, without any introspection, consider eating non-vegetarian food acceptable, but consider alcohol and pre-marital sex bad.  There is clear discrimination exercised in sexual liberty given to men and women in almost all sections of the society. Appealing to your greed, insecurity, sexual frustration etc. is acceptable in advertising; appealing to your superstitious belief is not as much. There are so many who swear by their sympathy for the poor, but consider expensive yearly pleasure trips to foreign locales a necessity in their lifestyles. There are people who take pride in switching off appliances to save energy at home, but aren't ready to be questioned on why they drive their fuel guzzling car to work, alone. In a recent debate that happened in our apartment complex, people were quite unanimous in their view that bachelors shouldn't be allowed into the apartment complex as tenants. These people must have, at some point or another, talked against racism in fashionable circles. Just a little thought will reveal that racism isn't merely discrimination in terms of colour, religion or caste.

So, examples are in plenty that prove beyond doubt that what's considered acceptable in the popular culture mayn't stand the scrutiny of logic. On the other hand, people criticise things which they find being criticised by those who they identify themselves with or idolise. Therefore, for a thoughtful person, what may be a thoughtful criticism of a social evil, may just be another instance of herd behaviour for the general people.

Having said all the above, I consider it an artist's prerogative to use his art to convey messages he wishes to give the society. It's not sensible to criticise this act. The message itself may be criticised. Tolstoy, towards the end of his life, preached about his own customised variant of Christianity. Ayn Rand advocated eloquently in favour of capitalism and selfishness. Both thoughts may have raised public debates in their own times, but are things of the past now. It is a regular thing for artists to make social, philosophical or moral commentaries. Even the greatest of them may meet a disastrous public reception, a fate which is completely in the hands of the public. Therefore, to ask an artist to not cross his border, and continue doing non-serious art is foolish. Nor can it be demanded from them they mustn't go wrong or offend anyone. If you decide to send any message, it's bound to offend someone. That something appears offensive to some section of the society to be made the basis of a sweeping ban or censorship, isn't logical. You may control viewer ship by giving a more restricted censor certificate.

... and I think, PK deserves an 'A' certificate. It has caused some misery to some kids who get offended by innocuous references to body-fluids.