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.