Falstaff muses on Gandhi (thanks, Desipundit for that link!) the Human and Gandhi the Mahatma and concludes that his Mahamatisation was the reason he got killed. His entry has given shape to a great deal of my own feelings about Gandhi so he deserves more thanks for that. Without trying to repeat Falstaff has said, I’ll add my own bits.

I’ll restrict the scope of this entry by examining Gandhi’s role in the freedom struggle: I’ll have nothing to do with his assassination–or the person/events that preceded it.

In more ways than one, I tend to agree with Shanti about Gandhi’s penchant for pacifism.

Here is an interesting perspective on Gandhi and his penchant for extreme pacifism. I agree with a lot of what the blogger says about Gandhi. I haev often wondered how can it be that a man who so completely believed in the Gita (which of course, says that to protect Dharma you are allowed to kill even your own leave alone those who are oppressing your kin) could have gone to such extremes in pacifism. I completely agree with the claims in the post linked above that he was an extremist in his beliefs and cause and had the luxury to be blind to everything else since he kept himself so far removed from the mainstream – not physically mind you, but mentally – he obviously thought he was so pure and beyond the regular human instincts that he kept preaching people that it was better for them to die than fight back even while they were being massacred.

I hold Gandhi primarily responsible for the progressive rot in Indian politics. A tale in Freedom at Night illustrates this. A thief once stole something when Gandhi (?) was travelling in a train. He later repented for his act and confided in someone close to Gandhi that he wanted to tell it to the Mahatma but was afraid of punishment. The other man replied, “Punishment? The Mahatma will weep with joy at your repentence and honesty.” And so it happened in reality. Any person who professed Gandhi’s ideals, agreed with them and put it on show in front of Gandhi would at once, earn the Mahatma’s trust and confidence. Bottomline: all that was required was some average acting skills. I don’t mean to club even genuine Gandhians into this category of playactors but the breed of today’s politicians come from some of that stock. In India’s Rebirth, Sri Aurobindo says:

All this promises a bad look-out when India gets purna Swaraj. Mahatma Gandhi is having bad qualms about Congress corruption already. What will it be when purna Satyagraha reigns all over India?

And Gandhi’s pacifism always hinged in favour of Muslim mobs: as Shanti says about the threat of violence, a war cry from Jinnah and other gangs was enough to bring the Mahatma on his knees. We’ve seen the movie, read a million accounts of how his heart bled at the thought of the Partition. Despite this, and despite his overwhelming hold over the masses, why couldn’t he prevent it? The reason is simple: the moment Nehru and other interested parties knew that freedom was at hand, Gandhi had ceased to be relevant. Moreover, Gandhi himself confessed his helplessness in cloaked words, from India’s Rebirth:

Have you read what Gandhi has said in answer to a correspondent? He says that if eight crores of Muslims demand a separate State, what else are the twenty-five crores of Hindus to do but surrender? Otherwise there will be civil war.

Gandhi’s understanding of the Gita was flawed. It is noteworthy that Gandhi rarely quoted from, or about the Mahabharata. Which makes it hard to comprehend his admiration for the Gita which is but a part of the epic. The Gita in many ways is Mahabharata’s essence finely distilled in about 700 verses. As Shanti rightly says, Krishna exhorts Arjuna to pick up arms and kill to uphold Dharma for non-violence if used inappropriately causes more harm than violence does. However, Gandhi believed in “passive” resistance which is the complete reverse of what the Gita says. His ideals–while they are lofty–of truth and non-violence fall more appropriately in the realm of morality, not politics and definitely not philosophy. His principles are more at home with Christian thought than Hinduism. Sri Aurobindo says:

Something in him takes delight in suffering for its own sake. Even the prospect of suffering seems to please him…. It is the Christian idea that has taken hold of him. Besides, he seems to think that after him his theory and creed of non-violence will continue. I don’t think so. A few people will be there, but anything like a wide-scale influence like that of his personality does not seem possible….

What is truly tragic is that he imposed his ideals on the people of India. To quote Aurobindo again:

He made Charkha a religious article of faith and excluded all people from Congress membership who would not spin. How many, even among his own followers believe in the gospel of Charkha? Such a tremendous waste of energy, just for the sake of a few annas is most unreasonable…

And more bitterly:

The Congress at the present stage-what is it but a Fascist organization? Gandhi is the dictator like Stalin, I won’t say like Hitler: what Gandhi says they accept and even the Working Committee follows him; then it goes to the All-India Congress Committee which adopts it, and then the Congress. There is no opportunity for any difference of opinion, except for Socialists who are allowed to differ provided they don’t seriously differ. Whatever resolutions they pass are obligatory on all the provinces whether the resolutions suit the provinces or not; there is no room for any other independent opinion. Everything is fixed up before and the people are only allowed to talk over it-like Stalin’s Parliament. [...] Give [people] education, technical training and give them the fundamental organic principles of organization, not on political but on business lines. But Gandhi does not want such industrial organization, he is for going back to the old system of civilization, and so he comes in with his magical formula “Spin, spin, spin.”

Words of a true visionary. Today all you need to do is replace “Gandhi” with “Sonia Gandhi,” you get the picture of the Congress party. Anyway, Gandhi’s principles only led to creating an army of cowards, who could only take beatings but not give it back. All in the name of “ahimsa.” Non-violence and forgiveness are powerful weapons in the hands of the Strong. The bully/oppressor has no use for the forgiveness of the Meek. Forgiveness becomes a virtue only if you are in a position to punish. The Presidential Pardon is valued precisely because of this. To give but a sample of the ridiculous lengths his ideas of non-violence went,

“I appeal for cessation of hostilities … because war is bad in essence. You want to kill Nazism. Your soldiers are doing the same work of destruction as the Germans. The only difference is that perhaps yours are not as thorough as the Germans … I venture to present you with a nobler and a braver way, worthy of the bravest soldiers. I want you to fight Nazism without arms or … with non-violent arms. I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity…. Invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions. Let them take possession of your beautiful island with your many beautiful buildings. You will give all these but not your souls nor your minds…“

This was an open letter Gandhi wrote in the Amrit Bazaar Patrika in July 1940 under the title, Method of Non-violence-Mahatma Gandhi’s appeal to every Briton. I guess the Brits were still sane not to seriously heed this “noble method” of fighting Nazism. And isn’t this the refrain of a great many of today’s columnists: that all war is bad in essence?

I realize I have written quite bitterly about Gandhi’s role in the freedom struggle. Adhering to Falstaff perspective, we have been severely indoctrinated–from childhood– with an overdose of Gandhi as the Mahatma. That’s why I didn’t bother repeating the same things about Gandhi, which we can find anywhere. However, the coin also has another side, which may not be as pretty.