It’s been about 10 years since I started this blog and this post is a personal stock-taking of sorts. This blog started as a space for personal rants/ruminations that made sense perhaps only to me. At a level, it still remains that way. But I’ll spare you those details. The point is it did take a definitive turn at some point for a reason I’m still trying to locate. However, a lot of folks continue to return to this space for whatever reasons and I’m both grateful and overwhelmed for that.
This freaky prelude was necessary as we shall see.
In his monumental literary blunder, the Discovery of India, which now passes off as history in–among other places–UCLA, Jawaharlal Nehru characterized the Upanishads as some sort of esoteric works whose complexity, meaning, intent, and purpose is beyond our comprehension. He was, really, speaking for himself. He expressed a personal opinion about the Upanishads. It was his complete lack of comprehension about the subject that he foisted upon the Upanishads, quite similar to a schoolboy who thinks Mathematics is bad because he can’t solve those damn sums. Whatever his other faults, Nehru was being honest: the Upanishads were really beyond his comprehension. But I wouldn’t judge him too harshly on this shortcoming. Nehru read and “understood” the traditions, philosophy, and culture of his own land through alien eyes. He read them all in English–more accurately, he read their interpretation in books written by Westerners. He was as far removed from India as the Westerners were. If he was really interested, he’d have to like travel just a few minutes to find scores of people who were deeply rooted, preserved, and fought for the preservation of this culture. Instead, he chose to call them kaminey.
And that was a monumental tragedy for India.
The India in Discovery of India became the real India after he became Prime Minister. His interpretations of Western and Islamic (guess at whose feet he learned Indian history?) interpretations of Indian history became authentic Indian history. The Brown Sahib was not only an alien in his own country but unleashed a reign of terror on the nation’s cultural past (chiefly). He actively discouraged Sanskrit. He just couldn’t get to the core of the seemingly-meaningless Hindu rituals. He took a fancy to tyrants, despots, plunderers, and savages who had ravaged India. Mahumud Ghaznavid was a historical hero while “Marshall (sic)” Stalin was his contemporary counterpart. Small wonder Nehru was enamoured with the (then) USSR and China. Under his auspices, the meaning of the term Communal was turned on its head to mean exactly the opposite. A progressive, democratic Prime Minister of a newly-independent nation who despised dynastic rule ruled for 17 years and actively groomed his daughter to perpetuate democracy. I don’t know this for sure, but there’s no evidence that he as much as pondered over what kept such a complex, diverse and large nation with all its conflicts intact.
In other words, he was supremely self-assured in his stupidity, which he covered up with this massive ego.
Is this judging him too harshly, or unfairly? I think not. At a level, you can argue that he was a product of his times. However, so were his contemporaries. Gandhi, his mentor, who declared himself a proud Sanatani Hindu, and Sardar Patel and a host of others.
The result of his self-absorption, love for tyrants, and myopia mixed with hot-headedness culminated in the 1962 humiliation. But the soul of India had already suffered the real blow many years before 1962. A generation of self-hating Hindus was growing and today it’s a pretty sizeable number. It gleefully joins the ranks of the ignorant who casually abuse Hindu traditions and way of life. If you abuse native traditions long enough, you create a class of rootless people who will eventually see no sense in defending the nation they were born in. As we see, this class is multiplying exponentially. Given this mentality, how do you ensure that India stays together? Every category of “liberal,” “modern,” and “secular,” has its own reasons–and they are perfectly logical reasons from their standpoint–to, say, give away Kashmir. Give it enough time and Assam will go the Kashmir way and these selfsame people will advocate these selfsame arguments to give it away.
One of the few solutions to counter–if not redeem before it’s too late–this is to embark on what I call the Rediscovery of India. I’ve done my fair share of ranting about secularism, the Congress party, votebanks, Islamists…. To give it some shape, here are a few broad (and probably vague) themes:
- Repudiate the Nehruvian “idea” of India
- Examine issues, ideas, and policies by scrutinizing/comparing it with similar work our ancients had done
- Examine everything in the context of its applicability to native Indian traditions
- Revive traditions that have timeless relevance
- Discard any ugly traditions that exist
- Revitalize Indian art, sculpture, music, dance, and literature. The value this has in keeping India together is intangible but infinitely more significant than most of us realize.
- Stop jerking off to the fact that one of the greatest strengths of India, for all its flaws (sic), is that it’s a democracy. What we have is a sham.
- Develop a spine: we don’t need to seek the West’s (or the whole world’s) approval for everything we do.
The last point will automatically result if the rest are taken care of. I’m aware that lots of good work is happening in one or all of these areas but I discern three major shortcomings: it is not enough, not widespread enough, and not assertive enough. And it won’t happen merely by the BJP or any other, similar party coming to power. If you believe that fixing drains will fix terrorism, then you equally need to believe this approach will rejuvenate India. We are a sick nation at present, miraculously surviving on the feeble support of some unconscious, civilizationally-inherited values that may not last long. These values, deeply rooted in Hindu civilization is not an inexhaustible blank cheque.
And with that, and at the end of about 10 years, this reassessment of my blog comes to an end.
And I’ve decided to rename this blog to Rediscovery of India. Nothing else changes.
Tags: Ancient India, Blogging, Blogs, Commentary, Culture, Democracy, History, India, Indian Civilization, Indian Culture, Indian Genius, Jawaharlal Nehru, Nehru, Reassessment of Blog, Rediscovery of India, Rejuvenating Hinduism, Rejuvenating India, Santana Dharma, Secularism, Seriously Sandeep, Society & Culture
Read this article
“RELEVANCE OF MAHATMA GANDHI AND HIS THOUGHT IN MODERN TIMES by J. K. Bajaj”
http://www.cpsindia.org/art_gandhi.html
“Why does India have to support indigenous causes everywhere?”
Because it is an instrument of power. Do we realize why much of capitalist “secular” west supports both evangelicals/islamists as well as communist/liberals around the world – and particularly the subcontinent. Or do we notice why Arabs and much of the Islamic world support both overt evangelism through terror and covertly through propaganda, madarsas etc. Or why does China inspite of not believing in communism anymore support maoists and communists throughout the world. All these are instruments of power, power of ideas and power over the mind. Coincidentally all these – capitalism, socialism, liberalism, christian and islamic evangelism, and communism (inspite of the maoist gloss) are either euro-centric or abrahamic philosphies. Supporting indigenous movements elsewhere is a call to action – and a moral obligation for the courageous, not a work cut out for the uncertain of mind. Of course it is undeniable that this has got to be preceded by much hard work – the framing and crystallization of ideas, methods and organization.
“I have always wondered why there are no such debates among the Chinese?”
Because last I heard Chinese re-education aka labour camps – weren’t a particular favorite tourist destination for Chinese people. More seriously though – without denying the progress China has made – it must be stated that the Chinese government is perhaps the most insecure of governments around the world. Despite the rhetoric about socialism with Chinese characteristics – please note that Chinese communism has totally decimated what remains of the much venerable ancient Chinese culture. There methods of governance. much of their ancient social structure has been uprooted and recast in a western mould (thanks to Mao). What the communist (and Nehruvians) wanted to do to India – has already been accomplished by Chinese communists in thier own country. I assume that it is nobody’s point that we should be traveling down the same road.
“But when a nation become strong and self-sufficient to a large degree, people start to take it seriously, and even wish to imitate it.”
Agree to the part about being taken seriously. However the only nations who imitate others are those without thier own identity. Only dimwit communists want India to imitate China, only our brown sahibs with no grounding in their own culture (as our post independence political and intellectual leadership) want us to become another europe or america. Only a Pakistan which lost all connections to it’s ancient heritage has chosen to become an Arab wannabe. Whatever stirrings of indegenity we see – we see largely in India.
That is why India can be a locus for such a movement. Such movements would be equally applicable to Indians, Chinese, native Americans, Africans and even in many cases some Europeans and middle easterners.
Of course it goes without saying that a week and intellectually compromised India can never assume leadership in such matters.
Well supporting “indigenous” causes is also a new age “ism”–a legacy of Nehru who wanted to join the non-aligned countries…India should befriend whoever benefits it in the long run…it has no duty to protect “indigenous” causes and no duty to support failing states that cannot govern themselves properly…No one is saying to imitate China, but the Chinese know how to protect their own and are aggressive about protecting their interests but HIndus are not….As far as imitation goes, people look up to strong nations for leadership and they exert cultural domination whether one likes it or not, its natural human nature to admire the strong, not the other way around.
“It is rather sad that large portions of the Hindu movements remain antagonistic to Gandhi.” –
Well he certainly was no leader to me, although interesting as an individual, read his own biography and you might be repelled as well. V.S. Naipaul also found him unlikeable. He was a determined man who is to be credited for his determination and for giving rise to Indian nationalism, thats all, he understood the Indian masses and what moves them (the saintly ideal), as a leader of a nation, I think he tried to impose his ideals upon everyone which is disagreeable…
” I think he tried to impose his ideals upon everyone which is disagreeable…”
And what did he do when they disagreed?
@rajiv chandran
“The antecedents of Nazism go back some 70-80 years before WW2. The ideas that formed the basis of this cult can be traced back to de Gobineau, Houston Chamberlain, Rosenberg and finally Hitler”
You left out Friedrich Maximillian Mueller from this list.
Mueller supported de gobineau, in spite of his public assertions that language theory was not connected to ‘race theories’.
And for those who criticize China, India has also turned into a monster. The population from being roughly equal to Russia in the 1940′s has quadrupled. Go to places like Benares and you will feel like you will be run over by the crowds. A State where people breeed out of control, that houses the largest amount of illiterate and poor people in the world is also a monster. A large population will permanently cripple India. A massive population leads to a mass culture. So before criticizing China, think of how a country which was in a better position than China in the 1940′s in terms of population and economics, today is lagging. One only has the Congress party to blame for misrule for 60 years.
I dislike Gandhi because his ideals are for the weak.
And for those who criticize China, India has also turned into a monster. The population from being roughly equal to Russia in the 1940’s has quadrupled. Go to places like Benares and you will feel like you will be run over by the crowds. This is true for many Indian cities. A State where people breeed completely out of control, that houses the largest amount of illiterate and poor people in the world is also a monster. A large population will permanently cripple India. A massive population leads to a nastly mass culture. So before criticizing China, think of how a country which was in a better position than China in the 1940’s in terms of population and economics, today is lagging. One only has the Congress party to blame for misrule for 60 plus years.
I dislike Gandhi because his ideals are for the weak. There is nothing in him that I find worthy of imitation but his determination. Also his movement against the British was successful and other movements for civil rights as in America and South Africa which tried to follow him were successful (although one can see that these movements did not understand him in a proper fashion), and he is to be given credit for inspiring successful movements.
@ Sandeep,
I would like to know your take on Shah Rukh Khan supporting inclusion of Pak players in IPL. Personally I feel it is justified to ban his movie and even banish him from the country. I dont know how come we Indians still trust Pakistanis when the govt of Pakistan is the main hand behind all the attacks against India. I guess Shah Rukh Khan including our FM first think on a human level rather than talking about sportsmanship.
@larissa,
Chinese do not need to think about Euro-centrism etc, because they have lost any sense of history, culture and tradition after Mao’s cultural revolution. You will be surprised to know how little history of imperial China is actually taught. A covert commie cultural revolution of sort was experimented with us, but by God’s grace, that was half-baked attempt. We, who care to know, pretty much know our recent history minus the marxist obfuscation. It is the ancient history that needs to be recovered.
“…Well he certainly was no leader to me,…” – OK, point settled. He was a leader to millions of Indians….ooopsss….well…Hindus. As I said before, the man has lost it after 1927, but he is still our most respected leader. Had he not been there, then I had no trouble imagining babus similar to Motilal Nehru and other anglophiles from Congress club running show in India in 2010 with blessings from Queen mother in London. Not that situation is very different today, but blessings from London is no longer needed as long as the supposedly liberal Christian guy with a muslim name living in Washington gives a nod. Gandhi certainly was not the reason British left India, but he certainly was the reason for British to take the idea of independent India very seriously.
Population for a country is both strength and weakness. It depends on policy makers on how they would like to make the best use of the population. Deng Xiao Peng used Chinese population to shake the world. It is the misrule that has created trouble here. Besides, it is not like Indians alone can claim for crossing 1 billion mark. You have to calculate millions of Hindu refugees beaten and sent from Pakistan, from Bangladesh in 1971 and illegals from religion of peace. Our government is so generous that they are considering amnesty to illegals now-a-days. Anything for a fistful of votes I guess.
It is a mistake to equate Nehru’s ideas with indigenism. Nehru’s ideas of decolonization and empowerment were framed within the colonial context. His own definition of indigenity of his own people was to mould and define them in a quasi british/soviet statist model. The idea and context of indigenity in the present conversation is entirely different – I dont see where the matter or relevance of equivalence to Nehruvian policies or new-ageism or propping up failed states comes in.
Hindu civlization in it’s long existense has always been plural with the many separate identities within maintaing and sustaining thier uniqueness. This civlizational knowlege, is very relevant in the troubled world of homegenization, westernization, islamization, and maybe soon sinization. This is because it promotes an ideologically tolerant and culturaly and religiously diverse world. It promotes a woldview where people can take pride in and live in peace with thier own identities. In a world of competing ideas (some of them very bad and dangerous), indegenism is a call to return to the roots, for hindus, indians, subcontinentals this would mean returning to thier dharmic roots. For others it gives a chance to move away from those who place themselves at the center of the universe – namely the West, Chtistianity, Islam etc. Hindu politics is presently contextualized as regressive by eurocentricists and thier indian sepoys as a local, provincial, regressive affair. Such contextualization masks the relevance of such political mobilization of the indigen ie hindu in india and other people across the world. Here again a call to indenity presents a universal context under which the hindu struggle can be understood, appreciated and related to. Can we have some cogent arguments as to why the struggle of the Hindu cannot have global relevance – and as to why the Hindus must not help other people who are suffering the same fate? Of course as stated earlier this has to be preceded by much hard work on the part of the hindus in terms of intellectual, political and cultural mobilization.
We – Hindus and Indians remain the last of a people – whose indegenous faith systems, beliefs, culture etc remain somewhat untouched by abrahmic faith systems, westernization and thought processes with claims on modernism. What is wrong with us supporting causes that may be ideologically inimical to those who nurse a profound sense of enemity towards us ? Therefore to fight for this cause by all available means is therefore a duty and an obligation.
There are those who see great merit in China being aggressive and protective of thier interests – but will not allow even the idea of the same being done by India and Indians, to be voiced. That is somewhat reactionary and quite sad.
@Bharat
“You left out Friedrich Maximillian Mueller from this list.”
You are right – unintentional oversight on my part. He was after all the great speaker for the aryan race theory which he professed to disown much later in life. Isn’t it surprising how many ideological fathers western ideas share with nazism – and everyone pretends not to notice it.
Sandeep,
Many congratulations on completing 10 years of blogging. I salute your tremendous courage, passion and effort in this regard.
Hope because of such efforts true spirit and strength of Sanatana Dharma gets more appreciation from today’s youth and in next 10 years situation improves.
Famous quote from ishavasya upanishat:
hiranmayena patrena
satyasyapihitam mukham
tat tvam pusann apavrnu
satya-dharmaya drstaye
Congratulations on 10 years of blogging! The issue of Nehru is a difficult one. Yet, sooner of later one will have to grasp that nettle. One way of putting him in context is by looking upon him as a belated figure who comes on the scene after the Indian National Congress had failed in its mission. The British Civil Servants who set it up- Wedderburn in particular who financed its operations in London at times from his own pocket- were not able to persuade Westminster- or Curzon- of the need to co-operate with Ranade’s successor the great Gokhale. However, Gokhale himself was ambivalent about the Economism of his stated program. The new type of politics espoused by ‘Bal, Pal and Lal’ together with the extraordinary heroics of the Bengali Jugantar- Tiger Jatin in particular- as well as the willingness of a new class of brilliant scholar/politicians to rethink and re-engage with the source springs of spirituality and morality- created a situation where people like Nehru and Jinnah were already anachronisms. Yet, after the first world war, the British were able to impose ‘a long week-end’- ‘a period of diminishing effort and increasing returns’- on India. This was a time of sleep walkers. The secret police- led by people like Comissioner Tegart= were able to kill or marginalize the true revolutionaries. It was some sort of garden party politician that was tolerated.
I accept that Gandhi can not be dismissed as an idiot. On the contrary if the West really had destroyed itself in the manner that H.G. Wells pictured, the Gandhian ashram would have been the sole repository of humane values in a world given over to destruction. But, Gandhi’s prediction was not correct. His ashrams were not self sustaining. His politics sowed the seeds for mass killing.
Ambedkar has pointed to the failure of the Indian Liberals- the manner in which they collaborated in their own marginalization. In this context, does Nehru have a case to answer? Or is the truth that he was positioning himself in the 1930′s to emerge as a strong man, a man of destiny, a dictator? After all, how can there be a Liberalism without some sort of understanding of the role of the private sector in the Economy? These guys were trained lawyers but the one thing they don’t do is reform the Criminal Justice system, update the law of Torts, and so forth.
Yet, Gandhi and Nehru played a great role. What was it? It was to show that the middle class, however well intentioned, can never remedy the position of the masses. In other words, their historical function is to keep the kursi warm for the Communists when they finally finish their PhD’s, or visiting Professorships or what have you.
Trouble is there will be no country left for them to rule over by then.
In a world of competing ideas (some of them very bad and dangerous), indegenism is a call to return to the roots, for hindus, indians, subcontinentals this would mean returning to thier dharmic roots.
Actually there is a new political right in France started which is based on these ideals–namely that the heritage of the West is Greco-Roman and that the West must return to its true roots. Its a very enlightened conservative movement which has started out more as a “think tank”. It is no wonder that these conservatives also support conservatives in India, insofar as conservatism means going back to the true roots.
In a world of competing ideas (some of them very bad and dangerous), indegenism is a call to return to the roots, for hindus, indians, subcontinentals this would mean returning to thier dharmic roots.
Actually there is a new political right in France started by Alain de Benoist which is based on these ideals–namely that the heritage of the West is Greco-Roman and that the West must return to its true roots. Its a very enlightened conservative movement which has started out more as a “think tank”. It is no wonder that these conservatives also support conservatives in India, insofar as conservatism means going back to the true roots.
It interesting that the conservatives I mentioned also believe that the West (before it took up a foreign religion) had also been plural with many peoples co-existing and maintaining their unique identity just as you found in classical India.
larissa,
I wanted to check it out. Do you have a link?
Well Alain de Benoist is the founder of the think tank GRECE. He has written several articles–they are of interest to Hindus, although his ideas are in a Western contest. His book “On being a pagan” is an excellent book in which he argues that Europe has to return to its roots which are pagan, i.e., Greco-Roman.
He has written some interesting articles. Here are some.
polytheism vs. monotheism
http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/debenoist/alain10.html
democracy revisited: the ancients and the moderns
http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/debenoist/alain14.html
Now he writes in a European perspective and one has to read a man’s writings before forming a judgment and not wiki-pedia. He has a very good understanding of ancient Greece, whatever his politics today might be. He is interesting to read. For a Westerner to understand this much about the West’s pagan past takes a great deal of scholarship…they are not connected to their pagan past in the way Hindus still are.
Confronting globalization.
http://www.alaindebenoist.com/pdf/confronting_globalization.pdf
Well Alain de Benoist is the founder of the think tank GRECE. He has written several articles–they are of interest to Hindus, although his ideas are in a Western contest. His book “On being a pagan” is an excellent book in which he argues that Europe has to return to its roots which are pagan, i.e., Greco-Roman.
He has written some interesting articles. Here are some.
polytheism vs. monotheism
http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/debenoist/alain10.html
democracy revisited: the ancients and the moderns
http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/debenoist/alain14.html
Now he writes in a European perspective and one has to read a man’s writings before forming a judgment and not wiki-pedia. He has a very good understanding of ancient Greece, whatever his politics today might be. He is interesting to read. For a Westerner to understand this much about the West’s pagan past takes a great deal of scholarship…they are not connected to their pagan past in the way Hindus still are.
Confronting globalization.
http://www.alaindebenoist.com/pdf/confronting_globalization.pdf
Also his ideas are not to be confused with the neo-pagan movement. He is trying to found a school of thought and not a political party. His ideas are of interest to HIndus because they remain connected to their pagan past although this is quickly changing….
Well Alain de Benoist is the founder of the think tank GRECE. He has written several articles–they are of interest to Hindus, although his ideas are in a Western contest. His book “On being a pagan” is an excellent book in which he argues that Europe has to return to its roots which are pagan, i.e., Greco-Roman.
He has written some interesting articles. Here are some.
polytheism vs. monotheism
http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/debenoist/alain10.html
democracy revisited: the ancients and the moderns
http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/debenoist/alain14.html
Now he writes in a European perspective and one has to read a man’s writings before forming a judgment and not wiki-pedia. He has a very good understanding of ancient Greece, whatever his politics today might be. He is interesting to read. For a Westerner to understand this much about the West’s pagan past takes a great deal of scholarship…they are not connected to their pagan past in the way Hindus still are.
Confronting globalization.
http://www.alaindebenoist.com/pdf/confronting_globalization.pdf
Also his ideas are not to be confused with the neo-pagan movement. He is trying to found a school of thought and not a political party. His ideas are of interest to HIndus because they remain connected to their pagan past although this is quickly changing….
this man’s politics is his afffair, but I find his ideas interesting. Does not mean I agree with everything he says….intelligent people just make you think more….
>>”to embark on what I call the Rediscovery of India…. •Repudiate the Nehruvian “idea” of India”
Rediscovery, not of india, but of <embharata.
‘India’ is a chimera, a creation of the british, to displace bharata in the minds of bharatiyas. Like ‘hindu’ and ‘hinduism’ is used to displace dharma. The purpose- deracination.
Rediscovery will be of bharata and dharma.
What Nehru discovered is ‘india’, the entity created by the british and other europeans.
What he, deracinated, indoctrinated by british, could not discover or understand, and what similarly, many of the ‘highly educated’ and ‘eminent, accomplished’ indians of today are unable to discover or understand, is bharata and its inseparable civilisational values.
This re-discovery of bharata is actually also a part of the rediscovery of self as brahma.
namaste
Here are more links to Benoist’s writings in English which are interesting to read.
http://www.alaindebenoist.com/pages/textes.php?cat=orientation&lang=en
why nehru tried to destroy the hindu pride is because he was a british agent and a muslim. yes sir !! he was the grandson of gayasuddin ghazi kotwal of delhi and ran away to allahabad in the pseudoname of gangadhar nehru. this explains the nehru family’s hatred for hindus. m o mathai principal secretary of nehru wrote in his book saying he heard indira gandhi saying that she hates hindus and would never marry a hindu. so to fool indian public she renamed her husband feraze gandhi who was feroze khan with whom she did nikah at london in the name of maimuna begum. this the biggest fraud of the millenium. these people have duped 100 crore people for over a century. they need to be kicked out of india.
As a youth, Nehru’s is a personality that doesn’t motivate me to imbibe and be like. Also, I strongly support the ideas of ‘Rediscovery of India’- especially, Develop a spine: we don’t need to seek the West’s (or the whole world’s) approval for everything we do.
Nehru and Gandhi are made somewhat a kind of ‘Lenin-Stalin’ duo of 1930-40s, with similar incessant state propaganda, manufactured greatness-extraordinary-wisdom, sentimental rhetoric, etc. about them, carefully concealing countless mistakes, political blunders, monumental ignorances etc. of the duo. This propaganda has been used as a similar kind of essential ideological prop for a one-party (family) rule, with an intelligentsia coopted with the help of the same tools of fear and reward to serve the rule, dutifully abusing ‘communal’ forces akin to the ‘imperialist’ forces of the erstwhile Soviet agit-prop academicians. All minus the naked communist terror. Thus, it seems true that should a sensible Indian really know and understand Nehru deeply he would be able to compreheand much of the maladies affecting India since the last sixty years. Hence, rediscovery of India a la Sandeepweb makes a great sense.
Well Nehru had an English governess and a Muslim tutor. The end result of that is clear! Brown sahib with a deep inferiority complex, shallow understanding of his own culture is what characterized him, and the incessant posturing in front of cameras to cultivate the image of an enlightened world leader out to do good for humanity ….you read his book (Discovery of India) and you see it is shallow, it is like a naive student writing about India from afar, confident in his “do good” abilities….Even many perceptive Westerners like Alain Danielou noticed this about him and thought him shallow….
“In fact it is the congress that has killed Gandhi off from Indian political life by contaminating and distorting his legacy and appropriating his name and popularity. It is rather sad that large portions of the Hindu movements remain antagonistic to Gandhi.”
I doubt this is the case. Most people just do not like the eccentric portion of his ideas, many of which were derived from Christian readings –India was in a wretched condition at the time of Gandhi, and he tried to understand the “destitute” side of India like no other, dressed like it and tried to live they way it did, I think this is what moved people. In a way, he is a constant reminder of that part of India, which even today is largely ignored although it makes up a large portion of the population….Also many people do not like the fact that he imposed his ideas on others…I think this might be the gist of people’s objection. But he achieved a lot by sticking firm to something, steadfastness goes a long way….Also people might have different concpetion of what constitutes the ideal leader and might have different conceptions of heroism…
Interesting piece on Gandhi by Geroge Orwell. Yes you could not completely like the man, and nor dislike him completely either, he was certainly one of a kind, I think thats a good way to describe him!
http://orwell.ru/library/reviews/gandhi/english/e_gandhi
Another interesting chapter about Gandhi can be found in V.S. Naipaul’s “A Writer’s People”….
Gandhi is the most over-rated politician in modern times. He was great in a different sphere: direct service to people, serving real individuals and groups with his selfless ardour for service. Serving a needy was his personal hobby which gave him undescribable pleasure. He was also a truth-loving man. Other than these two qualities, which justly made him a great man, in a given circumstances in S Africa. This greatness was built abroad, and comprised essentially non-political works. But, sorry! other than these two he had very few qualities and little to deliver. This lack made him a disater for the political role he taken up in a crucial phase of India. He was like a good ping-pong player, taking up instantly as a despotic captian of a foorball team in full belief of his own greatness. Gandhi in India, the later Gandhi, was a total failure as here he took up a job for which he had no abilities, or training or attitude. In fact, he didn’t even know all the rules of the new game he played audaciously. As a consequese the country paid a heavy price in his life and continued to pay afterwards through the deeds of his choses successor.
(btw Sri Aurobindo has so far said the most perfect sentences in evaluating Gandhi the thinker and politician. Dr Ambedkar has also done a close analyisis of some aspects very pithily.)
In fact, the real greatness of Gandhi and his real good sayings have been largely ignored. On the contrary, his utter failures and miserable sayings and infantile theorisations are exalted so high. As political legeacy Gandhi had never a thing to hand over. As social servant he left an immense legacy, only to be ignored by one and all.
“It is rather sad that large portions of the Hindu movements remain antagonistic to Gandhi.”
_
Well, even the secular movements and so-called liberals, who otherwise never tire of quoting Gandhi, brush under the carpet, or are ignorant of, Gandhi’s views on conversion, cows and Ram Rajya. Or are unaware that he called for the dissolution of Congress Party. He seemed to have antagonized every group with his peculiar views.
“As social servant he left an immense legacy, only to be ignored by one and all.”
_
Not all. There’s Shri Bindeshwar Pathak and his Sulabh project with continues to this day. But you are mostly correct.
It is intresting how even Orwell an intelligent contemporary observer notices that the British “used” Gandhi and saw him as less of a threat than other Hindus nationalists…
Someone once remarked that if it were the Germans in India, Gandhi along with his goat would have been long gone, the British had some patience as they had a fake image to protect….
@ ava
It was not ‘someone’ but Sri Aurobindo who said that had Gandhi to deal with (instead of the British) German Nazis or Stalinist communists, he would have removed for good in no time. No opportunity of endless sermonising on the ‘limitless power of ahimasa’, that ‘can melt even the heart of Hitler’ and such other infantile theorisations.
Orwell, too, wrote on this point saying the same thing. That Gandhi’s claims about the universal effect of ahimsa in politics was kind of nonsense.
Orwell wrote, in 1949, ‘At the same time there is reason to think that Gandhi, who after all was born in 1869, did not understand the nature of totalitarianism and saw everything in terms of his own struggle against the British government. The important point here is not so much that the British treated him forbearingly as that he was always able to command publicity. … (H)e believed in “arousing the world”, which is only possible if the world gets a chance to hear what you are doing. It is difficult to see how Gandhi’s methods could be applied in a country where opponents of the regime disappear in the middle of the night and are never heard of again. Without a free press and the right of assembly, it is impossible not merely to appeal to outside opinion, but to bring a mass movement into being, or even to make your intentions known to your adversary. Is there a Gandhi in Russia at this moment? And if there is, what is he accomplishing? The Russian masses could only practise civil disobedience if the same idea happened to occur to all of them simultaneously, and even then, to judge by the history of the Ukraine famine, it would make no difference. ‘
The same can be applied to the Islamist politics as well. It was not without reason that Gandhi failed so miserably with even less fanatic Islamic politicians like Jinna. Because, he was incurably infatuated with ‘my own understanding’ of ahimsa, which was nothing but delusion.
@ Sandeep
Congratulations for completing 12 years, a yuga, with ‘Rediscovery of India’!
I cannot overemphasise the wise selection of the name you chose for the blog.