Love him or hate him?

Most commonly known as Mahatma Gandhi, this iconic man is seen by some as the father of modern India and by others as a traitor to India. This post is in response to the more scathing comments circulating in the social media that just don't go away.

And looking at is life and the consequences of it one must remember that he was educated according to British indoctrination. Like so many Hindus of the time, he may not have questioned the British idea of an Aryan invasion lifting the intellect and capacity of Hindus to participate in a modern world.

With his further education in London, the British narrative probably became more ingrained within his consciousness along with an awareness of social injustice and inequity which would lead to his call for human rights for Hindus in South Africa.

This was a world where the British were superior to absolutely everyone. British arrogance was so great that Scott tried to reach the South Pole using ponies, he treated his men with brutality and did not have the sense to take measures to alleviate scurvy. And contrast Amundsen who actually made it to the South Pole and returned because he made use of the best knowledge available succeeded but then was snubbed by the British because he had in their eyes cheated. To the British, the lives of Hindus were only useful if they served the British agenda and they had no qualms about millions dying as they systematically and to the country of its wealth including scientific and technical wealth that they continue to profit from today.

Contrary to the popular view, it's said:

"On the 7th of April in 1934, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi completely suspended his campaign of Civil Disobedience. His 'Quit India' movement later was a failure too.

While lakhs of freedom fighters resisted, revolted and sacrificed their lives for the freedom we enjoy today, we only know Gandhi gave us freedom. We primarily read Gandhi in our history textbooks. We had a complete booklet on his life in our Standard X in school (too much of Gandhi-Gandhi we read then)! Kaash that booklet of 100+ pages on Gandhi had short accounts of our freedom fighters or short accounts of our warrior ancestors who resisted against Islamic invaders and rule over a period of 1000 years! Also what about role of Netaji Bose and the 26000 plus Azad Hind Fauz soldiers who attained martyrdom for Bharat's freedom?

And yet, we also know and address Gandhi as 'Father of the Nation'. If partition had to happen and if he was a true leader he could have facilitated peaceful partition and saved millions of lives that resulted from it. And the same policy of appeasement he followed continues till today!" MS

Further it's argued that:

"Gandhi's movements were primarily a means to misdirect efforts of true nationalists to nonsensical ideas like charkha and ahimsa. While this helped minimize damage to the british, this also helped occupying british forces identify the actual nationalists who were then subjected to atrocities which would put humanity to shame. No wonder each of these movements were unceremoniously brought to sudden halts leading to severe setbacks to the national movement." ~ P Gosh

Within that, he had a strong enough sense of the social injustice imposed by the British and their corporations and there is no doubt he is worthy of admiration for standing up to these corporations with their land and salt taxes, and destruction of Hindu culture. It seems clear that he saw the British as a disease to the nation that had to be eliminated and of course this is where the analysis of his life and gets messy because he tied himself to the principles of nonviolence. After 200 years of British rule, the position of the Brahmans had been weakened and many became civil servants submissive to the British because it was the only way they could feed their families.

The Kshatriyas were either becoming British mercenaries or traders because these men had to provide for their families so they were no longer in any position to protect the Dharma or the nation. This is the arena if you like that Gandhi had to operate in and he wasn't alone.

Some argue that his greatest weakness was as an adherence to pacifism and this idea that Hindus should bow their heads before the sword. In an eternal sense that probably doesn't matter since everyone is reborn again which is something Gandhi probably had faith in. It is reckoned that when the British arrived, Islam was on the decline that with the British policy of divide and conquer, all tribes were pitted against each other and there was complete disunity.

Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, Jawaharlal Nehru, Bhagat Singh, Chandrasekhar Azad and others all wanted to take back the nation from the British their own way

but Gandhi believed that it could be done through non-violent civil protests which was something of a challenge as the population in some places were enduring famine conditions caused by British meddling in the economy and at times taking entire food crops to feed their own population back in England.

The whole business in regard to partition was not Gandhi's doing and it would be wrong to claim him for that. It seems probable that he as well as opposing the British, also opposed the proponents of violently tossing the British out making their efforts less effective.

Today many millions of people hold Mahatma Gandhi in high esteem as a kind of spiritual figurehead representing right action in the face of adversity. Others see him as a traitor to the country because he stuck to his principles of nonviolence and may have been coerced into becoming an architect of partition - a compromise on his understanding.

I have no problem of remembering him very kindly him for his achievements and human rights. But he was also a product of British brainwashing as indeed we all are. It is only through years of sadana that one can free oneself of social and political conditioning (brainwashing) acquired through our corrupted education system.

The bottom line here I think is that Gandhi did his level best to do what he thought was right at the time. His ideas and actions may have been unfortunate for many but who in this world has ever been right? All political decisions have consequences and I think the critics of Gandhi need to realise this and also to realise that that own ongoing and somewhat laborious and often been a must tieraids against him are more reflective of their own internal conflicts and struggles.


Leave a Reply