Nobody cares what Mahatma did or how his ideas continue to affect us daily and its sad that a Munnabhai film sequel was in need to remind the nation about Gandhi. Is Gandhism dying or are we seeing its rebirth?
In fact its quite surprising that a contrary ideology of violence for a revolution was portrayed in some super hit movies like Rang De Basanti. Why Bhagat singh as an ideal for the youth as shown in the movie, why not Mahatma Gandhi!
Another interesting fact we are seeing around the world is that certain Gandhism are in fact on the revival. In the recent anti reservation moment, it was surprising that the number of people who adopted a hunger strike as a means for protest, the entire moment was non violent except a few instances of police interference. Gandhiji would have been proud. We have not forgotten the path he showed us. Though some says its adopted by the cowards, its not the truth. It was powerful even to defeat the land where sun doesn''t sets.The great man died. But his principles still prevail.
Ahimsa - The non violence
One thing is for sure that we have people still now who do respect him and everything he did for the country. Imagine living every moment of your life for your country, going on hunger strikes endlessly, not for the individual gain. How many are there who would even walk for 1 km in the hot sun for your country, would even fast for one day for someone else. Would dedicate their own life for betterment of the country. Maybe he made some mistakes, maybe his idea of non violence did not work for India at every situations. Maybe non violence did not work for India but do we even know that so many countries including South Africa adopted a struggle of non violence and were successful.
The Gandhian ideology is that it derives its base from truth and non-violence. If we take all that gandhi had done, search for a common denominator and that''s what we will find, undisputed. But the problem is that all of us who say we should try to be like the ''mahatma'' forget that change is inevitable, if not mandatory. The problem is what gandhi had done was perhaps tolerated by the British for he never killed a white and they continued to kill our people.
The movement in 1920s, where a protesting crowd turned violent and they doused a police station in UP. We would have got independence at the end of that movement but gandhi decided to withdraw it because it had turned into a grave of violence. Why do we think that then today people give more importance to Bhagat singh, Sukhdev. They portrayed the highest quality of human spirit and that was to not accept defeat without a fight. Without sacrifices from
Bhagat singh, Azad, Netaji subhash chandra bose etc. and how many else. We could the great contributions of these people which helped in getting independence. Because,
it was not just mere contributions, it was there life which they gave for our country.
Against Gandhi?
The problem is what gandhi had done was perhaps tolerated by the British for he never killed their men -
Not true . British neither liked nor tolerated Gandhi. Its just the punishment he got fit the crime he committed. Bhagat Singh killed people, punishment was death penalty. Gandhiji used the path of non-violence, for that he was jailed frequently, and certainly maltreated.
The whole nation would have been independent 25yrs earlier if we chose the path of attack- Well that was Civil Disobedience movement of 1930, for starters Gandhiji called it off not because he was selfish. Yes his ideology was violated by non-violence and was proposed by Gandhiji but the ideology was accepted by all people. If Karl marx proposed socialism, doesn''t mean he has to be blamed for Communism in Russia and Cold war. Secondly, the reason of calling off is, quite accurate, Chauri Chaura violence etc. But imagine people burning off a police station and killing policemen. That''s the pure negotiation of law that prevails in a nation. How can we say that if attack was our strategy, was it possible to defeat the world''s best army of that time. To defeat
an empire where sun never sets , was not an easy task.
Why do we think that today people give more importance to Bhagat singh, Sukhdev, Azad. They portrayed the highest quality of human spirit and that was to not accept defeat without a fight- Well People give importance to these great persons because they should. They were great heroes and there sacrifice is immaculate
BUT that doesn''t dilute what Gandhiji did for us. It is not Gandhi Vs Bhagath singh.
Gandhi alone may not have been effective in gaining us independence, but he has been effective in gaining respect for our country. Today, India is a great democracy, a peaceful country and a country which tolerates many things. That were the ideologies passed by the Gandhi to the next generations.
No comparison
We should not compare Gadhiji with Bhagat or Azad because they were great on their own way and followed what they believed. But in that Gandhiji got more credit because he could create mass appeal that was required at that time, he inspired even common people who didn''t have dare to fight like Aazad and others but still wanted to contribute for nation. Gandhi succeeded and got support from all those. Apart from this we should not forget pre independence condition of our nation. We were totally sucked by the foreigners who came here for business.
We respect his thought for truth and non violence. But in many decisions he proved himself as a weak leader. We were not able to protect our country from getting divided and that''s why people of present are even respecting Aazad and Bhagath for their path.
It was not because of Gandhiji that we got independence but it was World War 2 First and foremost let us clear this misconception. Yes world war 2 did have its effect on India''s Independence, but without the World opinion generated against Imperialism this would not have been possible. And one of the front runners in forming an opinion against imperialism during that time was India and especially Gandhi. So to say he made no contribution to freedom moment would be absolutely a dis-respect to what he gave us.
Gandhian Ideology for weak?
Gandhi was not a weak leader, he was a kind leader. a visionary leader. Someone who saw gains of future instead of short term gains of the present. What we need is a distant vision. Why our eyes are constrained to not see beyond 20 or 30 years. that''s what we need. Remember if we take a strong decision to benefit someone, someone else would be at loss. Gandhiji thought of both sides, not just benefits of one side. He had equal feelings for people of Pakistan as he had for people of India. If a father loves both his children and doesn''t want to choose between them can we blame him, even if one child is clearly wrong and one is right. Is he a weak father, or just affectionate father who doesn''t want to take sides.