India After Gandhi

THE word 'Gandhi' in a google search results in some 40 million pages. He is a world figure and undoubtedly the best known Indian. Any study of India is incomplete without him. Ramachandra Guha acknowledges the fact by naming his book on the history of the country as "India after Gandhi: The history of the world's largest democracy".

The problem with most country specific history books written by natives, is their lack of objectivity due to the holier than thou nature of the subject. Guha skillfully manages to avoid that pitfall and comes up with an unbiased and refreshing account of India.

The book narrates events as they happened, without any emotional clout attached. Guha talks about Kashmir as effortlessly as he mentions the Indian film industry. Reading about the formation of an independent India with the accession of princely states is both interesting and informative.

If Gandhi was instrumental in getting India its independence, Nehru shaped the modern India. The book discusses in detail Nehru's role as the architect of modern India and the political dynasty he left behind. It also sheds light on his philosophy of not equipping the armed forces with the latest weapons in view of a growing Chinese threat. India paid dearly for this gross miscalculation in 1962.

His daughter, Indira Gandhi, succeeded him as the prime minister of India and had her own outlook. Mrs Gandhi's style of power politics made sure 'that Nehru's halting yet honest attempts to promote a democratic ethos in a hierarchical society were undone by his own daughter, and in decisive and dramatic ways.' The emergency and the excesses committed by her younger son Sanjay, were just a few examples of this new political era. She changed the rules of the game forever!

What impresses most about the author is his honesty in dealing with controversial subjects. He diligently handle issues like Kashmir, formation of Bangladesh, Indian troops in Sri Lanka, minorities in India, and the 'unforgiving' ideology of RSS. Guha makes sure the truth reaches you even if it means criticising certain Indian policies.

There are some notable omissions though. The Jeep scandal of 1948 involving Nehru's close friend VK Menon, working as the then High Commissioner for India in UK, finds no mention. The case was closed without a proper inquiry. Many commentrators have called it the first case of political corruption in post-independence India.

India after Gandhi is as much about hope as it is about India. The country survived the worst of communal riots, the threat of secessionist movements like those in Punjab and Nagaland, years of economic hardships and wars with neighbors. Time and again people have written off India, as the author stresses throughout the book, but everytime India came out stronger.

Guha ponders in his epilogue on why India survives. The answer comes from a renowned Pakistani journalist Ayaz Amir, "When will it dawn on us that it is not India's size, population, tourism or IT industry [that is] making us look small, but Indian democracy." The freedom to choose who leads you is India's greatest strength. It's this building block which holds the nation together.

The book, perhaps reflecting the artistic taste of the country, opens with lines of legendary urdu poet Mirza Ghalib and signs off with him.

India after Gandhi is a book of immense scholarly work. Read it to rediscover India!

Why Celebrate only ‘The Mahatma?’

Few days back on the occassion of Gandhi Jayanti a friend of mine wrote this on a forum:

I wonder, was this the only guy who got us free from the british rule ? why not we celebrate the birthday of BAHADUR SHASHTRI ,on same scale & with same happiness, whose date of birth was also the same as of MR GHANDHI ?

The reason i see is obivious ,MR GHANDHI was clever enough to make his image as MAHATMA! AND BE AWARE OF THESE SO CALLED MAHATMAS I SAY!My personal belief is that all the mahatmas of india envisage such lofty ideals that a commoner can not rise up to them. It can immensely impress but can not be practisedinto action & the net result of it has been that a very few person did rise but the country and people have become worse than the worst.”

Further….

“The reality is he was a perfect politician but for sure not THE MAHATMA as people used to think. To keep himself in good books he won the heart of the majority of india THE HINDUS…………..He was never in favour of hindu muslim bonding but as a being a good politician he definately showed it .if he was really interested in doing the bonding the hindu & muslims ………….there would be no Pakistan in today’s date . I would like to remind you the last hunger strike of him in calcutta before partition jahan unhone kaha ki ‘ jab tak yah maar kaat band nahin hogi mien yeh hartal nahin todonga ‘…………and like always nobody was in favour of killing this guy for anything and like always unki baatein maan li gayin aur paida hua PAKISTAN.

I am ready to accept him as a good politician but never a man of good marality possesing the great qualities of a mahatma.”

And that non-violence was the only solution for his as he was physically a weak man.

And so the article goes on…

I’ve several reservations against my friend Manoj and all those who share this view. Mahatma is the sanskrit for “Great Soul.” I’m sure, based on his humble life and principles, most will agree that Gandhiji was really a great soul.

The reason why I admire his views on non-violence is because of the background they stemmed from. When in South Africa Gandhiji faced the discrimination commonly directed at blacks and Indians. One day in court at Durban, the magistrate asked him to remove his turban. Gandhiji refused and stormed out of the courtroom. He was thrown off a train at Pietermaritzburg, after refusing to move from the first class to a third class coach while holding a valid first class ticket. Traveling further on by stagecoach, he was beaten by a driver for refusing to travel on the foot board to make room for a European passenger. He suffered other hardships on the journey as well, including being barred from many hotels. Now consider his slogan of “ahmisa” inspite of being the target of violence so many times, and that too at a young age (less than 30).

If being physically weak is the criteria for a violent or non-violent approach then, like so many others, Savarkar was no strong man — he chose the other path. It’s all in the will and not the body structure!

As far his stand on the partition is concerned, he was never in favour of it. So much that on the day of independence he was alone in Calcutta, mourning the partition and working to end the violence. After India’s independence, Gandhiji focused on Hindu–Muslim peace and unity. In fact it was his insistence which forced the Indian Government to pay Pakistan the Rs. 55 crores due as per agreements made by the Partition Council.

Few also highlight the fact that he never won a Nobel prize inspite of being nominated 5 times. This excerpt taken from an article on nobelprize.org explains to an extent why he never won.

“Why Was Gandhi Never Awarded the Nobel Peace Prize?

Up to 1960, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded almost exclusively to Europeans and Americans. In retrospect, the horizon of the Norwegian Nobel Committee may seem too narrow. Gandhi was very different from earlier Laureates. He was no real politician or proponent of international law, not primarily a humanitarian relief worker and not an organiser of international peace congresses. He would have belonged to a new breed of Laureates.

There is no hint in the archives that the Norwegian Nobel Committee ever took into consideration the possibility of an adverse British reaction to an award to Gandhi. Thus it seems that the hypothesis that the Committee’s omission of Gandhi was due to its members’ not wanting to provoke British authorities, may be rejected.

In 1947 the conflict between India and Pakistan and Gandhi’s prayer-meeting statement, which made people wonder whether he was about to abandon his consistent pacifism, seem to have been the primary reasons why he was not selected by the committee’s majority. Unlike the situation today, there was no tradition for the Norwegian Nobel Committee to try to use the Peace Prize as a stimulus for peaceful settlement of regional conflicts.

During the last months of his life, Gandhi worked hard to end the violence between Hindus and Muslims which followed the partition of India. We know little about the Norwegian Nobel Committee’s discussions on Gandhi’s candidature in 1948 – other than the above quoted entry of November 18 in Gunnar Jahn’s diary – but it seems clear that they seriously considered a posthumous award. When the committee, for formal reasons, ended up not making such an award, they decided to reserve the prize, and then, one year later, not to spend the prize money for 1948 at all. What many thought should have been Mahatma Gandhi’s place on the list of Laureates was silently but respectfully left open.”

To sum it up, Gandhiji was as much a freedom fighter as Bhagat Singh or Rajguru or so many others were. It’s just he was all alone in his quest as a non-violence preacher, others took the opposite means. I respect them all! Maybe it’s gandhiji’s involvement, right from the freedom struggle till the eventual independence, which gives him a little more focus. Whatever be the reason, to me he’s every inch the ‘Father of the Nation.’ And so we celebrate “Gandhi Jayanti!”