Gandhism1 died along with Mahatmaji, though later Congress tried to keep his legacy only by wearing his famous ‘Gandhi’ or ‘Congress’ cap, not implementing several of his noble principles. Of course, all his followers never agreed with him about what all he preached and practised. But their love and affection always remained the same, calling him affectionately ‘Bapuji’.
Mahatmaji never claimed himself a saint or a perfect person. He never denied that he was a ‘POLITICIAN’. He remained a politician till the end of his life [even playing politics several occasions to push his agenda2] but based on his spiritual principles of ‘Satyagraha, ahimsa, swaraj’ etc. He never compromised with his principle in his practice, though he had to bend a bit to accommodate others’ needs. That’s why he clearly said that ‘My life is my message’. He never expected anyone to venerate him and even pleaded to people not to shout slogans of ‘Mahatmaji ki jai’ or touch his feet and long to have his ‘DARSHAN’ [only].3
But, as happens to so many other leaders and principles, as the days moved, Indians started to forget his legacy and merely paid lip service to him by calling him ‘THE FATHER OF THE NATION’. So it is not surprising that the present generation does not know about his life and teaching. However politicians never failed to use or misuse his name and legacy for their political end [as a poster boy and brad ambassador for their National level program like ‘Swatch Bharat’ [clean India]. But the present new challenge that we face is the strong opposition not only to Gandhi and his legacy but even refusing to acknowledge his ‘sacrifice’ for the nation. We may have our reservations about his personality and politics. Even I who consider Mahatmaji as one of my gurus, never agreed with him on every principle, particularly his ‘minority appeasement’ in the name of winning swaraj and Khilafat. But I won’t say that He is not my guru or Father of the Nation. But I am living in a Nation which got its independence by the sacrifice of so many people LED BY MAHATMAJI even to oppose him. Of course, we would have gained our independence if he were not there by other means. But we would never raise our heads high above all others in the world to gain it in a unique way which history never knew before.
But the shocking development is that some of his present day critics even want to call Godse as ‘Mahatma’ but not Gandhiji even refusing to call him ‘Gandhiji’ but only a M.K. Gandhi. They have every right to call him and criticise him in a democratic country. But what they promote in the name of opposing him, particularly promoting some hatred against some others by creating ‘THE OTHER’ to claim themselves as the SAVIOR of their own people. Whether they call him ‘Mahatmaji’ or even ‘Gandhiji’ with honorific suffix ‘ji’ to him name, Mahatmaji will always remain MAHATMAJI and always remain as the FATHER OF THE NATION as he was affectionately called ‘Bapuji’ in his time.
Well, these fringe elements forget one thing. While so many people around the world succeeded to bring Reformation in their country, particularly in their political system following Gandhism particularly his legacy of Satyagraha and Ahimsa like Nelson Mandela in South Africa and Martin Luther King the Jr. in America. But no one will follow the model or agenda of these fringe elements, except those who agree with them, even in this country as they only sow the seed of ‘HATRED’ in the minds of the young generation in the name of protecting their particular view of religion and politics. And they forget one important golden truth that: ‘Those who take swords will be killed by the same’ or to contextualize this as Sri Yogiji, the present CM of U.P. told after the killing of a Mafia at Allahabad: ‘Those who take guns will be killed by gun’. But the dangerous fact in this is that when their hatred failed or completed its particular task and when there was no ‘The other’ to vent out the venom, it would boomerang and come back double the force creating internal division and conflict hitting them back. No one can overrule the law of nature: What you sow that you have to reap.
Whether they like it or not, M. K. Gandhi will always remain MAHATMAJI not only for the nation but to so many of his followers around the word as ‘BAPUJI’. These fringe elements can re-interpret the history, but cannot rewrite it by any means. I would like to end this brainstorm with the words of Rajni Bakshi as it highlights the injustice done to Mahatmaji a ‘Formal history’.
Formal history…had done Gandhi an (p.14) injustice. It lauded him for choosing to live in poverty. This entirely missed the essence of Gandhi’s striving. For one, Gandhi’s lifestyle decisions were small manifestations of a deep inner journey. They were not strategic moves aimed at any external audience. He liked the mud house because, for him, it was synonymous with indigenous creativity, not poverty and squalor….—pp. 14-15
DB, Gurukulam
9-5-2023
Notes
1.. …According to a recent biography by Dietmar Rothermund {Mahatma Gandhi: An Essay in Political Biography (New Delhi: Monohar, 1991), 107-17), even Mahatma Gandhi, the famed apostle of nonviolence, kept his opposition to nuclear weaponry secret by a self-imposed silence on the topic until the British had announced the plans for Indian independence. Gandhi might have been concerned that nuclear weapons could be used in a manner to deny India’s quest for self-rule, and therefore he was possibly allowing his ethics of conviction (which were antinuclear) to be momentarily silenced by a more prudent ethics of responsible action (which ensured that he not jeopardize Indian independence by speaking out against the Allied use of nuclear weapons.).– Srinivas Aravamudan, Guru English: South Asian Religion in a Cosmopolitan Language, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2006, 161
2.. …Gandhi …had categorically told his followers that there could be no such thing as ‘Gandhism’. He did not want to leave behind any sect, for, he said: ‘I do not claim to have originated any new principle of doctrine. I have simply tried, in my own way, to apply the eternal truths to our daily life and problems.’— Rajni Bakshi, Bapu Kuti: Journeys in Rediscovery of Gandhi, New Delhi, Penguin Books, 1998, p. 10
3.. The practices of touching a person’s feet, of bowing with the whole body prostrated on the ground, waving lights before him, etc., also deserve to be discontinued. How much of people’s time would be wasted if lakhs of them did these things? I am put out by all these people coming for my darshan. I would be driven crazy if all of them decided to prostrate themselves in reverence before me, or I would be compelled not to show even the courtesy of noticing them. I would, therefore, suggest that we should stand at a distance and fold our hands to the other person or salute him and give up all other formalities. People can come to no harm if we do so, for mutual respect is a matter of mental attitude and we can express it at the proper time. The only worship that I ask for, if I have at all earned it, is that the people should promptly act upon any suggestion of mine which they approve of and secure swaraj. That is the only real worship worth offering; worship in any other manner may be misplaced and we should refrain from offering it….—219. MY NOTES , [From Gujarati] Navajivan, 20-10-1921, CWMG, vol. 24. p. 453
Appendix
Some of those who oppose Mahatmaji refuse to call him as such but only as M.K. Gandhi might have oratory skill, deep knowledge about his, able to present and impress their audience and followers through their scholarship and manner of presenting to convince them. They might even have huge followers agreeing with him. But this is not going to bring changes in Indian society like those few who followed Gandhism in letter and spirit in their life as recorded by Rajni Bakshi, in her book: Bapu Kuti: Journeys in Rediscovery of Gandhi, New Delhi, Penguin Books, 1998. And I give few such people who sacrificed their comforts in life to implement Gandhian principle in practise:
Nikhil’s father was posted as the Air Attache at the Indian embassy in Washington at that time. Unlike the children of most other embassy staff, Nikhil and his sister had no desire to stay on in the United States. Nikhil went through the motions of a Bachelor of Arts degree at the George Mason University, but then suddenly quit a few weeks before the end of the last semester. The degree was going to be of little or no use to him, where he was going. Returning to India, Nikhil spent a year travelling all over the country spending time with activist groups of assorted ideological hues. This journey had no specified destination or easily definable parameters. He wanted to work in a village, ideally a place of lush green fields and slopes.
The semi-arid plains of Rajasthan never featured in Nikhil’s dreams about the future. But one day, a friend and relative, Laila Kabir Fernandes, invited him to join her on a trip to SWRC{Social Work Research Centre} Tilonia. Nikhil went along not expecting SWRC to contribute any clues for his search. There Nikhil met Aruna {Roy IAS} and in talking with her heard echoes of his own search. Later, that feeling grew stronger when he met Shanker and slowly pieces of the puzzle began to fall into place. It was a few years more before the search ended in the shade of a long gulmohar at Devdoongri—which was now more a home than any of the plush homes that were part of Nikhils’ early life.—p. 42
…{R.N.} Mishraji {English teacher in Bhim, Rajasthan, native of Bihar}didn’t preach any fixed dogma to his devoted and ever-affectionate students. But he passionately urged them to see beyond their narrow self and fight against all injustice.—p. 43
…Yet {R.N.} Mishraji {English teacher in Bhim, Rajasthan, native of Bihar} instinctively shared the activists’ conviction that an ethical basis of life and work could be converted into an ideology. Certainly there was no divide between their personal ethics and social morality. But could this ethical strength itself create a movement? Didn’t one have to give the people an ideological frame to fight their oppression? But these questions didn’t entirely preoccupy Mishraji, he was too busy being involved in the emerging struggle. And the living proof of unfolding actions was more compelling than any unresolved theoretical questions.—p. 44
Gandhism1 died along with Mahatmaji, though later Congress tried to keep his legacy only by wearing his famous ‘Gandhi’ or ‘Congress’ cap, not implementing several of his noble principles. Of course, all his followers never agreed with him about what all he preached and practised. But their love and affection always remained the same, calling him affectionately ‘Bapuji’.
Mahatmaji never claimed himself a saint or a perfect person. He never denied that he was a ‘POLITICIAN’. He remained a politician till the end of his life [even playing politics several occasions to push his agenda1] but based on his spiritual principles of ‘Satyagraha, ahimsa, swaraj’ etc. He never compromised with his principle in his practice, though he had to bend a bit to accommodate others’ needs. That’s why he clearly said that ‘My life is my message’. He never expected anyone to venerate him and even pleaded to people not to shout slogans of ‘Mahatmaji ki jai’ or touch his feet and long to have his ‘DARSHAN’ [only].3
But, as happens to so many other leaders and principles, as the days moved, Indians started to forget his legacy and merely paid lip service to him by calling him ‘THE FATHER OF THE NATION’. So it is not surprising that the present generation does not know about his life and teaching. However politicians never failed to use or misuse his name and legacy for their political end [as a poster boy and brad ambassador for their National level program like ‘Swatch Bharat’ [clean India]. But the present new challenge that we face is the strong opposition not only to Gandhi and his legacy but even refusing to acknowledge his ‘sacrifice’ for the nation. We may have our reservations about his personality and politics. Even I who consider Mahatmaji as one of my gurus, never agreed with him on every principle, particularly his ‘minority appeasement’ in the name of winning swaraj and Khilafat. But I won’t say that He is not my guru or Father of the Nation. But I am living in a Nation which got its independence by the sacrifice of so many people LED BY MAHATMAJI even to oppose him. Of course, we would have gained our independence if he were not there by other means. But we would never raise our heads high above all others in the world to gain it in a unique way which history never knew before.
But the shocking development is that some of his present day critics even want to call Godse as ‘Mahatma’ but not Gandhiji even refusing to call him ‘Gandhiji’ but only a M.K. Gandhi. They have every right to call him and criticise him in a democratic country. But what they promote in the name of opposing him, particularly promoting some hatred against some others by creating ‘THE OTHER’ to claim themselves as the SAVIOR of their own people. Whether they call him ‘Mahatmaji’ or even ‘Gandhiji’ with honorific suffix ‘ji’ to him name, Mahatmaji will always remain MAHATMAJI and always remain as the FATHER OF THE NATION as he was affectionately called ‘Bapuji’ in his time.
Well, these fringe elements forget one thing. While so many people around the world succeeded to bring Reformation in their country, particularly in their political system following Gandhism particularly his legacy of Satyagraha and Ahimsa like Nelson Mandela in South Africa and Martin Luther King the Jr. in America. But no one will follow the model or agenda of these fringe elements, except those who agree with them, even in this country as they only sow the seed of ‘HATRED’ in the minds of the young generation in the name of protecting their particular view of religion and politics. And they forget one important golden truth that: ‘Those who take swords will be killed by the same’ or to contextualize this as Sri Yogiji, the present CM of U.P. told after the killing of a Mafia at Allahabad: ‘Those who take guns will be killed by gun’. But the dangerous fact in this is that when their hatred failed or completed its particular task and when there was no ‘The other’ to vent out the venom, it would boomerang and come back double the force creating internal division and conflict hitting them back. No one can overrule the law of nature: What you sow that you have to reap.
Whether they like it or not, M. K. Gandhi will always remain MAHATMAJI not only for the nation but to so many of his followers around the word as ‘BAPUJI’. These fringe elements can re-interpret the history, but cannot rewrite it by any means. I would like to end this brainstorm with the words of Rajni Bakshi as it highlights the injustice done to Mahatmaji a ‘Formal history’.
Formal history…had done Gandhi an (p.14) injustice. It lauded him for choosing to live in poverty. This entirely missed the essence of Gandhi’s striving. For one, Gandhi’s lifestyle decisions were small manifestations of a deep inner journey. They were not strategic moves aimed at any external audience. He liked the mud house because, for him, it was synonymous with indigenous creativity, not poverty and squalor….—pp. 14-15
DB, Gurukulam
9-5-2023
Notes
1.. …According to a recent biography by Dietmar Rothermund {Mahatma Gandhi: An Essay in Political Biography (New Delhi: Monohar, 1991), 107-17), even Mahatma Gandhi, the famed apostle of nonviolence, kept his opposition to nuclear weaponry secret by a self-imposed silence on the topic until the British had announced the plans for Indian independence. Gandhi might have been concerned that nuclear weapons could be used in a manner to deny India’s quest for self-rule, and therefore he was possibly allowing his ethics of conviction (which were antinuclear) to be momentarily silenced by a more prudent ethics of responsible action (which ensured that he not jeopardize Indian independence by speaking out against the Allied use of nuclear weapons.).– Srinivas Aravamudan, Guru English: South Asian Religion in a Cosmopolitan Language, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2006, 161
2.. …Gandhi …had categorically told his followers that there could be no such thing as ‘Gandhism’. He did not want to leave behind any sect, for, he said: ‘I do not claim to have originated any new principle of doctrine. I have simply tried, in my own way, to apply the eternal truths to our daily life and problems.’— Rajni Bakshi, Bapu Kuti: Journeys in Rediscovery of Gandhi, New Delhi, Penguin Books, 1998, p. 10
3.. The practices of touching a person’s feet, of bowing with the whole body prostrated on the ground, waving lights before him, etc., also deserve to be discontinued. How much of people’s time would be wasted if lakhs of them did these things? I am put out by all these people coming for my darshan. I would be driven crazy if all of them decided to prostrate themselves in reverence before me, or I would be compelled not to show even the courtesy of noticing them. I would, therefore, suggest that we should stand at a distance and fold our hands to the other person or salute him and give up all other formalities. People can come to no harm if we do so, for mutual respect is a matter of mental attitude and we can express it at the proper time. The only worship that I ask for, if I have at all earned it, is that the people should promptly act upon any suggestion of mine which they approve of and secure swaraj. That is the only real worship worth offering; worship in any other manner may be misplaced and we should refrain from offering it….—219. MY NOTES , [From Gujarati] Navajivan, 20-10-1921, CWMG, vol. 24. p. 453
Appendix
Some of those who oppose Mahatmaji refuse to call him as such but only as M.K. Gandhi might have oratory skill, deep knowledge about his, able to present and impress their audience and followers through their scholarship and manner of presenting to convince them. They might even have huge followers agreeing with him. But this is not going to bring changes in Indian society like those few who followed Gandhism in letter and spirit in their life as recorded by Rajni Bakshi, in her book: Bapu Kuti: Journeys in Rediscovery of Gandhi, New Delhi, Penguin Books, 1998. And I give few such people who sacrificed their comforts in life to implement Gandhian principle in practise:
Nikhil’s father was posted as the Air Attache at the Indian embassy in Washington at that time. Unlike the children of most other embassy staff, Nikhil and his sister had no desire to stay on in the United States. Nikhil went through the motions of a Bachelor of Arts degree at the George Mason University, but then suddenly quit a few weeks before the end of the last semester. The degree was going to be of little or no use to him, where he was going. Returning to India, Nikhil spent a year travelling all over the country spending time with activist groups of assorted ideological hues. This journey had no specified destination or easily definable parameters. He wanted to work in a village, ideally a place of lush green fields and slopes.
The semi-arid plains of Rajasthan never featured in Nikhil’s dreams about the future. But one day, a friend and relative, Laila Kabir Fernandes, invited him to join her on a trip to SWRC{Social Work Research Centre} Tilonia. Nikhil went along not expecting SWRC to contribute any clues for his search. There Nikhil met Aruna {Roy IAS} and in talking with her heard echoes of his own search. Later, that feeling grew stronger when he met Shanker and slowly pieces of the puzzle began to fall into place. It was a few years more before the search ended in the shade of a long gulmohar at Devdoongri—which was now more a home than any of the plush homes that were part of Nikhils’ early life.—p. 42
…{R.N.} Mishraji {English teacher in Bhim, Rajasthan, native of Bihar}didn’t preach any fixed dogma to his devoted and ever-affectionate students. But he passionately urged them to see beyond their narrow self and fight against all injustice.—p. 43
…Yet {R.N.} Mishraji {English teacher in Bhim, Rajasthan, native of Bihar} instinctively shared the activists’ conviction that an ethical basis of life and work could be converted into an ideology. Certainly there was no divide between their personal ethics and social morality. But could this ethical strength itself create a movement? Didn’t one have to give the people an ideological frame to fight their oppression? But these questions didn’t entirely preoccupy Mishraji, he was too busy being involved in the emerging struggle. And the living proof of unfolding actions was more compelling than any unresolved theoretical questions.—p. 44
Leave a Reply