Monday, October 1, 2012
Why I Don't Aspire To Be A Mahatma
I admit, I am no saint or have done any sacrifice for anyone, let alone the nation. I admit I have flaws easily outnumbering my minimal good qualities. I admit I am no match by any stretch of imagination with a certain Mohandas karamchand Gandhi in terms of qualities. But yet, I would be the last person in this planet who would want to be a Mahatma in his life. And I will tell you why.
In a life very ordinary like mine, one thing that I always stuck to as part of my philosophy is to be straightforward in my approach in whatever I do. Seldom have I gone out of this philosophy of mine to adore situations which are highly favorable. I always loved calling a spade a spade, even if that was hurting my own ego. This is the sole reason why I hate to be in the shoes of the father of the nation ever because neither I am a hypocrite nor I condone hypocrisy. With due respect to the great man, I find him no mahatma, at least to the tune which we project him or our text books picture him. For me Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi always stood as a perpetual example of hypocrisy and hypocritical avatar.
A close inspection of the era that was overshadowed by handful of personalities and their good or bad approach towards the nation and its citizens, it is only evident that we had more greedy and self-serving personas than freedom fighters that time. And certainly Mohondas Gandhi led the pack of entities who were hypocrites of highest grade with actions which were out rightly deplorable. In collusion with power hungry clowns like Nehru, our Mahatma did more damage to the nation than otherwise and without any hesitation I feel I owe a lot to Nathuram Godse for his service to the nation. Had Gandhi been alive for another decade, I am sure we would have been a completely different nation with more number of crooks, thugs, corrupts and greedy entities roaming our streets.
For starters, our Mahatma went to South Africa to earn since he did badly here as a lawyer. Let’s get that straight. He hasn’t gone there for charity as we want to believe since going there to defend notorious entities like Abdullah & Co, whose primary business was of smuggling is certainly ain’t an act of charity at all. He stayed there at the posh areas of Johannesburg and travelled first class till he was thrown out of the train somewhere in Pretoria. Now if the claim of the Gandhians that the Abdullahs are something which isn’t documented anywhere, then let me assure you, the famous train incident of Mahatma isn’t either. After that he was touted to have got inspired from such blatant discrimination and started his movement against the white. Could be a possibility and I see no greatness here since any self-respecting entity would pretty much do the same. So Gandhi here stands no different or unique. And for those who claim, he left a luxurious life to do something for the people back home; I have a jolter for you. At his touchdown, he first decided to elevate the stature of the Dalits by teaching them cleanliness. That would have been considered a judicious move provided the Dalits were never asked to come and work towards cleanliness at his Ashram but rather should have been educated to make their existing surroundings more hygiene. While the family members were still languishing in the same hell, only few were handpicked and taken along to work for Gandhi to build his Ashram for free. I know for a fact, around 1700 Dalits were asked to evacuate his Ashram; no sooner the structure was ready. Where was the core idea of teaching them hygienic life gone there? Gandhi wanted some cheap or free labor hence devised a mechanism to get that by making false promises of good life, where in realty did nothing for the people who believed his words.
Along with the promise of a hygienic life Gandhi also promised a lot to the untouchables. As a fashion statement he announced it to be the biggest bane on our country and then conveniently slept over his own statement for the rest of his life doing nothing for the untouchables. His work for the untouchables and the significance of the same is only proved by the fact that he couldn’t managed to open a single Hindu temple for the untouchables in his own state Gujarat. How big an impact his work or words would have been in elevating the Dalits elsewhere is anybody’s guess. His work for the Dalits is established beyond doubts if one looks at his gimmicks of 1932. In the name of ‘Tilak Swaraj’ fund accumulated via donations for the so called upliftment of the Dalits he pocketed 1 crore 36 lakhs but there is no evidence or auditing report available to justify even a penny of the collected amount is used for the cause. An attempt by the British to unearth this truth in the form of an auditing was pictured as a movement against the Dalits and the truth was buried forever in connivance with the crooks of that time.
Gandhi’s actions or the lack of it vis-à-vis Subash Bose is anything but transparent. Though he blew his trumpet of love for Netaji, in reality he did exactly opposite to that. And all this because, the ideologies of Netaji were no doubt far superior and exactly opposite to what Gandhi stood for. His greed knew no boundaries when he went on a hunger strike till Netaji left the position he was occupying in Congress. Not satisfied with this Gandhi went ahead and promised the British to handover Subash Bose to them if he happens to meet him someday. Even if we give benefit of doubt to him in case of Netaji, his actions in the case of Bhagat Singh are clearly suspicious. If anything, Gandhi kept the entire nation in the dark with respect to Bhagat Singh and his imminent execution till the last minute. While he pretended to save his life, in reality have never even contacted the viceroy on this. This case is well documented since a close confidant of the viceroy himself who spilled the bean for Gandhi and the entire Congress in exposing the double standard of the lot. Bhagat Singh’s reputation was making people like Gandhi and Nehru so nervous that they did nothing to stop his unethical execution at all. From naming him Manmath Nath to keeping silent on the whole issue, they did their best to expedite the execution. I won’t be surprised if the hand of Gandhi and Nehru was found behind the one day early execution of Bhagat Singh and his friends.
Committing the mobilisation potential of the freedom movement to the Khilâfat agitation in 1920-22, again a non-negotiated unilateral gift. The Khilafat movement was a tragicomical mistake, aiming at the restoration of the Ottoman Caliphate against which the Arabs had risen in revolt and which the Turks were dissolving, a process completed with the final abolition of the institution of the Caliphate in 1924. It was a purely retrograde and reactionary movement, and more importantly for Indian nationalism, it was an intrinsically anti-nationalist movement pitting specifically Islamic interests against secular and non-Muslim interests. Gandhi made the mistake of hubris by thinking he could reconcile Khilafatism and Indian nationalism, and he also offended his Muslim allies (who didn't share his commitment to non-violence) by calling off the agitation when it turned violent. The result was even more violence, with massive Hindu-Muslim riots replacing the limited instances of anti-British attacks, just as many level-headed freedom fighters had predicted. Gandhiji failed to take the Khilafat movement seriously whether at the level of principle or of practical politics, and substituted his own imagined and idealized reading of the Khilafat doctrine for reality.
Taking a confused and wavering position vis-à-vis India's involvement in World War 2. His initial refusal to commit India to the war effort could have been justified on grounds of pacifist principle as well as national pride (the Viceroy had committed India without consulting the native leadership), but it was a failure because his followers weren't following. Indian recruits and business suppliers of the Army eagerly joined hands with the British rulers, thus sidelining Gandhi into political irrelevance. By contrast, the Muslim League greatly improved its bargaining positions by joining the war effort, an effect not counterbalanced by the small Hindu Mahasabha's similar strategy. The pro-Partition case which the Muslim League advocated was bolstered while Gandhi's opposition to the imminent Partition was badly weakened. Gandhi was humiliated by his impotence before the degeneration of his "Quit India" agitation into violence and by ultimately having to come around to a collaborationist position himself.
Establishing a muddled and wavering position with respect to the Partition plan, including false promises to the Hindus of the designated Pakistani areas to prevent Partition or at least to prevent their violent expulsion. He chose not to use his weapon of a fast unto death to force Mohammed Ali Jinnah into backing down from Partition, a move which cast doubt on the much-touted bravery of all his other fasts "unto death" performed to pressurize more malleable opponents. If acquiescing in the Partition could still be justified as a matter of inevitability, there was no excuse for his insistence on half measures, viz. his rejecting plans for an organized exchange of population, certainly a lesser evil when compared to the bloody religious cleansing that actually took place. Gentle surgeons make stinking wounds. Refusing to acknowledge that Pakistan had become an enemy state after its invasion of Kashmir, by undertaking a fast unto death in order to force the Indian government to pay Pakistan 55 crore rupees from the British-Indian treasury. Pakistan was entitled to this money, but given its aggression, it would have been normal to set the termination of its aggression, including the withdrawal of its invading troops, as a condition for the payment. Indeed, that would have been a sterling contribution to the cause of enduring peace, saving the lives of the many thousands who fell in subsequent decades because of the festering wound which Kashmir has remained under partial Pakistani occupation. Coming on top of Gandhi's abandonment of the Hindus trapped in Pakistan in August 1947, it was this pro-Pakistani demand, as well as his use of his choice moral weapon (left unused to save India's unity or the persecuted Hindus in Pakistan) in the service of an enemy state's treasury, that angered a few Hindu activists to the point of plotting his murder.
Did anyone remember the double standard exhibited by Gandhi in Round table Conference? While the entire nation was expecting a lot from him on that particular visit, he failed miserably, with many claiming it to be more intentional than compulsion. Our case was badly tabled intentionally since according to unconfirmed sources, Gandhi was promised of the whole sole authority of the nation to the Congress stooges post-independence in exchange of some last second favors. Outright sweeping of 72000 crore by the British from the treasury as part of their exit money is clearly an example of what we have lost for the greed of our father of the nation.
But one thing where I agree to what Mohandas Gandhi has to advise the crooked Congress clowns to refrain from getting into politics if they don’t want people to throw stones at them in future. But overall, my disliking for the father of the nation is impounded because of the hypocrisy a single man carried all through his life and used it to hamper the nation and more specifically to hurt the Hindus most. And as it is, I hate when I am forced to let go my evening drink for someone whom I care least if he is good, bad or ugly. Dry-day in honor of the father of the nation? Seriously? Heavens!!