George Orwell's comment on Gandhi reads as follows- “In the midst of dishonest and corrupt politics, how clean a smell Gandhi leaves behind him”. What makes this comment commendable is, Orwell’s pursuits of Second World War were virtually uninfluenced by Gandhi's ideals and ideologies, and despite or in spite of that he admired an appreciable portion of Gandhi’s ideals. Orwell, who saw his own ideological transformation from an “ambitious young war admirer” to a “futile, illogical and wasted youth”, in his essays, remarked Gandhi's “non-violence” armor with great admiration.
First World War ended permeating the atmosphere with “wealth of supreme and incontestable admiration” to all the survived participants. This “atmospheric pressure” became instantly fashionable and the youth of the time grew up with a certainty of honor in war; followed with privileges of admiration all around. This gripping scene ensued an air of expectation in the youth, and when eventually the Second World War broke out, men like Orwell were more than excited. He exposed this debilitating side of “anticipation” in his essays.
But soon, the inherent faculties of war debunked the ostentatious promises hitherto made and Orwell was left “aimless” in an anarchic revolution of Spanish civil war. While in Spain, he maintained that sooner or later, he would be pushed into the front rows and then he would prove his prowess, but the day never came. He got shot on his morning walk with his back to the brave soldier who shot him. After he returned from the war, he managed to produce two wonderful classics “animal farm” and “1984”, which the world would never forget. He also gave an account of his horrific tales of Spanish civil war in “Homage to Catalonia”.
I would not be confused with being judgmental, if I give credence to Orwell’s view of Gandhi. Orwell was very categorical in his praise of Gandhi’s Puritanism, although he was doubtful on assuming a firm stand over Gandhi’s many dubious ideals. This flexible distinction in categorizing Gandhi's ideals is all the more important for us to reiterate that Gandhi's idealistic presence felt by Orwell was not “substantial”, but “circumstantial”.
Now, let us revisit above distinction episode from the inside- the Indian view. I always wondered why there was no Gandhi in Hitler’s overtly dictatorial regime, or in Stalin’s provokingly authoritative regime, or at least in Mussolini's Italy.
Paul Thompson in his book “modern times” recalls the horrific aura of Hitler- when cyanide was introduced, and Hitler found that the production of cyanide did not suffice to kill all the people in gas chambers, he passed an edict that the old ones would be burnt alive as they were not vehemently resistant, thereby saving cyanide for the young lot. The young lot was very challenging, and so they were put in the gas chambers with limited cyanide, partially killing before burning them.
In Hitler’s Germany, any man found abusing the “rule of power” was no longer found alive by the next morning, the secret police Gestapo was particularly trained for this kind of work. In Germany, Russia, Italy of second world war times, “Abuse” was defined by the ruler and the preemptive action was taken by accommodating the subversive activities conducted against the ruler into that “manifest of abuse” and action taken accordingly. Love or hate, history cannot ignore Hitler. He stands second only to Alexander in his ambitions and success tracks. For a man who transported people in trains every day throughout the period of Second World War to the Nazi camps and burnt them, it can be fairly said that a “bovine architect of subtle logistics” like Gandhi would not have seen the light of day.
Gandhi's ideals have always been under question; he reportedly drank milk and would have only fresh vegetables for dinner every day. The keepers of his ashram admitted to having trouble procuring daily needs for the “puritan” in what could only be summed up as hard times.
His advocacy of “vegetarianism” appears inane and illogical, when the nation was fighting for freedom. Did it not occur to him that, of more than 5 million species on this planet, humans are but one species , “a tooth that fits in the Gigantic jig saw” of food chain, and did he not know that his definition of “vegetarianism” was “locally defined” on the huge multidimensional food chain background of multitudinous species. Besides, he had a condition of “constipation”, which fueled his pride in the green intake.
To what use was his advocacy of “spinning wheel”? For the nation's economic ground was suspended appreciably by the mills in Bombay.
To what use was his advocacy of “chastity” (sexual abstention)? He reportedly abstained from sex throughout the freedom struggle period. He admittedly deplored his seminal ejection that he had towards the end of war. One wonders, did the “puritan” not know that milk contains lactose and directly contributes to the adrenalin production.
To what use was his advocacy of “theism”?, for his definitions of “good” and “bad”, he staked his “hyper imaginative mind” on the “religious doctrines”, he got so far as to define them “locally”. Minorities (Muslims) felt “ignored” and sought for a “global” definition, which was hard to come by, and both the parties resorted to pile up their emotions, which were vented out as soon as the British raj left India.
I wonder why the riots on religious grounds never occurred, or at least not on a grand scale like the “partition riots” in the British rule, because, the British were vigilant, thorough and focused to preclude the conditions favorable to religious riots. So how did this happen? With so many “illogical” advocacies, how on earth was Gandhi successful? To what use was his prime advocacy of “non-violence”?
All the above questions have but one answer. If not for the outbreak of Second World War in the form of the “magical coincidence”, which led to the decline of British power, Gandhi's “illogical” advocacies would not have seen the light of day.
When London was bombed by Hitler's army, Winston Churchill in his book “second world war” remarked that India was a liability for them, for 60-70 thousand British soldiers were in India overseas, while the British raj was in dire straits at home.
Nehru, a very well educated modernist had but a basic flaw in his idiomatic philosophy. The “social contact” weighed naught and as a parameter, it defected his stand on “modernism”. He studied overseas, came to India in high spirits to defend and save his nation, which was commendable. For a brief period, he managed to prime his philosophy with levers of “social contact”, but soon he found himself in prison. Except for the brief intervals, which were often shrouded with “curiosity” rather than a “matured measurement” of a common man's life, he was never in the contest of “reasoned leadership”.
Nehru presumed blindly that leafs out of Bertrand Russell’s philosophy could ascertain a compound philosophy for India. But his inability to put the pieces together can be found in his raucous treatment of British, he sulked childishly for “immediate partition” rather than a “controlled” one. A long term plan, which the British aimed at, was impertinently renounced by the “self assertive” nubile philosopher, ripples of which are still felt after 60 years.
Gandhi proffered non-violence to gain an “uncertain benefit” in freedom for a “certain loss” in security. Other freedom fighters of this nation have proudly fought for a “certain benefit” of freedom with a “certain loss” of security.
George Orwell remarked on “liberty” that “if liberty means anything at all, it is to tell people what they do not want to hear”. I request the readers to shed off their “intransigence”, if any.
Gandhi and Nehru alike have one thing in common; they “inspired” a whole generation after them. But, the books ranging from schools to post graduation, political discussions of past and present, have systematically admired and adored these individuals way out of proportion. The systematic adulation is not deserved and often misleading into transferring a common man form the track of “curious measurement” of their philosophical stands to a track of “impenetrable adulation”.
Comments