The Mahatma and the Martyr- I
I begin writing this blog with the complete awareness that I am grossly unqualified, too small statured, and insignificant in comparison, to be commenting or judging or making interpretative observations about two great souls because of whom I enjoy my freedom today. In spite of this, I write because I want to. My sincere apologies, unabashed admiration and utmost respect are due to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Shahid Bhagat Singh.
I have seen the most contrasting of emotions when it comes to these two freedom fighters. I have seen a friend of mine, usually stoic and callous, weep when we were watching the climax of ‘The Legend of Bhagat Singh’-the scene where Bhagat Singh goes to the gallows, bidding farewell to his mother, bidding her to be strong so that he may also be that way. I have seen the same friend seethe with rage at the sight of the Mahatma, a few scenes before. I have also heard and read nasty, disrespectful, unbearable things about the Mahatma, which could make any insult a Britisher would have given him, seem a compliment. “The fact that our History books have brain washed us to respect this man does not imply that it is sacrilegious to find faults with him, form opinions contrary to the popular, or hate and disrespect him” is an argument I can clearly recall. Sounds good, but I would like to hear the same things being said after experiencing- one lathi charge where a stick half the thickness of your wrist comes thrashing into your bones shattering them, one shooting order where you see the person next to you having his brains blown out, one day in jail, separated from all comforts, denied the most basic of human rights. I know it is stupid to say that you have to have experienced something yourself, to comment on it. But then, the right to freedom of thought, speech and expression is grossly misunderstood and ridiculously misused by most people today, so much so that they make atrocious judgments and form unreasonable opinions.
Bhagat Singh was and is the quintessential hero among freedom fighters. There can be no questioning his popularity, nor will it be easy to find an Indian who does not respect or admire this martyr, and rightfully so. Being ready to give up your life for a struggle whose fruits you are not going to enjoy is nothing but a supreme sacrifice. And to do that at 23 years! I don’t really know if I would have had the courage to do the same as Bhagat Singh had I been in his position. He epitomizes what patriotism stands for.
The Mahatma, on the other hand has been thoroughly misunderstood by a sizeable number of people today. People accuse him of being single handedly responsible for the partition of India, of delaying the achievement of freedom by advocating Ahimsa, of using the “convenience” of being a leader to achieve things by endangering other people’s lives, and of doing nothing to prevent Bhagat Singh and his comrades executions. My unbiased opinions as well as a partial defense of one of the greatest souls to have walked this earth:
Ahimsa: Non violence was Gandhiji’s greatest success and his biggest failure too. Diseases are contagious, but, it is a pity that cures are not. The same analogy applies to the disease called violence and non-violence, which Gandhiji saw as a cure to it. Unfortunately a single violent person is enough to disrupt the fabric of peace whereas it requires every one to be non-violent to maintain it. And Gandhiji saw that impossible dream, a dream which he believed in so much, that he was willing to abandon all reason, all logic in his quest to achieve that dream.
Single handed responsibility?: Of all the baseless accusations that can be thrown at the Mahatma, this definitely takes the cake. Gandhiji was not a despot, not a military leader, not a tyrant, not a dictator. He had no physical control over the people of India, nor was he solely responsible for charting the course of India’s freedom struggle. It is nothing but stupidity to hold the Mahatma single handedly responsible for anything. The people of India were under no compulsion to follow him and yet they did, not in fear but in respect, love and awe. If you would call Gandhiji’s actions foolish, then what would you call the actions of the thousands and lakhs of Indians, many of whom might be your ancestors, who followed him out of their own free will?
Delayed freedom: Would freedom have been achieved faster if everyone had gone the Bhagat Singh way? Was Gandhiji the factor that delayed the achievement of freedom? You and I are in no position to pass judgment on that. Is it not reasonable to believe that if, the people involved in the freedom struggle had thought that a path of violence was quicker to attain freedom, they would have chosen it wholeheartedly? Gandhiji was not a democratically elected leader who holds office for 5 years irrespective of whether people like him or not. Whether people had freedom from the British or not, they definitely had the freedom to choose the leader they wanted to follow. It would not be wrong to say that the British feared Gandhiji’s nonviolent ways more than Bhagat Singh’s violent ways. The latter was their cup of tea; they knew how to handle it. But what could you do to a bunch of people who passively and unflinchingly took all you gave them and yet stood their ground without retaliation? Most importantly, a path of violence absolutely demanded the sacrifice of life one day or the other. It does not imply that the followers of Gandhi were not prepared to lay their lives down, but there was always the possibility that it would not come to that.
A shield called leadership: Gandhiji’s devotion to the cause of non-violence was so overpowering that like it happens in life, the means gained more importance than the end itself. Not only did he want freedom, he was obsessed to achieve it by non violent means at whatever cost. To an extent, Gandhiji took a certain liberty with other people’s lives, assuming that they would and should make the sacrifices he was ready to make. To say that beyond a point, Gandhiji was out of harm’s way, and that emboldened him to endanger and put at risk other people would be highly irresponsible. Gandhiji was ever willing to sacrifice his life for the causes he believed in. Even when he was not facing the lathi charges, he subjected himself to the most tortuous of fasts putting himself in equal or more danger of losing his life than his followers. There was a point when it was thought that Gandhiji would die fasting. To say that such a selfless soul would hide behind the shield of leadership would be nothing but an injustice. Of course, as said above, putting other people at risk for his blind belief in the principles of Ahimsa can be considered one little imperfection.
The martyr: The main reason that made me write this piece was the accusation that Gandhiji did nothing to prevent the execution of Bhagat Singh and his comrades, the only accusation that I feel is wholly justified. It appears as though Gandhiji considered using his fasting as a means to buy them pardon as an aberration to his Ahimsa. No amount of justification or explanation can possibly undo this great wrong that Gandhiji committed. He was the only man with the power to do the needful and he did not try to.
Gandhiji had his failings and faults, for after all he was human. Though it is reasonable to expect people to accept the Mahatma’s imperfections, to make baseless accusations would be stretching things too far. And whatever be his imperfections, Gandhiji possessed a dynamic charisma that earned him the awe and respect of the most disparate of people. Any judgment on him would be a judgment on all the Indians who believed and trusted that he would guide them to their freedom, our freedom.
I have seen the most contrasting of emotions when it comes to these two freedom fighters. I have seen a friend of mine, usually stoic and callous, weep when we were watching the climax of ‘The Legend of Bhagat Singh’-the scene where Bhagat Singh goes to the gallows, bidding farewell to his mother, bidding her to be strong so that he may also be that way. I have seen the same friend seethe with rage at the sight of the Mahatma, a few scenes before. I have also heard and read nasty, disrespectful, unbearable things about the Mahatma, which could make any insult a Britisher would have given him, seem a compliment. “The fact that our History books have brain washed us to respect this man does not imply that it is sacrilegious to find faults with him, form opinions contrary to the popular, or hate and disrespect him” is an argument I can clearly recall. Sounds good, but I would like to hear the same things being said after experiencing- one lathi charge where a stick half the thickness of your wrist comes thrashing into your bones shattering them, one shooting order where you see the person next to you having his brains blown out, one day in jail, separated from all comforts, denied the most basic of human rights. I know it is stupid to say that you have to have experienced something yourself, to comment on it. But then, the right to freedom of thought, speech and expression is grossly misunderstood and ridiculously misused by most people today, so much so that they make atrocious judgments and form unreasonable opinions.
Bhagat Singh was and is the quintessential hero among freedom fighters. There can be no questioning his popularity, nor will it be easy to find an Indian who does not respect or admire this martyr, and rightfully so. Being ready to give up your life for a struggle whose fruits you are not going to enjoy is nothing but a supreme sacrifice. And to do that at 23 years! I don’t really know if I would have had the courage to do the same as Bhagat Singh had I been in his position. He epitomizes what patriotism stands for.
The Mahatma, on the other hand has been thoroughly misunderstood by a sizeable number of people today. People accuse him of being single handedly responsible for the partition of India, of delaying the achievement of freedom by advocating Ahimsa, of using the “convenience” of being a leader to achieve things by endangering other people’s lives, and of doing nothing to prevent Bhagat Singh and his comrades executions. My unbiased opinions as well as a partial defense of one of the greatest souls to have walked this earth:
Ahimsa: Non violence was Gandhiji’s greatest success and his biggest failure too. Diseases are contagious, but, it is a pity that cures are not. The same analogy applies to the disease called violence and non-violence, which Gandhiji saw as a cure to it. Unfortunately a single violent person is enough to disrupt the fabric of peace whereas it requires every one to be non-violent to maintain it. And Gandhiji saw that impossible dream, a dream which he believed in so much, that he was willing to abandon all reason, all logic in his quest to achieve that dream.
Single handed responsibility?: Of all the baseless accusations that can be thrown at the Mahatma, this definitely takes the cake. Gandhiji was not a despot, not a military leader, not a tyrant, not a dictator. He had no physical control over the people of India, nor was he solely responsible for charting the course of India’s freedom struggle. It is nothing but stupidity to hold the Mahatma single handedly responsible for anything. The people of India were under no compulsion to follow him and yet they did, not in fear but in respect, love and awe. If you would call Gandhiji’s actions foolish, then what would you call the actions of the thousands and lakhs of Indians, many of whom might be your ancestors, who followed him out of their own free will?
Delayed freedom: Would freedom have been achieved faster if everyone had gone the Bhagat Singh way? Was Gandhiji the factor that delayed the achievement of freedom? You and I are in no position to pass judgment on that. Is it not reasonable to believe that if, the people involved in the freedom struggle had thought that a path of violence was quicker to attain freedom, they would have chosen it wholeheartedly? Gandhiji was not a democratically elected leader who holds office for 5 years irrespective of whether people like him or not. Whether people had freedom from the British or not, they definitely had the freedom to choose the leader they wanted to follow. It would not be wrong to say that the British feared Gandhiji’s nonviolent ways more than Bhagat Singh’s violent ways. The latter was their cup of tea; they knew how to handle it. But what could you do to a bunch of people who passively and unflinchingly took all you gave them and yet stood their ground without retaliation? Most importantly, a path of violence absolutely demanded the sacrifice of life one day or the other. It does not imply that the followers of Gandhi were not prepared to lay their lives down, but there was always the possibility that it would not come to that.
A shield called leadership: Gandhiji’s devotion to the cause of non-violence was so overpowering that like it happens in life, the means gained more importance than the end itself. Not only did he want freedom, he was obsessed to achieve it by non violent means at whatever cost. To an extent, Gandhiji took a certain liberty with other people’s lives, assuming that they would and should make the sacrifices he was ready to make. To say that beyond a point, Gandhiji was out of harm’s way, and that emboldened him to endanger and put at risk other people would be highly irresponsible. Gandhiji was ever willing to sacrifice his life for the causes he believed in. Even when he was not facing the lathi charges, he subjected himself to the most tortuous of fasts putting himself in equal or more danger of losing his life than his followers. There was a point when it was thought that Gandhiji would die fasting. To say that such a selfless soul would hide behind the shield of leadership would be nothing but an injustice. Of course, as said above, putting other people at risk for his blind belief in the principles of Ahimsa can be considered one little imperfection.
The martyr: The main reason that made me write this piece was the accusation that Gandhiji did nothing to prevent the execution of Bhagat Singh and his comrades, the only accusation that I feel is wholly justified. It appears as though Gandhiji considered using his fasting as a means to buy them pardon as an aberration to his Ahimsa. No amount of justification or explanation can possibly undo this great wrong that Gandhiji committed. He was the only man with the power to do the needful and he did not try to.
Gandhiji had his failings and faults, for after all he was human. Though it is reasonable to expect people to accept the Mahatma’s imperfections, to make baseless accusations would be stretching things too far. And whatever be his imperfections, Gandhiji possessed a dynamic charisma that earned him the awe and respect of the most disparate of people. Any judgment on him would be a judgment on all the Indians who believed and trusted that he would guide them to their freedom, our freedom.
posted by Dreamer at 3:19 AM
1 Comments:
thoughtful! it requires much greater courage and strength to practise non-violence than to give in to the impulse to resort to violent means. it requires some intelligence too to make it work.
Post a Comment
<< Home