Gandhi - the relevance

I saw a lot of venom spitting against Gandhi in one of the website. While I am all for free speech , I beg to differ with some its comments, esp. about our father of the nation. One of the common tool of the Gandhi bashers is to portray him as some sort of pervert, sleeping with nude girls. Well, Gandhi had admitted in his my experiments with truth that he had a great carnal desire in youth and later he regretted it so much that he took the vow of celebacy. He probably so much wanted to conquer desire that he slept with his granddaughters in nude. Sounds fantastic, unnatural instinct, but possible. After all any great man will strive to overcome weaknesses esp. a weakness which for him is a perennial source of embarassment. He was fighting a tough battle with himself for overcoming his shortcomings and he devised his own ingenious methods for doing the same. Was Gandhi soft with Pakistan? Was he partial to Muslims and was apathetic to Hindu woes? Doesn't seem so, he went all the way to Noakhali when mass murder reached at its peak, and in Noakhali Hindus were getting wiped out. It is said that he started fasting in Calcutta during direct action when Hindus in Calcutta started taking upperhand after a long one sided vicious campaign by Surawardi and his men. But it might also be just that he initially thought that sanity will prevail on its own and later found that it didnt quite happen that way and therefore had to act. Its not a question of Hindu or Muslim to him, its just nonhumanity murdering humanity, insanity killing sanity. And pray what other eminent leaders of Congress and Muslim league were doing? instead of trying to stop the bloodbath they were busy mudslinging. Its just that a misguided Hindu killed him thinking that he was favouring Muslims and Pakistan, doesnt mean he actually was doing so. Its just that probably he thought the quickest means of stopping the bloodbath and developing a healthy relation with Pakistam was to show generosity on our part. That he was abjectly wrong was a different aspect. Despite all his good intentions he was wrong but that cannot be a ground to discredit his intentions. Gandhi bashers also point out that he treated his wife pretty unfairly, esp. when she was ill she was not allowed to take medicines on doctor's prescription and was instead subjected to naturopathy, while Gandhi himself took to medicines when he was ill. In his autobiography again Gandhi has tried to explain the same. He was dogmatic as far as natural treatments, Ayurveda and traditional Indian medicines are concerned. Its also true that he himself helped during his wife's childbirth in absence of proper medical treatment, but that he could do so speaks volumes for his ability. And also by not allowing the doctor to give his wife beef tea and some such medicines probably he did a favour to wife's religious belief. And that his methods worked is evident from the fact that Kasturba not only survived but had a good health till her death. Gandhi was a human being, he made mistakes, a lot of mistakes, and many of them were disastrous, but that his intentions were good were beyond doubt. Also he was the one and only one mass leader that India had ever produced. he first imbibed the spirit of nationalism amongst Indian masses, which was so far a domain of only the educated Indians. Only if a movement is spread amongst the masses and become acceptable to the masses can it grow. That his penchant for non violence was largely successful was again without doubt, it was a pschycological victory over his opponents who often got unnerved in tackling a non violent movement. Because ironically u need to resort to violence to suppress any movement and more you resort to violence to crush a non violent movement, more you become alienated in the world politics. It was largely Gandhi's non violence that helped to mobilize support for India all over the world. Gandhi was a shrewd Bania. He was a great tactician and opportunist, again the hallmark of a great leader. Just remember the fact that civil disobedience started with salt taxes- a quintessential food item of the masses. British Government had no option than to call him in round table conference. Also he was criticized for bringing in Khilafat on the non cooperation platform, but he was again at his best here tactically. He realized that a Muslim cannot be roused simply by talking nationalism to him. He must be roused based on something which is causing harm to his religion. And a fall of Ottoman empire aggrevated by Britan in first world war gave him the required opportunity, it was a direct threat to Muslim cause as Ottoman empire was the last Muslim bastion and symbol of their end of hegemony over Asia. His calculation was that Muslims need to be brought on the same platform as Hindus against the Bristish, that will be a direct blow to British divide and rule. And he nearly succeeded, because even the most fanatical Muslim who saw a direct threat in Nationalistic movements lead by Hindus, could not stop wandering what the British were up to. A large majority of Muslims came and joined the platform sponteneously and for the first time it seemed that a unified India had finally woken up against their oppressor. But his scheme was not to last, as Khilafat movement died down on its own and non coperation came to an abrupt halt with Chauri Chaura. And after that it was British divide and rule which largely succeeded and which eventually led to partition. Another master plan of Gandhi's was to fight against untouchability. He no doubt was committed to remove this scourge from Indian society. Its a different story that another greater opportunist having the name Bhimrao Ambedkar with less noble intentions took away the wind from his galant efforts to bring the Harijans, as he called them, on the same platform as rest of the country. Ambedkar succumbed to British divide and rule much like other opportunist Jinnah. But thankfully Ambedkar was a lesser evil as he was not a secessionist. But the damage was done, and educated Indian idiots instead of supporting Gandhi in carrying out the plan of bringing untouchables in Indian socio economic and political mainstream, started crying foul. In the process they made the job of Jinnah easier. Ordinary Muslims and others saw an independent India being ruled by elitist upperclass Hindus and saw it as a greater threat than continuing with British rule. Gandhi had a chance, one last chance during Quit India movement, and he tried his best. But quit India was largely a failure. By then Jinnah and his two nation theory has firmly gained ground, there is much bitter animosity between Hindus and Muslims And he was largely a failure because British intelligence folied his plan. Quit India was largely a leaderless chaotic movement and was destined to end up as failure. After that Gandhi was largely a disillusioned old man. Its said that he was a despot in his own Ashram. 'course people there adopted the Ashram life voluntarily and nobody seemed to mind anything. After all it was his Ashram and was bound to follow the ways he prescribed. Surely even noted writers like Huxley did not mind the life. One thing is clear, whatever he had said or done, he stood firmly with his principles, even in a dogmatic sense, even when there were lots of criticisms. His critics also put forward examples of how he considered himself as one of the poor masses and yet he used to stay in palaces. Honestly if somebody sleeps on floor with a thin mattress and bedsheet, wear only hand woven clothes and eat a frugal meal, it doesnt matter to him whether he stays in a palace or in a mudhut. Its also true that he stayed and spent quite sometimes with untouchables who most often lived in absymal conditions. So he did not have a bias, neither against the rich as long as they followed his ideals, nor against the poor. Therfore he was what he was, a true leader of masses.