Gandhi-My Father -Film Review and More
This is not a mere film review . I would like to forewarn the readers that this post of mine contains content which can potential hurt the sensitivities of large number of Indian's who worship Mohandas Gandhi . If you are a Gandhian , this post is blasphemy...so beware
I would like to begin by an interesting comment made by a representative of the South African Government on the occasion of Gandhi's farewell from South Africa , he said " Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi would like to believe that he is a saint who has wandered into politics , ...on the contrary he is a politician who belives that he is a saint..." . This quote in many ways epitomises the diabolical side of Gandhi which has rarely been touched upon by historians and the media . I would like to share some of my perspectives on Gandhi , in the context of Indian independence and also share my thoughts on the movie. Since the trigger of this post was the movie, I would like to start with the movie first ........ The movie is ordinary in terms of cinematography and content , it did explore the tumultuous relationship between Hiralal (his son) and Gandhi , and the struggle that Hiralal had to go through being the son of a famous father ....."To people he was a father, To his son he was a father he never had".....Hiralal rebelled against his father principles , embraced Islam in protest , was a compulsive drinker and a cheat. Some of the scenes in the movie catch your attention , particularly Hiralal's relationship with Kasturba . From the perspective of content , the movie disappoints .
However what the movie brings to fore is the darker side of the man Gandhi , he is no saint.... , he is dogmatic about his views of what India should be or should not be . He aims for a secular , inclusive Indian society but in his own way responsible for the riots that happened in the Eastern part of this country . His need to pussyfoot Islamic fundamentalists , lead to abandoning the Hindu's of the country ....... his dogma did not let him recognize a simple fact that partition of India was inevitable and it would only be fair that India be partitioned on the grounds of religion so that a reasonable transfer of population and property would have possibly happened without the extent of bloodshed that the country witnessed . While Muslims could chose to stay back in Bengal , the Hindus of erstwhile East Bengal were thrown out of the country . I come from a family who has been a victim of the politics of religion of Mohandas and so were many other families who lived in refugee camps in Kolkata and Delhi . Mr Gandhi's ridiculous obsession for misplaced secularism ensured that Hindus like us were murdered and looted in East Bengal and Punjab and left our land and lived in penury for many decades in the shanties in West Bengal and Delhi. My grandmother would often narrate the stories of woe that she had faced when she had virtually walked barefoot with her children in the cover of darkness from Pabna to Kolkata . I am sure this is true for many Muslim families , but the point is ,if Gandhi had clarity like Jinnah , the transfer of population would have be far better than it was and the loss of property could have been minimised by enforcing a Transfer of Property legislation . Mr Gandhi , the apostle of peace am sure was too preoccupied in Sabarmati (in God knows what..) to be able to think about the sufferings of millions of families ...........surely the father had left his children to fend from themselves .......
The politics of Mohandas ensured that he sidelined people like Subhas Bose , Sadar Patel and propped Nehru . Nehru and his party contributed brilliantly to ensure that the politics of division be played subtly in public life and judiciary ...it continues even today unabated . It is Gandhi's legacy that promotes disruptive politics in the form of reservations in almost all walks of life ....and here we are as a nation still celebrating "Bapu" and condemning Nathuram Ghodse...
The Saint is dead and thank god for that , but his shadow remains ....... I would like to know if India would be better off without its father ...what do u think
Jai Hind
15 comments:
the blog surely echoes the sentiments of our grandparents who left everything behind in search of Freedom which they never cherished ..abandoned,uprooted and danger at every corner was their fate at the end .....why do we celebrate Bapu's bday is a big question to me .....Freedom ?? whats that ?? secular country ?? whats that ??
gandhi knew exactly what triggered the masses best.
while bengal, punjab etc. encouraged anarchist or militant struggle, gandhi proposed the simple denunciation of foreign goods.
instead of dedicating your life, you could burn foreign cloth and do your bit for freedom.
life could go on at a level non-confrontational with the powers that be.
but why blame gandhi ? neither did he amass a fortune, nor did he usurp executive power.
blame those who followed him - and those who could have resisted his rise, but did not.
oh, and throwing bombs vs. non-violence ?
hanging vs. a beating ?
which one would your typical Indian choose ?
duh !
people like clement atlee (then british pm) & auchinlek put more importance on the post-1945 mutinies as the reason for hastening India's independence
Dear Chikom,
thanks for writing in , non-violence was a strategy and so was boycott of foreign goods , nobody could fault that part of MKG , however his political philosophy which included a lop sided benevolance to a part of the poulace is what i denounce , he was dogmatic in his views and by default left little room for constructive dissent , what he did to Subhas Bose is evidence enough , moever can we ever forget the Noakhali riots or the Kolkata riots and his handling of the situation and benevolance shown to Surawardy. I also do not agree to the fact that he did not usurp executive power , he probabaly did not perpetuate dynasty politics , but the fact that he put Nehru in helm of affairs ....and the process of selection was not necessarily by consensous leads me to beleive that he was not a passive spectator of the things that happened .
Dear Chikom
On your second comment , I would like to look at history and say that no struggle has been won without its fair share of violence ,which I buy the non-violence strategy , but the work done by Anushilan Samity , INA , Bhagat Singh and many others , did not go to waste . The Indian independence was a function of many things , freedom was inevitable because it was too much for the Brits to manage a country like us and beyond a point it was impossible to reap economic benefits from the country and hence my central thesis is that we seem to give Gandhi more credit than due for independence , however thats not the reason i denouce him , I do it for a simple fact that in thought and action he was willing to sacrifice Hindu's in his plan for a secular state which was unfair and certainly not a conduct of a man who in public perception was a saint
niladri and i are poles apart in our political preferences....
but i cannot help air 2 of my personal viewpoints here -
without gandhi :
1) India would have been independent earlier (probably led by people like subhas bose, patel, etc.)
2) India would have been a prouder & less wimpy nation in the last 60 years
what he did to Subhas Bose is evidence enough , moever can we ever forget the Noakhali riots or the Kolkata riots and his handling of the situation and benevolance shown to Surawardy.
dude get u r history right ..
gandhi did nothing bad to subhash chander bose .
it was nehru who was feared of subhash chander bose, as netaji was very popular and could have been a strong contender to first PM of india , that was the reason , nehru tried his level best to put subhash out of indian politics [ he even wrote a letter to PM of britian disclosing the location of netaji ]
INDIA WOULD HAVE BEEN FREED EARLIER???????
but how ,,,
it s good to daream [ bad to day dream ] , but if u just sit idle and you cannot accomplish a thing .
indian dont beleive in violence ..
Hi Lalit
I agreee I am not a historian , but am not completely unaware of Indian history .... I hold Gandhi accountable for what his pet Nerhru did to Subhas , in that sense gandhi (Nehru's mentor) is equally responsible for sidelining Subhas Bose . That was the spirit in which I had written the post . If Gandhi was clean and clear in his motives do u think a whimp like Nehru would have succeeded in what he did .....
You should read this book called 'Mira and the Mahatama' and you would know that Gandhi was nothing but his own PR machine, and how he manipulated everyone around him.
Here is my review of the book:
http://anuradhagoyal.blogspot.com/2007/05/mira-and-mahatma-by-sudhir-kakar.html
This is quite a bold stance to take in a nation either obsessed or indifferent to the Father of the Nation.
I am born in a family of freedom fighters and logically supporters of the Indian National Congress. My great grand parents have been jailed time and again have actively communicated with Gandhi for a lot of social development work in pre-independence Assam apart from the independence movement initiatives. Their work under Gandhi's guidance still bears enough results.We are biased.
But I'd agree with Anuradha, there wasn't a bigger brand than Gandhi. the reason that 'Lagey Raho Munnabhai' could sell big on that brand after so mnay decades.India wouldn't have been free if Gandhi hadnt created that brand for Indians to rise as well as for the British to push off.
In spite of the bias, I'd still say the Partition was possibly the sole solution at that time but it wasnt executed well and hence the suffering of India and its severed siblings. also Gandhi was probably working on his own self branding & PR but his bigger trouble was that he protected and blessed those who killed the larger interest of Indians in many ways.
By the way, I haven't watched this movie because of my strong views on the topic.
Also, I really wish that Subhash Bose hadn't become the Karna of modern India and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel the Bharat! Those two gentlemen could have made India look different today with their own individual skills (am not suggesting the two could have made a good team)
http://piyadebose.blogspot.com/2007/08/satyameva-jayate.html
DC , your post is really touching ....this is exactly my point . Mohandas gandhi was responsible for a lot of sufferring amongst East Pakistanis like you and me . The Saint is dead....do we still need to celebrate him ......should we still rever him as the father of this nation .......
I have always held very radical views on this topic since my teens and I feel good reading your post.
Well a few more inputs.
Lalit - Gandhi was the one who booted out Bose from the elections of the Congress in 1937 by asking him to renounce power for freedon struggle. Once Bose withdrew, Gandhi put up Pattabhai Sitaramaiyya as his candidate.
Bhagat Singh's execution was preponed a day to avoid public outcry as Gandhi's advice. There is no historical text which would say this, but then you know well how history got manupilated during the Congress regime.
Partition. Ah! How can a bong ever forget what happened there. Or for that matter Punjab. Partition was inevitable but Gandhi just played around & in the process promoted himself.
Godse was earlier influenced by Gandhi. But his behaviour during partition changed Godse's views. As Indians we should all thank Godse for putting to an end to all further idiotic deeds of Gandhi for which the country wld have had to pay.
Finally, non-violence as a concept sells well & Gandhi was intelligent enough to realise this. Thats why he still sells even today. Will continue to till the future generations actually realise what a fool he made out of all of us.
SJ : I agree 100%. Non violence as a concept is very seductive and it's easy to lead particularly indians into it. Passivity is a way of life....or so it has become...unfortunately he sells but fortunately he isn't alive to propagate the idea further. Minus Gandhi we would have handled the caste bias better instead of the sham that it has become...
Post a Comment