Gandhi and his 'ji'
Gandhi and his 'ji'
Gandhi and his 'ji'
Gandhi and his 'ji'
Last edited by VED on Sat Feb 03, 2024 4:36 am, edited 3 times in total.
text
t #
The School Version
Even though I was a student of physics, I was very much interested in history. Since my early days, I was inundated with themes on Gandhi, in the form of ‘Gandhiji’ in themes on Indian history. The school version of history was that of a man, a saint, a thinker, a divine personality, a super human who stood out against the might of an evil empire, and came out glorious, defeating them, and reclaiming the lost freedom of the Indians, from their shackles. It may have looked fine in the history texts, and many persons were deeply impressed. Even though at the student level no one cared much; it was just textbook subject, to be parroted for marks.
The Multitudes
Personally I had nothing against him; only thing was that I couldn’t find anything great about him, other than the rhetoric. As I grew up and started having independent understandings on the realities of history, I increasingly found it difficult to find his greatness. As I grew up, I started seeing a lot of ‘Gandhis’ all round India; in fact, in every village, every small town, in every social group, there seemed to be at least one ‘Gandhi’; a person who was the focus of respect and the symbol of simplicity; yet a man who kept everyone else in lower mental levels; by lower level feudal words.
An impostor in the light
Later my understandings on language links, and of the studded auras that is generated to propel persons to leadership, both propound as well as fraudulent, was to make me see Gandhi in a most candid light, as an impostor.
Inaptness of Gandhian training
As a very introduction to the topic, I would ask myself: Would I allow my children (who have been trained to imbibe the best of English (England) systems, despite my being non-White, and totally alien to English [England] antiquity) and other children who I have trained, to follow Gandhi himself as a follower or allow them to be trained by him or his followers?
No, I will not if I can help it. For, it is sure to erase any level of personal brilliance that has perched on them by the simple imbibing of English (England) systems, and pull them to the creepy levels of some feudal hierarchy, on the top of which Gandhi exists in a most heinous manner.
An allusion to his writings
Before going ahead with the debate on Gandhi, I must admit to the fact that I have not read his book: Experiments with Truth. I did study excerpts from it in my school days. I should not judge the whole book from a single chapter; yet, what I read was to my mind of was of the kind of a very stupid level of rhetoric given by irresponsible persons to the simpletons. Yet the fact remains that I have not read the book. As the same time, it may be remembered that Gandhi is not understood to be great for his book, his literary talents, or the themes that came from this book. So I need not worry that I am about to measure him without information on his book/s.
The grandeur of the giant
Why should I measure him? It is said that pygmies should not strive to measure giants. This man is claimed to be a giant, and naturally I could be a pygmy compared to him. I have no reason to measure him. Yet, when this giant moves around the nation, forcing himself on everyone’s throat, with a lot his weirdo followers crushing him on everyone’s mind, through all means, including education, then the poor pygmies may need to stand up and question this giant’s credentials. For otherwise, he and his creepy followers simply carryon, sweeping everything on the way.
Feudal language and Gandhi
Gandhi is a superb creation of the Indian language codes; it can be automatic; it can also be deliberately done with careful intervention by the person himself, his companions, and also by the irresponsible media.
Noble Prize for Gandhi?
Even now, articles appear in the media shouting out, Why was Gandhiji not given a Nobel Prize? It is a crying shame; without Gandhiji having a prize, Nobel Prize is nothing.
A Mister Gandhi?
He was claimed to be an apostle of peace. So a Noble Prize on Peace to Mr. Gandhi. My god! You said Mister. You should not say Mister about Gandhiji. If you say Mister about him, half of his aura disappears. You should not say even Gandhi. You should say only Gandhiji.
It may be noted that many oriental great men should necessarily have a prefix or suffix of greatness, that should travel everywhere with their name; otherwise, they may lose their studded halo on the way.
Pre-English times
My own understanding of this person is connected to an immense other themes, including the fact that pre-British India was a terrible place for the majority population. The coming of the English allowed a great many to escape the slavery that was imposed on them using codes and hierarchy in both social systems as well as language.
Semi-understandings of many shallow intellectuals are catered to the population, who are trained to accept opinions of persons who don acceptable superior social titles.
English (England) contributions
Though the English came for trade, their unique social interaction systems were to show the Indians that there was another manner to design society. That the lower man should not be treated like a dog, as in Indian languages. Yet, the English themselves were frightened by the deep canyons in communications in the Indian languages, and kept apart. They were only using the same Indian method used by the Indian superiors to keep away the Indian lower classes. Yet, the English had something to contribute to the Indians. It was their language, English, and the connected immense difference in social interaction.
Hindus verses the Muslims: Vandemataram from a tale of deceit
The Hindus and Muslims were at odds. It was not a English creation. There is a song, Vandematharam (obeisance to Motherland), which comes in the Bengali novel Anandamatt published in 1882. This songs eulogises the motherland, basically Bengal, not necessarily India. It is sung by Hindu zealots who are bent on destroying the Muslim rule in Bengal, led by Mir Jafar. This song has since become the theme song of Hindu fundamentalism. The novel Anandamatt is regarded as a true book on Indian Nationalism, even though it mainly stresses on Bengali patriotism. Even now in India, immense debates and pure physical fights are going on in the name of this book.
Yet, the terrible fact is that this book is not really a pro-Hindu book. As I see it, it is a true pro-English book, where the actual undercurrents are that of depicting the Hindus as ill-mannered persons. Horrible expletives are used against the Muslims. A discerning reader can understand what the author was trying to communicate. At the end of the novel, the Muslims are defeated. It is time for the Hindu leaders to claim right to rule. Then comes the tragic twist. The real mystical leader appears and tells them that the Muslims are vanquished. Now let the English rule. It is the best for the nation. The English are the best; they are very brave and have immense knowledge. The land will prosper under them.
What a reader will understand from this turn of events is not known; yet, in real life, one sees a dose of neat deceit. For, it is not the personal interest of the Hindu leaders to see the nation growing great, with later many persons becoming great scientists, doctors, engineers, and such. It only helps those people and their families to grow in stature. What the Hindu leaders would want is their own personal supremacy, which will give them halo of Ji and such words. Otherwise, they exist as non-entities in a feudal language.
Cravings for superiority
Everyone in India wants some social superiority for becoming the focus of superior communication. Without that they cannot talk to unfamiliar persons in authority.
They want someone to give them respect that others can see. This respect is what they carry with them to get respect from others. In Delhi, one can see women with some minor level of status, always surrounding themselves with a group of uneducated men and women who address them as ‘Madam’. When new persons come to see them, immediately the woman sees that someone from this group comes in attendance and say in address her in clear terms: Madam or Madamji, or Ji suffixing her name or addressing her as Memsahib. All this conveys a powerful aura to her in front of the newcomer, who gets the message that either that he or she has to use similar words; or that she is a person of some consequence.
Now this is a trick everyone uses in India, from South to North.
Doctored history of India
Now about Indian freedom: The impression that one gets from the school textbooks is that the English were terrible brutes, and the Indian Kings the epitome of gentleness, who looked after the people with genuine affection. The truth was the exact reverse. Immense sections of the people under the rule of the Kings were in total social slavery. But no one was bothered about it, as there was seen to be no other way out of it. Then came the English and gave English education in a one and all policy.
English and new conceited leaders of India
Yet, naturally only few could get the English education, as it was slowly opening up. The newly educated Indians immediately became the focus of power and respect among the Indians. They became the leaders. Many were grateful for the deliverance from slavery. Yet, there were many others who simply enjoyed the new found social prominence. Many were stupid enough to believe that there was some superior attributes in them that made them special and different from the other Indians, who they naturally believed to be under them, and of negligible intelligence.
A piece of distorted history
Then comes another fact. Since 1919, India was not ruled by the English, but by the Indians themselves. It was due to the policy of the English government that the Indians should be given training in self-rule. The three Presidencies, Madras, Bombay, and Calcutta were ruled by Indian ministers during varying periods. One may understand the grand chance and training allowed by the English to a people who had been stuck under thousands of years of mediocre rulers (who showed their power through building grand buildings with slave labour).
Yet, there were many idiots who spoiled this opportunity by simply going for programmes of pandemonium inside the assembly halls.
A momentous chance for the rich, cunning classes
Now, what was the problem was that there were a great number of people who were belonging to the classes that had money then, such as Nehru and others. They were left in the lurch. They had the opportunity to study in England; because of both the magnanimity as well as the stupidity of the English. Even though in England they had a nice time, when they came to India they saw the immense opportunity playing politics. Since there were immense leaders in the Presidencies, their only opportunity was in the national level, which was admirably looked after by the English.
Gandhi on his search for greener pastures
Coming back to Gandhi; he tried his luck to be a leader by organising a political event in South Africa. It gained him political mileage in India. When he came back to India, he saw an opportunity; yet there were other leaders already in position. He was a very clever man. He wanted a Unique Selling Point. His USP was a confounding package of Ahimsa-Satyagraha-Ramarajya and few other things.
From opportunist to bogus saint
The newly emerging print media took it up; he became nationally famous. Someone used Ji to his name. From person to saint he metamorphosed.
He wanted freedom for Indians, from what? For the first time in immense history, India was becoming a nation, not a geographical region. It was a nation with no other logic other than the amalgamation made by the English. Otherwise what historical connection is there between Kashmir in the north with Kerala and Tamilnadu in the South? Between Meghalaya and Manipur in the Far East with Gujarat in the West? How did the faraway islands of Andamans & Nicobar in the Bay of Bengal come under the Indian map?
English Jurisprudence
The English were doing an admirable job. Law and order was codified, and there was the opportunity for judicial review and protection. The greatest black law the English could make was the Rowlett Act, under which a person suspected of terrorist intentions could be kept in custody without judicial acquiescence for a brief period. In present day India, there are persons in prisons without being punished by courts for years extending to 9 years.
(There is one man in Coimbatore jail for the last 9 years, with a propped up charge of terrorism, just because he was assertive to the bureaucracy; his tragedy was aggravated because he was a Muslim with a communal tinge; no courts have punished him yet; his papers are simply allowed to bounce back and forth).
Manoeuvrings for leadership
Naturally when Gandhi became famous, the other leaders were not ready to give up their place of leadership. But Gandhi used his gift of gab, and media attention to garner national attention. He used rhetoric, and grandiose parades, which gave him more attention. One such was the Dandi march, against the so-called salt tax by the English-Indian government. The tax was very insipid; nothing compared to the present day, terrible sales tax that wipes out honest traders in India, and loads the sales tax officials with untold wealth.
If one were to believe the actions were to shunt out the English, then it is a mistake. What Gandhi was doing was displacing the other Indian leaders, who did not take to it nicely. But they were helpless, as this was a man who had been in England, and thus could address the Englishmen by their name. Basically ordinary Indians cannot address a superior, social or official, thus or with a Mr. attached. If one can do it, the others immediately understand him as superior. Many, not all, of the other leaders were in a dumb situation.
Even though Gandhi was becoming a popular among the people (mostly uneducated) of India, among the Congress leadership, he was not liked. This was made very evident when he put up a candidate against Subhas Chandra Bose for Congress presidency. His man lost.
The next years were spent by Gandhi, trying to destroy the prestige of Subhas Chandra Bose. In sheer exasperation, Subhas Chandra Bose resigned his post. Subhas was a sort of extreme ideologist, so Gandhi was given the tacit support by the English. For, he proposed non-Violence. Gandhi had no intention for any violence, for his agenda was only the halo of leadership; and not to get maimed in a gunfight. If he was really interested in the welfare of the people, he would have welcomed the English rule for the tremendous goodness it was imparting on India. English language was giving a rare level of individuality to the educated Indians.
The three farces
Now we need to focus on the so-called freedom struggles of Gandhi. His first one was in 1919, which was closely connected to the Khilaphat movement. This Khilaphat movement was a sectarian reaction to the fact that the English had removed the unpopular ruler of Turkey. This ruler was a sort of titular head of Islam, possibly connected to the title of Caliph.
The first freedom struggle was unilaterally called off by Gandhi, when he was imprisoned; the leadership was rapidly going to the other leaders who were outside. He ostensibly used an incident of solitary act of violence to call off a nationwide call against the English rule. The other leaders were literally mad with anger, but again the media gave voice to Gandhi, and he came out with a halo.
The second freedom struggle was in 1930; The English administration called for a Round Table conference with the Indian leaders. Gandhi was angry when he was not called for the first round table, and sulked. He did his best to see that the Round Table conference was a sham, and of no value. So he had to be called to attend.
The third so-called freedom struggle was in 1942, during the heights of the Second World War; the so-called Quit India Struggle. The English-Indian government promptly arrested the main leaders and this movement also whimpered into silence.
The years of Music Chair
Now the question of what Gandhi and other leaders were doing during the intervening years: 1919-1930; 1930-1942?
It was a simply spent in outdoing other persons who were aspiring for leadership. With typical finesse, all tactical moves were made under the halo of grand spiritual designs; just an example of the uncanny Indian means of outsmarting others with cunning and guile.
Insipid controversies and insipid stature of the leaders
A few years back, there was a controversy with regard one of the local vernacular newspapers. Someone found out that during the pre-independence period this newspaper had alluded to Gandhi as Mr. Gandhi. It sure gave rise to a lot of hullabaloo. I think the paper had to apologise for its past misdemeanour in this regard.
There was a Great poet in my native state. He once visited Nehru, when he was the Prime Minister of India. He addressed Nehru as Mr. Nehru. It became earth-shattering news. The headline that screamed was to the effect that this was the only man from the state to dare address Nehru as Mr. Nehru. Others were to address him from pitiful stances.
Now this is the so-called stature of the so-called national leaders. An ordinary Indian addressing Gandhi as Mr. Gandhi would sure have knocked him unconscious. Or else it would have evoked real vindictiveness in him.
A tale of vindictive snubbing
There is a well known story connected to Gandhi and Mulk Raj Anand. Mulk Raj Anand was to become a famous Indian English writer of those times. He wrote his book, ‘The Untouchable’ and went to show it to Gandhi, since Gandhi was riding high on national popularity. Gandhi saw another Indian aspiring to heights. Mulk Raj Anand was dressed in English dress. Gandhi, instead of taking interest in the book, asked him,’ Why are you wearing this monkey suit?’ in a most insolent tone Now when I write this line in English, the other aspect of the mood is not understood. In the highly feudal Indian languages, no one will ask such questions in such mocking tone, to persons who are highly placed in language, and connected indicant words.
That Gandhi did ask in such a tone points to the fact that he perceived the other Indian at the ‘Thoo’ level, while he himself stood safe at the ‘Aap’ level of Hindi communication. Both words mean ‘You’. This can just be a mental mood, and the communication need not be in Hindi.
Now again one goes to the so-called stature of the Indian leaders, as apart from the English colonialists. The English stood without the aura of these words in their own language; even though it is pretty sure that they also would have been affected by this virus in the feudal languages.
English training and a dignified citizenry
What India really needed was an English trained leadership who were to administer dignity to the Indians. Not a row of conceited persons, who claimed all rights to halo and dignity, while the Indians remained at the bottom of the feudal language words. What was needed was a generation of people who were trained not to bend before anyone, even Gandhi, and to assert their right to equal dignity. This very concept is not practical in a language like Hindi and other Indian feudal languages.
The Gandhi film as bible of Gandhism
There are many Indians who literally became Gandhi fans, after seeing the Gandhi movie made by Richard Attenborough. It is as stupid as becoming a Moses fan by seeing Ten Commandments, and a Julius Caesar fan by seeing Julius Caesar (the movie). The producer and director will strive hard to make the movie a real tear shedder. That is his business success; it is for the spectator to understand this.
There was a film made and dubbed into many Indian languages on the English-Indian Prisons on the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. In this film, a very curious scene was shown. The young English doctor is coming to the South Indian village. He is getting down from the horse carriage. Immediately an Indian servant of the local feudal lord bends down and shows his back for the English Doctor to step on, to step down.
It was a very shocking scene. The spectators trembled with anger. Many persons told me this is the way the English used us. When they came on the horses, we the Indians had to bend down and show our backs for them to get down.
The idiocy of the dialogue is that more terrible manners of servitude are being extracted from the lower class Indians by the officialdom and higher financial class in India even now. No one notices it. The film was very effective in embedding a doubtful scene with superb force.
Many persons have quoted to me from the Gandhi film, taking out the dialogues that Gandhi made in this film. They seem to miss the point that the dialogue that comes from this character is actually the creation of the screenplay writer. Just as ‘Friends, Romans, Countrymen’ is actually from Shakespeare’s brain and not from the real Mark Anthony.
There is a very inspiring scene in the film wherein Gandhi is pushed out of the train by a Whiteman. This scene is just like the other scene I have mentioned earlier. It is possible that it is from a real life incident in Gandhi’s life. Yet, whether this incident can be taken as an evidence of English racialism is doubtful. This is the way many persons have taken it. The disdain of the Whiteman to the coloured and Blacks.
There are immense parameters to this issue. One is that the term White is vague; the Brits form only a very minor part of whites; most whites do not know English. Second this incident is shown to have happened in South Africa. To understand this incident better, one needs to understand South Africa, as different from another English colony; there is the need to understand about the Boars; their essential difference from the English, both social as well as political. Also, one may need to understand the elements of black social and language system; whether they had vile inputs.
Again what seems to have happened is that Gandhi is trying to be at home in the train from where he was forcibly disembarked. Whether non-Whites from outside the nation were allowed in the higher classes of the train is not clear.
Next point is that what Gandhi is seen to be doing was trying to be at home among the so-called higher classes in that nation. Now, what would have been Gandhi’s reaction if a lower caste man in India were to take the same liberty with Gandhi in India is also a moot question. Suppose a lower caste man sits with Gandhi and calls him just Gandhi, and talks with him in the same manner that Gandhi addresses him, using ‘thoo’ in Hindi. Well, my feeling is that Gandhi would have literally burst. He is nothing without the aura of respect to protect him.
There are other problems with this film. The actor who acts as Gandhi is a British man with half English ancestry. Indeed it is terribly funny to see that race who stood for everything that Gandhi wanted to remove from India, had to supply a man to bring charm to his features. Why was no Indian selected?
The other problem is that the director swallowed the theme that Gandhi was the divinely appointed leader of the Indians. It is an absolute falsehood, and a mistake. I do not believe that even in the peak of his popularity, his claim to such a title was correct. I have seen so many media built guys claiming cultural leadership over many masses in India, without having anything to prove this.
I am sure the title of leadership of the Indians should be with the English; for it was they who brought in the grand level of solace to the immensely suffering population of India; from slavery, poverty, ill health, ignorance and much else. The English were the much waited saviours of the Indians.
The Million Gandhis
I have mentioned about the immense ‘Gandhis’ in India in all towns and villages; these are the persons who wear a cloak of respect and exist above other mortals in these places. They are very simple, composed, and extremely approachable. They are kept on the pedestal of the feudal words in the language. One such man once told me, ‘I do not need to wear modern dressings. Look at me; I only wear the ordinary dothi and shawl. Still I get the respect I need’.
It was a very propound statement; but more propound is the understanding that he was using lower level words to others who attired him with deep respect. I saw that the more powerful degrading words he used in the feudal language, the more deeper was the respect he got in return. His followers then understood him as a demigod, who had saintly dispositions. On being in close intimacy with him for some days, I saw that he also was having similar sensual desires and deep craving on forbidden grounds, as all men had. Yet, for his followers, he was a man of indisputable saintliness. When they addressed him with reverence, his most natural manner was to mould himself into saintliness. In other words, he was cloaked in divinity by his followers and their words. As days bore on, he became more and more saintly and extremely simple.
The gimmickries
There was gimmickry that Gandhi used. One was his taking out salt out of the seawater at Dandi; I have seen it written that he simply put his hands in the seawater and brought out salt, pure and new. Whether this what history claims, I do not know. Yet, this story was sure to adorn him with divine capacities, in the mind of the simple persons in India.
The shallow philosophies
Gandhi’s USP was his so-called great and grand discoveries and theories of Satyagraha and such else. There is a lot of sterile literature explaining what Satyagraha meant. The grand exponents of this go on repeating in different words and poses that Satyagraha does not mean just fasting as a means of protest, but also involves a lot of spiritual cleansing. Whatever it is, it is not possible for the opponent to understand whether the Satyagrahi is doing it with spiritual cleansing or not.
Yet, the fact remains that this form of protest was successful only against the English; it is simple idiotism to believe that it would have worked with such persons as Hitler and others. Hitler would have dismembered Gandhi, quiet unmoved by his squeals, had he disturbed him much. Gandhi sure was not made of the mettle to meet such disasters, if he can help it. He could only move where he is respected. Other places he would give the wide breadth.
Now in India, many persons have tried Satyagraha as a means to achieve aims. It works only if the person involved is a socially respected person. If he is an ordinary man, he would simply starve to death. In the former case, interested persons would appear on the scene to do the bargaining, with themselves bathing in the limelight. Immediately after Independence one leader in Andhra Pradesh tried it to influence state border designing. On the national level he was a non-entity; even though in his own area he had some clout. Nehru the Prime Minister simply allowed him to die in his Satyagraha. It is doubtful if Gandhi had ever arrived at life threatening stages in his Satyagraha at anytime.
There are immense persons of gracious bearing simply starving in India. I do not think they have been to induce any amount or sense of compassion in the others who literally wallow in fortune.
The nonsense called Satyagraha doesn’t work in Indian languages; it may work in English. But then the English have been very, very considerate to the world, giving and sharing all their knowledge, experiences and even their language to downtrodden nations, without any thought of extracting a royalty. This mood has been with English without any allusion to any concept of Satyagraha.
The English affinity
Anyway the English were happy with his tomfoolery. For, here was a man who was not a danger in any sense of the word; and moreover he had the infinite capacity to divide any concerted united effort, wherein he was not the top leader.
One British judge is seen to rise up from his seat when Gandhi is brought into the courtroom, in the film. It may have happened thus. I do not know the judge’s name. He was only being very, very foolish and acting in a manner absolutely contradictory to his public obligation. He was only adding to the propped up image of Gandhi; more so because he was a British man. It gives immense mileage to Gandhi’s image. For India runs on such gimmickry. Not on any absolute, discernible quality or contribution to the nation.
Gandhian demeanour
In the photos, one can see Gandhi and his men on their Dandhi March. It was not really a march to demolish the salt laws of the English-Indian government; but to actually vanquish the other leaders of the national level. Now see the demeanour of those who are accompanying him. Many would be the rich and other influential persons; yet, they all bear the same feudal language settings in their demeanour. They would extend Gandhi extreme levels of respect and words of high pedestal. Yet, they themselves would be demiGandhi’s in their own areas, where they will ride high on the feudal language settings.
Why I am saying this is that there was another crowd of Indians who were English educated and bearing a different demeanour of varying levels of personal liberation. They are not seen in the photo. It was they who should have managed India, and brought in the liberty embedded in English. Yet, they were simply outnumbered by the vast crowds of un-educated persons who were cunningly managed by their rich leaders.
Tactics of Blackmail
The English were terribly impressed by Gandhi capacity to bring the whole nation to a stop by his bullying political tool called Bandh. This Bandh has later come to be a real nuisance to the busy Indians, and a pleasurable activity for the lazy ones. The English did not understand that this Bandh had elements of blackmail in it. Those who did not concede to the Bandh, were made to concur with the threat of dire consequences.
There is an incident in Rabindranath Tagore’s novel: Home and the World. The poor shopkeeper is asking in agony in words to the effect: Why should the Zamindar force us to burn all our foreign goods, as per Gandhi’s dictates? Who will bear our loss? If the Zamindar wants such things burnt, why can’t he simply pay for it and burn them?
The devils who succeeded the English
The persons, with feudal language demeanour who were Gandhi’s companions, were to takeover India when the English left and make it into a haven of bureaucratic corruption, dirty towns and cities, hungry millions and also the safe haven of a minority of clever guys who lived in the best of both the West and the East. Most of these cunning guys send their offspring to England and America, where many settled; or returned to rule over the modern slaves of India; having grasped and contained the economic power in their hands.
The essential difference that they brought in was that they completely changed the direction of the nation. Education was made vernacular for the majority population and English for the exclusive groups. They took over to rewriting history in such a manner that every benign thing done by the English was given a slanderous meaning and intention. The new generation was given an option to join a most viscous bureaucracy, or else exist on the mean edges of the social structure, from where their blood was to be sucked dry. The bureaucracy was to corner almost all resources of the government; in fact in most states there is nothing left for the common man after the pay and pension of the officialdom is given.
Every item of governing was to be corrupted in the very first few years of independence. In fact it was a free for all as far as the new governing class was considered. None of them had any governing experience or insight or farsightedness to understand the far reaching consequence of each and every one of their decrees.
Near zero capacity Prime Minister
Nehru who took over the mantle of Prime Minister-ship was so inferior in his administrative understandings that he had made a gigantic mass of bureaucratic structure for all India, which was to squeeze out the life of most Indians. Immense persons, solely focused on making money through bribery, entered the immense bureaucratic jobs. There was no understanding in the new governing class as to what constitutes an officer, as different from the ordinary employee. The officers being a more heinous dacoit than the others.
The foolishness in killing a shallow charlatan: Missing on a revelation
When Gandhi was killed by an assassin, it was a terrible thing for India, which was on the verge of Independence. It was a supreme foolish thing to have done on the part of Gandhi’s detractors. For, if Gandhi had continued his tomfoolery and other antics after Independence, when serious issues were confronting the nation, then his true standards would have popped out. In many ways, he was like Raj Narayan, the once famous Central Minister during the Janata Party rule in India after 1977. He was a sort of a fantastic hero to the people when he was in the opposition, bursting out with fascinating antics. Then he defeated Indira Gandhi the then Prime Minister and became super famous; and was given a berth in the Central Cabinet.
It truly was a moment of revelation for the Indian people. When he became the Central minister, again he was cracking out with the same type of antics. Then only did the people understand that they were literally worshipping a person of doubtful mental calibre. Similarly had Gandhi not been killed, by an idiot, then post Independent India would have seen the buffoonery of Gandhi as real problems of administration cropped up. In fact, almost all of Gandhi’s famed propositions are just the free expressions from the mind of a man of doubtful understandings, as well as cunning expositions to mesmerise the mind of the simple folks of India, who were desperately seeking out the way to better social standards.
His one proposition that entered into aims of the constitution was the setting up of local self rule in all Villages of India by what is called Panchayati Raj. Around 10 years ago, this was established; it only created another burden on the population of India, who as it is, is burdened by the infinitude of political elections and connected wastage; for this money is actually required in more serious needs. It has also added another level of government on the citizens; all of them irresponsible to the core.
A monstrous reality
Actually if one examines all his ideas, one may discern a monstrous reality. It is the creation of a mind that craved for leadership over persons who live in servitude; and the ideas are pure juvenile; only similar minded crooks can accept them as of any value. Saying that he is for non-violence and hence a great person is being very naïve. It is only a strategic ideology with its own narrow, selfish aims; not something with universal altruistic aims.
And then the last, but not the least, fact that the English did not leave India because of Gandhi, but because labour party came to power, and then almost all colonies all over the world were given up; and in most of them the majority population went to deeper sufferings.
Deceptive appearances and reality
When we talk about deceptive appearances, and of reality and common understanding, I need to give one startling example. In my school days, I was shown a picture of Nehru in a pose of deep and agonised contemplation. It was a photo taken a little earlier to his death. The Indian army was being battered on the Chinese border. The war had turned a fiasco. I was told that Nehru was overwhelmed by the problems he was facing in ruling India. His mental pain was in regard to the future of India; such was his greatness that this distress led to his death from cardiac arrest.
Later, much later, I was informed by the medical fraternity tof what he had died of. It is more or less a secret. Actually the photo of his deep contemplation must have been depicting his terror over his affliction. Such is the difference between reality and government version over here in India.
Generally in this write-up I have stayed away from commenting on moral standards, issues of womanising, seductions, perversions, voyeuristic pleasure in seeing female nudity and such other things, in that they do not count if the other side of the person is above reproach. What I have done is to try to state that I do not find anything great about this person called Gandhi, other than his capacity for rhetoric and to create dissension among his competitors. All his ideas on non-violence and such were just his tools; and the English rule of India was his opportunity.
Even though I have mentioned Nehru’s affliction, it is only to give a sample of how reality is being distorted to suit indoctrination. The same goes correct in the case of Gandhi also.
In between it may be mentioned that the Quit India Movement was commenced when the Delhi newspapers openly started discussing Gandhi’s private life inside his ashram. It more or less diverted attention from that issue.
Continued
I had not known that the word Mr. was not allowable in the pre-independence period also. I saw these lines in this website very coincidently. As to the other contents of this website, I can’t comment upon. I am interested in the part played by words in creating hallowed personalities.
QUOTE
For all his vaunted selflessness and modesty, he made no move to object when Jinnah was attacked during a Congress session for calling him “Mr. Gandhi” instead of “Mahatma”, and booed off the stage by the Gandhi’s supporters.
In many ways, these seemingly minor encasing communication codes and structure would simply shoo off quality people.
The School Version
Even though I was a student of physics, I was very much interested in history. Since my early days, I was inundated with themes on Gandhi, in the form of ‘Gandhiji’ in themes on Indian history. The school version of history was that of a man, a saint, a thinker, a divine personality, a super human who stood out against the might of an evil empire, and came out glorious, defeating them, and reclaiming the lost freedom of the Indians, from their shackles. It may have looked fine in the history texts, and many persons were deeply impressed. Even though at the student level no one cared much; it was just textbook subject, to be parroted for marks.
The Multitudes
Personally I had nothing against him; only thing was that I couldn’t find anything great about him, other than the rhetoric. As I grew up and started having independent understandings on the realities of history, I increasingly found it difficult to find his greatness. As I grew up, I started seeing a lot of ‘Gandhis’ all round India; in fact, in every village, every small town, in every social group, there seemed to be at least one ‘Gandhi’; a person who was the focus of respect and the symbol of simplicity; yet a man who kept everyone else in lower mental levels; by lower level feudal words.
An impostor in the light
Later my understandings on language links, and of the studded auras that is generated to propel persons to leadership, both propound as well as fraudulent, was to make me see Gandhi in a most candid light, as an impostor.
Inaptness of Gandhian training
As a very introduction to the topic, I would ask myself: Would I allow my children (who have been trained to imbibe the best of English (England) systems, despite my being non-White, and totally alien to English [England] antiquity) and other children who I have trained, to follow Gandhi himself as a follower or allow them to be trained by him or his followers?
No, I will not if I can help it. For, it is sure to erase any level of personal brilliance that has perched on them by the simple imbibing of English (England) systems, and pull them to the creepy levels of some feudal hierarchy, on the top of which Gandhi exists in a most heinous manner.
An allusion to his writings
Before going ahead with the debate on Gandhi, I must admit to the fact that I have not read his book: Experiments with Truth. I did study excerpts from it in my school days. I should not judge the whole book from a single chapter; yet, what I read was to my mind of was of the kind of a very stupid level of rhetoric given by irresponsible persons to the simpletons. Yet the fact remains that I have not read the book. As the same time, it may be remembered that Gandhi is not understood to be great for his book, his literary talents, or the themes that came from this book. So I need not worry that I am about to measure him without information on his book/s.
The grandeur of the giant
Why should I measure him? It is said that pygmies should not strive to measure giants. This man is claimed to be a giant, and naturally I could be a pygmy compared to him. I have no reason to measure him. Yet, when this giant moves around the nation, forcing himself on everyone’s throat, with a lot his weirdo followers crushing him on everyone’s mind, through all means, including education, then the poor pygmies may need to stand up and question this giant’s credentials. For otherwise, he and his creepy followers simply carryon, sweeping everything on the way.
Feudal language and Gandhi
Gandhi is a superb creation of the Indian language codes; it can be automatic; it can also be deliberately done with careful intervention by the person himself, his companions, and also by the irresponsible media.
Noble Prize for Gandhi?
Even now, articles appear in the media shouting out, Why was Gandhiji not given a Nobel Prize? It is a crying shame; without Gandhiji having a prize, Nobel Prize is nothing.
A Mister Gandhi?
He was claimed to be an apostle of peace. So a Noble Prize on Peace to Mr. Gandhi. My god! You said Mister. You should not say Mister about Gandhiji. If you say Mister about him, half of his aura disappears. You should not say even Gandhi. You should say only Gandhiji.
It may be noted that many oriental great men should necessarily have a prefix or suffix of greatness, that should travel everywhere with their name; otherwise, they may lose their studded halo on the way.
Pre-English times
My own understanding of this person is connected to an immense other themes, including the fact that pre-British India was a terrible place for the majority population. The coming of the English allowed a great many to escape the slavery that was imposed on them using codes and hierarchy in both social systems as well as language.
Semi-understandings of many shallow intellectuals are catered to the population, who are trained to accept opinions of persons who don acceptable superior social titles.
English (England) contributions
Though the English came for trade, their unique social interaction systems were to show the Indians that there was another manner to design society. That the lower man should not be treated like a dog, as in Indian languages. Yet, the English themselves were frightened by the deep canyons in communications in the Indian languages, and kept apart. They were only using the same Indian method used by the Indian superiors to keep away the Indian lower classes. Yet, the English had something to contribute to the Indians. It was their language, English, and the connected immense difference in social interaction.
Hindus verses the Muslims: Vandemataram from a tale of deceit
The Hindus and Muslims were at odds. It was not a English creation. There is a song, Vandematharam (obeisance to Motherland), which comes in the Bengali novel Anandamatt published in 1882. This songs eulogises the motherland, basically Bengal, not necessarily India. It is sung by Hindu zealots who are bent on destroying the Muslim rule in Bengal, led by Mir Jafar. This song has since become the theme song of Hindu fundamentalism. The novel Anandamatt is regarded as a true book on Indian Nationalism, even though it mainly stresses on Bengali patriotism. Even now in India, immense debates and pure physical fights are going on in the name of this book.
Yet, the terrible fact is that this book is not really a pro-Hindu book. As I see it, it is a true pro-English book, where the actual undercurrents are that of depicting the Hindus as ill-mannered persons. Horrible expletives are used against the Muslims. A discerning reader can understand what the author was trying to communicate. At the end of the novel, the Muslims are defeated. It is time for the Hindu leaders to claim right to rule. Then comes the tragic twist. The real mystical leader appears and tells them that the Muslims are vanquished. Now let the English rule. It is the best for the nation. The English are the best; they are very brave and have immense knowledge. The land will prosper under them.
What a reader will understand from this turn of events is not known; yet, in real life, one sees a dose of neat deceit. For, it is not the personal interest of the Hindu leaders to see the nation growing great, with later many persons becoming great scientists, doctors, engineers, and such. It only helps those people and their families to grow in stature. What the Hindu leaders would want is their own personal supremacy, which will give them halo of Ji and such words. Otherwise, they exist as non-entities in a feudal language.
Cravings for superiority
Everyone in India wants some social superiority for becoming the focus of superior communication. Without that they cannot talk to unfamiliar persons in authority.
They want someone to give them respect that others can see. This respect is what they carry with them to get respect from others. In Delhi, one can see women with some minor level of status, always surrounding themselves with a group of uneducated men and women who address them as ‘Madam’. When new persons come to see them, immediately the woman sees that someone from this group comes in attendance and say in address her in clear terms: Madam or Madamji, or Ji suffixing her name or addressing her as Memsahib. All this conveys a powerful aura to her in front of the newcomer, who gets the message that either that he or she has to use similar words; or that she is a person of some consequence.
Now this is a trick everyone uses in India, from South to North.
Doctored history of India
Now about Indian freedom: The impression that one gets from the school textbooks is that the English were terrible brutes, and the Indian Kings the epitome of gentleness, who looked after the people with genuine affection. The truth was the exact reverse. Immense sections of the people under the rule of the Kings were in total social slavery. But no one was bothered about it, as there was seen to be no other way out of it. Then came the English and gave English education in a one and all policy.
English and new conceited leaders of India
Yet, naturally only few could get the English education, as it was slowly opening up. The newly educated Indians immediately became the focus of power and respect among the Indians. They became the leaders. Many were grateful for the deliverance from slavery. Yet, there were many others who simply enjoyed the new found social prominence. Many were stupid enough to believe that there was some superior attributes in them that made them special and different from the other Indians, who they naturally believed to be under them, and of negligible intelligence.
A piece of distorted history
Then comes another fact. Since 1919, India was not ruled by the English, but by the Indians themselves. It was due to the policy of the English government that the Indians should be given training in self-rule. The three Presidencies, Madras, Bombay, and Calcutta were ruled by Indian ministers during varying periods. One may understand the grand chance and training allowed by the English to a people who had been stuck under thousands of years of mediocre rulers (who showed their power through building grand buildings with slave labour).
Yet, there were many idiots who spoiled this opportunity by simply going for programmes of pandemonium inside the assembly halls.
A momentous chance for the rich, cunning classes
Now, what was the problem was that there were a great number of people who were belonging to the classes that had money then, such as Nehru and others. They were left in the lurch. They had the opportunity to study in England; because of both the magnanimity as well as the stupidity of the English. Even though in England they had a nice time, when they came to India they saw the immense opportunity playing politics. Since there were immense leaders in the Presidencies, their only opportunity was in the national level, which was admirably looked after by the English.
Gandhi on his search for greener pastures
Coming back to Gandhi; he tried his luck to be a leader by organising a political event in South Africa. It gained him political mileage in India. When he came back to India, he saw an opportunity; yet there were other leaders already in position. He was a very clever man. He wanted a Unique Selling Point. His USP was a confounding package of Ahimsa-Satyagraha-Ramarajya and few other things.
From opportunist to bogus saint
The newly emerging print media took it up; he became nationally famous. Someone used Ji to his name. From person to saint he metamorphosed.
He wanted freedom for Indians, from what? For the first time in immense history, India was becoming a nation, not a geographical region. It was a nation with no other logic other than the amalgamation made by the English. Otherwise what historical connection is there between Kashmir in the north with Kerala and Tamilnadu in the South? Between Meghalaya and Manipur in the Far East with Gujarat in the West? How did the faraway islands of Andamans & Nicobar in the Bay of Bengal come under the Indian map?
English Jurisprudence
The English were doing an admirable job. Law and order was codified, and there was the opportunity for judicial review and protection. The greatest black law the English could make was the Rowlett Act, under which a person suspected of terrorist intentions could be kept in custody without judicial acquiescence for a brief period. In present day India, there are persons in prisons without being punished by courts for years extending to 9 years.
(There is one man in Coimbatore jail for the last 9 years, with a propped up charge of terrorism, just because he was assertive to the bureaucracy; his tragedy was aggravated because he was a Muslim with a communal tinge; no courts have punished him yet; his papers are simply allowed to bounce back and forth).
Manoeuvrings for leadership
Naturally when Gandhi became famous, the other leaders were not ready to give up their place of leadership. But Gandhi used his gift of gab, and media attention to garner national attention. He used rhetoric, and grandiose parades, which gave him more attention. One such was the Dandi march, against the so-called salt tax by the English-Indian government. The tax was very insipid; nothing compared to the present day, terrible sales tax that wipes out honest traders in India, and loads the sales tax officials with untold wealth.
If one were to believe the actions were to shunt out the English, then it is a mistake. What Gandhi was doing was displacing the other Indian leaders, who did not take to it nicely. But they were helpless, as this was a man who had been in England, and thus could address the Englishmen by their name. Basically ordinary Indians cannot address a superior, social or official, thus or with a Mr. attached. If one can do it, the others immediately understand him as superior. Many, not all, of the other leaders were in a dumb situation.
Even though Gandhi was becoming a popular among the people (mostly uneducated) of India, among the Congress leadership, he was not liked. This was made very evident when he put up a candidate against Subhas Chandra Bose for Congress presidency. His man lost.
The next years were spent by Gandhi, trying to destroy the prestige of Subhas Chandra Bose. In sheer exasperation, Subhas Chandra Bose resigned his post. Subhas was a sort of extreme ideologist, so Gandhi was given the tacit support by the English. For, he proposed non-Violence. Gandhi had no intention for any violence, for his agenda was only the halo of leadership; and not to get maimed in a gunfight. If he was really interested in the welfare of the people, he would have welcomed the English rule for the tremendous goodness it was imparting on India. English language was giving a rare level of individuality to the educated Indians.
The three farces
Now we need to focus on the so-called freedom struggles of Gandhi. His first one was in 1919, which was closely connected to the Khilaphat movement. This Khilaphat movement was a sectarian reaction to the fact that the English had removed the unpopular ruler of Turkey. This ruler was a sort of titular head of Islam, possibly connected to the title of Caliph.
The first freedom struggle was unilaterally called off by Gandhi, when he was imprisoned; the leadership was rapidly going to the other leaders who were outside. He ostensibly used an incident of solitary act of violence to call off a nationwide call against the English rule. The other leaders were literally mad with anger, but again the media gave voice to Gandhi, and he came out with a halo.
The second freedom struggle was in 1930; The English administration called for a Round Table conference with the Indian leaders. Gandhi was angry when he was not called for the first round table, and sulked. He did his best to see that the Round Table conference was a sham, and of no value. So he had to be called to attend.
The third so-called freedom struggle was in 1942, during the heights of the Second World War; the so-called Quit India Struggle. The English-Indian government promptly arrested the main leaders and this movement also whimpered into silence.
The years of Music Chair
Now the question of what Gandhi and other leaders were doing during the intervening years: 1919-1930; 1930-1942?
It was a simply spent in outdoing other persons who were aspiring for leadership. With typical finesse, all tactical moves were made under the halo of grand spiritual designs; just an example of the uncanny Indian means of outsmarting others with cunning and guile.
Insipid controversies and insipid stature of the leaders
A few years back, there was a controversy with regard one of the local vernacular newspapers. Someone found out that during the pre-independence period this newspaper had alluded to Gandhi as Mr. Gandhi. It sure gave rise to a lot of hullabaloo. I think the paper had to apologise for its past misdemeanour in this regard.
There was a Great poet in my native state. He once visited Nehru, when he was the Prime Minister of India. He addressed Nehru as Mr. Nehru. It became earth-shattering news. The headline that screamed was to the effect that this was the only man from the state to dare address Nehru as Mr. Nehru. Others were to address him from pitiful stances.
Now this is the so-called stature of the so-called national leaders. An ordinary Indian addressing Gandhi as Mr. Gandhi would sure have knocked him unconscious. Or else it would have evoked real vindictiveness in him.
A tale of vindictive snubbing
There is a well known story connected to Gandhi and Mulk Raj Anand. Mulk Raj Anand was to become a famous Indian English writer of those times. He wrote his book, ‘The Untouchable’ and went to show it to Gandhi, since Gandhi was riding high on national popularity. Gandhi saw another Indian aspiring to heights. Mulk Raj Anand was dressed in English dress. Gandhi, instead of taking interest in the book, asked him,’ Why are you wearing this monkey suit?’ in a most insolent tone Now when I write this line in English, the other aspect of the mood is not understood. In the highly feudal Indian languages, no one will ask such questions in such mocking tone, to persons who are highly placed in language, and connected indicant words.
That Gandhi did ask in such a tone points to the fact that he perceived the other Indian at the ‘Thoo’ level, while he himself stood safe at the ‘Aap’ level of Hindi communication. Both words mean ‘You’. This can just be a mental mood, and the communication need not be in Hindi.
Now again one goes to the so-called stature of the Indian leaders, as apart from the English colonialists. The English stood without the aura of these words in their own language; even though it is pretty sure that they also would have been affected by this virus in the feudal languages.
English training and a dignified citizenry
What India really needed was an English trained leadership who were to administer dignity to the Indians. Not a row of conceited persons, who claimed all rights to halo and dignity, while the Indians remained at the bottom of the feudal language words. What was needed was a generation of people who were trained not to bend before anyone, even Gandhi, and to assert their right to equal dignity. This very concept is not practical in a language like Hindi and other Indian feudal languages.
The Gandhi film as bible of Gandhism
There are many Indians who literally became Gandhi fans, after seeing the Gandhi movie made by Richard Attenborough. It is as stupid as becoming a Moses fan by seeing Ten Commandments, and a Julius Caesar fan by seeing Julius Caesar (the movie). The producer and director will strive hard to make the movie a real tear shedder. That is his business success; it is for the spectator to understand this.
There was a film made and dubbed into many Indian languages on the English-Indian Prisons on the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. In this film, a very curious scene was shown. The young English doctor is coming to the South Indian village. He is getting down from the horse carriage. Immediately an Indian servant of the local feudal lord bends down and shows his back for the English Doctor to step on, to step down.
It was a very shocking scene. The spectators trembled with anger. Many persons told me this is the way the English used us. When they came on the horses, we the Indians had to bend down and show our backs for them to get down.
The idiocy of the dialogue is that more terrible manners of servitude are being extracted from the lower class Indians by the officialdom and higher financial class in India even now. No one notices it. The film was very effective in embedding a doubtful scene with superb force.
Many persons have quoted to me from the Gandhi film, taking out the dialogues that Gandhi made in this film. They seem to miss the point that the dialogue that comes from this character is actually the creation of the screenplay writer. Just as ‘Friends, Romans, Countrymen’ is actually from Shakespeare’s brain and not from the real Mark Anthony.
There is a very inspiring scene in the film wherein Gandhi is pushed out of the train by a Whiteman. This scene is just like the other scene I have mentioned earlier. It is possible that it is from a real life incident in Gandhi’s life. Yet, whether this incident can be taken as an evidence of English racialism is doubtful. This is the way many persons have taken it. The disdain of the Whiteman to the coloured and Blacks.
There are immense parameters to this issue. One is that the term White is vague; the Brits form only a very minor part of whites; most whites do not know English. Second this incident is shown to have happened in South Africa. To understand this incident better, one needs to understand South Africa, as different from another English colony; there is the need to understand about the Boars; their essential difference from the English, both social as well as political. Also, one may need to understand the elements of black social and language system; whether they had vile inputs.
Again what seems to have happened is that Gandhi is trying to be at home in the train from where he was forcibly disembarked. Whether non-Whites from outside the nation were allowed in the higher classes of the train is not clear.
Next point is that what Gandhi is seen to be doing was trying to be at home among the so-called higher classes in that nation. Now, what would have been Gandhi’s reaction if a lower caste man in India were to take the same liberty with Gandhi in India is also a moot question. Suppose a lower caste man sits with Gandhi and calls him just Gandhi, and talks with him in the same manner that Gandhi addresses him, using ‘thoo’ in Hindi. Well, my feeling is that Gandhi would have literally burst. He is nothing without the aura of respect to protect him.
There are other problems with this film. The actor who acts as Gandhi is a British man with half English ancestry. Indeed it is terribly funny to see that race who stood for everything that Gandhi wanted to remove from India, had to supply a man to bring charm to his features. Why was no Indian selected?
The other problem is that the director swallowed the theme that Gandhi was the divinely appointed leader of the Indians. It is an absolute falsehood, and a mistake. I do not believe that even in the peak of his popularity, his claim to such a title was correct. I have seen so many media built guys claiming cultural leadership over many masses in India, without having anything to prove this.
I am sure the title of leadership of the Indians should be with the English; for it was they who brought in the grand level of solace to the immensely suffering population of India; from slavery, poverty, ill health, ignorance and much else. The English were the much waited saviours of the Indians.
The Million Gandhis
I have mentioned about the immense ‘Gandhis’ in India in all towns and villages; these are the persons who wear a cloak of respect and exist above other mortals in these places. They are very simple, composed, and extremely approachable. They are kept on the pedestal of the feudal words in the language. One such man once told me, ‘I do not need to wear modern dressings. Look at me; I only wear the ordinary dothi and shawl. Still I get the respect I need’.
It was a very propound statement; but more propound is the understanding that he was using lower level words to others who attired him with deep respect. I saw that the more powerful degrading words he used in the feudal language, the more deeper was the respect he got in return. His followers then understood him as a demigod, who had saintly dispositions. On being in close intimacy with him for some days, I saw that he also was having similar sensual desires and deep craving on forbidden grounds, as all men had. Yet, for his followers, he was a man of indisputable saintliness. When they addressed him with reverence, his most natural manner was to mould himself into saintliness. In other words, he was cloaked in divinity by his followers and their words. As days bore on, he became more and more saintly and extremely simple.
The gimmickries
There was gimmickry that Gandhi used. One was his taking out salt out of the seawater at Dandi; I have seen it written that he simply put his hands in the seawater and brought out salt, pure and new. Whether this what history claims, I do not know. Yet, this story was sure to adorn him with divine capacities, in the mind of the simple persons in India.
The shallow philosophies
Gandhi’s USP was his so-called great and grand discoveries and theories of Satyagraha and such else. There is a lot of sterile literature explaining what Satyagraha meant. The grand exponents of this go on repeating in different words and poses that Satyagraha does not mean just fasting as a means of protest, but also involves a lot of spiritual cleansing. Whatever it is, it is not possible for the opponent to understand whether the Satyagrahi is doing it with spiritual cleansing or not.
Yet, the fact remains that this form of protest was successful only against the English; it is simple idiotism to believe that it would have worked with such persons as Hitler and others. Hitler would have dismembered Gandhi, quiet unmoved by his squeals, had he disturbed him much. Gandhi sure was not made of the mettle to meet such disasters, if he can help it. He could only move where he is respected. Other places he would give the wide breadth.
Now in India, many persons have tried Satyagraha as a means to achieve aims. It works only if the person involved is a socially respected person. If he is an ordinary man, he would simply starve to death. In the former case, interested persons would appear on the scene to do the bargaining, with themselves bathing in the limelight. Immediately after Independence one leader in Andhra Pradesh tried it to influence state border designing. On the national level he was a non-entity; even though in his own area he had some clout. Nehru the Prime Minister simply allowed him to die in his Satyagraha. It is doubtful if Gandhi had ever arrived at life threatening stages in his Satyagraha at anytime.
There are immense persons of gracious bearing simply starving in India. I do not think they have been to induce any amount or sense of compassion in the others who literally wallow in fortune.
The nonsense called Satyagraha doesn’t work in Indian languages; it may work in English. But then the English have been very, very considerate to the world, giving and sharing all their knowledge, experiences and even their language to downtrodden nations, without any thought of extracting a royalty. This mood has been with English without any allusion to any concept of Satyagraha.
The English affinity
Anyway the English were happy with his tomfoolery. For, here was a man who was not a danger in any sense of the word; and moreover he had the infinite capacity to divide any concerted united effort, wherein he was not the top leader.
One British judge is seen to rise up from his seat when Gandhi is brought into the courtroom, in the film. It may have happened thus. I do not know the judge’s name. He was only being very, very foolish and acting in a manner absolutely contradictory to his public obligation. He was only adding to the propped up image of Gandhi; more so because he was a British man. It gives immense mileage to Gandhi’s image. For India runs on such gimmickry. Not on any absolute, discernible quality or contribution to the nation.
Gandhian demeanour
In the photos, one can see Gandhi and his men on their Dandhi March. It was not really a march to demolish the salt laws of the English-Indian government; but to actually vanquish the other leaders of the national level. Now see the demeanour of those who are accompanying him. Many would be the rich and other influential persons; yet, they all bear the same feudal language settings in their demeanour. They would extend Gandhi extreme levels of respect and words of high pedestal. Yet, they themselves would be demiGandhi’s in their own areas, where they will ride high on the feudal language settings.
Why I am saying this is that there was another crowd of Indians who were English educated and bearing a different demeanour of varying levels of personal liberation. They are not seen in the photo. It was they who should have managed India, and brought in the liberty embedded in English. Yet, they were simply outnumbered by the vast crowds of un-educated persons who were cunningly managed by their rich leaders.
Tactics of Blackmail
The English were terribly impressed by Gandhi capacity to bring the whole nation to a stop by his bullying political tool called Bandh. This Bandh has later come to be a real nuisance to the busy Indians, and a pleasurable activity for the lazy ones. The English did not understand that this Bandh had elements of blackmail in it. Those who did not concede to the Bandh, were made to concur with the threat of dire consequences.
There is an incident in Rabindranath Tagore’s novel: Home and the World. The poor shopkeeper is asking in agony in words to the effect: Why should the Zamindar force us to burn all our foreign goods, as per Gandhi’s dictates? Who will bear our loss? If the Zamindar wants such things burnt, why can’t he simply pay for it and burn them?
The devils who succeeded the English
The persons, with feudal language demeanour who were Gandhi’s companions, were to takeover India when the English left and make it into a haven of bureaucratic corruption, dirty towns and cities, hungry millions and also the safe haven of a minority of clever guys who lived in the best of both the West and the East. Most of these cunning guys send their offspring to England and America, where many settled; or returned to rule over the modern slaves of India; having grasped and contained the economic power in their hands.
The essential difference that they brought in was that they completely changed the direction of the nation. Education was made vernacular for the majority population and English for the exclusive groups. They took over to rewriting history in such a manner that every benign thing done by the English was given a slanderous meaning and intention. The new generation was given an option to join a most viscous bureaucracy, or else exist on the mean edges of the social structure, from where their blood was to be sucked dry. The bureaucracy was to corner almost all resources of the government; in fact in most states there is nothing left for the common man after the pay and pension of the officialdom is given.
Every item of governing was to be corrupted in the very first few years of independence. In fact it was a free for all as far as the new governing class was considered. None of them had any governing experience or insight or farsightedness to understand the far reaching consequence of each and every one of their decrees.
Near zero capacity Prime Minister
Nehru who took over the mantle of Prime Minister-ship was so inferior in his administrative understandings that he had made a gigantic mass of bureaucratic structure for all India, which was to squeeze out the life of most Indians. Immense persons, solely focused on making money through bribery, entered the immense bureaucratic jobs. There was no understanding in the new governing class as to what constitutes an officer, as different from the ordinary employee. The officers being a more heinous dacoit than the others.
The foolishness in killing a shallow charlatan: Missing on a revelation
When Gandhi was killed by an assassin, it was a terrible thing for India, which was on the verge of Independence. It was a supreme foolish thing to have done on the part of Gandhi’s detractors. For, if Gandhi had continued his tomfoolery and other antics after Independence, when serious issues were confronting the nation, then his true standards would have popped out. In many ways, he was like Raj Narayan, the once famous Central Minister during the Janata Party rule in India after 1977. He was a sort of a fantastic hero to the people when he was in the opposition, bursting out with fascinating antics. Then he defeated Indira Gandhi the then Prime Minister and became super famous; and was given a berth in the Central Cabinet.
It truly was a moment of revelation for the Indian people. When he became the Central minister, again he was cracking out with the same type of antics. Then only did the people understand that they were literally worshipping a person of doubtful mental calibre. Similarly had Gandhi not been killed, by an idiot, then post Independent India would have seen the buffoonery of Gandhi as real problems of administration cropped up. In fact, almost all of Gandhi’s famed propositions are just the free expressions from the mind of a man of doubtful understandings, as well as cunning expositions to mesmerise the mind of the simple folks of India, who were desperately seeking out the way to better social standards.
His one proposition that entered into aims of the constitution was the setting up of local self rule in all Villages of India by what is called Panchayati Raj. Around 10 years ago, this was established; it only created another burden on the population of India, who as it is, is burdened by the infinitude of political elections and connected wastage; for this money is actually required in more serious needs. It has also added another level of government on the citizens; all of them irresponsible to the core.
A monstrous reality
Actually if one examines all his ideas, one may discern a monstrous reality. It is the creation of a mind that craved for leadership over persons who live in servitude; and the ideas are pure juvenile; only similar minded crooks can accept them as of any value. Saying that he is for non-violence and hence a great person is being very naïve. It is only a strategic ideology with its own narrow, selfish aims; not something with universal altruistic aims.
And then the last, but not the least, fact that the English did not leave India because of Gandhi, but because labour party came to power, and then almost all colonies all over the world were given up; and in most of them the majority population went to deeper sufferings.
Deceptive appearances and reality
When we talk about deceptive appearances, and of reality and common understanding, I need to give one startling example. In my school days, I was shown a picture of Nehru in a pose of deep and agonised contemplation. It was a photo taken a little earlier to his death. The Indian army was being battered on the Chinese border. The war had turned a fiasco. I was told that Nehru was overwhelmed by the problems he was facing in ruling India. His mental pain was in regard to the future of India; such was his greatness that this distress led to his death from cardiac arrest.
Later, much later, I was informed by the medical fraternity tof what he had died of. It is more or less a secret. Actually the photo of his deep contemplation must have been depicting his terror over his affliction. Such is the difference between reality and government version over here in India.
Generally in this write-up I have stayed away from commenting on moral standards, issues of womanising, seductions, perversions, voyeuristic pleasure in seeing female nudity and such other things, in that they do not count if the other side of the person is above reproach. What I have done is to try to state that I do not find anything great about this person called Gandhi, other than his capacity for rhetoric and to create dissension among his competitors. All his ideas on non-violence and such were just his tools; and the English rule of India was his opportunity.
Even though I have mentioned Nehru’s affliction, it is only to give a sample of how reality is being distorted to suit indoctrination. The same goes correct in the case of Gandhi also.
In between it may be mentioned that the Quit India Movement was commenced when the Delhi newspapers openly started discussing Gandhi’s private life inside his ashram. It more or less diverted attention from that issue.
Continued
I had not known that the word Mr. was not allowable in the pre-independence period also. I saw these lines in this website very coincidently. As to the other contents of this website, I can’t comment upon. I am interested in the part played by words in creating hallowed personalities.
QUOTE
For all his vaunted selflessness and modesty, he made no move to object when Jinnah was attacked during a Congress session for calling him “Mr. Gandhi” instead of “Mahatma”, and booed off the stage by the Gandhi’s supporters.
In many ways, these seemingly minor encasing communication codes and structure would simply shoo off quality people.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests