When I started study Gandhi as a part of my artistic enquiry
on persecution, Gandhi’s Idea of non-violence put a huge question mark in my
mind as I found him subjecting his
followers and himself to immense violence in search of a meaningful non
violence. He inflicted violence unto himself many times by fasting and he
ordered his disciples to undergo traumatising violence at the hands of imperial
British police in pursuit of non violence as a method. His idea of sacrifice and moralistic
puritanism or activities towards moralistic puritanism again was at many levels
highly violent in terms of practice and performance. Also it was intriguing why would a Hindu
nationalistic organization kill him as he was seen as a sage representing the
ideal of the Great Indian culture?
As the days went by these puzzles got untangled at many level
at least for me, even if it need not be the right answer for many.
His non-violent method was completely different from
the idea of non-violence Budhism or Jainism has been preaching in India for
thousands of years. Rather we will see his overture towards Christian theological
ideals of sin and morality where the violence of crucified Jesus becomes the
inspiration for righteousness and the imagery of hell becomes the moral ideal to insinuate
the sin.
The big question came to my mind was why would he import the
Christian Church’s script of non-violence as a method of resistance to a
country of non-violent Budhism and Jainism and most importantly to a society
where eighty percentage of the population are Hindus?
Here I saw the pragmatic leader who understood the social
narrative of India and the political exigency of the time. Congress to a great extend at that time was a
social elite’s political imagination, who under the great umbrella of
cultural nationality were holding onto many elitist societal and community
ambition and over an above there were very few of leaders of the time had the complete
freedom of people as their agenda.
Gandhi realized that first
he had to uproot the congress leaders from application of their social agenda, especially the brahminical order that alienated rest of the India. Secondly he had to include the people at
large, read non Brahmins, whose understanding of religion is restricted to stories from Ramayana and other epics, into congress fold. Thirdly and most importantly he realised his political opponents were British who never understood India and its culture
owing to their top-down approach.
As a pragmatic political leader he had to create a political
approach that will deal with all these issues at one level and he found Christian idea of crucified Jesus as non-violent
imagery to negotiate Christian British’s moral.
To draw support for this in popular imagination, he found Christian morality equivalent in Ram ,
Christian equivalent of society structure, sacrifice and belief in vaishnavism
, and to culturally
uproot the culturally educated elite’s disengagement with mass at large by
importing a different set ideals that still finds equivalent in socio-cultural
structure in India.
He recreated tortured Jesus in every Indian in front of
Christian British to corner them into ethical dilemma. He recreated Jesus as Ram in every Indian who
believed the morality of truth and Raj dharma.
He recreated Christian ideals of compassion and inclusiveness that
British and British educated understood in every social elite Vaishnava
vasudaiva Kudumbam. And through these
acts he brought entire nation, including British ruler’s consciousness to an
inclusive political struggle for freedom where every one felt they are taken
into confidence and at the same time Christian
British is effectively Challenged on their ethics and morality.
My dilemma slowly got untangled, his idea of violent non violence does not
remain a paradox to me anymore. Now it is also clear to me that his idea of non violence would have been completely different
if British were non Christian. If British were Islam his non violence would
have been prophet Muhammad or Ali, if they were Buddhist his non violence would
have been Buddha, if they were Jains his
non violence would have been Theerthankaras.
Gandhi was a political visionary and pragmatic to the core. To prove the point a little more, if we look
at his acts little more carefully we will find that he never challenged the biggest structural problem of Indian society, the patriarchy and caste system of Indian
society that are an antithesis to his political democracy.
This becomes very
important considering he found merit in the collective strength of moral dignity of the weakest to
challenge the mighty British, but unfortunately did not find the same merit in the same people to challenge the caste
discrimination by the upper caste. Rather than organizing the equivalent vigour as in
the case of freedom struggle, he chosen an easy path of naming caste Hindus “Harijan” and pleading
with upper caste Hindus to consider them equal.
This may be the contentious issue that annoyed Dr. Ambedkar. Dr Ambedkar realised that Gandhi’s position on caste issue was not as sincere as it was
on freedom struggle. Probably it could have been also possible that he believed the first priority
was freedom struggle than class fight among Indians that might weaken the
freedom struggle. Of course we will have
to accept, if we put all his other acts in life together, he did not ever questioned the status quo of patriarchy in Indian society as sincerely as he did it in freedom struggle.
Now I know the violence of Gandhi’s non violence, because he
realised Indian cultural system was not enough to put Christian British rulers
to moral dilemma, for that he needs the language of crucified Christ.
Now I know why Hindu fundamentalists killed him, because
they realised it is not their Ram and Ramraj he is preaching and practicing.
Now I know why Islamic fundamentalists disliked him, because
they realised in his political poly
Islamic structure would not fit in.
Now I know why Gandhi should not ever be looked at as an
individual, a father, a husband or a
friend but should only to be seen as pragmatic public politician. We will find fault in him as an individual,
father, husband but will never the same as a public political leader and persona.
