A Misrepresented Legacy.

Mohondas Karamchand Gandhi. An individual sometimes referred to as Bapu or sometimes as the Mahatma. A man whose ideals inspired many not only in India but throughout the world in their own struggles against injustice and oppression. What makes him so revered till this date is the unique mode of methods he adopted to oust an exploitative colonial power. Today a lot of efforts have been made to dent on the rich legacy this man has left. However needless to say, a lot of it is outright exaggeration.

Gandhi and Kasturba were married at a very young age. Gandhi prohibited doctors to prescribe Western Medicine when the latter was suffering from pneumonia relying only on Indian medicine which later led to her death in 1944.

Gandhi like all other human beings had his fair share of flaws. He abused his wife. He was unkind towards his children. Allegations that he tried to mould the sexuality of his grandnieces have too been raised which however have never been constructively proved. Although he permitted dissent, however he made sure things run according to his way. His political immaturity is explored in suspending the Non-cooperation Movement over a trivial issue- the Chauri Chaura incident, which though shows strong bonds of commitment to his ideals. This allegation is further strengthened when he forced Nehru and Patel to hand over ₹55 crore to Pakistan even when the Indo-Pak War was raging over in Kashmir. If he had indeed tried hard enough, he could have perhaps secured the release of Bhagat Singh and his fellow revolutionaries Rajguru and Sukhdev during the signing of the Gandhi-Irwin Pact, though it's questionable whether the three heroes would have accepted that. What's more debatable were his vague set of ideologies on the Economy and Polity he envisioned for a Post-independent India. His policy of a decentralised small and medium scale cottage industries which he advocated to be the nation's main industries raises numerous questions about how plausible it would have been had it been implemented and whether on that basis India would have seen the economic growth it had seen as a result of building heavy industries and centralised planning. That's why perhaps I don't regard him as the "Mahatma'. For being the quintessential great soul you must have to have an unblemished charecter without any flaws. However although these mistakes ask us not to put him on a high pedestal he was placed on when he was alive and after his death creating an aura of a 'Greater Human', it doesn't under any way ask us to only look at where he had been mistaken. 

Gandhi's Dandi March sparked off the Civil Disobedience Movement that led to the abolition of the salt laws and the signing of the Gandhi-Irwin Pact.

Today's generation who loose their cool when the Wi-Fi drops by one bar, can never comprehend why Gandhi was a remarkable figure. In this regard, they are not solely to blame. The immense lies circulated on social media creates an image where Gandhi was probably worse than the roles Amrish Puri played in his films. They consider Gandhi's methods to be outdated and no longer pertinent in today's world. They don't realise that Non-violence was an out-of-the-box thought process. Against a power which has all the ammunition to its disposal, what a remarkable weapon was Non-violence that also enabled in creating a positive international response towards the Indian freedom struggle, something that today's PUBG and Counter-strike immersed kids will never understand. According to them it was Gandhi's slow methods that had delayed India from achieving independence and had violence been met with violence India would have been independent long back. It seems that their knowledge of History is certainly limited. Neither they know about the failure of using violent means through the Revolt of 1857 where Violence was met with violence nor the delay caused by it through the Vitenam War or South African apartheid struggle where elements of guerrilla warfare had been used. However, Post-independent India has often shown that why Gandhian methods are still applicable to this date. The Narmada Bachao Andolan spearheaded by Medha Patkar and the Anti-corruption movement spearheaded by Anna Hazare still affirms our faith in the far reaching consequences of Gandhian Struggles.

The Narmada Bachao Andolan (above) and the Anti-corruption Movement (below) were two vivid examples in Post-independent India that reject the claim that Gandhian means of struggle are outdated.

To the right-wing, Gandhi as a person and as an ideal is one of the greatest threats that still acts as an impediment to their goals. That's why they with all their mights engage themselves in false propaganda against this man holding him responsible for partition and other such debacles during and after the independence movement. Gandhi was perhaps the strongest voice against partition and if we are to believe books written on his and Mountbatten's personal correspondence, he offered Jinnah to be a united independent India's first Prime Minister provided the latter gave up his aspirations for Pakistan. Through their courses in the WhatsApp University it's spread that he didn't hold any respect from other major players of the freedom Struggle like Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and Sardar Patel. On the contrary, Netaji believed had the establishment of the Indian Independence League and the Indian National Army taken place a year or so in prior to coincide with the Quit India Movement, the INA's achievements would have surely been more. It was Gandhi's personal intervention, that prevented Patel from resigning from Nehru's cabinet over their differences of which the former remained the second man till his untimely death in December 1950. 

Gandhi was a father figure to both Pandit Nehru and Sardar Patel often intervening between their disputes. Both leaders stepped into politics after abandoning their lucrative legal practices on being inspired by this man. 

Unlike the baseless rumours spread about Bose and Gandhi on the premise of their ideological differences, Bose revered Gandhi a lot and on numerous occasions, he had complemented the new dimension Gandhi had introduced in the Freedom struggle.

In today's Godse glorifying politics and exclusive nationalism where ministers and leaders spreading communal discord are perceived to be fun, humour meant something else to this man. When he had gone to meet King George V as a part of his tour to England during the Second Round Table Conference, he was asked by reporters on his attire to which he replied, "the King was wearing enough for both of us." After the signing of the Gandhi-Irwin Pact when the Viceroy and he were toasting the agreement over a cup of tea, Gandhi produced some salt from under his shawl and put in his tea announcing to remind them of the Boston Tea Party wryly cautioning the Viceroy that within a decade of the historic event the Americans were free of their colonial masters, a destiny India too would share. It's indeed depressing how a cold-blooded communal bigoted murderer has become an ideal for some specific individuals commited to Indian politics and some sitting inside the Legislatures when this visionary and his legacy is being continuously tarnished. Staging plays on how he was assassinated is easy, but to reach on the same level of intellect is something that is perhaps foolhardy on our part to expect. 

Gandhi along with the Mountbattens in late March 1947 at the Viceroy's House.

To equate Gandhi with those who played no role in India's struggle for independence and had written mercy petitions is reducing our struggle to a joke. To call him un-Hindu just because he didn't subscribe to the notions of casteism and untouchability propounded by the Shastras is mocking our very own religion. As someone appropriately assessed that there was no bigger Hindu than Gandhi whose Ram-naam didn't make followers of other religions tremble in fear. When Ravish Kumar said that something is still magical in that man that whenever someone in authority says something positive about the one who killed him, those in higher authority are compelled to reprimand him verbally at least, even if they are powerless to take concrete actions, still convinces those who are impartial in our approach that his legacy will perhaps still live on. The role he played in nationalising the freedom struggle within the physical and political boundaries of India and bringing into it the masses- people of diverse socio-economic backgrounds which was previously confined to one particular class or region under his precursors, the languishing in jails where he sometimes battled death will be recorded in countless books whose pages can never be burnt or torn and most importantly inscribed in the hearts of those who want to remember and love this country.

Gandhi at the Second Round Table Conference in London.

Indeed, what a privilege it is for us as a nation and as it's citizens to call this man as the 'Father of the Nation'. He is not simply a totem of non-violence or a symbol of love but perhaps something more bigger than that, India.