Mahatma Gandhi was probably the greatest human being of the first half of twentieth century, undoubtedly the greatest Indian in modern history, and one of the biggest influences in all human history. Given his enduring legacy, a whole mythology is created around Gandhiji, super-human, and even divine, powers are attributed to him, and he is therefore freely blamed for all our ills and misfortunes.
Two groups of people in particular revile Gandhiji in today’s India — Ambedkarites, and proponents of Akhand Bharat. Some Ambedkarites fall prey to the propaganda that he betrayed the cause of Dalits and forced the Poona Pact of 1932 on Dr Ambedkar. This idea is based on two simplistic beliefs: that Gandhiji could, by the wave of a magic wand, have eradicated caste, but failed to do so; and a separate electorate of Dalits would have been a panacea. Dr Ambedkar rightly recognised that mere adult franchise was not enough to end discrimination by birth in a hierarchical, caste-ridden society, and that authentic Dalit leadership would be unlikely to rise without certain special measures. But his idea of a separate electorate was wrong. Indian society was already getting polarised by the communal electorate for Muslims. Sikhs too began demanding a separate electorate. We have seen where communal electorate led the sub-continent eventually. Gandhiji was right in his opposition. Where the two great leaders faltered was in finding an alternative to simultaneously ensure authentic representation of long-oppressed sections, and promote common good and social cohesion. Conditioned by the British and American models of representation, they never thought beyond the first-past-the-post electoral system. Perhaps the proportional representation system in multi-member constituencies based on party lists would have addressed both the concerns of caste discrimination and common representation. It is a great political myth that Gandhiji somehow betrayed the Dalit cause by opposing a separate electorate.
The proponents of Akhand Bharat believe that Gandhiji somehow had miraculous powers, and could have, and should have, prevented India’s partition. Vivisection of India, a subcontinent with a common thread of unbroken civilisation and shared history for 5000 years, was one of the greatest tragedies in human history leading to the brutal murder of more than a million people, sudden and permanent displacement of about 15 million people, and enduring pain and anguish affecting the whole region. In hindsight, some of Gandhiji’s choices may have inadvertently exacerbated communalisation and political polarisation. Gandhiji, in good faith, supported the Khilafat Movement and combined it with the Non-Cooperation Movement. The Khilafat Movement was a retrogressive and antediluvian movement. The Turkish people in 1924 began modernising their society and state by abolishing the Caliphate and replacing the Ottoman Empire with the the Republic of Turkey as a secular nation-state. It was a tragic error for the Indian leadership to fight for the preservation of the Caliphate or Ottoman Empire. This probably strengthened the obscurantist sections opposed to modernisation of Islam, and communalised politics, eventually contributing to the idea of a separate nation based on religion.
The Road Ahead: Despite Differences, There Is More That Unites Us
Similarly, Gandhiji's directive to the Congress provincial governments, in the wake of India being dragged into the second world war without consultation, deprived us of an opportunity of self-government before the eventual independence. The provincial governments, though elected by a limited electorate, were fully in command of the provinces, and were doing a commendable job in building self-governing institutions and local governments, and gaining experience in running a fractious democracy of incredible diversity. This sudden abdication created a vacuum, and Jinnah and the Muslim League exploited that opportunity to further their political aim of partition of India. Jinnah gleefully celebrated December 21, 1939 as “Day of Deliverance” from Congress. The subsequent political decisions – the Satyagraha Movement of 1940, and the Quit India Movement of 1942- probably exacerbated it, and may have contributed to India’s partition.
But we should remember that the Khilafat Movement and the political decisions from 1939 to 1942 were choices made in a complex situation without the benefit of hindsight. We would be right to analyse those choices in the cold light of logic and history and draw appropriate lessons for the future. But we would be wrong to apportion blame to and vilify great leaders for legitimate political choices. Even today, across the world, with all our modernity, hindsight and lessons of history, racial bigotry, tribal and sectarian animosities, and religious strife are tearing societies apart. Given that all of human history has not yet taught us how to run our collective affairs and build harmony and promote prosperity, it would be churlish and ahistorical for us to blame Mahatma Gandhi or other leaders for the unintended consequences of their legitimate political choices.
Paradoxically, this reflects our deification of Gandhiji. The imitation of his lifestyle, habits and even idiosyncrasies by countless people, the mythology surrounding his work and leadership, and our readiness to blame him for all our current ills are perhaps our way of flattering the Mahatma and recognising his greatness. But such adulation should not make us abdicate our responsibility to build our society and nation today. The past should serve as a guide to our future; not as an excuse for our failings. Even as we dispassionately examine the past, let us be grateful for what our founding fathers accomplished. Gandhiji was foremost among our leaders who helped build a sense of common purpose and nationhood out of disparate peoples, transcending language, caste, religion and tribe. It was an extraordinary achievement. Gandhiji's Talisman urged us to focus on human dignity and the need to give the poorest Indians a measure of control over their life and destiny. Gandhiji taught humanity that real and enduring change is possible through peace and persuasion, not bloodshed and hatred. He believed real freedom lies not in running centralised governments, but in empowering people in their communities, habitats and local governments. He recognised that harmony with nature is critical for human survival and happiness. And most of all, Gandhiji’s greatest gift to posterity is the art of engineering creative and agreeable tension to bring about transformation, neither accepting sterile status quo, nor allowing conflicts and violence. We are all enriched because a man ‘such as him walked on earth in flesh and blood’.
The author is the founder of Lok Satta movement and Foundation for Democratic Reforms. Email: drjploksatta@gmail.com / Twitter @jp_loksatta