Let me join Primary Red in expressing regret at our collective absence. The flu hit me bad in hot and humid Colombo.
I just went through Robert Eric Frykenberg's "Religion, Nationalism and Hindu Fundamentalism: The Challenge to Indian Unity." in Ethnic Studies Report, Vol. XI, No.2 - Colombo, Sri Lanka. Frykenberg attacks Mohandas K. Gandhi as a "latent Hindu fundamentalist" and as "No friend of democracy, representative government, social or political equality, nor even of constitutionalism...". He dismisses Gandhi as "a caricature invented by Louis Fisher, dramatized by Richard Attenborough, and proudly subsidized by Indira Gandhi's government...", who in addition "so completely alienated" the Muslims". He adds that Gandhi had a "closed Hindu perspective....". Frykenberg's rhetoric can be refuted in depth but given the massive nature of such a project, I will address select points.
M.K Gandhi did not alienate the Muslim population in pre-partition India. He helped integrate them. Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, to mention a few, supported Gandhi's endeavors to retain a united India. Gandhi had conceived of the Khilafat movement as far back as 1919 to mobilize Muslims and Hindus on a shared platform against the Raj. The intent was to reverse the eviction of the Ottoman Caliph although the agitation unfortunately deteriorated into an anti-Hindu pogrom in the Malabar.
Mohandas envisioned India as a commonwealth of village republics. To depict him as anti-democratic is devious. He worked against social and political injustice. He organized a campaign in 1924-25 to combat caste discrimination against untouchables in Vaikom, Travancore. Gandhi resisted the insidious British proposal to introduce separate electorates on the basis of caste. He correctly viewed this as a prelude to even further political fragmentation. He recommended that seats be reserved for untouchable caste candidates running for legislative elections in otherwise joint electorates.
The Mahatma attempted a process of inter-religious dialogue. He supported the Sikh struggle in 1921-22 to re-take the management of their shrines from the Hinduized Mahants. While Gandhi focussed less on Black Africans during his South African sojourn, subsequent statements in support of African and African-American rights suggest a person who evolved and learnt with time. Martin Luther King based his thought and political strategy upon Gandhi's example. Nelson Mandel followed suit albeit in a lesser manner. To dismiss Gandhi as caricature ignores the real estimation others had for him. These include George Bernard Shaw, Reverend C.F Andrews and Rabindranath Tagore.
Albert Einstein commended Gandhi in the aftermath of Europe's "world war" and holocaust as, "a man who had confronted the brutality of Europe with the dignity of the simple human being, and thus at all times risen superior. Generations to come, it may be, will scarce believe that such a one as this ever in flesh and blood walked upon this earth."
Gandhi re-introduced the term "harijan" to designate the untouchable castes. This was not an attempt to coopt the untouchable castes into the Hindu framework and make the religion a "permanent majority" as Frykenberg wrongly supposes, given the pre-Gandhian origins of the word "harijana". Ramanuja, the 11th century Vaishnavite philosopher, suggested the Tamil term Tirukulattar (God's people) to dignify the impoverished and oppressed untouchable castes of the Tamil lands. Narasimha Mehta, the Gujarati saint of the 15th century, coined the term "harijana" to refer to the untouchable castes as God's people, in his attempt to reverse the ritual stigma imposed upon them in the name of religion. Gandhi merely continued such endeavors at removing the social humiliation imposed upon the untouchables. Dr. Ambedkar considered this patronizing. But Gandhi had positive intentions. His life was a constant and committed fight against untouchability.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Followers
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(194)
-
▼
March
(44)
- The Israeli Elections
- Travels
- The Flu
- A Billion Reasons to Care
- Tryst With Destiny
- What Rough Beast ...
- Polio
- China's No-Go Thought Zones
- Japan
- Culture
- Nuclear Double Standards - So What?
- Pakistan
- China
- US National Security Strategy
- Noam Chomsky
- Dr. Wafa Sultan
- Typical Of Hoodlums
- Bangladesh
- Baghdad Bloodbath
- Holi In Varanasi
- Judiciary Watch
- The Changing Face of America
- UAE, America, and India
- The Indo-American Partnership
- Surprisingly Slow Reaction
- Bigotry Watch
- Responding To Provocation
- Zaheera Shaikh
- NY Times' Asian Ego Trip
- The Annals Of Education
- Culture Watch
- The Miracle that is India
- Indians On Pakistan
- The Exploding General
- An Impotent Mind
- BJP Responds
- The Indic Republics
- The Annals Of Education
- Nuclear Reflections
- Just Deserts
- Hindi Cinema
- The Stuff Of Legacies
- Embarrassing The Angels
- Fashion Forward?
-
▼
March
(44)
5 comments:
the flu seems to have affected your thinking.
"M.K Gandhi did not alienate the Muslim population in pre-partition India. Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, to mention a few, supported Gandhi's endeavors to retain a united India. Gandhi had conceived of the Khilafat movement as far back as 1919 to mobilize Muslims and Hindus on a single platform against the Raj. The intent was to reverse the eviction of the Ottoman Caliph."
gandhi did not alienate muslims, he was appeasing them. muslims ghettoised themselves even more. and hindus didnt realise that they were being kicked in their butt by gandhi. gandhi set the benchmark for minority appeasement. frykenberg is dead right about gandhi. i like that where he says gandhi was subsidised by indira.
and stop that nonsense that gandhi is great because x, y, z said so. tell us if u have anything better to offer.
Jaffna,
Hope you are well. I (and other reader) can wait some more time for your posts (The goose who lays the golden egg......)
While I do not share the strong feelings of previous commentators, I do think that Mahatma Gandhi bend over backwards to apprease Muslims, going to the extent of advising Hindus to submit their and honour of Hindu women to the Muslim mobs.
His intentions were noble, but his methods were unsatisfactory to say the least.
To me it seems Mr Frykenberg is from a long line of Hindu-Baiters ,or the polite term Secularists.
(But you always know my leanings :-))
Regards
Jaffna,
You are right.
Mahatma Gandhi's role was significant, I will go on to say even most important.
I am amused by the historical revisionism, while in past Mahatma was lifted on a pedestal, today he is being dragged from there. This only tells about human fraility.
Khilafat movement was a big embarassment. Ali brothers who were key players went as far as to say that they would support Afgan if Afganistan attacked India
What you say about crisis of Muslim leadership is correct.
Muslim intellectuals could not reconcile to the rule by Hindu Majority.
I had written previously about this.
Regards
@Jaffna, The Ottoman caliphate had support from the indian muslim elite even before the khilafat movement. During the Balkan wars of circa 1912, funds were raised for the Turks.In fact Allama Iqbal's classic poem - Jawab a shikwa was first recited at a public meeting held to support Ottoman Turkey.
No wonder Gandhiji raised the Khilafat issue to gain Muslim support.
Even before the World War I ,the Caliph was increasingly a figure head with power passing on to the Westernized Young Turk movement.
Among some Indian muslims Gandhiji and Jawahar Lal Nehru rate higher than Sardar Patel.
Moulana Abul Kalam Azad describes Sardar Patel's negative role in his book India Wins Freedom.
jaffna,
you missed the point again. and your argument is based on associating positive intentions to his actions while conviniently ignoring his blunders.
he identified with all except hindus. and you too have implicitly stated that in your post. this is exactly the point. he asked hindus to grease up and bend over.
and your other point that gandhi mobilized the masses is probably true but the greater issue is he did this by suppressing other mass movements like subash chandra bose's. and what is superior his ideology of non-violence or india? gandhi fought for his mahatmahood. nothing less. he called off civil disobedience because people got violent. he did not support bose or any others who were also fighting for india but using different ideology. the second aspect of this which is equally important is what legacy did gandhi leave? spineless indians, hindus who are still being led to slaughter house by marxists and muslims, a disaster of a political system, etc.
khilafat was flawed and no wonder gandhi supported it. thats precisely the point. several of gandhi's actions have caused tremendous damage to india. and in between, there were few inconsequential, symbolic gestures. you are clutching on to these straws.
and then your final point that he was a devout hindu. excuse me, but i thought he was a christian. read brilliant analysis by agneya panja on sulekha blogs.
http://www.sulekha.com/blogs/blogentries.aspx?contributor=Agneya%20Panja
i cant believe any hindu in his right mind would think the christian concept of non-violence(christ's mount sermon - show your other cheek when slapped) is the same as what is said by krishna. gita in fact asks arjuna to fight for dharma.
and here is my stance on gandhi in simple terms. gandhi is so strongly associated with non-violence that gandhi myth cannot survive without it. his idea of non-violence is highly idealistic, impractical and the greatest disaster to any civilization. so if india must survive, gandhian myth must die. and so it is in our country's best interests to demonize gandhi. the alternative is to disassociate gandhi from non-violence, which i think is impossible.
Post a Comment