Mahatma Gandhi, the wrong choice for Father of India
India got independence from the British in 1947 and Gandhi is credited with being the architect of the independence movement through his Non Co-operation, Civil Disobedience and Quit India movements. One must accept that Gandhi was the biggest leader of the independence movement, he could be credited with making the independence struggle a struggle of the people, he had a mass appeal all over India, and was closely followed by millions of indians. But did he deserve to be called the architect of India's independence, and conferred with the title of Father of The Country, I think not, here is a different look at the man, the myth and the marketing.
A little back drop to 1947, world war 2 had ended in 1945, and in a true sense to "In a war there are no winners" even though the british found themselves on the winning side they had lost, Britain was devastated, the economy had crashed, the country was in shambles and more important the self belief of the people who had conquered the world was shattered. Britain had to let go of all the countries it ruled, the more problematic first and India was top on the list. India presented itself as difficult to rule, in part due to its distance, size and population and also in part to its fierce struggle for independence. One can argue that but for Hitler and world war 2, Britain would have the resources and self belief to continue their rule over India and thus one of the real causes for India's independence was Hitler.
India's independence struggle was fought under many leaders, Gandhi shone brighter than others but one cannot and should not neglect the influence of many many who fought for India's independence. Gandhi was most easily recognized as he survived the struggle, to the alive go the spoils, it didn't help that many of the others who had a far greater influence on the reason India got independence died in the struggle or were marginalized. For example, even though Subash Chandra Bose's army lost, it captured the imagination of all indians and galvanized many to take up the cause, it also affected the indians who were a part of the british police and army, and thus weakened the british grip on India. Perhaps that was the final straw in the british giving up on trying to rule India, but Subash Bose wasn't alive to claim the spoils. Hence to lay the title of the architect of India's independence on the shoulders of Gandhi is a travesty and a disservice to the others who gave it all for the struggle for independence.
Gandhi is credited with the non-cooperation and quit india movements, two movements usually credited with India's independence, but the non co-operation movement of 1920, though a huge success was called off by Gandhi before it could achieve anything. Perhaps if the movement had continued we could have had a general uprising and achieved independence earlier and given Gandhi all the accolades but it wasn't so, you could say Gandhi stuck to his principles or you could say he feared losing control of the movement, only Gandhi knows, but it was a failure. The Quit India movement was launched in 1942 at the height of world war 2, but owing to the centralized nature of decision making, once the leaders were arrested the movement fizzled out by 1943. Yes Quit India played a part, everything does, but one cannot call it the reason why India got independence.
India's struggle for independence since 1920, when Gandhi entered the scene, is littered with the mistakes Gandhi made and which might have delayed India's independence. He supported Britain in world war 1 without any gains for India. He called off the Non Co-operation movement at its peak, he got fooled into calling off the Civil Disobedience movement for an useless gandhi-irwin pact, he refused to start the Quit India Movement during world war 2 saying he didnt seek India's independence out of the ashes of a destroyed Britain. Gandhi believed and negotiated with the British and every time walked away with far less then what was demanded, sometimes it seems the british kept him around just because they understood him for the fool he was.
Gandhi committed even worse mistakes with his choice of people. He propped up Nehru, a weak leader, he alienated Jinnah, he sidelined Subash Chandra Bose, marginalized Lal bahadur Shastri, Sardar Patel and Ambedkar. He not only impeded India's independence struggle in some cases but also caused a weaker India after independence.
We shall not detour into his personal life, his debaucheries, his weird opinions on sex and love or his love affairs, nor his naive decisions of sending money to Pakistan, nor his actions during India's partition. His other achievements though do fall apart under closer scrutiny, perhaps he was just at the right place at the right time, he did his salt making and weaving and formed a brotherhood of people scratching each other backs who conveniently built him up as a leader and father of the nation.
If not him, who, well the struggle for independence was marked with so many great souls that it would be a shame to single one person out, but, but if we were to consider the formation of India as a country, after independence, the person who rightly deserves that title is India's first home minister, the iron man of India, Sardar Patel. He single handedly forged an united India from all the princely states set free after the declaration of independence. If not for him, India would not have been a country, he rightly deserves the title of Father of the Nation.
A little back drop to 1947, world war 2 had ended in 1945, and in a true sense to "In a war there are no winners" even though the british found themselves on the winning side they had lost, Britain was devastated, the economy had crashed, the country was in shambles and more important the self belief of the people who had conquered the world was shattered. Britain had to let go of all the countries it ruled, the more problematic first and India was top on the list. India presented itself as difficult to rule, in part due to its distance, size and population and also in part to its fierce struggle for independence. One can argue that but for Hitler and world war 2, Britain would have the resources and self belief to continue their rule over India and thus one of the real causes for India's independence was Hitler.
India's independence struggle was fought under many leaders, Gandhi shone brighter than others but one cannot and should not neglect the influence of many many who fought for India's independence. Gandhi was most easily recognized as he survived the struggle, to the alive go the spoils, it didn't help that many of the others who had a far greater influence on the reason India got independence died in the struggle or were marginalized. For example, even though Subash Chandra Bose's army lost, it captured the imagination of all indians and galvanized many to take up the cause, it also affected the indians who were a part of the british police and army, and thus weakened the british grip on India. Perhaps that was the final straw in the british giving up on trying to rule India, but Subash Bose wasn't alive to claim the spoils. Hence to lay the title of the architect of India's independence on the shoulders of Gandhi is a travesty and a disservice to the others who gave it all for the struggle for independence.
Gandhi is credited with the non-cooperation and quit india movements, two movements usually credited with India's independence, but the non co-operation movement of 1920, though a huge success was called off by Gandhi before it could achieve anything. Perhaps if the movement had continued we could have had a general uprising and achieved independence earlier and given Gandhi all the accolades but it wasn't so, you could say Gandhi stuck to his principles or you could say he feared losing control of the movement, only Gandhi knows, but it was a failure. The Quit India movement was launched in 1942 at the height of world war 2, but owing to the centralized nature of decision making, once the leaders were arrested the movement fizzled out by 1943. Yes Quit India played a part, everything does, but one cannot call it the reason why India got independence.
India's struggle for independence since 1920, when Gandhi entered the scene, is littered with the mistakes Gandhi made and which might have delayed India's independence. He supported Britain in world war 1 without any gains for India. He called off the Non Co-operation movement at its peak, he got fooled into calling off the Civil Disobedience movement for an useless gandhi-irwin pact, he refused to start the Quit India Movement during world war 2 saying he didnt seek India's independence out of the ashes of a destroyed Britain. Gandhi believed and negotiated with the British and every time walked away with far less then what was demanded, sometimes it seems the british kept him around just because they understood him for the fool he was.
Gandhi committed even worse mistakes with his choice of people. He propped up Nehru, a weak leader, he alienated Jinnah, he sidelined Subash Chandra Bose, marginalized Lal bahadur Shastri, Sardar Patel and Ambedkar. He not only impeded India's independence struggle in some cases but also caused a weaker India after independence.
We shall not detour into his personal life, his debaucheries, his weird opinions on sex and love or his love affairs, nor his naive decisions of sending money to Pakistan, nor his actions during India's partition. His other achievements though do fall apart under closer scrutiny, perhaps he was just at the right place at the right time, he did his salt making and weaving and formed a brotherhood of people scratching each other backs who conveniently built him up as a leader and father of the nation.
If not him, who, well the struggle for independence was marked with so many great souls that it would be a shame to single one person out, but, but if we were to consider the formation of India as a country, after independence, the person who rightly deserves that title is India's first home minister, the iron man of India, Sardar Patel. He single handedly forged an united India from all the princely states set free after the declaration of independence. If not for him, India would not have been a country, he rightly deserves the title of Father of the Nation.
posted by adarsh adarsh at 8:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home