When I did, I rapidly began to feel that sinking feeling that comes when someone is WRONG WRONG WRONG, but trying to make some reasonable points. You want to shout 'No! Stop! Don't do this - you could quit here, and rewrite this! Produce a better piece!' I don't mean ideologically wrong, as some smartarses might infer. I mean plain old factually incorrect.
Frankly, even after engaging with Rita herself, that little cry inside me has become a scream careening through my head. I may be pro-woman, liberal/left-leaning, etc., but dedication to a cause should never come before the truth. Science may have been my weakness at A-level, but it continues to be my weakness in that I have a fervent respect for the people who practise it, seeking the truth not to serve any agenda, but out of pure curiosity. That scientific insistence on accuracy and honesty is something I have a lot of time for. TL, also, is Mr. History and he stands for historical accuracy with a passion equivalent to many scientists - very appealing and contagious.
So to business! What was so wrong with Rita's piece?
Where do I start?
First of all, it would seem to be a fairly obvious yet fundamental rule that when working with a major public/historical figure, caution is necessary. The bigger the figure, the greater the caution that must be used, since that person will be relevant not just to the local history of their nation, but globally. When the person is, furthermore, dead and unable to defend themselves or clarify meanings, you have to try even harder to watch your step. Dead people are often liable to have responsibilities and meanings projected onto them, which may be inaccurate and have no real basis in their professed beliefs. The researcher must weigh the icon alongside the wo/man in their own words, and locate a person in the midst of the pair.
This is the epic fail in Rita's approach to Gandhi. She has taken personal bugbears of hers - child sexual abuse, the dismal position of Indian women, the tendency towards mindless, cultish elevation of individuals in Indian society - and decided that these things are Gandhi's fault, because they should be.
It's a real shame, because Rita's aims are utterly noble, and some of the points made in the piece and in comments, were very astute. When her errors were called out, though, she refused to accept it and kept throwing around comments such as
As a writer and a researcher, I have enough accolades to my name—thank you—I don’t need your approval!
Which is fair enough, since she was the subject of persistent attacks by Jai in the comments. Jai and I have our differences; I can but agree with him on this occasion, although neither he nor Rita came out of the debate looking particularly good, and frankly I choose to side with neither.
Which is where I come in. Enough context, time for some proper debunking.
To sum up Gandhi’s ideologies, they included the rejection of all of the following: war and weaponry, capitalism, large-scale industries, and science and technology.
Well... the most fundamental core of Gandhi's philosophy is non-violence. While this characterisation isn't incorrect, it's not particularly accurate either, since it doesn't even mention the most important bit of his crackpot bundle of beliefs. Not unlike Rita herself in this article, Gandhi starts with a particular point (non-violence) and everything branches off of and returns to, that central point. He actually goes so far as to describe it as 'the religion of Ahinsa' in his seminal political work, Hind Swaraj (M.K. Gandhi, Hind Swaraj and other writings, ed. by Anthony J. Parel, Centenary edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), p. 53), and in a short text which makes a point of addressing its many issues briefly, devotes two consecutive chapters to it: 'Brute force' and 'Passive resistance' (Hind Swaraj is available online, but I believe that any and all important philosophical texts should always be read and referred to in a proper critical edition, which still isn't really possible online).
Funds for Gandhi’s campaigns came from India’s largest and wealthiest businesses, like the Birlas. He vehemently opposed science and technology, as “evil” and said mass transportation, like the railways spread diseases and encouraged communal violence by bringing diverse communities in contact. Still, he regularly used the railways for getting around. He advised the illiterate masses to reject modern medicine. Who knows how many followed his suggested home-remedy of wrapping small-pox patients in wet blankets! But during Gandhi’s famous fasts there was always a medical doctor in attendance making announcements on his declining blood-pressure.
Yes - he never denied the element of contradiction, or hypocrisy if you prefer, between his preaching and practising. Yet he didn't actually pressure anyone, other than those who agreed to follow him (and his family), to act as he did. He understood to some extent that he was a zealous idealist and strove to be pragmatic in his organisation of political action so as to actually get shit done. The man was neither stupid, nor the kind of schemer that this section portrays him as. His vision of his movement was inclusive: ‘even a man weak in body is capable of offering this resistance. One man can offer it just as well as millions. Both men and women can indulge in it [...] Control over the mind is alone necessary’ (HS, p. 92). Part of the reason Gandhi has continued to fascinate historians and researchers so much is precisely because of his unique blend of canny pragmatism and zealous idealism. One could mostly summarise him by saying that while his beliefs were undoubtedly flawed, his implementation of them was near-flawless. Rita herself remarks at comment #30:
And more than his non-violence principle I think it was his “Boycott British goods” tactic that was actually more effectivewithout realising that the creativity behind such a tactic stems directly from his commitment to non-violence.
It's worth noting also that Rita's 'indictment' of Gandhi's contradictions in this paragraph (and her indictment of him in the whole piece) is not substantiated in any way - she plugs her book, but makes no reference to his own writings or any proper historical writings about Gandhi by the likes of Judith Brown, Bhikhu Parekh or Javed Majeed (to name just a few - all of these are highly recommended). Nor is any reference made to dates - this is important because as any fule kno, opinions change over time. Gandhi softened his stance on certain things, such as machinery, so simply writing him off as a hypocrite cuts no ice. It's true that he was still very crackpot on many things, and parts of HS made my blood boil with rage (the parts on doctors, lawyers, etc.) but he did not directly force those beliefs on people, apart from perhaps the people around him (I'm uncertain of this, although I do know that he forced his ideas about sexuality onto those who were close to him).
Historical context is crucial to comprehending what Gandhi was trying to do, and who informed his thinking on this matter. While his comments against doctors, lawyers etc. are incendiary and (I feel) deeply ignorant, they are also more than they seem. An element of crude socialism informs HS (and perhaps Gandhi's political thought overall) and the attack on lawyers, doctors etc. must be understood in this context as part of a wider criticism of the emergent Indian middle-class who Gandhi felt were exploiting and benefiting from the suffering of the masses. The importance of class is apparent in the way that HS is written - its style is deliberately simple and didactic, avoiding any elaborate political jargon, and the use of a dialogue form helps enable opposing viewpoints - pro-violence and anti-violence - to feel fully represented in the text. Much of the text criticises and highlights the un-representativeness (not a real word, I know) of Indian nationalism of the time, driven as it was by European ideologies (all of which espoused some form of violence) to which only the educated classes could have access. HS seeks to speak for those outside that elite, and 'open' nationalism to them, as the quote above and the following quote shows:
READER: You have said that passive resistance is a speciality of India. Have cannons never been used in India?
EDITOR: Evidently, in your opinion, India means its few princes. To me it means its teeming millions, on whom depends the existence of its princes and our own. (HS, p. 92)
Rita then goes on to effectively make a fact-claim about Gandhi's motivations:
My personal issue with this is that when I look at India’s political landscape from a historical perspective, I see Gandhi as the pre-cursor to the wily, opportunistic, politicians who infest Indian politics today. Their modus operandi is the same. They each have a public persona that is pious and professes to fight for the oppressed (whether it’s on basis of caste or religion or economics), which gets them a devoted voter-following that keeps them in power, no matter how corrupt they are.
This really stuck in my craw, and was a large factor in writing this post. I don't absolutely know what Gandhi's motivations were, but proper historians and researchers have generally agreed that the most likely theory is that he meant what he said, based on all the available evidence. No-one can know for certain that Gandhi was pure or whatever, but Rita claims here, quite unequivocally, that he is a forebear of today's career politicians and I think that frankly she should provide evidence for this. I believe she thought that citing the above examples of his contradictions was proof - it's not. Given that (if I remember correctly, and I may not have done) he rejected the opportunity to be the leader of Congress and to be a part of mainstream politics despite requests from Congress and the public to do so, I don't see how that fits with the characterisation of him here as a publicity-hungry schemer. More importantly, I am quite certain that the title 'Mahatma' (great soul) was conferred on him - not of his own creation or choosing - and that he preferred the term 'Bapu' (father), which is what he uses in his letters. I'm not in a position to obtain all the correct literature to fact-check this at the moment, but I have contacted Javed Majeed to see about verifying the claims I've made.
And yet, coming back to President Obama and his mentor, there is one respect in which he surpasses Gandhi! His approach to politics, as of yet, has been refreshingly direct, transparent and earnest. He hasn’t demonstrated another Gandhian trait – one that his predecessors (Clinton and Bush) certainly have – and that is outright denial and defensiveness when confronted on ambiguous issues, and a refusal to be accountable for their own judgements.
This section was downright bizarre, since as BenSix rather hilariously pointed out in the comments at #26:
With respect, Rita…
[Obama's] approach to politics, as of yet, has been refreshingly direct, transparent and earnest.
Like – really untrue.
I will return to this point, but on to the comments. Rita wrote:
Gandhi [...] persistently called the British “evil.” That was his language — “where they live the Gods don’t live” etc. It was the language that the — ritually religious mobs still speak.
It was this statement that made me realise what I was dealing with, and changed the 'might write a post' to a 'MUST.' Without further ado, I present to you, a vast selection of quotes from HS:
I can never subscribe to the, statement that all Englishmen are bad. Many Englishmen desire Home Rule for India. That the English people are somewhat more selfish than others is true, but that does not prove that every Englishman is bad. We who seek justice will have to do justice to others. Sir William [Wedderburn] does not wish ill to India, -that should be enough for us. As we proceed, you will see that, if we act justly India will be sooner free. You will see, too, that if we shun every Englishman as an enemy, Home Rule will be delayed. But if we are just to them, we shall receive their support in our progress towards the goal. (HS, p. 17)
If India copies England, it is my firm conviction that she will be ruined.
READER: To what do you ascribe this state of England?
EDITOR: It is not due to any peculiar fault of the English people, but the condition is due to modern civilization. It is a civilization only in name. Under it the nations of Europe are becoming degraded and ruined day by day. (HS, p. 32)
If you will sufficiently think over this, you will entertain the same opinion and cease to to blame the English. They rather deserve our sympathy. They are a shrewd nation and I therefore believe that they will cast off the evil. They are enterprising and industrious, and their mode of thought is not inherently immoral. Neither are they bad at heart. I therefore respect them. Civilization is not an incurable disease, but it should never be forgotten that the English are at present afflicted by it. (HS, p. 37).
It is my deliberate opinion that India is being ground down, not under the English heel, but under that of modern civilization. (HS, p. 41)
[...] it is not necessary for us to have as our goal the expulsion of the English. If the English become Indianised, we can accommodate them. If they wish to remain in India along with their civilization, there is no room for them. It lies with us to bring about such a state of things. (HS, p. 71).
We brought the English, and we keep them. Why, do you forget that our adoption of their civilization makes their presence in India at all possible? Your hatred against them ought to be transferred to their civilization. (HS, p. 72).
By patriotism I mean the welfare of the whole people, and if I could secure it at the hands of the English, I should bow down my head to them. If any Englishman dedicated his life to securing the freedom of India, resisting tyranny and serving the land, I should welcome that Englishman as an Indian. (HS, p. 75).
You English, who have come to India are not good specimens of the English nation, nor can we, almost half-Anglicized Indians, be considered good specimens of the real Indian nation. If the English nation were to know all you have done, it would oppose many of your actions. (HS, p. 113).
I bear no enmity towards the English but I do towards their civilization. (HS, p. 117).*
Gee, somehow that doesn't sound like 'black/white, holier than thou, unexamined, non-intellectual — language', Rita. When I called out some of the errors in the piece, I was told:
What is this need in India to worship people? Why can’t we in India learn to examine people like people — like normal flesh and bones human beings??
Rita also bemoaned the treatment of Gandhi as a 'saint,' saying
I thought — how come these things are never discussed when we are given this pre-processed, recycled hash on Gandhi in our school text books.
Which is all fair enough, but as I said to her - Perhaps you ought to have enquired into why that is. I would be interested as to what exactly she's trying to combat here, as the piece gave me no idea. Who believes in this straw-Gandhi that she has created? For whose benefit is her piece? My family and most Sikh people I know absolutely hate the man, for reasons ironically similar to Rita's but with even less awareness of him than she, and most non-Indians are so ignorant of him that they barely register him as an influence on MLK and Mandela, let alone as an untouchable saintly figure. In fact, I've noticed non-Indian (usually American) people use their complete ignorance about him as a basis for making stupid and unfunny jokes, which is hardly worshipful. I hated the man before I read his writing, and now I respect him, but still recognise that he was massively problematic and yes, hypocritical. It's really worthwhile reading the entire section on Gandhi, gender and sexuality in Javed's book as it incorporates the most current feminist critique of Gandhi but doesn't stereotype the man. Ironically, Rita does what she is despairing of: propagating the image of Gandhi as a 'saint', because instead of bringing him back down to human reckoning by recognising his complexities, she simply takes the ignorant devotee's caricature and replaces 'good' with 'bad'.
The reason that Gandhi has been sanitised and repackaged - one which Rita seems to have completely missed, or ignored, in her quest to find a convenient scapegoat on which to hang persistent ills of Indian society - is precisely because he was an openly problematic individual: an idealist, a zealot, but one who was able to actually bring his vision to bear on people. Many Sikhs hate him partly because they feel like he didn't do enough for them (!) and have gone so far as to relate he and Nehru both to a figure in Sikh history who betrayed one of the Gurus. Hindu fundamentalists (and many Hindus) had a great problem with his insistence on Hindu-Muslim unity and his attempt to improve the position of the lower castes. Why exactly Hindu fundamentalist Nathuram Godse murdered him, I don't know, but there's no doubt that his frankness about sexuality and his desire to hold the elite to account in their ascendancy to power were pretty big reasons for Hindu fundies to hate him. As already mentioned, his family and associates were embarrassed by his frankness - thus in keeping with the general tendency to lionise public figures after their death (intensified by ignorance and hero-worship in India, but common everywhere), it was in everyone's interests to write the man off as a 'saint' after his death. Not, as Rita seems to think, so that he would be untouchable (oh the irony of that word!) but precisely so that he would be ignored - a myth to be invoked, rather than engaged with.
All of which might sound like a conspiracy theory, but it wasn't that organised - it was just a case of everyone doing what was tidiest and most convenient for them. Nehru has received the same treatment (though more thanks to Hindu fundamentalists and an ignorant, hero-worshipping populace than family embarrassment). Earlier this year, in the wake of Rumbold's PP piece, I was considering doing an essay on Hindu fundamentalism and knowing that it was a topic of interest to him, I asked JM about the expulsion of writer and MP Jaswant Singh from the Hindu-fundamentalist BJP party for having criticised Nehru over Partition. He explained to me that there was nothing surprising about the BJP attacking Nehru, since some of them (he cited Singh and L.K. Advani, I remember) had changed tactics and started to use Pakistan's Islamic origins as an implicit justification for making India a Hindu-only state. Nehru's secularism, of course, posing something of a large obstacle to the goal of constructing India as an ethno-religiously (is that the right term?) 'pure' state. Somewhat bearing out JM's remarks is the fact that Jaswant Singh sailed right back into the BJP not long afterwards. With Nehru and Gandhi tidied away, Communism a global and local embarrassment, the only remaining nationalist claim to power from all the groups that Gandhi sought to unite in HS is that of the Hindu fundamentalists'.
If anyone wants a reading list, please let me know and I'll give you recommendations besides those above - for excellent feminist history texts, or even just for Indian history in general (I really want to read Bayley as he is meant to be amazing). I will hopefully do a follow-up post to this in which I address specifically why Gandhi is not quite the right place to look if you're reflecting on the parlous state of women's rights in India today. Shamit posted an excellent quote from Gandhi's grandson, which I am going to quote, and which contains something of a valuable clue:
* All statements in bold, my emphasis.One of the best quotes I ever read about Gandhiji and women came from his great grandson Tushar Gandhi -
“I would say that Bapu was a champion of gender equality. But the moral strength that he imputes to women has an almost inborn, genetic complexion to it, which bears little or no relation to the exploitation, humiliation and hardship that has been women’s lot, historically speaking. Bapu remained fixed on the symbolism of the Mother. His was a passive picture of womanhood, of a person who undoubtedly possessed freedom but functioned within narrow parametres [sic] and defined boundaries.”
No comments:
Post a Comment