We tend to look at the personality rather than their character of any individual.
Personality defines the existence of the individual but it’s the character that defines the uniqueness.
The 'personality' will determine how the individual can be related to the group. The 'character' will defy any relation. It will define the difference between any two individuals.
Our personality is what we portray... and our character is what we think.
What do we see when we come across the statue of Mr. M.K. Gandhi? An old, weak man, with a dandi.
What do we think of him? The Father of the Nation... The man responsible for Indian Independence... The man who was termed as superhero .. or the MAHATMA
Too much information is laden upon us about GANDHIJI. I know more things about Gandhiji than I know (or even intend to know) about my grandfather. But should we believe in those things. I doubt even if a fiercest of Gandhi Devotee will speak the truth while speaking about Gandhiji.
Nathuram Ghodse had just one claim before he was hanged. “Gandhiji’s last words were not ‘hey-ram’. It was a mere ‘aah’ - that too, a very weak one. If people want to propagate that Gandhiji said ‘hey ram’, then they will be falsifying the image of a man who spent his life for the truth”
This, coming from the Nathuram Ghodse, receives a lot of respect because he was the only person who was aware of what was going around when the bullet hit Gandhiji.
And people have proved this time and again. What happened after 30 Jan 1948. Strong supporters to Gandhiji went on a mission to massacre all the Bramhins. People who believed in Gandhiji were involved in ‘anti-Gandhi’ activities.
So who was at fault?
Gandhiji? Well .. How can he be at a fault? He was termed as “THE MAHATMA”, right? Did he deserve to be the MAHATMA even if he wanted to be?
To me Gandhiji was just a normal person who did what he felt was right. Many of us do. I think he too was a victim of the media propaganda.
Gandhiji is responsible for Gandhism. To me Gandhiism is as strong as any other weapon in the world. But this weapon should be used by people with strong characters. Feeble minded people don’t deserve to know what Gandhism is.
Just one question - Did Gandhiji understand what Gandhism was?
He was so plagued by the attention that he forgot that the attention was supposed to be for Gandhism and not Gandhi. He was not the sole culprit. The sons of the soil are involved in this misinterpretation too. We don’t see the character. We see the person.
At a certain point of time, Gandhiji thought that he was bigger than the nation. His personal views were more important than the welfare of masses. This happens with celebrities. They are made to believe that they are larger than life just because their follower wanted him to be so.
He was wrong. But equally wrong were the followers. If we had seen the character of Gandhiji we could have stopped him from doing anything that was unlike Gandhi. Yes. There were better ways to stop FATHER OF THE NATION than the way Nathuram Ghodse did. Gandhiji could have been stopped if there were to be a believer of GANDHISM. Alas !!! there was none.
Nathuram had to enter the picture because no one was ready to accept Gandhism. And the one who was leading them away from Gandhism was M.K.Gandhi.
Gandhiji had to do it. He had to do it because people don’t listen what is being said, they are more interested in who says it. For him to make people listen, Gandhiji had to become a MAHATMA. MAHATMA for those who never really knew what a MAHATMA really means.
MAHATMA for blind and deaf people.
I am grateful to Gandhiji cos he showed us the power of GANDHISM. But he himself failed to follow Gandhism. He preached and taught to people who could not differentiate between Gandhi and Gandhiism.
The PERSONALITY got more importance than the CHARACTER.
No point if crying, Sir. The sons of the soil just aren’t worth it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
1. You make lots of statements, but do not bolster them with any facts/incidents/examples. Some pointers to facts will make it easier to follow your arguments. Also they will be real arguments, not things you feel.
2. Why does anything comming from nathuram Godse deserve "a lot of respect". The man was an assassin. Person or group who cannot affect the masses by their agenda or personality resort tokillings to affect history.
3. How was the post-assasination killing Gandhiji's fault?
4. "His personal views were more important than the welfare of masses." --> maybe masses agreed with his views, else they would have stopped caring for him. Why would they if they felt that he was not working for them or was not being effective. There were people like Bhagat Singh and Subash Chandra Bose... why did they fail to garner more followers?
5. And yes, there is a way to stop people - to show the masses alternatives. If youe alternative is better, people will follow you in a democracy. Killing someone is a show of weakness.
I logged in to comment and saw Snehal saying everything that I wanted to say...
though I think in Snehal's #2 point, you wanted to say "credible" rather than "respectable"... You probably didn't mean to respect godse, but believe what he said.
Haha, Dash agreeing with me without coersion... thats something!
Two more things to add:
- Firstly, "just doing waht you feel right" is immensely difficult. Especially so if you are in politics. People tend to mould their behavior to public demand. So, just the character strength to do what you feel right is worthy of respect even if you don't agree with the thing done.
- I too decry diety-fication of geat people. I believe that people should be given credit for what they were rather than painting false pictures and making them pseudo-gods. Look at what is done with Shivaji. It is almost an insult to what the person really was and achieved... it is belittling their achievements if we cannot see them as real normal people achieving great things. However, this doesnt justify completely belittling the person. A correct and unbiased perspective is very improtant.
I don't want to assert that Gandhi was completely wrong but I wont give him a clean chit either.
He handled a few issues in a way that make me believe that he was too concerned about his image rather than anything else.
Nathuram was not a mere assassin. The way he carried out the assassination shows how true the man was.
Gandhiji's undoing was that people made him believe that he was a sage and he give in to their wishes. He taught Gandhigiri to people who were not strong enough to understand it (forget following it)
I am not asking you to recant your views. All I am asking for is examples/facts to bolster/prove your views.
In addition, as I mentioned, there are two ways to change whom masses follow - one is to give them a better option, other is to kill the leader. It is obvious which is an option of strength.
People will not follow a person if they feel the person is not working for their interests.
Apart from everything, I believe that Gandhiji's biggest achievement civil disbobedience movement (started by Slat Satyagraha) which mobilized the masses and brought the poorest and women into struggle for independence all across the country. This was something no other leader had been able to achieve. The previous movements were either elitist, or regional. Give that a thought!
I too believe that the Salt Satyagraha and non co-operation movement were 'THE MOVEMENTS' that defined GANDHISM.
"we will do what is right; we wont do what is wrong" was the message.
Gandhism can be explained with the help of these two events.
But the same M.K. GANDHI looked so fragile while handling the partition issue.
If the MAHATMA could withstand the might of the British Samraj.. why couldn't he convince a few to keep India united.
If you look at Indian history of 1920s to 1940s beyond the glorified version printed in our textbooks, you will see that the rift between Hindus and Muslims was building. It was partly quite natural as before the Englishmen, Muslims were the agressors and opressors in the country, in part fed by Britishers, Congress and Muslim League for their own interests.
By the time of partition, the rift was made so wide and the stakes were made so high that people were taken up by emotion.
Whether partition was needed or whether there just should have been a civil war is an academic question. Predicting war outcomes is a dangerous business. But, I really find laying all the blame of partition solely at Gandhi's feet a little unfounded in facts. Atleast with the facts I have... maybe you can provide me with some more
I dont claim Wikipedia to be an authentic source, but read this and then more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India
Post a Comment