Gandhi, Munnabhai and Harilal

Mahatma Gandhi, for most of us in our generation, has been a theoretical figure, mainly because his ideals (Truth, Non-violence, Vegetarianism and Brahmacharya or celibacy) were a bit too harsh to live by. We read about him as a great guy, who took on the British Empire with his 'satyagraha'. When we watched the movie 'Gandhi', we admired him even more, for his brilliant thoughts and simple approach to seemingly insurmountable problems. We have heralded him as the 'Father of the Nation'. But, have we been the 'good kids'? I don't think so! Very much like his own son Harilal (aka Abdullah and Hiralal), we have distanced ourselves from his thoughts and ideas, even as we duly pay our homages to 'the Father'.

The movie 'Lage Raho Munnabhai' is undoubtedly funny and hilarious in many ways, but the message it carries, is a jolt to our conscience. It has brought up the 'Gandhigiri' back to our minds, in quite an amusing way. It tries to find the relevance of 'Gandhism' in our modern society, applying it to very common problems that we face almost routinely. Mahatma Gandhi is dead, but he is still out there 'serving' us. No, I am not talking about his soul wandering around. I am talking about the people who keep discovering Gandhi in their struggles against injustice. The recent Narmada Andolan is one such instance.
Not restricted to India, his influence was felt by people like Albert Einstein, Martin Luther KIng and spanned movements like American Civil Rights Movement and Burmese fight for democracy led by Aung San Suu Kyi.

Why we lost touch with Gandhigiri?

Today, its quite normal to hear from any college going 'dood': 'Why Gandhi?'.

Our education shares a part of the blame here. We learnt about his theories, but never had the belief or inspiration to implement them in practice. There were a few attempts though, like this one called 'Gandhi Darshan' programme in Kerala.

The second factor, I believe, is that we never really understood what he meant by 'non-violence' and found it really dumb to 'turn the other cheek' when faced with aggression. His thoughts on 'industrialization' and 'defence expenditure' too are examples of extreme idealism, which India could never afford to implement. But we failed to find better alternatives too. His simple belief was to encourage local industries and achieve self-reliance for the poor. We have failed miserably on both counts. The suicides in Vidarbha, Andhra Pradesh are glaring cases of utter negligence on our part. Do we still have the right to say that Gandhian concepts are impractical? They may be difficult to achieve, but so was the freedom.

Another case in point, where Gandhi's suggestions were ignored, but relevant, was the Palestine problem. Quoting from Hindu article:

This was in the summer of 1947, when armed Zionists roamed the countryside, intimidating Palestinian villagers. When a reporter from Reuters asked him, "What
is the solution to the Palestinian problem?" Gandhi answered: "It is a problem which is almost insoluble. If I were a Jew, I would tell them: `Don't be so silly as to resort to terrorism, because you simply damage your own case which otherwise would be a proper case'." Gandhi advised the Jews to "meet the Arabs, make friends with them, and not depend on British aid or American aid or any aid, save what descends from Jehovah".

Non-violence NOT for the weak

This is what Gandhi conveyed in one of his 'Young India' essays:

"Non-violence in its dynamic condition means conscious suffering. It does not mean meek submission to the will of the evildoer. It means the putting of one's soul against the will of the tyrant. Working under this law of our being, it is possible for a single individual to defy the whole might of an unjust empire to save his honour, his soul and lay the foundation for that empire's fall or its regeneration. "And so I am not pleading for India to practise non-violence because it is weak. I want her to practise non-violence being conscious of her strength and power."

So, is he relevant today?

Quoting from this article:

"Is Gandhi relevant?" ask those celebrating his centenary. The answer is that he is so long as there are those willing to understand and manipulate his tools of non-violent political change. He will be so long as he is simply not dismissed as a "saint," but seen as the political revolutionary he was. As lndia's Prime Minister Indira Gandhi has written, "The ultimate justification of Gandhi is that he showed how armed strength could be matched without arms. If this could happen once, can it not happen again?"

But, the larger debate of 'Gandhi's relevance today, will go on, for the simple reason that it's going to take another Gandhi to really understand 'Gandhi'. What he went through was not just a 'freedom struggle', it was a total transformation of his entire being. His vows of celibacy at 36, fasts and austere life, contributed immensely towards the purity and simplicity of his thought. Unfortunately, he elevated himself to near sainthood and alienated himself from the masses who seemed to appreciate his thoughts but were clueless on how to implement them. Atleast for the present generation, the words of Einstein hold true:

"Generations to come will scarce believe that such a one as this ever in flesh and blood walked upon this earth"

Harilal, his eldest son, couldn't deal with his father's idealism and became wayward. It may seem far-fetched, but its true, that even today, we have many Harilals all over India, wayward and clueless about Gandhi. That's why, lets hail our new heroes, Munnabhai and Circuit, who have given a demo of what we 'can' do with 'Gandhigiri'.


Some other references you may dig into:

Some anecdotes

Gandhi and Savarkar

Gandhi and Dalits

Why Nobel Prize wasn't given to Gandhi

Gandhi: On the other side