Maha muddler

I am very unfavourably biased against Nehru and Gandhi. While I can at least see some rehabilitation for Nehru in the future because of his commitment(and subsequent success in delivery) to a particular form of political ideal especially one that has stood india in very good stead, I dont expect it for Gandhi.

It was in my first year in college I read biographies of Ambedkar, Savarkar and Patel. Some years later, I read Stanley Wolpert's Jinnah. Reading all of them, Gandhi came across as very selfish and obsessive, unlike what was portrayed in Attenborough's Gandhi. Why wouldnt Attenborough make such a movie ? Gandhi was very accomodating in his attitude towards british. Ambedkar, Patel and Jinnah were selfish too but they werent called Mahatmas(neither did they position themselves as one), even after they achieved things that Gandhi didnt(and couldnt have). Ambedkar said it best about Gandhi as Mahatma,'History tells that Mahatmas, like fleeting phantoms, raise dust but raise no level'.

Reading Gandhi's experiments with truth, one thing is clear. He is an extremely religious person in an era where being religious was synonymous with being good. Now we know better. Throughout the book, it is not india's independence he is concerned about. It is his adherence to truth. Even if it means mortgaging chances of indian independence. Is it any surprise we got our independence in 1947, when the british empire was at its knees and tired of holding onto its colonies ? If it was left to Gandhi, he might have carried it on even further. After all, in the end, it is his version of truth that mattered. Given the inexhaustible capacity of religion to enable grand delusions among its devoted followers, it is no wonder Gandhi took to the cult of mahatma with no difficulty.

Whether in south africa or india, he portrays all his activities as seeking truth which he interchangeably uses with God. He is very clear that his hindu upbringing has influenced him on his version of the truth. He compares himself against perfection that is God and finds the results wanting. At one point I could remember him repeating like Kamal Hassan's character in Guna when he goes around a room saying, 'Naan asingam, intha moonchi asingam...'. Gandhi comes across as someone who devalues anything to do with life on earth, the pleasures and pains associated with it. Which shouldnt be a surprise for someone as religious as he is. But he crosses into delusional territory when he dictates the choices for his kids in their education and health. Granted, parents decide what education and health care their kids will have. Gandhi takes his muddling experiments to a shameful extent when he insists on his sons being treated with 'wet earth' treatments when they fall sick and rejects doctor's recommendations. And he has the temerity to suggest it was not at all forced and he asked for his son's agreement before proceeding with the treatment. Wasnt Gandhi the adult here ? What else could his poor sons do ? Fight against their father especially when they are weakened by sickness, especially a father who has laid down morality and character as more important than knowledge? His insistence that moral education more than literal education is better for children is distasteful. He sets up a false dichotomy and uses his responses to screw up his kids' lives. He takes pride in narrating how his kids have built character through work and sacrifice. He is aware that he is putting his kids at a disadvantage as he comments how he might be mortgaging their future.

When he was alive, he desired for better treatment from british rather than complete independence. Only after the debacles of late 1930s and early 1940s did he change his tune and asked british to Quit India. It comes across very clearly in the book. He provides enough justifications for british for their actions(even when it is unfair) and supports them in all their adventures. So, his volunteering for ambulance service at the end of Boer war doesnt look out of place with his volunteering during first world war and his offer not to place independence demands on british when they were reeling from defeats in the second world war. He comes across as desperately seeking equal treatment from british.

If Gandhi was alive for longer than he was, I am sure India would have run into more troubles. He is above all concerned with himself, his distance from what he has defined as the truth and his experiments at reaching it. So, when striking workers or farmers from champaran, kheda ask for his help, it is his adherence to truth they are buying into, not an advocate for their cause. If they didnt know about it, it is their fault. It doesnt matter to him they look upto him for his legal acumen in solving their problems.

Gandhi comes across as any typical politician in this book. In south africa, he chides people for depending too much on public funds for running indian organizations there but once his fame takes off in india, he has no qualms soliciting funds for his public service. It is not good when others do it but it is good when he does it. Ditto for his politics. He is a politician through and through but keeps insisting to anyone who would listen he isnt one. His skillful maneuvering in congress politics is a testament to that. He uses Gokhale very well to establish a foothold in congress politics and builds a very good following after that. His ideals in removing caste system from hinduism and elevating the value of work is good but the way he goes about it says volumes about his general approach. He is clear why he wants to do it but doesnt convey it to his audience. Worse, he makes them suffer through it without adequately explaining why they have to do it.

Maybe there is something indians should have realized. For someone who accepts that he was a bad father(not out of humility but because of his parenting skills), being made father of the nation would have been a consolation. He shifted his playground from his family to nation. The results remained bad as always but the experiments continued. The aura of mahatma ensured any dissenting voices about gandhi's significance were muzzled by a nation that was grateful for its independence when it came.

Hinduism and its deities

A deity is generally considered to be a supernatural power with anthropomorphic characteristics who/that actively takes interest in lives of humans on earth. All the major religions of today follow a deity who, as a rule, is vengeful and downright hypocritical and deserving of scorn and ridicule.

Since I have been brought up as a hindu, my focus has been on hinduism. People who used to follow christianity or islam and are now atheists, do a great job of pointing out flaws in those religions. Based on an unsupportable(through evidence or logic) concept renders religions open to criticism. Their support for hideous, malformed public policies only makes their position more vulnerable.

In hinduism, the various deities are manifestations of the ultimate reality or God. A hindu, by definition, believes in one of the various deities. The stories that address how these deities came about are interesting. There is always a narrative that ties the deity to the populace that invented it. Whether it is sivan, vishnu, murugan, ayyappan,parvati, lakshmi or favourite local deity, the mythology behind it reflects a fertile imagination of a populace that desires its deities to smite their enemies and embrace their friends. Because there has been no restriction on the number of deities, hinduism as a religion has been much more open to diversity among deities when compared to islam, christianity and judaism. So, you have bachelor deities(hanuman, vinayakan), philandering deities(krishnan, murugan), faithful husband/devoted son deity(raman), angry female deity(durgai and all the CGI ammans of tamil movies), rich female deity(lakshmi), geeky female deity(saraswathi), destructive deity with a mean streak(sivan), deity with scarcely believable powers(vishnu), multiple heads deity(brahma), dancing with the stars deity(nataraja). As long as they stay as myths, they can be addressed as such and their influence on daily lives of people mitigated. After all, there has been no evidence of all these deities being alive and having done all the things they are supposed to have done. However, a visit to any hindu household leads one to believe that hindus do believe these deities did all the things that were said about them and that their credibility is enough for them pray to these deities. There are enough examples of people visiting a temple before an exam or an interview or a cricket match or a particularly heinous crime to pray for success in their endeavour.

There are those who argue hinduism is merely a way of life, that it is just a reflection of beliefs and practices of people who lived below indus river and that it is open to intrepretation by those who follow it. Beliefs, however, do not make people build temples for their deities and anthropomorphise them in the hope of protection from unforeseen disasters(from people's perspective) make them religious in nature. A temple to khushboo is different in the sense it serves as an expression of appreciation for an actress from her fans. Did it have religious belief behind it in the sense that her fans thought khushboo could personally intervene in their lives and provide them protection from unforeseen disasters ? The farthest one can argue is that those fans believed khushboo brought joy in their dreams and hence, decided to convey their appreciation. A belief that vishnu will make jim carrey in dumb and dumber sing 'Paattum Naanae' with no introduction to tamil grammar can be classified as religious belief. The follower believes in a deity that owes its existence to the hindu concept of all things in this world. He/she also believes there exists a set of rules that specify how the deity can be placated when the follower receives notification the deity is angry. Take out the religious significance of the deity and the temple stands as piece of artistic expression.

In focussing on the intolerance of monotheistic religions, hindus gloss over the mistreatment and killing that they have indulged in, within hinduism and without. Some would argue that the killing of non hindus by hindus was done by kings who took advantage of gullible followers to achieve their foreign policy goals. So, any mention of chola dynasty's periodic ransacking of buddhist temples, willful killing of jainas in pandya dynasty and the periodic fights between saivites and vaishnavites are explained away by the well worn defense 'Hinduism per se is not bad. It is only the followers who are bad, especially when the followers are kings in need of justification for their conquests/rule'. But, what does one say about a religion whose deities are powerless to drive its message into its followers' heads ? If the deities are powerless, wouldnt the temples constructed in their honour be just pieces of artistic expression ? Would there be a whole set of people whose profession it is, to take care of those deities, to wash them properly, to dress them properly, make them presentable ? There are also people who point out islam killed as many, if not more people in india and ransacked enough temples as if islam's bad boy behaviour justifies hinduism's atrocities.

Hinduism survived in india because kings gave it patronage and financial succour. They levied taxes on people within their dominion so magnificient temples could be built and maintained. They encouraged poets in their courts to express devotion to their chosen deity. While kings can be accused of exploiting hindus based on their belief of a deity, what does it say of a religion/deity that allows itself to be exploited with no forms of redress ?