Inventing democratic india

Indian history textbooks treat Nehru as someone who didnt do any wrong, a status that is accorded equally to Gandhi. That the nehru-gandhi dynasty has had a stranglehold on the government has only helped extend that perception. The image of him as the benevolent leader, striving for the good of his people, has been encouraged through movies as well. Reading his Discovery of india, he comes across as someone very comfortable with the idea of india and its people on an intellectual level but not too much at home on an emotional level. He gets his message across when it comes to the plural nature of indian society and ability of democracy to serve and further it. He is also very convincing when it comes to reasons behind his preference of scientific thinking and attitude over religion in public and private life. I was surprised to see him offer an opinion to the effect that science at some point will encroach on the playing field of religion and be successful at it.

However, his clear thinking becomes muddled when he analyzes international alliances and capabilities and weaknesses of countries. The effects of suffering under colonial rule shows up in most of his views. He showers china with profuse praise that comes across as nothing more than naivete, with very little basis in realism. It might have been idle speculation at that time but his refusal to see china for what it was and not allow asian camaraderie to color his opinion is surprising. He compares america and russia and somehow points to russia as the vanguard of the new age even though he sees dynamism and strength of america as hope for future. He rightly sees european nations as nothing more than feuding economies who were bent on destruction. However, he prefers to gloss over(or worse still, justify some excesses and curtailing of liberties) in soviet union at that time while at the same time, finding fault with communists in india for their rigidity. To my knowledge, there wasnt much difference between the communism followed in russia and india at that time.

Some selected quotes,

On democracy for India

"I was prepared to trust that wide electorate far more than a restricted one, based on a property qualification or even an educational test. The property qualification was anyhow bad; as for education it was obviously desirable and necessary. But I have not discovered any special qualities in a literate or slightly educated person which would entitle his opinion to greater respect than that of a sturdy peasant, illiterate but full of a limited kind of common sense."

On drawbacks of religion

"Religion, as I saw it practised, and accepted even by thinking minds, whether it was Hinduism or Islam or Buddhism or Christianity, did not attract me. It seemed to be closely associated with superstitious practices and dogmatic beliefs, and behind it lay a method of approach to life's problems which was certainly not that of science. There was an element of magic about it, an uncritical credulousness, a reliance on the supernatural."

"Religion merges into mysticism and metaphysics and philosophy. There have been great mystics, attractive figures, who cannot be easily disposed of as self-deluded fools. Yet mysticism(in the narrower sense of the word) irritates me; it appears to be vague and soft and flabby, not a rigorous discipline of the mind but a surrender of mental faculties and a living in a sea of emotional experience. The experience may lead occasionally to some insight into inner and less obvious processes, but it is also likely to lead to self-delusion."

"But I do not believe in any of these or other theories and assumptions as a matter of religious faith. They are just intellectual speculations in an unknown region about which we know next to nothing. They do not affect my life, and whether they were proved right or wrong subsequently, they would make little difference to me."

"Spiritualism with its seances and its so-called manifestations of spirits and the like has always seemed to me a rather absurd and impertinent way of investigating psychic phenomena and the mysteries of the after-life. Usually it is something worse, and is an exploitation of the emotions of some over-credulous people who seek relief or escape from mental trouble. I do not deny the possibility of some of these psychic phenomena having a basis of truth, but the approach appears to me to be all wrong and the conclusions drawn from scraps and odd bits of evidence to be unjustified."

"Buddhism and Jainism were certainly not Hinduism or even the Vedic dharma. Yet they arose in India and were integral parts of Indian life, culture and philosophy. A buddhist or Jain in India is a hundred per cent product of Indian thought and culture, yet neither is a hindu by faith. It is, therefore, entirely misleading to refer to Indian culture as Hindu culture."

"It has always seemed to me a much more magnificient and impressive thing that a human being should rise to great heights, mentally and spiritually, and should then seek to raise others up, rather than that he should be the mouthpiece of a divine or superior power."

"Looking at scripture then as a product of the human mind, we have to remember the age in which it was written, the environment and the mental climate in which it grew, the vast distance in time and thought and experience that separates it from us. We have to forget the trappings of ritual and religious usage in which it is wrapped, and remember the social background in which it expanded. Many of the problems of human life have a permanence and a touch of eternity about them, and hence the abiding interest in these ancient books. But they dealt with other problems also, limited to their particular age, which have no living interest for us now."

On benefits of science

"Often, as I look at this world, I have a sense of mysteries, of unknown depths. The urge to understand it, in so far as I can, comes to me; to be in tune with it and to experience it in its fullness. But the way to that understanding seems to me essentially the way of science, the way of objective approach, though I realise that there can be no such thing as true objectiveness. If the subjective element is unavoidable and inevitable, it should be conditioned as far as possible by the scientific method."

"Yet I am convinced that the methods and approach of science have revolutionized human life more than anything else in the long course of history, and have opened doors and avenues of further and even more radical change, leading up to the very portals of what has long been considered the unknown. The technical achievements of science are obvious enough: its capacity to transform an economy of scarcity into one of abundance is evident, its invasion of many problems which have so far been the monopoly of philosophy is becoming more pronounced."

On Soviet Union

"The practical achievements of the Soviet Union were also tremendously impressive. Often I disliked or did not understand some development there and it seemed to me to be too closely concerned with the opportunism of the moment or the power politics of the day. But despite all these developments and possible distortions of the original passion for human betterment, I had no doubt that the Soviet Revolution had advanced human society by a great leap and had lit a bright flame which could not be smothered, and that it had laid foundations for that new civilization towards which the world could advance. I am too much of an individualist and believer in personal freedom to like overmuch regimentation. Yet it seemed to me obvious that in a complex social structure individual freedom had to be limited, and perhaps the only way to read personal freedom was through some such limitation in the social sphere. The lesser liberties may often need limitation in the interest of the larger freedom."

To me, he comes across as an idealist whose enduring legacy would always be the vision of democratic india that protects its minorities, guarantees free expression, strives to treat all religions equally(in spite of their harmful effects on people) and allows its people to determine who represents them. No less is his success in establishing institutions that are the pillars of democracy. His faults include his foreign policy debacles, his blind trust on goodwill of china and economic choices. I am grateful Nehru became the leader of a free india instead of Gandhi. He comes across as a leader India was lucky to have even though we are still paying for some of his faults.

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.