Mahatma
is a misused term. Indian society has tradition of great souls who dedicated
themselves to the uplifting of fellow being –who were in immense misery and
untold discrimination. They were quite vehement in their protest against temple
squatter’s horrendous hold over society, and fancy rituals which tied people
into absurdity. They spoke against the nonsense that was spreading through
Vedas and superstitious norms that was replacing the egalitarian nature of
Upanishadic culture. The temple squatter’s framework was the one that
insidiously and consistently degraded Indian society, it just took away the
soul. The unenlightened thoughts, stories and myths associated with gods –their
unusual tendency for anger and uncontrolled egoist outbursts (which any normal
person will find embarrassing, even a child listening to these godly stories
cannot but think of moral depravity of evengods), grossly exaggerated self worth and pious juvenile penance is all part of
package that has hallmark of what happens when amazingly mediocre people are
given importance, who with no insecurities of livelihood, tax their harebrain
to work out crude forms of expressions. These can be nothing but primitive,
devoid of even basic sense. These arrogant knuckleheads cannot be really be
expected to come out with anything subtle nor compassionate. It goes from crude
to cruder, and over the centuries you have amazingly deviant people who are
absolutely absorbed in their infallibility. These are percolated as common
culture and therefore despite being amazingly mediocre inbred imbeciles they
think of themselves as centre of the world. To keep common people (zombies)
busy in the network they came out with incredible ways to propitiate these
angry gods, therefore by careful default assumed themselves these crudeness,
indeed the stories were in first place created to justify their own moral exigencies,
giving it godly characteristics only embolden their nearness to god and the
cruder world they created. The fact that it only helped temple squatter’s to
consolidate themselves was never understood by the zombies, who if ever felt
only trapped and isolated. Such was the grip, critically it sucked into very
weak areas of human dealings, matters of gods, death, fate so on, therefore
capitulation by the common people to these enormous traps that has making of some
cunning people of over thousands of years.
In
the meanwhile, as is the nature of human societies it wasn’t completely emasculated
of human feelings and wasn’t devoid of responsible people. There were parallel
movements that sought to create sane, enlightened and compassionate ways of
living that understood the nature of life and its connection to living. They
were determinately not part of temple squatter’s worldview, indeed raised their
voice against these primitive cannibalistic nature of society that were being
perpetuated by temple squatters. They used the languages and nuances of common
people and therefore attracted much attention and admiration but never could be
mainstreamed as a system, since it generally fizzled out after the charismatic
individual died. The squatter’s framework was much stronger, like any cunning
marketer they assimilated these new ideas (even Budha was made a god, some even
put him in dashavatara, wherein he was quite an ordinary man who contemplated
and with empathy and insight enlightened. Unlike temple squatter’s quick fix
there isn’t short cuts in life) provided it didn’t overtly threatened them, and
so the pious viciousness of pouncing on any aberrations or questioning. Meanwhile
any threat to them was equalized to threat to Hinduism, therefore zombies
didn’t really cross lines of traditions drawn to them, they became circumspect faced
with overwhelming odds as it dealt with matter of gods. If hell wasn’t much
clearly defined wrath was and it had terrible consequences with millions of
gods ready to spew fire, meanwhile ever opportune squatter negotiating the
situation slyly from the 
sidelines. The caste based cannibalistic system therefore
got consolidated hence the socio-cultural pointers too slanted towards squatter’s
worldview, hence deviant traditions. So despite the best efforts of Budhas,
Mahaviras, Kabirs, Nanaks, Tukarams…(the list is much long), who fought these
discriminatory ways, it couldn’t dismantle the exploitative structures that had
acquired very strong racist undertones. Nevertheless the efforts of great
souls, the mahanatmas were not futile. Their thoughts influenced the moral
fabric of the society and, despite entrapped in deviant social system, it had a
deep impact and significant influence on the thought process of common people. Indeed
almost all the egalitarian thoughts of Indian society and civilizational
achievements can be traced to these great souls, thoughts that ran parallel as
a protest as also a glimpse of subtle brilliance.
In
the meanwhile the squatters where sharpening their sinister styles, fashioning
increasingly atrocious methods to inflict pain on common people. Concomitantly
their amazingly mediocre minds were occupied in absurd ‘philosophies’ on all
and sundry that their little overactive mind could comprehend, they had to fill
the gap of being placed at the seat of wisdom wherein they lacked even the
basic intelligence. Thus began the ridiculous nature of ‘philosophies’ that ranged
from outrageous to rubbish, and vacillated hereabout for centuries, as the
society suffered and slipped into depth of bizarre. With their limited thinking
and actively fertile cleverness they worked to degrade common people, to
justify themselves they even debased something as basic as physical work!! Being
acutely aware of power they also gave certificates of closeness to god to the
rulers. To get acceptance from zombie like people the rulers actively pursued
them. So temple became centers for rulers to gain acceptance among population,
thus gained quite wholesomely in the arbitration. They became centers of power
and money, as they grew their nature of exploitation became much vicious. As
coffers filled so was the demand for specific gods and miracles, and so
elaborate rituals that was meant to further squeeze in common people and
increase their hardship. Temple squatter’s worldview was slowly seeping into
societies psyche with detrimental effect, the kind people still struggle to
free.
Thus
lived the parasitic charlatans trapped in primitive frugality that was elevated
as piety and cleverly worked as detachment. This then was the art of staying
powerful by denying oneself power, living with outward symbols of simplicity
but acutely egoistic and arrogant grandness about oneself. This special
connection with gods and assured place in society gave them the assuredness in
dealings. Thus amazingly mediocre people high in confidence, ready with clever
lines that could turn any fact into fiction and vice versa. This therefore
defined the deviousness of existence of elite section of this godforsaken
society as it tumbles from one vicissitude of fate to another.
It
is in this narration that Gandhi enters. He therefore doesn’t deny the deviant
oppressive structure that made lives of common people miserable and exploited in
the name of religion. Since this deviant 
structure was what gave him
legitimacy. He was completely enmeshed in squatter’s worldview. He was born
into it but wasn’t enlightened enough to grow out of it. Gandhi was a little
man from the little word. He searched salvation/ truth within this framework
and as has happened even the best of its expression lacked compassion. You
cannot bring in egalitarian values from within an exploitative system, it is
just not possible it is against the law of nature. At the most it is a good
play act, a clever move, most likely godly brownie points for afterlife or next
birth comforts. It is as ridiculous as that. Gandhi had firmly pitched himself
into this framework –that lacked character, he wasn’t from the tradition of
great souls who connected to common people, those who understood the causes of
their misery, tried to assuage them with their enlightened thoughts and very
fervent opposition against casteism and superstition. It is therefore easy to
bring out lack of compassion in Gandhi in almost all the cases involving common
people right from racism against blacks to his views of people who were
massacred in Jalianwala bagh or people exterminated in Nazi concentration camps,
to take few examples. Not at all surprising and out of place is his arrogant
nature as he lived with simple frugal means, he effectively used pointers of
simplicity that squatters were quite fine with. Even today squatters can be
seen moving around half naked in small towns. It shouldn’t really be mistaken
for signs of piousness or simple living but clever way of exposing the grime thread
and claiming entitled status. How many times have seen the fellow across the
seat strategically keeping the shirt buttons open to expose his threads? It is
akin to exposing nazi tattoo in Europe.
Gandhi
was useful for colonial british as much as for elite Indians. For british he
was needed for emasculating the struggle of common people against the
oppression, apart from day to day miseries (it also lead to worst of famines
that killed millions of people in Bengal. Britishers didn’t want repeat of what
had happened in 1857, it had severely jolted them, a renewed version of this
would have most definitely ousted the colonial power from the
subcontinent. How sub-continental
geo-political history might have shaped after this is matter of speculation and
one cannot be really be prescient about it. Also Gandhian presence didn’t
prevent the worst kind massacre that followed partition, millions and millions
of common people bore the brunt. Gandhi’s non violent protest put the onus of realization
of oppression on the oppressed. It remarkably gave the initiative to the
oppressor. The strategy questioned the basic morality of oppressor but even the
oppressed. Further the act of allowing being violated is in itself acceptance
of violence, being injured and maimed in the process goes against the basic
instinct of self preservation. Inability to stop violence against oneself and
one’s being is undoubtedly immoral. In a civilized society one takes the
recourse of law but britain was a colonial power. These incremental moral
assertions were at heavy price.
The
reason why I seriously question this is that oppressor aren’t unaware of the
lack of morality in their act, they use this occasion of emasculation of
oppressed as means to consolidate themselves. Britishers did exactly that as
they stripped the land of its natural resources as also exploited the people. They
left not because of any overwhelming desire for non violence but from the
realities that emerged after Second World War, the most violent phase of human
history. Which also saw “our leaders” supporting colonial British against
Germany for higher good, while common people suffered as usual, the ideals of
“high moral ground” never reaching them, it still haven’t changed much even
after 60 years of so called independence. It seems that goodness of British
people took precedence and therefore violence was acceptable. To be fair with Gandhi he gave the clarion call
for do or die against British but one
wonders what kind of non violence is that? What does ‘do’ means if not violence?
Call to die is not non violent. It seems his entitled position ordained by
feudal-casteist nature of society was being used by him to experiment on
hapless people who had put trust on him. Such arrogance and self assured nature
of one’s being while one lords over common people can come only from squatter’s
framework. “My life is my message”. Surely a mahatma will never utter such
eulogy on oneself, and yes I am struggling to understand the message.
This
framework is the same he practiced in the case of oppressive system of
casteism, he very determinately 
emasculated the protest that was gaining momentum
against the heinous practice. His deviant insistence on non violence on people
who faced untold violence over centuries and violation of all forms of their
being is where Gandhi faults much grievously and cannot be pardoned. Gandhi was
a pacifist of the conservative mold who strived to preserve the existing structure,
his morality seemed hinged on this, people were expendable. This was his focus
as he dealt with colonial atrocities of british as also while he dealt
squatters (indeed he never did, his focus being the mechanism of the dealing of
the oppressed, there must be some perverse pleasure in this). So what we are
left with are structures: The colonial
structure as a form of insensitive administration (even after so many
decades and much misery to people, they remain archaic and nobody seems much
bothered. They call it freedom), indeed the bureaucracy is such that it strives
to preserve itself over people. While the temple
squatter’s structure/framework is still as intact and oppressive, meanwhile
even acquiring forms of culture expressions and redefining the land of
diversities. These are true dedications to Gandhian efforts.
As
much as Britisher preferred, as it made their job of exploitation much easier,
the elitizens too played a major role in hiking Gandhi, indeed he was tailor
made for them. By the late 19th century temple squatter’s framework
was being severely questioned from within, not for its oppression of common
people but for lack progressiveness, as they negotiated the western world and
the new emerging power structure. The wily ones had to capitalize on these new
opportunities, so westernization became a wont for some. Clearly westernization
they faced had egalitarianism extended to only few select, this suited them
immensely and so the race to get into this coveted status of being accepted
which for most was natural extension of their entitlement, the god ordained
status that was very much their due. The colonial power quite astutely used these
cravings of the ‘natives’ and so were made ally, an exalted status in the little
world of neo squatters. They therefore furthered the cause of colonial powers with
centuries of tongue twisting ability that was chiseled with selective inbreeding
(the progenies justify colonialism as good for the society even know, with
straight face without sounding ridiculous at all). As they adopted western
lifestyle they sought to distinguish themselves with acquired tastes and
thoughts. Modern values seeped in as necessary alibi but it rarely pricked the omnipresent
casteist structure and oppressive nature of society, such moral transgression
never disturbed their conscience.
As
was expected they soon locked horn. The neo squatters found problems with traditional
squatters whose conservative ways and lifestyle was seen as unpalatable and hindrance
to projecting themselves as modernist. Thus you see the beginning of the fratricidal
divide and ensuing war in the clamor to grab the power. The conservative
section (i.e. the temple squatters with all the miserable tradition intact)
acquiring right wing character that sought to safeguard Hinduism while the other
section (i.e. the neo squatters) masquerade secular liberal concerns and sought
to carry the legacy of colonial masters in a veneer of acquired sophistication.
Interestingly both sides never condemned the squatter’s framework i.e. the
heinous caste system as it defined them (so whatever side they were in the mock
anguish they carried the squatter’s surnames with flourish). They divided their
turf but usurped and sucked on to the perverse legacy of thousands of years,
that gave misery and defined common people’s life. It gave them the entitled advantage
as well as necessary reach and easy comforts cushioning the hiccups in the
journey. It was an easy way out to lead the hapless people. Matters came to
head on as Gandhi was assassinated. Before I go further into this let me
acknowledge that there were enlightened people genuinely concerned with the
plight of people but these were scattered lot. The mainstream was broadly
occupied by these two sections.
What
elitizens refer to as concept of liberal values and tolerance is something that
exists quite effortlessly in the lower strata without anybody being aware of.
They coexist with people of different religion and regions without much effort.
For divine selves emerging out of insulated abode of pure world living it was
quite challenging. Such was the deviant world that the act of interacting with
‘others’ itself was heightened case of tolerance, extending this skills to
muslims was seen as beginning of secularism. This was quite a remarkable
achievement in their little worldview, considering that it dealt with
hobnobbing with non vegetarian. While common people had never any problems of
vegetarian or non vegetarian or whatever anyone eats as also any heightened
sense of oneself and purity associated. For squatters trying to modern
themselves these were significant achievements while common people carried on
negotiating their life and observing these burgeoning modern values with tired
amusement. For icons emerging from squatters framework these were immense challenges
that shook their being (like for instance something as trivial as having food
with common people was almost the end of world as they knew), crossing of which
was major achievement as one negotiated treacherous path of acquiring enlightened
liberal nuances. Since their interaction (or shall I say adventures) were
confined to elite sections of muslims therefore these became their references.
These superficialities are reflected in how the idea of secularism is
practiced. It lacks compassion and is more towards patronizing the feudal power
and pandering entrenched deviants. Common people were never in scheme of things
although these acts were purported to be played for them!
The
breakaway neo squatter brown sahibs concerns of freedom from colonial rule and
liberal thoughts wasn’t finding much resonance among common people, the
hypocrisy was obvious as also it lacked the native touch. It was into this cauldron
of squatter’s worldly concerns that Gandhi entered, arriving from South Africa,
with some reputation of taking on the colonial rulers. That his concerns didn’t
extend to black Africans, who faced amazing discrimination, was telling but
then it was pushed under the carpet with traditional alacrity. You will notice
that the same sections (including Gandhi) didn’t feel much about oppressive
caste structure, therefore lack of concern for blacks was absolutely normal, it
is even likely that tolerating discrimination against lower section was so
entrenched that they didn’t see black Africans worth concerned about. Some
humans don’t measure up the scale to fight for, to be concerned about, they
live they die it is their karma. It is this structure that they were trustee of,
it was balanced on purity pecking order.
Gandhi
soon brought in the pointers that were close to squatter’s worldview but very
cleverly molded into liberal language. He was immensely successful with the
elites as also it gave hope to common people, but these were mirage and was
only a ploy to gain ground against colonial force. The mass movements weren’t
meant for change in common people’s life but a move to transfer power to Indian
elitizens for which Gandhi was eagerly acquiring a status of compelling mascot.
Furthermore Gandhi didn’t threaten their ordained status, he didn’t find
anything morally shallow in the depraved socio-religious system under which
Indians functions, the traditions hinged on exploitation and discrimination.
Despite these glaring ethical ambiguities they were able to build Gandhi as
some kind of moral guardian of the masses. Wherein the reality was unlike the
tradition of protest against temple squatter’s framework, the enlightened souls
and seers who were born time to time to reaffirm civilizational values and its
unique legacy, while providing ethical framework to hapless common people in an
increasingly immoral oppressive mainstream lives of elites, Gandhi fell grievously
short. In the context of things Gandhi was an amazing travesty, but
nevertheless a successful ploy. It fooled common people into believing that something
significant was about to happen or is happening. Gandhi played his part, his
body language, postures and the life style reflected the image of a great soul,
detached and connected to divine, a man of wisdom. These motifs common people had
come to associate with the tradition of mahatma, of great souls who were indelible
part of this society who, from time to time, guided common people from the
atrocities of temple squatters. But in reality Gandhi was very much earth bound,
quite a cunning politician and astute in matters of money, meanwhile disposing
of his political threats with much ease. Paraphernalia that pointed to divinely
interests, puritanical frugal means and pious bearing (that was quite a
characteristic of temple squatters, it was certainly taken around as trophy) were
nothing but 
subterfuge for extending his moral authority and necessary
arrogance that comes with it. From this lofty ground Gandhi’s patronizing self
saw ‘god’s children’ (the bullshit called Harijan,
a divinely insult inflicted on common people) but not the discrimination. Gandhi’s
experiments with truth were a joke on common people and a travesty on truth
itself. In the meanwhile the discriminated faced such untold misery that even a
person with common sense would shudder but not Gandhi he was made of much
sturdier piety that is so much valued by squatters. Even meekest of protest by
most wretchedly discriminated was met with aggressive angst or even sadist
threat of self harm. These were beginning of Gandhian techniques of solving
problems, which have since been much intellectualized and indeed has shifted
from original framework to egalitarian worldview.
Gandhi
in effect gave moral authority to the elitizens despite the fact they were
trapped in primitive framework, this exploitative setup fed them well in the
meanwhile gave a head start on angst. So you could be blatantly casteist
(therefore racist), amazingly feudal and patronizingly patriarchal but still
can claim to be modern, therefore liberal. You could be crude but can easily
claim to be wise, discriminative but can seek redemption. This self assurance
despite being hypocritical, ability to patronize despite lacking sympathy is 
gandhi’s
enduring gift to the elitizens. He became their moral torchbearer, they
therefore went overboard in edifying him, it was a self justifying act. Being a
Gandhian covered whole lot of crap and you could still walk head held high,
some angst for others as you hobnob with power –while denying it all at once! This
skewed nature of things is how India’s foundation was being laid, and does
reflect quite acutely in the discriminating nature of development pattern that
followed. One could say India’s development pattern, seen through social
indices so on, is very much Gandhian with necessary trustees angst.
Gandhi
therefore was promoted with gusto, a moral trump card. He was a Mahatma. Father
of nation. Public spaces were occupied, from roads to statues to what not. The
more it was pushed into psyche of hapless people more elitizens justified their
crude piety and patronizing self, while necessary lip service became the
defining nature of trustees. It all worked so well, Gandhi filled the moral gap
that existed with transfer of power that commonly sold as independence for
which common people paid heavy price particularly along the indo-pak border. Never
in the history of human society was a man used to emasculate the aspiration of
common people over generations. Never ever on this land did a ‘mahatma’
haughtily claim his moral bearing standing on discriminations. Never was non-violence
used to justify violence against the most wretched and discriminated people in
the history of human society. And never ever in the history did Mir Qasims and
Mir Jaffars claim that they fought for freedom of people from oppression.
Gandhi
undoubtedly was a great man with good intention but he fell short since he
could never come out of the entrenched system, he faults further in that he
lacked the wisdom to realize these. He worked well within this oppressive system
which he mistook for religiosity, hence was ‘morally’ stuck to it. With the advantage
of hindsight one can see that his best intention were nothing but patronizing
the agonizingly oppressed. This therefore
was seen as justification by much cruder elitizens who were passing through existential
crisis and immense personal tribulations being exposed to harsh world outside
the squatter’s superior entitlement framework and enchantingly self assured
world. Gandhi assuaged this transitional angst and agony of liberal world and
remodeled it to fit into squatter’s reality. Hypocrisy was redefined and oppressive
framework was seen as uniqueness of cultural diversity, racism was patronized as
acts of ‘god’s children’. Gandhi used all the pointers of squatters to negotiate
the modern values, hence casteism was onlya discrimination and not racism. These subtle differences falls in the pecking
order of Indian philosophy that needs one to strip into absurdity and mediocre nature
of traditional thoughts and deviant ideas that kept emerging quite regularly from
temple precincts.
Gandhi
may have been a Mahatma for squatters desperately trying to fill in the moral
gaps and modernize themselves as they grab the power as it is transferred. But considering
the tradition of great souls who guided common people, who vehemently recognized
and protested against oppressive nature of traditions and the deviant values
derived, Gandhi falls woefully short, indeed he is an embarrassment, he couldn’t
even 
recognize what great saints could thousands of years back, prominent being
Budha, and in his lifetime saints like Ayyankali (great man who didn’t pretensions of mahatma and other divine attributes. These saints insistence on practicality
differed diametrically from Gandhi. Indeed Gandhi took shield of even
superstition to cow down common people rather than engaging with their reality,
prominent being causes of earthquake so on). The list of these venerable saints
is quite long, and unfortunately Gandhi doesn’t even deserve a footnote. Gandhi
wasn’t a Mahatma, and most definitely doesn’t deserve to be called as one,
compelling motifs withstanding. He was a politician who wanted to bring in morality
in discourse. We don’t need any father of nation, how about fathers and mothers
of nation? The ‘founding figures of nation’ will do. Gandhi has been overplayed
by the elitizens, quite appropriately, the recent instance being the statue in London,
this to buttress a million dollar arms deal by Britain. British know the value of hypocrisy, and the
use of Gandhi.
It’s
time to expose Indians and shake them out from their self assured world. This is
going to be difficult. The popular culture too has consolidated discrimination as
diversity, squatter’s utterings as divine interventions while the fact is these
are worst forms of superstitious hogwash that seeks to perpetuate a sinister
world. They have infected the myth, traditions and collective conscience of the
society. It is going to be difficult to weed out these. International community
declaring India a racist country would be a good beginning, some reality check
for mediocre Indians ensconced in superior considerations.
been carrying colonial mindset with relish. Goes without saying
that they are mostly the elites who have gained immensely from supplicating to colonial
power, since have made these as a tradition and passed on to their progenies. These
are sometimes packaged in the pointers of modernity and diversity, and in the
feudal nature of society carried out as aspirational lifestyle. These do exist
with gusto in the primitive feudal lands of north India where elites are known
to be blatant. That it is happening in the land of revolutionary leaders like
Periyar is unacceptable. This should be squatted with necessary urgency and
repeat of such practices shouldn’t be tolerated. 
club (the sports club logo is even designed as a temple!), even they too are cricketers,
the bourgeoisie passions and proletarian concerns, writes that “Clubs are
private organisations where members have the right to set their own rules on
their premises. It will be best if good sense prevails and the clubs change
their rules”. Aha. As mentioned earlier
the rules “members” set cannot go against the laws of the land, as also the
socio-historical factors that govern these. Squatter’s rules in temples have
been cut down by the constitution, these have shown as barbaric and violation
of basic rights, the same hold good for clubs. This subtle shift from sanctum to clubs (to freedom of expression of media) will not work, quaintness of argument
withstanding (Kasturi family are quite good at these, we have moved on from “banana
republic” (Sainath). Oops that hurts! 'Pol pot!!!' (Swami) lip smackingly delectable). Wake up dear arrogant gentiles. Going going gone the Statesman way. Hurrah to that). And yes the Gandhian ruse
of “good sense prevail” on the perpetrators will not work. They should be squatted
out if they don’t fall in line. There is a possibility that violence could be
resorted on to club members and they manhandled. Non violence and “good sense
prevail” is acceptable when the society is egalitarian and based on equality,
otherwise it is pandering. Even after seven decades “good sense prevail” has
not happened means there is something sinister and entrenched bias mindset at
work, which is not surprising at all it is only an extension of Indian tradition.
If the government fails to apply rules (or make rules to prevent these bias
mindset) then violence will have to be supported, non violence cannot be
subterfuge for elitist misdemeanors that has thousands of years of bias and
haughtiness to it. Non violence therefore becomes extreme form of violence. Asymmetry of power makes non violence a powerful
weapon against weak as it seeks to maintain exploitative status quo as also masquerade
egalitarianism and intention of peace wherein it is a sinister attempt to
perpetuate inequity while looking suitably angst filled. Sorry
Kasturi &Sons no more pandering to your higher worldview from primitive
framework, no more of your “good sense prevail” to the horrible elites and their
ways. They will have to fall in line, shocking that these exist even after so
many decades.