WHY DO I RESPECT GANDHI?
“Why do you respect MK Gandhi to such an extent?”, my friend asked me in his pertinent fashion. And of course he was overwhelmed by the concepts which portray Gandhi as someone who swept the credits of others to his account, and emerged as the savior of India from the pincers of British regime. He went on elaborating that Gandhi is just a false fantasy, and artificial myth. How can you even contemplate that non-violence can lead a country to deliverance. I was grinning at him, and he kept on pattering about the misconducts of Gandhi. The time came when he stopped after being exhausted, screwed up his eyes on me, and said, “ I know that you're zealot advocate of Gandhi, but the fact remains that he was not as much as he has been aggrandized. He has done nothing for India’s freedom, and was just an old man, with his out-dated ethical principles. Don't talk about his personal life, he was but a lascivious cad, nothing else.”
The way he expressed his perceptions was really rough to a fault, but yet these kind of perceptions are not unfamiliar in these days, as a group of people has already preferred Godse over Gandhi, and can go beyond every conceivable limits to vilify MK Gandhi. TheThe simi conceptions like that of my friend, stem from the books, articles, and works of that particular group, which I deliberately don't want to name.
Anyway, it was my turn to reply, and I started, but with a caution lest I hurt him unwittingly. “ First of all, I am not willing to tell you, how pious Gandhi was, and how mystic his life was. I am neither entitled to sanctify him, nor do I want to do it at this point of time. There are many books, written or compiled by those who were intimately close to Gandhi, just go through those books, if you are yearning to uncover the truth. What I am to tell you, is the answer to your question pertaining to me, that who do I revere Gandhi.”
“ I respect Gandhi, not because he was a mystic and pious person. I have come across many people, who are more pious than Gandhi, nor do I respect him because he led India to freedom. This only thing can make him abe to deserve a high regard from the whole country, just look through the annals of the history of India's freedom, and the fact will materialize before you, that who struggled against British dominance, and who was polishing English boots, with their tongues. The history will tell you better, provided you don't rely on the gossips and the mutated history of those who killed Gandhi.”
“The very reason I hold Gandhi as an extraordinary person is not that he led the country to the freedom, but the way he picked to lead India to its freedom. You may not agree, but the truth is that India won its freedom by picking up the path of non-voilence. I am not emphasizing that the non-voilence was the only way to opt. Of course there were short-cuts to obtain it. But the the non-voilence was the optimal one. And as MK Gandhi asserted, “an eye for an eye, leaves the whole world blind”.
“There were two ways before India to pick up, one was the way of violence, the quick solution to get rid of the British yoke and servitude. At a time when British army was grappling with the first World War, India had a chance to uproot the British regime, and kick it out of India, as many people insist on, among them, there are historians too. But the question is that, was it possible with a population, which itself was co-operating with British government, to strike its roots deep in Indian peninsula, keep in mind that the one who ordered to fire at Jallianwala Bagh was Colonel Reginald Dyer, but those who adjusted the guns on their shoulders, pulled the triggers, and open the fire on innocent Indian people, including women and children, were also Indians.”
“They could have denied the orders, but they didn't, not because they were physically enslaved, never, they had guns, and the one who was ordering to fire on their own people, was just before them, they could have shoot that very person, instead of destroying those innocents who didn't even had a way out of that massacre, but a well, which was later, found brimming out of corpses, mostly women and children.”
“To teach those people, the lessons of self-respect and humanity, was far more important than, getting freedom. What would you do with a freedom if you can't manage it, and scatter like animals, assaulting each other, no respect for humanity, let alone the nationality.”
“Gandhi said, that the result can't justify the means. If the way you picked up to get to your destination is not sanctified, then no matter what kind of destination you got to, you are not worthy to be appreciated. Choose the way, which doesn't lead to harm others, no matter if you, yourself become vulnerable. But as long as you are not committing violence, your soul will enjoy sheer peace and tranquility.”
“And the at last, if you believe that non-violence makes no impact, then here is an incident, which will be enough to understand. At the time of Dandi March, there was a protest at Dharasana Salt Work. The people were in rows, trying to get into the mill to make salt, but there were policemen to resist, whenever a row comes forward, policemen use their clubs and beat them severely until they fall on ground. Then they were removed by volunteers, and the another row marches forward, again a storm of clubs, people falling on earth, and then the next row of people advances. A British sergeant was carrying out his orders with as much cruelty as zeal. He would hit over the head with his lathi every volunteer that came in front of him till the man fell down unconscious at his feet, and went on to the next when one fell down. Then a strong and hefty Sikh volunteer approached him in the line. On seeing him, the sergeant grabbed his lathi with both his hands, lifted it high, and brought it down with all his might on the head of the helpless victim with added strength to render useless the turban that the man, as all Sikh people do, was wearing around his head. The volunteer collapsed on the ground with blood over his face. The nurses took him, placed ice on his head, he recovered, stood up and went to take his place in the line of volunteers again in front of the same British sergeant. The sergeant had seen everything, tired and covered in perspiration as he stood, and on seeing the same volunteer coming forward again he hardened his face, steadied his legs, and lifted his lathi with both hands ready to hit. All those who were watching the scene were horrified, expecting the worst. But then the heart of the sergeant was touched. Little by little he loosened the grip of his hands, he brought down his lathi slowly, he smiled a helpless smile and murmured between his teeth: 'Who's going to hit this man? My lathi is no use here. Here he is the brave one, not I.' With that the British sergeant stood to attention before the Indian volunteer, clicked his heels, saluted him in the military way putting his right hand to his forehead, placed his lathi under his arm, turned round and left. This was the power of non-voilence.”
With violence you can stop someone from misconduct, with non-voilence you can internalize in someone not to intend to commit misconduct again. That's the difference between the theory of violence and non-voilence. Hope you understand. It doesn't matter if Gandhi was killed, but his ideas are alive. No matter if India forgets him, the world commemorates, and if you bother to go back to the history, you will find that a bunch of countries tried the concept of non-voilence to get rid of foreign bondage, and other kind of oppressions, and they succeeded, and who can forget Nelson Mandela.
