It's almost a month since British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond
visited India, a few days before Mahatma Gandhi's statue was unveiled at
Parliament Square in London in the presence of Union Finance Minister
Arun Jaitley. Call it a coincidence, the visit was appropriately timed
on March 12, the day 85 years ago when Gandhi launched his mass
satyagraha movement from Sabarmati in Gujarat to the banks of the Dandi
to break the unjust salt law that, to a large extent, signalled the
beginning of the end of the British Raj in India. It was at this point
of time Gandhi drew world sympathy in this (non-violent) battle for
'right against might'.
One could argue that though the mass civil
disobedience movements - a term borrowed by Gandhi from Henry David
Thoreau, a 19th-century American writer and used as 'satyagraha' in the
Indian context - led by Gandhi to end the monopoly of the British Empire
upon the Indians did not produce a constitutional change, it
demonstrated that ordinary Indians had the power to drive events. In
several parts of India, nationalists succeeded in weakening the
forcefully imposed/established structures. Moreover, people began to
defy - as well as challenge - the injustices.
Peter Ackerman and
Jack DuVall write in their book, "A Force More Powerful: A Century of
Nonviolent Conflict": "While the campaign did not wreck the raj, it did
succeed in shredding the legitimacy of British rule. For over a century
the regime had represented itself as benign, standing for sound economy
and gradual reform - and likely to bring home rule in the long run. As
long as Indians went about their business and cooperated with its laws
and institutions, the British could maintain this façade. But civil
disobedience shattered it".
And the greatest example of this was
the Salt March that brought people from different classes and regions -
wherever Gandhi made his presence and from further distance too - and
forged a durable link among Indians who put aside their personal
interest to promote national interest. Mahatma Gandhi became the
embodiment of national purpose for millions of Indians who nonviolently
fought for 'truth force' vis-Ã -vis 'brute force'.
And here was
Philip Hammond addressing the media on Britain's growing relations with
India. Referring to the unveiling, Hammond said: "That statue will be a
tribute to the inspiration Gandhi provided not only to India but to the
people of the world", adding, "It is fitting that the man (Mahatma
Gandhi) who founded the world's largest democracy should look across the
Square at the world's oldest parliament (in Britain)".
This
would be a befitting acknowledgement - rather than tribute - to a man
who as an 18-year-old touched upon a land which threw before him an
entirely different world (19th century England). Never in his life, had
he seen something so splendid, so ornate and so polished that made the
young Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi abandon his habitual modesty to present
himself as an English gentleman, what author Robert Payne in his book
"The Life and Death of Mahatma Gandhi" calls as an 'infatuation', which
ultimately would pass.
It cannot altogether be denied that the
British recognized the good points in a rebel and it was worthy. As the
English journalist, novelist and educator Edmund Candler recorded in
1922: "Gandhi's honesty of purpose has been generally admitted by the
Indian Government, by the Viceroy, as well as by the Secretary of State.
The rage of a certain section of the British press with Mr. Montagu,
when he admitted that Mahatma Gandhi was his friend, is understandable".
In
the 67 years - after Gandhi's death - that separate us from him,
humanity has witnessed breathtaking achievements in science and
technology and even the texture and rhythm of our life have been
altered. Some see it as a model of development; others perceive it as a
race against time.
As India celebrates the 100 years of Gandhi's
return from South Africa (1915-2015) and gears up for the centenary
celebrations of the historic 'Champaran Satyagraha' in 2017, the
satyagrahi Gandhi seems to be little awed by the dynamism of the events
that are to unfold as the clock progresses. For the Gandhi who returned
in 1915 saw India as a whole and not in parts and fragmented, if not
externally to the world, yet too demanding.
The culture wars
occurring in the multicultural societies - and India is an integral part
- is just a microcosm of the global conflict. No country today seems to
have been left untouched by the phenomenon of violence. The world -
because of frequent confrontations and violent eruptions despite the
rapid and globalised progress - has become a one physical unit, but not
an integrated entity.
While rediscovering - and more so
repackaging Mahatma Gandhi in this globalised era - it will be apt to
realize - and adhere - that the spirit and legacy of Gandhi demand bold,
courageous and connected initiatives which reach the last man in
society. The spiritual Gandhi has today become not only a national
leader but a missionary of civilization. Or is it that the repackaging
has transformed this mass leader into a façade, which only exists but
dissipates?
Also to the unimaginative - or the disbelievers - the
Mahatma remains insincere or insignificant. Can a remoulded Gandhi be a
guiding force to the East and the West alike, as the crisis of
civilization sharpens its edge and as Gandhi stands as a significant
figure at the world's crossroads?
(Rajdeep Pathak is programme
executive at New Delhi's Gandhi Smriti and Darshan Samiti. The views
expressed are personal. He can be contacted at [email protected] )
