on gandhi

I don’t think Gandhi (that is, Mahatma Gandhi – not the depraved political dynasty that is currently ruling India) was as bad as I made him out to be a few years ago. Those who remember the exchange I had with a friend of mine in the comments section of one of my profile pictures in 2009 will know what I’m referring to. (And if they don’t, it’s because I refused to be more explicit here.) What brought about this change of heart (personally, I prefer the word “mind”, but that doesn’t have the same literary effect) wasn’t Professor Gandhi’s influence, but some quiet reflection and serious reading. You don’t need his grandson’s presumably biased views about him to make you realize that Gandhi was perhaps the only upright figure in the Indian national movement (among those who are read about today, at least). His ideas about nonviolence and pursuing the truth are truly admirable virtues whose influence on his character are not diminished in the slightest by his irrational religious and collectivist inclinations, which are not. Gandhi, like any human, was fallible, and didn’t pretend to be otherwise. If he seems to have been some kind of a god today, it’s only because of the debauchery of his followers. Gandhi was no politician, and his obscurantist ideologies do not need to be taken seriously just because he gave a moral compass to the freedom movement – but that doesn’t discredit his contributions, either. This wasn’t meant to be a descriptive entry, so I won’t substantiate my arguments (and/or opinions). It is plain, though, that Gandhi certainly deserves to be called the Father of India – especially since the other contenders were philanderers like Nehru.