|
The time has come for all political parties to
think seriously about re-casting public discourses on decency, honesty
and morality in politics. Otherwise, all political virtues would
become illegitimate in the context of modern conditions that shape
the nation’s unified and democratic consciousness.
Of late, politics has largely become the game of megalomaniacs,
eccentrics, casteists and communalists. We the common people too
have become immune to all sorts of galvanic shocks or how would
one explain our subdued reaction to the trenchant attack on Mahatma
Gandhi, from time to time, by political leaders?
After independence, from aspiring politicians to business tycoons,
every one has been trying to force “Gandhi” down our gullet
precisely to draw public attention. Now for the past 10/15 years,
a parallel trend has come to dominate the political scene: Castigate
Gandhi.
Recently, Uttar Pradesh chief minister Mayawati, while addressing
party functionaries in Lucknow, called Gandhi natakbaj or a phony
who “staged a drama by visiting Dalit homes and eating meals
with them but did little to help the cause of the Dalits”.
This remark came from a leader against whom there are allegations
of misuse of public funds, personal aggrandizement and naked exercise
of power. Instead of genuinely helping her state and its people,
she resorts to sloganeering and symbolism. Any serious discussion
of her performance gets quickly mired by name-calling and charges
of racism. It is also alleged that she befools the Dalits in the
name of Ambedkar and manipulates the political power to make personal
gains, as a result of which she has become the richest politician
of India. She has squandered public money on creating her own monuments
and installing her own statues.
She has earned for UP the dubious distinction of being an alarmingly
corrupt state. Miss Mayawati is currently facing allegations of
amassing assets beyond her known sources of income. She is reported
to have made over 100 crore in the Taj corridor scandal.
The problem of Mayawati is that she has been all these years trying
to keep the Dalit vote-bank in her safe deposit, but the recent
Lok Sabha election has blown apart her dreams. But why denigrate
Gandhi? Because Gandhi still stands as the supreme symbol of relentless
and uncompromising struggle against the curse of both sectarianism
and casteism in India where the practice is to use the name of Gandhi
either way and become famous. This habit has percolated down to
all those who have been aspiring for public attention.
The castigation of Gandhi is not always confined to criticism of
his policy but in most cases it gets personal. Once, filmmaker Ritwik
Ghatak referred to Gandhi as the “descendant of pig” in
his convocation address at Jadavpur University. The gay rights activist
Ashok Row Kavi described him as a “bastard bania” on a
chat show on TV.
At the Periyar Mela in Lucknow, BSP leader Kanshi Ram described
Gandhi as a “Gujarati bania” who betrayed the Dalits.
The BSP had earlier desecrated Raj Ghat as well. Leaders like Kanshi
Ram and Miss Mayawati actually helped the people from lower castes
to perceive their social status in a distorted form who quite naturally
could not establish a correct identity between social interest and
their ideological reflection.
Here lies the difference between Gandhi and these so-called Dalit
leaders. These Dalit leaders had never tried to cater to the new
secular national consciousness that Gandhi had. Gandhi’s basic
appeal was made on economic, political and of course, moral ground.
This is precisely the reason as to why the defilement of Gandhi
became necessary, first, for leaders like Guru Golwalkar, Bal Thackeray,
Kanshi Ram and now, Miss Mayawati. They did not show political will
or capacity to possess control over the social condition so that
the down trodden could be rescued from the socio-economic dead-end.
On the contrary, their programme included the defilement of a man
who was justifiably accorded the status of a national emblem by
the Constitution of India, in order to meet immediate political
needs or to cater to the immediate audience.
Mahatma bashing over the years by the RSS during his lifetime is
part of our history. To the RSS, the Mahatma was “an instrument
to destroy national consciousness”. Gandhi was not only the
enemy in the eyes of the Muslim League before the partition but
he was also the RSS’s bete noire since Gandhi believed that
“no swaraj is possible without Hindu-Muslim unity”. And
thus, he, according to the RSS, “perpetrated the greatest treason
on our society… committed the most heinous sin of killing the
life spirit of a great and ancient people” (Golwalkar). Pointing
finger at the Mahatma, Golwalkar further said “strange very
strange, the traitors should be enthroned as national heroes and
patriots heaped with ignominy”.
The Mahatma was virtually branded by the RSS as a traitor to and
enemy of Hindus for which he had to pay the price with his life
on 30 January, 1948. Then even Sardar Patel who was otherwise sympathetic
to the RSS, had to ban the organisation in 1948 as “in practice
members of the RSS had not adhered to their professed ideals. The
objectionable and even harmful activities of the Sangh have, however,
continued unabated and cult of violence sponsored and inspired by
the activities of the Sangh has claimed many victims. The latest
and most precious to fall was Gandhiji himself”.
Later, Bal Thackeray took up the cudgels for defending that very
position of the RSS on the Sangh’s behalf. He even gave a call
for installation of a statue of Nathuram Godse, the man who assassinated
Gandhi. But then Mr Thackeray was never known for his weakness for
the Mahatma.
In a country where still certain political parties believe in pernicious
political doctrines like sectarianism and casteism, attempts will
be made to belittle the national symbol of communal and caste harmony
like Gandhi and Gandhisim. Political leaders like Miss Mayawati
and her ilk, who make sectarianism and casteism the very basis of
their politics, will continue to denigrate the Mahatma, but the
people must resolve to frustrate their nefarious design. It is the
duty of the state as well to check this trend which is dangerous
in a country where small interest groups have emerged commanding
loyalty of sub-sections of local society. Each group has its own
local hero.
|
