Gandhi Must Fall

On 13 April this year, a statue of Gandhi in Johannesberg was defaced and protesters raised placards reading 'Gandhi must fall.'  I see around me an attempt to discredit the Mahatma due to the racism he displayed towards black South Africans. Yet, in ignoring Gandhi's journey from Man to Mahatma, these 'activists' display a violence of thought that would make their quest for equality more difficult.*

For an Indian citizen, I am embarrassingly ignorant about Gandhi. I never needed to know more about him than I already knew. After all, those who seek to discredit Gandhi within India have had to resort to the most banal of arguments - the muslim-appeasing, weak, megalomaniacal Mahatma; the one who caused the partition, the one who left us with the Nehru-Gandhi family et al. A few months after I came to Oxford, I was jolted out of this complacence by a Rhodes Scholar, who called the Mahatma a 'nappy-wearing racist' on facebook. This was my first incentive to know more about Gandhi, and I picked up his autobiography. The next was another Rhodes Scholar who said 'but he beat his wife!' I kept reading, because I cannot talk about something I do not know. Most recently, when I quoted what Gandhi wrote about Israel in 1939, a Rhodes Scholar commented 'given how problematic Gandhi's remarks on apartheid in South Africa were (often full of anti-black sentiment), I don't see how his view is at all relevant.' I was hurt, not because I believe Gandhi was the perfect human being, but because I view this as symptomatic of a tendency to discredit all of Gandhi because of sensitivities around racism. Putting my reading on hold for a moment, I am compelled to put together my thoughts on this issue. For the record, I disagree vehemently with him, but more on that later.

• General disdain for blacks or 'Kaffirs' (1894 - 1911): Gandhi's writings from the time he spent in South Africa reflect a desire to, rather than attain equality with the whites, distinguish the Indians or Asiatics from the natives or 'Kaffirs' as he called them. Click here for a collection of quotes attributed to Gandhi. It is difficult for me to comment on the issue without having read precisely the texts that are quoted here**, but a few comments are in order. Firstly, Gandhi's thoughts and actions underwent a transformation over his life, and it seems that they began to distil into 'Gandhiism' only by the late 1910s. For example, Gandhi in the 1920s himself regretted his behaviour with his wife during their time in South Africa. If there is any truth in the allegations against Gandhi here, I am certain that he would have regretted them later in life***. Secondly, the complexity of this relationship is borne by this quote - "We may entertain no aversion to Kaffirs, but we cannot ignore the fact that there is no common ground between them and us in the daily affairs of life." Evidently, Gandhi believed that there is no intinsic reason to distinguish between the natives and Indians. He refers to the cultural differences that make assimilation untenable. Where Gandhi of this time may be found lacking is in accepting these differences and not wanting to bridge them. Gandhi's later actions in India, w.r.t. the Harijans or untouchables, a class of people who suffered discrimination perhaps unfathomable in any other part of the world, are testimony to his egalitarian nature. Gandhi's vision of India as a united state, where every citizen irrespective of religion, race or gender, had equal rights, is testimony to the fact that (the later) Gandhi can be called anything but racist.

• Participation in the war with the Zulus, 1906: After his participation in the Second Boer War as the leader of the Indian volunteer medics, Gandhi was once again on the side of the British during the Zulu rebellion. Gandhi's willingness to side with the British has not only been used to prove his antipathy towards the native black populations, but also to discredit him as a messiah of peace (click here). A few comments must be made. Firstly, Gandhi in 1906 was a supporter of the British empire; in fact, he envisaged a role for India within this empire and had not even thought of independence. As a faithful subject of the British empire, Gandhi felt duty-bound to come to the assistance of his nation. He said - "It is not for us to say whether the revolt of the Kaffirs is justified or not.. We re in natal by virtue of British power. Our very existence depends upon it. It is therefore our duty to render whatever help we can" Gandhi's repeated participation on the side of the British was driven by his duty towards his 'nation'. The same Gandhi sided with the British during the First World War, this time against 'white' enemies. On the second point, it seems that Gandhi's thoughts around war and violence were yet to fully develop. In any case, (the later) Gandhi would not have approved of a violent struggle for freedom as mounted by the Zulus in 1906, not would he have approved of the brutal British response. One must remember than in 1922, Gandhi called off a successful non-cooperation movement against British rule in India after a single incident of violence.

In conclusion, the sensitivity of the 'activists' towards racism is understandable. However, the hurry in knocking off the Mahatma from the pedestal he currently occupies is unwarranted. We are increasingly a generation of the impatient, and our activism and our ideals are also coloured by this impatience. Our ability to see things in the wider context has consequently suffered. There is certain merit in gradualism and patience. Gandhi needs a careful reading, one that I am still in the process of making. But more importantly, understanding Gandhi needs a clear mind. Trying to think from the Mahatma's perspective is difficult, but an attempt must be made. For me, Gandhi is the Mahatma or the 'Great Soul', not because I agree with him (which I do not), but I agree with how he reached the conclusions he did and what he did once he reached them. Gandhi's life was one big experiment, a continuous learning curve. He made mistakes on the way, as he admits himself. But if the 'activists' use these mistakes to denigrate an icon, I believe it will only do great disservice to their cause. Peace and love are powerful weapons. They may be advised to use them more. 

-------------------------

* - all quotes attributed to Gandhi in this article are from secondary sources. I would request the readers to let me know if any mistakes so that I may correct them.

** - having read his autobiography, there is little reference, derogatory or otherwise, to the black population of South Africa. Gandhi comments intensely on the state of the Indian community and their relationship with the (white) administration

*** - if anyone has come across any comments that Gandhi makes about black Africans post - 1920, would be very grateful if you could send those to me

Comments on the Palestinian issue

I recently visited Israel as part of a trip organised by the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) for Rhodes Scholars. Over about a week, we criss-crossed the country and met several people from different walks of life. We did not, however, visit the West Bank. With that in mind, here are my thoughts about the issue.

The Palestinian question has so many connotations that it is difficult for any country to be truly neutral. It has a 'Christianity/Judaism v/s. Islam', 'West V/s. East', 'Capitalism V/s. Socialism/Non-Aligned' and may I say even 'Rich V/s. Poor' tinge to it. Reality is often distorted by fanaticism on both sides. The Middle East is such a unique place that it is often difficult, if not impossible, for someone sitting in the sub continent to grasp fully the issues plaguing the region.

This trip therefore made me think about this festering issue in a way I haven't thought before. The desire of the nation to maintain a semblance of normalcy is commendable; and yet, the manifestations of the conflict are highly visible. Outside of the official program, I met several people who introduced themselves to me in ethnic or religious terms - Arab, Jew or Druze. It is a challenge the like of which would be hard to find elsewhere. Yet, after days of merely listening to speaker after speaker, the contours of the solution became most obvious to me. I believe most of these would be least surprising to anyone who has thought about this previously.

• Forget: The global discourse of the conflict seems to focus on what is 'right.' Is it, for example, right for the Jewish people to return to (or occupy) a land that they last held as a political unit some 2000 years back, and one that has since then been populated by other people, most recently the Muslim Palestinians*? Can that be a basis for other ethno-religious claims of a displaced people, like that of the Zoroastrians on Iran? Was the partition plan feasible? Were the Muslims made to pay the price for a (Christian country's) Holocaust? I believe that answering these questions is futile - firstly, because there never is a 'right' or 'wrong'; akin to the fact that different ways of aggregating utilities yields different results in economics. Secondly, the last sixty-seventy years are also now a part of history. The inescapable truth is that over six million Jewish people now reside in Israel. Any future solution has to start today, with this fact in mind. Even if one believes that the creation of Israel was unfair, one cannot argue in favour of undoing the 'wrong' by removing the state - because that leaves the six million people vulnerable. Discussions about resolving the conflict needs to focus on (a) what is the status quo (b) what is the ideal solution (c) how can we get closest to this solution.

• Grow and Govern: The Israeli occupation of Palestine is an inescapable truth. Israel as a nation and the Jewish people as a community place a lot of importance on their safety, as exemplified in the motto 'never again.' Israeli occupation of the West Bank is important from a security point of view. If the West Bank goes the Gaza way, or if it becomes a breeding ground for terrorist organisations, that could seriously test the existence of the Jewish state. With the addition of the Yemen conflict, the entire region seems to be in a state of conflict. The military differential between Israel and its antagonistic neighbours is currently substantial, but will probably be blunted over time. Where does that leave us? It seemed to me that the two-nation solution is accepted as the only solution. When the state of Palestine will finally be created, it is in Israel's best interest that the state be strong, and a strong nation needs to have strong institutions. Hence, it is in Israel's best interest that the Palestinian people be guided, encouraged and even forced to have world-class institutions**. Actions such as withholding tax receipts from the Palestinian Authority because the latter joined the ICC do not create much confidence. The basic feature of institutions is that they are stable; Israel cannot have 'institutions' that are provided or withdrawn as per convenience. Israel must help create an independent, efficient and able judiciary, must help empower local governing bodies, and must lay the foundations of economic growth. So that when the day comes to hand over the reins to the Palestinian people, the Israeli state can be at peace.

• Integrate: Finally, something must be said about Israeli Arabs, as distinct from the Palestinians. I was recently reading about communal conflict in India, and Israel's case is eerily similar - a majority religion with about 80% of the population, an Islamic minority and a long history of conflict. With all its flaws, it seems to me that India has done better in addressing this problem. As an example, the Muslim community in India holds a 'political veto' - (with the possible exception of the Modi dispensation,) they are organised politically such that they can block any proposal detrimental to their society. In contract, the Arab parties in Israel are almost political pariahs for any government. I could see that efforts are being made to bridge the gap between Arabs and Jews, and I would like to study that further before making any further comment. Also germane to the discussion is the engagement of Israel with the Islamic world. With nearly half of the global Islamic population, the countries east of Pakistan could serve as Israel's gateway to the Muslim world. Many of these countries, in fact, recognise Israel. Israel, a country this is shrouded in myth and mystery for many of us in this part of the world, can do better to present itself in a different light.

In conclusion, what has happened in the region is a tragedy not just for the Arabs but for Jewish people too. While nobody deserves to live under foreign occupation, nobody deserves to live under existential threats either. Those who think about a solution to the issue need to imbibe a lot of pragmatism and long-term thinking. 

--------------------------------

* - Gandhi for example, sympathised with the Jewish people, before and after the Holocaust. However, he was against the idea of creating Israel by displacing the Palestinians. Click here for Gandhi's opinion about the Jewish people on the eve of the Holocaust.

** - There are two obvious counter - arguments to this. One, why should Israel pay the cost of developing institutions in Palestine? During the trip, the notion of a 'Security Tax' particularly appealed to me. Israel occupies Palestine for the sake of its security, and hence it is obligatory on Israel to pay for this added security (or compensate Palestinians for the lack of agency over their lives) through a (substantial) transfer of resources. The second counter - argument is why the Palestinians shouldn't be the ones building institutions? Of course they should, and they will need to be part of the process. But it would be impractical to imagine that the Palestinian leadership could do this all by itself. As the occupier, Israel will have to be part of the process.

Twins

I have been thinking of writing this post for a long time; and yet, something has been preventing me from doing so. Perhaps the enormity of the emotions I want to express, and my lack of faith in my ability to do so. Or maybe I have just been procrastinating. In either case, I think I must now make an attempt to write down what I feel.

India. 

I have recently been thinking intensely about what the relationship between my country and me is. How did this country impact who I am? And how do I interact with the country? How do I conduct myself as an Indian, both within the country and outside? What is my role in the millennia - old traditions of my nation? What colour do I add to the tapestry of our culture?

Thankfully, I realised that the question is much easier for me than it is for citizens of most other countries. India is an island. For thousands of years, the country has existed in peace with the world around it - never has any kingdom of the country mounted a large-scale and sustained invasion/migration to any other nation. The result being that I can say with some degree of confidence that my ancestors have inhabited this land since time immemorial. My religion, Hinduism, has remained isolated and stubborn in this little patch of land. My culture might have irradiated other parts of Asia and the world at large - but it has had an unbroken tradition going back to the beginning of history. The idea of my nation comes most naturally to me.

Indians.

To try and define Indians as an entity is probably the most difficult aspect of the jigsaw. Not only are there so many of us, but there is often very little similarity between us. We squabble, argue, litigate, riot and disagree in every way possible. What then keeps us Indian? As a Delhi boy, what is my link to someone in rural Kerala who looks very different and doesn't speak the same language as me? How do I associate with someone from Mizoram, a state whose people I have never seen and who also look very different from how I look.

How is it that we kill each other on religious grounds, yet our three top actors are all Muslims? How is it that we demolish mosques, and yet vote to make an Islamic mausoleum one of the wonders of the world? The more I think about Indians, I am amazed at just how well we have organised ourselves as a nation.

To get a sense of just how much we have achieved, we need to look at our neighbourhood. A failed Islamic democracy, a country torn by ethnic conflict, a country still dangling without a constitution, one torn between two chieftains, another still one of the most autocratic regimes, and our biggest neighbour - and rival - constantly criticised for the lack of human rights. Look further into Asia, into the constant upheaval of the middle East, to begin to understand how unique the country is. In every study of freedom and democracy, we are the outliers, the exceptions. I am in awe, so I will not even try to find reasons.t 

I,

Thinking through these various issues, peace finally came to me when I realised the profound impact this culture has had on me. Firstly, by virtue of being part of a millennia-old tradition, I feel rooted. I am well aware of my space in this narrative. The Indian identity comes to my rescue whenever I feel restless. Secondly, my very emotional composition is a reflection of this culture. We are an emotional and petulant people, with a strong moral compass that we are often not aware of ourselves. Our greatest strength is the power of sacrifice. We sacrifice, for our family, for those who we love, for our religion, for our language, for what we believe in. We are in love with the idea of love itself. 

I see myself as an inheritor of a great legacy. I cherish every moment of my life, to an extent that if my life was to be terminated today, I would say that it was the best ever. What makes this feeling most beautiful is that I could not have said this at every moment in life. I have felt despondent, morbid, depressed at so many junctures. But the light and warmth of love has kept me going. The sacrifice of my family and my loved ones has given me strength. I toil to keep going, because I know I am not alone. Because my country, my culture, my religion has taught me that this isn't about me. 

Like Krishna, I attempt to balance between the serious and the trivial, the sensual and the spiritual, the cunning and the generous, the temporary and the ephemeral. I seek to enjoy life, in all its colour, but keep unbroken my sense of a greater purpose.

Of course, none of this suggests that we are perfect, or even superior in any way. We riot, we kill, we rape - obviously not everything is alright. But above all of this, we hope. We hope that one day we will organise ourselves into a society which is better for all of us. I believe it is this hope that not only keeps our country together, but also helps our country grow as rapidly as it has recently. 

I, for one, am very hopeful. We are a lazy bunch. But day-by-day, year-by-year, we are making progress. We will get annoyed, argue, fight, sulk, but then get back together. Chipping away at the layers of ignorance, arrogance, greed, and indifference. I am certain (not just hopeful) that India will continue to shine, and demonstrate that a people can peacefully organise themselves and improve their lot. I end with Tagore - "Where the mind is without fear and head is held high. Where knowledge is free. Where the world has not been broken up into fragments by narrow domestic walls. Where words come out from the depth of truth. Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection. Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit. Where the mind is led forward by thee into ever widening thought and action. Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake."