Mayawati and Gandhiji

Journalists are very cynical of politicians and for them everything politicians do and say is politically
motivated. What would have Jaswant Singh achieved by lauding Jinnah? He got expelled from party and
now is nowhere. I think he paid the price of being politically incorrect. He wrote what he felt. To me, he
chose to dissolve his position in BJP despite he knew beforehand that it would happen so. So is the case
of Raj Thakre. It is again very unjust to say that he has no real love for Marathis and Mumbai and all he is
doing is for political mileage. This very approach to deal with likes of Raj Thakre is so faulty that it would
only embolden them to act further in their belief-path. While it is very essential to nip in bud the anti-
constitutional, anti-national philosophy of Raj (so because …see next paragraph), it can not be done by
calling him a liar. He needs Prabodhan –philosophical dose (the legacy of his great, literally, grandfather
who is the best of all Thakres and who they have conveniently forgotten) on what it means to take
names of people of select states and preclude them from enjoying the natural benefits of being Indian
citizen. And what it means taking a physical drive in achieving the aim. He needs to be explained that he
would sit in the league of Jinnah in long term future of India if people and politicians start following that
kind of thinking, speaking and behavior from all parts of India. I hope he would perceive that as a scary
comparison.

One can understand the fact that Mumbai is overburdened (because of lack of planning) and also that it
is important conserve the local culture irrespective of what place it is. But it simply can not be
understood the total lack of sympathy for poor people of UP and Bihar, economically one of the most
backward states in the country naturally migrating to prosperity centers of country. It can not be
understood short listing the two states and demeaning their stature. It can not be understood the
names “UP” and “Bihar” are not given equal respect which they deserve as sister states. To me; these
poor people of Bihar (and similar states) build the nation brick by brick, quite literally. I have seen it
happening in Jamnagar refinery of Reliance, all the plants I have visited where they are lowest paid
contract labors. They are also the labor bees in wealthiest Punjab and Haryana in agriculture hubs. They
are the rickshaw pullers in NCR and all cities in the north India, and yes in the North-East too. Bihar is
not an inherently poor state but it made poor by design because the Bihari politicians and people have
been gullible since independence. At the time of Independence, Bihar had highest GDP in India and it
was the richest state. When taken together with Jharkhand, it has highest mineral resources, which
unfortunately are a central subject, mined in huge quantities, supplied to entire nation, mostly at
subsidized prices and worst of all- the state hardly deriving any economic benefit from them apart from
paltry state royalty. Bihar has abundant water resources for industrialization. Unlike most other states
where unemployment is there because the people are not simply ready to “stoop” to labor level , to do
menial work because of their social caste based elitist mentality, Biharis are always ready to take any
piece of work. So great is the history of Bihar that “epitome of Indian history” is from Bihar and sits in
our tricolor. How can a political leader and that too a right wing leader, forget all this? The economic
cycles of prosperity and penury come and go. But then should we belittle the penurious people? Should
we selectively close our doors to them? Is it patriotic? Is it human? I would join Thakre in punishing
(legally of course) all the outsiders who deprecate Marathi culture, who want to deliberately change the
demography of place for political reasons, who commit crimes taking advantage of gullibility of local
people. But I just disgust taking name of UP (where Rama and Krishna were born, where people are their
descendents, it is the place Rama Temple issue took place that got the erstwhile unknown right wings
proximity to throne and I have not confirmed but I am quite sure that Raj is a devotee of these two
Bhaiyyas.) and Bihar and showing door to them. Well, the point is, we should not question the
veraciousness of Thankre’s love for Marathi and Mumbai but we should criticize him for the paradoxes
in his philosophy and ignorance in actions. If we continue to neglect this issue, it would snowball with
grave consequences to country.

You must be wondering, still there is no name of Mayawati and Gandhiji, though you are through one
page, holding your patience. I just wanted to say by all this that all politicians statements are not for
votes but some are made from within the heart. We have to trust them for that. Mayawati made one
such statement –that Gandhiji was Natakbaj (dramatist literally, shammer or pretender metaphorically).
I am not a great fan of Gandhiji but this statement by a mass leader was little too much on Gandhiji, at
least I felt so. There could be many people who would subscribe to her views and again all these lots
need Prabodhan. The statement, if extended liberally, would mean that Gandhiji did not have true love
for the downtrodden castes of India and he feigned love for them. This is a very serious allegation on a
person with genuine love for lower castes. I do not like to think of Gandhiji as an effective politician, but
it is undoubted that he was a great social reformer, philosopher, spiritual leader and innovator. His
intent to reform India social is beyond reproach.

The drama aspect creeps in with Gandhiji’s dress, food, living, speech, principles, etc. In what situation
all these can be called drama? History stands witness to the fact that Gandhiji fought tooth neck to
nonplus the move towards reservations for backward castes in political representation. He started
hunger strike and Dr. Ambedkar had to come to terms with him. Dr. Ambedkar did not want Gandhiji to
die and he also was aware of the repercussions on the lives of underpowered Indian dalits; had Gandhiji
actually succumbed. He had no option. Gandhiji opposed the reservations saying it would divide the
society. Had he had a little more foresight, he would have not fasted. Dalits would have not mass
converted to Buddhism under Ambedkar’s leadership and the division he intended to not to take place
would not have taken place. Gandhiji also did not take any hard step to tame the upper caste Hindus
and bring equality in society. He did not support Arya Samaj of Maharshi Dayanad Saraswati that just
derecognized caste system keeping intact vedic philosophy. The mass drive of Arya Samaj for Roti-beti
transactions (marrying to anyone and being social with anyone irrespective of caste) did not find support
from Gandhi camp. Gandhiji, on odd occasions described himself as a proud Hindu, eulogized Indian
scriptures (which implied acceptance of Varnashram – the upper layer of caste system). Gandhiji also
has not done anything worth fast recall to empower lower castes economically. It was Archarya Vinoba
Bhave who conducted the Bhudan (donation of land, literally) movement for benefit of poor farm
workers who did not title to the land they toiled for centuries. Gandhiji was quasi-monarch of Indian
polity in 1940s. He did not support Subhash Chandra Bose and his INA, even post-war, who brought
freedom to India, though temporary in World War II when Indian Tricolor (the then format) was hoisted
at Moirang in Manipur and Port Blair in Andman and Nicobar islands. Netaji gave India freedom before
Gandhiji and does deserve his image on 1000 Rs currency note. Gandhiji was silent on Bhagat Singh.
Gandhji brushed away Savarkar’s proposition to make an Indian language, Hindi, compulsory all over
India. When all elected members chose Vallabh Bhai Patel to lead the country, Gandhiji forced (force of
stature, of course) Nehru’s name and made him prime minister. Our country is a tolerant country by and
large but hardly any individual is secular by spirit, by definition or by pledge. Gandhji unnecessarily
described “we, the people of India” being secular, than tolerant. This has disseminated a grudge in all
Indian religions that they are not given fair treatment. While noting all this, it is important to conclude in
right way and not in haste. Gandhiji did not mean to be an authoritarian leader, but his decision seemed
to be dictatorial because they were no contemporary leaders in Congress of equal stature or superior
stature. The multifold instances where he has shown flexibility are proof of this.

I have always ended up believing that Gandhiji has been made larger than life in the chronicles of India.
Like Taj Mahal means Indian tourism; Gandhiji means Indian political ideology. Bhagat Singh has been
reduced to a weapon-revolutionary and his social reformist side, which is larger than his role as an anti-
British radical, is suppressed. To my extreme frustration, now a day, the first recall status for the word
Shahid (Martyr) of Bhagat Singh is also being changed. There are multiple advantages of projecting
Gandhiji larger than life for the Congress party. I am quite sure they have not done it deliberately but it
has happened so through their acts inadvertently. When Nathuram Godse killed Gandhiji, he did not
know that his act simply block off the right wing (whose attempts to distance themselves from
Nathuram have always spurned by common people and politicians) parties from getting to power for 50
good years (barring partial power in 1977). It is a simple equation for the Congress – the large the aura
of Gandhiji, the greater the distance of opposition from the power in Delhi. And above all, they don’t
have to bother about how to do it. The promotion of his image is automatically taken care at
government expenses. The contrast of Gandhiji’s promotion campaign (or Gandhiji and Nehru-Gandhi
clan promotion campaign) is stark especially in the light of neglect many of other great Indian leaders,
social reformers such as Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, Vallabh Bhai Patel, Lokmanya Tilak, Dr. Ambedkar
, Dadabhai Nauroji, Mahatma Phule, Savarkar, Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad, Moulana Azad, Khan
Abdul Gafar Khan, Baba Amte, Vinoba Bhave, Maharshi Karve, Sarojini Naidu, Tagore, Arvind Ghosh,
Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Vivekanand, Dayand Saraswati, Jai Prakash Narayan, Maharaj Tikendra Jit Singh,
etc (this list is very incomplete as it does have names of many great people of many states). But again,
reading Gandhiji’s character, had Gandhiji been alive today, I can say with near certainty that he would
have hated this artificial campaign without following the values he preached. There is no fault of
Gandhiji in being promoted by the Congress.

The BJP cannot even think of opposing this “Gandhiji’s one man army freed India without any weapons”
propaganda – thanks to spectre of association with Nathuram – through they would love to do that.
They would at least like to dilute the force of Gandhian legacy, but alas! Now, it is Mayawati, who can,
and can afford to, call Gandhiji a dramatist. But the moot question is, she is right in doing so? I think she
is not. Gandhiji’s concern for dalit welfare is beyond suspicion. His has vision for tolerant, equality
based, , economically independent, progressive, scientific, secular Indian society and he worked towards
it in his own fashion. He undertook several initiatives towards these ends. We deliberately and very
rightly project Gandhiism as epitome of Indian political philosophy because though it appears out of
context and idealistic in the present situation, it is something the world should work towards someday.
If we put together all the philosophies of religions, politics, societies, cultures, spiritualities, commerce,
international relations and try to concoct something good for humanity for distant future of humanity,
we shall have begin with Gandhiism and develop on it. The very perspective of Gandhiji’s thinking was so
different that it led many people to believe that his philosophy is impractical, out of place and futile. So
is the case of his work for the Dalits. But that is not what Mayawati is saying.

Mayawati would have been very correct, had she said that Gandhiji deprived dalits of their political
rights at the outset. Nobody would have reason to disapprove her views, had she alleged that the
despite the Gandhian rule for so long in the country, equality is not even on the horizon for the lower
castes. Except for churning that has taken place since a non-Congress government started substantial
reservations in jobs, there is no sign of social upheaval. There are hardly any great industrialists, artists,
social reformers, scientist, actors, etc, etc from this segment. There is not any social respect for the poor
who are, in maximum cases, the lower castes. There are only dalit politicians, too many of them and
none of them with enough overall caliber to fill in the vacuum created by Dr. Ambedkar. (Ambedkar was
a PM material of his time but all the odds were against him. Nobody recognizes this even today.) The
condition of Indian state as such is measureable going by all the parameters of social well being. One can
imagine what would the condition be of socially and economically deprived class in India. Mayawati
would have blamed all this to Gandhian approach towards running a state and she cannot be wronged
on that front.

She chose to call him imposter, which directly attacks the character of the person. Gandhiji had great
character. His philosophy is unique and it is very likely that it may become source of inspiration for
world’s all countries in deciding their destiny. It always good idea to pin-point the issue than attacking
the entire persona. Mayawati, is the only another grand scale social leader (I am not saying dalit
politician) after Ambedkar and her words would be taken literally by a large section of society. Thus
Indian society will get divided into two major classes – the upper caste promotion campaign class who
use Gandhiism as façade but don’t practice it and the lower caste Gandhi despising class who believe
that he is a pretender and really no one to them. What we need is a majority class that adores him and
follows an approach that would bring greater equality in the society.

We have had innumerable great people born in India. Their influence was like lightening. There was no
lasting light from any leader. All the great people are dragged into one or other controversy. Either we
do not follow them or we do convenient interpretation of their teachings. Any great leader, however
great, cannot be perfect. The nation desperately needs to restore pride in its great sons and daughters.

In the end, Behenji (Mayawati, popularly called sister) needs to rephrase her statement on Pitaji
(Gandhiji or rashtrapita or father of nation). You owe that to him as an individual.

Disclaimer: All these views are personal and in my own perception immature. Advanced apologies to all
entities if they find anything hurting in this. I am trying to be educative and pedagogic than critical or
venomous.