0 Comments
The political, social and philosophical conflict between generation’s profound intellectualist, Mr. M.K Gandhi and Dr Ambedkar has a long tradition and still by no means ended. Ambedkar, the untouchable was heir to an anti-caste tradition dated back to Buddhism and Gandhi, a vaishya born into Gujarati Bania family was latest to the privileged caste Hindu reformism dated back to the works of Raja Ram Mohan Roy. Both Gandhi and Ambedkar represented separate interest groups and to quote Arundhati Roy, “their battle unfolded in the heart of India’s national movement (Roy, 2014).
Except for a modern style school education, M.K Gandhi had a fair conservative upbringing. He remained very loyal to his traditional background, a Bania by birth and a semi-fanatical believer in vegetarianism. He was the first secretary of the Natal Indian Congress, a mercantile and middle class organization in South Africa and later became a popular leader during India’s struggle for independence. The modern humanitarianism and pacifist thought that Gandhi acquired was from Tolstoy and john Ruskin. He was having a full-fledged faith in ahimsa and sarvodaya. His idea was that, if oppressed were to be roused, the oppressors had to be persuaded. He believed in non-violence and was moderate in approach with an extra-constitutional strategy. He firmly believed that violent revolutionary action could not possibly carry the mass of people. He was centred to non-violent action as a tool for mobilization. Gandhi made an art out of refusal, resistance and disobedience on the whole nationalist movement. Hind Swaraj, undoubtedly a text of heavy exaggeration, both in criticism of western civilization and in its idealization of pre-British India can be counted as starting point of Gandhi’s ideological development. According to Irfan Habib, Gandhi’s own picture of an ideal civilization had roots not in India, but in western thought. (Habib, 2013, p. 7). Later Gandhi himself discarded many ideas of Hind Swaraj. For Gandhi, “for truth, consistency was not an object”. Gandhi always believed that politics devoid of religion and morality can be no good. His simple attire, use of colloquial Hindi, reference to popular allegory of ‘ram rajya’ made him comprehensible to common people. (Bandyopadhya, 2013, p. 292). Despite his religious outlook, he never agreed to Hindu Nationalism. He was a sharp criticizer of communal politics and argued that all those who talk about Hindu Nationalism, wanted to take India back in History (Kumar, 2013, p. 50). His personal beliefs in sanatan Hindu religion and its scriptures like Bagavadgita, made him believe in the goodness of the original Varna system. Besides his defence of Varna system, he was also an active fighter against untouchability. Gandhi was committed to basic changes in the existing system of economic and political power. He was also opposed to the idea of the use of violence even in defence of the interest of the poor. He did not accept a class analysis of society and the role of class struggle (Chandra, 1989, p. 527). Gandhi is a subject of contestation. The revolutionary terrorists accused his mode of struggle as cowardice, the modern secular leadership questioned his orthodox display of religiosity, Marxist called him an agent of big bourgeoisie. Feminist looked at him as a champion of patriarchal-conservative values, the hindutva brigade called him a traitor and eventually murdered him. Dalit’s distrust his paternalistic hegemonic brahmanical sensitivities. The liberal nationalist class who failed to draw any drawbacks in Gandhi- the anarchist called him as the father of nation. -Iskra REFERENCES: Bandyopadhya, S., 2013. From plassey to partition. Delhi: Orient Blackswan private ltd.. Chandra, B., 1989. Indias struggle for independence. Delhi: Penguin books. Habib, I., 2013. The national movement; studies in ideology and history. Delhi: Tulika Books. Kumar, A., 2013. Nationalism in india. Delhi: Boook age publication. |
Categories
All
Archives
June 2016
AuthorsAshique Ali T |