Intentional, ironic, or profoundly tragic?
This photograph (no photo credit given) in the New Indian Express today, 2 October, the birthday of Gandhiji, contains the caption, "Cleaning the Mahatma".
Since 'mahatma' means 'great soul' it would seem that, by definition, it is beyond the need or even the possibility of cleaning. I wonder if the caption underscores the irony, and was therefore an intentional, although sombre, lament for the changing times, specifically in the nation that Gandhi is credited with fathering; or was it an accidental vagary of black humour.
---------------
Update:
Anonymous wrote: ... all current cleaning can only denote removing all trace.
---------------
Anonymous wrote:
This resonates strongly for i come from what can be referred
to as an authentic gandhian family. My father's lifelong livelihood came from
organising, archiving, exhibiting, researching and generating art material on
the Mahatma. i remember him working on large canvases portraying the mahatma's
life, mumbling, "It wasn't an assassin that killed him. It is his devotees
who did it. He died of suffocation in museums. We needed to remove him from our
midst and what better way of doing it than 'immortalising' him by locking him
up in museums."
That is why i said cleaning can only mean removing all trace
of what he represented.
------------------------
Pravin Gandhi wrote:
I know I'll be walloped for blasphemy. But on Gandhi Jayanti
day, I pose a question that has often been on my mind: DID GANDHI ANOINT NEHRU
OVER SARDAR PATEL COZ he (Gandhi), his movement, ashrams, the Indian National
Congress itself, were FUNDED BY MOTILAL NEHRU AND GD BIRLA? Was it payback
time? Did Nehru buy his PM-ship?
Why did Gandhi give a parting shot which set the course and
mindset of a nation.
If somebody can enlighten me on how this decision was made, i
would be thankful.
Gen-Next would care a
fig, but they are inheriting the mess!My Reply:
Your question is a good one, although unfortunately, arguments
about Gandhi, Motilal, Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Patel, Birla, and whatever
other connections or disconnections, avowed and disowned, but rumoured and
murmured shenanigans of historical proclivities, leanings and the size of
misjudgement, are now all part of inconsequential debate. So much so that no
one would even take notice of any new material coming out on those days of
struggle before, during and after independence, let alone waste a tiring effort
of walloping you.
 |
| Jahawarlal Nehru |
The unambiguous and incontrovertible facts are that Gandhi was
in awe of Motilal’s family, their aristocracy, wealth, education, looks, and
therefore easily made Jawaharlal the jewel of his eye. This would be fine and
forgivable, had it not been for the fact that the plain, practical,
unsophisticated but un-vacillating and iron-handed Sardar, who proved to be
capable of better judgment, which he could deliver swiftly, without ado, that
brought benefits and respect for the country, was time and again side-lined in
favour of Nehru.
 |
| Sardar Patel |
Unfortunately, Gandhi’s assassination within months of Independence,
did not allow his biased judgments to be put to test. Giving Gandhi the benefit
of the doubt, he would certainly have seen that the nation’s good would have
been safer in the hands of Patel, as opposed to Nehru. Nehru got mired in
self-image of a high moral ground, antagonised the heads of state of countries
that influenced the world both with power and wealth, ruled at home by
surrounding himself with sycophants, and thus, trying to create a place in
history for himself, laid the foundations of a vacillating, indecisive,
incrementally corrupt and inefficient government. I can go on, but it is
needless, for it will not serve any purpose retroactively.
For more on this subject, see this piece which I posted on my
website years ago.
Best,
Rameshbhai
No comments:
Post a Comment