When i was a school kid, there used to be a joke
about a student who wrote an essay about coconut tree. In the exam he was asked
to write about a Cow, but he knew only
about coconut tree so he wrote three full pages about the tree and in the last line
he wrote, “we tie our beloved cow in the coconut tree”. This is certainly on a
lighter note, i am not suggesting roy doesn’t know about ambedkar, it is just a
feeling you get after reading the introduction, you get to know more about
Gandhi than about Ambetkar.
From the article Roy has written (Doctor and the Saint), i feel she is
fighting an imaginary gandhians whom she feels are betraying Ambetkar’s
critical role in the history of India especially in creating modern moral
intellectual conscience of the nation.
Why is nation obsessed with Gandhi when the future of india lies with Ambetkar
seems to me her anguish. And for this she has brooded over writings of Gandhi
(From the devils mouth) to prove his undeserved claims. She has read it
selectively , as she says, it is humanly impossible to read monstrous amount of
material Gandhi has written, with inconsistency, and make a sense of it. Infact
one gets the feeling she has not only selectively chose the writing but also
selectively read paragraph in a letter
as they are so long. This impatience or rather dishonestly is unexpected from a
writer who has written volumes herself.
She has used
her screenplay skills to slowly build a plot to establish Gandhi as negative
hero in the history of Dalits resurgence.
IN this process she has, one can say, has fallen prey to the age old
hindu tradition of Myth making, she is creating a hero by writing too much about
Gandhi than about Ambetkar. Little do we
know about Ambetkar from her article.
In her play Gandhi come across as durathma, a liar, a Manuvadi, racist, as
conspirator against Ambetkar, and with ambetkar lies the future of india.
This is no reason to argue that Gandhi has done or
his ideas are better and improved than of Ambetkar’s, perhaps Ambetkar was right, Gandhi was wrong, perhaps
Ambetkar can provide salvation to india’ s problem. For me the case is, for Ambetkar to be
prophet of New India, should gandhi be a villain ?, for ambetkar to be established should gandhi be demolished. The last 60 years
have proved amply to all, that gandhi is at the best remains tomb devoid of any substance or
representation for the followers and the nation. His thoughts and practice is
buried and occasional debate goes on his relevance. Yes he is written most and
debated but doesn’t mean it is more than a pulp culture.
Some of the conclusion and opinion roy has drawn in the are
outrageous. I would like to examine those statements from same sources she has
claimed from.
History has been kind to Gandhi, Ambetkar Ignored. Which historian and which history has been unkind to
ambedkar, just a para above this statement ,in the article roy talks about many gandhis eco
gandhi, androgynous gandhi etc. Perhaps this multi facet persona of gandhi has something
for every one. Even in the long article foreword to the ambedkar’s book roy
had given more space to gandhi, than
ambedkar. Is she then unkind to Ambdekar, does ambedkar has a life beyond
Gandhi. Is he like an epic villain.
The Mask of Mahatma the Liar: Roy, gives an impression as though mahatmahood is some
kind of caste that he inherited, or status he got as right. She says, it is Mahatmahood gave him licence to be inconsistent, lecture diet, experiment with sex etc and change his truth
constantly. Perhaps one may understand it is because of these he was called
mahatma. Perhaps he listened to innervoice, he was open, and inconsistent he
was called mahatma.
Gandhi Represented only elite
indians in SA.
Roy says As spokesman for the Indian community, Gandhi was always
careful to distinguish—and distance—passenger Indians from indentured workers
and quotes
Whether they are Hindus or
Mahommedans, they are absolutely without any moral or religious instruction
worthy of the name. They have not learned enough to educate themselves without
any outside help. Placed thus, they are apt to yield to the slightest
temptation to tell a lie. After some time, lying with them becomes a habit and
a disease. They would lie without any reason, without any prospect of bettering
themselves materially, indeed, without knowing what they are doing. They reach
a stage in life when their moral faculties have completely collapsed owing to
neglect.48”
The above para is extracted from the open letter
(phamlet) written by Gandhi to Legislative Council of SA, the letter runs into
more than 15 pages, where he forcefully argues the case of Indian, including
Indentured workers, on why the indians and whites can live together equally
without any hate and how “40,000 indians living in the country can be of use to
the colony” (page 187). As he writes he deals with the following questions in
the article.
“ You can
educate public opinion in such a way that the hatred will be increased day by
day; and you can, if you chose so to do, educate it in such a way that the
hatred would begin to subside.
I now propose to discuss the question under the
following heads:
1. Are the Indians desirable as citizens in the
Colony?
2. What are they?
3. Is their present treatment in accordance with
the best British traditions, or with the principles of justice and morality, or
with the principles of Christianity?
4. From a
purely material and selfish point of view, will an abrupt or gradual withdrawal
of them from the Colony result in substantial, lasting benefit to the Colony?
He is making a case for better treatment for
indians by addressing the root of hate the colonisers have. In the beginning of
the letter he says, if the hatered is because of the colour then the Indians
should pack and leave the country for which there is no hope. But if it is
based on ignorance, etc then he wish to clarify it. Thus a long letter. He
quotes different philosophers, scholars and colonisers opinion on india and the
indians. He is answering to the some
common objections raised by the British regarding Indians, especially their
sanitory habits and untruthfullness. And
the in the colony many believed indians to be Untruthful “ Here is the
extraction these are from the same para Roy has quoted.
” Everyone I have met with in the Colony has dwelt
upon the untruthfulness of the Indians. To a limited extent I
admit the charge. It will be very small
satisfaction for me to show, in reply to the objection, that other classes do
not fare much better in this respect, especially if and when they are placed in
the position of the unfortunate Indians. And yet, I am afraid, I shall have to
fall back upon argument of that sort. Much as I would wish them to be
otherwise, I confess my utter inability to prove that they are more than human.
They come to Natal on starvation wages (I mean here the indentured Indians).
They find themselves placed in a strange position and amid uncongenial
surroundings..........
Are these men, then, more to be despised than
pitied? Are they to be treated as scoundrels, deserving no mercy, or are they
to be treated as helpless creatures, badly in need of sympathy? Is there any
class of people who would not do as they are doing under similar
circumstances?. He asks.
What kind of conclusion one would arrive if one
believes only the roy’s quotation. Roy
asks us read a book by Ashwin Desai to know the plight of Indian Labourers in
SA. Gandhi in the same phamplet talks about it. It just show how determined is
Roy to prove her point. Sad what else one can say.
He is the Saint of the Status Quo.
Status quo huh??. Gandhi
challenged many status quo almost in all the spheres he worked. He constantly
re interpreted the world, especially religion to conform to his world view. In
the same article roy quotes “that neither ambedkar nor gandhi allow us to pin[i]”.
How can a person who does not fit into any image be a representative of status
quo. His auto biography is called
“Experiment” . Roy calls Gandhi Stotus Quo Saint.. aaaa
Gandhi Believed in Varnasharama Dharma: Yes
gandhi did, he had his own inte
Is Gandhi a castiest, now what do we understand by
this term, did he believe in caste, did he believe in discrimination, did he
believe in natural stratification of society based on birth etc.
Gandhi
was not a Brahmin, he was third in hierarchy (if there is one) just above
sudhra. Why would a vaishya, support varna if he himself suffers from it.
Perhaps he is also affected in “infection of Imitation” as ambedkar calls and
in way emphasise with the rigid caste discrimination among the dalits.
One
doesn’t need a translation of the gurajati text as Roy says to know the real
intention of Gandhi on Caste. Gandhi in 1920, in Young India under title “The
Caste: talks and also gives reasons for this thinking. Endorsement of Caste system as he sees is not
new. He believed in natural division of people depending upon their
skills. One can also see the difference
in this article Gandhi uses castes for Varna.
But
can conclude he practiced caste discrimination in his life. His beliefs and
understanding of Varna, Caste is different from the Sanathanis who cried for
his life. As Ashish nandi quotes, in his essay assins of Gandhi, Gandhi was
murdered not just because he supported muslim cause, he had ruffled feathers of
Sanathatni, when he called for opening of Temples and declared untouchability
is against hindu dharma. Poona pact was infact the first declaration where
Hindus publically declared Untouhcability is against Hinduism. Gandhi was
architect to it.
In
his ashrams he always tried to built universal society, his famous browl with
his wife in south Africa was because she refused to clean dalit’s toilet who
was resident. There are numerous instance where many ashramites have left
because it had common kitchen where the food was cooked and shared by all.
Gandhi and Santhanis, book by A marx records the reaction to Gandhi’s reforms.
Gandhi used hiindu symbols and icons but interpreted in his own way, His Ram
Rajya is not the same as that of BJP, he is not sanatani of hindu poojaries,
though he called him self one.
From
1932, ashram has supported only intercaste marriage. To understand Gandhis
stand on Dalits, one should go beyond the phrases he used and see the meaning he
has used the life he has lived. Roy knows that Gandhi’s Santana is not the same
as that of Sankarachariya, or his rama is not that of BJPs.
Gandhi cant represent Dalits:
Who has the right to represent Dalits, or even
emphathise with them is the fundamental quarrel. Did Gandhi do anything at to the cause of Dalits, Can the upper caste
Gandhi truly represent Dalits.
If one looks at Dalits as one block then yes only
Dalits can. But as roy quotes “Infection of Imitation” where the line between
suppresser and oppressed are thin then every one in the Hindu Graded System can
to an extent talk about discrimination and oppression by the higher caste.
Gandhi’s experience in SA where he was denied food, logding, and hair cut by
the white, gave him experience of what it meant to be a Dalit, in fact he bore
all this without hatered because he saw, the same treatment meted to the dalits
in india. Gandhi knew what it meant to be social outcaste. His community
outcasted him, SA gave him much relief to escape the tyranny of caste.
Gandhi when he say he understood he talks from his
own experience, not from some borrowed thoughts. Roy herself has been a victim of this line of
arguments. She is vilified by the Dalits for writing a introduction to this
book. She is asked the same question, by trying to write about Ambedkar, she is
taking away the diety who is exclusive to Dalits. If she can find a same cause
with Dalits, why not Gandhi,.
Dalits have all rights to reject Gandhi, but it
doesn’t take away what gandhi did or tried to do. He suspended independence
movement for a decade because he undertook Harijan seva work. He thought that
to be important,. Gandhi wanted india to gain independence and lead the world
under moral authority, he knew this cant be built when a large section of the
society remain untouchable. His audience are not Dalits, his are Caste Hindus,
he had to talk to their heart and find change there. Just like he spoke to the
Christian hearts of the English men.
Gandhi the
Racist:
Roy has quoted from the article Gandhi has written
in 1909, A year
later, the sixteenth of the 20 years he spent in South Africa, he wrote “My
Second Experience in Gaol” in the Indian Opinion (16 January
1909):
I was given a bed in a cell where
there were mostly Kaffir prisoners who had been lying ill. I spent the night in
this cell in great misery and fear… I read the Bhagvad Gita which
I had carried with me. I read the verses which had a bearing on my situation
and meditating on them, managed to compose myself. The reason why I felt so
uneasy was that the Kaffir and Chinese prisoners appeared to be wild, murderous
and given to immoral ways… He [the Chinese] appeared to be worse. He came near
the bed and looked closely at me. I kept still. Then he went to a Kaffir lying
in bed. The two exchanged obscene jokes, uncovering each other’s genitals… I
have resolved in my mind on an agitation to ensure that Indian prisoners are
not lodged with Kaffirs or others. We cannot ignore the fact that there is no
common ground between them and us. Moreover those who wish to sleep in the same
room as them have ulterior motives for doing so.67
From inside jail Gandhi began to petition the White authorities for
separate wards in prisons. He led battles demanding segregation on many counts:
he wanted separate blankets because he worried that “a blanket that has been
used by the dirtiest of Kaffirs may later fall to an Indian’s lot.”68 He wanted prison meals
specially suited to Indians—rice served with ghee69—and refused to eat the “mealie pap”
that the “Kaffirs” seemed to relish. He also agitated for separate lavatories
for Indian prisoners.70
The actual article explains in details his
experience in the jail. In the same letter he writes.
“ I did
not have the slightest trouble from the warder during the journey. I had
resolved [while in Volksrust Gaol] that, unless openly allowed by the warder, I
would not take any food other than what I was allowed in gaol. Hence I had
carried on with the gaol diet all these days. But they had given me no food
packet for the journey. (he was moved
from one goal to another)The warder [accompanying me] allowed me to buy
whatever food I wanted. The station master offered me some money. He was also
very much upset [to observe my condition]. I thanked him, [but] declined his
offer of money. I borrowed 10 s from Mr. Kazi, who was present at the station,
and spent something from it to buy food for myself and for the warder on the
train.”
Gandhi was clearly not asking for rice with Ghee.
About the “Separate Blankets” for
indians, Gandhi writes in letter his general observation about the Jail,
Prisons are
generally kept very clean. If this were not so, there would be epidemics before
long. But there is also lack of cleanliness in some respects. Blankets are
constantly interchanged. A blanket that has been used by the dirtiest of
Kaffirs may later fall to an Indian’s lot. Frequently, the blankets are found
to be full of lice. They have a nasty smell. Under the rules, they must be
exposed to sunlight for half an hour every day, if the sky is clear. But this
is rarely done. The difficulty about blankets is not a trivial matter to a man
of clean habits. The same thing often happens about dress. The uniform worn by a prisoner is not always washed after he
is released, but is given to another prisoner to wear in the same dirty
condition. This is a disturbing state of affairs.
He wanted a separate lavatory for the Indians
because he was beaten up by prisoners, the same letter has the detailed account
of this.
Though one may question why he thinks Kaffirs to be the
dirtiest why not indians, But he is
certainly not refusing the blanket because it is used by the Kaffir, and he has
in the same series of article admonished indians for laziness, uncleanliness
etc.
This article is infected with factual errors,
misrepresentation with sole aim to tarnish the image of gandhi, one may wonder
why??, why would anyone sling mud on someone who is anyway boxed in the prints
of nasik. Gandhi is not seeking space in the pantheons of Dalit deities, but can
they find a better friend outside their caste, is there any suvarna who has
worked and talked so much like gandhi. If
Abraham Lincoln can be celebrated by African Americans for his contribution for
their liberation, Dalits and their leaders need not celebrate him if they feel
it will diminish the stature of their god, can give him the role of squirrel or Hanuman to Ambedkar.
It is not the admirers but the rivals who keep
gandhi alive, for him they are many. Let Gandhi
be die his own pace, man who tried to be closer to truth deserves silent
burial.
Posts
