And to be clear, this is about the Mahatma.
Two weeks ago, the world marked 75 years since Mahatma Gandhi’s fateful assassination in 1948 by a Hindu nationalist extremist. In Delhi, Hungarian diplomat Csaba Korosi — now presiding over the United Nations General Assembly — paid respects at Gandhi’s memorial in Rajghat. In London, Gandhi’s statue was venerated by political leaders, parliamentarians and members of the Indian diaspora.
For decades, Gandhi has also been a vital part of India’s story, both at home and abroad. India’s diplomatic community has used him extensively to establish the country’s credentials as a peace-loving democracy. Even Prime Minister Narendra Modi has continued this narrative on the world stage. Last December, after a Gandhi bust was unveiled at the UN headquarters in New York, Modi said, “It makes every Indian proud to see the bust of Mahatma Gandhi.”
Yet, despite Gandhi’s enduring allure around the world, at home, Gandhi has become a sizable hot potato. Under Modi’s rule, Hindu nationalists have assiduously tried to discredit and demean him. The BJP has accommodated a parliamentarian who has repeatedly praised Gandhi’s assassin. A recent blockbuster movie, RRR, had stills honouring many leading freedom fighters but conspicuously omitted Gandhi.
Perhaps most strikingly, few can deny that many Indians believe — at least in private — that Gandhi is overhyped. He was not responsible for ending British rule, many argue, and his politics was error-prone.
To be clear, I’m not here to whitewash allegations against Gandhi, whether of racism during his time in Africa or other faults. People are complicated, and leaders — no matter how saintly — are essentially flawed human beings. But understanding Gandhi’s unique contributions are especially important today as India hurtles into violent communalism, an identity crisis, and an exhaustion with the pains of democratic debate.
Gandhi’s biggest contribution, in fact, was perhaps more evident post-Independence than during the freedom struggle itself.
Successful anti-colonial movements were not unique to India. In several countries across Asia and Africa, violent revolutions chased out the Europeans and brought native rule. But then, democracy fell apart because the freedom movements themselves were often not democratic. Upper class elite and aristocratic military leaders were often at the forefront of anti-colonial movements and led violent uprisings full of terror and bloodshed. Once the Europeans left, the local aristocratic elite took over their authoritarian institutions and ruled over their own people with a similar vengeance.
In India, by contrast, the freedom movement was all-encompassing and deep-rooted — pulling in people from all walks of life, identities and social status. A significant part of that was due to the genius of Gandhi who, through his travels and advocacy of grassroots concerns in villages like Champaran and Dandi, democratised the movement, ably assisted in this by the likes of Nehru in UP and Patel in Gujarat.
The involvement of a wider cross-section of society then led to higher public participation in the building of India’s post-Independence democracy. Meanwhile, Sukarno, Nasser, Tito and others were raising an intimidating police state that soon bred trouble in their countries.
Over two generations into democracy, many Indians don’t perhaps appreciate the relative smoothness of India’s transition to democracy. In a 2017 Pew survey, over half of Indian respondents supported the idea of military rule — the highest in any country covered by the poll. That is ostensibly because Indians have grown tired of democratic debate and the perceived paralysis in decision-making.
But if Indians have any illusions about the long-term sustainability of autocratic rule, all they have to do is to look at other large and complicated countries like the Congo, Ethiopia or Myanmar. And then thank Gandhi and his generation for helping them escape a life of perennial warfare and chaos.
(The author is student of all things global and, self-confessedly, master of none, notwithstanding his Columbia Master’s, a stint with the UN and with monarchs in the Middle East. Twitter: @ZeeMohamed_)