10-27-2006, 08:21 AM
If Bapu recedes again, who is to blame?
Will Gandhigiri survive October? Will it survive the festivities of Diwali, Eid and the Champions Trophy? Or will Gandhi get discounted before the khadi discount ends?
But first let us acknowledge that Lage Raho Munnabhai has done something that Gandhians could not do. It has rescued Gandhi from the debris of officialdom â Films Division documentaries, his obscene presence on currency notes and the monotony of Gandhi parks and MG Roads. It has made it possible to talk about Gandhi to the young.
Rammanohar Lohia had attempted something similar in the decade after the Mahatmaâs death. He offered a three-fold typology of Gandhians. There were sarkari or official Gandhians, represented by the Congressmen ever-ready to encash the Gandhi topi and khadi for a place in legislatures and ministries. The second were mathwadi Gandhians, the priestly order symbolised by Vinoba Bhave and his disciples. They kept up the Gandhian tradition of self-sacrifice and simplicity, but delinked Gandhism from the struggle against injustice. The third category, that Lohia wanted to promote, were the kujat Gandhians, the heretics who sought to combine Gandhiâs legacy of constructive work with the struggle against injustice. Lohia did renew Gandhi, but only for a small group of socialist political activists.
Munnabhai gives another opportunity to renew Gandhi, this time for middle class India that loves to hate politics. This opportunity is about recovering an extraordinary instrument of collective action forged in this country about a century ago. And discovering the potential of small men and women to bring about historical transformation. It could be about reinventing politics for people like you and me.
The best way to use the opening offered by Munnabhai is to marry Gandhigiri with deeper strands of Gandhian thinking and practice in contemporary India. Perhaps the best way to start is to read some contemporary thinkers who have taken Gandhism beyond Gandhi. One could begin by doing a google search on Ashis Nandy, C.V. Sheshadri, D.R. Nagraj, Avijit Pathak or Shiv Vishwanathan. Those willing to go beyond English and the internet might like to read Kishen Pattnayakâs Vikalpheen Nahin Hai Dunia, Devanoor Mahadevaâs stories or Anupam Mishraâs Aaj Bhi Khare Hain Talab. These are not quotation wielding Gandhians; most of these writers make little reference to Gandhi. It may be useful to put together a reading list on Gandhism after Gandhi.
This might prepare us for some difficult encounters with the youth of today, face to face with globalisation. And to speak to the generation that believes in Bhagat Singh but not in Gandhi. Yet this may not prepare us for the most difficult encounter of Gandhi with Dalit youth. Ironically, for Dalit youth today, Gandhi is âuntouchableâ. The historic task for Gandhigiri is to rescue Gandhi from the status of an ideological and political untouchable. You may well start an Ambedkar-Gandhi club to begin this difficult dialogue.
But it is not possible to realise the opportunity offered by Munnabhai if we stop with ideas and books. To recognise that Gandhigiri is not a quirk of reel life, we need to connect with the real-life Gandhis still working in this country. The Gandhian establishment is of little use here, it has lost the capacity to produce chhote Gandhis. While a few like P.V. Rajgopal have kept alive the Gandhian legacy of combining struggle with constructive work, real-life Gandhis are to be found in peoplesâ movements in all parts of the country, like the Majdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan or the Narmada Bachao Andolan.
Or one could just take a bus off the main road and meet the lesser known Gandhis in virtually every district of India. You might come across Sunil and Smita who live in a tribal village of Hoshangabad and have inspired an extraordinary combination of struggle and constructive activity. You may be inspired to start a website on chhote Gandhis.
Pure Gandhians may find all this unappealing. They may dub the film too light, its message trivial. But a great piece of literature or a wonderful film can only provide a new imaginative space, a new political possibility. Someone must use this possibility, or it will lapse. Gandhigiri can be reduced to a totem of the consuming classes. It can end up detaching the Gandhian worldview from Gandhian techniques, promote a cult of rose-wielding gulabgiri, using âget well soonâ as a substitute for âmurdabadâ. That may well happen by the time November comes. But let us not blame Munnabhai or his creator for that. You and I must take the blame.
The writer is senior fellow, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, Delhi
yogendra.yadav@expressindia.com
Will Gandhigiri survive October? Will it survive the festivities of Diwali, Eid and the Champions Trophy? Or will Gandhi get discounted before the khadi discount ends?
But first let us acknowledge that Lage Raho Munnabhai has done something that Gandhians could not do. It has rescued Gandhi from the debris of officialdom â Films Division documentaries, his obscene presence on currency notes and the monotony of Gandhi parks and MG Roads. It has made it possible to talk about Gandhi to the young.
Rammanohar Lohia had attempted something similar in the decade after the Mahatmaâs death. He offered a three-fold typology of Gandhians. There were sarkari or official Gandhians, represented by the Congressmen ever-ready to encash the Gandhi topi and khadi for a place in legislatures and ministries. The second were mathwadi Gandhians, the priestly order symbolised by Vinoba Bhave and his disciples. They kept up the Gandhian tradition of self-sacrifice and simplicity, but delinked Gandhism from the struggle against injustice. The third category, that Lohia wanted to promote, were the kujat Gandhians, the heretics who sought to combine Gandhiâs legacy of constructive work with the struggle against injustice. Lohia did renew Gandhi, but only for a small group of socialist political activists.
Munnabhai gives another opportunity to renew Gandhi, this time for middle class India that loves to hate politics. This opportunity is about recovering an extraordinary instrument of collective action forged in this country about a century ago. And discovering the potential of small men and women to bring about historical transformation. It could be about reinventing politics for people like you and me.
The best way to use the opening offered by Munnabhai is to marry Gandhigiri with deeper strands of Gandhian thinking and practice in contemporary India. Perhaps the best way to start is to read some contemporary thinkers who have taken Gandhism beyond Gandhi. One could begin by doing a google search on Ashis Nandy, C.V. Sheshadri, D.R. Nagraj, Avijit Pathak or Shiv Vishwanathan. Those willing to go beyond English and the internet might like to read Kishen Pattnayakâs Vikalpheen Nahin Hai Dunia, Devanoor Mahadevaâs stories or Anupam Mishraâs Aaj Bhi Khare Hain Talab. These are not quotation wielding Gandhians; most of these writers make little reference to Gandhi. It may be useful to put together a reading list on Gandhism after Gandhi.
This might prepare us for some difficult encounters with the youth of today, face to face with globalisation. And to speak to the generation that believes in Bhagat Singh but not in Gandhi. Yet this may not prepare us for the most difficult encounter of Gandhi with Dalit youth. Ironically, for Dalit youth today, Gandhi is âuntouchableâ. The historic task for Gandhigiri is to rescue Gandhi from the status of an ideological and political untouchable. You may well start an Ambedkar-Gandhi club to begin this difficult dialogue.
But it is not possible to realise the opportunity offered by Munnabhai if we stop with ideas and books. To recognise that Gandhigiri is not a quirk of reel life, we need to connect with the real-life Gandhis still working in this country. The Gandhian establishment is of little use here, it has lost the capacity to produce chhote Gandhis. While a few like P.V. Rajgopal have kept alive the Gandhian legacy of combining struggle with constructive work, real-life Gandhis are to be found in peoplesâ movements in all parts of the country, like the Majdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan or the Narmada Bachao Andolan.
Or one could just take a bus off the main road and meet the lesser known Gandhis in virtually every district of India. You might come across Sunil and Smita who live in a tribal village of Hoshangabad and have inspired an extraordinary combination of struggle and constructive activity. You may be inspired to start a website on chhote Gandhis.
Pure Gandhians may find all this unappealing. They may dub the film too light, its message trivial. But a great piece of literature or a wonderful film can only provide a new imaginative space, a new political possibility. Someone must use this possibility, or it will lapse. Gandhigiri can be reduced to a totem of the consuming classes. It can end up detaching the Gandhian worldview from Gandhian techniques, promote a cult of rose-wielding gulabgiri, using âget well soonâ as a substitute for âmurdabadâ. That may well happen by the time November comes. But let us not blame Munnabhai or his creator for that. You and I must take the blame.
The writer is senior fellow, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, Delhi
yogendra.yadav@expressindia.com