10-28-2006, 07:26 PM
Indian society made its choice and took a chance, it is moot to discuss what could have been and we will never know. It is however, a leap to say, he was IT. The choice that was given to them (and still) is still based on personalities and cult based thinking.
Sociologically, looking at in a different way, none of the choices were free and even more so for a subaltern. Every choice has had a cost on the society - then, now and in the future. Leaders ought to be judged on such metrics, not on how much they know or their punditry, precisely because their choices make impact on others' lives and nation's future. Said that, every choice is always limited by what we know, who we are, and what we have to trade for the thing we want. In those respects some people have more choice than others, a better choice of possible lives. The people in primary contact with British/Rulers had more knowledge, compared to people in secondary contact with them, so the choices junta made and chances they took are totally different.
The consequences of a wrong choice can be costly and painful, and has proven to be in case of India and Hindus. Taking responsibility for our choices and especially so of our dear leaders' is often unpleasant. We can close our eyes and try to pretend that there is/was only one way, but few of us these days can believe that for very long as it isnât plainly true. Their vision shattered, even if there was one.
It is just the pattern of choices India/Hindus made over history that we should look at to understand why we made those choices and where we are today as a result of those choices. I also contend that he was not IT in having an Independent India. Now if I may, the legacy of Gandhi, without deifying him or belittling his personal accomplishments (experiments with truth, Hind Swaraj) as it is seen in the patterns:
Gandhi's legacy
1. Tolerating the intolerant
2. Single handedly he destroyed/emaciated the âKshatra Dharmaâ
3. Hindus programmed to take blame for every damn thing under the sun and continue to do so. (Makes sense to link his assasination to hindu mahasabha, doesn't it? then again, Godse was an individual who acted alone, beats me why Hindus feel the burning need to atone for that, with no end in sight)
4. Personality and emotions based politics rather than an issue based one, any surprise Bollywood is such a mega emotional blackmailer and manipulating means
5. A never achievable ideals trumping the achievable objectives for all the citizens of India and not just select few that "personalities" pick
6. A nation whose aspirations were never fulfilled, and continue to be ignored, inspite of getting independence (not freedom)
7. Suck up to worst enemies, Pakistan, China et al, the transformation of ânation of cowardsâ to ânation of pushoversâ complete. For justification there is always Gandhism.
8. Made jail bahro a fashion, now even hard-core criminals gets elected from jail.
It is also misleading to say there were none who could fight for independence or did or even had a vision. There were, they have and they do. They just do not get publicity or a godhood that can be still be milked today. It is just baffling why we stick with failed politicians and leaders, and not learn from their legacies. (Ah the thing called, distortion of history). As a hindu, I have seen and known far superior spiritual, moral and intellectual (non chrisitanized or evangelically influenced) giants and who have successfully applied in the society (meaning who understood the social dynamics of their times) in the august traditions of Sanatana Dharma. Gandhiâs legacy is a Lilliputian by comparison. Again, he is one among many in my mind and does not occupy any special place.
Then again, it is just me. I am more interested in the applied sociology and politics that stems from the leaders and their legacies, not solely based on what they have written. If anything, I would avoid his legacy like a plague (Only in the applied parts of it) as I have no use for them. As a person, I am sure there is always something I can learn and try and understand his personal thoughts, vision etc,
Sociologically, looking at in a different way, none of the choices were free and even more so for a subaltern. Every choice has had a cost on the society - then, now and in the future. Leaders ought to be judged on such metrics, not on how much they know or their punditry, precisely because their choices make impact on others' lives and nation's future. Said that, every choice is always limited by what we know, who we are, and what we have to trade for the thing we want. In those respects some people have more choice than others, a better choice of possible lives. The people in primary contact with British/Rulers had more knowledge, compared to people in secondary contact with them, so the choices junta made and chances they took are totally different.
The consequences of a wrong choice can be costly and painful, and has proven to be in case of India and Hindus. Taking responsibility for our choices and especially so of our dear leaders' is often unpleasant. We can close our eyes and try to pretend that there is/was only one way, but few of us these days can believe that for very long as it isnât plainly true. Their vision shattered, even if there was one.
It is just the pattern of choices India/Hindus made over history that we should look at to understand why we made those choices and where we are today as a result of those choices. I also contend that he was not IT in having an Independent India. Now if I may, the legacy of Gandhi, without deifying him or belittling his personal accomplishments (experiments with truth, Hind Swaraj) as it is seen in the patterns:
Gandhi's legacy
1. Tolerating the intolerant
2. Single handedly he destroyed/emaciated the âKshatra Dharmaâ
3. Hindus programmed to take blame for every damn thing under the sun and continue to do so. (Makes sense to link his assasination to hindu mahasabha, doesn't it? then again, Godse was an individual who acted alone, beats me why Hindus feel the burning need to atone for that, with no end in sight)
4. Personality and emotions based politics rather than an issue based one, any surprise Bollywood is such a mega emotional blackmailer and manipulating means
5. A never achievable ideals trumping the achievable objectives for all the citizens of India and not just select few that "personalities" pick
6. A nation whose aspirations were never fulfilled, and continue to be ignored, inspite of getting independence (not freedom)
7. Suck up to worst enemies, Pakistan, China et al, the transformation of ânation of cowardsâ to ânation of pushoversâ complete. For justification there is always Gandhism.
8. Made jail bahro a fashion, now even hard-core criminals gets elected from jail.
It is also misleading to say there were none who could fight for independence or did or even had a vision. There were, they have and they do. They just do not get publicity or a godhood that can be still be milked today. It is just baffling why we stick with failed politicians and leaders, and not learn from their legacies. (Ah the thing called, distortion of history). As a hindu, I have seen and known far superior spiritual, moral and intellectual (non chrisitanized or evangelically influenced) giants and who have successfully applied in the society (meaning who understood the social dynamics of their times) in the august traditions of Sanatana Dharma. Gandhiâs legacy is a Lilliputian by comparison. Again, he is one among many in my mind and does not occupy any special place.
Then again, it is just me. I am more interested in the applied sociology and politics that stems from the leaders and their legacies, not solely based on what they have written. If anything, I would avoid his legacy like a plague (Only in the applied parts of it) as I have no use for them. As a person, I am sure there is always something I can learn and try and understand his personal thoughts, vision etc,