01-31-2005, 11:58 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Stereotype thinking
Utpal Kumar
Apropos KR Phanda's article, "Gandhi and Godse" (January 19), in which the writer regards Raja Jaichand and Mahatma Gandhi as "two Hindu leaders who changed the course of Hindu destiny for the worst." Indeed, Jaichand was responsible for weakening the Indian response against Islamic marauders. Gandhi too went all the way towards appeasing Muslims. His admiration for the Moplahs as "the bravest in the land" and "God fearing" after their act of vandalism in 1921 says it all. But, history is never a straight chronicler of events.
Jaichand is often branded as a villain when we talk of Islamic rule in India. But, why only Jaichand? Even Prithviraj Chauhan was guilty of grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory. Jaichand and Prithviraj can be pardoned for their follies because Islam was then an unknown entity. The same, however, cannot be said of Gandhi, who definitely indulged Muslim and Islam despite being aware of its true nature. Towards the end of his life, it was indeed surprising to see the transformation of the man who had once said "every Muslim is a bully and every Hindu a coward".
Still, Gandhi's concern for his Hindu brethren was genuine and he worked sincerely for their social and moral uplift. Mahadev Desai cites one instance of a Polish student asking Gandhi for his signature on a photograph that would help a Catholic school. Gandhi refused, saying: "You don't expect me to support the Fathers in their mission of conversion?" This was the true Gandhi - a man who loved Hinduism, opposed missionaries and appeased the Muslims and therein lay his failure. After all, how can a man be so critical of missionaries on the one hand and so submissive to Islam on the other?
Gandhi definitely failed during Partition, but the question remains: Could Hindu society have prevented it in his absence? It's doubtful because the policies that led to Partition had begun long before Gandhi's arrival. Badruddin Tyabji observed in 1887 that the Congress couldn't take any decision without the consent of Muslims. Lokmanya Tilak, a staunch Hindu leader, signed the Lucknow Pact in 1916, which legitimised separate electorate for Muslims.
Gandhi is often criticised for his support to the Khilafat movement, but we ignore that it had the support of other leaders like Lala Lajpat Rai, Bipin Chandra Pal and Madan Mohan Malviya as well. Such was the consensus that even Swami Sraddhananda spoke in favour of the Khilafat movement, whereas CR Das signed a pact permitting Muslims to kill cows during their festivals while forbidding Hindus from playing music before mosques.
There are two reasons for such Hindu attitude. First, the failure of Hindus to comprehend the nature of Islam. Here the fault lies not in any particular figure - Jaichand, Prithviraj or Gandhi - but the Hindu society itself, which has failed to realise that Hinduism and Islam are incompatible. It is this inability to come to grips with the dialectics of difference that has made us repeat the same mistakes - from the battle of Tarain in 1191 to the Simla agreement in 1972 when India released 93,000 Pakistani soldiers without any obvious gains. Second, the prevalence of "dhimmitude" among Hindus.
Even erudite scholars like Raja Rammohan Roy and Keshav Chandra Sen, and aggressive Hindu leaders like Dayananda Saraswati, were not left untouched by the phenomenon. Their defensive attitude on idol-worship is a manifestation of their feeling of inferiority complex. So, why blame Gandhi alone? He was just a reflection of Hindu society - with all its strengths and weaknesses. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Utpal Kumar
Apropos KR Phanda's article, "Gandhi and Godse" (January 19), in which the writer regards Raja Jaichand and Mahatma Gandhi as "two Hindu leaders who changed the course of Hindu destiny for the worst." Indeed, Jaichand was responsible for weakening the Indian response against Islamic marauders. Gandhi too went all the way towards appeasing Muslims. His admiration for the Moplahs as "the bravest in the land" and "God fearing" after their act of vandalism in 1921 says it all. But, history is never a straight chronicler of events.
Jaichand is often branded as a villain when we talk of Islamic rule in India. But, why only Jaichand? Even Prithviraj Chauhan was guilty of grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory. Jaichand and Prithviraj can be pardoned for their follies because Islam was then an unknown entity. The same, however, cannot be said of Gandhi, who definitely indulged Muslim and Islam despite being aware of its true nature. Towards the end of his life, it was indeed surprising to see the transformation of the man who had once said "every Muslim is a bully and every Hindu a coward".
Still, Gandhi's concern for his Hindu brethren was genuine and he worked sincerely for their social and moral uplift. Mahadev Desai cites one instance of a Polish student asking Gandhi for his signature on a photograph that would help a Catholic school. Gandhi refused, saying: "You don't expect me to support the Fathers in their mission of conversion?" This was the true Gandhi - a man who loved Hinduism, opposed missionaries and appeased the Muslims and therein lay his failure. After all, how can a man be so critical of missionaries on the one hand and so submissive to Islam on the other?
Gandhi definitely failed during Partition, but the question remains: Could Hindu society have prevented it in his absence? It's doubtful because the policies that led to Partition had begun long before Gandhi's arrival. Badruddin Tyabji observed in 1887 that the Congress couldn't take any decision without the consent of Muslims. Lokmanya Tilak, a staunch Hindu leader, signed the Lucknow Pact in 1916, which legitimised separate electorate for Muslims.
Gandhi is often criticised for his support to the Khilafat movement, but we ignore that it had the support of other leaders like Lala Lajpat Rai, Bipin Chandra Pal and Madan Mohan Malviya as well. Such was the consensus that even Swami Sraddhananda spoke in favour of the Khilafat movement, whereas CR Das signed a pact permitting Muslims to kill cows during their festivals while forbidding Hindus from playing music before mosques.
There are two reasons for such Hindu attitude. First, the failure of Hindus to comprehend the nature of Islam. Here the fault lies not in any particular figure - Jaichand, Prithviraj or Gandhi - but the Hindu society itself, which has failed to realise that Hinduism and Islam are incompatible. It is this inability to come to grips with the dialectics of difference that has made us repeat the same mistakes - from the battle of Tarain in 1191 to the Simla agreement in 1972 when India released 93,000 Pakistani soldiers without any obvious gains. Second, the prevalence of "dhimmitude" among Hindus.
Even erudite scholars like Raja Rammohan Roy and Keshav Chandra Sen, and aggressive Hindu leaders like Dayananda Saraswati, were not left untouched by the phenomenon. Their defensive attitude on idol-worship is a manifestation of their feeling of inferiority complex. So, why blame Gandhi alone? He was just a reflection of Hindu society - with all its strengths and weaknesses. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->