Long duration after my first two blogs on Gandhiji’s vision of modern India and I am again writing some thing again of Gandhiji. I have seen people criticizing Gandhiji for the reason for which even they themselves don’t have a clear view and it really pains me a lot, especially because it is some thing which is something like a son criticizing his father, “the father of nation”. Gandhiji stands tall to be father of nation not just because his works and vision brought freedom for India but also he because he was someone among all who represent true Indian- Indian who is modest, Indian who has visions, Indian who has devotion, Indian with firm commitment and above all the Indian with altruism. I remember the lines of kavita I once read in my school life which represent the Indianship:Mast Yogi Hai Ki Hum,
Sukh Dekh Kar Sabka Sukhi Hai/
Kuch Ajab Mann Hai Ki Hum,
Dookh Dekh Kar Sabka Dokhi Hai/
Any way people I have seen people blaming Gandhiji for delaying the Independence and questioning his socialism But I like to ask them what really they mean of Independence! Hatching there own interest without afraid of getting caught what has lead to a now a corrupt society? And what of socialism? To move toward the dead end of more political and rightly saying criminalization of society. India has not long before witnessed the socialism of Jai Prakash Narayan, and what all it headed toward? nothing but politics and criminalization. Every second criminal declared himself socialist the reformer of society with muscle power and entered into politics to gain the political power. That was what Gandhiji never wished for. His socialism was self reliant! no need of a contractor! It rises from the ground, from poor man’s hut not from barrel of gun! or a five star meeting for development! or a fight for reservation.
6 comments :
I respect gandhiji a lot but ther are few things that cud hav averted the partition of india.... it was gandhiji who gave heed to plans of nehru who wanted to become the first PM of india. jinnah had said that if u wil allow me to become the PM of india no partition will take place but nehru's malicious plans were given green signal by gandhiji whether intentional or not.
Muhammad Ali Jinnah became the first Governor-General of Pakistan and president of its constituent assembly. Inaugurating the assembly on August 11, 1947, Jinnah put forward a vision for a secular state:
You may belong to any religion caste or creed - that has nothing to do with the business of the state. In due course of time, Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the state.[28]
Through the 1940s, Jinnah suffered from tuberculosis — only his sister and a few others close to Jinnah were aware of his condition. In 1948, Jinnah's health began to falter, hindered further by the heavy workload that had fallen upon him following Pakistan's creation. Attempting to recuperate, he spent many months at his official retreat in Ziarat, but died on September 11, 1948 from a combination of tuberculosis and lung cancer. His funeral was followed by the construction of a massive mausoleum — Mazar-e-Quaid — in Karachi to honour him; official and military ceremonies are hosted there on special occasions.
Muhammad Ali Jinnah provokes controversy - from great adulation and admiration, to intense criticism and hatred, and there are many differing theories postulated by historians to explain his motivations. In Pakistan, Jinnah is respected as a great leader and as the founder of Pakistan. He is also criticized by some, including Choudhary Rahmat Ali, for accepting a Pakistan smaller than envisioned.[38] In India, Jinnah is often seen as a communalist who divided India and tore millions of people from their homes by creating an atmosphere of hatred between Hindus and Muslims.
Some critics allege that Jinnah's courting the princes of Hindu states and his gambit with Junagadh is proof of ill intentions towards India, as he was the proponent of the theory that Hindus and Muslims could not live together, yet being interested in Hindu-majority states.[39] In his book Patel: A Life, Rajmohan Gandhi asserts that Jinnah sought to engage the question of Junagadh with an eye on Kashmir - he wanted India to ask for a plebiscite in Junagadh, knowing thus that the principle then would have to be applied to Kashmir, where the Muslim-majority would, he believed, would vote for Pakistan.[40]
Some historians like H M Seervai and Ayesha Jalal assert that Jinnah never wanted partition - it was the outcome of the Congress leaders being unwilling to share power with the League. It is asserted that Jinnah only used the Pakistan demand as a method to mobilize support to obtain significant political rights for Muslims
casual pen might surely find it easier to describe his limitations than to define his virtues. His are none of the versatile talents that make so many of his contemporaries justly famed beyond the accepted circle of their daily labours. Not his the gracious gifts of mellow scholarship, or rich adventure or radiant conversation; not his the burning passion of philanthropy or religious reform. Indeed by his sequestered tastes and temperament Mohammad Ali Jinnah is essentially a solitary man with a large political following but few intimate friendships, and outside the twin spheres of law and politics he has few resources and few accomplishments.
But the true criterion of his greatness lies not in the range and variety of his knowledge and experience but in the faultless perception and flawless refinement of his subtle mind and spirit not in a diversity of aims and the challenge of a towering personality but rather in a lofty singleness and sincerity of purpose and the lasting charm of a character animated by a brave conception of duty and an austere and lovely code of private honour and public integrity.
The tale of his actual contribution is still comparatively slender. But it is not by the substance but by the rare significance of his patriotic services that he holds today his unique place in the front ranks of our national leaders.
Like others of our generation, he suffers from a system of education so widely separated from the familiar traditions and culture of our race, and lacking the magic of a common medium, he may never perhaps hope to establish between himself and his people that instinctive and inviolable kinship that makes the interned Mohammed Ali for instance, a living hero of the Mussalmans and Mahatma Gandhi a living idol of the Hindus.
But it is nonetheless his personal triumph and a testimony to his authentic mission that he stands approved and confirmed by his countrymen not merely as an ambassador, but as an embodied symbol of the Hindu-Muslim Unity.
Who can foretell the secrets of tomorrow? Who can foresee the hidden forces that sometimes work to build our destiny higher than our dream? Perchance it is written in the book of the future that he whose fair ambition it is to become the Muslim Gokhale may in some glorious and terrible crisis of our national struggle pass into immortality as the Mazzini of the Indian Liberation. (Courtesy “Iqra” Lahore, Qaid-i-Azam Number, June 1976)
By Mrs. Sarojini Naidu
I'd like to further add comments involving the role of Gandhi(ji) in the creation/partition of India. The war for Kashmir which has for the past 50 years left both the nations unprogressed in certain ways.
As told by inside defense sources ;) We were on the brink of taking over the whole of Kashmir during the wars but it was due to Gandhi(ji's) role and Pandit Nehru that we not only stopped but returned some of the territory that so rightly belonged to us.
"Patel strongly advised Nehru against arbitration from the United Nations, insisting that Pakistan had been wrong to support the invasion and the accession to India was valid. He did not want foreign interference in a bilateral affair. Patel also opposed the release of Rs. 55 crores to the Government of Pakistan, convinced that the money would go to finance the war against India in Kashmir. The Cabinet had approved his point, but it was all reversed when Gandhi went on a fast-unto-death to obtain the release. Gandhi was worried that economic turmoil in Pakistan would make it more aggressive, increasing Hindu-Muslim violence which had already killing 1 million people and was just calming down. Gandhi obtained the release, as well as a commitment from Hindus and Muslims of Delhi to end all communal violence. Patel, though not estranged from Gandhi, was deeply hurt at the rejection of his counsel and a Cabinet decision."
On another front, at that time we needed a PM like Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel who would have done a better job but things turned out the other way. "Patel stepped down in favor of Nehru from the 1946 election for the Congress Presidency, upon the request of Gandhi — Gandhi had declared Nehru to his "successor" in 1942. Patel had the support of 11 out of 15 Congress Party provincial organizations, while Nehru had none." Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sardar_Patel
Some still argue with the single fact that "we did get what we fought for ?" Look around is it really so ???
It was amazing to see how people go so witty while blaming Gandhiji. Gandhiji was not God, if thing were all going wrong just because of him, and his visions n decisions, why everyone was following him. I feel things are a bit clear now by this argument. As usual what happened that there were less people who were ready to face risk of making a decision in and after our freedom struggle, and so what happen that who stay out side have more reasons to play n win the blame game, since they have made no decision and so no mistakes too. Sardar Patel was one such example, who was no doubt a great personality, but does this do not question his own conscience in decisive time. If u have read My Experiments with Truth you must be aware of the fact that Gandhiji till his last breath was of this view that he will finally make Jinnah to dissolve the Pakistan, and for which he was to go Islamabad but was killed before that. So the question of any land capturing was no matter for Gandhiji whether it was Kashmir or Sindh i.e. Punjab.
The question “"we did get what we fought for?" Look around is it really so???” is really something very sensible! And I bet even Gandhiji were alive to see the day must be clueless on this. Should we blame him for the scene we all together have created out of the freedom which we people got without pain! Reminding me of Rang de Basanti dialogue that, ‘ no country is perfect in its own, only we people make it good or bad by our job’, lets move forward to do good for our nation….
Post a Comment