[Reader-list] Farzana Versey On Gandhi and Gujrat

[Shuddhabrata Sengupta]

Dear all on the Reader List,

As was evident from yesterdays news, the killings in Gujrat continue. In 
searching for things with which to think about what is happening I came 
across something that I would like to share with the list.

I am forwarding an essay that i have recently come across on www.chowk.com, 
by Farzana Versey, an independent columnist based in Mumbai, whose writing I 
have often found very engaging. 

This essay takes a long hard look at the prehistory of the killings in 
Gujrat, and comes up with some surprising (or not so surprising , depending 
on your p.o.v) cultural and political  linkages.

Contrary to secular nationalist orthodoxy, I have always believed that the 
invocation of M.K. Gandhi at the end of a long list of Hindu great men in the 
eulogy recited at RSS shakhas, is not now, and has never been a cynical move.

There is a sincerity with which the Sangh invokes Gandhi, and I think that 
this sincerity is not misplaced. This doesn't mean that the Sangh Parivar, is 
a non violent organization, it just means that there are more ways to get to 
Ayodhya from the Sabarmati Ashram than we may be aware of, or be willing to 
recognise. Enough talking in riddles. 

Lets get to the point and see what Farzana Versey has to say. Hoping to stir 
the waters a little.

Cheers

Shuddha
___________________________________
The Mahatma's Progeny
by Farzana Versey

Let the minorities understand that their real safety lies in the goodwill of 
the majority.” (Words of wisdom at the recently-concluded RSS executive 
council meeting)

Haven’t we had enough of this goodwill baloney? Who in friggin hell do they 
think they are? The prime minister of India can declare that he would prefer 
to die rather than have the VHP utter his name while going on a rampage in 
the Orissa Assembly, but he has no problems sending a party man to consecrate 
a piece of stone at Ayodhya despite Supreme Court orders to the contrary and 
after the recent bloodshed that took place. Anyone else would have resigned. 
Banned those parties. But political incest brooks no such logic. And the 
outside forces today are seen as those who are inside. Let us not fool 
ourselves. The battle-lines have already been drawn if only we care to look 
beyond the smokescreen.

The saffron brigade is emulating Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi’s patronising 
attitude towards the minorities and the lower castes. The fact that these 
segments still have little power after 54 years of Independence shows that he 
was a failure. Not because he was a peacenik but because he legitimised the 
Hindutva agenda. As Albert Camus said, “All modern revolutions have ended in 
a reinforcement of the power of the state.” 

And Gandhi was well aware of this. He talked about swadeshi and 
traditionalism; we are gasping for breath in a global village. He talked of 
Ram Rajya, which is what is sought to be ushered in. When he used 
non-violence as a “weapon” there was a method in the madness. It was a 
gimmick, for the freedom struggle was most certainly not bloodless. An ideal 
state in hollow times is like a pitcher of water in an empty well. It can 
satisfy only one person’s thirst. So Gandhism probably did the Mahatma a 
world of good. 

Gandhi as half-naked fakir is just what the Hindutva parties would need to 
market themselves. If only the Congress had not claimed copyright over 
him
.if only one of their men had not assassinated him
if only he had not 
become an international hero for the wrong reasons


But they need not worry. Deep down he can still be their icon. They have 
mastered his sulking technique. His fasts achieved nothing except more murder 
and mayhem. So a mahant in the 21st century can try to emotionally blackmail 
the government threatening to take his life if his wishes, instead of those 
of the judiciary in a democracy, are not fulfilled. Ashok Singhal uses the 
same strategy of an indefinite hunger strike (lasting two days!) demanding 
security for Ram sevaks in Ayodhya. A bunch of goons, who had recently gone 
on a killing spree, are sought to be given security. Can’t they protect 
themselves? If Lord Ram is coming in their dreams, surely he might be of some 
help? 

And will they listen to the voice of reason? No. But neither did Gandhi. When 
there was talk of an honourable settlement between the Hindus and Muslims 
almost a decade before Partition, he had stated, “I wish I could do something 
but I am utterly helpless. My faith in unity is as bright as ever; only I see 
no daylight but impenetrable darkness and in such distress I cry out to god 
for light.”

No wonder the international community loves him. He was snake charmer, sadhu, 
and magician – everything that they were looking for by way of Oriental 
exotica. I have heard people say they do not mind Gandhi’s Ram Rajya but not 
the one of the saffron parties. What is the difference? His grandson Rajmohan 
Gandhi in ‘Eight Lives: A study of the Hindu-Muslim encounter’ has quoted the 
Mahatma as saying, “My own experience but confirms the opinion that the 
Mussalman as a rule is a bully, and the Hindu a coward.” 

One of the reasons the Mahatma is coming under closer examination is not 
because it sounds sensational but because he let us down. We cannot ignore 
this. Some years ago I had reported from Bhangi Colony (yes, it is still 
called that and the tokenism of the word ‘harijan’ has remained just that) 
and a resident had said, “Everyone goes on about Bapu, Bapu, wearing Gandhi 
caps. They say, wear khadi. Do you know how expensive khadi is?” As Sarojini 
Naidu once said, it is very expensive to keep Bapu in poverty. 

But the idol had to be propped up. And he was smart enough to write a ‘frank’ 
account of his flaws in ‘My Experiments with Truth’ before anyone else showed 
him his feet of clay. As someone has rightly said, sacrificers are not the 
ones to be pitied; our sympathies must be with those who they sacrifice.

If Gandhi has been deified, then so has his assassin, Nathuram Godse. Today 
we have a handful of people celebrating the man, reading out his will at 
memorial services, and a full-fledged fan club that was orchestrated by his 
brother.

This gives it an underground operation legitimacy, somewhat like what 
happened during the freedom struggle. What we ought to know is whether Godse 
was possessed of a desire to further a cause, wreak vengeance or merely 
ensure his 15 minutes of fame.

He is extremely important to modern-day politics simply because he exposes 
the underworld face of it. He was poised between two aspects of it – the 
lowly hitman and the ideologue dada. His initiation into the major league 
depended entirely on how big his target was. If his anger was against the 
appeasement of a community, then why did he not merely kill a few Muslims? 
Because that would have not made him a loyal soldier, a man who would do or 
die.

Just look at how the RSS and its acolytes operate and see how they are like 
underworld/terrorist outfits. There are the compulsory disciplinary drills, 
the initiation ceremony where you have to prove your loyalty and capability, 
the strict hierarchy, blind belief in an ideology based necessarily on the 
theory that you are being wronged by the System, and the submergence of the 
individual self, a very Gandhian trait.

Something that, ironically, L.K.Advani seemingly possesses too. Why does he 
avoid the spotlight? Is it only political expediency that makes him promote a 
Vajpayee? No. By coming across as the kingmaker, he can be seen as the Ram 
who took to ‘banwaas’ with an Ayodhya awaiting him forever. That is the 
strategy -- to make the country breathlessly anticipate the great saviour, 
and teasers about his hard line against the soft one of Vajpayee are sent out 
to titillate the cadres. One can almost hear the stentorian reprimand. The 
whispering gallery. And then the denouement by the avuncular patriarch – we 
are all one. 

There are very many reasons provided for his reluctance to take to 
centre-stage. One of them is his undoubted insecurity. He cannot take the 
responsibility for crucial decisions. He resigned after the demolition of the 
Babri Masjid. And he wasn’t merely being honorable; he was afraid. 

And while he is in this survivor-in-the-forest mode, the people go through an 
‘agni pariksha’. Yes, the country is his Sita, the one he stands by but who 
will be put through a test to prove his point. L.K. Advani is a trustworthy 
man because there is a whole machinery that helps others keep the faith. So, 
he may go to bless a niece marrying a Muslim and get by with a few 
half-truths; his daughter-in-law may file a case against him saying that he 
was threatening her with dire consequences if she did not agree to divorce 
her husband and he can stay out of the rubble. He has his sidekicks, but they 
are called loyal soldiers of the party. He promotes certain favoured people 
and instead of a coterie it is seen as a cohesive unit. And that is the 
point: he can do anything and yet he will be called upright, uncompromising, 
unspoilt. In some ways he is; if you don’t plant trees you don’t get mud on 
your hands. 

He has no charisma, therefore he would make for a very unlikely Gandhi, but 
look closely and there is the familiar austerity camouflaging a smooth 
shrewdness. He would not need a PR guy to point out his USP, for his presence 
is enough to convey what he stands for.

Like Gandhi, he is the statesman without a state. Today, the man who 
represents all that India is supposed to want is perhaps more rootless than 
many. From Karachi to ‘kar seva’ has been a long journey. Which is why he 
clings to his RSS/Jana Sangh background; it makes him feel a part of the 
action. In some ways he is like a new convert – he tries too hard. And that 
effort comes across as sincerity which, as Oscar Wilde said, is the greatest 
vice of the fanatic. 

Identity gets based entirely on how others view you. It is a ghettoisation of 
collective souls, and only one will be picked by destiny to seal a deal or 
somebody’s fate.

This is why I feel Godse was a mere pawn. He did not constitute a think tank; 
he used gut sense. He was paranoid; he had to ensure that his lowly status 
would not impede his path to glory. Godse rode on the back of a cultural 
regression, mimicking a renaissance to become a figure in national politics.

Assassins and icons become heroes because they have simulated the System. The 
anathema and anachronism get transformed into Authority. The lines are bound 
to get blurred. For instance, Gandhi had admitted to making love to his wife 
while his father was dying in another room; Godse visited a brothel before he 
killed the Mahatma. And Gandhi’s call to Ram as his last words have become 
the Hindutva coinage. And they are done in the name of the people. As Don 
Marquis said, “Pity the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.”

Such voices ought to be heard not as an expression of freedom but of bondage. 
We are only as free as our chains let us be.