Articles

M K Gandhi and his impact on the Hindu Psyche: In Pre-colonial and Post-colonial India.

Advertisements
Reading Time: 8 minutes

By Poornima Ramesh

Abstract

“All religions are equal” is the false thinking predominating the Hindus of India. Having not been taught their history, they fail to perceive the threat posed by other religions. With what little they know, they reject it as a thing of the past that no longer concerns us. Then there are those who are lax and have a false sense of security when they hear of the eternal nature of Sanatan Dharma. These secular, appeasing, weak Hindus are the product of India dominated by Gandhian thinking. This thinking has created a generation of tamasic individuals who are comfortable with non-action. We also see a rise in rajasic Hindus who have a narrow sense of self and are concerned with the welfare of only themselves and their close ones. Sattvic individuals who are committed to their dharma are very few.

Preface

I would like to first off mention that this essay does not have that many citations expected of a research piece because I am largely speaking my mind. My ideas spring from facts that are common knowledge. I am placing reliance on the ideas more than the source of my knowledge which I acquired over the span of many years from diverse sources – people’s sharing of their knowledge, my observations etc. I can give a self-declaration that I have not lifted these ideas from anywhere although I have been largely inspired to write after reading The Dharma Despatch articles.

Introduction

Gandhi is the unofficial father of the Nation. His birthday is celebrated as Gandhi Jayanti in India and declared by the UN as the International Day of Non-Violence. We observe Martyrs Day in his remembrance. He is on the face of our currency notes. The Nehru dynasty is still trusted by many Indians for the surname Gandhi.  In toto, Gandhi represents India. He still matters – for the naive who buy the narrative that Mahatma Gandhi liberated India from the clutches of the British, and for the true Sanatani who wishes to set the popular narrative straight by de-canonizing Saint Gandhi.

Challenges in Exposing Gandhi

Gandhi is not an ordinary political figure. He is a politician cladded saint or vice-versa. This is one of the primary reasons for his mass popularity. As is the tradition of this country, people look upto sadhus, sannyasis, and ascetics in times of great crisis. Shri Krishna, Adi Shankaracharya, Sri Vidyaranya, Swami Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo, and scores of other saintly men have painstakingly worked to uplift the Bhaaratiya spirit and impel people to do their dharma without fear or favour. This country is forever indebted to their service. Indians revere MK Gandhi in this light. He is not viewed as an ordinary being but as Mahatma! A divine being who came to rescue the masses in their state of helplessness. How is an ordinary person qualified to critique the Mahatma let alone speak ill of him?

The tragedy surrounding his assasination creates an even more difficult environment to look at his political work from a neutral lens. This is perhaps why the Congress enjoys the support of gullible masses even today as emotions take dominance over facts. All these objections aside, the popular narrative has to change, people must realize that Gandhian ideals are Utopian, and should revert to original Sanatan Dharma that our Rishis have left for us. If our spirits dull, let us look up to R.C. Majumdar who started this exercise in raising the collective consciousness as a one-man army.[1]

Gandhi is No Saint

As mentioned earlier, Gandhi was viewed as a political Guru. I am unsure if we should lay credit before Gandhi for charming his followers or blame the people for not having a mind of their own and blindly following him. He is a traitor, not a martyr. He betrayed the faith that millions placed in him. He is a true leader for the fact that he coordinated everyone’s wills but a traitor for urging them to place their belief in the most illogical and ineffective means of freedom struggle i.e. Satyagraha.

This country has seen many spiritual giants who have come down to the level of their countrymen to solve problems. Never have they guided ordinary people to raise themselves to the level of a sannyasi or a brahmachari. Firmly rooted in their spiritual quest, they never once rejected the dharma a jiva needs to perform in this world before it can aspire to pursue moksha. Spirituality was for all – the ordinary grihastha as well as the sannyasi who is outside of the chaturvarna. Worldly problems were attended by giving  real-world solutions. The masses were directed towards spirituality to draw strength and face life head-on, not to renounce their duties and be passive spectators. Gandhi confused the people big time with his false guidance and we see this impact in the secular Hindu today.

To give an example, Myanmar is a Buddhist country. Ahimsa is a fundamental tenet of Buddhism. But the Buddhist monks recognize that their country is under threat from Islamic fundamentalism. They are doing everything in their power to secure their Buddhist identity and encouraging the people to not enter into commercial transactions with Muslims, to buy products only from Buddhist shopkeepers so as to weaken them financially. This is unacceptable in Gandhian ideology because you’re supposed to feed your enemy even at the cost of killing yourself and your family. Remember the popular phrase “hate the sin, love the sinner”? This is such a Christian thinking.[2] Going by Hinduism, man is responsible for his karma. You cannot dissociate the individual from his karma as that is what sustains life.[3]  There is no concept of forgiveness although one can do prayachitham to reduce the impact of the reaction.

It would be an insult to categorize Gandhi in the line of mystics. A truly enlightened person will see everyone as equals because he has acquired the knowledge of Brahman, but that does not mean he shall treat everyone equally. Gandhi lacked this basic trait. He preached non-violent resistance against British rule from the beginning. There are senseless comparisons being made in our History Textbooks of Gandhi and Bhagawan Sri Krishna. The latter chose dharma-yudh after the other three conflict resolutions failed – sama, dama, and bheda. In the first three, you try to kill the enmity by forging a compromise. When it becomes apparent that no relationship of any sort is possible, you kill your enemy.

Gandhi Did Not Get Us Freedom

Let there be no doubt that India did not gain its freedom because of Gandhi. This is a fact that he himself admits after the grand failure of Quit India movement and his followers lost faith in non-violent resistance.[4]

He placed fanatical stress on ahimsa so much so that the achievement of freedom was only secondary to him.[5] Sanatan Dharma is a very practical religion that places stress on the means instead of the ends. We are encouraged to take action and not concern ourselves with the fruits of the action. Gandhi too was concerned with the means but he was fixated on ahimsa alone. This is a very narrow world-view to have because going by our culture, there is no action that can be categorized as completely good or completely bad. Everything has to be understood in the right context of things. If we adopt a universal world-view that all violence is wrong, then we cannot have soldiers guarding our borders. It is most frustrating to note that a person who lacked this basic discriminatory intelligence spearheaded the freedom movement. Viewed under this light, it is no wonder why the British regarded Gandhi as their friend, while harbouring the vilest enemity for Subhash Chandra Bose. To them Gandhi was at best a nuisance to get past.

Congress was a humanitarian platform for him to promote his personal ideas. It often used to be a point of debate between me and my faculty. I used to say that Gandhian ideals are practical in personal life, but they cannot be the political strategy of a State. And he used to say that is if you believe what Acharya Chankaya says. It is not a matter of what one believes but what is sensible! Throughout the period of freedom movement, not once do we see Gandhi reforming his tactics to adopt a better one. This utopian adamance we can also see in Communists, who will stick to their ideology no matter how many times  its uselessness has been established. 

A Man of Irreconcilable Contradictions

Gandhi is infamous for attempting to bring a synthetic Hindu-muslim unity. His double standards became visible in the aftermath of Mappila Riots when he squarely placed the blame on Hindus for provoking the muslims. This thinking is still prevalent among many Hindus I have come across who believe that Hindus are the ones causing the unrest and so we deserve the muslim backlash. Such brainwashing! Why! Even I used to be a subconscious appeaser, this goody good person who will take responsibility for the mistakes of others instead of creating conflict. This is the subconscious thinking of every young Indian until they are exposed to material revealing the Hindu genocide that their ancestors underwent.

Even at the cost of Hindu lives, Gandhi will strive for the brotherhood. Only a delusional person will say that Jews and Muslims should reconcile. In fact, I remember my faculty discussing during one class that Gandhi held the view that Jews should simply kill themselves instead of enduring torture under the Germans. Atma-hatya is the greatest sin and we have the representative of Hinduism and Hindus talking like this. Sometimes I wonder how did the national movement which started off under the guidance of Hindu spiritual giants like Swami Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo, Bal Gangadhar Tilak etc. get swallowed up by secularist forces and double-agents?

If Gandhi had truly desired Hindu-muslim unity, he should not have agreed to partition. He should have insisted for Akhand Bharat at any cost. Which would mean a civil war to maintain unity as it happened in the annexation of Hyderabad and Junagadh to the Indian Union. But Hindu-muslim unity was only second in priority to non-violence. This is what I mean by the irreconcilable contradictions. By choosing not to go for war, Gandhi is responsible for the bloodiest period of Indian history. Had he made the sensible decision to resolve the conflict through war, the violence would have been confined to the military. His philosophy of non-violence resulted in the killing of innocent civilians and other brutalities that we are well aware of.

Autocrat Saint who wielded political influence

Gandhi was averse to power. He had so much faith in himself that he lived by the slogan ‘Absolute power corrupts absolutely”. He believed no true change can be brought from a position of power. It has to be from within the individual. This joker is a Hindu Jesus, a Chrisitian masquerading as Hindu.

Although not in a position of formal power, he wielded considerable influence over the Congress Party. No decision would be taken without his approval. And if there was any decision that was not agreeable to him, he would employ his emotional blackmail of fasting unto death. Congress leaders heeded to him then. This would have forced Godse to take the extreme decision of taking Gandhi’s life as the political course of India was running on the whims of an irrational individual who was not part of Congress formally.

There are questions as to why Godse is being promoted in the land of Gandhi? But who said this is the land of Gandhi? This Bhaarath belongs to the tradition of Gurus. It is not fathered by any one individual. Scores of sadhus, acharyas, sannyasis have stepped in to save this sacred geography and people at times of crisis.

Conclusion

What is the consequence of Gandhi’s influence on Hindu psyche? Hindus who think letting way for peacefuls is the way because we do not have it in us to fight them. Hindus who have given up their Dharma to fate – if it is meant to be, it will be. Hindus who take refuge in the false notion that we have survived all these years and we will continue to do so.


[1] Sandeep Balakrishna, Subverting the True History of India: How Jawaharlal Nehru and his Cronies Sidelined Prof R.C. Majumdar, May 16, 2019, available at https://www.dharmadispatch.in/commentary/subverting-the-true-history-of-india-how-jawaharlal-nehru-and-his-cronies-sidelined-prof-r-c-majumdar (Last visited on Oct. 1, 2021)

[2] Sandeep Balakrishna, Did Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi Really get India her Freedom?, Jan. 30, 2019 available at https://www.dharmadispatch.in/history/did-mohandas-karamchand-gandhi-really-get-india-her-freedom (Last visited on Oct. 1, 2021)

[3]SADHGURU, DEATH: AN INSIDE STORY – A BOOK FOR ALL THOSE WHO SHALL DIE (2020).

[4]  Sandeep Balakrishna, Did Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi Really get India her Freedom?, Jan. 30, 2019 available at https://www.dharmadispatch.in/history/did-mohandas-karamchand-gandhi-really-get-india-her-freedom (Last visited on Oct. 1, 2021)

[5] Sandeep Balakrishna, India’s Independence was Secondary to Mohandas Gandhi: R.C. Majumdar Unmasks Gandhi, May 22, 2019 available at https://www.dharmadispatch.in/history/indias-independence-was-secondary-to-mohandas-gandhi-r-c-majumdar-unmasks-gandhi (Last visited on Oct. 1, 2021)

%%footer%%

Categories: Articles

Leave a Reply Cancel reply