Independence Thinker

Re: # 245

Agreed on this but that is different from what you stated earlier.

GT #239 I have no problem with someone being positively inspired by his personal views, religious or otherwise (a hindu with ram raj as interpreted to mean good governance, a muslim with "islamic state" as also interpreted to mean good governance, or an avowed non-religious guy who merely seeks good governance).

My point is very simple: religious terms like "ram raj" or "islamic state" do not necessarily translate into good governance. So, why not call a spade a spade in politics, and call good governance as "good governance" rather than as "ram raj" or "islamic state"?

This way, no one can do a bait and switch: i.e. protray "ram raj" or "islamic state" as good governance before coming to power, and once in power translate it differently to mean caste oppression (in case of hinduism) or oppression of women and minorities (in case of islam as zia did with hadood laws and blasphemy laws).

Mantolives #240 It is indeed true that if Jinnah had lived as long as Nehru after partition, he may well have established solid Constitutional foundations that no tinpot general or halfbrained maulvi would have dared to ignore.

On the other hand, as I understand Jinnah was well aware of his precarious health, and so could have focussed on establishing these Constitutional foundations.

I realize hindsight is 20-20, so I guess this is more of wishful thinking, i.e. that there was some way to knock into the heads of would-be saviors of Pakistan like Musharraf and BB and Nawaz Sharif that they can best serve their country at this stage by stepping aside and letting true democracy flourish (i.e. with inner party elections to select new heads of the PPP and the various MLs, given that BB, NS and Mush have had their chance and the average Pakistani doesnt care for any one of them).

Re: # 243

I was always impressed by Washington- the great general who defeated Cornwallis - who in turn humbled the great Tipu Sultan of Mysore ...

I am also impressed by Alexandar Hamilton even more than than Jefferson and Washington. But that is another story...

240 Manto

"I am saying Washington did the right thing by seeking office. You on the other hand want to make him into something he was not"

We are entitled to our own opinions. I am very impressed with the guy as I learn more about him.

Goodbye and take care.

Farzana Versey has written a remarkable piece in Asian Age on the New Gandhi movie:


Maverick: The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost
by Farzana Versey
The Asian Age, Op-ed, Aug 7, 2007


Bluntly put, Mahatma Gandhi was afraid of his son Harilal. “To the people he was a father…To his son he was the father he never had� says the subtitle of the new film Gandhi My Father. This is itself a misnomer. Gandhi was never the father of the people; he was the father of the nation. To the people he was the Mahatma, a greater soul.


Like many fathers in the subcontinent, Gandhi was in competition with his son for the potential of him taking over as man of the house and his wife’s attention. To handle the first threat he denied him conventional education and for the second he adopted celibacy as a means of giving Kasturba the position of his mother. The son, denied his Oedipal attachment, sought out prostitutes.


Put sexual self-denial/destruction in the context of the family unit and you will see how universal the story is. The normal person here is the son and not the father.


Gandhi was at an age when he should have felt settled. He was not. When he talked extensively about his battle with lust, it would be easy to classify it as frustration. Harilal was mirroring it all the time and that must have been disturbing.


Individual angst is a microcosm of the dysfunctional nature of society and even larger political issues. When the son converted to Islam at the age of 50, it again brought to the fore Gandhi’s assumption that he was still a child who would go to the “highest bidder�. As he wrote, “Harilal's apostasy is no loss to Hinduism and his admission to Islam a source of weakness to it, as I apprehend, he remains the same wreck that he was before.�


The fact is that the father was struggling with his own spiritual moorings. He was trying to base a fight for freedom on the foundation of morality gleaned from epics. His political arena was an ashram. The son turning to a religion which would in effect brand the father a kafir was a blow not to his paternal instinct but to the idea of his own godliness.


Gandhi was essentially the Nowhere Man suddenly trapped in the standards of the new world, which his ostensibly simple sensibilities could not grasp. If you care to look out of your window and spot a man who is either smiling too much, or walking far too purposefully or getting more restless than is necessary, then this is the man who has no answers as to what went wrong, and how and why.


So, he regresses, hoping to unveil today’s revolution by using yesterday’s bravado. He starts at home with the new arsenal in his battle against an imagined opponent – his spouse. The only way he can assert that he is in charge is by making rules. Some lines need to be drawn for him not to break inside.


Kasturba became a caricature of a housewife forced into becoming an ideological sidekick. She was expected to get everything right, and be in control not only of external situations but of her emotions. She had the constantly pained look and fake smile of somebody who had to hold back.


Harilal was seeking a role-model and instead found parents prone to Kodak moments of lobotomised bliss. He naturally became obsessive, but there was clarity in his thinking. As he did not fit into a mould, he could fashion himself the way he wished. It is to his credit that his rebelliousness was positive in that he did not worry about playing to the gallery. It is here that a political statement comes out with the greatest force. Do we have to remain outsiders to be truly contented? Does being snubbed act as a spur to freedom?


In the devious little trick film Lage Raho Munnabhai, that is now considered a contemporary classic, the protagonist buffers the ‘spirit’ of Gandhi. Interestingly, we have a goon without a family lecturing a bunch of old men deserted by their families. All the subjects for the Gandhigiri experiment are what society deems to be dysfunctional people.


Therefore, let us forget whether he was a good father or not. Was Gandhi, the statesman without a state, a good father of the nation? His aphorisms amount to the inheritance of candyfloss that gets sticky after a while. In a nation that was to be created as a secular republic he was pushing the idea of god. When there was talk of an honourable settlement between the Hindus and Muslims almost a decade before Partition, he had said, “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.�


His idea of Ram Rajya has today become cause for an acrimonious second, albeit mental, partition. And what has happened to the Harijans, children of god? Don’t we realise that this whole toilet-bowl existence he sanctified as dignity of labour has left millions of people still in the Grade 4 category of jobs? It took an Ambedkar to truly empower them as Dalits. Non-violence? Is there such a movement today? We have a South African, Nelson Mandela, speaking up for it after having been branded a terrorist in the past.


Let us get real. We don’t need a Harilal to tell us that the Gandhi bubble had burst long ago and become a mere ghost along one more M.G.Road.

'The noble ones give up power and come back if needed and do what's needed and ofcourse they become "prime movers"'

Pardesi this statement more fittingly applies to Jinnah than some Virginia plantion slave onwer though I have great respect for General Washington for other reasons and he was a product of his times.

If you think about it Jinnah refused power more than anyone else in India. He was offered premiership of India thrice, offered governorship of several provinces.. he rejected countless offer of titles like sir and Qaiser etc... he refused to even accept honorary doctorates from universities who wished to bestow them on him... preferring to remain plain Mr. Jinnah.

Even his final decision to seek the office of Governor General of Pakistan was a reluctant one. Announcing the June 3rd Plan to the Muslim League Working Committee and after its subsequent passage... Jinnah had this to say:

"I have done my job. You have your Pakistan. You may do with it as you please. When wars are won, field marhsalls retire and civilian authority must take over."

It was not untill Mid-July that Muslim League nominated Jinnah... a whole month after the June 3rd Plan. There were three reasons for it:

1. Lord Mountbatten was unacceptable to Pakistanis as GG because he was too pro-Congress.

2. Hamidullah Khan, Nawab of Bhopal, the Muslim League's favored candidate was embroiled in a rather interesting familial struggle with his daughter and heir apparent Abida Sultan. Abida wanted to leave for Pakistan but Hamidullah Khan wanted her to take over in order to abdicate to India.

3. According to Liaqat, and he represented the League's majority view, Jinnah alone was a politician and leader who had popular appeal amongst the masses. He alone could keep the nation together at that critical time.

Hence Jinnah - already ailing and over worked- was once again asked to bail the Muslim Leaguers out. This ofcourse earned Pakistan the wrath of Dina Wadia for ever and she has mentioned how her father's life was squeezed out him by the Pakistanis.

And then they forced the dying man to make a trip down to East Pakistan... which in essence proved to be the nail in the coffin for Jinnah never recovered from that long and arduous journey, in which by the way he made his biggest political blunder ever.

Sri Prakasa's account confirms that Jinnah planned on returning to his house in Bombay and living out the rest of his days.

Ofcourse had he done so... he would have been abused by many for "abandoning Pakistan" to go live in the comfort of his palatial mansion ... ironic because his 2.6 acre mansion was much smaller than the 300 acre plantation General Washington retired to.

Pardesi mian,

I am saying Washington did the right thing by seeking office. You on the other hand want to make him into something he was not.

There was no United States before 1789 and Washington was an Army General not a Governor or head of a state. He then brought the colonies together and ruled them for two terms.


Tahmed,

No man is perfect and Jinnah made his fair share of mistakes. However what you are saying is frankly not making much sense to me. In other words... Jinnah should have become the head of state and retired within 1 year because he would die in the 13th?

George Washington not only played a leading role in making of the constitution but also became the first president and was president for 8 years. Jinnah by comparison died in 13 months. So atleast don't second guess history. If one goes by what Sri Prikasa told Jawaharlal Nehru, Jinnah was planning on retiring back to Bombay had he lived...In other words... Jinnah should have become the head of state and retired within 1 year because he would die in the 13th. Remember Jinnah very much planned on staying out of office but it was Mountbatten's designs that forced him to move to Pakistan. Just like George Washington, for Pakistanis Jinnah was the natural candidate.

Gandhi would never have been a candidate. It was Nehru who was built up as a candidate. If your reprimand was relevant it was to Jawaharlal Nehru who was in power for 17 years and died in power. Yet for some reason no Indian seems to criticise him for not leaving power but you are criticising Jinnah was staying in power for barely 13 months before dying ?

Ironic.

tahmed sahib:

You write:

" .... we should not drag in religious symbolism into political issues, otherwise we corrupt both religion and politics."

Religions often tell us how one should live one's life both private and public. Politics is a process which sets up institutions within which life is to be lived. Over time and across geography the two have intersected to produce both good and bad results. But more importantly, if most people want to live their private and public lives guided by religion, its myths and symbols, then (in a democracy) isn't it but natural that religion will guide politics? How will they necessarily corrupt each other? Now it may well be argued that in a multi-religious society with conflicting religious ideals, it is best for institutions to be a-religious. While, this may indeed be so (and I am biased towards this viewpoint), the politics which creates these institutions need not be a-religious at all. In fact, I believe, that in such situations politics should be very close to religion so that peoples' religion/s is/are well understood. Otherwise, institutions will be deeply flawed.

Talking about religion, politics should well reflect hamidm2's and my religion also. And in this domain, let me (under the supreme guidance of hamidm2) assure you that there will be no cross-fertilization of corruption between religion and politics. If our polity were to rule then we would want only one execution: that of mohar. We would impose at most one restriction: Gandhi's photographs on the walls of govt. buildings be removed due to our concern about politicians developing bad sexual habits. Otherwise, everything will be fine and liberal. Osama can apply for a visa as long as he checks the "not a terrorist" box.

218 Mantolives

Here is the link that will provide you little more details on the 3-4 year gap between the end of war and his new venture about constitution. The power hungry people don't give up power unless forced to. The noble ones give up power and come back if needed and do what's needed and ofcourse they become "prime movers".

The key words in the link are:

"Following the end of the war in 1783, Washington emulated the Roman general Cincinnatus, and retired to his plantation on Mount Vernon, an exemplar of the republican ideal of citizen leadership who rejected power"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington

Also, please dont put words in my mouth. I never compared Gandhi with Washington. Neither one was better than the other. They were just different for different civilizations and their respective nation's needs at the time.

hamidm: Talking of naked politicians, I wonder if you would be equally opposed to Lady Godiva who (like Gandhi) chose to ride naked (and not even partially naked as in case of Gandhi!) through town in a form of non-violent protest (against her own husband in this case in an attempt to shame him into ending his cruelty to the peasants). The conversation would have gone this way then:

Lady Godiva (in full naked glory, sitting on the horse, makes her political statement): No more beating up the peasants, Sire!!

hamidm: How cool!! I am drooling over Godiva, and I dont mean Godiva chocolates either!

missus (whispers to hamidm): You want a slap, boy!!

Mantolives: Of course Gandhi was never a serious contender for power. That was my point!!

He CHOSE not to seek public office, and had he chosen otherwise would any Congress politician have dared to deny it to him?

And of course Washington could have become lifelong President had he CHOSEN to do this. He chose otherwise. While I have a lot of respect for Jinnah, and we owe him our beloved Pakistan, let us not deny facts or deny the reality that no man is always right.

Stuka #224 You misunderstood what I wrote, so let me clarify: When I wrote that you and kaalchakra had the "dark vision" of ram raj, I also meant that you were opposed (not supportive) of this "dark vision" (i.e. good governance). And when I wrote that others (drlokraj/folio) had what in effect would be the "bright vision" of ram raj, I also meant that they were supportive of the "bright vision".

This may sound confusing, but this illustrates the fundamental point I tried to make: we should not drag in religious symbolism into political issues, otherwise we corrupt both religion and politics. Thus: if you simply refer to "good governance" (instead of "ram raj" in case of India, or "islamic state" in case of Pakistan), then everyone knows what you are talking about and it is easy to agree. Wrap this political concept in religious terms, and you open up room for all sorts of interpretations. Thus, zia in Pakistan wrapped his politics in religious symbolism, and did incredible damage to Pakistani political institutions while at the same time as he did incredible damage to religion in Pakistan by funding and politically strengthening priests (and thus defaced the beauty of Islam which rests in the lack of an organized priesthood).

So, in fact, I tend to agree bascially with you and Kaalchakra. Drag terms like ram raj into politics (even if you really mean "good governance" and not caste suppression), and the perfectly fine democratic set up in India will in due course be corrupted by religious chauvinists. The same way the concept of an "Islamic state" has done in Pakistan.

Excerpts from an article by Vinay Lal, historian from UCLA Journal of History of Sexuality of Uni of Texas.

====================

"as long as the penis remains, one cannot
be a true ascetic."

=======================

Most tellingly, though, Gandhi appears to have found some sustenance in certain strands of Vaishnava theology and literature. During the course of one long exposition of his views on brahmacharya, Gandhi had remarked: "When the Gopis were stripped of their clothes by Krishna, the legend says, they showed no sign of embarrassment or sex-consciousness but stood before the Lord in rapt devotion."

=====================

the Indian political scientist Bhikhu Parekh, the whole matter of Gandhi's "bizarre" sexual life can virtually be dismissed with the observation that hls "theory of sexuality rested on a primitive approach to semen."

====================

Working almost entirely withln a positivist
framework, Parekh has nothing much to say except that Gandhi's ideas about the "production and accumulation" of semen were "untrue," and that the old man was "wrong" to "mysti@" semen by ascribing it with "lifegiving power," just as he was "wrong to associate it with energy"; indeed, "the very concept of ojas or spiritual energy is largely mystical and almost certainly false."

=====================


Then, Nayyar says, Gandhi told Manu that their purity had to be subjected to the "ultimate test," and they were
to offer the "purest of sacrifices." He suggested that they "now both start sleeping naked."3 Manu, reports Nayyar, readily consented.

===============================

There was never any suggestion that Gandhi made improper advances towards Manu or the other two women who on occasion had slept with him, or that the encounter was in the remotest matter sexual, or even that he had entertained "impure" thoughts towards Manu and the other women. Gandhi himself eventually made this matter public knowledge
and was to write voluminously on the nature of his experiment,....

=========================

in the words of Jawaharlal Nehru, "unnatural
and shoclung." Gandhi "has gone to the extreme limit ofhis argument," Nehru added prosaically, "and does not recognize the validity or necessity of the sexual act at any time except for the sake of children; he refuses to recognize any natural sex attraction between man and woman."

======================

Describing Gandhi as "absolutely wrong in this matter," Nehru thought it likely that his advice, if followed, could only lead to "frustration, inhibition, neurosis, and all manner of physical and nervous ills."59 More recent assessments, scholarly and journalistic alike, adopt almost entirely the same argument: thus Bhikhu Parekh, critiquing Gandhi for subscribing to a "dualist ontology" that made him hold steadfast to the distinction between the "physical" and the "spiritual," finds Gandhi incapable of making a distinction between the sexual act involved in rape and the sexual act that takes place between loving spouses.60 Gandhi's "ideas and preachments" on the subject of sex seemed to one of his most intense admirers to be "outlandish and almost inhuman," and Nehru appears to have encapsulated a fairly common view that Gandhi was "obsessed" with sex.

======================

good point, masan. That's all the more understandable when we consider that to us Indians Jainism was another sampradaya (tradition). Sampradayas have traditions and specific followers, but their ideals and ideas (can and do become) filter widely in the society. Gujjus probably have been signficantly affected by jainism (not sure).

This notion of "separate religions" is not our own. That openness is a great strength but it has also been misused to hurt and divide.

I see that people take offence to Gandhi sleeping naked with some other women to test his "sexual abstinence".. I don't have a problem with it as long as he has not forced anyone to take part in his experiments.

Gandhi, I think is a "Jain" disguised as an Hindu, or atleast had been tremendously influenced by Jain ideals of non-violence / vegetarianism etc..

Even now there are Jain monks in India who have sacrificed everything (their wealth / clothes / food / other pleasures etc.. kinda recnounce everything) for the welfare of the world and just roam around the streets "naked". Gandhi would have strived to achieve that ideal.