Some men threw him out of a train, he threw their entire
empire out of his country. And it was not revenge.
I came upon people who didn’t believe in the Gandhian
principles and have the misconception that the emergence of Gandhi was not a
positive sign for the country and her independence. This is an effort to
justify the fact that in fact we needed more men like him.
Non-violence has been claimed by some to be a factor with a retarding
effect on independence. Violence could have gotten us a quick independence.
It’s quite logical that it was in no way that violence could be used to
overthrow one of the most powerful regimes of the world at that time. An
unarmed man, however courageous and determined, cannot win another with a gun.
In every situation, the British were simply looking for an
excuse to use force against the protestors, and enforce laws that would further
limit their freedom. And a violent action provided just that. Gandhi obviously
realized this and thus stuck to the path of non-violence. It’s evident in
history that whenever there has been a case of violence, the government dealt
with the ‘perpetrators’ with an iron hand. Violence also created an environment
of aggression that was much undesired at a time when communal hatred was at its
tripping point.
Non-cooperation was considered by many to be a passive
protest. Nothing could be farther from truth. In Gandhi’s words, “it would be
impossible for a few thousand Englishmen to control millions of Indians if they
refuse to cooperate”. The non-cooperation movement was accomplishing just that,
till the Chauri-Chaura incident (again an unthoughtful act of violence). Gandhi
then had to put the movement on a hold, and the British got the excuse they
were so desperately looking for.
The non-cooperation movement had another hidden motive, one
to strengthen the state of affairs for the Indian craftsmen and the general
economy. Gandhi encouraged self-reliance, and refusal of foreign goods as a
part of the movement. This lead to an increased demand of Indian goods,
strengthening the country at her grassroots. He had devised then, what it took
economists longer to comprehend. The country’s economy is built from bottom-up
and not top to bottom. You can find it in his statements “a country will develop
only when its poorest citizen does.”
When he was arrested for leading the non-cooperation
movement that brought down the British administration to its knees, he was
taken to the court, were he advocated for himself (quite obvious for a
barrister). The judge was willing to cut his sentence short, when for his
defense Gandhi said: “I am here, therefore, to invite and submit cheerfully to
the highest penalty that can be inflicted upon me for what in law is a
deliberate crime, and what appears to me as the
highest duty of a citizen.”
He stood for peace and honesty along with hygiene and
sanitation at his ashram, some of
things most required for development in the true sense. Exactly these factors,
among others are used to determine development today through Human development
index (HDI).
He kept protesting in a non-violent manner again and again,
despite repressive measures by the foreigners, and after every blow he got, he
would say “I won’t cooperate”. And as it is said “it’s not about how hard you
hit, it’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward”.
That’s the reason why India has numerous streets named after
him, the reason why his face is watermarked on every currency note, why he is
called father of the nation, why his picture is hung in government offices, why
just a stick and glasses are enough anywhere to denote the Mahatma.
No comments:
Post a Comment