MORTAL THAT THE MAHATMA WAS

MORTAL THAT THE MAHATMA WAS

Gandhiji was a votary of truth and non-violence. But how far was he truthful himself in word and intent? Were his political machinations and appeasement of Islamic violence on Hindus consistent with the lofty principle of genuine non-violence? Was his policy of passive resistance, which failed to prevent Partition and in its inefficacy in consequential terms resulted in incalculable communal carnage, the right representative of non-violence? His frequent change of stance to suit political exigencies, often bending the rules of the ethical-moral game of principled politics by a degenerate degree, how far was it the pursuit of truth? 

Instances galore there are in this leader's life of partiality and petty politics -- all too mean to be labelled lofty in execution or intent -- which raise serious questions about the validity of calling him either truthful or non-violent in the truest sense of these terms.

Ambedkar's assessment of Gandhiji was forthright and right. None else then or has since then dared to cut the supposed Mahatma to his standard mortal size.

Now, what is your take?

Written by Sugata Bose