Now, let’s talk Gandhi

The current debate over historical figures is conducted on very simple terms: are you for or against Jinnah, for or against Nehru and so on. Instead we need a more complicated two by two matrix that gives politicians four options to choose from when characterising great historical figures. Were these bad men who did bad things, good men who did bad things, bad men who did good things or good men who did good things? You see, this scheme can accommodate a great diversity of views. So the Left can say, Savarkar was a bad man (collaborator) who did bad things (two nation theory) — so no portrait for him. BJP can say, he was a good man (patriot) who did good things (Akhand Bharat), and deserves a portrait. Congress (at the Centre, though not in Maharashtra) can, as usual, split the difference and say he was a good man (patriot) who did bad things (two nation theory). So whether or not he gets a portrait depends upon the political tide. But few say he was a bad man who did good things.

On Nehru we can go the same route. For the Congress, he was a good man (in every respect) who did good things (across the board). For the BJP, Nehru was, albeit reluctantly, a good man who did bad things (secularism, socialism). For the Left a good man who did good or bad things depending on the issue. He was lucky never to be put in the bad man who did bad things slot. Jinnah was always an easy case for us: a bad man (British lackey) who did bad things (Partition). Till L.K. Advani came along and upset the ‘‘only one slot possible for Jinnah’’ position. Now at least Jinnah could be a bad man (two-nation-theory type) who might have done good things (secular constitutional values).

But now comes the real difficult case: Gandhi. It used to be easy. RSS thought he was bad man (inefficacious ahimsa type) who did bad things (appease, you know whom). Probably deserved to be snuffed out. Most of the rest of us thought he was beyond good and bad: he was saint. So the Left never quite knew what to make of the man. Then the complications began: for most Gandhi descended from saintly to human on many parameters. But where does the RSS stands on this gentleman. Is he now a good man (Hindu spirituality kind) who did bad things (appease you know whom)? Is he bad man (the weak ahimsa type) who did good things (mix religion and politics)? Has there been progress? Will the RSS be able to graduate Gandhi to the good man who did good things category? Perhaps our colleagues in Pakistan should be grateful to the RSS. After all, they are treating the father of Pakistan exactly as they treat the Father of the Indian nation. No movement possible from one slot to another.