Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Notwithstanding Narendra Modi8217;s erroneous reference to Mohandas as Mohanlal, Gandhi was invoked by both the BJP and Congress in the just-concluded campaign in Gujarat. But they were referring to Gandhi neither as a possibility nor even as an absence.
Gandhi as a possibility is both spiritually illuminating and politically creative. This was the Gandhi that was invoked by not only Vinoba Bhave and K.G. Mashruwala but also by those who through their critique deepened our understanding of Gandhi. Rammanohar Lohia and JP both accepted the possibility that Gandhi offered us. This was anchored by an unshakable faith that the political realm was and ought to be a moral realm. They did not accept that the polity could be self-referential. This view of politics affirmed that politics and political discourse must refer to something outside of itself and that measure was higher and nobler than the political realm.
He moves around Gujarat tirelessly narrating the story of Gandhi8217;s quest. In so doing, he has also retrieved the beauty of the ancient form of katha by making it a narration of truth, both personal and societal. His is perhaps the most creative response to the people of Gujarat as it engages with them and believes that all of us are capable of recognising the truth within us and following it. He also illustrates the duties of a witness. And yet the Gandhi that he invokes is an intensely personal Gandhi.
The campaign rhetoric was not referring to the Gandhi that Narayan Desai wants to make available to us. Their references were entirely bereft of meaning. This vacuous speech is best illustrated by Gordhan Zadaphia8217;s claim that his rebellion in the BJP was akin to Gandhi8217;s satyagraha. They were also not referring to the mythic Gandhi.
Myth is also a mode of remembering. As memory, myth creates a present that is lived. As retelling, myth is illustrative of a possible future. The references were also not to the Gandhi of the popular imagination, a la Munnabhai, because even that recognises the transformative possibility of a Gandhi.
It is without a doubt a failure of the political parties in India to deal with Gandhi8217;s politics and his lok seva. But this has been long recognised. The inability of the political parties to speak meaningfully of Gandhi signals a deeper failure. It signifies a failure of our capacity to hear. Gujarat of today does not wish to be reminded of either the possibilities of Gandhian politics or of his absence. Gujarat today sees itself as a future of India. It is a future that is built upon the petrochemical and energy complexes that dominate the industry of Gujarat. The large coastline that we are so aggressively privatising is our commercial link to the rest of the world. Our speculative tendencies are very profitably employed in the bullish stock market. In this scheme, the poor are a source of cheap and hopefully perennial supply of migrant labour that would help us build the urban spaces that we dream of. Gandhi and his constructive programmes are not part of our economic imagination.
The cultural self-image that we are forging is part fantastic and part grounded in our society. In this imagination, Gujarati asmita has come to occupy a central space. This asmita is not rooted in either Gujarati language or creative expression.
Most Gujarati writers express dismay that we do not read serious literature, at least not in our language. The Gujarati film industry has died and so has Gujarati theatre, with the exception of some commercial theatre in Mumbai. Even the best apologist for the Gujarat of today would admit that social science writing about Gujarat in Gujarati is an oxymoron. We speak less and less about ourselves in our tongue. In this asmita, the west as a source of consumption and opportunity plays a role.
Ahmedabad is dotted with buildings that bear the name 8216;New York,8217; and believe it or not, we also have a very un-aesthetic and stunted Statue of Liberty in the main shopping artery of Ahmedabad. And yet, we wish to create an identity that is aggressively exclusive and not inclusive. Instead of a dialogue with those who challenge us, we would prefer their annihilation. Gandhi is a burden that we would rather shed. That reference to Mohandas as Mohanlal was not erroneous, after all. Gandhi as a servant of God defined as the poor and as Truth 8212; as servant of daridranarayan and satyanarayan 8212; is not what we want. We would rather have him follow his ancestral profession of a merchant.
The writer is an Ahmedabad-based social scientist tridip.suhrudgmail.com
