On behalf of the Dalits and other persecuted minorities of India, I congratulate Tariq Ali. a Leftist intellectual who is fighting the Establishment in Pakistan, for exporing the humbug in Mahatma’ Gandhi, in his article in the Illustrated Weekly of India. (Oct. 2-1983)
Much is being written about the Mahatma that neither he himself could be believed nor what is written about him is slowly entering the area of disbelief.
But Tariq Ali’s essay is most appropriate. He comes straight to the point – the legacy of Gandhi. The legacy is what one leaves to posterity. Gandhi has left his teachings, actions and its consequences to the Indian bourgeoisie or the Congress Party and its variants, Congress (s) Congress (J) and Janata Party.
The legacy is similar to a blank cheque and it is encashed leaf after leaf as time and circumstances demand. Tariq Ali is concerned at this curious turn of events. How a mass urge and thirst for economic freedom and independence later, grabbed by the rich in India and ruled over with scant regard to the poor. He is singularly clear and precise as to how Gandhi himself knitted and tailored the movement to suit the Indian bourgeoisie and British monarchy.
Gandhism was not a freak of history. It was not a specific ideology devised for specific aims in a specific period. Gandhi wanted the British out of India. The British ruling class knew that they could not Tule India in permanence. Gandhi’s political strategy a reformist social pecifism coincided with the long-term designs of the Raj. One crucial consideration united Gandhi and the British. Both wanted to preserve the social and economic status quo after the British withdrawal. The transition from a colony to an Independent State was aptly symbolized by the appointment of Mountbatten as the First Head of State of free India. This particular variant of the tryst with destiny owed more to Gandhi than any other political leader. It was also history’s unique tribute to the skills of the British and Indian ruling class. This is not an abstract or dogmatic assertion. The late GD Birla was not merely one of the foremost representatives of Indian Capitalism, he saw his role as that of a broker between Indian nationalism and British Imperialism. Gandhi, a close friend and leader, was his prized instrument in this regard”.
At the time of his support to Mahatma, Birla’s assets were about Rs. 300 millions and today it is more than as 10,000 millons, beating the Tatas on the way.
Tarq Ali adds Gandhi was a Hindu leader. He refused to acknowledge the deep class divisions that existed within the Indian society. He deliberately shut his eyes to the oppression and exploitation inflicted on the mass of Indians by other Indians. As a consequence he refused to take sides in the indigenous class struggle. Exploiters and exploited are equals in the Gandhian lexicon. What this means in reality is preserving the existing social order.
In the case of Moplah peasent rebellion during the early twenties, Gandhi’s hostility to the peasantry manifested itself in an ugly form. He insisted on viewing the struggle through communal spectacles simply because the bulk of the peasants were Muslims and virtually every rich landlord was an upper caste Hindu. Gandhi attacked the peasants for communalism. Not surprisingly, the British troops and civil servants who went to crush the rebellion took up the same theme, thus effectively isolating the movement from the rest of India.
Tariq Ali touches caste system and communalism. Gandhi abhorred the treatment of Untouchables and carried out many personal acts to publicly demons- rate his revulsion for the grotesque character of casteism in India.
On the whole, Tariq Ali’s analysis is well done. The legend has turned sour am J India must look towards the future.
