The Gandhian-Congress approach and it's flaws.

M. K. Gandhi is deemed the father of Nation and many people very readily accept this. And many people in utter naivete identify as Gandhians too. But, isn't this the result of a very simplistic reading of history and our freedom struggle? At a time when people are free to think what they want, they should make sure that they don't make reason and logic suffer in the guise of freedom of speech. No, doubt we are all free to speak our minds, but this doesn't mean that we don't be fair to the truth. And of what I make of history, Gandhi is simply overrated. Although I find a major portion of his philosophy quite kaput, but there are two aspects I'm very particularly critical of, those are his role in the freedom struggle and his theory of 'non-violence'.

Gandhi and Congress in comparison to Bhagat Singh, in their approach towards the British;

Before studying about any person or group from the past, we must go through the backgrounds they came from. Congress, as we all know, was founded by a retired British civil servant, and most of its members right from the very beginning were from the privileged classes. In this backdrop it represented a particular group, that was the emerging bourgeoisie. New Industrialists, retired 'Raj' officials etc. etc. So the congress represented the said lot, which was quite privileged and saw 'political' freedom as the only desired aim. So, it's not surprising, that congress was only interested in getting rid of the British and secure for itself the political power. This was the Congress's understanding of imperialism and the problems facing the Indians.

In non-conformism to this, there was a young boy in his teens, beholding the colonial experience from his own point of view, that very different from Gandhi's and Congress'. This boy in his teens had more wisdom than the collective wisdom of the leaders of the elitist group called 'Congress', put together. And this is the reason he comprehended both, the issues confronting the masses and the imperialist British masters, quite better. He was of the opinion, the British were not the only bane of the people but the entire exploitative system. The real aim shouldn't be getting rid of the British but the exploitation of the people and poverty. And unlike his overrated contemporaries also had a vision for once the British left, the establishment of a 'Socialistic Republic', whereby all the sufferings of the poor Indian masses will be put an end to.

Now, having both Gandhi and Bhagat Singh demystified, it's very easy to understand, who's wisdom was shallow and who's deep. And also, who understood the problems confronting the Indians better. For the Congress and Gandhi Independence was the only end but for Bhagat Singh, it meant to bring about a tangible change in the lives of the oppressed.

The Theory of Non-Violence;

It's a very cliche philosophy, at least in my humble opinion. There is an inherent flaw in it. This smells of a utopian idealism. And may be one worth appreciation in an ideal situation. But, then again we don't live in an ideal world. It's the world full of Wolves. And to exist in this world, many times we have to defend ourselves through violence, otherwise, we may get killed, it's the old jungle rule, prey or be preyed. So, in this kind of a world people must be prepared, to be ready to defend themselves whenever necessary and not simply keep sitting and sing praises to 'non-violence'.

This Sisyphean myth of non-violence was once very well debunked by Arundhati Roy, the famous Indian writer, in an interview with an American journalist. When asked, what is the need for picking up arms for getting justice( in the case of 'Adivasis') in India, the country of Gandhi? and that, why don't they protest non-violently, in accordance with the Gandhian ways? She replied, "What Gandhi did was a drama for which you need a huge audience but in the jungles, there is no audience and if you don't resist you won't simply exist."

This explains the Gandhian ways very well. What Gandhi used to do was a performance, which was well reported throughout the world, and reached a global audience. It was through this Gandhi used to move people. But what when there is no audience and the oppressors aren't the benevolent liberal Britishers? This whole theory then is rendered useless. This reminds of an American writer, who once said, to speak the truth you need two people, one to speak and the other to listen and this is very much the case with Gandhi and his philosophy also. It craves a benevolent oppressor.This makes it quite clear, how flawed and limited this overrated philosophy of non-violence is. But having said all this, I'm not making a case against non-violence, but only the lacks in it.

Relevance of such comparisons;

This above-done comparison is of very help, to make of for ourselves, why independence meant different to different classes. It was the freedom, congress fought for- no doubt very important- just political freedom. But the masses didn't get the social and economic freedom. And it is for this reason of demystifying the causes for the poor condition of a big population, even after 70 years of so-called independence, it's important for. And without re-assessing it from the start, we won't ever find a coherent answer.