Where are those that Gandhi politicized?

 Original source: https://www.jeyamohan.in/148563/

Respected Jeyamohan,

Around 7 years back, I read the book "Indraiya Gandhi" (Contemporary Gandhi). When I read statements like, "Gandhi politicized people, enabled them to participate in politics, democratized those who were detached from politics", I realized its significance and was gladly amazed at how he did the right thing.

But did he complete that undertaking? Is the populace politically knowledgeable? Are they involved in politics? Are they involved in the right way? These questions are gaining in importance.

Within a state, crores of people declare allegiance to a certain party permanently. They are identifying themselves with that party and are electing that party no matter what.

Have you seen someone rejecting cash for vote? But you would've seen someone raging at not receiving the cash yet. (including non-poor). Do the people have the wherewithal to vote looking beyond personal and factional (caste, religion, govt employee) gains?

Was this the case at least during the Gandhian times? If people have become devoid of all that within such a short span of time, does it imply that the change brought in by Gandhi was so superficial? Or was it merely an illusion? Did something like that never existed?

Those that can reveal their worthlessness merely by speaking publicly are easily getting elected.

Someone who joined politics recently, in my opinion, is a hard worker, who has astonishing emotional balance (I have observed him only in public spaces), who reveres Gandhi. a moderate, a staunch believer in decentralization of administration (at least to the extent of my knowledge, he is known to you as well, maybe it is possible that he isn't all these in reality). He is defeated in the latest elections. I am quite surprised that people haven't accepted him.

In this context, I am amazed as to how Gandhi, a moderate, could draw the masses of this vast nation, could draw them to follow his path, could constantly reach up to them. Honestly, did Gandhi have so much of public appeal or was it an exaggeration? Could he have won if he contested elections?

Pa-Satheesh

-

Dear friend,

The question, "What did Gandhism achieve here?", keeps getting raised at various times. In every historical moment, according to the prevalent situation then, the discussion on 'whether Gandhism has failed' has been happening.

The response to the question "What is the contribution of Gandhi?" can be simply stated as "Gandhi politicized people" in a single statement. In truth though, this single sentence needs to be analyzed via multiple layers in historical context.

India was a feudalistic country. Monarchy was prevailing. Several sections of this country was under quasi-tribal rule and many more sections had tribal lifestyles. A colonial rule was imposed upon it.

That colonial administration had the characteristics of the then upcoming neo-capitalism. As a result, it gifted us with certain aspects of this capitalism, like common education, common justice, basic human rights etc. When compared with feudatory rule, these gifts of the colonial, neo-capitalist rule were quite important and foundational.

When Gandhi ventured into Indian political scenario, he observed the stagnation of the feudalistic society and the concomitant ill effects. He saw the benefits of the British rule in comparison. Gandhi's contribution was to pick out the goodness in both of them and to imagine an even better system.

Unlike the contemporary thinker, Gandhi did not reject the ancient feudal system as merely the caste system and exploitation. Also unlike traditionalists, he didn't think of it as a rigid societal organization mandated by ancestors.

On the contrary, he analyzes it without prejudices. He categorizes rationally, the beneficial aspects of the ancient societal organization. He identified that the old Indian feudal system had created a decentralized society sans any central authority. He also understood that it is inevitable.

He saw that the Indian villages were operating as economically self-sufficient independent unit, capable of self administration. He observed that the colonial British rule was conquering this decentralized community using violence and creating a strong government with a powerful center at Delhi. He understood the corruption, domination and the consequential injustices originating due to that centralization of power in this vast nation.

What Gandhi basically took from that ancient feudal system is that idea of decentralized society. He dreamt of a system with a central government for security and acting as the center for the union and each unit within that union becoming self sufficient by charting its own path while retaining its uniqueness.

Gandhi rejected both capitalism and its front - the colonial rule. But he accepted the modern and public education that the colonial rule provided. He believed completely in the judicial system brought in and showcased as the symbol of modernism by the Britishers. You could see that he has spoken having accepted the concept of 'the Court' in all the courts.

He acknowledged the gift of the British rule which integrated the whole of India administratively. He utilized the communication and the transport system developed by the British throughout the India to his own advantage. He imagined a society that will be developed on top of this foundation.

That would be a modern democratic government. It would be a new form of decentralized government with units that are self sufficient. He wished to implant that dream in people's minds, to train people in civil systems for them to claim those rights, to provide sufficient training in bucolic life for people to thrive in such an economic system, to train people in politics for them to form such governments. One could see that his complete political endeavor was towards this end.

Gandhi had already written the "Hind Swaraj" by the time he returned to India in 1918. His complete work for the next three decades followed from that first dream. He felt that people should become self-aware of their social and economical rights in order to step ahead towards that goal. In fact, he organized movements like "Civil disobedience", which had economic underpinnings, for that reason.

He shaped India as a society that can claim and struggle for its political rights. His dream of achieving this through non-violence was quite momentous. Nehru mentioned about this as,  "He relieved people of India from their despair". After having been oppressed and subjected to drought due to the violent wars prior to this, people were left incapable of fighting for their rights. With small victories, he gave them the self-confidence. For the first fifteen years, his work was all about making them aware that they have rights and they have to fight for it.

Post that, he facilitated the beginning of modern democratic activities in India. When the British introduced the electoral politics in India, he empowered people to participate in the elections, and gain experience in administering those democratic institutions and local governments. These are the democratic trainings of Gandhi for the nation.

This kind of politicization that Gandhi provided can be categorized into 3 categories:
a. the self-confidence to struggle for rights
b. the quality to identify themselves as part of a civil society. (Temple entry, Abolition of untouchability, rural economy were the movements he created to establish that aspect).
c. Training in administration.

India attained independence through the few crores of people who were thus politicized via these trainings. If India is democratic even today, its because of the training obtained then.

Observe the countries who attained political independence in the same period as India, but have just a namesake democracy. Those nations are run by unpoliticized, democratically untrained governments. Pakistan, Burma, Malaysia and several other Eastern countries are living proofs for the fact that when unpoliticized people gain independence as a historical gift, it would lead only to dictatorship.

It isn't a small thing to politicize a country like India with its crores of population in just 3 decades. Even in the information age like this, it takes a huge effort to spread a simple message to several crores of people. What Gandhi did was something that was alien to people of those times and he taught modern democratic concepts that were completely unknown to them.

Try to think of such common concepts that have been propagated to the people in the last three decades. During the 1970s, certain environmental messages were spread to people. But it took around 40 years to properly reach the populace. In 1980s, we started spreading the awareness on the effects of ultra consumerism. After 40 years, it still hasn't reached the people.

Comparing to this, within just 30 years between 1918 and 1948, if an individual is able to propagate awareness among the crores of people about democracy and about their role in a government, is it not a huge achievement?!

Those masses have been revering the King as God for thousands of years prior to that. They viewed the King as "Thiruvudai Mannan Thirumal" (His excellency the King is Vishnu). They weren't even aware of the term called "rights". The message that the Government is for them, elected by them, must work for their benefit and must establish itself as their representation was propagated in just 3 decades to myriad people from cities to small tribal towns.

That is the achievement of Gandhi. By politicizing India's populace, he had politicized one-sixth of the world's population. This politicization has not taken place even now in China. Therefore, one-fifth of world's population has been living without even realizing what politics means, what political rights mean, what civilian qualities means till today. You should be able to position Gandhi through this comparison.

What transpired after independence? Where are those politicized people? They are here and as do their progeny. During freedom struggle, the politics was idealistic, whereas now it has morphed into self-servient one. As I say self-servient politics, though I deem it to be inferior, I am not suggesting that only the idealistic politics should prevail. It is usual that the idealism prevailing when being under servitude, wouldn't survive under self rule.

As soon as they obtained freedom, people here clamored for rights based on their ethnicity, province, language, religion and caste. The political climate for that started being created. That is the one we are witnessing now. This is a distributional politics, There is no place for Gandhian principles in that.

Yet. the democratic civilian qualities are the ones underpinning even this politics of today. Contribution to society and sacrifice were the benchmarks for idealistic politics. Whereas self-servient politics is all about attaining rights, teaming up for that purpose, mounting a struggle to that end. This is what is happening today.

On the outside, this can seem like leading India to a confused and contradictory environment. But isn't this struggle the hallmark of democracy? Isn't this how it can operate? In this vast nation, if every section mounts a non-violent struggle for its rights and well-being and the compromise reached through that struggle leads to reforms and equity in administration, isn't that democracy?

It would not be the reality if one considers this emergence of self-servient politics and holding it up against the idealism of Gandhi, proclaims that he has failed. The democratic qualities present in today's self-servient politics were also the ones Gandhi tutored. Isn't the group that undertakes fast for reservation, the group that protests saying their agrarian rights are being taken away, the group that protests against their being oppressed, following Gandhian methods? Isn't everyone considering Gandhi their role-model?

Do not forget that this is a nation where multitude of wars were waged for many years. Every region here was spilling blood battling another region. Just a century back, one region was pillaging another. For every group to raise above such violence and to mount a struggle for its own rights within the confines of democracy is a natural democratic process.

Democratic politics doesn't necessarily have to be driven only by its higher principles. It proceeds through various circumstantial compulsions and practical possibilities. Everyone in the populace attaining their right and getting together for the sake of claiming such rights form the basis of democracy. This coming together can be on the identity of ethnicity, language, religion and caste. That is also a democratic process. Still, rallying together on the basis of principles is supreme and exemplary.

I had written about this several times that I once saw Narikurava's protest for rights in front of Nagercoil's Collector office. For centuries together, weren't they unaware of the fact that they too have rights? If they are claiming such rights at the entrance of authority, isn't that a victory for democracy? The foundations of such democracy was what Gandhi tutored here.

Today, an onlooker of such a demonstration would not say that they cannot gather, no matter how conservative he is. On the contrary, he would clamor for his own rights. That is the thought process that India has gained within the past century. This is the meaning of 'Gandhi politicizing people'.

Today's democracy is not idealistic, its self-servient. People elect those that can win and provide them their rights and worldly benefits. They associate as a group for that aspect only. Idealism is not worthy of winning elections here.

Democracy has its own issues. This is being realized world over. Identity politics and money power are the primary symptoms. Problems due to unregulated media are recent phenomenon. People use it without any sense of responsibility. Therefore, news media has become a blank slate sans any worthy idealism. If tomorrow, government starts controlling the social media in entirety, that would destroy the underlying concepts of democracy.

Democracy has such ailments; new ones arise. What can we do, if the pioneers of democracy are blamed for these ailments? Gandhi politicized people and provided them with democracy. Having ignored it, if people instead choose consumerism and prosper in corruption is Gandhi responsible for that?

The democratic foundation of India was erected by the idealistic generation that accepted Gandhi. Nehru became the accepted leader of the entire India because he was identified by Gandhi. He created the constitution and the political institutions that positioned India as a republic.

Think about this for a moment; when the Indian government passed the reservation bill for the backward classes, why didn't the Indian majority oppose it? If they did, could any government have provided that benefit? It wasn't opposed because reservation was the fulfillment of Gandhi's promise. People of those days revered Gandhi. It was an idealistic politics then.

If today the government increases the reservation quota of Dalits by even 2%, in the current self-servient politics, all non-Dalit castes would raise a ruckus. Only then would we realize the politicization that Gandhi forged.

Even today, there are idealistic movements active in India. Several thousands of Gandhis reside here. It is these Gandhians that organize movements like war against corruption and Right to Information. The environmental movement in India is being organized as a complete Gandhian activity even today. It was able to leash even the boundless authority of the India's central government.

Today, every environmental protection bill and conservation project was achieved only by Gandhian methods. Every human right protection was also achieved the same way. Even in independent India, all democratic  rights like Right to Information act were won by Gandhian guidelines.

These are not the achievements of individuals. When an individual takes up a Gandhian method, people gather in support. In those people, lives Gandhi. They are the progeny of the people tutored and politicized by Gandhi. This is the same crowd that throng in support of Baba Amte and Krishnammal Jagannathan.

This kind of congregation is more vast in India compared to any other country today. Thus, this is a role-model for the entire world. If a nation with the largest population, with a lot of diversity and a one without financial fulfillment can still remain democratic, it is because of the politics tutored by Gandhi.

J

References:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hind_Swaraj_or_Indian_Home_Rule
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narikurava
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baba_Amte
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishnammal_Jagannathan