Mahatma Gandhi: India's empty vessel

Sixty one years after his death, the name of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi still lives on in India. If not in grotesque political campaigns by corrupt leaders, then in Mont Blanc's ostentatious advertising posters. If not in India's currency mints, then in Bollywood movies gaudily celebrating ascetism. And if not in hunger strikes by power hungry politicians, then in temples robbing from the rich and the poor alike.

In one way or another, for right or for wrong, via moral or immoral, the idea of Gandhi-ism still evokes the same sense of respectful consideration in the eyes of Indians. Yet, how many truly understand the basic tenets of Gandhism and what Mahatma Gandhi stood for? How many appreciate his calls against materialism or economic avarice? How many follow his methods of peaceful resistance and self-suffering, and for how long? The sad truth is that while Indians may erect statues of Gandhi at the drop of a hat or recollect his ideals for selfish reasons, they treat the father of the nation as they would an empty vessel--adding and removing from it whatever they see fit for themselves. In doing so, they effectively tarnish the image of India's most beloved national icon.

In this essay, I wanted to re-examine Gandhi's two most basic beliefs. How have Gandhi's ideas been transformed and can the concept of Gandhism survive in today's generation?

On arriving in India from South Africa, Gandhi took his place at the helm of the nationalist movement. Where his compatriots were pushing for the British to vacate India, Gandhi was striving towards a different goal—developing moral thinking. For him, the answer to India’s salvation lay not in the establishment of an independent political system (for that would be akin to “English rule without the English”) which he saw as a secondary goal, but in repairing a social system which encouraged ruthless competition and materialism. Gandhi can best be thought of as an architect who wanted to fill the gaps in a structure’s foundation, not with cement and mortar but with morality and self-respect, before raising its height. Though the name of Gandhi lives on in India, the process to fill gaps and inject morality can barely be found in the abject ostracism and corruption that plagues the country today.

Next, Gandhi believed that the most important goal of nationalists was to carve a distinct identity for the colonized people. To bridge the widening gap between politics and ethics, he suggested a system of “enlightened anarchy” where governance would not occur at the state or central level, but at the grass-root village level. He shunned the idea of a representative democracy, a political system he believed condoned morality, promoted materialism, and lead to an elitist culture which usurped the voice of the larger population (ref: Hind Swaraj written by Gandhi). He believed that if every individual was given the opportunity to rule himself and be self-reliant, there would be no need to force the British out as they would depart by themselves. It was this utopian character of his message that appealed to the Indian masses. Yet, today, Gandhi's name is synonymous with democracy and politics?

Looking ahead, I see the future of Gandhism looking bleak. Or at least, Gandhism as Gandhi would have liked it and not as he would have wanted others to interpret it. Perhaps Gandhi set a bar too high for others to leap over or perhaps his ideas are too impractical to embrace two generations after his death. Whatever the case may be, I believe it is time Indians start taking ownership of their own rules and ideals instead of mutilating those of Gandhi and passing them as their own. Surely, the father of the nation is owed more than that.