Gandhi’s Rendezvous with Movies

I thought Ram Rajya (1943) was the first and only movie that Gandhi had ever seen. So I was quite surprised when I found out that it was not the only movie that he had watched. Moreover, it appears that it was not even his first one!

According to this website he watched Ram Rajya in 1945:

‘Ram Rajya’ was shown to Mahatma Gandhi in 1945, when he was convalescing at Juhu. His secretary, Smt. Sushila Nayar, had given Vijay Bhatt only 40 minutes for “Bapu” to see the film. But the movie so engrossed him, that Mahatma Gandhi saw it for over 90 minutes, uninterrupted. Since it was a ‘moun’ [silence] day for him, he gave Bhatt a pat on the back at the end, to show his appreciation.

Ram Rajya, by the way, was a very successful film which ran for 100 weeks in a theatre in Bombay. The director and producer of the movie, Vijay Bhatt, went on to make another classic in 1952: Baiju Bawra.

In Gandhi: The Man, His People and the Empire Rajmohan Gandhi writes about the other movie that Gandhi had seen [Chapter 14: Rejected, Page 497]:

Twenty years earlier, released from Yerawada jail after an attack of appendicitis, Gandhi – a son of Porbandar – had gone to convalesce by the sea at Juhu in North Bombay. In May 1944 he turned once more to the Juhu beach, where he was again entertained by the Morarji family. On 21 May he was persuaded to watch Mission to Moscow, a Hollywood movie made to popularize America’s alliance with the Soviet Union, possibly the first talkie he had ever seen. It did not attract him to Stalin or Communism. [Emphasis is mine.]

So there. Michael Curtiz’s Mission to Moscow (1943) was the first movie that the Mahatma had watched. And that makes Ram Rajya the first Indian movie to have been seen by Gandhi.

[Hat Tip: At the Edge]

Divine Justice?

The idiotic claims from televangelist Pat Robertson — that the earthquake in Haiti may be a blessing in disguise and is a result of the pact the Haitians made long time ago with Satan to help them against French imperialists (video link) — reminds me of a similar speech made by Gandhi in 1934 to the victims of earthquake in rural Bihar.

On 15th January 1934, a colossal earthquake hit Bihar [...] The death toll was estimated at twenty thousand. Gandhi visited Bihar in March and spoke to the bereaved, destitute and homeless people. The earthquake, he told them, “is a chastisement of your sins.” And the particular sin that he had in mind was the enforcement of untouchability.

Even Gandhi’s closest supporters were horrified. The victims of the earthquake had included poor as well as rich [...] But Gandhi was explicitly blaming the victims, appropriating a terrible disaster to promote his own religious ideas. Nehru, who had been helping the relief efforts in Bihar, read Gandhi’s remarks “with a great shock”. But the most effective refutation came from Rabindranath Tagore, long one of the Mahatma’s greatest advocates. Tagore argued caustically that this supposedly “divine” justice, if such it was, constituted the least just form of punishment imaginable. [From Indian Summer, Tunzelmann]

Behind these types of – possibly noble yet misleading and plain wrong – claims lie the fundamental tenets of religion(s) that demand and propagate the need for a greater (divine) purpose of life and events. Once you give in to the belief that our existence in this world (and the existence of this universe) has a purpose; and explanation that is anything other than natural and rational, you’re in for a whole lot of nonsensical, unscientific, and dogmatic convictions (like God punishes you for your sins etc.) Here’s a passage from an article on Slate by Hitchen:

Earthquakes and tsunamis are to be expected and can even to some degree be anticipated. It’s idiotic to ask whose fault it is. The Earth’s thin shell was quaking and cracking millions of years before human sinners evolved, and it will still be wrenched and convulsed long after we are gone. These geological dislocations have no human-behavioral cause. The believers should relax; no educated person is going to ask their numerous gods “why” such disasters occur. A fault is not the same as a sin.

However, the believers can resist anything except temptation. Where would they be if such important and frightening things had natural and rational explanations?

Indeed, where would they be?

Indian Summer

I just ordered Indian Summer: The Secret History of the End of an Empire written by Alex Tunzelmann. Below is the first paragraph from the book:

In the beginning there were two nations. One was a vast, mighty and magnificent empire, brilliantly organized and culturally unified, which dominated a massive swath of the earth. The other was an undeveloped semi-feudal realm, riven by religious factionalism and barely able to feed its illiterate, diseased and stinking masses. The first nation was India. The second was England.

And then, after two hundred years of British imperialism, the author argues, the situation was completely reversed! (The “beginning” she’s referring to is 1577, when the Mughal empire was at its peak under the great emperor Akbar, in case you’re wondering.)

It’s difficult to imagine a country as diverse as India to be “culturally unified” as the author suggests, but even after adjusting for the exaggeration, the shift in opposite direction is as conspicuous as it is interesting. It shows what imperialism often does to the ruled, and to the ruler.

Due to some early mixed reviews and the gimmicky subtitle (The Secret History of the End of an Empire) the book didn’t make it to my bookshelf in spite of its tempting subject. But now someone is making a movie based on this book with primary focus on Nehru and Edwina’s “clandestine and intense” relationship and my curiosity skyrocketed. And why not, after all one of the cover designs of this book features the infamous picture (the image on the right) that inspired me to write a post that’s very close to my heart: Love to Hate Nehru.

Unfortunately, but expectantly, the production of Indian Summer has been halted. The Indian government officials are evaluating the salacity of the script. “It was a relationship of great friendship between individuals of the opposite sex but at what point that relationship becomes more is between them. The desire to guard a reputation is institutional,” said Nehru’s biographer M J Akbar.

Blaming Nehru

Here we go again. Nehru-bashing has been quite a popular fad nowadays (especially among the rightists) and so far he had been blamed for myriad things. But this recent assault, has a new edge.

I was quite excited when I heard about this new book on Jinnah written by Jaswant Singh: Jinnah – India, Partition, Independence. But then I read this interview between Mr. Singh and Karan Thapar, and found out that the BJP politician is actually blaming Nehru for the partition of India.

Now there are many things (said by Mr. Singh) in this interview that are plainly incorrect – like how Jinnah was born poor and was a self-made man, or how British offered India a dominion status in the 20′s; wrong and baseless, respectively – but this ‘demonization’ of Nehru proves yet again how lenient and eloquent we Indians are when it comes to criticizing Nehru (and often, Gandhi). [See my earlier post: Love to Hate Nehru.]

In response to Thapar’s question “How seriously has India misunderstood Jinnah?” he explains how we needed to create a demon for one of the most dreadful events of the 20th century in South Asia, and Jinnah ended up being our scapegoat – the villain of partition. How ironic! Because I think Mr. Singh himself needed a demon to ‘un-demonize’ Jinnah in his book, and he found a scapegoat in Nehru!

What do I think about this novel allegation (that Nehru, along with Jinnah, was responsible for partition)? I think it’s quite preposterous, if not outright ludicrous. I don’t have any problem with a new perspective on Jinnah. May be we (Indians) did misunderstand Jinnah to some extent. I would love to see a different point of view on one of the most influential figures in Indian history. But belittling Jinnah’s contemporaries with a hope that the fabricated contrast would help in elevating his personality is not a very honest approach.

Musht-e-Gubaar

The great-great-granddaughter of the last Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar, Madhu, is illiterate, and makes a living by running a tea-stall with her mother in the slums of Calcutta.

Thanks to an initiative by a journalist to rescue her from penury, the Ministry of Coal has decided to employ her to run errands in Coal India’s offices.

Does she deserve any special treatment (like a job in a government office) just because she has royal blood running through her veins? May be not. But it is quite heart-breaking to see this royal descendant — whose forefathers include emperors like Zafar, Akbar, Babur and Gengiz Khan — in such poor conditions.

This reminds of that great ghazal (supposedly) written by Bahadur Shah Zafar himself.

na kisii kii aa.Nkh kaa nuur huu.N
na kisii ke dil kaa qaraar huu.N
jo kisii ke kaam na aa sakaa
mai.n vo ek musht-e-gubaar huu.N

jo chaman fizaa.n me.n uja.D gayaa
mai.n usii kii fasl-e-bahaar huu.N

The semblance is agonizing.

Also, see my earlier post where I reviewed a wonderful book about Zafar: The Last Mughal.

[Picture Courtesy: BBC]

P.S. Musht-e-gubaar means ‘a handful of dust’.

Repurcussions of Uncertainty

In a brief interview with the Economist magazine, Farzana Shaikh, the author of Making Sense of Pakistan, talks about the root causes of current problems in Pakistan. According to her, while the proximate cause of the current mess is the process of State Islamization, emphasized by Zia ul Haq in the 80′s, the ultimate cause lies in the early 1900′s, when there was a widespread feeling among Muslims to somehow purge the South Asian Islam of its local influences — an emphasis to bring out its pristine qualities that were judged to have been corrupt. This mentality left deep marks on the idea and state of Pakistan, as it has been, rather unsuccessfully, trying to project the “legalistic” interpretation of Islam since its birth in 1947.

The founding father of Pakistan, Jinnah, was uncertain about how the state should embody Islam. At times he believed that Pakistan should be secular and open to all religions, while on other he reverted back to the idea of  the “land of the Islam”. In Farzana Shaikh’s own words:

Unlike Nehru, who realized very early on, that religion was a retrograde force, Jinnah was always extremely reluctant to accept that, and even said that Islam is not a religion it is a nation.

The confusion over Islam’s role in the newly formed state, and especially about which version of Islam should be followed, accelerated further after Jinnah’s death in 1948 – as Pakistan struggled with the void of strong leadership (See my earlier post: The Importance of Second-tier Leadership.)

Farzana has an optimistic outlook for the future of Pakistan. Pointing out some positive signs like free and powerful media, active human rights groups and organizations, she goes on further and talks about how getting some inspirations from the east can help Pakistan ( paraphrased):

We have an increasing sense that [Pakistan] is not exclusive to the region [of South Asia], it is a part of the region. And to that extent, it must look to find commonalities with its neighbors – including its greatest foe, India. I would go so far as to say, that perhaps, you might find that kind of hope in the expressions of Indian Islam, which made its peace with local non-Islamic cultures. And I think that a return to these sources – away from those “Arabized” versions of Islam – may be one of the ways we can break through this terrible situation that we find ourselves in today. [Emphases are mine.]

[Hat Tip: 3 Quarks Daily]

Working with Available Light

In the introductory chapter of the book, The Hindus: An Alternate History, Doniger cites the Sufi parable of Mulla Nasrudin — the one in which after having lost his key inside his home during a night, Nasrudin was searching for it outside under a lamp post, because there was more light there than in his house — to remind us that there’s a shortage of “available light” when it comes to the history of the Hindus. She warns the reader that (as it might well be true for any other history book) this is a history, not the history of the Hindus.

As a preamble to the upcoming chapters, Doniger lays out some ground rules and provides a laundry list of concepts that are necessary to grasp if one wants to understand Hinduism. This list is probably more useful for an “outsider” (a non-Hindu, or a non-Indian), but I learned few interesting facts and perspectives as well.

Tolerance: By citing some examples – like how Hindus have no problem worshiping Kabir (the great Indian poet who publicly denounced both Hinduism and Islam) and Satya Pir (or Satya Narayana, a Sufi pir) – Doniger briefly talks about the ingrained tolerance (both inter-religious and intra-religious) of the Hindu philosophy.

Pluralism: “Multiple narratives coexist peacefully, sometimes in one open mind and sometimes in a group of people whose minds may be, individually, relatively closed. A pivotal example of such individual pluralism can be found in the law text of Manu, which argues, within a single chapter, passionately against, and then firmly for, the eating of meat.”

Myth and Symbolism: It’s good to see the author recognizing the importance of myth and symbolism in understanding the history of Hinduism. These are not the sources of “hard” history (as compared to scriptures that has more solid records historical events and ethics etc., for instance) but they are precious to apprehend the history of ideas rather than principles, sentiments rather than events, motivations rather than movements.

Diversity, and the polycentric nature of Hinduism: Because of the vast spectrum of beliefs and practices, it’s hard to define Hinduism in the way other (especially, the Abrahamic) religions are defined. The fact that there’s no Hindu cannon surely makes it more difficult to spell out what all Hindus believe or do. In the words of Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan (president of India from 1962 to 1967) Hinduism can be defined as a belief that: “a truth was many-sided and different views contained different aspects of truth which no one could fully express.”

Women & dalits: These two groups are referred to as marginalized Hindus in this book. According to the author, most Brahminic scriptures and texts tend to avoid delving too much into the lives and conditions in which women and dalits lived, so one has to really read between the lines to squeeze out some insights about how the society treated (or rather, mistreated) them. I am not quite sure if I agree with the author’s remark about the “ironic” presence of women in Mahabharata though (“perhaps beyond earshot, but definitely heard”).

I already found myself at odds over some of her interpretations or remarks, but given the vastness and all-inclusiveness of Hinduism, disagreements are inevitable. Her despise for the Hindu fundamentalists becomes quite apparent from the first few pages of the book, and I am noticing that she has already started getting into some controversial areas – akin to the one that led to that egg-hurling incident back in 2003. (“He missed his aim. In every way.” remarks Doniger.) But overall, I am enjoying reading this “outsider’s view” of Hinduism and Hindus so far, for Doniger is quite witty, observant and knowledgeable about the Hindu scriptures, the history and the people.

The Hindus: An Alternative History

I can’t wait to get hold of this new book The Hindus: An Alternative History written byWendy Doniger. She’s an ex-professor at the University of Chicago who has translated several ancient books written in Sanskrit.

It will be interesting to see a philologist’s, as opposed to say a historian’s, interpretation of the cultural history of the Hindus. Here’s one review.

Below is an excerpt from the first few pages of this 780 page book:

This book tells the story of Hinduism chronologically and historically and emphasizes the history of marginalized rather than mainstream Hindus. My aims have been to demonstrate: (1) that the Hindus throughout their long history have been enriched by the contribution by women, the lower castes and other religions; (2) that although there are a number of things that have been characteristics of many Hindus over the ages (the worship of several gods, reincarnation, karma) none has been true to all Hindus – its vitality, its earthiness, its vividness – lies precisely in many of those idiosyncratic qualities that some Hindus today are ashamed of and would deny; (3) and that the history of tensions between the various Hinduisms, and between the different sorts of Hindus, undergrids the violence of the contemporary Indian political and religious scene. [Emphasis mine.]

This is going to be fun, I can tell.

[Picture Courtesy: The Wall Street Journal]

The Importance of Second-tier Leadership

While reading Stephen Philip Cohen’s lucid, analytical and insightful book about Pakistan’s past, present and future: The Idea of Pakistan, I learned how Pakistan struggled with a void of political leadership that was immediately felt after the untimely death of its founding father Mohammed Ali Jinnah in September 1948. Jinnah’s close associate Liaqat Ali Khan, then the prime minister, was assassinated in 1951 and then Pakistan slipped into a state of political (as well as social & economical, for that matter) instability that “oscillated between unstable democracy and benign authoritarianism”. No wonder the army was compelled to take over the political void and in 60 years of history of Pakistan’s existence there were four coups by army Generals: Ayub Khan (1958), Yahya Khan (1969), Zia ul-Haq (1977) and Pervez Musharraf (1999).

There are many reasons for this political turmoil in Pakistan (which Stephen Cohen has explained in detail in his book) but I am not going to divulge on that here. What made me wonder was the striking difference in terms of the lineage of political leaderships between India and Pakistan.

The father of the nation of India, Gandhi, passed away just several months before his counterpart in Pakistan died. (Gandhi was assassinated in Jan 1948.) Other significant political leader, Patel, died soon after in 1950. But India had a cadre of great national leaders whose patriotic zeal and dedication was thriving to lead India into a politically stable, socially liberal and economically growing nation for years to come after independence. These leaders included people like Nehru, C Rajagopalachari, Rajendra Prasad, Jayprakash Narayan, Maulana Abul Azad and Kripalani among others.

If you trace back the rise of all aforementioned leaders, you will find that it was Gandhi’s influence that worked as a stimulus to bring them into the centre stage of freedom struggle. They might have had their disagreements with Gandhi time to time, and some of them were active freedom fighters before they met Gandhi, but after their engagements with him, they all became his staunch followers, adored their leader and learned a great deal of political acumen from him.

When Gandhi was 62, a foreign journalist asked him whether he would agree to become the Prime Minister of the future government [of India]. To this, Gandhi simply but resolutely replied “No. It will be reserved for younger minds and stouter hearts.”

That was in 1931, 16 years before India actually became free. But Gandhi’s search and recruitment for the leaders of free and independent India started even earlier than that – right after he came back to India in 1915, to be precise. Gandhi seem to have selected his disciples carefully from all around India (Patel from Gujarat, Kripalani from Sindh, Nehru from Allahabad, Rajagopalachari from Madras, Abdul Ghaffar Khan from NWFP, Abul Kalam Azad from Calcutta, Narayan and Prasad from Bihar, Sarojini Naidu from Hyderabad). 

Gandhi’s recruitment also transcended the political boundaries. His close associates included Kalelkar – a scholar from Maharashtra, Ghanshyam Das Birla – a marwadi industrialist, Vinoba Bhave – a social activist from Maharashtra, Jamnalal Bajaj – another marwadi industrialist, among others. Apart from achieving independence, Gandhi’s other visionary goal was to prepare India for independence and create a foundation for a politically stable and economically self-reliant nation.

As liberal democracy continues to survive in India, 60 years after independence (in stark contrast with its neighbor Pakistan), we should be grateful to those great leaders of the yore who dedicated their lives to not only attain independence but build the foundations of our country with a futuristic vision.

Alas, the leaders of pre-1947 Pakistan seem to have completely missed on this foresight. Jinnah’s strong but dominant leadership left no room for second tier leadership there. And for past six decades Pakistan has been paying a very high price for that.

Socialist Leaders of The Pre-independence Era

Socialism was like the Spirit of the Age in pre-independence India. It’s not surprising, if a bit unsettling to some, that many of the freedom fighters got attracted to the lure of socialism as the correct medium for nation building while dreaming for an independent India. It was Karl Marx, the father of communism, who inspired many Indians through his writings during the Russian Revolution.

• Bal Gangadher Tilak was among the first Indian freedom fighters to praise Marx’s philosophy and the Russian communist revolutionary Lenin. 
• Subhash Chandra Bose, the fascist leader of the Indian National Army who was impressed by Mussolini, had inclinations towards authoritarian means for creating a socialist nation. He thought of Soviet Union as a role-model-nation for India and believed (post WW II) that democracy would not work in a country like India. He had major disagreements with Gandhi’s non-violent methods for attaining independence, and was an advocate for a violent resistance. [He was elected as the president of Indian National Congress for two consecutive terms, but resigned because of his ideological differences with the Mahatma.]
• Another freedom fighter, Bhagat Singh, was also attracted to the Marxist principles of revolutionary Communism. After becoming the leader of Hindustan Republican Association, he changed its name to Hindustan Socialist Republican Association in 1928. Like Netaji, he also believed that a vast and diverse country like India could survive only under a socialist government. He wrote in his letter to the Governor of Punjab “Till Communist Party comes to power and people live without unequal status, our struggle will continue. It cannot be brought to an end by killing us: it will continue openly as well as secretly.” In the famous statement on June 6, 1929, Bhagat Singh said: “The whole edifice of this civilization, if not saved in time, shall crumble. A radical change, therefore, is necessary and it is the duty of those who realise it to reorganize society on the socialistic basis. Unless this thing is done and the exploitation of man by man and of nations by nations is brought to an end, sufferings and carnage with which humanity is threatened today cannot be prevented.” 
• On the other end of the political spectrum, the Indian National Congress also believed in the socialist philosophy and set it as a goal for free India. Nehru, the first prime minister of independent India adopted socialist practices for industrial and economic development as well as for social reforms in India. While many believe today that the liberalization should have taken place as early as the 70′s (as opposed to the 90′s), it remains a topic of debate whether implementing free market economy right after freedom could have been a wise alternative to ‘centralized planning’.
• The National Planning Committee (NPC), which was set up in 1938, was in charge of deciding economic policy for India that was soon to be free. The NPC took lessons from Russia and Japan where state intervention was needed and helped tremendously to annul the effects of late industrialization. This ‘late industrialization’ effect was even more prevalent in India which had been under colonial rule for over 200 years. So the NPC suggested “service before profit” policy, and notably the private sector agreed with this strategy.  In 1944, a group of leading industrialists published A Plan for Economic Development for India (which was later known as the Bombay Plan), in which they expressed the need for state intervention especially in  energy, transportation and infrastructure. These capitalists concurred that, positive and preventive functions of the state are essential to any large scale economic planning in the early stage of industrialization. 
• Gandhi, however, was not very impressed by and attracted to socialism. In the following passage (that I took from Gandhi’s biography: Gandhi, The Man, His People and The Empire, written by his grandson Rajmohan), he talks about his thoughts on the role of state in the economy and the relationship between the state and the individual: “The sum and substance of what I want to say is that the individual person should have control over the things that are necessary for the sustenance of life. If he can not have such control the individual can not survive. Ultimately, the world is made up only of individuals.” This sounds somewhat libertarian to me, but they are definitely not pro-socialist. 

The word socialist was not added to the preamble of the Constitution of India until the Emergency of 1976. Below is the preamble:

WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, 

having solemnly resolved to constitute India into 

a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:

JUSTICE, social, economic and political;

LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;

EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;

and to promote among them all

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation; [link]

(Emphasis mine.)

Even after India has shredded off its socialist ideals in 1991, when the prime minister Narsimha Rao and the finance minister Manmohan Singh, introduced economic liberalization which spurted a tremendous economic growth in last couple of decades, India continues to be described a socialist republic in the preamble to the constitution! [Several months ago, the SC surprisingly refused to entertain a petition which urged to remove the word socialist from the preamble.]