John Samuel
Gandhi was one of the few leaders who wrote the script of his own myth making. It is also interesting to see how Gandhi evolved as a metaphor of change and myth at the same time by combining non-conformism and conformism, political ethics as well as political tactics and innovative modes of communicative action and advocacy. Gandhi on the one hand was a social conservative and on the other hand an ardent critic of colonial imperialism and cultural hegemony of the west. His relevance is that he was less a man of political theory and more a practitioner of counter discourse to the hegemonic European models of political theories. His relevance was also due to the fact that he combined local modes of expressions with an international perspective ( he is the only one leader who spent time of his socialisation in an Indian village, London and South Africa where he developed an intimate understanding of how power and discrimination operate in an experiential form) and his own political perspective was influenced by eclectic sources ( vedic, Buddhist,Christian and also the works of Tolstoy and CS Lewis etc) and he developed a counter discourse to the western secular liberal modes of democracy with actually a politics ethics derived from plural religious discourse ( non-secular) within the larger framework of popular Hinduism. Hence, he used popular Hindu expressions ( Rama Rajya, raj dharma, etc etc) to communicate to the masses. All his locations, dress code, language,the modes of struggles, Charkah etc helped to make him a self-scripted myth from 1917 to 48. While he communicated to the common masses in their language , he made it a point to write, speak and publish in English for the international audience. He proposed a socio-political ethical framework ( rather than a coherent political theory of the state or change)drawing from Indian as well as non Indian sources . All these international aura, combined with that of a social reformer, political activist and ability to build pragmatic consensus made his referential power. Gandhi was deliberately walking in to history with self conscious mode of myth making , confident action and pragmatic politics. This is what made him different from all his contemporaries in the freedom struggle in India and internationally. Gandhi not only became a historical myth but also became the most known figure and face of the brand India. When people in Latin America or Africa or elsewhere think of India it is the 'shirt-less' Gandhi and the white Tajmahal that they remember. Gandhi was more concerned about 'followers' and the irony is that none ' followed' the person called Gandhi and everyone pretended to follow the myth called Gandhi. And Myths don't actually need followers as they take the escalator to the pantheons necessary to the construction of the megamyth of the nationstate. The spaces for Ho Chimin, Mao, Lincoln and Mandela or for that matter Che or Lenin is on the walls of the establishment of the state and not necessarily in the hearts of ordinary people. Gandhi too transcended people and now the officially institutionalised myth of the nation-state called India and more relevant to the Indian currency as well.
Gandhi was one of the few leaders who wrote the script of his own myth making. It is also interesting to see how Gandhi evolved as a metaphor of change and myth at the same time by combining non-conformism and conformism, political ethics as well as political tactics and innovative modes of communicative action and advocacy. Gandhi on the one hand was a social conservative and on the other hand an ardent critic of colonial imperialism and cultural hegemony of the west. His relevance is that he was less a man of political theory and more a practitioner of counter discourse to the hegemonic European models of political theories. His relevance was also due to the fact that he combined local modes of expressions with an international perspective ( he is the only one leader who spent time of his socialisation in an Indian village, London and South Africa where he developed an intimate understanding of how power and discrimination operate in an experiential form) and his own political perspective was influenced by eclectic sources ( vedic, Buddhist,Christian and also the works of Tolstoy and CS Lewis etc) and he developed a counter discourse to the western secular liberal modes of democracy with actually a politics ethics derived from plural religious discourse ( non-secular) within the larger framework of popular Hinduism. Hence, he used popular Hindu expressions ( Rama Rajya, raj dharma, etc etc) to communicate to the masses. All his locations, dress code, language,the modes of struggles, Charkah etc helped to make him a self-scripted myth from 1917 to 48. While he communicated to the common masses in their language , he made it a point to write, speak and publish in English for the international audience. He proposed a socio-political ethical framework ( rather than a coherent political theory of the state or change)drawing from Indian as well as non Indian sources . All these international aura, combined with that of a social reformer, political activist and ability to build pragmatic consensus made his referential power. Gandhi was deliberately walking in to history with self conscious mode of myth making , confident action and pragmatic politics. This is what made him different from all his contemporaries in the freedom struggle in India and internationally. Gandhi not only became a historical myth but also became the most known figure and face of the brand India. When people in Latin America or Africa or elsewhere think of India it is the 'shirt-less' Gandhi and the white Tajmahal that they remember. Gandhi was more concerned about 'followers' and the irony is that none ' followed' the person called Gandhi and everyone pretended to follow the myth called Gandhi. And Myths don't actually need followers as they take the escalator to the pantheons necessary to the construction of the megamyth of the nationstate. The spaces for Ho Chimin, Mao, Lincoln and Mandela or for that matter Che or Lenin is on the walls of the establishment of the state and not necessarily in the hearts of ordinary people. Gandhi too transcended people and now the officially institutionalised myth of the nation-state called India and more relevant to the Indian currency as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment