Exchange of Views on Gandhi, Jan Suraaj and Prashant Kishor
In response to my second article on Prashant Kishor and the Suraaj Party published in Indian Century (5 Oct 2024), I received the following response from one of my former professors in Darbhanga (Bihar). The following is a summary of my exchange with him. It should be helpful to add clarity to the issues involved.
Professor: To my great disappointment, your article is full of misconceived notions and perhaps motivated interpretations. Your remarks about Gandhi are based on your misconception and misconstrued facts forming part of a mischievous campaign against him. Nehru was the most popular leader of the masses and Patel was definitely an unrivaled leader of the Congress Party. It was in deference to the wishes of the people at large that Nehru was preferred to Patel. From various angles Nehru was the best choice. If Gandhi was to remain alive with his principles, there was no better choice. Subhas was not ready to follow Gandhi’s principles based on his voice of conscience. Instead he wanted Gandhi to follow him. Gandhi knew it full well that in the circumstances of those days freedom could be won by his method only and he succeeded in this mission. The differences are presented in an exaggerated way by those who don’t wish India to follow the age-old ideology, the most cherished legacy of India. If India has to maintain its glory, it must remain a democracy with full respect for the diversities. Gandhi is an inseparable part of a democratic ,rising and tolerant India.
Prashant Kishore is a different story. He promises to give a new shape to Bihar politics but his intentions are not above doubt. His whole attempt is to erect a new political party without promising to give an alternative to the present scenario of malaise which has actually let the State down for so long, he has worked for different parties at different times for the consideration of money. Naturally he can’t be expected to do what we desperately need in Bihar.
My answer
Respected Sir, if I have ‘disappointed’ you, then I’m really sorry. However, if I appear to be in disagreement with you, that should be taken seriously and you should be proud that your former student seems to be “challenging” your views. Just as you say, “Your remarks about Gandhi are based on your misconception and misconstrued facts forming part of a mischievous campaign against him,” a reverse argument could also be made that the father-like reverence shown to Gandhi (throughout 1914-48) came from the typical age-old patriarchy and the attitude of unquestioned obedience to the elders prevalent in the Hindu society. I’m not an ardent critic of Gandhi and give him due where he deserves. The question of “misconceived notions” and “motivated interpretations” do not figure in my assessment when I weigh the facts and evidence.
What was the measurement of Nehru’s popularity? The current generations who matured after you and me are asking many inquisitive questions. There are so many scholarly works. I have particularly referred to the painstaking research of Dr Shankar Sharan and almost two-decade-academic-investigation-based book HEY RAM in Hindi by a talented young journalist, Prakhar Shrivastava (born 1978).
Honestly, you and I haven’t done as much research on Gandhi as these scholars/authors have done. Therefore, what they bring to light and say must be considered seriously and their research takes us to a different direction. The greater part of the Hindus belonging to colonial India wasn’t in favor of achieving freedom through a violent-bloody confrontation and Gandhi represented that stream of thought. I’m in favor of that. However, I also find it believable that Gandhi’s popularity in the Congress party and in the nation was a result of a well-thought out and executed public relations work by a faction of a political organization led by a set of politicians with similar interests. They were all moderate liberal leaders also believing in non-violence. This is not surprising. This is a theory that applies to practically all political parties in the world operating in a popularity-centric democratic framework. I welcome your comments sir, and feel greatly honored to be commented on by you. We will keep discussing, I must take this assurance from you. With unbounded regards, Binoy
The Professor sent the following rejoinder:
I don’t want to run after what others say nor do I mean to say that the great leaders of the freedom movement were far above our assessment. The greatness of Gandhi lies in the greatness of his views. Gandhi alone has the perfect answer to the problems of society. The younger generation knows him through the books. Gandhi is more to be felt and adopted in our life if we have to pursue the truth. There is a proverb in English : everything looks yellow to a jaundiced eye. Some authors have made an enigma of Gandhi whereas Gandhi is easily intelligible to anyone. He was not only the tallest but the greatest leader of his time. Very often a critical look is the result of narrow- mindedness. The extremists don’t want to look at the things honestly and are determined to foist their own regressive philosophy under the veiled garb of their own doubtful intentions.
So far as Nehru is concerned, he was by far superior to many of the stalwarts of the Congress by his knowledge of history and international affairs ,statesmanship, vision and popularity. He was definitely only Second to Gandhi in terms of popularity among the masses in the course of the freedom movement. He was, no doubt, the fittest person for the office he was chosen. Sometimes he made some mistakes but his intentions can’t be doubted. As a democrat and liberal thinker he will be remembered for long. Casting aspersions on him for the sake of partisan interests can’t lead the country to the goals enshrined in the Constitution.
Breaking up the above narrative in small segments, my response was as follows:
The professor begins –
1. I don’t want to run after what others say nor do I mean to say that the great leaders of the freedom movement were far above our assessment.
My submission: As a serious scholar and researcher, we have no choice but to take into consideration what “others” have to say. We can cross-examine, verify, affirm or prove them null and void. But if “others” have something to say based on facts and evidence, we can deny them only at the cost of truth, fairplay and justice. Even Gandhi drew a lot from what “others” had to say.
No scholar denies Gandhi was an extraordinary leader in his own right – partly because of his views, action and partly because of the halo created around him by his followers who happened to get the upper hand in the Congress party. Gandhi himself played no small role in seeing to it that all his political detractors or those who didn’t share his views were eliminated from the leadership and eventually from the organization. This is not surprising, as the jockeying for supremacy and influence happens in any political organization. This phenomenon is in evidence in the post-independence Nehru, Indira or Narendra Modi period as well. From that viewpoint, Gandhi was just an astute power player as any other in history.
2. The greatness of Gandhi lies in the greatness of his views. Gandhi alone has the perfect answer to the problems of society.
Reply: No one has a “perfect answer” to the problems of society for the simple reason that the world we live in is enormously at odds and complicated. Gandhi was great in his views partially because of his firm belief in the philosophy of non-violence, truth and self-sacrifice. That chimed in well with the philosophy of sages like Buddha and others who came much before him. We are all in agreement with that. However, had Gandhi been as analytical and truthful as many other philosophers (from Machiavelli to Hobbes to Chanakya) who studied and explained much better such issues as human nature, formation of the institution of the State, its existence, preservation, security or its glorification, he would have presented the truth or given the direction in a different, holistic, way. Many philosophers and statesmen before him were also anxious about how to protect oneself from the excesses of a much stronger evil force. Many scholars, therefore, believed that since Gandhi’s views were too pacifist to the point of being unrealistic or cowardice, he didn’t offer “the perfect answer to the problems of the society.” It made sense when he idealized after independence the dissolution of the Congress as an election-contesting political party. But when he proposed that independent India didn’t need an army or police, that wasn’t an answer to the problem of national security.
3. The younger generation knows him (Gandhi) through the books. Gandhi is more to be felt and adopted in our life if we have to pursue the truth…Gandhi is easily intelligible to anyone.
Response: The younger generation has access to all kinds of research materials including oral history, pictures, videos, personal memoirs and Gandhi’s own writings. Gandhi’s sermon to the world, “Be the change that you wish to see in the world,” and all his prescriptions to be adopted in our life in pursuit of truth are certainly divine-like and idealistic. But they ignore the stark truth, as Hobbes said for example, all humans were “naturally vainglorious.” They sought to dominate others and demanded their respect (or subjugation). Mankind was in a state of war in which life was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
After centuries – leave aside all the major wars – in order to pursue our own selfish interest, have we not, as individuals or collectives, been at “war of all against all?” Doesn’t the human race also have a mix of evil intentions implanted in the DNA to harm others to expropriate what belonged to others. Gandhi must have trusted the inner divine-spirit in humans. As he said, “God resides in every human form, indeed in every particle of His creations, in everything that is on his earth.” But, in all honesty, his prognosis was manifestly unrealistic? To the younger generation, Gandhi’s ideals were untenable and impractical.
4. Very often a critical look (at Gandhi) is the result of narrow-mindedness. The extremists don’t want to look at the things honestly and are determined to foist their own regressive philosophy under the veiled garb of their own doubtful intentions.
Reply: It’s not fair, in my opinion, to make light of a serious, well-intended, academic-scholarly inquiry into the life and philosophy of a person who’s acclaimed as a Mahatma or the Father of a Nation, although Gandhi, in his modesty, called himself “an ordinary man”.
Modern science, technology and their drive into investigative inquiry have done terrible things to human beings, but the one useful work they have been doing is to dissect, tear apart and analyze practically everything they have laid their hands on. What this has done is to steer our proclivities to blind-uncritical faith or reverence to certain beliefs, practices or personalities away and make them more evidence-based. Any legitimate inquiry or doubts raised may not, therefore, be sneered at or dismissed as a ‘regressive philosophy’ or ‘doubtful intentions’.
5. So far as Nehru is concerned, he was by far superior to many of the stalwarts of the Congress by his knowledge of history and international affairs, statesmanship, vision and popularity. He was definitely only Second to Gandhi in terms of popularity among the masses in the course of the freedom movement.
Reply: How was Nehru’s superiority in the Congress organization determined? Only because Gandhi decided and dictated so? It’s documented that in 1946, 12 out of 15 Pradesh Congress Committees had recommended Sardar Patel’s name for the leadership. The other three had abstained. Knowing full well that Nehru didn’t have the party-majority behind him, Gandhi’s insistence on him amounted to foisting his own wishes on the party. That is a definition of autocracy, not democracy.
6. He (Nehru) was, no doubt, the fittest person for the office he was chosen. Sometimes he made some mistakes but his intentions can’t be doubted. As a democrat and liberal thinker he will be remembered for long. Casting aspersions on him for the sake of partisan interests can’t lead the country to the goals enshrined in the Constitution.
Response: Gandhi alone wasn’t supposed to make that crucial decision of choosing the person who would be the first Prime Minister. There was a democratic process in place that both Gandhi, Nehru and their followers should have honored and adopted. Of course, the party stalwarts were respectful and beholden to Gandhi and the latter took advantage of that. There was a clear appearance of personal preference or partiality. Later, Nehru also proved he wasn’t a true Democrat. His push for the anointing of his daughter as the president of the Congress party was so stark. We can comfortably say Nehru was the one who inaugurated the tradition of dynasty politics in independent India – an epidemic that devoured his own Congress and practically all regional parties.
History has already established that Sardar Patel – being a mass leader with his grassroots experience and the way he handled many challenges including the Pakistan attack on Kashmir or the merger of princely states into the Indian union – was equally, if not more, suitable to lead the country after independence. In my assessment, it’s also a disrespect to several other stalwarts in the Congress at the time who could have been a very capable prime minister of the country.
Nehru’s lack of foresight and preparedness were exposed by Sardar Patel’s famous letter to him that he had written much before the 1962 Chinese aggression.
To conclude, the Gandhian thoughts, Gandhi’s role in 32 years preceding Indian independence (1915-47), elevation of Nehru as the first Prime Minister of India have so far been analyzed and discussed in volumes. In the end, however, every informed person has his/her own position on such issues. We may try to compare notes, exchange information and enlighten each other.
Here, in the context of Bihar, the question is how the Gandhian principles would be implemented by Jan Suraaj, a political party launched by Prashant Kishor.
[Originally from Darbhanga, Bihar (India), Dr Binoy Shanker Prasad lives in Dundas, Ontario (Canada). He is a former UGC teacher fellow at JNU in India and a Fulbright Scholar in the USA. Author of scholarly works including a book, “Violence Against Minorities”, “Gandhi in the Age of Globalization” (a monograph) and a collection of poems”, Dr Prasad has taught at Ryerson University, Centennial College and McMaster University. He has also been the president of Hamilton based India-Canada Society (2006-08 and 2018-20)]