Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Gandhi: Many faces

There are four Gandhis after Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, says Ashish Nandi. If we take success as the parameter which redefines ethics and morality, how do we judge many of our revered heroes?


setu said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
setu said...

The article very well illustrates how different ingterpretations of Gandhism and Gandhi are existing in contemporary India. Most of them facing either of extinction, oblivion or hopelessness. it also very well differentiates between Gandhi and Gandhism. According to the author even Gandhi was incomplete from the perspective of Gandhism,scope of which is much larger than Gandhi himself.
People today have happily embraced one or the other form of Gandhism- some subtly revolutioary, some historical, some even weak. according to the author the classification of prevalent Gandhism does not end here and there can be many other forms too.


Jeevan Krishnakumar said...

These 4 Gandhis that entered the collective memory is what is left behind of Gandhi and what defines his success. The truth of the man himself while momentous, is of less relevance from the political standpoint. We judge our heroes on the ethics and morality framework that applies today but that need not be an apt frame of reference as it may not take into account the context when the heroes’ action was done. We say Hitler was wrong and Gandhi was right because Gandhi’s success defines ethics and morality and Hilter is judged in the morality Gandhi defined.

Jeevan Krishnakumar (32073)

tijilthomas said...

Multiple measurement parameters must be employed to judge a hero. Different personality outshoots should be monitored closely. If I categorise different Gandhis’ from the reading; the first Gandhi is problematic to the country (failure), the second Gandhi is boring (failure), the third Gandhi could be attached to the Swadeshi ideology and as this many youth relates to is a success, the third Gandhi is again a failure. But in totality Gandhi is a success in public, because swadeshi ideology is popular and widely accepted one. Hence success or failure depends upon the contemporary success of the power drivers.
Tijil Thomas- 32045

Komal Makkad said...

The title itself says a lot "Gandhi-Many Faces" i.e., he is not a purist but rational who strategizes according to the time frame. When Success is taken as a parameter, the ethics and morality have to be played with but for the greater good and such that the power structure can tolerate it. In the present scenario, according to me the third Gandhi fits in who challenges the status quo but with non-violent approach.
Komal Makkad

mayank tiwari said...

A successful leader leaves a legacy behind. Every single follower of the leader interprets the success by his vantage point. All four Gandhis in the article are subjective truths from the eyes of different types of followers. None of them is wrong or right. The author mocks and criticizes three of them but the criticism again comes from his own subjective analysis, his world view. As far as success and morality is considered, winner writes history. Europe criticized Operation Iraqi Freedom but when Saddam was caught, they all praised US and legitimized the war. It all depends on the outcome.

Mayank Tiwari

mayank k said...

The article shows the distinction between Gandhi and Gandhism.Gandhism is bigger then Gandhi.While Gandhi is a revered figure but different people have different interpretations about him.History is always written by the winners so all these interpretations might be correct from individual point of view but cannot challenge the legacy he has left behind

Ritu Kashyap said...

The article talks about the various faces of Gandhi, the part which attracted me was about Godse. It is said that the winners write the history and the ethics and the ideologies are moulded accordingly. Godse is regarded as the Hindu fanatic who killed Bapu. Though his means were illegitimate but he had his own rational behind it. He did not want Gandhi to use his “passive weapon” to make government bow before his unjust demand of another Pakistan in form of separate Bengal or Punjab. He was against his ideologies of blackmailing the government through fast unto death.


The article is a worth pondering and is quite subtle in the way it portrays various ideologies relating to Gandhi or the so called Gandhism. Gandhi passed away long back but still is alive by his ideologies which are a lot more than just truth and non violence. The author sites contrasting examples of the use of Gandhism in the contemporary world. People may criticize him today they forget the context in which he implemented them and ultimately paved the way to our independence.
Prateek Parimal (32029)

Parminder Singh said...

This article throws light on the various ideologies which people follows. Ethics and morality plays an important role in judging the success of any ideology. But it differs from person to person. For some people it is the end results which matters most, and for others means which are used to achieve objective are also quite important. Now if we look at the article, fourth Gandhi which has been described as a mythic Gandhi looks most effective. Because it manages to achieve the objective without compromising with ethics.
Parminder Singh (32083).

komal said...

Taking the example of Shri Krishna if we look through the lens of means we will find that he used certain cheap tactics like forcing Arjun to kill the unarmed Karna which was against the ingrained Kshatriya value of not killing an unarmed enemy; but when one analyzes his action from the point of view of the end he wanted to achieve one will find that his actions were justified.

-Komal Didwania (32076)

Rajendar Reddy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rajendar Reddy said...

In the history, the kings and warriors were seen as the heroes according to their warrior capabilities in expanding the kingdoms and acquiring the resources, by involving some of extreme means like killing people. ‘Satyagrah’ & ‘non-violence’ are used by Gandhi for India’s independence and Patel used ‘police action’ to merge the Hyderabad state during the same time. Nizam also tried to protect his state with the police force. Only Patel is justified, but not Nizam. So, success always redefines the ethics and morality.

Ankithreddy said...

May be not only success, any kind of actions taken in the process of achieving that success will be remembered with high ethical and moral identity since, those are seen with the objective/goal to be achieved as the benchmark and which is in the interest of the public. If we take example of Subhash Chandra Bose and Baghat Singh, the actions of these people are accepted today by the people as Independence of India was the objective behind their actions.
- Ankith Reddy(32054)

Priyanka said...

The article tries to differentiate between Gandhi and Gandhism. Gandhism is an inclusive term, the principles which Gandhi even not able to follow.
However Gandhi never can not be extinct, as he has established himself as an icon of modern world, a weapon against the authoritarians, the only remedy to a lot of problems of the existing world. The certain defined characteristics of Gandhi still ruling the hearts and some of the biggest social and political movements.


empowered said...

Ethics and success don’t necessarily go hand-in-hand. Often only can be achieved and it seems the latter is preferred to the former. And, why not? If we fail in our endeavour, what purpose will morality serve? But there are people who believe means are as important as the end, as Gandhiji did during his entire freedom struggle. But, I feel, we praise his methods only because his strategy was a success; unlike that of many other equally great people who did not get the status they deserved as their means – though ethical and moral – failed to meet with success.

-Swati Vashisth (32098)