Keepers of public morality
Monopolisation of morality has been tried by many. The former minister Arun Shourie tried this with his two-part article 'A goal that no one can corrupt'. In the article, he sees himself as high priest and Mahatma Gandhi as the deity of morality.
ARUN SHOURIE, through his long winded article, `A goal they can not corrupt’ in the Indian Express from September 17 to 19, seems to posit himself as a 'high priest' and installs Mahatma Gandhi as the ruling deity of morality in public life. It is no doubt that both Shourie and the Mahatma have a track record of sorts. While the former will always be remembered for his incisive reporting from Assam in 1984 and the latter captured the imagination of the people and continues to do so to a great extent even today. But, can they fit the bill so far as morality in public life is concerned?
Let us look at Arun Shourie first. He chides the political parties for fielding lawyers as their spokespersons, as feels that these lawyers speak the language of convenience. That's fair enoughand many might hold similar views. But, the former minister argues and cites only those examples that suit this line. In the article, he places former British Prime Minister, Churchill on one end and the Mahatma on the other.
Now these two gentlemen practiced two different kinds of politics. While, Churchill was a realist, who had no qualms saying that sometimes it is necessary to speak falsehood for greater common good, Gandhi claimed to follow the truth – whatever the cost. He professed to shun expediency for the truth, always and every time.
Now coming to the status of deity for Mahatma Gandhi. As the writer suggests, most of the people accept that Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was a great soul (Mahatma). That is to say that despite his personal flaws, he was better than most of us. But can he be the icon of morality?
Take the case of the Khilafat movement. Gandhi justified his support for this movement in the name of `Hindu-Muslim unity’, when it was on the grounds of expediency. He said, “The test of friendship is true assistance in adversity, and whatever we are, Hindu, Parsees, Christians or Jews, if we wish to live as one nation surely, the interest of any of us must be the interest of all…We talk of the Hindu-Mohammedan unity. It would be an empty phrase if the Hindus hold aloof from the Mohammedan when their vital are at stake.”
Just like RC Majumdar, I am also a realist and have no quarrel with the view that one must stand in solidarity with his neighbours. But Gandhi always claimed to give precedence to the truth over expediency! Remember his withdrawal of non-cooperation movement after Chori-Chora incident. Why was he giving precedence to expediency in the case of Khilafat movement; one which was instigated by `trans-national’ identity and hence in no way supported `concept of One India’. So what was Gandhi up to? Nothing more or less than real politics. He wanted to establish himself as supreme leader of Indian struggle for freedom. Should he be the `Deity of Morality'?
Indian history is replete with examples of great souls (Mahan Atmas). They have done their best for the people within the limits imposed by the time and circumstances they lived in. We revere them, even when they are from two warring sides. For instance: Akbar and Maharana Pratap. Yet, we do not make them deities. This deitification is a recent phenomenon, and is rooted in the `Fables of Nationalism’ which have been woven and continue to be woven to claim a monopoly of sorts over `Indian Struggle for Freedom’ and to pass expediency as search for truth.
 | Previous Post |
Login
 Login through Social ID
|
Not finding what you are looking for? Search here.
