Who should be the Father of The Nation?
Posted by The Mindset on August 9, 2010
A Father of the Nation is a person who give rise to the struggle for the independent ‘new’ state. Such is the case with US or Pakistan, but not with India.
India is an ancient country unlike Pak/US which were not on the map of the world. India is here for centuries, from prehistoric times, when it was called “BharatVarsha” or “AryaVarta”.
India was known to the Greeks and the Chinese travellers. When Alexander the Great invaded the western region of Sindh, he clearly knew that he has entered the boundaries of India, a nation about which he was taught by his scholar teachers.
When the Chinese travellers came here they studied India’s culture, traditions and science;they took it back to their country.
How could a person born in 1869 be called our Father of the Nation. Today our children are force feed this notion that he led the movement of struggle for independence against British rule. Something which is only partially correct. There were other leaders who did more for this country but they were overshadowed by the image of Gandhi.
Moreover, untill 1930 Gandhi never asked for a Total Independence. Gandhi was demanding home rule. A system in which the rule will be in the hand of the British but the government will be of Indians. The real interest behind home rule was to get the political favour; not independence. Veer Savarkar was the first person to raise a voice for Total Independence “Poorna Swaraj”. Later on Bhagat Singh and other revolutionaries joined, which they felt is required for the development of India. In fact in 1929 Srinivas Iyenger was expelled from the Congress for demanding full independence, not just home rule. Gandhi was running the Congress as a dictator. [source]
Gandhi had no idea of how a country is run. He chose socialism over free market economy, he was against militarization, he was against big dams. He was against everything that is required by a country to remove poverty, malnutrition and to become powerful. He was deep involved in his unrealistic and impractical philosophy of non-violence and ahimsa, never caring about the practical real world problems faced by a common man.
Here is one article that describes his musings:
Had Nathuram Godse failed to assassinate Mahatma Gandhi and the latter had lived
a few more years he would have been the most frustrated man in India,
marginalised and feeling totally unwanted. By early 1946, he had begun to sense
his ebbing authority. His most devout followers had begun to desert him. That
year he wrote to his friend Ghanshyamdas Birla: “My voice carries no weight in
the Working Committee. I don’t like the shape things are taking and I cannot
In March ’46, when Gandhi was away in Bihar, the Congress Working Committee
reluctantly, as Judith Brown put it, but realistically resolved that partition
of the Punjab would be the only solution to the growing violence. Gandhi was
deeply hostile to any partition on communal grounds and asked for an explanation
from both Jawaharlal Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel. Wrote Nehru: “I feel convinced
and so did most members of the Working Committee that we must press for this
immediate division so that reality might be brought into the picture.” Patel
said the decision was taken only after the deepest deliberation, and told his
guru: “You are, of course, entitled to say what you feel is right.”
Pained beyond description, Gandhi told one of his prayer meetings: “Whatever the
Congress decides will be done; nothing will be according to what I say. My writ
runs no more…. No one listens to me any more…. I am crying in the
wilderness.” By May ’46, Gandhi began to feel so frustrated he no longer wished
to live to be 125.
The day before he was assassinated, on January 29, 1948, in what was generally
later referred to as his last will and testament, he summarised his vision of a
Congress that wasn’t a power-seeking political party but a body of servants of
the people “whose main labours would be in the villages”. As he saw it, the
Congress had outlived its usefulness and needed to be disbanded. He would have
been ignored, ignominiously, writes Judith Brown in her biography of the
Mahatma: “(He) was acutely aware that there was little need of him now. He spoke
of being a ‘lone voice’. He wondered aloud what place he had in this new India
and had stopped aspiring to a long life, because he now felt so helpless…
unable to serve his country.”
Gandhi had named Nehru as his successor but he was increasingly getting
disillusioned with his leadership. By mid-December ’47, he launched a weak
attack against the Congress rule, saying: “We have to develop in us the power that non-violence alone can give.” He urged his listeners at his prayer meetings: “Today we have forgotten the ‘charkha’…. Today we have a large
army…our expenditure on the army has increased enormously…it is a tragedy and a shame. For so long we fought through the charkha and the moment we have power in our hands, we forget it. Today we look to the army.”
Gandhi urged reduction of defence expenditure, drastic reduction of all
government salaries and preferred volunteers to employing high-priced civil
servants. He had become an anachronism and had he lived, there would have been
bitter arguments between him on the one hand and Nehru and Patel on the other.
Even on Jammu and Kashmir, Gandhi had his ideas. Writes Stanley Wolpert in
Gandhi’s Passion: “Gandhi’s peaceful solution for Kashmir, formulating an
honourable way for India to extricate itself from the costly, deadly war, was
completely ignored by Nehru. Not only did Nehru silently reject Bapu’s wise and
kind offer, he also resented Gandhi’s daring to intrude into the one foreign
policy area Nehru coveted most as his own personal domain.”
Later in his biography, Wolpert adds: “In its proliferation of arms and in its
foreign policy New Delhi has for the most part turned away from Bapu’s ideal
course and life’s teaching.” By ’47 he had cut himself off from Wardha as years
earlier he had cut himself off from his very first Indian ashram at Sabarmati.
To those who lived there he wrote to say they should regulate their lives as
they thought best. Writes Brown: “He evidently felt that, for all their good
intentions and acceptance of his ideals, they had all failed to exhibit the true
quality and power of non-violence. He told them: ‘I am afraid you must give up
all hope of my returning early or returning at all to the ashram.'” By ’47, he
had come to the conclusion that he was not wanted by anyone anywhere, be they
his ashramites, Nehru, Patel or the Congress Working Committee, and worst of
all, the people at large. It was a pathetic situation.
Gandhi would have opposed the taking of Hyderabad and Goa by force, the Five Year Plans, the building of huge dams, the upgrading of the army, in fact everything Nehru stood for. He would have been an embarrassment to Nehru and Nehru would have been an embarrassment to him. His assassination, in a sense, for all the grief it evoked, must have come as a relief to both. It would be sheer hypocrisy to say living in free India would have brought happiness to Gandhi. On the contrary, he would have been seen as an enemy of progress. Nehru would have felt he was working with his hands bound.
What Ambedkar wrote about Gandhi’s death to Laxmi Kabir, who he was subsequently to marry, thus gains relevance: “My own view is that great men are of great service to their country, but they are also at certain times a great hindrance to the progress of the country. Mr Gandhi had become a positive danger to this country. He had choked all the thoughts. He was holding together the Congress which is a combination of all the bad and self-seeking elements in society who agreed on no social or moral principle governing the life of society except the one of praising and flattering Mr Gandhi. Such a body is unfit to govern a country. As the Bible says that sometimes good cometh out of evil, so also I
think good will come out of the death of Mr Gandhi. It will release people from bondage to supermen, it will make them think for themselves and compel them to
stand on their own merits.”
Harsh words and only Nehru would be able to answer to them. For good or evil,
Gandhi’s end set India on a new path.
In true sense Gandhi was an egoistic person who wanted everybody to bow in front of him. He had no knowledge about practical, real life problems faced by a nation and its citizens.
NO, Gandhi can’t be the father of The Nation of this eternal country.
The only person in the history who truly deserves the title of ‘Father of Nation’ is KAUTILAYA. The person who trained Chandragupta Maurya and united whole Bharat-Varsha under one king, the master of Politics, Administration, Economy and Laws. The person who drove the Greeks out of this land and established a truly Indian Empire.
Whenever you see India in problem, just ask yourself – what Kautilaya would have done in such case? You will get the right answer. He was a man of practical thinking, not the foolish, cowardly and self-destructing Gandhian Philosphy.
He would have chosen free market economy over socialism, heavy militarization, modern arms and ammunition and any such thing which is needed to make a nation powerful. He would have opposed license -quota-permit raj ; he adopted a common tax frame all over the country.
He would have hanged all the Afjal Guru in the country and drove the terrorists from this country. He would have attacked Kashmir and established a Hindu rule over there. He was a man of wisdom while Gandhi was a idol of show-off and hypocrisy.
In true sense Kautilaya is the Father of The Nation
image credit: Kautilaya-HinduYuva.org
Related Posts »