3

GANDHI IN CREATIVE AND CRITICAL IMAGINATION: A SURVEY

Mahatma Gandhi is not only a universal figure but also an immortal one. During the pre-

Independence phase of India, Gandhi became first a national and soon enough an international

leader of immense political and philosophical significance. Gandhian literature began pouring in

form all corners, native as well as outside. Even today Gandhi continues to have a dominating

presence in the literary world and in fact literature that ignores Gandhi attracts critical attention.

Though his treatment in the post-Independence phase has undergone changes from that in the

pre-Independence times, nevertheless, what is certain is that Gandhi can never be separated from

writing.

India in contemporary times is a set stage for Gandhi and Gandhigiri1. Be it as the

historical figure or creator of Gandhism or as a symbolic Gandhian cap. Mahatma Gandhi

permeates fiction as well a non-fiction in Indian writings both in English and other languages.

These include works written from within and outside India. In creative works from India and the

space of diaspora, whether it is his reverence or lampooning, Gandhi is redefined in ways that are

quite contemporary. Whereas in some cases there is an attempt to grapple with Gandhi and

ultimately accommodate him, in other instances nothing of Gandhism remains unchallenged.

Whatever be the case, in creative writings there is a sense of strong involvement as the writers

pen Gandhi and Gandhism.

In this chapter an attempt has been made to graph the development of Gandhi from the

beginning till date in Indian literature with emphasis on Indian diaspora along with his treatment

in the western literary space. An exhaustive study of Gandhi literature is not possible therefore

selective works have been chosen to present a critical survey of Gandhi in literature2 and prove

that Gandhi is not only alive in literature but has opened up new chapters of literary and critical

discourse. The chapter is divided into four sections. The first section deals with works in Indian

English from the native space followed by the second section that deals with Gandhi in

indigenous language literature including dalit literature. The third section deals with Gandhi in

Indian diaspora and this is the focus on the chapter. Lastly, a brief survey of western literary

thought on Gandhi has been included to make the study comprehensive enough and to prove the

37

significance of the subject. An attempt has also been made to study each of the sections in three

phases namely—the during–Gandhi period in which Gandhi was usually treated as demi-God,

followed by after-Gandhi period which saw the beginning of critical reviewing of Gandhi and

Finally the Post-nineties phase wherein Gandhi is being caricaturised with all sorts of

contradictions and rejections. This categorisation into different responses with each phase is not

rigid, the broad categories are only given to show the development of Gandhi as a subject with

each passing phase.

Before a study of Gandhi in literature is undertake it is necessary to be familiar with the

basic principles that Gandhi stood for in order to capture the essence of his portrayal in different

works. The main ideas that Gandhi propagated were “Truth, Non-violence and swadesi” besides

“simplicity, vegetarianism, preference of manual labour and faith in Hinduism, especially

Bhagwad Gita”. An ideal of these principles helps in familiarising ourselves with the various

parameters that writers have chosen to approach Gandhi. If at one time he is seen as the

cultivator of Indian nationalism, then at other he is a lover of mankind; sometimes he is a leader

of Swadesh; and at other instances, he is the mahatma only to be revered and imagined.

GANDHI IN INDIAN ENGLISH

In Indian writings in English from within the homeland, both Gandhi and Gandhism have

undergone semantic alterations, redefining Gandhi’s relationship with the domestic imagination.

From being a metaphysical persona in the during-Gandhi era, we come across him now as a

historical being with all human vulnerabilities. Though Gandhi receivers critical attention in

most writings of post-nineties, yet he is not caricaturised with as much vehemence as it has been

observed in writings written from the space of diaspora. The current section dealing with

Gandhian literature includes a survey of fiction as well as non-fiction works on Gandhi during

the three phases—during-Gandhi from 1990 to 1948-49, post Gandhi from 1948-1990 and

finally the post-nineties. Some of the works studied in the first phases include those by Mulk Raj

Anand, R.K. Narayan, Raja Rao and others. In the post-Independence phase, the works of

Jawarharlal Nehru, Manohar Malgonkar, Bhabani Bhatacharya, Chaman Nahal and others have

been studies while post-nineties section include Uma Dhupelia Mesthrie, Ashish Nandy, Sudhir

Kakkar and more. A few writers may be common to two or all three phases, depending on when

38

their works on Gandhi have been created. An attempt has been made to place the works

chronologically as the emphasis is on portrayal of Gandhi in works during the different phases

and study how attitudes towards him have changed with passing times.

The during-Gandhi phase included writers who were contemporaries of Gandhi. Due to

their proximity with Gandhi and Gandhism, these writers could not escape the influence of the

iconic stature of Gandhi and, therefore, their criticism, was mellowed and their praise of Gandhi

overwhelming. Sarojini Naidu is a good start for this section as she exemplified the unquestioned

Gandhi-reverence typical of that age. Though she was closely associated with Gandhi yet there is

a guru-disciple distance maintained as she writes on him. Her sonnet on Gandhi “The Lotus” is a

supreme example of the Gandhi-devotional trend in during-Gandhi writings. The poetess

describes Gandhi as an eternal lotus3 who is the source of guidance and strength for many:

O mystic Lotus, sacred and sublime,

In myriad-petalled grace inviolate,

Supreme o’er transient stores of tragic Fate,

Deep-rooted in the waters of all Time,

What legions loosed from many a far-off clime

Of wildbee hordes with lips insatiate,

And hungry winds with wings of hope or hate,

Have thronged and pressed round thy miraculous prime…..

All attempts of drain Gandhi of his immortality are futile as he among the lords

themselves. Standing for ageless beauty and supreme glory, he is reincarnate of Brahma:

To devastate they liveliness, to drain

The midmost rapture of thy glorious heart,

But who could win thy secret, who attain

Thine ageless born of Brahma’s breath,

Or plucked thine immortality, who art

Coeval with the Lords of Life and Death?

Gandhi is elevated into the very rarified position of Brahma, which is in consonance with

the spiritualist hangover of Indian nationalism. In Indian fictional works in English, Mukl Raj

Anand is known for his fascination of Gandhi in his works. Gandhi’s personal whims and

obsession are put to test most of the times, however, Gandhi, as a nationalist leader who 39

successfully roused the nation from its sleep, is clear of critical treatment. His first crucial work

Untouchable was published around the time when the Gandhian spirit has embroiled all in the

wake of Satyagraha, Gandhi-Irwin pact and Gandhi’s move for the untouchables. The novel

revolving around Bakha, an untouchable, presents a hope of emancipation for the untouchables

delivered by Gandhi who makes them aware of the purification and dignity in their work. Bakha

is squeezing under the torments of his cast unless he comes across Gandhi addressing a public

meeting. Bakha is filled with hope for future when untoucability would be eradicated with the

advent of machines. But in the Sword and the Sickle, which followed almost seven years later,

there is evidence of a change in Anand’s perception of Gandhi. We come across a Gandhi who is

possessed with “Sanatam dharma” and his philosophy of spiritual purification and self

righteousness becomes suffocating beyond a point.

Jawahar Lal Nehru shared a sensitive relation with Gandhi in his works. He stands mid-

way, both eulogising and criticising Gandhi. Nehru’s Discovery of India sketches a likeable

picture of Gandhi as the need of those times. Gandhi was the one who dared to shake the

foundations of the British in India. Acknowledging Gandhi as the “symbol of India” Nehru has

upheld Gandhi for his revolutionary moral fight and his determination (Nehru, 1949, 549). In

tune with the ongoing nationalistic fervour of those times, Nehru describes Gandhi as “more a

man of the people” and as warrior of the Indian peasant (Nehru 1949, 341). But at the same time

Nehru has also recognised the duality problem of Gandhi the leader and Gandhi the preacher.

Without being harsh to Gandhi, Nehru mentions that be was not as successful on account of his

economic theories as policy of non-violence.

B.R. Ambedkar perhaps stands out in this section as one of the most vehement opponent

of Gandhi. Especially due to their differences on the untouchable issue. Ambedkar has not only

lashed at Gandhi’s handling or rather manhandling of the dalits but also blamed him for

aggravating their miserable plight. In his essay “Gashism: The Doom of the Untouchables” from

his book What Gandhi and Congress have done to the Untouchables, Gandhism is discussed as

an insignificant matter of primitive regionalism unsuitable for a democratic set up. It has been

shorn of all simplicity or innocence of any sort. Ambedkar blames Gandhi for upholding the

“verna” system instead of trying to eliminate it and also shuns Gandhi’s anti-machinery call,

considering it an outcome of his retrogressive thought system as he mentions that “Ghandhism

with its call of back to nature, means back to nakedness, back to squalor, back to poverty and 40

back to ignorance for the vast mass of people”. Thus Ambedkar blames Gandhi for prompting to

return to animal life.

From the works studies in this phase it seems that thought this initial phase of Gandhi

writing started with eulogising Gandhi as the hero, the new leader of hope but slowly the seeds

were laid for giving his mahatmaisation a second thought. Next came the first phase of post-

Gandhi writing, which was a balanced one as Gandhi slowly started attracting objective criticism

with the writers in this period less besought with the Gandhian personality. They were ready to

approach him from less critical quarters and thus this period saw an outpouring of both fictional

as well as non-fictional works on Gandhi from the likes of R.K. Narayan, Chaman Nahal,

Nayantara Sehgal and others.

Nehru now became more direct in his reference to Gandhi. Nehru in Nehru on Gandhi

writes that Gandhi was a man of religion and moral law. His movements were revivalist but his

often-quoted phase Ram Rajya was jarring and his views on machinery were outdated. Nehru

also indicates that Gandhi’s preoccupation with non-political issues was for most of the time

unacceptable. His final fast in protest of the Mac Donald’s communal award was unnecessary.

Towards the end, Nehru accepts that though Gandhi’s fasts were unjustifiable, nevertheless, they

did lead to great results. But in his autobiography. Nehru furthers the differences in opinion he

shares with Gandhi. Nehru could no accept the absolute lack of pragmatism of Gandhi’s

approach, his lack of aesthetic sense and ignorance of looking ahead. A blind devotion of

Gandhi, according to him, was rejection of reasoning.

On a contrasting note, in Bhabani Bhattacharya’s works one comes across colonised

India’s faith in Gandhism for a better future. In He who Rides a Tiger, the protagonist Kalo

inspired by Gandhi’s crusade in opposition to the discriminatory practice rises to protest the

exploitation of the lower classes. Bhattacharya’s works are an eye-opener for the downtrodden as

he writes in Goddess named Gold of the positive social and political effect that Gandhi was

having on the masses: “Thanks to the charismatic leadership of Mahatma Gandhi the people

being to see the various social and political issues around them in clear perspective”

(Bhattacharya, 1967, 42). In Shadow from Ladakh that came out a few years later, Gandhi is the

reason why Indians win admiration abroad on account of their cult of non-violence. However,

there is a slight x-ray of Gandhism in humanistic terms. Gandhian village is pitted against the

modern steel city. Though Gandhian philosophy of Khadi and the spinning wheel emerge as 41

powerful instruments of social change and Gandhi himself as a humble man yet full of vitality

and resilience, but India is seen dangling in between Gandhi’s self-sustained village economy

and the modernised world of big industries and globalisation. The novel goes on to detect chinks

in the Gandhian armour and calls for a synthesis of Gandhism and modernism. Thus Gandhism is

not disowned. It is desired thought with some modifications.

P.K. Narayan (Narayan, 1981) stands for the exploration of Gandhi as subject in a new

dimension especially subtle caricaturing. Known for his direct approach in handling his subjects,

in Gandhi’s case too Narayan has used his wit at its best to demahatmise Gandhism, For

instance, Gandhi is seen as an oblivious yet dominating character in P.K. Narayan’s Waiting for

Mahatma with eyes closed to what is around and busy playing the dynamics of the “self”. His

asceticism and emphasis on non-violence are seen as pretentious inflexible stationary axis and

other are expected to accoummodate themselves according to him. Despite his arduous hard

work, Gandhi fails to awaken the languorous masses, both intellectually as well as emotionally.

Gandhi is relegated to the stature of being just another distraction for men eager to be a part of

Gandhism for namesake but oblivious to the vision and principles that Gandhism advocated.

Thus these followers manipulated the Freedom Movement as they chose, for personal gains.

Gandhi’s presence is a source of fear rather than admiration for his followers especially Sriram,

the protagonist. As an ardent followers of Gandhi, Sriram carried out the Gandhian duties

assigned to him though often questioning the utility of the same and coming to the realisation

that “patriotism” and “national service” are nothing but expression for plate-form speeches. The

lessons of non-violence imbibed continuously in him in course of his association with the

Mahatma, fail to kill the violence inherent within him.

Manohar Malgoankar’s attitude towards Gandhi cannot be streamlined along fixed

parameters, as it is both critical and otherwise. His critical attitude towards Gandhi is evident by

virtue of his treatment of the leaders in Bend in the Ganges. Malgoankar mocks at Gandhism as

the governing means or rather as certificate of patriotism, and especially mocks at the tenet of

non-violence as a face-saving act of the coward. He defines non-violence as “the philosophy of

sheep, a creed for cowards. It is the greatest danger to this country” (malgoankar, 1964, 12). The

aftermath of non-violence following freedom was more violent than ever, effecting unbelievable

suffering and hatred. Malgoankar also derides Gandhi’s symbolic observance of silence and

mere physical gestures of folding hands at the ceremony of burning foreign goods. He does not

42

even spare Gandhi’s practice of making thread at the spinning wheel. Gandhi’s magicalism spells

effect a protagonist Gian Talwar shouts slogans of Mahatma Gandhi Ki jai without even

knowing what he is doing. (Malgoankar, 1964, 3) The slogan here becomes a private prayer and

Gian is making for his lack of manliness in the garb of ahimsa but only to resort to violence at

the end in order to save his family. Gian’s infatuation of Gandhism is reminiscent of how people

were quickly adopting Gandhism in the heat of its popularity but failing to imbibe the philosophy

itself.

In narayan‘s The Vendor of Sweets too that followed three years later, Jagan, the

protagonist comes across as a hypocrite Gandhian, once again symbolising the failure of Gandhi

to reach the pulse of the masses. Participation in the Freedom Movement entitles him to

Gandhiana and in its garb he cheats customers, evades taxes, remains attached to his wealth and

invokes the greatness and permanence of Indian civilisation while dismissing the West as

morally inferior. But this fragile Gandhian self-regard collapses before his much-loved son’s

strange new demeanour and actions. After Mali ends up disastrously in prison as a result of

driving drunk around Malgudi, Jagan has no option but a Hindu-style renunciation of the worlds.

Thus, through the character of Jagan, Narayan caricatures Gandhian idealism in his followers,

adopted in name alone as a medal for moral uprightness on the outside.

After deriding Gandhi for non-violence and the blind faith that people bestowed in

Gandhism in 19678, Malgaonkar wrote The Men who killed Gnadhi, which is a detailed

description of the plotting of Gandhi’s murder and the final execution of the plan. Malgaonkar

graphs the development of the ideas responsible for his execution and it is hinted that as

Gandhi’s actions were perceived as threat to national interest, it was decided to get rid of him.

But then Gandhi undergoes major transformation in Bandicoot Run (Malgoankar, 1982, 103-

105). He comes across as an interesting personality, wise and calm yet always on the move. The

combination of “puckish humour”, “agility of mind”, “the merry glint in eyes” and the “scuttling

behind abstract philosophy when conered” makes him a “hypnotic personality” and that is way

the character Brian Gilchrist could not but risk censure to go and meet Gandhi once. Gandhi—

inspired nationalists are seen fighting for freedom and filling up jails and a small reason as

Gandhi’s name being mispronounced as “Gandy” by the whites, gets them all infuriated

(Malgaonkar, 1982, 300). Malgoankar is more of a Gandhi-critic than his supporter. Ramashray

Roy in Self and Society judging Gandhi in an ethico-religious paradigm evaluates him as a

43

paradox–a man living in modern times but rejecting modernity. Nevertheless, he acknowledges

Gandhi as a godly man who knew how to combine religion with politics. His moral authority

could not be questioned. He was able to extend the boundaries of the self to the world.

The other major works that followed included Chman nahal’s Azadi, Nayantara Sehgal’s

Rich Life Us and Nirad C. Chaudhuri’s Thy Hand Great Anarch, all reminiscent of Gandhism as

a worn our concept of little significane. In Chaman Nahal’s works we witness the dramatic

tension surrounding Gandhi at all times, which makes him a subject of lampoon more than

anything else. In Azadi he is done away with at “the getter of freedom”, blamed for Pakistan and

described as a politician cum saint-wizard following his nagging inner voice. This can be likened

to Nayantara Sehgal’s Rich Like Us where Gandhi is blamed for packing off “an Indian empire

with an antique idea instead of an atom bomb” (Sehgal, 1999, 125). Gandhi is referred to as a

“middle-class, middle-skin” whose poverty and simplicity signify contentment, things of the past

and so post-Gandhi India is wanting in batterment and facilities. Again Sehgal too takes a mid-

way here by juxtaposing two opposite perspective on Gandhi. On one side there is the English

character of Rose for whom Gandhi was a mahatma who should have been minding his ashram

and not politics, while on the other hand to the Indian mind, Gandhi it the getter of freedom, the

up-lifter of harijans. Nirad C. Choudhuri, a radical thinker-writer, disowns Gandhi greatly for his

pacifism and opines that Gandhi led the country as its uncontested mentor, guided by his own

conscience. Thy Hand Gret Anarch de-mythicises Gandhi, attacking his pacifist non-violence

and self-absorption.

In between these three works there was Towards Swadeshi, which is an account of

Ghanshyamdas Birla’s interaction in writing with Gandhi. And serving as a breather amidst all

Gandhi bashing, the book simply brings to light the vision that Brila and Gandhi shared as well

as exchange of views between them bordering on the planes of Gandhi’s idealism and Birla’s

pragmatism. Thus this period of post-Gandhi writings, the passionate adulation was missing,

signifying the semantic alterations that Gandhi has undergone over the years in India.

In the post-nineties phase of Gandhi writing, the writers have completely walked out of

the Gandhian shadow. Being distanced from him, they are now redefining the Gandhian

character through whole new paradigms ranging from Gandhi’s relevance in the modern times of

lampooning the very ideology he stood for. There is an attempt to challenge the image of Gandhi

as held previously and offer him as a new subject open to literary and critical experiment. Ashish

44

Nandy’s Intimate Enemy describes Gandhi as a non-player who not only tried to remain subtly a

symbol of the other West but also managed to “beat the colonisers at their own game” by

creatively manipulating the rules of that game (Nandy, 1983, 52) Realising the importance of

Gandhian study, Nandy stresses on the impossibility of separating Gandhi from the modernist

studies despite the fact that Gandhi himself stood for criticism of modernity.

The post-nineties witness greater concentration on Gandhian politics in writings on him.

The strength as well as relevance of his political strategies seems to be the bigger concern and

here against we come across all sorts of contradictions in opinions. If B.R. Nanda is all praise for

the politics of Gandhi Sunil Khilnani is critical of Gandhian politics. Nanda points out in Gandhi

and His Critics (Nanda, B.R. 1996) that Gandhi seen is different from what Gandhi is. In the

preface to the book he does not hesitate in quoting Lord Wavell’s description of Gandhi as

exceedingly shrewd, obstinate, double-tongued, single-minded politician but and shoes ideas on

account of their universality cannot be ignored in the present time. Though Nanda questions the

mingling of Gandhi’s religious and moral views with politics, nevertheless, he goes on to

illustrate the strength of Gandhian principles and Gandhism in his supporters. He even upholds

Gandhi in comparison to Vivekananda on policy issues, besides supporting the Gandhian opinion

that industrialisation has led to dehumanisation.

Sunil Khilnani in The Idea of India studies Nehru as well as Gandhi. Thought Khilnani is

unsympathetic to both yet Nehru still comes across as a valued persona, while Ganshi is scoffed

at by Khilnani. And that too in rather sadistic terms, Gandhi’s modus operandi has been

described as gnomic. Both the leaders are ultimately seen as failures. Nehru’s vision was non-

ideological and “emerged through constant practical adjustments in the face of political

contingencies” (Khilnani, 1990, 30). Gandhi’s vision was short sighted as Khilnani puts it, “The

evocative Gandhian vision of an independent India that would dispense with a state altogether an

return to traditional habits of rule soon faded from view” (Khilnani, 1999, 33). Khilnani asserts

that Gandhi created an agrarian economy opposed to industrial modernity and thereby

incapacitated the country to utilised its capitalist potential. His traditional habits led to his

ultimate failure.

But even in this phase, there are writers who seems to be going back to the concept of

Gandhi as divine, making it all the more complex to streamline responses to Gandhi for any

particular age. For instance, “Never Gandhi, Not Again” is a song by Omesh Saigal on Mahatma

45

Gandhi, which resounds the established literary reverence for the figure in unsophisticated

language: Saigal writes “Gandhi was a scavenger/Mental, moral, physical/ who swept in the

dustbin of the world” (Saigal, 1) Gandhi is Ram returning from exile when he comes from

England. Bearing sparks of godly essence he was the invincible apostle for liberty. Upholding

anti-machinery campaign, Omesh adds on that science serves man as brute and not the soul. The

spinning wheels symbolises the urge for freedom and peace.

Among family writers, Rajmohan Gandhi’s biography The Good Boatman (Gandhi,

Rajmohan, 1995) is a balanced criticism of Gandhi, carefully scrutinising the errors but

appreciating the noble intentions behind. Whereas in Daughter of Midnight, Arun refers to

Gandhi as “Mohandas” alone and accepts that though his grandfather has a world-vision

transcending the self, Gandhi was nevertheless preoccupied with religion and this created the

complexities. In a speech delivered by Arun Gandhi later in 2002, we see the writer as a

grandson who is all admiration for his grandfather Gandhi who stood as an idol for him. He

portrays Gandhi as a man exhibiting steadfastness in fighting violence that Arun believes creates

a society, exploitative by nature. Arun takes the case of contemporary violence and stresses on

the relevance of Gandhi’s tenet of non-violence of postmodernist times of global terrorism. He

believes that violence is human nature and people wait for an excuse to use the violence

suppressed within. Arun asserts that Ganshi knew how to transform rage into something

constructive; something that even US has failed to do. Recently Tushar Gandhi came out with

Let’s Kil Gandhi without any new discovery of the persona of Gandhi. Tushar (Gandhi, Tushar,

2007) deals with the murder of Gandhi and is trying to asserts that is was not just Godse but

rather there were many more people involved in the murder conspiracy and Gandhi died because

of the fault of others.

Shashi Tharoor is another prominent post—Grandhian. His The Great India Novel seems

an obvious parody of Raja Rao’s The Great Indian Way. Gandhi in the character of Gangaji

comes across as a stubborn, directionless ascetic. The bespectacled Father of the nation is “a

startled owl” and “a terrible vowed elder” (Tharoor, 35-40). Gandhi’s religious absorption is

inexplicable as it drives him into wired extremities:

Old Gangaji too

Is a good Hindu

For to violate a cow

46

Would negate his vow (Tharoor, 26).

The terseness of the lines an the inversion techniques in the language heighten the

sarcasm of Gandhi, his title, Hinduism, ideology and obsessions-all stands criticised.

A little lter Arun Gandhi’s, Legacy of Live (Gandhi, Arun, 2003) rendered flesh and

blood into Gandhism to bring it down to the real world and authenticate the virtues possessed by

Gandhi. The book is filled with personal accounts that illustrate Gandhian ideals, and awakens

readers to the power the possibilities of non-violence, racial and economic justice, and spiritual

growth. On a more personal note on Gandhi, there is Gandhi’s Prisoner by Uma Dhupelia

Mesthrie (Mesthrie, 2005). In the book there is a Gandhi who despite being a satisfactory father

to his children, was nevertheless dominating on his sons, especially Manilal who was left with no

other option but to cow in to his father every time. Thus Gandhi, according to Mesthrie failed as

a family head and forced his family members into living unpredictable and imposed lives.

Other sympathetic writers emphathise with Gandhi making Gandhi acknowledge his own

failing and accept the circumstances that forced him to tread the path he did. Mumbai based

writer Partap Sharma has written a play Sammy, which is an interesting piece of work on

Gandhi’s life as a series of events happening one after the other and Gandhi negotiating Mohan

and the Mahatma at all times. Sammy refers to the derogatory world used by whites in South

Africa for insulting Gandhi the Swami. Initially in the play, we see two characters Mohan and

Mahatama (in the form of shadow), discussing Gandhi as the lost leaders.

Mohan: What was he?

Mahatma: Ah, that’s the point. He spent his own life trying to find out.

(Sharma, Partap. 12)

Slowly, as the play progress, the two start coming closer and conflicts arise between

Mohan, the reason and Mahatma, representing idealism, and slowly Mahatma wins and takes

over.

Mahatma:…. No one before this has attempted to use individual moral force as a

vehicle of group action. You are trying to run personal ethics into a political

possibility. You are forging a new weapon. You can change politics forever. Go

now. Address them (Sharma, Partap. 44).

But even thought Mohan transforms into Mr. Gandhi, the duality is maintained

throughout. Both Gandhi and Mahatma refer to themselves as “we”. Gandhi is created but the

47

perfect wisdom is missing because of the mahatmahood. Gandhi makes mistakes and Godse

before shooting him acknowledges that he needs to take his blessing for last time as Gandhi is a

mahatma after all–a mahatma who was going all wrong. Jawahar and Gandhi’s differences in the

play are voiced prominently with Gandhi treading along a path of mere idealism and not logic

and shadow Mahatma asserting that he is a mere shadow of an actor. And this duality makes

Gandhi a complex domain, as Gandhi the mahatma cannot be completely isolated from Gandhi

the man.

Thus in Indian writing in English, we get an idea as to the trends that prevail in Gandhi-

writing in different quarters of both time as well as space. Gandhi is discussed on two planes—

one as a mahatma possessing divine wisdom and aura and the other Gandhi as the flesh and

blood “Mohan turned Mahatma” whose absolutism cannot be taken for granted.

Gandhi in Language Literatures

Despite the fact that we have entered a post-nationalist phase or at least a stage beyond

possessive nationalism, in most indigenous account in language/local literature5. Gandhi’s

mahatmaisation is considered complete and perhaps uncompromising. The Gandhian Movement

had affected and incorporated almost all linguistic section of India” therefore, Gandhi invariable

becomes the subject of quite a few language literatures finding his way through fiction/non-

fiction and poetry in various Indian languages at large.

From the works analysed, it seems that native writing in languages other than English is

not as much critical of Gandhi. As Gandhi’s image continues to be that of a super-soul guiding

us to higher nationalism, the process of retrieving him from idealised past and presenting him in

all new capsules seems to be its latest concern. In the language literatures, concentration has

been laid primarily on literature written in Hindi, Gujarati and Marathi with special reference to

Marathi dalit literature.

When it comes to Hindi literature, Premchand stands out as one of the most

accomplished writers in this language. He was a popular Gandhian and Gandhi finds reference in

all his works. Though Gandhi comes across as ideal in most of the earlier works, however,

Premchand’s later works are critical of some of Gandhi’s influence on Premchand is seen int eh

character of Bala Ji in the book. Bala represents idealism and his idealism takes the form of

Vivekananda, Tilak and Gandhi. In 1924, Premchand came out with two works Premasram and

Ranghumi. While the former deals with rural life being threatened by industries, an ideal which

48

was strongly advocated by Gandhi, the letter work signified the importance of Gandhian morality

in peasants’ cause then. In 1932there was Karmabhumi, in which Premchand denounces the

compassionate policies that Gandhi was practising with the untouchables. He highlights the

importance of well-organised protest with pre-defined purpose as necessary to fight

untouchability. This is an indication of defiance of Gandhi’s stand on the untouchable issue.

Godan, which is considered to be one of Premchand’s most mature of works, was translated in

English as The Gift of a Cow. The book came out in 1936 and here perhaps Premchand has

distanced himself from certain aspects of Gandhian ideology. Though the story revolves around a

villager’s efforts to purchase a cow, there is a subtle criticism of certain Gandhi’s social outlook,

especially the class division and the contradictions with village life. And finally there was his

article “Mahajani Sabhyata” discussing capitalist civilisation, an idea that reflects of

Premchand’s farewell to Gandhian influence.

In 1962, Balwantsinha wrote an account of the 25 years that he spent as Gandhi’s ashram

in Under the Shelter of Bapu. Originally written in Hindi in 1956, the book scripts the writer’s

awe of Gandhi. Balwantshinha mentions that the book was not less a task than writing a

Bhagwad Gita for him. Besides, the book is also an assessment of Gandhian personality as the

writer observes the daily happenings in the ashram. Gandhi comes across as a magnetic being.

Balwantsinha mentions that even without even having met Gandhi personally, a mere glimpse

was enough to attract him. He writes, “When I was Gandhiji sitting on the rostrum at this time, I

felt that I belonged to him and must be with him. But it was then a mere with without my

actually conceiving the possibility of its fulfilment” (Balwantsinha, 9). But then he does leave his

home and joint Gandhi. At the ashram, if at the one end, Balwantsinha finds Gandhi as

determined, methodical and wise then there are also certain flaws that he detects; obstinacy as a

prominent one. But all criticism ultimately ends up the other way round as is evident in the lines,

“Bapu ji used to entrust his workers with such strange tasks and saw that they were properly

executed…. But it was through such small things that Bapu trained his workers for bigger and

bigger responsibilities” (Balwantsinha, 117). And thus the concludes the book with a note of

gratitude of Bapuji who he defines as his “spiritual father, whose heart was a fit abode of Rama”

(Balwantsinha, 221).

On an all together different plane, Giriraj Kishore’s Pahla Girmitya discusses Gandhi as a

diasporic who left his native land, went to Sought Africa for a job and spent a great deal of his

49

life there. His struggle, especially in Africa, along with his relation with Katurba have been

detailed. Makarand Paranjape views Gandhi’s inclusion in diaspora as an important development

that compels us to “redefine the relationship between diasporas and nation” (Paranjape, intro).

This works marks the beginning of Gandhi as a more human subject in Hindi literature.

Gandhi in Hindi poetry of the contrary is the magnified image of greatness especially in

poems of the likes of Sureshchand Shukla, Sumitranandan Pant, Shankar Sultanp9ura and

Rameshwar Shukla, In this sugar poetry there is a similar reminiscence for Gandhi gone as is

cited in Meena Alexander’s letters to Gandhi. The Father of the Nation emerges as the missing

light in the darkness that surrounds us. Gandhi taught to fight hatred with love; he had the power

of infusing life into the dead, sleeping masses. But today he is a fragile memory without flesh

and blood being called back from the history to guide the lost souls and give answers to the

burning questions of today concerning breakdown of the moral ethical world and absence of

peace. If Meena Alexander asks Gandhi to witness the Godhra carnage, Sureshchand Shukla

beckons Gandhi’s attention to the state of terrorism in Kashmir. There is a cry of helplessness as

the world not longer responds to ahimsa and there is no choice but to go against Gandhi’s

principles and resort to weapons.

Gujarat being the home of Gandhi was bound to produce immense Gujarati Literature on

Gandhi. Among the prominent Gujarati Gandhian writers figure the names of Zaverchand

Meghani, K.M. Munshi, Umashankar Joshi and Mahadev Desai besides many others.

Zaverchand Meghani’s poem “Chello Katoro” translated by Shirin Kudchedkar as “The Last

Goblet” in 1931, is directly addressed to Gandhi on the eve of his departure to London for the

Round Table Conference. Gandhi is the only hope for India’s freedom and the country needs

nothing else than Gandhi at the moment. The poet prompts the leader to go ahead even if this

implies that Gandhi has to sacrifice himself for the cause:

Go father, let the poison penetrate even into your heart!

Go father, most benign and most terrible, most tender and most fierce!.......

Don’t hold back father, witnessing out pain!

We have home much, well shall bear more; don’t shudder for us!

Thus alongside an address to Gandi, the poet is also highlighting the traits of Gandhi, He

comes across as both compassionate and tender as well as strong-minded and resolute. A few

lines later, quoted below, Gandhi becomes a messiah-warrior:

50

Lighting the path through the pitch-dark forest,

Strocking the mane of the fierce lion,

Go ahead, it is God who is your guide,

Father, drink up this last goblet of poison.

In the same year Nanabhai Bhatt wrote a series Mahabharata na Patro, which though is

based on the epic but Bhatt, a devout Gandhian manipulated the story to allow Gandhi’s non-

violence enter the epic and also conclude it But the most prominent of Gujarati Gandhian writer

is perhaps Gandhi’s secretary Mahadev Desai, mahadevbhaini Dairy is Desai’s day-to-day

account of his experience with around Gandhi, In the diary though Desai sticks to facts,

nevertheless, at certain instances we get allusions to the character of Gandhi. Bapu comes across

as compassionate, strong and selfless. He is more concerned about the welfare of other than his

own. Desai writers—Bapu gets up during the night, and seeing that I often wake up at the sound

of his wooden sandals, he puts on leather chappals and walks with a light step as far from my bet

as possible” (Desai, Mahadev, 1932, 34), Desai here is in fact citing a minor example, but which

goes a long way in defining Desai’s respect for Gandhi.

In another short work A Righteous Struggle, Desai takes up the incident of textile

workers’ strike in 1918 in Ahmedabad. Gandhi here is more prominent as an organised and a

revolutionary leaders and special emphasis is laid on this technique of non-violence. Gandhi

knew how to handle the struggle at each successive stage, especially the critical ones.

Throughout the struggle non-violence remained his priority as Desai mentions that, “He took

great care to see that while the struggle was thus going on peacefully, no expression was used

either deliberately or unknowingly which could give offence to the other party” (Desai, Mahadev

1951, 66). Desai’s approach to Gandhi can be attributed to his proximity to the figure and

Gandhi’s spiritual influence on him.

K.M. Munshi’s handling of Gandhi in his works is not different from that of Meghani.

His work Tapasvini translated as The Lure of Power was set in the backdrop of the Indian

freedom movement guided by Gandhi. The development and significance of his various

movements come to the fore. And recently, Mahadev’s son Narayan Desai has emerged as new

entrant in Gujarati literature as partly-Gandhian7. His work Fire and the Rose is an attempt to

script the relation between Gandhi and his secretary but the focus lies on Mahadev. Besides he

has also written a four-volume biography on Gandhi taking clues from the collected works of

51

Gandhi and Mahadev’s diary. On a different note from the above-mentioned works is Feroz

Khan’s Gujarati play Gandhi Vs Mahatma that delves on Gandhi, the family man as seen from

his son Harilal’s eyes. The inconsistencies in Gandhi’s dealing with his son come to the fore.

Thus from the works mentioned, it seems that Gujarati literature is immune to serve Gandhi-

bashing. On the contrary, Gandhi finds ample respect in the literature of his home state.

Marathi literature (qtd. In Dass, Bijay Kumar) is also significant as the freedom

movement and national politics are major concerns of this generation and also. Marathi dalit

literatures is the most comprehensive of all dalit literatures in India. Pradeep Dalvi, Damodar

Savarkar and V.D. Ghate among others prove that Gandhi has been and is still very such alive in

Marathi literature. Damodar Savarkar focuses on the failures of Gandhi. Though indirectly he

does condemn Gandhi for his non-violence, which he believes is hammering the strength of

national polity. He portrays Gandhi as a patriarch. Svarkar’s ultimate disapproval of Gandhi’s

vision for what lay ahead of India is evident in Gandhi Gondhal (Gandhi’s Nonsense), which is a

political critique of Gandhi’s politics. Then there is Pradeep Dalvi’s powerful Marathi play Mi

Nathuram Godse Boltroy or Nathuram Godse Speaking. It is explanation behind Gandhi’s

assassination coming from Godse. The play mocks at Gandhism in subtle ways while implying

that Gandhi was not an era but mere leaf in history and that his assassination was a necessary

action that had been delayed. Godse becomes a hero and take over Gandhi as is evidence in the

quoted dialogue:

I was moving around the refugee camps and helping the destitute with food and clothes.

But I did not wander half-naked because the refugees were naked. I never spun yarn, never

cleared by toilet, never observed silence till I was hanged. There was only one common facto in

Gandhi’s life and mine. We were both the cause of each other’s death. He wanted to life for his

principles and I was prepared to die for my principles.

They play seems to be a subtle smack on Gandhi’s obsession as well as justification of

Godse’s assassination of Gandhi. In Chandrakant Kukarni’s Gandhi Virudh Gandhi, the Father

of Nation is compared to Gandhi the father in personal life and his failings in the latter case are

brought to light. Thus Marathi literature seems to be redefining Gandhi by exploring various

aspects of his life. Which have not received as much attention as yet.

Maharashtra house Mahars, Buddhists, Chambhars, “De-notified tribes” and other dalits

and therefore Marathi dalit literature on Gandhi is most significant. Dalit women writers

52

especially from Maharastra such as Kamud Pawade, Jyoti Lanjewar, Vimal Thorat, Sulekha

Kumbhare, Meera Kishore, Urmila Pawarand, Bapurao Jagtap, Chandrashekhar Patil, Annbhau

Sathe and Dr. Siddalingayya are some of the writers who reproduce personal dalit experience

marked by flaming annoyance for the ineffective ways that Gandhi ha dealt with the dalit

situation. These dalit writers are regular contributors to the ever-emerging literature of the once

disadvantages low-cast Indian minorities. There is voicing of the betrayal, ignorance and

mishandling of their situation and the subsequent resurgence from it with appreciation for

Ambedkar’s efforts more than anyone else. Bandaya literature (Kannada dalit literature), Marathi

panther literatue and Gujrati Dalit writing are replete with anguish and pain and a sense of

betrayal at the hands of history, political set-up and leaders.

Philip Constable (Constable, 1997) in Early Dalit Literature and Culture in Late

Nineteenth-and Fearly Twentieth-Century Western India observes that dalit identified those

whose culture has been deliberately “broken”, “crushed to pieces” or “ground down” by the

varna Hindu culture above them. As such, it contained an explicit repudiation of all the Hindu

cultural norms of untouchability, Varna structure and Karma doctrine which Hindu society had

imposed. And the important thing to consider is that Gandhi too upheld the presence of the

Varna ideology and therefore Gandhi has been critiqued by many for the way be handled or

rather mishandled the dalits. He ended up worsening their position and turned them into a violent

mob that only became a menace to the society. Now dalitness is confrontation. Today’s dalit

literature rejects the degraded Hindu social set-up as “dalit writers relentlessly expose the

inhumanities and prejudices of case society and instil a new social and cultural consciousness”

(Constable, 80). Mahatma Gandhi had called these people harijan whereas dalit literature avoids

using this term because it is not only patronising but also put this class at a different plane all

together from the other section of the society. Vijay Prasad opines that by calling untouchable

harijans or children of God and associating divine maxims with their works and status, Gandhi

was just beating about the bush. Elevating their status was not going on drive their misery away;

what they needed was liberation. The rejection of this title bestowed on by Gandhi is in itself

evident of the Gandhiana undertones of the Dalit literature.

R.Barbara Joshi in Untouchable! Voices of the dalit liberation Movement assets that the

dalit literature is increasingly changing tones from those of passivity to loud protest. It speaks of

a revolution building up and on its way. Bapurao Jagtap’s poem. “”The Country is Broken” and

53

Sharankumar Limbale’s “White Paper” speak of the disappointment and anger in the ex-

untouchables. Chandraben Shrimali’s story “Dankh” brings out inconsistencies in Gandhism and

how the movement failed to remove untouchability. Thus the dalits continue to suffer numerous

“social disabilities”. Acceptance by the community is limited to visiting harijan ashrams along.

Food offered by the is refused.

In The Partitions of Memory: The Afterlife of the Division of India we see an account of

the dalit struggle against Gandhi and adverse impact of Gandhism on untouchability. Gandhian

Ramarajya failed to bring about any improvement in the economic conditions of the dalits.

Though there was a minority section of the dalits that favoured accommodating Hinduism but

most dalits took Ambedkar as their leader. Mahatma Gandhi did begin the issue of

untouchability, but it was Ambedkar, an untouchable Mahar himself, who took up their cause on

a large scale. Ambedkar held Gandhi responsible for deteriorating the position of untouchables

and a majority of dalit literature seems to be sustaining the same opinion. Bandhumadhav’s The

Poisoned Bread (qtd. In Constable, 94) attempts to instigate the untouchables to protest for their

freedom. Gandhi is the culprit behind their misery.

From an analysis of dalit literature and writings, it becomes obvious that dalist write

from their locale and the sufferings express are the suffering undergone. Since Gandhi belong to

upper class, the dalits perhaps could not related to him as closely. Therefore, more than

reverence for Gandhi, dalit literature hold resentment. It aims at voicing the sufferings that the

untouchables have been subjected to and anger looms large and dalits revert to history in order to

proof the political-socio reasons responsible for their plight.

DIASPORIC WRITINGS ON GANDHI

Diasporic Literature as discussed in the introductory chapter turns largely to the

homeland for subjects of writing. The major preoccupations of diasporic writers are the

homeland and their diasporic situation, the homeland is reached through the imagined and

diaspora writers grab hold of certain icons and symbols that help them to connect with the native

land. These symbols that help them to connect with the native land. These symbols range from

religion, mythology, ancient texts and historical political personalities to history itself. Gandhi is

one of the favoured icons that Indian diasporics tend to cash in on.

54

Gandhi not only provides the diasporic writers an easy access to Inndia but also aids in

universalised writing, as Gandhi is a global entity. But, similar to writings from within the

homeland, even in diaspora Gandhi faces varied treatment of reconstruction and deconstruction.

The process is all the more radical as these writers are even more distanced than the native

ones. If Gandhi is valorised then his mahatmisation is taken to limits, which even native writers

fail to realise. But on the other hand, if he is deconstructed then it is a rather unfriendly, even

absive and playful deconstruction making it severer than native criticism. Diasporic writers as

Raja Rao and Meena Alexander idolise Gandhi in grand terms while writers such as V.S. Naipau,

Salman Rushdie and Ved Mehta put Gandhi to trial in very direct and pragmatic terms. In other

critical non-fiction such as those of Raghvan N. Iyer, Gayatri Spivak, Homi Bhabha, Arjun

Appadurai, Bhikhu Parekh, Leena Gandhi and Vinay Lal, the attidue borders on the friendliness

as well as on the caricature of Gandhi.

The section of diaspora that upholds Gandhi and his principles deifies the image of

Gandhi in metaphysical terms. These writers either view Gandhi as a determined leaders with a

vision who went on to fight an unending battle against not only colonialism but also against

injustice and ultimately brought about India’s regeneration through moral and spiritual revival,

or they receive Gandhi not as a man but in fact a mahatma who as incarnate of God in his times

born to guide not only India but the entire world with his wisdom. His principles are then not

viewed as extraneous but rather as universal principles that shall hold relevance for all time.

Within this diasporic territory, a writers that stands out is Raja Rao.

Rao, being closely associated with Gandhi in India, found in him the supreme icon of

spiritual wisdom. His perception did not change with his immigration from India. Not only has

been consistent in Gandhi-worship in this writings, but it has also become stronger with time.

The first works in line is his fictional work Kanthapura that besides opening a new chapter in

Indian writing in English was one of the first crucial works on Gandhi from the space of India

Diaspora. In Kanthapura, Rao depicts the spread of Gandhian movement from al small village to

all corners of the country. He has employed the Harikatha tradition in order to florify the image

of Gandhi, who is referred to as the mighty and God beaming. The mahatma is no longer a mere

title but a divine synonym. Myth and folklore go into defining Gandhi’s very existence.

One a more realistic plane, Harida T. Muzumdar has come out in defence of Gandhi as

the national leader. While writing a psychograph and sociograph of Gandhi, Muzumdar describes

55

him as a peaceful revoluntionary. Gandhi serves as the bridge to India. Muzumdar has strongly

come out in support of Gandhi’s tenet of non-violence that has received immense criticism from

all the three spaces—native, diaspora and foreign, Muzumdar asserts that non-violence should

not be confused with passivity as most of the critical thinkers working on Gandhi imply.

Endorsing Gandhi as an innovator and a wise experimenter, Muzumdar says that Gandhi was a

man cut out for his work and that he fashioned his own solutions in the laboratory of India. His

ahimsa carried the strength of an armed rebellion and thus “Gandhi succeeded in generating

powers leadership unmatched in human history” (Mazumdar, 33). He says that Gandhi belonged

to the superior category of man who “in the full consciousness of his strength, is willing to

forgive the evildoer, to redeem him, to convert him into a co-worker in the ending or the bending

of the evil system” (Mazumdar, 107) and such men are better than the brave. Mazumdar argues

that Gandhi was pragmatic in his approach and weighed a situation before taking decisions. His

decisions were based on a course that suitably fitted his finding. Not only has he hailed Gandhi

as the prophetic voice of the twentieth century but adds that such is the accomplishment of

Gandhi’s teaching in universal applications that even America needed to capture the spirit of

Gandhi.

On a different note came Ved Mehta’s article on Gandhi entitled “Gandhism is not easily

Copied”, Mehta too explores Gandhi with a radical approach similar to that of Mazumdar but

Gandhi, according to him, as full of contradictions. He was a fanatic who went on fighting

fanaticism with his symbolism. According to him, Gandhian movement was full of paradoxes, as

it sometimes denied what it projected as projected what it had denied. Therefore, Mehta writes

that it is imperative to think twice before straightaway adopting Gandhi and his principles. Many

of the canons set by him exhibited chinks and were good for preaching but not for application.

Mehta summarises Gandhi’s failings by writing, “As a Hindu, he spurned dogmas and doctrines,

Gandhism and a Gandhian creed; and yet the could not take his life with him and avoid millions

of cult-mongers”. He goes on to add the Gandhi was successful in India only because the British

India allowed him to. On the issue of irrelevancy of Gandhism he writes. “Gandhi and his

followers must only be remembered as imaginative artists” . Thus Mehta’s approach to Gandhi is

a signifier of the section of Indian diaspora that refuses to be consumed by Gandhism.

Naipaul not only belongs to this section but also is its biggest stalwart. If Raja Rao

stands out in the space of diaspora for Gandhi-reverence then V.S. Naipaul contest him in that

very space as the biggest critic of Gandhi from outside. Naipaul has always been in controversy

for his demeaning portrayal of both India and Gandhi. In Fact, his writings on Gandhi are

without any precedent in its category of anti-Gandhi. In fact, his writings on Gandhi are without

any precedent in its category of anti-Gandhi diaspora. Gandhi has been on Naipaul’s list as an

imcompetent leader who least deserved the acclaim and respect that he got and continues to

obtain. Especially in his non-fictional writings as Area of Darkness, The Overcrowded

Barracoon, India: A Wounded Civilization and India: A Milion mutinies Now, there is bitter

condemnation of the tenets that Gandhi stood for. Naipaul blames him for what he perceives as a

retrogressive attitude that he enforced on the nation. And Naipaul asserts that instead of taking

India forward, Gandhi took it all the more further back. According to him, Gandhi obsessed with

himself rushed ahead blindly and by exploiting the religious sentiments of the masses took them

along towards doom. Thus proceeding blindly on moral pathway without logical planning he

made the country land in a huge mess. And Naipaul adds that India is still recuperating from the

loss that India has to suffer because of Gandhism.

In 1973, Raghavan No. Iyer came out with a midway presentation of Gandhi in The

Moral and Political Thoughts of Mahatma Gandhi, giving a proof of the balanced attitude to

Gandhi that was also prevailing alongside. Even for observers watching him from a distance,

Gandhi is not always located in fixities. Iyer in tune with his open-ended attitude to Gandhi

accepts him both as a politician as well as a philosopher. Not only does he portray Gandhi as a

humble Hindu monk professing humanity but also as a political leader of revolutionary

dimensions. At all times he stresses on the universal applications of Gandhian concepts and the

relevance of morality in the political scheme of things.

In Mahatma Gandhi and His Apostles, which Mehta wrote almost seven years later than

the article mentioned earlier. His perception of Gandhi had not undergone any significant

change. Here Mehta separates Gandhi from the mahatma and presents him as a human being,

bringing into account both his virtues and flaws. Thus he does away with Gandhi’s mystification

held strongly by his supporters worldwide. Even if Mehta shows Gandhi as a constructive

worker, then it is only to conclude that he is ultimately a gratifier of personal ego. Also, he

sketches the path of Gandhism both during-Gandhi and post-Gandhi phases. And though Gandhi,

a boy of banya origin, grows up to become the most sensational freedom fighter and later dies a

martyr, he remains but a memory, an insignia used or rather overused to sanctify nobility of

institutions, individuals or ideas. As Mehta puts it, “The next thing you know, there’ll be as

Gandhi cigarette! It’s about the only thing left that hasn’t been used to commemorate him!”

(Mehta, 26). The Gandhi Sevagram, the Gandhi National Memorial Museum and various other

Gandhi set ups are but a collection of symbols. The Gandhian spirit is missing.

Salman Rushdie though has been loud on many political and social issues related to

India, was not perhaps attracted to Gandhi significantly as a subject to explore. In 1981 came his

fictional work Midnight’s Children that dealt with the Independence era in India but Rushdie

does not elaborate on Gandhi in the novel, In fact, he only makes a passing reference to Gandhi

throughout the story. But even in this reference, without being too harsh on Gandhi he exposes

the seeds of a somewhat critical attitude towards Gandhi, which he elaborates almost ten years

later in an article on Gandhi entitled “Mohandass Gandhi”, discussed later in this section. In

Midnight’s Children when the news of Gandhi’s death spreads, a character Amina instead of

experiencing remorse is rather relieved that a Hindu killed him and not a Muslim. By including

such a statement, Rushdie seems to emphasise that the loss of the leader himself was

insignificant.

In 1998 came Raja Rao’s biographical work on Gandhi The Great India Way, which is a

landmark in Gandhi literature as it idolises Gandhi as the absolute in the words of his

unquestioning blind follower, Rao. He has presented Gandhi as god and thus raised him far

above the critiquing planes as is evident in the following lines:

He who achieves the impersonal, the principle, he the great being, the Mahatma.

He it is that’s become the Law, from the laws that hold (dhru) the sun and the

moon, the good and the bad, and the law that makes the waters go down the sea

and the waves are seen as water you see greatness. Greatness is not great. It is

(Rao, 1998, 11).

A year later, Bikhu Parekh came out with Gandhi’s Political Philosophy, which was a

critical assessment of Gandhi’s political theory. Gandhi’s politics, according to him, includes all

domains namely moral, religious and philosophical. Gandhi knew the secret of combining

various learning sources and thus came out with fascinating solutions. In 1998, Rushdie wrote an

elaborate article on Gandhi in which his critical intentions towards Gandhi become quite clear.

Rushdie states that Gandhism failed to live for long and today. Gandhi is a mere symbol misused

here and there, thereby making a mockery of what the stood for, Rushdie writes:

58

Once, a half-century ago, this bony man shaped a nation’s struggle for freedom. But that,

as they say, is history, Now Gandhi is modelling for Apple. His thoughts don’t really count in

this new incarnation. What counts is that he is considered to be “on message”, in lines with the

corporate philosophy of Apple. Thus Rushidie describes Gandhi as a product “up for grabs”.

Also though Rushdie is not all praises for the practice of saint-making of Gandhi by the West,

nevertheless, he agrees that the “posthumous, exalted international Gandhi has apparently

become a totem of real inspirational force. Rushdie says that so much has been the hype around

Gandhi that is has become difficult to study him in more human terms. He specially mentions

G.V. Desani’s translation of Gandhi’s full name Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi as “Action-

Slave Fascination-moon Grocer” and Rushdie believes that Gandhi’s personality comprised of

both acceptable and disagreeable aspects. Rushdie exposes the paradoxes within him as how a

man unafraid of the British was afraid to sleep in the dark and though he struggled for unity yet

failed to keep the Muslims and Hindus together. Rushdie holds him responsible for aiding the

partition of India and failing on account of untouchables. He also questions the ideology of

simplicity of a man who ironically died in the house of super-capitalist patrons Birlas in Delhi.

Rushdie points at Gandhi’s concern with issues as vegetarianism, bowel movements, benefits of

human excrement and sexual abstinence, labelling them as “eccentric theories”. Nehru emerged

the winner, according to him, as he stood for industrialisation and modernisation as opposed to

Gandhi who turned to religious source for lesion rather than history itself. Gandhi today, Rushdie

concludes is irrelevant in India. As he writes, “if a man’s project fails, or survives only in

irredeemable tarnished form, can the force of his example still merit the extreme accolade”.

In contradiction of Rushdie’s article, Eknath Easwaran in his biographical work on

Gandhi entitled, Gandhi the Man, stated that the key to understanding Gandhi is to imbibe in

oneself the values of Bhagwad Gita. He opines that Gandhi while struggling and living for others

all the time “made himself zero” (Easwaran, 115). To follow him is not to adopt Gandhian

symbolism but rather taking one the very values he preached and practiced. Bikhu wrote another

work entitled Gandhi: A very Short Introduction in 2001, wherein he not only further elaborates

his idealism of Gandhi but also points at the limitations of Gandhian further elaborates his

idealism of Gandhi but also points at the limitations of Gandhian philosophy. He upholds Gandhi

as one of the few men in history who “saw that the dominant definition of its great ideals of

human dignity, freedom and equality has a deeply egalitarian and authoritarian core” (Parekh,

59

2001, 73). At the same time he expresses that Gandhi was unsuccessful in combining politics and

morality comprehensively and his anti-modern stand did not stand in good stead for India. But at

the end, he praises Gandhi for being a leader one of a kind.

Then there is the female diasporic writing on Gandhi. A significant tendency in this

section of writing is that of using Gandhi in the backdrop of plots that have remotely to do with

Gandhism. Sujata Bhatt’s “Diabetes Mellitus” have taken a very distinct view of Gandhi, a view

that stems from the writer’s diasporic (dis) location. Bhatt attacks Gandhi and this attack target

Gandhi’s symbolism, as seen in the lines below:

Imagine, if Gandhiji has

Had it-the wrong chromosome

Perhaps the inability to metabolise sugar

he would never have been able

to survive all his fasts.

Like you, he would have gone

quietly, in a coma.

The above poem is dedicated to the poetess’ grandmother and such insignificant

references to Gandhi is evocative of the postmodern attitude towards Gandhi that is putting

Gandhi up for grabs, as Rushdie has mentioned. The poem not only places Gandhi in a un-

Gandhian situation but also makes light of his principles of fasts. Then there are other lesser-

known diasporic female writers who even use Gandhi to express personal diasporic experience

and ideas. For instance, Deepa Aggarwal in her story “Why Did you Kill Mahatma Gandhi”

from If the Earth Should Move and Other Stories uses Gandhi to focus on issues relating to

childhood impression and experiences. Shauna Singh Baldwin too faintly brushes her feminist

story revolving around female protagonists, Sita and Roop, and the male character Sardarji, with

echoes of Gandhi in the backdrop.

Meena Alexander is another strong voice from the space of diaspora, In Letters to

Mahatma the poetess invokes Gandhi as witness to Godhra carnage and its aftermath in her

poetic lamentations. With regret she implies that Gandhism is dead and so Gandhi is a helpless

onlooker from the region above:

How did you feel when they shut

The gates of Sabermati Ashram

60

That February nigh……

And the wounded clung outside?

What has happened to ahimsa?

It is just for the birds and the bees?.....

I see you at the rim of heaven

Grown older still, bewildered, stooped

Dhoti flecked with drops of mud, ……

Face seared by a moon That has nothing

Except its own inhuman glow….(Alexander)

Leela Gandhi , Gandhi’s great-granddaughter, residing in Australia, too has voices that

Gandhi’s principles were a new philosophy and were not based on nostalgia. Rather they were

answers to social injustice being faced than by traditionalists. She protests that the Gandhian

spirit was a critique of aggressive capitalism and territorialism of the modern West. Thus Leela’s

views can be taken as an indication towards India Diaspora’s possessiveness about Gandhi.

Another writer that could be clubbed with Raja Rao in contemporary times is Sudhir

Kakar (Kakar, 9) who wrote Mira and the Mahatama. Kakar feels extremely uneasy if he does

not use the suffix Ji for Gandhi. The writher seems to be in full awe of Gandhi, as he time and

again make reference to a divine light emitting from Gandhi. Madeline or Mira in the book

comes across as he blind devotee of Gandhi. Throughout the book Kakar seems to be fascinated

by her perhaps for the fact that Madeline shared a close relation with Gandhi based on mutual

understanding and affection. And the author too being in the awe of Gandhi is easily swayed by

someone bonded closely with Gandhi. In a statement, Kakar comments, “Today, I flatter myself

that apart from Gandhiji I was the only other person who really saw her” (Kakar, 40).

Thus taking a look at the diasporic literature on Gandhi, it is evident that not only is he a

much used subject but that there are all kinds of perception that go into describing him both as

“Gandhi the great leader” and “Gandhi the failure”. At the one end, he is attacked for his

principle, while at other he is upheld for the same. In some cases there is alternate admiration

and repulsion for Gandhi. And these evocations of Gandhi from the space of Indian diaspora

only tend to perpetuate the myth of mahatma all the more.

61

GANDHI IN THE WESTERN IMAGINATION

Figure such as Gandhi and Nelson Mandela are world icons. They attract the interest of

not only people of their origin but those from all over the world, as their contribution have been

applicable universally, Gandhi was an experimenter and perhaps that is why he attracts the

inquisitive western minds: Initially under the spell of oriental hangovers, Gandhi was acclaimed

in celestial terms, especially, during his lifetime, Later critical opinions developed that has a

tendency to historicise him within the frame of empirical realities. Gandhi’s reverence now is not

absolute and the human side of him never disappear. However, the thing to note is that though

Gandhi’s respect in India in on the racline, at least in its literature, the western imagination is not

as cruel even as Gandhi is tested for his inconsistencies, fanaticism, personal life, obstinacy and

pacifism. Therefore, if one had these writers talk of Gandhi’s strength in noble terms then they

also attack his failing unsparingly. And in between there is also a section of foreign literature that

has an ambivalent attitude towards Gandhi, one of concurrent acceptance and rejection.

In an article entitled “Indian don’t Revere Mahatma Gandhi”, the writer Alka Rastogi

assets that though most American lack the intellect and maturity to fathom Gandhi and Gandhian

principles of non-violence, truth and humanity, nevertheless, Americans are not as disrespectful

towards Gandhi as India is today. She discusses Gandhi’s look-alike Bernie Meyer, once a close

associate of civil rights activist Martin Luther King, as the “American Gandhi”. She mentions his

efforts at spreading Gandhi’s message all around as he feels that Indians do not revere Mahatma

the way he deserves to be. This speaks largely of the pro-Gandhi attitude prevailing in the

foreign though process.

Early foreign writing on Gandhi consist of works of French writer Rolland Romain.

Danish writer Ellen Horup and other American and English writers such as George Orwell. Mere

Edmud Jones and others. In the works of these writers there is the dominant strain of Gandhi’s

reverence in the beginning giving way to opening of critical expositions on Gandhi.; Rolland

Romain in The Man who Became one with the Universal Being saw Gandhi as an ideal

nationalist and called upon him to enlighten the youths of Europe. He was the pulse of India, the

supreme life from who became one with the universal being. Romain even takes care not to

confuse ahimsa with passivity or non-resistance. Describing Gandhi as a universal being,

Romain asserts that since the British did nothing to deal with the problem faced by India, Gandhi

62

was the right answer. His concept of spinning wheel and the unshakable foundation of religion

on which he directed Gandhism were definitely in the benefit of India but his rigid Swadeshi

campaign was nevertheless and extremity.

Ellen Horup wrote the first book on Gandhi in Danish entitled Gandhis Indian, Though

Horup was initially attracted to the personal interaction with him, nevertheless, she realised later

that India has mishandled Gandhism and that too because Gandhism in itself has many

inconsistencies. There was much more to be explored beyond the limited scope of Gandhism, as

it was not sufficient to deal with the problem faced by India.

Marc Edmud Jones in Gandhi Lives gives a forthright description of both the slips and

accomplishment of Gandhi. From the western perspective Gandhi is an intellectual at least to

those who have a religious inclination. However, a large people find him paradoxical for the

relation he shared with the Birla household and his ideals such as the “fast” techniques,

observance of “silence” and others that remain comprehensible to the western mind. Jones adds

that from the Indian perspective one needs to realise the very soul of India in order to understand

him. He did care “for the dumb million of India” (Jones, 54) and could identify himself in their

being and that is what made him an avatar. He led the nation, as that was what was asked to him.

He fought for them and did not utter anything at the time of his death. Thus he did his faithful

duty to his motherland even though there were inconsistencies in his way of working. For

instance, Jones holds that his stands on the continuation of castes wasn’t acceptable. But on the

whole, Gandhi was a great leader and Gandhism lives to this day.

George Orwell puts Gandhi to trial as guilty until proved innocent describing him as

humble, naked old saint sitting on a praying mat, attempting to shake the British Empire by utter

spiritual power. His whole life was a short of pilgrimage in which every act was significant and

susceptible to careful judgement. He adds that it needs to be figured our whether or not Gandhi

compromised his own principles for entering politics. Orwell mentions the shrewd person

beneath the saint and assets that his ideals of spirituality, spinning wheel and vegetarianism were

unappealing as they bring out the narcissist undertones in Gandhian drive. The foremost reason

why Gandhi failed to make a good impression on Orwell was because of his “medievalist

program not viable in a backward, starving, over-populated country”, Orwell also takes a dig at

Gandhi’s autobiography to point at his failing in personal life. For instance he mentions:

63

The autobiography leaves it uncertain whether Gandhi behaved in an

inconsiderate why to his way and children, but at any rate it makes clear that on

occasion he was willing to let his wife or a child die rather than administer the

animal food prescribed by the doctor.

However, he recognises the praiseworthy in Gandhi too, such as his admiration by the

British, his treatment of all as equal and his courage, Orwell writes, “even Ghandi’s worst

enemies would admit that he was an interesting and unusual man who enriched the world simply

by being alive”. This is quite unlike Loius Fisher’s biography on Gandhi, which came out in

1950. The book is an emotional account of Gandhi and his life. All the minute details are related

with significance attached and Gandhi’s principles and action have been held in high esteem

more than anything else.

Post-Gandhi phase in foreign writings, similar to other Gandhi writings, is resplendent

with observations on Gandhi followed by few references to the loos faced with Gandhi’s death.

For instance George Catlin in In the path of Mahatma Gandhi describes Gandhi as a great

educator and Gandhi’s death as an act of Satan winning. But then a few years later, writers as

Franz Fanon and Martin Green began painting the Gandhian image in harsher terms. Fanon

advocate non-violence as a moral force involving countryside people, something that the

mahatma was doing. While making reference to colonised masses, Fanon writes that they “have

an intuition that liberation can be achieved only be force. This is the disgraceful thing” (Fanon,

73). In line with him, Martin Green places Gandhi and Tolstoy side by side; sadistically calls

them men of peace, only to conclude that both the leaders were essentially anti-humanist. Green

refuses to take into account anything good about the leader but rather displays how and why

Gandhi went wrong in almost everything that he did. Gandhi has been labelled as a two-timer,

playing games with India. On the one hand Gandhi was trying to mingle his religious philosophy

with politics and on the other, he was advancing “the political interest of Indians against those of

competing groups.” Green disowns Gandhi’s otherwise popular weapons of fast and non-violent

march as frail paraphernalia because his opponents attacked Gandhi with these weapons alone.

Gandhi’s fasts met with counter-fasts and his campaigns offering self-sacrifice where opposed

with similar campaigns. Thus, Gandhi was being defeated at his own game.

On the pro-Gandhian from, Profiles of Gandhi is a collection of American tributes to

Gandhi wherein in most cases he is sensed with presence of an aura surrounding him. He is the

64

naked weaver who transformed religion into a power force and went on to change the entire

world. The combination of renunciation and practical politics in him makes him an envoy of the

modern world. The greatest contribution of Gandhi to the world, according to these writers was

the fight against violence. William Rose Bennet has highlighted the significance of Gandhi’s

non-violence by lashing at the brutality of violence through the following lines:

Violence killed good

But violence dies.

The pure, the martyred blood

Speaks to the skies…..

The silence knows.

The sacred river flows.

The light that was the Savior

Grows and grows and grows....................

So at one point the Gandhi in foreign writings become a Buddha roaming on land for

redemption of ills. Both the East and West have sought and continue to seek inspiration from

him. He is praised for single-handedly driving the British away. He is recognised as the leader

with the power of “Truth”, with a great combination of wit and wisdom and a machine like mind.

However, he was not rightly understood at all times as Herrymon Maurer writes:

During a second period of pause,

Gandhi went on with his teaching.

East and West looked at him.

Followed him, and yet misunderstood him.

Gandhi’s non-violance has fascinated the foreign thinkers who find fighting a war and

ultimately gaining freedom by peaceful means as fascinating. Despite minor criticism, it is

unanimously accepted that Gandhi’s approach was effective and its worked in India as Chester

Bowles writes about Gandhi as the little man in a loincloth who “showed the Indians how to

combine peaceful resistance to discriminatory laws with constructive community services”

(Cousins, 195).

Paul Scott (Scott, 321) in The Raj Quarter surprises readers when he talks of Gandhi as a

chap shot by a silly boy. Gandhi, according to him, was an inconsistent leader taken in by his

whims and fancies. Gandhi proved a great disappointment by becoming a saint and operating

65

personal salvation in public at all times. Scott acknowledges that despite the inconsistencies in

Gandhi, especially due to his seeming immunity to the power he possessed, he nevertheless finds

Gandhi appealing.

In the post-nineties era there is C.F. Andrews with Mahatma Gandhi—His life and Ideas.

Andrews draws Gandhi as a saintly politician speaking in the poetical language of paradoxes.

Contrasting Tagore and Gandhi, Andrews brings out the limited aspect of Ghandi’s idea of

patriotism and religion. While Tagore believed in transcending such boundaries and doing away

with the caste system, Gandhi observed strict adherence to the same upholding the sanctity of

varnas. Gandhi becomes an unfathomable riddle to Andrews when Gandhi comments that he

would personally not agree to a marriage outside caste, but at the same time does not believe in

the artificial multiplication of castes, which has occurred in “Mahatma Gandhi and His Myths”

Mark Shephard attempts to rid a few of the many myths about Gandhi, yet he has lampooned the

treatment of Gandhi by his followers, in most contemporary terms. For instance his description

of Gandhi in the following lines in proof of high caricature of Gandhi’s iconic image:

Gandhi was not a scrawny little man. Yes, his legs were scrawny-and bowed, but

he has a barrel chest, and a deep, booming voice to match it. In pictures, you just

don’t notice his chest, because he usually has a clth draped around it.

He goes on to mock at Gandhi being proclaimed a saint but spares Gandhi himself. He

admits that though Gandhi was not perfect, but nevertheless he has his virtues. It is Gandhism

that has not been carried will after him. He credits Gandhi with political and economic accuracy

when he writes: “Not many people here realize it, but Gandhi may be this century’s greatest

advocate of decentralism— basing economic and political power at the local level”.

On a different note, Antony Copley in Gandhi Against the Tide views Gandhi as an

attractive figure in today’s time on account of his optimism and his self evasive leadership and

add that, “He is too important to allow to disappear behind a smoke screen of interpretation”

(Copley, 104), Gandhi was a spiritual leader yet he carried a wide vision for the future of India.

He never attempted to be in the limelight and by following his inner voice formed a constructive

programme based on a pluralist view of world religion and redemptive value of manual labour.

But Gandhi has his failings too. During his visit to Noakhali during the famine of 1943, his

priority was that the Hindus must be free to practice their religion and this incident would

perhaps change their rigidness in terms of castism. Copley mentions that he was not concerned

66

about the loss of life and damage to property. He adds that Gandhi was a political saint with an

anarchiest vision of decentralisation and self sufficiency.

In Whose India? Teresa Huble (Huble, 1956) in her study of various discourses on

Gandhi, discusses the magic associated with Gandhi and the conferring of the suffix Ji to this

Indian leader alone and non other. This, according to her, draws attention to the development of

Indian nationalism with Gandhi as its epic centre in light of the simplicity and innocence of these

masses. On the untouchability isssues, Gandhi is declared as unsuccessful. His drive against the

malaise only strengthened the dilemma of the untouchables by associating filth, impurity and

feebleness with them.

But then came Mandela (Mandela, 34) who in his autobiography mentions that

“Generation after generation have been the proud bearers of the mantle of Gandhi and defenders

of the rich political culture that Satyagraha introduced into the politics of this country” and adds

that one must not forget the Gandhian philosophy is going to be the key to survival in the world

of tomorrow. However, Nelson’s seems to be a far cry from the prevailing attitude to Gandhi

around. His call for Gandhi finds feeble support in some works. One such works is Stanley

Wolpert’s Gandhi’s Passion (Wolpert, 2001) that analyses the relevance of Gandhi in wake of

India’s nuclear tests in 1998 as Wolpert writes : “His passion is important in today’ world of

plastic modernity” (Wolpert, 266). He adds. “Gandhi transformed his frail, naked body and

fearless soul into an all but impregnable fortress”. Wolpert also goes on to describe Gandhi’s

principles and his determination and at the same time defends him against being blamed for

India’s partition.

Koenraad Elst (Elst, 2001) gives an unsparing critique of Gandhi in Gandhi and Godse,

describing him as a dictator, extremist, a fallible human being trainted with colonialism despite

leading an anti-colonial campaign. Elst writes: “……… his own role in Indian politics largely

consisted in ‘imposing his will’ quite often, not on minorities but on democratic majorities,

overruling the will of the people with that of his own ‘inner voice’” (Elst, 93). He was always

attempting to impose his plan on others and treated the will of people as subservient to the

dictates of his own inner voice. Gandhism is smugness, especially among his followers. Non-

violence has a limited scope and could function only within cultural and moral dimensions. And

in the case of appeasement of Muslims, his non-violence ideology failed to have an impact, as

Elst says that the Muslims became all the more arrogant. The author compared Gandhi with

67

Aurobindo and states that countrary to what the Gandhians thought, it was Aurobindo who

proved Hinduism need not necessarily be eccentricity and masochism.

David Hardiman in Gandhi in His Time and Ours seem to wrestle Gandhi’s criticism and

dismisses the accusation against Gandhi as an extremist. Not only is Gandhi to him a moral

activist who became a martyr but rather a preacher with foresightedness. His nationalism was

“broad and catholic” (Hardiman, 16). His doctrines such as “human rights, the fundamental

equality of all humans, the rights of all democratic representators.” (Hardiman, 66) spoke of

futuristic democracy. A poem named ‘Dharma” by Billy Collins celebrates Gandhi as the key of

Hindu religion for the outsiders. Gandhi and Thoreau are penned as the symbols of the

idealisation of life with their humility and simplicity. The treatment is quite contemporary, which

borders on reverence through witticism as is evident in the lines below there the world—“diaper”

has been used instead of “loincloth”:

Who provides a finger example

Of a life without encumbrance

Thoreau in his curtainless hut

With a single plate, a single spoon?

Gandhi with his staff and his holy diapers.

John Chathanatt in Gandhi and Gutierrez talks of Gandhi as a fascination. The book is

seemingly a thesis on Gandhi’s teachings. Inner voice is the intuition guided by reason that led

Gandhi to rationality. What is important here is the attachment of reason to the inner voice that

has often been used as an excuse of label Gandhi as self-obsessed. And then the book

Postmodern Gandhi that come out in 2006 comes back to the relevancy of Ganshism in

contemporary times. Beginning with a description of Gandhi as postmodern, followed by and

American outlook on him and analysis of his various principles, the book ends with why Gandhi

is relevant in contemporary time.

But then there is the foreign literature that puts Gandhi to the same test as Indian diaspora

writers have. Sometimes for a western mind, Gandhi poses special problems in Raja Rao type of

evaluation. Often his eccentricities get in the way of practical wisdom of the West and so it

becomes difficult to go beyond them, thereby rendering the other aspects of his life less of

seriousness. Even for religious people in the West, his constant use of religious terminology and

theological language in explanation of justification of a social or political act or policy more

68

often confuses than clarifies. The homage, which most pay to him by “Mahatma”— the great-

souled one– usually becomes a kind of vaccination against taking him seriously. Gandhi shall

continue to be exploited as the brand ambassador of India. What is significant is the projection of

his image and the fact that how much of Ganshism exists today and in what form. India being a

land of predominantly religious people, its religious philosophy and spirituality are important

means of dissecting Indianess. Religion and Gandhi share a delicate relationship. Often critics of

Gandhi tend to problematise Gandhism by substituting it with religiosity. Religion being the

most powerful tool in Gandhi’s drive, it has been used most often as a sighing balance to judge

the success or failure of Gandhi. Gandhi is referred to as “God” and his teachings can lead one to

the path of ultimate truth. And where Gandhi stands the test on all grounds, it is at this point that

Gandhism faces criticism when attempt is to de-mahatmaise him.

What is evident from the various responses to Gandhi in the foreign writings is that these

writings at al times while discussing Gandhi as a mahatma or comparing him with Buddha or

Christ, don’t take the human away from him. Gandhi is not only applauded for being a great

spiritual leaders who led the world in new innovative ways of spirituality but was a political

organiser of commendable genius. They recognise Hinduism as his centre for all activities and

moral considerations as the driving force behind all strategies and activities. They question his

advocating of the varna system in society while condemning discrimination and ridicule some of

his extreme notions that tend to connect the spiritual with swaraj but they also appreciate his

fight for equality of women. Non-violence and stress on manual labour have won him

tremendous appreciation from the western world.

The works included in this chapter indicate that portion of western writings. His

literature, both native and diasporic, and also a significant portion of western writings. His

treatment in various works not only provides an interesting collage of Gandhi in diverse shades,

but also indicates the inseperability of Gandhi from literature.

Mahatma Gandhi who has for long become a subject for books alone to be read by

selective sections of the society has today transformed into a national sensation, especially with

the success of the recent film “Lage Raho Munna Bhai”. A row of films on Gandhi is in pipeline

waiting to make it through with the audience at large through the re0ignited fervour of

“Gandhigiri”. Though Gandhi has been appearing in India films for long but these were only

stressing on the figures in purely historical prospective whereas contemporary cinema is

exploring Gandhi in postmodernist context. This show the relevance of studying Gandhi all over

again by taking into account both historical as well as contemporary engagement of Gandhi in

India. Though Gandhi literature also referred to as “Gandhiana” but the term is avoided as it

implies literary works solely devoted to Gandhi whereas Gandhi’s treatment in literature varies

from being prominent to mediocre and final to being vague. The flower “lotus” is an important

signifier for Sarojini. It figures in many of her poems.

According to Rajni Bakshi in Bapu Kuti, Gandhi as historical being is of “academic

interest only” (Bakshi, 10). His political action are subject to criticism. Even Gandhi’s stand on

anti-machinery loses ground as the exhibits a convenient partial interest in technology. Gandhi

limites the purpose of machinery as subservient to the soul. Gandhi’s focus on rural economy

was something that even a section of the dalits resented and even amongst those who respected

him, there were few who criticised his stand on the Harijans, The author mentions the opposition

of Ambedkar’s view to those of Gandhi’s.

Ambedkar felt that the lower castes must help themselves by getting a good education,

becoming organised and fighting for their own liberation. Gandhi’s ways were too stringent at

times to follow but nevertheless Bakshi grants him the respect for what he deserved and adds that

the modes of life he presented were not a result of private fixation but were rather verifiable and

replicable. Even though his each approach started with the individual it aimed at creating the

right atmosphere \. And his non-violence as E.F. Schumacher also points out was an economic

strategy. Gandhi call for anit-moderanisation finds some support too in Bapu Kuti and India’s

horde to compete with the West is subject to questioning. The Charkha is recognised as the

foundation of the prosperous society. At the same time there is a realisation that Gandhian

ideology needs to be reinvented in order to validate it in changing times. His morality approach

was indifferent to the possibility of life hereafter and therefore this concern with the here and

now can be safely termed as politics. Bakshi also mentions the disparity in the vision of Nehru

and Gandhi and states that: “Gandhi was never a ‘mantra’ within the Andolan. Yet all its activist

was themselves as fighting the battle against Nehru’s version of ‘development’ and for

something closer to Gandhi;s version which, 50 years ago, has been pushed aside by the forces of

history” (Bakshi, 291).

Madhuri Wadhwa in Gandhi Between Tradition and Modernity talks about Gandhi’s

pragmatic approach to a synthesis of the Indian philosophy with the western and this was to set

an example in front of the rest o the world. Gandhi pressing for the ancient Indian culture was at

the same time a broker of the West. The past was important for inspiration but not a model for

the present. “Gandhi was not an indiscriminate worshipper of all that is ancient” (Wadhwa, 75).

Nehru condemned Gandhi for taking India back to the bullock-cart age. Gandhi was not

suited for ruler-ship but befitted the role of a prophet. The Gandhian mystique staged on religion

and often criticised, has been hailed as a process of assimilation involving an amazing dialectic.

And though a Vedantic, Gandhiattempted to modernise religion weaning out its pernicious

elements but at the same time keeping secularism totally spiritual. The writer mentions that

Gandhi was uncomfortable with the use of symbols for political purpose yet he advocates the

efficacy of prayer as the most potent instruments and speaks in “traditional idioms” (Wadhwa,

125). But all in all, “Gandhian political philosophy, like other political philosophies, contains

some temporary, non-essential, rigid and conservative elements as much as it carried some

enduring, broad-minded, modern and universal aspect” (Wadhwa, 111). Though economy to

Gandhi was one of the decisive force of human life yet in had to conform to ethics. His economy

was both revivalist and modernise. There is justification of Gandhian emphasis on grass root

democracy that is seen as an instrument of service rather than domination. On the more

contemporary side we find Gandhi being associated with ultra modernity though whimsical

associations that makes a mockery of Gandhism and makes it an object of pleasurable satire.

Language Literature sources have their limitations as universities usually deals with

languages limited to their language zone. Works in Gujarati and Marathi were difficult to locate.

The few works of Marathi and Gujarat languages selected for the study were the only ones that

could be located in the anthologies of India literature available and internet or some were per

chance available in English translation. However, from the compiled source, an approximation of

Gandhi in these language literature can be made to a certain extent. Mahatma Gandhi conferred

the title of “Rashtriya Saayar” upon Zaverchand Meghni for his poetry replete with nationalistic

spirit. Narayan Desai has been referred to as partly Gandhian because his focus has been on his

father, Mahadev Desai more Gandhi. It is to fulfil his father’s dream that he has written a

biographical work on Gandhi. Harikatha tradition is the traditional way of narrating stories in

India. Rao has used it beautifully in Kanthapura to deal with Gandhi.

71

72