People are fallible and policies should be questioned at all times. I’d sure like to read more about what these national blunders were that you attribute to Nehruvian and Gandhian policies.

Someone once told me that the ancient Indians figured out government/economics and all that very well. Now when I ask them the question that how is it that we find ourselves in such a mess if that were true. The answer I get blames all of it squarely on the long years of foreign rule on India… I find that a little too hard to believe that a society could reach such an apex in its glory and then succumb to external forces without any problems inherent in itself.

I keep coming back to thinking of what you’ve just so eloquently put forth. Idol worship and glorification of people and not enough criticism of their fallacies and mistakes have led us on this path of degeneracy.

The only prudent thing would be to make an about-turn and not go down that path anymore.

Yes, personally, I do believe that we spend too much time analysing one particular question that you say is your concern , i.e. “If our policies were bad, who was responsible?”. And by far, much of what I have read so far (and not just in your blog) seems to indicate that we affix responsibility more out of hindsight than any true appreciation of the context in which such decisions were made and the times in which these people lived.

You said “India has to look very critically at the burden we bear of the legacy of Gandhi. We must choose to free ourselves from a blind uncritical acceptance of a defunct ideology.”

Lol. There is no legacy of Gandhi. If he was around, he would have laughed at that statement. Defunct ideology? Except maybe for Anna Hazare’s modest experiment at Ralegaon, it has never existed in the first place. I would rather wish more people were “at least aware of his ideology”.

Finally, am I heaping abuse on the messenger? Is anyone here pretending that there are no hard problems and no hard work needs to be done? To say we are comfortably numb to the real state of affairs is to give yourself too much credit.

Now, Gandhi’s ideas were not all that original, he basically was influenced by Thoreau and Emerson, and where he excelled was drawing analogies with the Gita and applying this in the Indian context. This is something the Marxists could never do. If you read Thoreau’s thoughts on Civil Disobedience, you get a good idea.

Of course, all this is nothing new. Everyone knows that Gandhi was influenced by Thoreau. The point I am making is that Gandhi was a great man who excelled in a cetain environment. It is not just the person, but the combination with circumstances that create a cult. The same Gandhi would have been fodder in Nazi Germany. When there are no huge turning points, heroes cannot be created. Indira and Rajiv and Sonia will be footnotes in history, though they had and will have moments in the sun. Self rule was a big turning point. Gandhi represented the end of an era and Nehru a beginning of another. That is why they are idols. To either praise them effusively or to lambast them for future faults of society is just not useful, leave alone right or wrong. Every culture or country or society needs a few heroes, and we had a couple. As with all worship, there is no sense of proportion. Very exaggerated, no doubt and damaging, absolutely, but we just have to pick up the pieces and move on.

People like Gandhi and Nehru have left behind a stong legacy. Its up to us to mould their ideals into what suits our country the best. Self reliance, self denial, disobedience were the need of the hour (again, this is debatable) 60 years ago. Continuing on that legacy is not pragmatic, and Gandhiji need not be “blamed” for a lack of vision in the later generations.

BTW, I do object to the remark about Kasturba… what they did (or did not) in their own bedroom is none of our business.

I believe anti-violence (Non-violence does not appropriately describe the spirit of ahimsa) was the right way for India to gain independence.