Skip to main content

The wane of Indian trust in Gandhi

 There is a statement from Albert Einstein on Gandhi, which always made me think. "generations to come will scarcely believe a man like this walked on earth. " I have always wondered why it would be true. Since Gandhi lived a much more recorded life, I thought it would always be easy to appreciate his efforts for Indian independence. But there is a catch: as we continue to rejoice in peace and independence, we often discount the grief caused by the lack of these. 

Gandhi preached a different policy in a world dominated by wars and violence, where armies saw war as the inevitable means to take back or take control. Even in the current world order, deterrence is considered a soft stand, and imagine a century earlier preaching for non-violence. Gandhi saw non-violence as a means of getting attention and could use it to create a voice. He did so for 40 years, giving the Britishers a negotiation, while most other independence movements were based on armed rebellion. While India's partition is blamed on Gandhi, he was past his political prime and thus was more of an advisor. It was Nehru, his protege, who bears much of the blame.

But even in his leadership, Gandhi was often questioned. Subash, when he felt that negotiations had made the British believe the upper class and Indian politicians had become puppets of the British regime rather than being a voice of the oppressed. While he respected Gandhi for putting India as a forerunner for independence, he believed it was high time they raised some noise for an independence/dominion status. In his approach to religion, Savarkar conveyed to Gandhi that Islam had been forced on the Indians and that by appeasing the minority, Gandhi was keeping the wounds of invasions alive for another day. 

Despite this, he remains one of the world's truest leaders, with the discipline and perseverance to steer a country to independence without violence. In terms of modern-day negotiations
: a positive sum game.

Popular posts from this blog

Birth of a flood - a poet's admire of rain

The sky is almost dark, save for those last golden tinges that would fade in no time. As palm trees mark the oblivion, a muddy reflection forms the ground. The last few days were mostly rainy. So profound is our love for rain. And why wouldn't we? Unlike most other seasons, rain is so tender. A drop of patience which is about to reach its final destiny. Every time I look at raindrops, they remind me of a struggle. A journey that begins with summer in an aura of dry and burning heat. And in no time, the drop loses its sources. The long-held identity of its mother. With the loss of identity, an awakening awaits. The pleasure of reaching out and bonding. As our drop moves up and up the end of the sky, it realises the futility of pride and the necessity to bond. This comes with age. Not until it is near Earth does it agree to meet with other wanderers of the new world. And finally, all our drops reach the cold atmosphere. The coldness makes life dreary and lonely. As the youthfulne...
dive in...

Turning back from pull to push

Two recent campaigns deserve attention from marketing enthusiasts, one of Campa Cola (reenergised by the Reliance Group) and of Tata Sampann's species. The challenges these two brands face are too distinct from one another. Campa, on the one hand, aims to fight the global brands like Pepsi and Coca-Cola, whereas Sampann looks to create a market in indian spices that has been dominated by local players like MDH and Everest. However, their strategies have something in common: getting the distributors to stock more of their products on the shelves. Campa is offering the distributors twice the margins, while Sampann is leveraging its vast portfolio to make stocking only Tata products a win for the distributors. Image credit: Economic Times To understand why this is happening, and what makes this interesting, one has to look back on the history of marketing, more specifically the shift from a push to a pull-based marketing, where the focus of the brands shifted from pushing their produc...
dive in...

Politics of Perpetuity

There are obvious downsides to democracy. When we look at the distribution of opinion on a particular issue, it generally follows a normal distribution. This implies that to achieve the majority, it's theoretically advised to stick to the centre. And this love for mediocrity makes democracy allergic to politically solid decisions.  Along with it, democracies tend to be the rooster for sweet talkers. And that is an outcome rather than a voluntary trait. Primarily because most voters need to be equipped to deal with the complexities of the field. For example, it could be more practical for an electrical engineer to comprehend medical patterns and the pandemic's effect on production. Thus, democratic institutions need people managers who have two keywords to watch out for - sweet talking and status quo. However, democracies have been hugely popular. And people have reported being happier. Whether this is induced, indoctrinated or influenced is another question. But history has cho...
dive in...