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

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...

The Theatre Era

As tough times await us, it's frivolous to talk about theatres. But doesn't it look like theatres would go out of fashion before the pandemic ends( But would it ?? ) With the footfall on OTT platforms rising daily. Looking at a screen stuck to the chair, with no ability to pause or even play subtitles, sounds so technologically inferior. The blockbuster release has increasingly been  generously funded , mega-multi-starrer films, which keep running sequels until they go unprofitable . In fact, content is sometimes the second priority; the fan base and the festive season come first. Over the years, movie houses have mastered this art. Roping in top actors into characters that have gone synonymous with their name. The OTT platforms, however, are earmarked for the content. Their promise to give a shot to the aspiring director who doesn't have funds to compete against the mult-million movie releases. Thus i n its cast and crew shines the raw, untamed art which any critic would b...
dive in...

What if "Maggus" don't have a choice ?

There are two possible reasons for stopping by this post; you happened to be among those hard-working study-serious college-goer who lament not being perceived as fun by his/her peers. Or you have a soft spot for these people, striving to pay off the debt from when he single-handedly completed your group project. There could be a hundred other reasons, so let's jump into the matter. Let's construct a scenario with simplified assumptions. Suppose there are 5 students in your project team. Each of you has decided whether you want to work or not. If you decide to work, you must put in an effort of value "e". The project will be possible if at least 3 of the students participate. A successful project rewards everyone in the team "r", which is greater in value than "e". So what do you think will happen. Let's assume that each of you is rational (which secretly implies you will maximise your personal gain whenever possible). Will all five contribute ...
dive in...