His legacy still matters

THERE has been a flurry of books challenging the Gandhian legacy, with allegations by Ashwin Desai and Goolam Vahed that Gandhi was racist and hypocritical on the issue of violence, and criticism by Arundhati Roy of his views on caste.

I do not describe myself as a Gandhian, but my work seeks to advance non-violence. I did however react when I saw a comment that “Gandhi has been ‘decanonised’”. This makes me smell a rat. Is what is really at stake an idea that Gandhi was some kind of saint, to be judged accordingly? Is Gandhi to be judged by his philosophy of Satyagraha (insisting on truth) more scrupulously than, say, Jan Smuts by his philosophy of Holism?

The issue for me is not the accuracy of what Gandhi is now reported as saying or writing that was at odds with his philosophy of non-violence. Indeed, on some points some criticisms are fair. Gandhi had grown up soaked in the certainties of caste and failed to reject it outright, despite his long-lasting campaign against the practice of untouchability. His attitude to women was little advance on the prevailing male attitudes of the time. Initially, he shared some of the attitudes of white Natal to African people, only with time coming to see them as similarly oppressed by colonialism. So, indeed, he did not provide the leadership that would resolve tensions between African and Indian people (not that anyone else did better). But if we are to be critical, we need to be critical also of the critics, and question the conclusions they draw.

If you seriously confront issues of violence, and I believe that Gandhi truly did, you set yourself up for everyone to point out your limitations and inconsistencies. After all, you will threaten many deeply vested interests of power and bigotry.

My second problem with some critics is that if they prove Gandhi had failings, they feel no need to honour his achievements. The view I take is that he was a leader of remarkable qualities, including the willingness to risk his life to advance his principles. Like other great leaders he took on some limitations of society with sufficient clarity and such commitment that people could be deeply moved by that leadership. For example, in Calcutta in August 1947, a truce between Hindus

“In the wake of unwinding the disastrous changes to the visa rules, the government is offering a R1 million-a-year salary to someone who will set up and run a SocioEconomic Impact Assessment System (Seias).

“This outfit will check proposed legislation for ‘unexpected’ reactions to proposed laws.

“It would, of course, be a whole lot cheaper and more effective if the lawmakers listened to, and heeded, the comments and criticisms that they actually invite the private sector to make before sending the dog’s breakfast to Parliament for approval.”

Tigers

A YOUNG woman needed hospital treatment for a bite to her hand after she tried to pet a Malayan tiger on Halloween night at a zoo in Omaha, Nebraska, in the US. Zoo staff said she was argumentative and appeared intoxicated, according to Sky News.

She got off lightly. It’s not advisable to pet tigers of whatever stripe, Malayan or otherwise. Consider the fate of another young lady who trifled with a tiger.

There was a young lady of Riga, and Muslims began to break down. Gandhi called for leaders to be willing to choose death over the acceptance of violence. Despite his age, he chose to fast until the violence ended. The effect was to bring the militias on both sides to a commitment to working together. Truckloads of weapons were surrendered to his house and the violence ended.

My third point is that honest criticism can lead to a more nuanced judgement of a leader, but can also be turned into a distortion of the significance of visionary leaders. Is Martin Luther King now also to be “decanonised”? King went to India in 1959 to understand Gandhian non-violence and implemented Gandhi’s teaching in the civil rights movement. If Gandhi’s legacy is nothing, what then of the civil rights movement? I can see nothing to be gained in sweeping aside Gandhi’s. What starts as a critical revision of history can feed the most reactionary of purposes. We settle then for a view of history in which every leader who insists that we can be more than consumers of food and gluttons of wealth, is to be picked apart until they are seen as nothing.

Hemson is the director of the International Centre of Nonviolence at Durban University of Technology.

Who smiled as she rode on a tiger. They returned from the ride With the lady inside And the smile on the face of the tiger.

Oops!

IAN Gibson, poet laureate of Hillcrest, reflects on the Dianne Kohler Barnard affair. A foolish MP called Barnard, Politically now dwells in the barnyard; But the smug ANC, Now jumping with glee, Also have those who need a red card.

Tailpiece

A FELLOW walks into the bar of the Poona Club.

“I’d like something tall, ice-cold and full of gin.”

Retired colonel at the end of the bar: “Sah! You’re talking about the woman I love!”

Last word

MY PESSIMISM extends to the point of even suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists. – Jean Rostand