How time changes social and political equations -- Mahatma Gandhi, termed scornfully as “the half-naked Indian Fakir” by Winston Churchill, has now found a larger than life presence in London Parliament Square.
And who else but the current British PM to scatter some flowers at the foot of the statue of the man who advocated protests by peace and not through agitation. Gandhi’s philosophy divides people -- pragmatists and cynics look at it as being somewhat Utopian, while millions still find value in his ideals. Whether one is a supporter of Ghandiji’s ideology or not, one thing is clear, he commands, more or less, wide global respect.
The interesting thing about human history is that we may not approve of romantics, and decide to take their ideals with pinches of salt, but deep inside, there grows a veneration for them simply because, in a world of too much cynicism, their ways touch a chord somewhere deep within us, where perhaps a romantic remains dormant.
Think of Che Guevara rationally: There was no chance that he could have managed to spread the revolution of the masses across the world; dying in a Bolivian jungle was -- sorry to hurt the sentiments of Che aficionados -- the best thing that happened to him.
If he had been alive, given the equations of the cold war and how the international communism-capitalism machinations were unfolding, Guevara as a living man would have descended into long-term depression. People like him are not made to live in Cuba and make a world of their own in their little revolutionary paradise. They want to propagate, take new challenges, and there he would have failed eventually.
Anyway, as British leaders, plus noted Indians, pay tribute to the man represented by a large statue, one cannot help but ask how the current UK generation will reconcile the anti-British stance of Gandhi to the ferocious imperialistic ideals of Winston Churchill, whose statue is also not far away.
If Gandhi was a devoted proponent of Indian independence, Churchill was the opposite. In fact, Winston Churchill, the much-feted prime minister, also recognised for his unwavering efforts towards securing victory in World War II, has been found to be a key player responsible for the Indian famine of 1943 (known in Bengali as the Akaal).
Reportedly, three million people died of starvation, whereas the response from the then colonial masters was simply callous. Controlling the intricate mechanism of food supply was Winston Churchill. As Field Marshal Sir Archibald Wavell writes in his memoir: “Apparently it is more important to save the Greeks and liberated countries than the Indians and there is reluctance either to provide shipping or to reduce stocks in this country.”
In addition, a scorched earth policy was adopted in coastal Bengal where, fearing possible Japanese intrusion, all rice collections were destroyed, thus precipitating the misery of the masses. Anyway, this is not a history lesson, but a few basic facts need to be kept in mind, because when people come to see the statues, how will they relate or reconcile the social/political stands of the men represented?
Churchill is deemed a great Englishman, but perhaps the future faces of Britain, comprising, to a large extent, of ethnic minorities, will dare to question that and decide to look at several dimensions instead of blindly giving in to accepted wisdom.
A few years ago, some British politician was referring to the glorious past of the country, which is somewhat disconcerting, because the past of a colonial power is replete with incidences of repression, shenanigans, avarice, and blatant invasions of other nations. Of course, there are plenty of noteworthy deeds, like improving the judiciary, communication, education, and all that, but often the negatives are simply expunged.
I am curious to know how the two statues will be explained to young people who come to visit Parliament Square. This man was an avid imperialist, with all his actions motivated by interest of his country, securing victory in the last Great War, while the other rose against foreign rule with messages of peace -- both are heroes.
Such explanations will surely inspire a few to look for a deeper answer to reach his/her own conclusion, whereas most visitors will listen and then move to the other statues in the common “I am a tourist and all details are to be taken casually” sort of manner. To end on a positive note, though the past cannot be brushed clean, in a changed world, the complex equations of another time hardly matter anymore.
Look at Germany appearing as the saviour of most European nations -- this would have sounded implausible in the post WWII period! If grudges can’t be discarded, the world will go stagnant so while it’s good to know the truth, life also needs to adapt.
For the current Great Britain, Gandhi’s statue also sends out a message, albeit a subtle one: Whatever the stance, a true great (despite being an opponent once) is always respected in a democracy. How about a pint of Guinness on that!
