And then Gandhi came. He was like a powerful current of fresh air that made us stretch ourselves and take deep breaths, like a beam of light that pierced the darkness and removed the scales from our eyes, like a whirlwind that upset. most of all the working of people's mind. He did not descend from the top; he seemed to emerge from the millions of India..- Jawaharlal NehruLike most of you, I read all about the 50th year of Independence. My regret is that we missed an historic opportunity of reminding ourselves of Gandhi's moral and political philosophy, his sensitivity to oppression and exploitation, and his contribution to heightening popular consciousness during the liberation struggle. And my disappointment is with the feeble attempts to understand or interpret the Gandhian legacy, more so when a beleaguered nation is supposedly engaged in fighting simultaneously on political, social and economic fronts.True, Gandhi's moral and political philosophy had severe limitations. It is also true that he lost the magic touch after having led and guided the civil disobedience campaigns. His concern for the plight of Dalits was genuine but their empowerment, which would have caused an upper caste backlash, was not his political agenda. He opposed separate electorates for them. He did not deal with their leaders, notably B.R. Ambedkar, on equal terms.Gandhi's method of dealing with Muslims was, likewise, based on mistaken beliefs. He treated them as a distinct pan-Indian entity and approached them as a monolithic religious group and not as differentiated cultural, linguistic and economic entities. He did not turn to the regional Muslim communities or take cognisance of their regional aspirations. He spent years in the company of liberal and secular-minded Muslims without being receptive to their modernist interpretation of Islam. He regarded the traditionalist view as the more authentic voice of India's Muslims.It is easy to disagree with Gandhi on many such issues and dwell on his inconsistencies and contradictions. Yet his conception of state and society, with its emphasis on morality and non-violence, demands serious attention.Gandhi was a Hindu, but not a Hindu leader. He deployed Hinduised symbols, which appealed to Hindus and Muslims alike in rural areas, to unite and not to divide his growing constituency. Indeed, his political engagements developed out of his concern to articulate the interests of the Indian people. That is why Mohamed Ali stated in the early-1920s: ``It is Gandhi, Gandhi, Gandhi, that has got to be dinned into the people's ears, because he means Hindu-Muslim unity, non-cooperation, dharma and Swaraj''.M.A. Jinnah did not endorse such a view then or later. One should understand why this was so, though there is no earthly reason to compare his political trajectory with that of Gandhi or publicise his fulmination's against the Mahatma. Why should any book published in the West be the reference point for a Gandhi-Jinnah debate? Is it important to be told that Jinnah spent less than Gandhi on train fares despite traveling first class, since he only had to buy one ticket? Or, that Gandhi believed in the increment of human excrement, whereas the elitist Jinnah did not wish to soil his carefully scrubbed hands by consorting with the masses'.At the same time, one is ill-served by those who demonise Jinnah or interpret his role from the lofty heights of Indian nationalism. He should not be belittled for rejecting the Congress creed; others did the same more consistently. He should not be singled out as the `villain', the sole leader responsible for the Partition. The nationalist rhetoric can no longer obscure the role of certain key Congress and Hindu Mahasabha players in signing united India's death-warrant.Jinnah's political trajectory can best be studied in relation to the complex interplay of forces that created spaces for the Pakistan demand to gather momentum, the subtle changes in institutional and bureaucratic structures, the shifts in political alignments and the bitter struggle for gaining access to power, patronage and authority. Still, how did Sarojini Naidu's ``Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity'' become Pakistan's Qaid-i-Azam? Why did Jinnah repudiate his own liberal and secular creed? How and why did he succeed in mobilising so many Muslims in so short a time?The explanations lie elsewhere and not in the pedantic debates centered around the whims and idiosyncrasies of individuals. Jinnah was not a political force when Gandhi launched the Rowlatt Satyagraha and the non-cooperation movement. He searched in vain for a role in British politics, while Gandhi led the spectacular Dandi March. During the 1937 elections, he was dismayed to discover that Gandhi's Congress and not his Muslim League was the people's party. Yet, he was not one to lick his wounds. He bounced back and used his bargaining skills to extract major political concessions from a beleaguered war-time government. That was the time when Gandhi, his bete noire, languished in British jails.The two men had little in common. Jinnah was a constitutionalist who relished debating finer points of law and legal processes. He was often impetuous and sometimes reckless in promoting his favourite projects; hence the use of religion to establish his moral authority on his allies. He was not inclined to define his long-term agenda. He had no blueprint to cope with the demands of a modern nation-state. His overall world-view failed to transcend the confines of the law courts.The Mahatma was a popular and charismatic figure. He was a powerful communicator. He possessed a sharp and intuitive mind, with the ability to marshal his resources towards ends clearly discerned and goals clearly defined. He was an innovator, a synthesiser of diverse political and philosophical traditions. He developed a political theory grounded in the unique experiences and articulated in terms of the indigenous philosophical vocabulary.Such a man was, alas, reduced to being a figurehead in the Congress hierarchy during 1945-47. Humbled and marginalised by his erstwhile colleagues, he was a lonely figure at the time of Independence and Partition. He moved to riot-ravaged areas to provide the healing touch. Here was somebody who practiced what he preached. Here was somebody who reminded us through his ideas and actions that a second partition must not be allowed to take place. This is the Mahatma's legacy for you.
