Not Treating Gandhi like God
This is admirable chutzpah, for these ads are meant to make us think. They challenge the self-righteous among us — South Africans (and others who opposed apartheid), Tibetans (and their global supporters), and Indians (and Gandhi fans worldwide), telling them not to rush to judgement, but to reflect on the message. Far from ridiculing these exceptional men, the ads show how Mandela, the Dalai Lama and Gandhi could have led cushy, comfortable lives if they had not stood up for what they believed in.
Isn’t that exactly the point that true Gandhians would like to be emphasized? That Gandhi chose to lead the cause that he genuinely believed in instead of living a life of apathy or even comfort (he was a London-educated barrister after all). Worshiping our leaders to a point of blind faith is the hallmark of Indian politics (we got a whiff in the U.S. after Palin was nominated by McCain) and questioning them or showing them in any other light except for a glowing halo is unacceptable. Hasn’t the inquiring mind leading to questions been the sign of progress? Would we rather accept something that we were told or find it for ourselves by hearing other contrary opinions. Mind you, if you are a genuine and firm believer of Gandhi, you would even encourage all sorts of questions leading to a healthy debate of his life, principles, beliefs, and consequences of his actions.
Gandhi in today’s India is either worshiped blindly or reviled without reason in order to fit into one of the two camps that try to define his legacy. The irony is that if it was up to Gandhi, he would rather encourage a permanent debate on his life rather than settle for hero worship. Munnbhai showed us that Gandhigiri might not just be possible in our life today but also popular. As Salil concludes:
The flaws don’t diminish these men, they make them more interesting, revealing their complexities. Ignoring that and seeing them only as icons is our flaw. That turns men into idols — ironically, that’s the effect of Muslim protests against the cartoons. The Jyllands-Posten ads make us think differently. That’s the point: remember Apple’s remarkable campaign, Think Different, from the 1990s, a take-off on IBM’s slogan, Think. One of the memorable posters in that campaign showed — Gandhi.
So true.
“Not Treating Gandhi like God” [Short URL: http://www.ipatrix.com/?p=2742] was published Thursday, September 18th, 2008 at 3:00 pm by Patrix, filed under Ads, India, Media, Photography, and tagged as Advertising, free speech, Gandhi, India, Media. Both comments and linkbacks are closed.
Related Posts
Worshiping our leaders to a point of blind faith is the hallmark of Indian politics
I think it’s a global phenomenon not limited to Indian politics alone – Mao, Lenin, Thatcher, Churchill, Ho Chi Minh, Guevara, JFK, Reagan, Castro…..I could go on. :)
Along with Palin, I’d also add Obama. ;)
Agreed with your points about the picture – it’s brilliantly done!!
1 year ago reply@Amit: True. And agree about Obama as well. But at least half of the Democratic party didn’t. Palin supporters who hadn’t heard of her couple of weeks back won’t change their opinion after all the new things that are getting uncovered now.
1 year ago replyHave they done anything with Martin Luther King yet? I’d like to see some ;) – I wonder how it would have been put. I do have some ideas, well, which are, ahem pretty controversial to share.
1 year ago replyI am not very sure about my feelings for that article, to be honest. The ads have neither been published, nor been criticized by any Gandhi-supporters, in India so far (AFAIK). So, it reads like an unnecessary lecture to me. One can’t presume that offense will be taken and then proceed to lecture why it shouldn’t be so. And if 37 people in India do take offense at it, they deserve to be ignored rather than lectured.
Social values take time to change. And in India, they are changing. In the process, the less lecturing is involved, the better it is for this process. People don’t like being lectured, or shown their faults.
Such lectures would be appropriate if India was really going down the competitive intolerance path. However, IMO, the increased number of offense-taking instances is essentially a reflection of the growth of media (and sometimes, even provocation by the media) and not a true reflection of the Indian society. In non-media evidence of the Indian social values (which is to say ‘look around’), you would find that Indians are far more liberal about these things than they used to be. So yes, while you are more likely to find (in the media) small-town lawyers filing cases against the Mallika Sherawats and the Rakhi Sawants, you are far less likely to find any genuine support for such lawyers – either in the public, or in the courts.
And when has offense ever been about logic or detailed analysis of the type “what would Gandhi do?”? It is about sensibilities, which are as logical as people – which is to say, not at all.
1 year ago replyThe problem is people see only the popular side of a personality, that Gandhi is non violent and truthful. But he could have had an other side and People refuse to see that and I am not saying that you should see the other side and term Gandhi as bad either. What people should know is that it only took a normal human being to come out of what he had done and turn into an extraordinary soul. So when Gandhi or any popular person is portrayed in a different way people get angry over it because they are not used to seeing that person in that way.
1 year ago reply@Supremus: I’m sure they would have. And I don’t think it would have gotten the response you expected but then you never know. And feel free to spout any controversial ideas. Whom are you afraid of? :)
@Vivek: I admit it might be a pre-emptive lecture but given the past experiences, I wouldn’t fault Salil for expecting such an attack. Mostly I think such protests are more political rather than social or cultural. But I disagree about not wanting to lecture. It may be perceived as a lecture but then rants against societal norms always have been. You’ll not see attitudes change unless people start ‘lecturing’. You say social values take time to change. Maybe but when they do change, it is always the results of constant ‘lecturing’ which leads to a triggering point when such a change occurs. Change in social values, IMO, have not really been changed gradually but instead needed a flashpoint. Eg. U.S. Civil War, Civil Rights Movement, Suffrage, India’s unaccountability problem, etc.
@Dinesh: People always get angry when you show them the other perspective. Making them aware of something that they know exist but refuse to acknowledge always makes things dicey. But then that’s where a healthy debate comes into the picture.
1 year ago replyWell, I have no intentions of losing my job by posting controversial statements and make dos, but I am pretty u know where I am leading to.
1 year ago replySupremus, you mean that MLK was a stud-muffin who knew how to party? ;)
Jealous? :D
Hey, maybe he got some ideas from Gandhi – after all, his non-violent and civil disobedience actions were inspired by Gandhi’s methods.
1 year ago reply@Supremus: Honestly I don’t know where you are leading to. But J Edgar Hoover had an entire dossier on MLK so you may not be the only one with the scoop :)
1 year ago replyCouldn’t stop myself from commenting on this post. I for one get scornful looks from people when I say anything about not treating Gandhi like GOD! I am glad you were brave enough to bring this up!
1 year ago reply@Sam: True. healthy discussion of Gandhi’s strengths and flaws but I don’t like the insults thrown at him for the sake of being seen as anti-Gandhi. I hope you aren’t the latter.
And keep commenting. Makes me write more often :)
1 year ago reply