BOOK REVIEW

“GOODBYE TO GANDHI”: TRAVELS IN THE NEW INDIA
BY BERNARD IMHASLY
PENGUIN VIKING
PRICE RS 425.00

Prior to their arrival into India, and accustomed to neat definitions for countries (such as chocolates, mountains, punctuality, secret bank accounts define Switzerland,) foreigners have the image of India as a land of snake-charmers, elephants, Rajahs, poverty, the Taj Mahal and Gandhi; however, as soon as they step out of the airport their jaws drop, as do their images. At once they are taken aback, often disgusted, surprised, delighted, awe-struck, happy and then perplexed. India is the unyielding, impetuous and enigmatic Diva who is larger than life, better understood through a song on life, “kaisi paheli hai tu kaisi paheli, zindagani..”

No 200-page book can contain this Diva without failing, and Switzerland’s Bernard Imhasly, accustomed to neat, easily definable little countries such as Switzerland and Germany, falters and stumbles. Every chronicler finds himself reduced to a Lilliputian when confronted by India, and Imhasly himself admits, “the mammoth Indian subcontinent that covers 3.3 Million square kilometers…far exceeds the limits of a book.... The cultural diversity, socioeconomic and religious fault lines, the sheer mass of humanity defy extrapolation…” He adds that it is because of this that he moves from India to Gandhi, stating that the book is “an account of travels in modern India, with Gandhi as my guide.” He measures current issues against Gandhi’s life and ideas, observes if India adopts his idealism or ignores it. The book attempts to see if India passes the litmus “Gandhi” test, by seeing today’s India through the prism of a Gandhi who was born in 1869, a full 139 years ago.

But the moot question is, can and should India be reduced to Gandhi? Indira Gandhi tried to narrow India down to “India is Indira, Indira is India” only to find herself thrown out once by a disgruntled Indian electorate, and then later, gunned down by none other than Indian guards. Also, would India be such a huge growing global power today if it had followed the Gandhian vision based on swadeshi? Of couse India would not be a nuclear power, and thus, the next question begs an answer, how far would Gandhi’s non-violence have taken India if Pakistan has the bomb and India didn’t, would there even be an India left?

In his essay, “Reflections On Gandhi”, George Orwell observed, “There is reason to think that Gandhi, who after all was born in 1869, did not understand the nature of totalitarianism and saw everything in terms of his own struggle against the British government. The important point here is not so much that the British treated him forbearingly as that he was always able to command publicity…he believed in "arousing the world," which is only possible if the world gets a chance to hear what you are doing.” Imhasly also observes, “Gandhi, had undoubtedly been one of the twentieth century’s media masters. He would astutely estimate the impact of his messages and use powerful symbols to convey them...” Orwell adds, “It is difficult to see how Gandhi's methods could be applied in a country where opponents of the regime disappear in the middle of the night and are never heard of again. Without a free press and the right of assembly, it is impossible not merely to appeal to outside opinion, but to bring a mass movement into being, or even to make your intentions known to your adversary.” Orwell points out that Gandhian methods were doomed to failure, when one is dealing with lunatics or with misguided fanatics of the Hitlerian kind. In that event, how would one deal with terrorists and suicide bombers?

Imhasly’s “Goodbye to Gandhi” is a loving yet bleak portrayal of an India that has mostly gone way off the Gandhian mark. Well written and painstakingly put together, the book covers the writer’s journey through some parts of India. One wonders why he mostly focuses on non-Congress ruled states, as if he dare not offend the ruling Congress sensibilities at the centre. He interviews Modi, Togadia and Sudharshan, but never interviews a single Congress leader, which is altogether surprising since Gandhi was a Congressman for long and it is not Modi or Sudarshan but the Congress that even today swears by Gandhi. Such sins of omission are telling, and they what they tell isn’t pretty.

Imhasly finds proof that Gandhi is more irrelevant than relevant; more honoured in the breach than in the observance; and that Gandhi is a “thorn” for his opponents and an inconvenience for his avowed followers who speak of Gandhi and have nothing to do with him really. The excellent style of writing and succinct descriptions makes Imhasly’s book easy reading. Apart from a few oversights, such as the absence of notes to explain foreign italicized terms, such as “weltanschauung” and “schadenfreude” etc, and the complete absence of a Bibliography and Index at the end, the book is interesting. The high point of the book is the chapter, “The Mothers of Manipur” where Imhasly reports on his heart-felt attempts at meeting with Irom Sharmila. The chapter is an absolute treasure as he chronicles one woman’s brave ongoing attempts at non-violent protest. On 2nd November 2000, Sharmila decided that she would protest against the killing of murdered innocents by going on a hunger-strike. She was arrested on Novemeber 11, 2000 and has been under custody force-fed to this day. Absolutely top-class reporting follows as the journalist in Imhasly refuses to give up so that he can meet with Sharmila and hand over a book to her while she is in custody, and despite everything, fails.

However, Imhasly takes the usual “secular’ route several times. Although 3000 people were killed after Rajiv Gandhi became the Prime Minister, it is not Rajiv Gandhi but the “Congress party goons” who are regarded as guilty despite Rajiv Gandhi’s famous “when a big tree falls” remark; however, when 2000 people were killed in Gujarat, Imhasly quite clearly levels his finger on Modi. No condemnation for the former, of course. Even-handedness not being his strength, he interviews a Modi but never a Sonia Gandhi or a Tytler or even a Sharad Pawar to know what happened in Delhi or Mumbai. Even when the hated BJP puts up and elects a Muslim as the President of India and the Congress opposes it, Imhasly prefers not to beat the Congress for it, but instead beats the BJP by hiding behind the “liberal critics” who “saw in the choice of a Muslim, a few months after the terrible riots in Gujarat, a fig leaf to conceal its anti-Muslim stance.” Talk about hatred!

The final question that Imhasly will need to address in all honesty, is the Orwellian question, “And is it not possible for one whole culture to be insane by the standards of another?” How can a Judeo-Christian culture or society fully comprehend the pure Islamic thought? How can a devout Saudi Arabian comprehend the agnosticism of the Dalai Lama? Thus, can Imhasly understand why Jinnah would not allow Gandhi to define him or Muslims and saw Muslims as a separate state? Jinnah spoke for the refusal of the Muslim psyche to fit into the Gandhi mould, and Pakistan, today regarded as the most dangerous nation in the world, was born; in some measure, there are several Dalits and Sangh parivarwallahs, who similarly protest the Gandhian straitjacket. Imhasly’s question is pertinent, “Yet until this day Gandhi is a red rag for most Dalits. What are the roots of this animus? Is it another instance of Gandhi’s failure, just as he had failed to bring together Hindus and Muslims?” It is when Imhasly offers history a la Romila Thapar (on Somnath) and insights from people who hate the Sangh parivar such as Mallika Sarabhai, and the Tehelka, it is then that Imhasly does the greatest disservice to his book because his political bias shows up and distorts his study of the country attempts to fathom. It is again disappointing that Imhasly’s scholarship is found so wanting as to disregard the work of fellow Europeans such as Elst and Gautier; pages from their Gautier’s study of India, “A Western Journalist on India” would have offered him the dimension he has denied both himself and his readers.

While Imhasly is right in concluding that India has mostly failed Gandhi, he needs to question the yardstick itself; why should the vast country yield to any human being, however great he might be? Even one of the greatest Indian mystics, Shree Ramana Maharshi, Gandhi’s contemporary, did not join hands with Gandhi, his path being that of a jnani, and not of a karmayogi. Gandhi could as little contain Ramana Maharshi as Ramana Maharshi could contain Gandhi, and they were just two of the many worlds that co-exist in diverse India.

India is the growing, dynamic, uncontainable, living force, free, to quote the song on life, with a little twist in the end, “thaama han, roka isko kisne, hai yeh to hai beheta paani, kaisi paheli hai yeh kaisi, Hindustani…”