WATCHING GANDHI AGAIN

I watched Gandhi again yesterday after a long time, and realised a few things, or rather, those things which I already knew were underscored more strongly.

The British were gentlemen. I am not trying to downplay their brutalities, their cruel suppresion of the 1857 revolt, or the inhuman massacre at Jalianwala Bagh. Not at all. But it's still true that on a relative basis, we perhaps got the most benign ruler. If we had been ruled by the French, Japanese, Portugese, or Spanish, I shudder to think how it would have been, and Gandhi may not have lived to fight. As it was, the British were reasonably courteous to Gandhi, they used to make sure he was not treated too harshly in prison (his spare frame and frail body helped here), and they used to have armed escorts to take him to prison (I cannot believe that the armed escorts were employed to stop him from escaping). Perhaps they were not doing this out of genuine respect, but I believe they did it out of minimum respect.

The fact is that non-violence places an enormous moral burden on the the perpetrator, because he knows he is suppressing and tendering injustice on an individual who is doing absolutely nothing to stop him. Thus, it suddenly deprives him of an excuse, which is that his adversary is retaliating against him. He is in a position where he cannot justify his reprehensible actions on any grounds. Sooner or later, every perpetrator has to crack under such a tremendous moral burden. The British certainly were ones who in my opinion would give in in such a way sooner or later. And perhaps Gandhi was astute enough to realise this fact about them.

I always like to believe that the reason for the minimum moral sentiment of the British was democracy. Although this ideal was many times flaunted abroad by them under a hypocritical guise, the fact remains that it was they who gave democracy to the world, who tolerated if not encouraged, dissent. From one side, they were facing this potent weapon of non-violence wielded by us, and on the other side, they had a lofty tradition of democracy, independence, and free speech behind them. In The British parliament, there were Lords after all, who complained and chastised British actions in India, if only out of political ambitions. But the combination must have been a thorny source of discomfort to The Crown. The great advantage of democracy is that because it allows dissent, policy makes are always answerable to counterpoints, and their conscience is therefore constantly challenged by the viewpoints of others. It surely must be harder in such a situation to tenaciously hold to your own viewpoint, which many in the first place already regard as morally reprehensible. For this reason, I believe we are relatively lucky that it were the British who were our rulers.

One quality of Gandhi that caught my attention is that in spite of having such profound will, ideals, and conviction in himself, he was not brooding, distant, or utterly philosophical. By many accounts, he was an extremely simple person, and quite a playful one, ready to indulge in jokes and self-effacing comments. He could communicate as an ordinary person with the simplest of people, the poor and the young. He believed deeply in god, yet was not overly religious in his daily life and principles, and in his talk. In his heart, he really seems to have been a peace loving person of the highest morals. I always believe that Gandhi did appreciate the good things about Britain, including their language, culture and history, their laws (not as applied to India necessarily), and other things which were typically English- after all, he was an English-educated lawyer. One thing he said struck me as being sincere, and I believe he meant it. "When the British leave our country, we want them to leave us as friends". But he knew all too well that when friends stay for a disproportionately long time, their presence becomes a nuisance.