Gandhi is universally recognized as an apostle of non violence. Much if this myth is propagated by Richard Attenborough in his film Gandhi. Bhagat Singh by comparison took a violent stand against the British rule, while Gandhi was more accommodating and that perhaps is the reason that he is not that eulogised.
Bhagat Singh was a serious challenger to Gandhi’s leadership. This was perhaps the guiding principle for Gandhi who failed to intervene decisively for Bhagat Singh and his companions with the British. In fact at the Karachi convention of the Congress party 3 days after Bhagat Singh hanging, Gandhi had the mortification to be greeted with black flags by the people. It is on record that Pattabhi Sitaramayya, a top Congress leader and Gandhi loyalist, conceded: "It is no exaggeration to say that at the moment Bhagat Singh’s name was as widely known all over India and was as popular as Gandhi’s".
The real issue was the threat to Gandhi’s leadership. What if Bhagat Singh had not been hanged? There is every chance that he would have galvanized the youth and weaned them away from Gandhi. This was what Gandhi wanted to avoid, a challenge to his ideas. Even much later he wrote that he did not agree with the concept off Bhagat Singh, as violence was not a creed he could accept.
Bhagat Singh was too young to understand that an organization was necessary to channelize a movement and thus his act was a sporadic act of violence that was doomed to failure. On the other hand Gandhi mindful of the future could not allow Bhagat Singh a place in the sun, where he may have been eclipsed, hence his Luke warm stand on the hanging of Bhagat Singh. Apologists for Gandhi have their work cut out.
No comments:
Post a Comment