|
|
|
Gandhi And Tagore |
|
Two of India’s loftiest minds expressed
themselves in thoughts and deeds that ran a parallel course. They often met
and supplemented each other by strong affinities and contrasts. Persons with
dissimilar back-grounds of talents and training, they were yet united, as
the excerpts will show-and these could be indefinitely prolonged –in faith,
in integral service and in the purity of the means used for a creative
revolution. To their passion for social reform and for India’s independence
and growth, they brought an unalterable loyalty to the emerging
international order.
Man’s humanity demanded an
inclusive view of civilization. No nation or race could usurp the place of
the unfolding wholeness, but both Gandhi and Tagore knew the context as will
as the transcending values. They brought their sense of human history to
bear upon the daily events and trials that faced them. Hence we find in a
poet, and in a saint at- work, the same intense concern for the dignity of
the individual, for economic and educational justice, for disciplined
freedom in the enterprises of personal and social change.
Surprisingly, the artist and the
actional sage often reversed their role. Gandhi wrote with flawless literary
skill, and was devoted to silence and prayerful service, while Tagore
labored against malaria and malnutrition and gave all his earnings to start
a rural school. Neither of them could be confined to the separately narrow
categories we employ to define great leadership. They proclaimed a single
fellowship in human responsibility. Enlivened by wit, self-criticism, warmth
of personal affection and imagination, these men enhanced their own
relationship and influenced a large human community. Both of them a stood up
against violence and war, no matter which nation or individual joined the
retaliatory cycle, as a betrayal. India, and the retaliatory cycle, as a
betrayal. India, and the greater world, caught by conflicts and even and
existential crisis, could ponder upon the witness, in detailed clarity,
provided by the two contemporaries.
The United Vision
The over-arching influence of
Gandhiji and Rabindranath almost wholly encom- passed our days. Wonder and
surprise entered our lives through new poetry, peace marches, songs and
campaigns which these leaders had brought into a dramatic focus. In them we
saw the symbol into a dramatic focus. In them we saw the symbol of a
renaissance that spread from Bengal and Gujarat, and from all over India,
but while we felt a cultural exhilaration, we were made aware of the deeper
historical current which shaped our hidden destiny. For neither of them
allowed us to identify geographical India or its offerings with the whole
human outreach. The fact that Shantiniketan or Sabarmati or Sevagram were
not frontiers, that no final soothsayer guarded the gates, made us seek
leadership from within, and rejoice in the inspiration provided by
greatness.
Speaking as one among countless
others, I remember how even before we knew Tagore and Gandhi as men of
genius, we knew them as men. They were members of the family who drew us by
the power of love and magnanimity. Their unpredictable “experiments with
truth”, their unlimited travel and many errands dazzled and intrigued
“experiments with truth”, their unlimited travel and many errands dazzled
and intrigued us. And yet their gifted personality was there. So long as no
deification was involved, and the motherland was not turned into geolatrical
device, our patriotism as well as our devotion to national or international
men of character was safe. Actually we felt an additional security because
pureness of heart and spiritual were before us: we did not need the sanction
of occult or psychological magnetism.
The commotion that Gandhi created
as a lone witness in racist South Africa, and later in India’s non-violent
resistance to indigenous as well as foreign brands of tyranny and
discrimination came from a “still center”. Tagore opposed nation-states
defined in terms of financial and military despotism. We too spoke from the
quiet moment and experience of human faith. They were no war-heroes or
felicity-experts, and needed no prestigious cunning or diplomacy to
manipulate public opinion. As I look back on those decades when Gandhi and
Tagore guided our millions-as they still do, per haps in the deeper levels
of our wisdom and initiative – I am astonished at the blend of humanity and
towering leadership they represented. Even the crowds that gathered round
them felt the paradox of great events. More momentous that the processions
and the urgent throng were the hushed preparations that continued. Banners
and shouts were suddenly found to be irrelevant.
Tagore’s greatness was built upon
the shattering sorrows of a sensitive life which he had conquered. His
eminence abroad had already been gained by some early poems and songs he had
composed in riverine Bengal. Even the translations could not wholly remove
the original meaning and the atmosphere. So when he stood before audiences,
there was a pause. The important event was not in his speech or his
appearance, but in what he had done, unknown to others. Or in what they knew
as his true creation: the evening scene turned into a lyric, the total gift
of his wealth to start and international center. Think of the enormous
gathering at a Gandhi prayer meeting or of the sea of humanity joining him
on the Salt March an ocean that no king Canute could turn back.
When Tagore crossed India to visit
Gandhi in prison, we saw them meet with hardly a word. Gandhi was fasting,
if necessary to death, to prevent a complete betrayal of democracy by a
power-driven government; and there a few trees, a grassy yard in front of
the prisoner. Outside, the empire had prepared its squadrons and battalions
as forceful rulers still do in the name of civilization. But this other epic
of greatness, of moral power pitted against mere power, of two friends
meeting, not for strategy but for profound sharing, was writing differently.
Thus the supreme events happened
simply because the utter sacrifices, the revelatory experience, were
cadenced and almost concealed in modest action, even when the action
appeared majestic. The undramatic arrival of Gandhiji back from Africa to
India, and to Tagore’s ashram-where he, his family and to Tagore’s ashram –
where he, his family and friends found their immediate home – their first
conversation which followed, their discovery of an identity, as well as
their decision, each to follow his own creative path; these “preparatory
events” led to vast and spectacular sequences which became a part of their
own and India’s history. The discerning mind understands their revolutionary
meaning.
Starting movements emerged out of
deeply apprehended truths. Their mutual agreements carried the seal of
life-long commitment. Three of these factors can be mentioned here: they
believed in divine guidance in the pursuit and fulfillment of human service;
both of them denounced violence and discrimination, and such definitions of
religion as supported those revolutionize existing institutions so that
committed themselves to spreading education and enlightenment, particularly
in view of the needful understanding and interdependence in an emerging
world order.
Such decisions, made from
different back-grounds, but with full concurrence by the two leaders, became
more significant as nations were plunged into cycles of massive fratricide,
and India itself, at the movements of freedom, was torn into bleeding
frontiers. Evidently the nation-state concepts of freedom and progress had
failed, a dynamic international change that reshape and substantiate
perennial human values. A practical, far-reaching adjective revolution alone
could save mankind from itself.
The greater arrival of human
awareness and opportunities could not be accepted as man’s ultimate
disaster. It was a new beginning. We could make it so; the resources of a
global humanity were available at this crucial hour. Here the applicational
morality of Tagore and Gandhi, their vision of history and their unwavering
service are a continued challenge to civilization.
Two Gifts
In perspective, Tagore’s
Visva-Bharti and Gandhi’s Satyagraha can be singled out as their supreme
gifts. Research and discovery, the blend of indigenous traditions and of
insights provided by the larger historical process had formed the center of
studies and initiated a new movement. Both were evidences of the universal
and the contextual mind that characterized the two leaders. Visva (the
World) and Bharti (India) had to meet a new a creative community; Satya
(Truth) and Agraha ( the Urge, the Cohesive Force) belonged together in a
technique – a way of living which would replace the ruinous and ineffective
methods of violence in a world that seeks radical changes.
Tagore’s and Gandhi’s efforts are
now seen as correlated and supplemental: seldom in history have to
contemporaries, singular in their genius and mutually involved in their life
work, done so much for their people and humanity. A major institution and a
movement made India conscious of its new image, and of its relation to the
modern age.
Not only to blueprint but to build
and international study center – new a university-in an India which demanded
a hundred priorities of food and freedom, self-rule and economic change was
itself a during priority. Tagore chose education as the basic instruction of
recovery and growth. He gave India a new home where the new world could be
invited; other initiative would come out of this responsive hospitality.
Santiniketan (The abode of Peace) was a reaffirmation of the Upanishadic
ashramas (literally, work centers) which greeted men from far and near and
recognized them as a community.
Many kinds of ashramas were known
before. Spiritual living, shared labor, intellectual pursuits were
emphasized in different groups, and sometimes these groups, coalesced. A few
of them were meditational retreats. But each of them, no matter what
specialized studies brought the groups together, accepted the disciplines of
equality, of pure living, of wide-ranging rational thought and service
.Nature and humanity were not held to be separate but accepted as a
bountiful harmony maintained in a simple but adequate setting. Neither and
alienation from a “supernatural” reality nor an anthropomorphic mastery of
creation was intended.
Not all was felicity, of course, in
India’s religious or cultural progress’ atavism or glorification of the
past, instead of a true spirit of continuity and growth, had often retarded
the ashrama ideal, but the but the sense of human and cosmic truth that was
nurtured in the Indian tradition had not disappeared. Tagore sought a new
form to establish this concept of wholeness. His educational center stressed
and adventurous faith, a search for adequacy that allowed us to explore the
unfolding richness of humanity and nature.
Tagore gave the original ashramic
concept electric light and simple but modern residential unit; the open-air
classes and quiet study rooms of Visva- Bharati soon had East- West scholars
and artists with a range of languages, Creativity and humanistic research
that no earlier epoch could have provided. Visva-Bharti has been called
Tagore’s greatest poem composed with materials and a meter drawn form living
earth and humanity. It was shaped with rhythms from old and new world hopes:
It held and atmosphere of beauty.
The excitement of international
living drew us to Santiniketan (The Abode of Peace) which was both rural and
modern. Modest and young scholars like us were caught in a totally
unexpected neighborliness. Caste, race or color terminology was absent,
religious intolerance unknown. We shared classical and modern music,
literature and culture from many lands and epochs. Science and agricultural,
crafts and sociology were studied. All of us were exposed to the spirit of
the humanities. To this inheritance we came in tree –sheltered, immensely
active Santiniketan – where VisvaBharti is located Surrounded by an open,
almost limitless horizon.
Tagore himself, both a creative
artist and an educationist, was a continuous inspiration. But often he was
away, and that too was a freedom for us, to look beyond a personality, and
also to find ourselves in countries and among people to whom he introduced
us. We gained fine friends from all over India and from abroad, whom he had
met and invited. Aready in my youth I was able to travel with him, and this,
to say the least, was a wonder: the earth was a home, largely unknown to us
and yet the map had become real.
In distant lands I now think of
the early initiation. Apart from such travel, the Visva-Bharati center in
its own context gave us a view of humanity. To this day such a view, and the
conditions that allow it to be shared, are the gift of Santiniketan.
Inevitable changes have not produced a basic change; Visva-Bharati continues
to be served by able, innovative men and women. It is guided by
philosophers, artists and scientists with a strong social and international
concern.
The Road
Mahatma Gandhi who often visited
Santiniketan and his friend also came when the poet was no more. The
generous material help and sustained moral support given by Gandhi is part
of the sacred history of Santiniketan. Some day his history will be fully
written. Jawaharlal Nehru, then the Chancellor of Visva-Bharati, gave it a
University Charter. His greatness made our responsibility greater,
Visva-Bharati was brought closer to modern reality.
A friend of all there, C.F.
Andrews, brought to Tagore to Gandhi, and to their different ashrama
centers, the spiritual wealth of the West. His witness is an English-man and
as a citizen with a home on many shores, will remain. Such memories and
others are a part of the pilgrimage that Santiniketan carries on.
What shall we say of Gandhi’s
spirit, which claims us in India and has steadily become a light for
mankind? The friendship of Tagore and Gandhi is our theme, but too is wide
are of living truth, of converging differences and years of deepest accord
that we cannot yet measure, or discuss, objectively, Many of us younger
contemporaries moved, however falteringly ,along the avenues they opened for
us. We saw an illumined but difficult road, and we had glimpse of a
destination. What could be emphasized here is the fact that we knew them
separately and together, not as “men of destiny”, but as men of faith who
were inwardly guided. They became a truth in our lives. Personal devotion
for them was transformed into a still greater loyalty to the humanity they
served. We were freed to follow our highest prerogative.
As an example, I would refer to a
visit to Sevagram ashram in 1942 when the “Quit India” Program was being
launched (Gandhi’s own phrase included an invitation for fuller Western
Participation). What could I, as a young educationist, contribute to a
movement which would soon reach a new and perhaps a grave and tragic climax?
He was surprised. No special mandates, no specific that could be applied to
all contingent circumstances were needed or proclaimed. He was no law giver,
he merely tried to follow the law. Each person, whatever his vocation,
talent or temperament, could acquire “a plus”, he said. This plus, was and
added concern for, truth a sacrificial and entire dedication to the fullness
of truth as one saw it.
Prayer, and vigilance would help,
but divine law as realize in life’s circumstances must be a revelation and a
revelatory light – it could not be given form outside. Gandhi’s gift was not
that of a dictator. The gift of Satyagraha could not be forced upon others
or be merely received; it had to be acquired. As he talked I could see a
farmer at the plough in the land outside, a few trees… His face was quiet,
but there was a merry twinkle in his eyes as I took is leave.
Truth- force was Gandhi’s
“matchless weapon”. No Metaphor could be brighter or more apposite. Driven
apart by forces of hatred and war, in world of glittering near-ness, we have
almost arrived at a contradiction that might annihilate us. Nations armed
with the untruth-force of lethal weapons, and of total violence, threaten
each other and man’s very existence. At this point satyagraha ( as used by
Gandhi) told us , as all time-less truths have told us, that us, evil cannot
be cancelled by evil, nor violence and lies by violence and lies.
Other means are there. Indeed, the
methods of war have leapt beyond the categories of right and wrong in to
sheer irrelevance. We cannot practice them in a world community which is
here, even through we may choose to ignore, its reality. It is strange, but
true, that one man’s integrity can help us, even though such a man merely
claimed the right along with others, to “experiment with truth”.
An analysis of new world
techniques tried against overt or semantically hidden brutism lies outside
this discussion. We can merely not that many forms of individual and
organized resistance can be seen in far-flung situations today where
nation-states or smaller power groups, with or without “religious” and
“democratic” sanction, seek to crush human conscience. The idealism of youth
and a mature morality in many countries is ranged against unmoral
administrative units and systems.
Through partial success and new
insights truth-workers are moving forward. Also they will guard themselves
as result of experiences and self-scrutiny, against the parallelism of
hatred and intolerance that may show up in moments of frustration. Such an
infection may often be deliberately spread by the opposed authorities.
Repeatedly Gandhi knew that those in obsessive power seek nothing better
than the evidence if anger and desperation in their moral adversary. Mass
distortion media can then take up the theme of “the angry generation” –
Gandhi, by the same token, was described as an agitator, or worse as an
acting saint. But he knew the alchemy of turning anger into love, heat into
light. He sought the peace that comes from added service. And this research
was Satyagraha.
Wherever Gandhi went on this path,
hearts opened, new opportunities seemed to rise. We joined him. His road led
thorough sides, through burning villages and prayer meetings through
stillness achieved in a sense of destination. Flaming flower banks, green
stretches of trees and new grown rice were a successive contrast as we
marched further in stricken Noakhali (then East Bengal) not long before
Gandhi’s death. A darkening fury seemed to close the view. Two communities
and also a distant, retreating empire, had created an impasse.
Gandhi, I remembered, referred to
an impenetrable darkness; he could but take one step ahead. Then he also
referred to his mathematical formula; the greater the light, the less the
darkness. One cannot fight darkness wit greater darkness. Gandhi, his
trained satyagrahis friends like Pyarelal and others, proved to us how the
“matchless weapon” could be used.
The entire scene changed, though
slowly. Other areas caught the evil and smouldered. But success is not
success, It is the road toward perfection. Even Gandhi’s death – at the hand
of an assignation- was therefore no failure; it was a symbol of a life which
no death can destroy. His suffering brought about a mutation in the entire
Indian situation a mutation in the entire Indian situation. Nothing was the
same again. Already he had brought freedom for India. The finest elements in
the British tradition were on his side as he changed a hurtful relationship
in to partnership.
As we think of Gandhi and Tagore
we think of two personalities, but we think also of the power they used in
their lives. And this power of love used in their lives. And this power of
love had brought them together, as it had brought each of them together, as
it brought each of them nearer to humanity. So Tagore the poet could write a
poem “Gandhi Maharajan Shishya” (“Disciples of Gandhi Maharaja, we ….”) and
Gandhi called Tagore, Gurudeva (“The Revered Master”): their many tributes
are on record. Across the distance between Gujarat and Bengal they met, and
crossed their own territories of art and service which defined their
deeply-rooted genius-to offer their best to India and to the divine humanity
which is mankind.
We conclude by remembering that
other great men in India sustained the vision. We great in particular to
Jawaharlal Nehru who became India’s first prime minister with the blessings
of a Gandhi and Tagore. He had and equally innovative power, to revitalize
India’s rural and urban areas, and to refashion the entire cultural and
educational outlook of new India. Fortunately his daughter, Mrs.Indira
Gandhi, is carrying the torch of progress, not only for India, but for the
greater humanity of men.
We had philosophers like Sri
Aurobindo and Raman Maharashi who brought energy and light to the entire
sub-continent. The legacy seems to get stronger as in the case of the two
ashramas that are being guided and renovated by Mataji Gayatri Devi : She
makes countless pilgrimages back home to the dispossessed areas like the
urban centers near Calcutta.
This is the new constellation
which has been described as India’s dyanamism. not only in her own country
but also in the west and East, where a new momentum of cultural renaissance
is daily offering strength and faith to the new millions to the new
millions of our ancient land.
“I did not find Gandhiji in India,” Sir
Richard Attenborough, the producer-director of “Gandhi”, told me in speaking
of his search for the Mahatma. “His photograph hangs in every post office
but his presence is nor felt…. India is knowledgeable about Gandhi, but
Bapu is uncomfortable. He makes demands.” Like countless others in the West,
Attenborough was “shattered” by Louis borough was “shattered” by Louis
Fischer’s inspiring biography. But outside India, he despaired, there is an
incredible lack of knowledge about Gandhi. Not only is there “no awareness
of Gandhi in America”, but he even met a German who believed Gandhi was an
Egyptian!
Attenbrough’s new film will of
course alter all that. A there – hour-long old fashioned epic, it
concentrates on Gandhi’s political life and growth from his early struggle
and growth from his early struggle and evolution in Southern African to his
1948 assassination. For this monumental biography, ruthless decisions of
selections were made with an outsider’s objectivity: nothing that does not
bear directly upon Gandhi himself, and Gandhi’s personal life in shorn of
many distracting details, such as his relationship with his sons and his
controversial views on diet and sex (Interestingly, though, his relationship
with his wife gets centre-staged not only in the interests of drama, but
also because Gandhi’s relationship with Kasturba becomes a paradigm for
Gandhian beliefs on the liberation of women ). The result is a fast-passed
film that is vast in its proportions (the periods is 1893-1948), the
locations are all over India), yet unified by Gandhi’s life and ideology
into what Attenborough himself calls “an intimate epic”, By design and
necessity, the larger-than-life figure of Gandhi himself towers over all;
even so, the film is a humanistic evaluation of the Mahatma. No evaluation
of the Mahatma. No Indian could have made such a loving film without
deifying the Father of the Nation.
Growing up in England during the
war years. Attenborough had naturally heard of Gandhi and read the British
right wring press’s misrepresentations of him, ridicule and decision they
poured on him. (Winston Churchill described him as “a half-naked fakir”,)
Ironically, “a half-naked fakir”.) Ironically, being thus at one remove from
his subject has turned out to be an ideal qualification for Gandhi’s film
biographer: Attenborough came to feel the full weight and impact of the
Gandhi legend as few Indian scan. As Attenborough described it to me,
“Gandhi is unique, and to suddenly encounter him for the first time is and
extraordinary experiences”, After his 20 year association with his with this
project, Attenborough has of course lose that initial impact-he is now so
familiar with “Bapu”, that I found it almost disconcerting to integrate a
nattily-dressed English intellectual with the man whose talk reveals the
fervour of a true Gandhian. Sustaining him, over the years that it took to
find support for his film, was the belief that “the story of Bapu contains
with in itself the element of optimism that we could live in peace. It is
also the most extraordinary piece of drama. In cinematic terms, it has a
from; it has the climaxes, the excitement the emotional content and the
humour which you look for in any. It’s massively entertaining in the best
sense of the word”.
Curiously, through, no one in the
movie industry shared this belief. People who could have financed the film
did not accept the idea that there was and audience who would want to see a
film about “a wizened –up brown man dressed in a sheet carrying a beanpole”.
This, none of major American or British companies agreed to finance “Gandhi”
because they felt it had no box-office potential; it would ,more-over be
impossible to script and besides they argued, there was nobody on earth who
could play the part. After years of back –and forthing, the project finally
got off the ground when Goldcrest, a new British company (financed by
publishing houses, unions etc.)
Put up two-thirds of the budget and the Indian
government came up with the remaining third (from public and private
sources). The triumph of this film’s financing is that none of the money
came from the move industry.
The other half of that success
story is how a government can act in and enlightened way with a complex
project like this. It was heartwarming to hear Attenborough’s account of how
Prime Minister Indira Gandhi insisted that the film should be faithful
operation in India was unstinted from the day that Indiraji became a
guardian of the project. They mad absolutely no demands whatsoever in terms
of …censorship in actually too heavy a word”. Nothing in the screenplay was
changed although Attenborough did submit it for Mrs.Gandhi’s approvel. “The
Government will not approve this screenplay” she told him,” it is not our
right: twenty years ago, we gave you permission to make this film and the
movie must be yours. We’ll give you every cooperation”. And indeed, there
was total freedom no interference from the government. There was also,
however, much criticism in India that a foreigner’s film was being
government –financed. Fortunately, the best Indian film-makers (Satyajit
Ray, Shyam ray, Shyam Benegal, Govind Nihalani) came out in support of
Attenborough’s project by saying. In effect, that Indians should not lay
claim to a national should not lay claim to a national right to make a film
on Gandhi, and that to restrict art or creativity with national barriers
would be wrong. Attenborough told me delightedly, “It was a pleasure to make
this film in India; it was marvelous”. The upshot of Attenborough’s happy
experience in India –with the government, with Indian artistes and
technicians, and with the country and its people – is that Indian has
overnight become the focus of international film-making.
The first and staunchest supporter
of “Gandhi” former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru himself, ruled out the
possibility of an Indian actor to play Gandhi. Nehru felt that an English
actor was needed to play his very difficult role because the theatrical
tradition that an English actor is heir to would enable him to cover the
50-60 year time span that any film on Gandhi would necessitate. “We don’t
as yet have the actors in India of the theatrical experience and the
understanding of the totally naturalistic form of acting which is
prerequisite in terms of Western movies – and this film must be seen all
over the world”. Nehru suggested Alec Guinness (who was finally to turn down
the offer) and added, “The real reason to have an English actor to play Bapu
is that (the irony) would make Bapu Laugh!”
Hollywood companies were later to
suggest Richard Burton(!), Dus-tin Hoffman and Robert de Niro. But
Attenborough held out for an “unknown”. His instincts were against using any
actor who came to the audience with other (and alien) associations since
“the suspension of disbelief would have been impossible with an actor that
the audience subconsciously remembered as (in deNiro’s case, for example),
the hero of ‘taxi Driver’. Benkinsley, a Stratford stage actor who had
performed with London’s Royal Shakesphere Company, remained a vague
possibility till Attenborough learnt that he was half Indian. Kingley’s
father like Gandhi came from Gujarat. Upon Selection, Kingsley’s, a
Stratford stage actor who had performed with Londan’s Royal Shakespeare
Company, remained a vague possibility till Attenborough learnt that he was
half Indian. Kingley’s father, Like Gandhi, came from Gujarat. Upon
selection, Kinsley went on a vegetarian diet, lost 20 pounds, practiced yoga
and learnt how to spin the charkha. He immersed himself in the Gandhi lore
and has turned out a fine performance of true stature. All the Indian roles
are also given to theatre actors, the only exception being Saeed Jeffrey who
plays Sardar Patel. “I combed the Indian theatres for weeks and weeks –
physical resemblance was of course a consideration but it had to be marred
to the ability to act.”
Realism was an overriding concern
with Attenborough .He felt that since Gandhi’s life was developed to truth.
The film had to be photographically truthful. “We’ve taken the reality of
the man and tried to dramatic it without making the viewer aware of the
camera”. Using a cinematographer with a background in documentary helped
eschew created gimmicks. Effects have been created through the use of
composition. Camera movement and the use of light.
In fact, Attenborough is so
captivated by his hero that he conveys the sense of power that a true hero
evokes, he does so through the use of understatements. With near –Gandhian
self–effacement. Attenborough never draws attention to himself is primarily
an actor. he does concentrated on the story, the drama, the acting, rather
than aiming for psychological analysis or political evaluation. In this, he
was guided by Gandhi’s dictum “My life is my message”, and it accounts for
the film’s simple power.
Attenborough’s film is visually
beautiful (effective use of colour and faces). And John Briley’s dialogue is
most eloquent. Together they have taken liberties with history as actual
events and characters are “concertina-cd” for a film dramatic economy.
Ironically, for a film whose central message is one of nonviolence, there
are many scenes of franks and brutal violence. The history of the
nonviolence movement is not generally perceived to be as harsh as it
actually was .Through Attenborough’s depiction. We see the interminable
lathi charges for what they really were. With uncompromising honesty, the
relentless savagery of Jalianwala Bagh is recreated and through scenes that
I found reminiscent of “War and peace”, the pain of the mass migrations of
partition is relived. At the same time, the violence of the Hindu-Muslim
riots is not glossed over either.
For his candid portrayal of the
Amritsar massacre. Attenborough fully expects to be criticized in England.
With obvious pride, he admits “of course the picture is pro– Indian and pro
Gandhi and I hope we’re properly critical of the British. I’m opposed to the
whole principle of subjugation and colonialism… I realize I will be heavily
criticized by certain people and I’d be upset if I wasn’t .The establishment
in England has been angry with me for a long time and I’m sure there will be
those who will rally now to the defense of Gen Dyer”.
In a sense, then, “Gandhi” is
going to raise many old ghosts. Like Gandhians every where. Attenborough is
convinced that the message is as relevant now as it was for India, and that
India needs to rediscover its Mahatma as much as the West needs to recognize
him. According to him, “The most important thing Gandhi did was to persuade
Indians to be proud, to stand up in an acceptance and knowledge of their own
dignity as human beings. However, he also said,’ we will obtain independence
when we deserve it’. This is an extraordinary attitude, one that’s
incredibly missing in much of current political conduct- that of grabbing of
demanding, of taking and of giving very little. Bapu was asking for
something quite phenomenal in terms of would events (Independence), But at
the same time he was making demands of those people who were to benefit from
Independence. That attitude was absolutely new in politics”.
The causes that Gandhi
championed – the abolition of untouchability, the equality of women, the
advocacy of secular state and secular state and secular worship – are still
in need of support. And in this nuclear age, the message of non-violence is
obviously relevant. Violence is absolutely unacceptable to the human race.
Attenborough told me, “I don’t know whether the message will be heard. It’s
not heard, at the moment, But Gandhi’s views and attitudes are so worthy of
re-examination and reconsideration, and who knows… people might start to
think about him a little more”.
From article by Amiya
Chakravarty, Gandhi with Tagore at Shanti Niketan 1940 |
|