Coming back to Gandhi and his treatise on Gita, let me state what often leaves me wondering.
Why and what people admire about something . This question might seem funny, but it is material.
I, for one , like so many people and so many things. But a liking is founded on an express or even unclear reason. Like, I don't know why I always admired some film stars whom I still like to repeatedly see on TV screen, singing evergreen songs from the play back. But I would never over define my liking. What is over definition? One may ask. Over definition is that credit or discredit one may give to one's icon, for what the one admired or despised is/was never accountable.
I take this audacity to put our illustrious leaders in that category.
Gandhi, Nehru, Indira, Rajiv, and numerous others, including those still around, come in that bracket. All these leaders attained pinnacle of glory. Such attainment itself is praiseworthy . But error lies in extending or compressing the intrinsic value of each, by over glorification or by unreasoned undermining .
Gandhi, the Mahatma, was an offbeat leader of his time and was a Mahatma in generic, rather than, specific sense. The principles he practiced were unimpeachable, but the thoughts he was perceived by his followers as mandating were in the form of moral code. Who would follow it and how, is the practice part which Gandhi himself was perfecting but the same were not imparted, nor could it have been.
Error lies in the fact that the peripheral admiration of Gandhi, without delving into the mechanics of what he followed and why, Gandhi has been run all over like a currency that is bereft if any intrinsic value Gandhi would have contribute if he had survived.
Instead of harping on principles coined in the name of Gandhi, it would be preferable to develop Gandhi's interpretation of his principal doctrine, Gita, so as to make it clear and intelligible within the framework of the present day Science and technology.
Why and what people admire about something . This question might seem funny, but it is material.
I, for one , like so many people and so many things. But a liking is founded on an express or even unclear reason. Like, I don't know why I always admired some film stars whom I still like to repeatedly see on TV screen, singing evergreen songs from the play back. But I would never over define my liking. What is over definition? One may ask. Over definition is that credit or discredit one may give to one's icon, for what the one admired or despised is/was never accountable.
I take this audacity to put our illustrious leaders in that category.
Gandhi, Nehru, Indira, Rajiv, and numerous others, including those still around, come in that bracket. All these leaders attained pinnacle of glory. Such attainment itself is praiseworthy . But error lies in extending or compressing the intrinsic value of each, by over glorification or by unreasoned undermining .
Gandhi, the Mahatma, was an offbeat leader of his time and was a Mahatma in generic, rather than, specific sense. The principles he practiced were unimpeachable, but the thoughts he was perceived by his followers as mandating were in the form of moral code. Who would follow it and how, is the practice part which Gandhi himself was perfecting but the same were not imparted, nor could it have been.
Error lies in the fact that the peripheral admiration of Gandhi, without delving into the mechanics of what he followed and why, Gandhi has been run all over like a currency that is bereft if any intrinsic value Gandhi would have contribute if he had survived.
Instead of harping on principles coined in the name of Gandhi, it would be preferable to develop Gandhi's interpretation of his principal doctrine, Gita, so as to make it clear and intelligible within the framework of the present day Science and technology.
No comments:
Post a Comment