❈ ❈ ❈

The Eternal Gandhi

Sairaj Goudar

Every year on his death anniversary, India remembers Mahatma Gandhi, or at least performs the pretence of remembering him. The silence at Rajghat, the familiar quotations, and a few decaying statues garlanded here and there. Yet outside these annual rituals, something has changed. Gandhi, once the undisputed moral centre of the Indian imagination, has increasingly become a contested figure. More than ever before, Gandhi’s memory is now subjected to ridicule, selective remembrance, and sometimes, outright hostility.

In an era where history is being actively reinterpreted and new heroes elevated, Gandhi appears to be losing his place not because he has been disproven, but because he no longer fits comfortably into the ideological certainties of our time.

Today, every political or social constituency seems to possess its own pantheon. Dalit assertion and politics across the country rightly places Dr B.R. Ambedkar at the forefront of their struggle for social equality, while the revolutionary Left (and sometimes a more rootless AAP) draws inspiration from Bhagat Singh. Outpacing the rest in their pursuit of laying a claim over History is the Hindu Right, which has begun venerating Vinayak Savarkar and other such figures missing from the freedom movement.

For most of the 20th century, while he was alive and for long after he was gone, Gandhi belonged to everyone. Portraits of Gandhi were commonplace in urban and rural homes, irrespective of caste or religion. In fact, Gandhi was universal in the sense that he didn’t belong just to India. Generations of children born in newly-Independent India grew up bearing witness to Gandhi’s techniques being implemented and his ideals being extolled by the likes of Martin Luther King Jr. in the United States and Nelson Mandela in South Africa.

Perhaps because he belonged to everyone, Gandhi now seemingly belongs to no one.

Gandhi’s nationalism was never exclusive, his morality never convenient, and his politics never easily weaponised. He resisted being turned into a mascot for any single ideology. This universality, once his greatest strength, has become a liability in an age that rewards clarity of allegiance over stoic neutrality. When political identities harden, a figure who refuses to take sides in the expected way is easily dismissed as outdated, naive, or even obstructive.

The credit for much of this lost ground goes to the world’s biggest echo chamber, social media. Algorithms, by their very nature, push content that a person seems to have liked or engaged with earlier. Familiarity sells, and what sells most is what’s most watched. As the former British Prime Minister Theresa May remarked last month, “In the past, you’d have an Old Joe sitting on the end of the bar, muttering into his pint of beer, and nobody took any notice of him because his views were either too extreme or ridiculous. Now Old Joe mutters on social media and all the other Old Joes respond and suddenly its an objective worldview.”

Today, the public discourse around history in India has become an Old Joe’s Sangathan.

Every year on January 30, one of the top trending hashtags on Twitter (now, despairingly, X) is #NathuramGodseZindabad. A symbol of the times we live in, times where celebrating Gandhi’s assassin is seen by many as a completely rational thing to do.

The online hostility towards Gandhi reflects either a lack of understanding of history the way it is understood around the world, or a genuine refusal to engage with history objectively.

Gandhi is now derided as weak for his commitment to non-violence, accused of appeasement for his attempts at reconciliation, and caricatured as a sentimental moralist unsuited to a muscular nationalism. His assassination is now celebrated by seemingly “mainstream” accounts on X and Instagram, receiving hundreds of thousands of likes and reshares.

What makes this shift significant is not simply the criticism of Gandhi but the impulse to replace him entirely. The rewriting of history is rarely subtle. It involves amplifying certain narratives while erasing others.

Yet, despite sustained efforts to diminish him, Gandhi endures not as a statue or slogan, but as a persistent moral presence. His relevance does not stem from the perfection of his ideas, but from the questions he continues to pose. What does power mean if it is divorced from ethics? Can a nation claim greatness while abandoning compassion? Is violence ever truly redemptive, or merely expedient?

These questions refuse to disappear because the conditions that gave rise to them persist. Inequality, communal tension, state authority, and dissent remain central to India’s political life. Gandhi’s answers may not always satisfy, but his refusal to accept easy solutions remains deeply unsettling.

It is telling that even those who reject Gandhi often cannot entirely escape him. His language, imagery, and moral vocabulary still shape debates on protest, citizenship, and justice. When movements invoke non-violence, they do so in dialogue with Gandhi, whether in agreement or rebellion. When the state responds to dissent, it implicitly measures itself against the Gandhian ideal it once claimed as foundational. Gandhi is present even when he is being rejected.

Unlike Ambedkar, whose constitutional legacy can be institutionalised, or Bhagat Singh, whose martyrdom can be romanticised, Gandhi offers no easy inheritance. To follow Gandhi is not merely to admire him, but to be inconvenienced by him. His politics demands patience where anger feels justified, dialogue where hostility feels natural, and humility where certainty is tempting. It is far easier to honour him ceremonially than to engage with him seriously.

And honour him ceremonially they do. Almost every single embassy or consulate of the Republic of India around the world, boasts a statue of Mahatma Gandhi in its front lawns. Every foreign dignitary that the Government of India hosts, from the likes of Putin to Von der Leyen, are taken to Rajghat to lay a wreath at Gandhi’s memorial. Even Donald Trump was whisked off to Sabarmati Ashram almost as soon as he landed in India. Publicly venerate Gandhi on the international stage, while turning a blind eye to his name being tarnished back home; that seems to be the unstated government policy of the day.

The attempt to push Gandhi out of India’s moral landscape ultimately reveals more about the present than about the past. It signals an impatience with complexity, a desire for heroes who affirm rather than challenge, and a preference for certainty over conscience. But history has a way of resisting such simplifications. Figures who are inconvenient are often the ones who endure.

On Gandhi’s death anniversary, the question is not whether we should agree with him, but whether we are willing to engage with him honestly. To remember Gandhi meaningfully is not to freeze him in reverence or discard him in contempt, but to confront the unease he provokes.

In a time when every group seeks its own heroes, Gandhi remains unsettling precisely because he exceeds ownership.

That may be his most enduring legacy. Amidst a concerted bid to tarnish his memory, Gandhi persists. Seventy-eight years after his assassination, the Mahatma endures not as a relic of the past, but as a mirror held up to the present. And it is often the mirror, not the man, that provokes the deepest discomfort.

[Sairaj Goudar is a lawyer and writer based in Delhi. Courtesy: The Wire, an Indian nonprofit news and opinion website. It was founded in 2015 by Siddharth Varadarajan, Sidharth Bhatia and M. K. Venu.]

❈ ❈ ❈

Now Is a Good Time to Be Concerned About the Truth and Non-Violence

Krishna Pratap Singh

On January 28, 1948, just two days before Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination, his secretary, Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, unexpectedly inquired, ‘Was there any disturbance during today’s prayer meeting?’ In response, the Mahatma remarked, ‘No, but does this question imply that you are worried about me?’

During Mahatma Gandhi’s stay in Delhi, a series of incidents had transpired at the prayer meetings held every evening in the Birla House garden, which raised alarms regarding his safety. The dialogue between Rajkumari and Mahatma pertained to these incidents.

However, being the Mahatma that he was, he ignored the concerns of Rajkumari, and made certain remarks, which in hindsight, are now believed to have been a premonition of the unprecedented events that were to occur on the following January 30.

The essence of his words was as follows:

“If I die from a prolonged illness, even from a boil or a pimple, it would be your duty to inform the world that I was not the servant of God I claimed to be…But yes, if someone were to shoot me and I were to take my last breath without a sigh or complaint, uttering the name of God, only then would I be able to prove my claim of being such a servant of God.

“If I must die by the bullet of a madman, then I would wish for God to be in my heart and a smile on my face. And you must promise me that if such a thing were to happen, not a single tear would fall from your eyes.”

We know that just two days later, three bullets were fired into his mortal body, taking his life. Despite his advice not to shed a single tear, the sorrow of this separation became so profound that when the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had to address the nation on All India Radio, he said, “The light has gone out of our lives and there is darkness everywhere.”

“We would no longer be able to seek advice and solace from him (Mahatma), which was a huge blow not only to me but also to millions of people in the country,” he had added.

However, our current generation may find it hard to believe that even in that situation the nation did not feel as helpless as it does today.

The reason is that despite the unprecedented violence seen before and during the Partition of the country, the assassination did not shake the faith of the citizens as much. They believed that the assassin could only take away the physical form of the Mahatma, while the powers of truth and non-violence he imparted remained intact with us, just as they were during his lifetime.

Therefore, even in his absence, we would successfully chart the desired path for our future, thanks to his words whose infallibility is still unquestioned, without any deviation from our destination.

‘Truth is not limited to merely speaking the truth’

Even amidst the uproar of the post-truth era, which emerged globally decades after the passing of Mahatma Gandhi and the other heroes of the freedom struggle who grew up alongside him, reached our country with its deafening clamour, our faith in “Satyameva Jayate (truth alone triumphs)” remained steadfast enough that we were not engulfed by anxiety. But what about today?

Before attempting to answer this question, it is essential to properly understand Mahatma Gandhi’s interpretation of truth. For him, truth represented not only the fundamental principle and philosophy of life, but also god himself. In his own words, truth is god.

His conviction in truth did not emerge overnight, nor did it materialise within a year; it was not an abrupt occurrence, but rather a gradual and progressive evolution. Through this journey, he shifted his initial belief that “god is truth” to the firm conviction that “truth is god.” He ultimately came to believe that although there may be differing opinions regarding god, the existence of “truth” is undeniable.

Truth is not limited to merely speaking the truth – it also includes purity of thought, speech, and action, which is impossible to achieve without adhering to non-violence. It is clear that for him, non-violence was the sole and indispensable means, or rather, the spiritual discipline, to attain truth, that is, god. In other words, it was the supreme ‘dharma’ or religion.

According to him, the highest duty of non-violence could not be fulfilled merely by refraining from violence. If one assumes that they have completed their obligations simply by avoiding all forms of violence, they are mistaken. This duty is truly fulfilled only when one also takes responsibility for preventing violence in their own capacity.

The question arises: Are our current authorities or societal systems even slightly serious about their responsibility to create conditions where it is not difficult for them and their constituents, the citizens of the country, to fulfil their duty of preventing violence and reaching the ultimate truth?

The straightforward answer is, no, on the contrary, these systems have made it their objective to render the fulfilment of this responsibility difficult.

To test this, we don’t need to delve deep into the past. It can be understood by examining a few recent occurrences:

A Hindi-speaking migrant labourer from Chhattisgarh is beaten to death under the suspicion of being a ‘Bangladeshi infiltrator’, while a student from Tripura is targeted in Uttarakhand due to his alleged ‘Chinese’ appearance. Furthermore, attacks are launched on Christmas celebrations, and Muslims are arrested for the ‘crime’ of offering prayers at home.

First, the authorities are completely reluctant or apathetic towards preventing such incidents, and subsequently create barriers for citizens who desire to voice their anger or outrage regarding these occurrences.

In recent years, it has become a common practice for those in power to mobilise their supporters at every such opportunity, to defend murderers and other criminals, and often even to glorify them.

The rule of mob

It is important to note that such a situation did not emerge even in 1975 in this country’s democratic history when a frightened government imposed a state of emergency on the country, stripping citizens of all their fundamental rights, an act for which the current powers that be spare no effort in denouncing it.

But as the poet Nagarjun said: “Even then, suppressing the cries of skeletons, people were spitting on the Hitler-like arrogance of the regime’s gun, which stood tall and imposing in the sky, and which had become blind in its pride. That gun couldn’t even harm a single hair of the fearless cuckoo that sang perched on a burnt stump.”

“Even though deafness had increased tenfold, Vinoba had fallen silent, truth itself was wounded, and non-violence felt defeated, the ruling power at the time failed to create any such ‘group’ among the citizens that would shamelessly glorify its violent aggression at every opportunity, brazenly assault the proponents of truth and non-violence, obstruct all their paths to reaching the God of Truth, and even portray God as the root cause of conflict by exploiting differences in religious practices.”

If someone dares to question the discriminatory and violent regime about why it has strayed from the path of non-violence, which Mahatma Gandhi identified as the essential route to truth (or god), while also pretending to embrace Gandhi’s principles, then those who act as the regime’s protectors would stand in the guise of a shield, confronting the questioner and resorting to violence, threatening them with intimidation. Furthermore, it would begin to proclaim only those truths and half-truths that align with its interests.

However, the regimes of today have managed to nurture a multitude of such crowds that are solely their well-wishers, or rather, blind supporters – to the extent that they do not hesitate to trample any noble, humane, or democratic values.

When powers embark on the path of bulldozing all such values and become engrossed day and night in perpetuating their own egos and falsehoods, these crowds find nothing wrong or objectionable in it. They perceive only their own self-interests as eternal and do not shy away from violating any truth to safeguard them.

Is it any wonder then that the principles of truth and non-violence, which Mahatma Gandhi resorted to in order to lead, fight, and win our freedom struggle, and which formed the basis of the country’s constitution and the establishment of a democratic republic, are now being twisted by those in power in a completely opposite direction, thereby creating hostility towards democracy and the constitution?

Meanwhile, democratic values are being pushed to the brink of fragmentation, undermining the trust that this decline is merely temporary or a passing phase, and that one day things will eventually return to normal.

On the other hand, amidst the flood of hatred and fanaticism, there is no space left, even in the corners, for a particular virtue of the Mahatma – that he would immediately embrace and incorporate any form of truth he encountered into his conduct and behaviour.

Moreover, those in power, who consider themselves superior, are also reluctant to understand that the Mahatma believed there was nothing particularly special about him, and that anyone could do what he was doing. By expressing this belief, he ignited the hidden potential within every individual and enlightened those caught in the delusion of false prestige of their genuine worth. In stark contrast, leaders of today not only are completely bereft of morality but even endeavour to corrupt others, rendering them equally immoral.

In such a situation, it is futile to expect that they would even consider putting into practice this principle of Mahatma Gandhi regarding the Hinduism they cashed in on to ascend the hierarchy of power:

I have no desire whatsoever to secretly make any reforms or alterations under the guise of a great religious doctrine. Although I have referred to myself as a Sanatani Hindu on several occasions… especially with greater emphasis and assertion when discussing the issue of untouchability… if untouchability is indeed a part of Hinduism, then I cannot remain within the Hindu faith. I observe that people often make numerous statements in the name of Hinduism that I do not approve of… I firmly believe in this tenet of Hindu scriptures that one who has not fully adhered to non-violence, truth, and celibacy cannot truly comprehend the essence of the scriptures.

This anniversary of the Mahatma’s martyrdom naturally serves as an occasion to be even more concerned about truth and non-violence. This is a moment for renewed contemplation.

In the words of Ramdhari Singh Dinkar, “To understand that from anxieties of every single moment is born the human being of the distant future!”

The quotes from Mahatma Gandhi presented in this article are sourced from the work ‘Bapukatha (Uttarardh)’, published by the Gandhian thinker Smritishesh Haribhau Upadhyay in 1969, on the occasion of the centenary of Gandhi’s birth.

[Krishn Pratap Singh is a senior journalist. Courtesy: The Wire, an Indian nonprofit news and opinion website. It was founded in 2015 by Siddharth Varadarajan, Sidharth Bhatia and M. K. Venu.]

❈ ❈ ❈

Decoding the RSS Hypocrisy of Respecting Gandhi

Sanjay K. Jha

Truth and non-violence. The world knows these two words defined Mahatma Gandhi. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, however, rarely referred to truth and non-violence in the context of Gandhi, insolently reducing him to ‘Swachhta & Swadeshi’. Be it Gandhi’s birth anniversary on October 2, or death anniversary on January 30, Modi’s tributes revolved around cleanliness and self-reliance. Truth and non-violence probably aren’t in tune with the Sangh Parivar’s doctrine of force.

Modi sprang a surprise this year by making a reference to non-violence on January 30. He tweeted, “Pujya Bapu ne manavata ki raksha ke liye hamesha ahimsa par bal diya. Isme wah Shakti hai jo bina hathiyar ke duniyan ko badal sakti hai (Revered Bapu always laid emphasis on non-violence for protection of humanity. Non-violence has the power to change the world without weapons).” Difficult to guess whether this realisation dawned on Modi after the genocidal assault on Gaza by his “dear friend” Benjamin Netanyahu, or apparent helplessness against the hostile attitude of America and China. Though Modi hasn’t talked about ‘truth’, he has ultimately taken note of the significance of non-violence. He has understood Gandhi can’t be boxed in by lesser virtues like Swachhta and Swadeshi.

Will Modi now give a tutorial to Sangh Parivar outfits on the “power” of non-violence that he has discovered all of a sudden? He must call the self-proclaimed vigilante gangs that lynch Muslims and harass inter-faith lovers, the sundry Hindutva outfits and godmen who spew venom on “others”, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLAs, MPs and chief ministers who deploy low-grade tactics of intimidation and coercion to polarise the society for a meeting and explain to them the virtue of non-violence.

He should reprimand his supporters and colleagues who idolise Nathuram Godse and demean India’s non-violent freedom struggle. He should, at least, reclaim India’s moral authority on international forums, avoiding ambiguous or amoral positions on such issues like mindless massacres of children and women in Gaza.

Modi, and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), urgently need to learn another lesson from Gandhi if their respect for the greatest apostle of peace is genuine. They should pay heed to what Gandhi thought of Hinduism and other religions.

Gandhi wrote: “If I were asked to define the Hindu creed I should simply say: search after truth through non-violent means. Hinduism is the most tolerant of all religions. Its creed is all-embracing.”

Gandhi further wrote, “Not being an exclusive religion, it enables the followers of that faith not merely to respect all the other religions, but it also enables them to admire and assimilate whatever may be good in the other faiths. Hinduism believes in the oneness not of merely all human life but in the oneness of all that lives.”

Gandhi believed in equality of religions. If the Sangh Parivar understands the essence of Gandhian philosophy, India will have its gravest political problem instantly solved. The minimum Indian democracy can expect from political parties is this: No misuse of religion in politics and an unflinching faith in constitutional principles.

[This article is an extract. Sanjay K. Jha is a political commentator. Courtesy: The Wire, an Indian nonprofit news and opinion website. It was founded in 2015 by Siddharth Varadarajan, Sidharth Bhatia and M. K. Venu.]