FATHER OF THE NATION???

Talk about India's struggle for independence, and one of the many names that comes to our mind is Mahatma Gandhi. Think of him, and you'll end up thinking of 'satyagraha' by default. That excessively hyped and somewhat inefficient freedom movement which is synonymous with Gandhi, has been applauded in India and abroad alike. But I suppose it was applauded more by the British officials of that era, because they realized the futility of it long before any of us were able to comprehend the absurdity of it. Sure it was a unique idea, and to be fair, it did have some impact on our freedom movement. But it should have been used strictly as a temporary technique. We should have resorted to violence way back. After all, we did call it our 'fight' for freedom, didn't we?

I'm far from being a Gandhi fan. Infact, I've always been skeptical about his relevance in our independence, and this statement has never failed to raise an eyebrow. But then India is a democratic country and I'm making legitimate use of my freedom of speech here. I've always thought that Gandhi was way too saintly to be a freedom-fighter. Either that, or he was one hell of a shrewd politician. The kind of calm that he portrayed has always surprised me. And Gandhi might be doing a gigantic somersault in his grave right now, but there are certain things which can only be done with a vengence, with violence.

I'm aware that Gandhi had his own set of ideas, and his own idea of idealism. But somehow, his fundas have never appealed to me. He made too big a deal of violence. And in the bargain, he failed to see what strategy would truly be in the best interest of the nation. Instead, he put his own set of rigid principles above everything else and led the nation through a tedious and languid freedom struggle. True, his principles were noble, perhaps even exemplary. But honestly, it was not the need of the hour. And if satyagraha were indeed the way to win freedom, wonder what inspires our soldiers to fight so gallantly. Actually, I wonder what our soldiers would opine of satyagraha as the way to bring about a major reform. And back then, we were talking of the most significant reform in our political history.

With all due respect to Gandhi, the fact that satyagraha managed to become such a popular freedom movement had more to do with Gandhi's brainwashing speeches and ardent fan-following, than with a significant effect from the movement itself. Like I said before, the man was too virtuous to be a freedom fighter in the real sense of the term. He had a knack of opposing every suggested freedom strategy on the pretext of violence. And when he chose to be manipulative, he would simply go on a hunger strike. Despite the fact that he was a hardcore follower of non-violence, Gandhi did have a striking resemblance with the infamous dictator of Germany. Hitler passionately killed people, while Gandhi killed the peoples' passion. Paradoxical as it may sound, non-violence did cause some serious damage here. I just feel that our posterity should have been instructed on non-violence and idealism 'after' we had achieved our independence.

One of Gandhi's most controversial action was the withdrawal of the NonCo-operation movement following the Chauri-Chaura incident. His philosophy, once again was morally correct. But he was not justified in overriding the sentiments and the unanimous opinion of a vast majority owing to the 'crime of passion' commited by a handful of people. He ardently stood by his principles, but unfortunately failed to see the larger picture once again. And he wasn't exactly subtle when he declared to the masses that the freedom movement ought to be strictly in compliance with his principles, or he would abandon it. Which is precisely what he did in this case.

Gandhi undoubtedly, had a major impact on our freedom struggle. And having the kind of charisma and influence that he did on the masses, I feel he had an obligation to carry out the freedom struggle with greater responsibility and more foresight. For instance, a tad more flexibility on his part would have gone a long way in avoiding the major rift between the Moderates and the Extremists. Little did Gandhi realize that he actually ended up aiding the British policy of 'divide and rule'. Or perhaps a little more thought by him on the technique of satyagraha would have definitely avoided its backfire that we currently face in the form of transport strikes, hunger strikes in factories and so on.

Whats really grating is that Gandhi was so obssessed about non-violence and tolerance, that he urged the people to go on hunger strikes, wherein a good many of them succumbed, including some prominent ones. What is the logic in starving oneself to death when you might as well eat the food, gain the energy, and plan some other meaningful strategy? And whats unnerving is that given the gravity of the situation, Gandhi continued to believe that the way to achieve independence was to sit calmly on the roads with a handful of posters, some whacky slogans, and an open invitation for lathi charge. He vehemently opposed the rebellious strategies of the extremists, which were infact the dire need of the moment. And despite his resistance at taking any drastic measures against the British officials, he gave the supremely conflicting slogan 'do or die'.

Personally, I feel that the tactics of the extremists were far more savvy to deal with the situation that we had at hand. Satyagraha was decidedly not helping. What leaders like Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose did by forming the Indian National Army was what was actually needed. The Swarajya movement by Dadabhai Navroji and the Home Rule movement by Tilak proved to be extremely efficient, as did the activities of the trio extremists Lal, Bal, Pal. The assassinaion of Saunders by Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev, the subsequent bombing of the Central Assembly by Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt, the raid on the Chittaging armoury by Surya Sen and the formation of the Indian Republic Army by him are some of the very commendable and influential activities that took place in that era. Interestingly, all these activities were not just opposed, but condemned by Gandhi. And it was the hanging of these very freedom fighters by the British officials that led to a large scale revolt and agitation among the masses. Clearly, the masses did not fail to see what Gandhi did.

Whats really regrettable is that even after all these years post independence, we continue to glorify one man as the 'father of the nation', thereby grossly undermining the significant contribution of the other freedom fighters. Sure, satyagraha makes a good topic for a hot debate, and sure, it makes great material for our history texts. But 'ahinsa' should be confined strictly to our ashrams. To expect that we can can overthrow over a 100 years of colonisation by being eccentric about following non-violence and portraying our exemplary tolerance levels is daft, to put it mildly. If you dare to become a freedom 'fighter', that is exactly what you're expected to do - fight. And theres bound to be bloodshed there. Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose hit the nail on the head when he said the historic words, "Tum mujhe khoon do, main tumhe aazadi dunga."

MIND OVER MAKE-UP

The glossy cover-page of a popular fashion magazine read in bold letters 'white invisible foundation and concealer'. For added effect, the close-up of a ravishing model with inescapably 'visible' make-up adorned the page. I looked at the woman reading the magazine. She was engrossed in it, leafing through it painfully slowly. And she was so caked up that the word that came to my mind upon seeing her was 'abuse' i.e. make-up abuse.

What struck me about the ad was that they were propagating the product claiming it would be easily camouflaged. The keyword was 'invisible'. Why advertise a fashion product with the catch-line suggesting that it was too subtle to be noticed - almost to the point of being imperceptible? Thats a crafty way of suggesting that women need to keep their vanity secrets strictly under wraps. And its cleverly aimed to hit at atleast two of the many facets of a woman; one - she is too self-conscious to go without make-up, and second - she is too proud to admit that she uses make-up. I suppose a woman's caprices do add to her charm. But take that with a pinch of salt.

To be candid, I've always looked at fashion magazines and make-up kits with disparage. I find it deplorable that in contemporary society, glamour is unduly over-rated and simplicity under-stated. Most fashion magazines are stressing on the inane age factor, giving tips about how to capture beauty and how to increase our sex appeal, thereby deviously suggesting that we are grossly lacking both. Whats interesting is that they always omit the part which mentions what potential harm the crappy chemicals in their products could do, or how addictive it could possibly get, or how it alters a woman's persona and leaves her susceptible to self-doubts. My opinion - they should be charged for recklessly advertising such trash.

I've never been the fashion conscious or glamour oriented types. I have neither the interest, nor the inclination for such triviality. I'm satisfied with my modest looks, and apart from the usual waxing and threading (so that I don't end up looking Neanderthal), there is little else I bother with. On occasions when I wanna pamper myself or experiment a bit, I do indulge in a touch of kajal or eye-liner. Max a dab of gloss. Thats as far as it goes. I'm not obssesive about being caked up 24 X 7. And I don't shriek at the thought of being seen without make-up at an event. I know I'm nowhere near being picture perfect. But I also know that my minor skin flaws do not make me look hideous, neither do they warrant the need for excessive make-up. I'm comfortable in my own skin and I'm confident about being me. I'll bet that no fashion magazine or glamour guru could have taught me that, nor can they change that about me. For me, looking good isn't half as important as carrying yourself well. If you've ever seen a decked up woman strutting around with a self-conscious and awkward body language, you'll know exactly what I mean. I believe its not whats on the outside that matters, its whats on the inside that counts. Its called confidence.

I'm not exactly averse to fashion and glamour, but for some reason I just can't adapt to them. I like being me. And by me, I mean simple and casual. I detest being a painted doll. Ofcourse I like to deck up for parties and outings. But for me, dressing up isn't synonymous with going on a painting spree! I may be a mediocre artist, but I sure know how to distinguish between make-up and face painting! Besides I prefer dressing up commensurate with the occasion. I'm not crazy enough to go to the cinema decked up like I'm attending a marriage on one of Ekta Kapoor's sets! Thankfully, I'm free of the much hyped peer pressure or paranoia affecting teens and adults alike.

I can't comprehend why any person in their right mind would want to smudge themselves with layers of make-up in an attempt to 'look good'. Wonder why the 'look good' factor is suddenly the be all and end all of our existence. The 'feel good' factor has arguably lost all significance. The main problem here is fanatic-lunatic advertising which leaves too many level-headed women vying for a stereotyped look. Ingenuty doesn't exist, and individuality is already a lost concept. We try too hard to fit in with the crowd, when we are originally designed to stand out.

Our glam industry is relentlessly coming up with newer and more bizzare products to make us look virtually celestial. Our sinfully gorgeous celebrities spike the cosmetic sales by inadvertently signing up as their brand ambassadors. The fashion magazines are screaming about beauty being skin deep, and even our better qualified dermatologists are zealously backing them up. Sadly, the commom man has been programmed to judge solely by appearances, and the good old saying about looks being deceptive has long since been tossed out of the window. The word 'beauty' itself is cliched. It no longer lies in the eyes of the beholder. It is simply belied by the artistic skills of the said object of observation

On a more considerate [and less realistic] note, may be glamour isn't all about being superficial. May be glam dolls don't shed their confidence at the end of the day when they shed their pancakes of make-up. It may just be that all these beauty magazines hitting the stands actually boost a woman's confidence. And may be, just may be that innately beautiful women never feel envious, or never try to immitate all the artificial, unearthly beauty portrayed in these sub-standard magazines.

I guess the concepts of fashion and glamour are either paranormal or esoteric. Many women are slave to them, but instead claim to master them. These are the prima donnas and femme fatales of our society. They make much revered style statements and pass flawless fashion judgements. But the real trend-setters are the nonconformists who are gutsy enough to go without glamour and risk being tagged 'plain janes'. These are the ones who are truly oozing with a rare confidence. They may not be beautiful in the conventional sense, but they are bold enough to ascertain and assert their feminity. The unabashed woman of substance CARES NOT, to be called a diva. for she DARES, not to be one. Way to go Woman!