Richard Attenborough's Gandhi is certainly an interesting and entertaining film. The producer has cleverly put together a sequence of incidents and events calculated to make the maximum impact on the audience. Some of the scenes are truly breathtaking. And with the wide acclaim it has received in the British press and the television it will no doubt be a big commercial success.
The film's popularity is not merely due to technical efficiency, cinematic skills, good acting and so on. In my view it is popular largely because the film maker has succeeded in highlighting certain qualities of Gandhi which appeal to a wide cross-section of people. Foremost amongst them was Gandhi's rejection of the life style and comforts enjoyed by the Indian elite under the British Raj; his readiness to 'live among the people' and to lead a life of poverty.
In the days of the British Raj the big landlords and capitalists of India who were at the helm of the Indian National Congress aped the white man and slavishly adopted his customs and values. And there was a wide gulf between these 'leaders' and the vast mass of peasants and workers they sought to lead. Gandhi recognised that unless the Indian elite succeeded in bridging this gap, they would never able to mobilise the Indian masses or to win political power.
Today this message and example of Gandhi, of leading a simple and austere life, appeals to certain sections of the western world who feel that society has become dehumanised because of its excessive obsession with material goods and comforts. Of course they little realise that Gandhi's emphasis on a 'simple life' and 'traditional values' was a powerful weapon in the hands of the Indian ruling classes to dampen the class struggle and to build a powerful multi-class bloc under the hegemony of the Indian property-owning classes.
Secondly, Gandhi was and is admired for his readiness to march with the people and often at the head of them, and to face all the consequences of the strategic or tactical line he advocated. Unlike many leaders and gurus in the Third World and elsewhere, including those who call themselves socialists, Gandhi did not egg on the masses from the rear. He did not accept the division of labour between leaders who merely show the path making sure that nothing untoward happens to them, and the led who must face the batons, guns and prisons, The film highlights the way Gandhi faces baton charges and unrepentantly marches into jail for the cause he is supporting.
Finally, a large number of people who have seen the film would have been impressed by the manner in which this frail, 'half naked kafir' defiantly stood up to the high and mighty particularly at a time when the British Raj appeared invincible. Although the film does not depict it, Gandhi and the Congress leaders continued their struggles even during the war whilst Stalin's followers in the Communist Party of India were supporting the British war effort and betraying their own members to the Raj, This defiance heartens many blacks and Asians, compelled to fight against racism and racial discrimination day in and day out, who are encouraged by Gandhi's determination and courage.
All this of course does not detract from the fact that Attenborough's film is not so much about Gandhi — quite apart from it being a critical assessment of the role Gandhi played in Indian politics — as a public relations exercise designed to prop up the legend of Gandhi and the myth of Gandhism. In order to achieve this object Attenborough suppresses and distorts historical facts.
Since there is no space to deal with this method exhaustively I will give a few important examples. First, it creates the impression that India gained her political independence primarily or solely due to the actions of Gandhi and the campaigns he initiated. Gandhi, by his stubborn commitment to non-violence and by his appeals to the British Raj's 'inherent sense of justice', managed to persuade the British to grant independence! Nothing could be further from reality. The decisive weakening of British imperialism after World War Two, the war weariness of the British working class, and above all the Indian mutiny which threatened to destroy the only instrument the British Raj could rely on (namely the army) to maintain their grip on India, has been totally ignored by the producer.
The Social Democrats under Attlee, who were the managing agents of British imperialism at the time, understood the danger signals emanating from the Indian mutiny and recognised that it would be impossible for the Raj to contain an increasingly rebellious population of 350 million people by old methods, Therefore they devised the strategy of neo-colonialism — ie the transfer of political power to the local property owning classes whilst maintaining the economic interests of imperialism. It is this specific conjuncture coupled with the treachery of the Communist Party of India that brought about the transfer of political power to the Indian ruling class,
Secondly, the producer does not wish to depict the British in too bad a light; thus the Hindu-Muslim clashes are not the result of British machinations and intrigues designed to divide India, but the outcome of policies pursued by extremists on both sides. And power hungry politicians fall prey to these groups.
Attenborough covers up the criminal policy decision of the British Raj to partition India and by the same stroke manages to side step one of the most damning criticisms one should make of Ghandi's policies — or lack of a policy — concerning the oppressed minorities and nations. Apart from meaningless platitudes about giving a 'fair deal to the minorities' Gandhi could provide no solution to this problem. He did not even comprehend its seriousness. Gandhi did not even dream of putting forward a solution based on the right of self-determination, and thus, he blindly walked into the trap set by British imperialism, resulting in a bloodbath and the partition of India.
Thirdly, the film also avoids any mention of yet another weakness of Gandhi — that is his signal failure to eradicate untouchability or even to project a meaningful programme of socio-economic changes that would have removed a caste oppression. He confined himself to moral exhortations which fell on deaf ears. The leader of the untouchables, whom Gandhi patronisingly referred to as 'Children of God' (Harijan), Dr Ambedkar soon became disillusioned with the Congress leadership. To date the Indian bourgeoisie has not been able to resolve this age-old problem,
Finally, despite his loin cloth and a daily diet of dates and goat milk Gandhi had neither the will nor the desire to break the elitist power structure of Indian society. Gandhi did not seek to promote self-organisation of the Indian masses. On the contrary the moment the masses began to take things into their own hands Ghandi put the breaks on it. Mass mobilisations were alright if they were tightly controlled by the guru. Ghandi did not even consult the masses on the strategy and tactics of fighting the British; at best he would consult a few leaders of the Congress. Personal example and individual heroism were the essence of his method. Gandhi's adherence to 'traditional values' also meant the maintenance of the status quo of women. Here too he prescribed no fundamental changes in the social structure,
Therefore it is not surprising that his disciples in the Congress and other bourgeois parties working within the narrow confines of Gandhi's vision have not been able to solve any of the major problems of the Indian masses in the four decades that have elapsed since his assassination.
UPALI COORAY is a leader of the Revolutionary Marxist Party, Sri Lanka.