The Times & The Sunday Times, Malta
Glorifying Gandhi
Edric Micallef Figallo, Nadur.
Gandhi, as provided by Kenneth Zammit Tabona (August 28) appears iconic and glorified to the extent of appearing as an infallible idol.
I have a much more historical and pragmatical judgement of Gandhi. Sincere respect and admiration is owed towards such a man for he fought to liberate his nation from British imperialism as did many of Malta's own nationalists. Apart from such an Indian-Maltese parallel, Gandhi is admirable for fighting imperialism per se.
I personally view with distaste how Western liberals have transposed Gandhi into some kind of non-violent and pacifistic absolutist fighting racism and European intolerance in exclusion of anything else such as Gandhi's nationalism. Through this conception the means to an end of the nationalist Gandhi have become the end in itself for the liberals. Gandhi might have been idealistic, but he has been much more idealised in the West with neglect to his pragmatic vision.
This results in a total decontextualisation for current political agendas. An example is Gandhi's asceticism. This portrayed asceticism represented through a meagre and humble traditional Indian clothing was a means to reach out to all classes and castes of Indian society and symbolically rejecting European customs. It was effectively a nationalist and populist move.
Enmeshing the historical Gandhi, current immigration and religion enables Mr Zammit Tabona to promote his own political vision and not Gandhi's. The historico-political contexts involving Gandhi and our current one are totally different and ethically speaking there are no substantial analogies involved.
Mr Zammit Tabona blames religion per se for India's internecine strife ignoring that it was a result of the Islamic minority perceiving itself as politically ill-treated in a Hindu dominated India. Gandhi opposed religious sectarianism because it socially divided, and eventually politically divided, what he conceived as one nation in line with his nationalist thought. An indigenous minority led itself to independence according to what it perceived as its rights. I ask, what will happen when such feelings are expressed by extraneous minorities?
Mr Zammit Tabona's diatribe on "institutionalised religion" and its "materialistic and bigoted ritualistic side" that supposedly engenders "fear and hatred" is reminiscent of the typical leftist revolutionary anti-clerical diatribes which are definitely more outmoded than Malta's Catholic heritage.
Concomitant praise of Jesus Christ, Buddha, Mother Teresa and Gandhi in typical syncretistic and humanistic fashion coupled with Mr Zammit Tabona's liberal political agenda should be enough to dissuade any Catholic from following this particular opinionist's preaching.
Moreover, his attack on Evita Peron is unwarranted. I bet it might be because she was a "fascist" who was politically responsible for women's right to vote in her own Argentina. Peron was much loved by the populace and came from very humble origins, including being a child born out of wedlock.
Gandhi by contrast chose his asceticism while being from a well-to-do Indian merchant family involved in politics. As far as anyone practising what he preaches, I hope Mr Zammit Tabona is on the front line because he preaches a lot.
Nowadays, echoing a popular thought as Gandhi did and opposing mass migration to Malta warrants among others the epithet "fascist" in a European political climate dominated by those providing constant calls against the "fascist" bogeyman.
For those who deem Gandhi an icon, they should know that he stated that "Il Duce è uno statista di primissimo ordine, completamente disinteressato. Un superuomo." I wonder, who's the "fascist" now?