Honouring the Father of the Nation
K.N. Pandita
Nearly sixty years after the apostle of peace departed from the stage, Gandhi has found favour with the UN, which will, henceforth, observe October 2, his birthday, as International Day of Non-Violence. Rightfully, the Indian nation will feel proud for clinching this unique recognition by world community.
With this honour coming to the country, it is all the more important that India becomes a pro-active member of world peace movement and makes substantial contribution befitting the status world body will be giving to the Father of the Nation. Of course, the UN requires to be sensitised to the truth that by keeping the second largest populated country in the world out of the Security Council structure means depriving the world of a mighty force capable of throwing in its weight in favour of world peace. We hope this realization will dawn upon the UN sooner than later.
Indian print media has reported that the initiative of earmarking October 2 as the international day of non-violence had come from Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, the Congress President. The Congress as a frontline political party engaged in the long-drawn struggle for India’s independence has responded to its moral duty of asking the UN for the recognition of the services of Gandhi to the humanity in general and to the Indians in particular.
But the disturbing news is that the UN is repored to have invited Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, the Congress chief to attend the inaugural function in NY to observe the birthday of Mahatma Gandhi as the international day of non-violence. In doing so the UN has disregarded the sentiments of the broad masses of Indians about the Father of the Nation. It has taken into account just one political party, namely Congress with which Gandhi remained associated, though he was never a formal member of the Congress. It is true that Congress represents a large section of the people of India, but Gandhi was never the exclusive leader and the light for the Congress only. He belonged to the millions of toiling and working Indians.
The UN should have asked the Congress to constitute a team of Gandhians from among all political and social groupings to represent the nation at the inauguration on October 2 at the UN headquarters in NY. This would have helped Indians of all shades of opinion understand that the world recognized the great contgributionof a person they call the Father of the Nation. Evidently it would have prompted the Indian masses to steadfastly commit themselves to the cause of non-violence.
Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, the Congress chief, a late comer to the Indian political platform, has never seen or met with Gandhi and was never associated with his movement. Even on personal level, she or her late mother-in-law has nothing to do with the Gandhian family name as they derived it from one Feroze perhaps of Zoroastrian faith. At the same time there are many Indians still living who had worked with Gandhi ji or were associated with his movement and yet are not necessarily members of Congress party. It should be recollected that soon after India attained freedom in 1947, Gandhi had strongly desired that Congress as a political party were dissolved and new political groupings were formed. His argument was that the Congress activists could misuse the trust, which Indian masses had placed in them and would gradually tilt towards authoritarianism. Nobody among Gandhi’s followers, not even those who shed tears at his tragic death, were prepared to do what Gandhi had desired of them. Who does not want to cling to power?
This is a national issue of great importance and non one party from among a host of political parties in India should be permitted to monopolize the national event or draw an extra political mile from it.
(The author is a freelance journalist)