Gandhi, Vaikom and Socrates
Intro Note: The town of Vaikom in Kerala is famous for a temple dedicated to Siva. Till less than a century ago, the temple and even the surrounding streets were out of bounds for a large fraction of the population who were considered low-caste. A Satyagraha with the support and active participation of Mahatma Gandhi was undertaken against this abomination; after a long and painful struggle, it achieved success.
-----------
"Back in 1924, when the epoch-making Vaikom Satyagraha was on, Gandhi came calling. He expressed a desire to meet with the chief trustee of the Vaikom temple, the patriarch of the Indamthuruthi Nambuthiri family. Since Gandhi was a Vaisya by caste, the brahmin Nambuthiri wouldn't bother to call on him and said "let him (Gandhi) come over here!". And Gandhi went to the Nambuthiri 'Mana'. But again, no Vaisya can enter a Brahmin home so they built a Pandal outside the Mana for Gandhi to sit and then they talked.
And their discussions are well documented. Gandhi asked: "These poor folk who aren't allowed to use the temple roads, aren't they our brothers? Why can't they be permitted to approach the holy area?". And the Nambuthiri responded: "The people you refer to, they are degraded life forms ("neechajanmangal"): they ought to face their karma!". Gandhi tried his best to reason with him, to no avail. He had to go back... And in case you don't know, that Mana which kept Gandhiji out a century ago, it now houses the office of Vaikom Toddy Tappers Union, yes, the Toddy Tappers! That is the way History works. It is unforgiving... all caste-mad bigwigs out there had better note, Time is implacable. It will make you pay for all your nonsense!"
--------
The above is from a speech by noted scholar and orator Sunil P Ilayidom (my translation from Malayalam). Last year when the 'Sabarimala Issue' was burning (in a few weeks from now, it shall be set alight all over again - the main pilgrimage season is about to begin), Ilayidom had plunged headlong into the thick of it all and given many speeches in various parts of the state, relentlessly appealing to this Indamthuruthi Mana episode to attack the 'status quoists' (I am not going into what his opponents were trying to preserve and from what and why. All that has been beaten to death and beyond by many). Of course, having grown up in Kerala, I had heard my bit about the Vaikom agitation but the above details were fresh - and poignant.
October 2nd was Gandhi's 150th birthday. A holiday. Our tour group had nothing to do. Then it occurred to us that Vaikom is only 20 odd kilometers from where we live ...
Google Maps easily took us to the 'Chethu Thozhilali Union Office'. It stands on the main road in Vaikom town. The town itself is a quiet backwater (the main Kochi-Kottayam highway bypasses it) on the banks of the Vembanad lake .
We reached the place in the afternoon. The toddy tappers' union is affiliated to the Communist Party (the 'non-Marxist' faction). Some party workers were in the premises and were very cordial to us, particularly so after we mentioned "Ilayidom Maash's speech". The Mana building stands in the middle of a large compound. This is how it looks:
In the portico-like extension in front sits a portrait of Gandhi, adorned with red garlands. "This is the spot where they built the pandal for Gandhiji to sit; you know, they wouldn't let him in" said one of our hosts. The building has been preserved well. Inside, there is a 'Nadumuttom' (inner courtyard) and a large 'Nilavara' or 'Pathayam' (storehouse or granary) with wooden walls - it now stores a big heap of red flags and festoons. Part of the first floor is taken up by a hall decorated with further red flags.
Walking around the compound, one sees red-painted tombs of early Communists - the most prominent among them is Com. Viswanathan.
Later, at the Satyagraha museum, located near the Vaikom Boat Jetty, where Gandhi had disembarked, we saw this picture:
The caption states: "Indamthuruthil Devan Neelakanthan Nambyathiri". So, here is the villain of the Gandhi episode! Somehow, this picture of a youth - an almost androgynous stripling(*) - clashed sharply with the image conveyed by Ilayidom's words - that of a middle-aged, mean and fiery patriarch. And I don't really know the difference - if any - between a Nambuthiri and a Nambyathiri.
Back home, while contemplating the visit and the pictures one took, I was struck by the pandal having been built right adjacent to the Mana building. Somehow, Ilayidom's speech had given me an impression (only an impression, mind you!)that Gandhi was forced to keep a distance from the Mana - and did so very generously. Now, it appears he was only denied entry into the main building - indeed such an entry would have seriously violated the prevalent caste conventions (as most historians aver, caste was the axis on which Kerala social life turned in those benighted times). Moreover, the Nambuthiri had put up a pandal to shield the visitor from the elements. So, was the Father of the Nation really that badly treated - is it not conceivable that what Gandhi got was, under the circumstances, the best possible behavior?
And in disagreeing flatly with Gandhi, was the Nambuthiri/Nambyathiri being the wicked arch-bigot or was he a mere representative and custodian of a hide-bound conservative establishment? Moreover, the Gandhi of 1924 wasn't yet the saintly old Bapu, revered by future generations (**) - he was then 'only' a middle aged leader who had nearly a quarter of a century more.to live; and although he was already a towering all-India presence, Gandhi's best work lay well in the future.
That train of thought led me to ponder how various experiences (and acts and utterances) of Gandhi have been recalled and reinterpreted (and appropriated) to buttress opinions held by people subscribing to divers - and often diametrically opposed - ideologies and awakened fading memories of Marxist Historian D D Kosambi's 'Exasperating Essay' on the Trial of Socrates. In an online version thereof, one reads (let me quote some passages):
-------------
"In the year 399 B.C., an Athenian dicastery (note: Athens was reputed to be a democratic state), consisting of a panel of 500 citizens, sentenced to death an aged compatriot named Sokrates. Two accounts of the case have come down to us, both by pupils and admirers of the accused: Plato and Xenophon....Sokrates did not defend himself on legalitarian grounds, but on those of what might be called the rights of man as regards freedom of speech. The legal aspect of the case can be seen fully discussed in any book that deals with causes celebres; the trial, in fact is usually the first of any historically arranged series of famous trials. All jurists, Lord Birkenhead among them, come--rather shamefacedly to be sure - to the conclusion that as the law existed in that age, the verdict was justified...." .....
the trial has an aspect of martyrdom, inasmuch as the prisoner at the bar deliberately baited the jury and took a high tone with his judges; he preferred the alternative of a death sentence to that of stopping to teach and discuss; moreover, the law as administered gave him a certain amount of time in which escape into exile was possible, and actually arranged by his friends, but refused indignantly by himself....and (he) calmly drank off his cup of poison at the end. ....
Sokrates behaved as he did because, in his own words, be was guided by an inner voice; a divine, or daemonic message was conveyed to him in times of stress, and he never allowed fear of the consequences to divert him from obedience. It is unfortunate that a person of his intelligence, ability, uprightness, and courage was told nothing by the Gandhian inner voice about the condition of the masses at large.... about allowing workers (slaves) to participate in that sort of liberty which had already brought such an access of vigor to the Greeks as to enable them to hold out against the much more powerful Persian empire. The inner voice could have told him nothing about the far distant future...but I do think that the inner voice should have made it clear to him that a certain class of people would twist his teaching to their own profits as against the well being of the body politic. And when the attempts of this class failed, the class itself was content to look on while the sadly damaged state gave him a choice between keeping quiet or being executed.
------------
I am not yet done with the Kosambi article. Here is a patchwork of sentences picked from various portions of it.......
"Arguments on the trial of Socrates have too often been based on the susceptibility of democracy to weaknesses of the crowd-mind. Most historians take up one position or the other in this matter, for or against democracy....there was no public regret at his death in Athens, or elsewhere in Greece.....His condemnation did not cause a furor even among the aristocrats, for they had nothing more to gain from him except long after he was dead, when his case was useful as an argument against democracy."
Looking at the above para again, my memories go back to yet another Ilayidom speech where he invokes Gandhi as a clinching example to make a point, thus:
"I have directly said this to folks in the (Hindu Nationalist) RSS: I know you guys do not like me much... And you are the ones who shot Gandhi, right? You could kill even Gandhi so Sunil P Ilayidom is no big fish; you can easily beat me up and I can only get beaten up... But let me assure you, in the long run, you are going to be worse off for your troubles!"
That really completes a circle of sorts; for in his speeches, Ilayidom often quotes with great appreciation and approval from Kosambi's analyses of Indian scriptures and philosophy - - sharp, sometimes intemperate but always brilliantly original.
---------------
And let me sign off with another remark: At least in present day Kerala, Communism is pretty much a religion, a faith. Quite different from the confusing cacophony of Hindu sects (and maybe this difference explains its enduring attraction for nominal Hindus), it has a certain Abrahamic (I can't think of a better adjective) focus and precision - a well-defined hierarchy of Prophets and Masters and Evangelists (note the apocalyptic tone of Ilayidom's speech), a core of infallible texts and beliefs... Kerala history is replete with instances of Jain and Buddhist temples being taken over and turned into Brahminical temples. The Indamthuruthi Mana appears to have continued the same process one step further, a once proud Brahminical bastion becoming a quasi-Abrahamic shrine - its precincts now containing even a cemetery!
Note: Accounts of the Satyagraha invariably mention that the agitators were often brutally assaulted. Was the Indamthurithi Mana responsible (this really is a question at least as important as the one on how Gandhi was treated)? Or was it the Travancore state police? I really don't know! And I have no idea what subsequently befell the Nambuthiri and/or his descendants...
----------------
Appendix:
If my quotes from Kosambi's essay came through as unwarrentedly selective, let me present three versions of an exchange that happened in 1924. Gandhi, while in Kerala to take part in the Vaikom agitation, called on Sri Narayana Guru.
Version 1 (from the biopic on the Guru by P A Backer):
Gandhi: Do you think Hinduism offers a valid path to salvation?
Guru: Certainly! Indeed, all religions offer valid pathways to salvation!
......
Version 2 (from an online page):
Gandhi: Swamiji, do you think Hinduism is a valid means to attain salvation?
Guru: All religions are pathways to salvation!
Gandhi: Agreed, but could you comment specifically on Hinduism?
Guru: Hinduism does offer valid methods to attain salvation. But, to most people, material and physical well being is a more immediate concern than spiritual liberation.
.......
Version 3 (from an Ilayidom speech):
Gandhi asked: Swami, do you think Hinduism is a valid means to attain salvation?
A simple yes/no question, right? But the Guru gave a more interesting answer:"All religions are pathways to salvation!"
Now, Gandhi wasn't satisfied. he persisted: "Let us keep other religions aside, what would say about Hinduism as a means to attain salvation?"
And Guru's answer went to the heart of the matter: "Given the state of what today goes by the name of Hinduism, you will have to reincarnate many many times before it is of any use in bringing salvation to the masses!"
------>
(*)The word stripling has been used deliberately to mark only my second encounter with it; I first saw it in the Amar Chitra Katha volume on Abhimanyu (right at the opening of the Kurukshetra war, the young hero goes one-on-one with mighty veteran Bheeshma; finding no way to get past his adversary, Bheeshma muses: "A mere stripling of a boy, but what a fine warrior!") and then again just yesterday when i casually looked into 'Ulysses' at my usual bookshop and encountered the 'blind stripling'.
(**) Free India's reverence for Gandhi is fast becoming a thing of the past. There was a time when he was both 'Father' and 'Holy Ghost' of the nation. At least till the 1990s, it was bad form to refer to him as simply 'Gandhi' and not as 'Gandhiji' or 'Mahatma Gandhi' - nowadays, 'Gandhi' is pretty much the norm (Ilayidom sprinkles the spread of 'Gandhi's in his speeches with the odd 'Gandhiji'). A generation ago, at 11 am on every Jan 30th, every school used to observe a minute of silence to mark his martyrdom; now, at least many do not. And in post-liberalization, 'superpower' India, someone leading a Gandhian lifestyle is seen as a quaint anachronism.
-----------
"Back in 1924, when the epoch-making Vaikom Satyagraha was on, Gandhi came calling. He expressed a desire to meet with the chief trustee of the Vaikom temple, the patriarch of the Indamthuruthi Nambuthiri family. Since Gandhi was a Vaisya by caste, the brahmin Nambuthiri wouldn't bother to call on him and said "let him (Gandhi) come over here!". And Gandhi went to the Nambuthiri 'Mana'. But again, no Vaisya can enter a Brahmin home so they built a Pandal outside the Mana for Gandhi to sit and then they talked.
And their discussions are well documented. Gandhi asked: "These poor folk who aren't allowed to use the temple roads, aren't they our brothers? Why can't they be permitted to approach the holy area?". And the Nambuthiri responded: "The people you refer to, they are degraded life forms ("neechajanmangal"): they ought to face their karma!". Gandhi tried his best to reason with him, to no avail. He had to go back... And in case you don't know, that Mana which kept Gandhiji out a century ago, it now houses the office of Vaikom Toddy Tappers Union, yes, the Toddy Tappers! That is the way History works. It is unforgiving... all caste-mad bigwigs out there had better note, Time is implacable. It will make you pay for all your nonsense!"
--------
The above is from a speech by noted scholar and orator Sunil P Ilayidom (my translation from Malayalam). Last year when the 'Sabarimala Issue' was burning (in a few weeks from now, it shall be set alight all over again - the main pilgrimage season is about to begin), Ilayidom had plunged headlong into the thick of it all and given many speeches in various parts of the state, relentlessly appealing to this Indamthuruthi Mana episode to attack the 'status quoists' (I am not going into what his opponents were trying to preserve and from what and why. All that has been beaten to death and beyond by many). Of course, having grown up in Kerala, I had heard my bit about the Vaikom agitation but the above details were fresh - and poignant.
October 2nd was Gandhi's 150th birthday. A holiday. Our tour group had nothing to do. Then it occurred to us that Vaikom is only 20 odd kilometers from where we live ...
Google Maps easily took us to the 'Chethu Thozhilali Union Office'. It stands on the main road in Vaikom town. The town itself is a quiet backwater (the main Kochi-Kottayam highway bypasses it) on the banks of the Vembanad lake .
We reached the place in the afternoon. The toddy tappers' union is affiliated to the Communist Party (the 'non-Marxist' faction). Some party workers were in the premises and were very cordial to us, particularly so after we mentioned "Ilayidom Maash's speech". The Mana building stands in the middle of a large compound. This is how it looks:
In the portico-like extension in front sits a portrait of Gandhi, adorned with red garlands. "This is the spot where they built the pandal for Gandhiji to sit; you know, they wouldn't let him in" said one of our hosts. The building has been preserved well. Inside, there is a 'Nadumuttom' (inner courtyard) and a large 'Nilavara' or 'Pathayam' (storehouse or granary) with wooden walls - it now stores a big heap of red flags and festoons. Part of the first floor is taken up by a hall decorated with further red flags.
Walking around the compound, one sees red-painted tombs of early Communists - the most prominent among them is Com. Viswanathan.
Later, at the Satyagraha museum, located near the Vaikom Boat Jetty, where Gandhi had disembarked, we saw this picture:
The caption states: "Indamthuruthil Devan Neelakanthan Nambyathiri". So, here is the villain of the Gandhi episode! Somehow, this picture of a youth - an almost androgynous stripling(*) - clashed sharply with the image conveyed by Ilayidom's words - that of a middle-aged, mean and fiery patriarch. And I don't really know the difference - if any - between a Nambuthiri and a Nambyathiri.
Back home, while contemplating the visit and the pictures one took, I was struck by the pandal having been built right adjacent to the Mana building. Somehow, Ilayidom's speech had given me an impression (only an impression, mind you!)that Gandhi was forced to keep a distance from the Mana - and did so very generously. Now, it appears he was only denied entry into the main building - indeed such an entry would have seriously violated the prevalent caste conventions (as most historians aver, caste was the axis on which Kerala social life turned in those benighted times). Moreover, the Nambuthiri had put up a pandal to shield the visitor from the elements. So, was the Father of the Nation really that badly treated - is it not conceivable that what Gandhi got was, under the circumstances, the best possible behavior?
And in disagreeing flatly with Gandhi, was the Nambuthiri/Nambyathiri being the wicked arch-bigot or was he a mere representative and custodian of a hide-bound conservative establishment? Moreover, the Gandhi of 1924 wasn't yet the saintly old Bapu, revered by future generations (**) - he was then 'only' a middle aged leader who had nearly a quarter of a century more.to live; and although he was already a towering all-India presence, Gandhi's best work lay well in the future.
That train of thought led me to ponder how various experiences (and acts and utterances) of Gandhi have been recalled and reinterpreted (and appropriated) to buttress opinions held by people subscribing to divers - and often diametrically opposed - ideologies and awakened fading memories of Marxist Historian D D Kosambi's 'Exasperating Essay' on the Trial of Socrates. In an online version thereof, one reads (let me quote some passages):
-------------
"In the year 399 B.C., an Athenian dicastery (note: Athens was reputed to be a democratic state), consisting of a panel of 500 citizens, sentenced to death an aged compatriot named Sokrates. Two accounts of the case have come down to us, both by pupils and admirers of the accused: Plato and Xenophon....Sokrates did not defend himself on legalitarian grounds, but on those of what might be called the rights of man as regards freedom of speech. The legal aspect of the case can be seen fully discussed in any book that deals with causes celebres; the trial, in fact is usually the first of any historically arranged series of famous trials. All jurists, Lord Birkenhead among them, come--rather shamefacedly to be sure - to the conclusion that as the law existed in that age, the verdict was justified...." .....
the trial has an aspect of martyrdom, inasmuch as the prisoner at the bar deliberately baited the jury and took a high tone with his judges; he preferred the alternative of a death sentence to that of stopping to teach and discuss; moreover, the law as administered gave him a certain amount of time in which escape into exile was possible, and actually arranged by his friends, but refused indignantly by himself....and (he) calmly drank off his cup of poison at the end. ....
Sokrates behaved as he did because, in his own words, be was guided by an inner voice; a divine, or daemonic message was conveyed to him in times of stress, and he never allowed fear of the consequences to divert him from obedience. It is unfortunate that a person of his intelligence, ability, uprightness, and courage was told nothing by the Gandhian inner voice about the condition of the masses at large.... about allowing workers (slaves) to participate in that sort of liberty which had already brought such an access of vigor to the Greeks as to enable them to hold out against the much more powerful Persian empire. The inner voice could have told him nothing about the far distant future...but I do think that the inner voice should have made it clear to him that a certain class of people would twist his teaching to their own profits as against the well being of the body politic. And when the attempts of this class failed, the class itself was content to look on while the sadly damaged state gave him a choice between keeping quiet or being executed.
------------
I am not yet done with the Kosambi article. Here is a patchwork of sentences picked from various portions of it.......
"Arguments on the trial of Socrates have too often been based on the susceptibility of democracy to weaknesses of the crowd-mind. Most historians take up one position or the other in this matter, for or against democracy....there was no public regret at his death in Athens, or elsewhere in Greece.....His condemnation did not cause a furor even among the aristocrats, for they had nothing more to gain from him except long after he was dead, when his case was useful as an argument against democracy."
Looking at the above para again, my memories go back to yet another Ilayidom speech where he invokes Gandhi as a clinching example to make a point, thus:
"I have directly said this to folks in the (Hindu Nationalist) RSS: I know you guys do not like me much... And you are the ones who shot Gandhi, right? You could kill even Gandhi so Sunil P Ilayidom is no big fish; you can easily beat me up and I can only get beaten up... But let me assure you, in the long run, you are going to be worse off for your troubles!"
That really completes a circle of sorts; for in his speeches, Ilayidom often quotes with great appreciation and approval from Kosambi's analyses of Indian scriptures and philosophy - - sharp, sometimes intemperate but always brilliantly original.
---------------
And let me sign off with another remark: At least in present day Kerala, Communism is pretty much a religion, a faith. Quite different from the confusing cacophony of Hindu sects (and maybe this difference explains its enduring attraction for nominal Hindus), it has a certain Abrahamic (I can't think of a better adjective) focus and precision - a well-defined hierarchy of Prophets and Masters and Evangelists (note the apocalyptic tone of Ilayidom's speech), a core of infallible texts and beliefs... Kerala history is replete with instances of Jain and Buddhist temples being taken over and turned into Brahminical temples. The Indamthuruthi Mana appears to have continued the same process one step further, a once proud Brahminical bastion becoming a quasi-Abrahamic shrine - its precincts now containing even a cemetery!
Note: Accounts of the Satyagraha invariably mention that the agitators were often brutally assaulted. Was the Indamthurithi Mana responsible (this really is a question at least as important as the one on how Gandhi was treated)? Or was it the Travancore state police? I really don't know! And I have no idea what subsequently befell the Nambuthiri and/or his descendants...
----------------
Appendix:
If my quotes from Kosambi's essay came through as unwarrentedly selective, let me present three versions of an exchange that happened in 1924. Gandhi, while in Kerala to take part in the Vaikom agitation, called on Sri Narayana Guru.
Version 1 (from the biopic on the Guru by P A Backer):
Gandhi: Do you think Hinduism offers a valid path to salvation?
Guru: Certainly! Indeed, all religions offer valid pathways to salvation!
......
Version 2 (from an online page):
Gandhi: Swamiji, do you think Hinduism is a valid means to attain salvation?
Guru: All religions are pathways to salvation!
Gandhi: Agreed, but could you comment specifically on Hinduism?
Guru: Hinduism does offer valid methods to attain salvation. But, to most people, material and physical well being is a more immediate concern than spiritual liberation.
.......
Version 3 (from an Ilayidom speech):
Gandhi asked: Swami, do you think Hinduism is a valid means to attain salvation?
A simple yes/no question, right? But the Guru gave a more interesting answer:"All religions are pathways to salvation!"
Now, Gandhi wasn't satisfied. he persisted: "Let us keep other religions aside, what would say about Hinduism as a means to attain salvation?"
And Guru's answer went to the heart of the matter: "Given the state of what today goes by the name of Hinduism, you will have to reincarnate many many times before it is of any use in bringing salvation to the masses!"
------>
(*)The word stripling has been used deliberately to mark only my second encounter with it; I first saw it in the Amar Chitra Katha volume on Abhimanyu (right at the opening of the Kurukshetra war, the young hero goes one-on-one with mighty veteran Bheeshma; finding no way to get past his adversary, Bheeshma muses: "A mere stripling of a boy, but what a fine warrior!") and then again just yesterday when i casually looked into 'Ulysses' at my usual bookshop and encountered the 'blind stripling'.
(**) Free India's reverence for Gandhi is fast becoming a thing of the past. There was a time when he was both 'Father' and 'Holy Ghost' of the nation. At least till the 1990s, it was bad form to refer to him as simply 'Gandhi' and not as 'Gandhiji' or 'Mahatma Gandhi' - nowadays, 'Gandhi' is pretty much the norm (Ilayidom sprinkles the spread of 'Gandhi's in his speeches with the odd 'Gandhiji'). A generation ago, at 11 am on every Jan 30th, every school used to observe a minute of silence to mark his martyrdom; now, at least many do not. And in post-liberalization, 'superpower' India, someone leading a Gandhian lifestyle is seen as a quaint anachronism.
posted by R.Nandakumar @ 9:58 AM
1 Comments:
At 11:02 AM,
Ratheesh Palluruthy said…
👍👍👍
Post a Comment
<< Home