I am a proud Ghanaian who is proud of my colour and culture, so I do not particularly like those who deride my faith, culture or colour either past or present. I am also a student of History, so I have learned to appreciate the context of events of the past. The “Gandhi Must Fall” movement – which was sparked by the erection of a statue of Gandhi behind the Balm Library of the University of Ghana – is a movement I have followed quite carefully.
The arguments that I have heard that backs this movement is based on ‘new’ revelations of some of Gandhi’s writings and life in South Africa that suggests that he was a racist. He therefore has no place in an African institution, much less behind the biggest library in West Africa. I disagree with this notion.
Firstly, because unlike other “must fall” movements such as, “Rhodes Must Fall,” it is my conviction that Gandhi was different from historical figures such as Rhodes. Following from that I would explain the historical context of Gandhi’s racism. Lastly, I explain why defining worthy historical figures such as Gandhi should not be through narrow social cultural demographics such as nationality, gender, and race but rather the bigger picture of their contributions to humanity.
Before I start I must add that this essay is not in defense of indefensible historical figures such as Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Cecil Rhodes. These individuals have no place in the twenty-first century. They are not worth remembering. These figures did the worst to not only minority groups, but to humanity as a whole. They serve no utility to us as humans except that they are constant reminders of the extent of evilness and brutishness that humans can attain if not checked.
This essay is in defense of historical figures such as Kwame Nkrumah (who expelled expatriates including Indians, Lebanese and other Asians from the Gold Coast all in a fit of nationalism), Gandhi (who was not concerned about blacks in South Africa although they suffered the same injustices as the Indians), Nelson Mandela( who once indulged in terrorist activity and continued to support Muammer Ghaddafi after he had killed hundreds of Americans and British aboard a plane over Scotland) , and Harry Truman (who dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the second World War) who were in general good people who did some bad things at one point in time.
The “Gandhi Must Fall Movement” seems to portray Gandhi in the same light that one would portray Cecil Rhodes. In my opinion, this characterization of Gandhi is not fair to him and to history. Why?
Rhodes was an individual who heralded colonialism in the resource rich Southern Africa. He was responsible for the maiming and working to death of thousands of Africans in the Gold mines of Southern Africa. For all intents and purposes this man was Africa’s version of a ruthless slave master across the Atlantic. On the other hand Gandhi was a freedom fighter and anti-colonialist who fought for the freedoms of Indians both home and abroad. Widely known as the architect of peaceful and non-violent means of protest and civil disobedience. In pursuing reconciliation between minority Muslim Indians and Hindu Indians he was killed by a Hindu fundamentalist who felt he betrayed Hindu values. In pursuit of these goals in a multi-racial society such as South Africa – where he lived for twenty years – he derided blacks.
In Apartheid South Africa, Indians and blacks were treated in the same manner. He insisted that Indians be treated better and given more rights and freedoms that would improve their condition. In pursuing this goal he sometimes cut deals with the devil (Apartheid government). For instance, he encouraged Indians to enlist in the Ambulance service of the military.
Perhaps, albeit selfishly so, he foresaw the emancipation of the Indian people as linked to supporting the oppressors in their oppression of others. And he was not wrong, Indians saw marginal improvements in their situation. However, I would not have sufficient paper to list the various African freedom fighters who worked with colonial regimes at one point in their lives.
But ultimately, true freedom would come when they worked collectively with other minorities for equality and the dismantling of Apartheid. His strategy of working with the Apartheid regime and his neglect and derision of the blacks is the cause of the unease that some Africans grumble at any attempt to recognize Gandhi as a hero, especially in Africa. This selfishness was not peculiar to Gandhi alone, it was the nature of freedom and anti-colonial movements in the twentieth century.
Nationalism, Pan-Africanism, Zionism, Pan-Arabism and all the other ‘Pans’ in the early twentieth century were selfish and narrow in their focus, often neglected other minorities who were outside the scope of these nationalist movements. Pan-African movements during these times was predominantly focused on blacks in continental Africa and the diaspora. Occasionally recognizing other non-black continental Africans. Fighting for the emancipation of members of their race while neglecting others such as the Asians, some Arabs, and Latinos suffered the same or even worse conditions.
Sadly, the same can be said of the other nationalist and ‘pan’ movements. Early nationalism during that time opined that people who identified common characteristics such as race, language, faith and culture should have the right to self-determination. This was the prevailing definition of nationalism. Practicalised within countries where there existed minorities that did not fit into these sometimes homogenous definition of nation, this could spell total exclusion for these minorities. Not less true for multi-racial societies such as South Africa which was a mixture of whites, East Asians, Indians, and Africans.
This would mean that Indians would fight for Indian rights, Africans for African rights, Asians for Asian rights. And that was exactly the case in South Africa in the early twentieth century. The African National Congress (ANC) refused to join alliance with the Asians and Indians in the early twentieth century. It was after the 1960s that there were signs of cooperation between these groups (sadly this is not the times that Gandhi lived in. After the counter-cultural revolution in the 1960s the definition of minorities expanded to include different groups such as homosexuals, women etc.).
Lastly, I have maintained that a “Must Fall” movement seeks to redefine the personality that is in question. In that, one seeks to define him/her by the effect that he/she had on a particular demography. The appeal to bring down a statue is an argument, that whatever good that statue represents is less worthy than the sins or evils committed by the individual whose image it represents. So for Gandhi, this means he is defined by Ghanaians as a selfish, racist, pedophile who happened to be a freedom fighter and anti-colonialist. This in my opinion is unhealthy. Why?
Firstly, I do not in the least bit think that the statues of Thomas Jefferson in America has muted the discussion that although he was an independence fighter and early liberal thinker he was still a slave owner. It is in every book you read and he is often criticized for the inconsistency within the context of the eighteenth –and nineteenth -century. Now, the moment that a section of Americans begin to call for his statue to be destroyed, it would be an attempt to make the dominant image of Jefferson to be one of a slave owner, ignoring his role in laying the foundation for America’s independence which would go on to benefit the slaves; and his role in liberal philosophy that future abolitionist would use to free slaves. This would greatly ignore the context of the U.S that Jefferson lived in.
Likewise we can discuss Gandhi’s racist comments and attitudes without calling for a demolishing of his statue. In looking at worthy historical figures (especially those who were freedom fighters) we should try to be objective and less passionate. Why?
Firstly, nationalist and freedom movements in the early twentieth century were selfish and sometimes far removed from each other. This is very harmful because it tends to lead to a situation where leaders who only did something for your cultural group are acknowledged. This makes us no different from the narrow nationalist in the past, which is troubling. Also, it blinds us in the appreciation of struggle by various groups of people even if they may have offended some in the process.
For instance. The British and Americans must rise beyond Mandela’s continues support for Ghaddafi after he killed their citizens but see him for his ability to heal a wounded nation. Palestinians and Lebanese must rise above Nkrumah’s expulsion of their people from Ghana and recognize him as an inspiration in their fight for equality in Israel. If we sectionalize our examination of worthy historical figures we risk breeding an unhealthy trend. Knowing that most of our heroes lived in an era of patriarchy, quite a number of them would have actively suppressed or plainly ignored the rights of women. Hence, women can deem most of our historical figures as unworthy of recognition. A trend I personally fear.
In conclusion, all I have said is that there were bad people who did bad things in a bad environment. There were also good people who did good things in a bad environment which sometimes affected their good in many ways. I believe in the bigger picture
By : Michael Owusu-Frimpong
Share this:
Related
UG SRC Justifies ¢12,000 Residential Allowance For Executives
Pastor Stops Trump From Attacking Clinton in Church
Share this:
Related
You Might Also Like
Leave a Comment
Radio Univers 105.7MHz
Gandhi was racist, paedophile and misogynist – #RhodesMustFall Activist
#GandhiMustStand, Says Research Fellow.
Group Files Counter Petition To #GandhiMustFall
Was This Post Helpful:#GandhiMustStandMahatma GandhiMahatma Gandhi StaatueUniversity of Ghana PREVIOUS POSTNEXT POST – on September 26, 2016– on September 23, 2016– on September 22, 2016
