Today, October 2, is a significant day in Indian history, marking the birth anniversaries of two remarkable figures: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, often hailed as the “Father of the Nation,” and Lal Bahadur Shastri, India’s second Prime Minister.
Both played pivotal roles in shaping the country, but their legacies are viewed from very different lenses. The narratives around these two leaders have sparked deep debate on who modern India should truly look up to.
Should the youth of today emulate Gandhi, whose non-violent approach to India’s freedom struggle is celebrated, but whose hidden connections with colonial powers are often whispered about? Or should they look to Shastri, a modest but courageous leader, who united the country and died under mysterious circumstances in Tashkent?
Let us delve deeper into the contrasting legacies of these two leaders and examine who truly represents the spirit of the nation.
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, commonly known as Mahatma Gandhi, occupies a significant place in Indian history. His philosophy of non-violence (Ahimsa) and civil disobedience won international recognition, and he is credited with leading India toward independence. However, many argue that his sainthood-like image conceals a more complex reality.
Some critics argue that Gandhi was not the unequivocal freedom fighter he is made out to be. Allegations have emerged that suggest he received secret payments from the British, which allowed him to maintain his position of influence while advocating for a “safe” form of resistance. These allegations cast a shadow on the very idea that he led an entirely independent and altruistic freedom movement. The argument goes that Gandhi’s non-violent approach was in many ways convenient for the British, as it did not threaten their colonial grip in the same way armed resistance did.
It is important to note that India did not receive its independence purely through Gandhi’s non-violent methods. While his tactics of peaceful protest garnered global sympathy, it was the impact of violent movements, particularly led by revolutionary leaders like Subhash Chandra Bose and his Indian National Army (INA), that shook the British Empire.
Many historians suggest that the violent efforts of Bose, coupled with the INA’s military actions, unnerved the British and expedited their departure from India. Bose’s unrelenting pursuit of Indian freedom through any means necessary provided a stark contrast to Gandhi’s more accommodating stance. Yet, Gandhi was awarded the title of “Mahatma” and became the figurehead of India’s independence, despite the fact that the violent struggle arguably played a far more direct role in achieving freedom.
For young Indians today, it is essential to view Gandhi’s legacy critically. While his message of non-violence and tolerance remains important, the question arises: can a leader who may have received financial backing from the colonial powers he was supposedly fighting truly be considered a national hero? That too his ‘soft corner’ towards majority Hindus shown during communal clashes that broke out soon after the partition at Naukali in West Bengal? Also facing allegations of he who responsible for partition to favour his blue-eyed boy Jawaharlal Nehru? Does the modern Indian youth need to blindly follow someone whose role in the freedom struggle is clouded by contradictions?
On the other hand, Lal Bahadur Shastri is remembered as a symbol of simplicity, integrity, and courage. Standing at just five feet tall, Shastri was diminutive in stature but immense in spirit. He played a crucial role in uniting the country during his brief tenure as Prime Minister, especially during the 1965 Indo-Pak war. His rallying call of “Jai Jawan, Jai Kisan” (Hail the Soldier, Hail the Farmer) resonated deeply with the Indian masses, as he recognized the importance of both defending the nation and securing its food supply.
Shastri’s tenure as Prime Minister was marked by his pragmatic approach to governance and his ability to navigate the turbulent geopolitical waters of the time. Unlike Gandhi, Shastri did not shy away from taking a firm stand against India’s adversaries. He led the nation during a critical period of conflict with Pakistan and refused to compromise on India’s territorial integrity. His ability to unify the country during wartime, despite India’s limited resources, showcased his remarkable leadership.
However, his sudden death in Tashkent under mysterious circumstances remains a subject of speculation to this day. Shastri had traveled to the Soviet Union to sign a peace agreement with Pakistan following the 1965 war. The official explanation was that he suffered a heart attack, but many believe there was more to the story. Was he eliminated because he posed a threat to certain power players? The mystery surrounding his death has led some to view him as a martyr, someone who was perhaps too brave and too honest for the murky world of Cold War politics.
The question of whom India’s youth should emulate today—Gandhi or Shastri—comes down to how one defines patriotism and leadership. Gandhi, with his message of non-violence and his saintly image, represents a figure of moral authority. However, his potential compromises and behind-the-scenes dealings with the British raise doubts about his true allegiance to the freedom movement.
Shastri, on the other hand, stands as a figure of undeniable integrity, someone who put the nation’s interests above all else. He did not receive the same adulation as Gandhi, but his actions speak louder than words. He was a patriot who led India through a difficult war and sought to uplift both its soldiers and its farmers. Unlike Gandhi, Shastri did not court the limelight or seek adoration; instead, he focused on doing what was best for India. His mysterious death only adds to the aura of sacrifice that surrounds him.
In today’s rapidly changing world, the youth of India face a different set of challenges, from economic uncertainties to global environmental crises. They need leaders who are not only morally upright but also pragmatic, resilient, and willing to stand up for the country’s interests. While Gandhi’s teachings of non-violence remain relevant in certain contexts, Shastri’s example of quiet courage, integrity, and unwavering patriotism might resonate more with the aspirations of modern India.
In the final analysis, the choice between emulating Gandhi or Shastri is not just about personality but about principles. Gandhi, despite his towering reputation, leaves behind a legacy that is tainted by whispers of betrayal and collusion. On the other hand, Shastri represents the kind of leadership that India needs today—humble, yet bold; quiet, yet effective.
The youth of India, in their quest to build a stronger and more self-reliant nation, would do well to follow the path of Lal Bahadur Shastri—a true Desh Bhakt—who lived and died for the country without fanfare, but with a deep sense of duty.