The thing about leaders like Gandhi is that they become immortalized in a way that’s historically disconnected from their reality. Gandhi has a depraved track history of violating the freedom of girls and women. This track history is documented so well because women had such few rights back then that he wasn’t even afraid of repercussions. That’s what blows my mind.
I’m not going to intellectualize what Gandhi did. I don’t buy into his role as a zeitgeist of a time as relieving him of the accountability every human being should have. He was a person who transgressed against other people. It’s uncomfortable because addressing misogyny has been made to feel uncomfortable. The first time I brought Gandhi’s recorded history up to another South Asian friend of mine in college ten years ago, his response was, “but why do you have to do that to Gandhi’s name? He’s such an important historical figure.”
Girls and women have been the collateral damage during “great” men’s quest toward salvation, enlightenment, whatever you want to call it for far too long. It should never have been the case.
When it comes to his racism, that’s also well-documented. How are we supposed to stand in solidarity with our Black brothers and sisters in the world if we’re so hell-bent on idolizing a figure who contributed to racist sentiment against them in their own countries?
My point is never to be contrarian just for the sake of it. When we’re going to talk about diversity and explore that space, though, I want to make sure that my contribution to the conversation isn’t in any way throwing a blanket over the -isms that plague the inter-dialogue among our communities of color.
I was very conflicted before submitting this piece to BNG because I’m not here to make enemies, and unity is important. Truth is most important.
Thank you :)
