One of a Kind

I have been reading this book The Glass Palace the last week. As a historical fiction fan I have found it quite fascinating because of the different prospective that it offers. It is written by a Bengali author, in English, and is about the British empire from the late 1800s to WWII from the prospective of an extended Indian/Burmese family. It is a nice change to read something, in its original language, about the colonial era from the prospective of those being colonized, rather then the British colonialists.

The reason I am writing about this is that a part in the book, as well as being in these countries torn apart by violent revolutions, makes me finally "get" Gandhi. As I wrote earlier, I read an autobiography of Gandhi awhile ago and this gave me a much more full picture of his life then I had before. I now know him as more then just a peaceful, Dohti wearing guy, but I still thought before today that he was too much of an idealist.

The thing about Gandhi is that even though he wanted India to be free, he wanted even more to solve India's social ills. In fact, he said that he did not want the British to go until India was ready to rule itself in a just way. Even at the point of independence, he still thought India was not really ready to rule itself. Also, he never wanted there to be a violent revolution. Despite the fact that it took 40 years for India to gain its freedom, he fought ferociously against the elements that wanted to go to war with the British.

When I first read this, I thought it was very admirable, but I did think that it was a little weak. Granted his strategy did work, but it took an incredible amount of time, and only worked because the British got tired of ruling a country that did not want them there. I did think that perhaps if the Indians has taken a more active course they may have still had independence, but just a lot sooner.

The thing that I did not take in to account is that, in general, even if your violent revolution is a success, you end up with a country ruled by violent revolutionaries. The problem is that the kind of people that are effective at fighting a war are also terrible, ruthless leaders after the war is over. A large part of the reason why a chaotic country like India became a stable democracy is that its political revolution resulted in politicians, not generals, becoming its first leaders. I am not an expert on Nehru, nor do I agree with all his ideas, but at least he was a secular politician who believed in democracy. The chances of a violent revolution producing a leader who fits that description are slight at best. The problem is that there is only one Gandhi, so violent revolutions will exist for as long as there are people who do not like their government.

Incidentally, I do realize that the American revolution is the one example I can think of where a violent revolution did not result in an early government with totalitarian tendencies. I am not sure yet why I think this happened the way that it did. One thing I can think of is that it was a different era, and it was English colonists fighting against the English crown, not another race or culture of people. It also, however, makes one think about how unique the early Americans were to take power for England but then give all that power to a democratic government. Perhaps they were one of a kind in their own way as well.