Why Anna is not Gandhi?

The modern-time Gandhi is not a Gandhi. Gandhi, a fan of Jesus Christ, asked us to turn the other cheek, if we are slapped. Anna Hazare, an apostle of Gandhi, enquired whether it was just one, when he heard a man giving a tight slap to Sharad Pawar.

The disappointment at the ‘just one slap’ that he didn’t even try to conceal testifies folksy innocence so as exposing his non-Gandhian facet. It could even be a reflection on his hearty sense of humour. But it came out at wrong time. People want to see Gandhi in Anna. And, alas, he is not to be.

Not that his spontaneous response to the paraphrased slap gate was in supportive of violence, for the incident, in the first place, was so trivial that nobody including Pawar has taken it seriously. Public nuisance, committed by a suspected insane, cant be termed as violence. It was not a case for Anna’s sermon on the goodness of non-violence. But he preached the one after his initial lighter-vain reaction attracted severe criticism. And that, in fact, made him non-Gandhi. Gandhi did never take a U-turn on his stand, no matter how unpopular it was, to match with the popular sentiment or to avert criticism. On realisation of his stand not bought by anyone, he would dare to ‘walk alone, walk alone,’

Anna, in the first place, would have not joked on the news of somebody slapped somebody, if he were to be Gandhi. Gandhi’s endearing traits include a heartfelt laughter, but it was never at the expense of a slapped one. A joke cracked by him on such incidents, regardless of its power of punch, would have been uncivilized. As he pioneered civil disobedience, Gandhi was a champion of civilised culture.

The way Anna is gripping on Ralegon Siddi, his native village and open laboratory for his Gandhian experiments, has made him seen as a dictator. Assuming a tinge of dictatorship is required for a leadership to bring in order Anna is acceptible and even Gandhi wanted to be a dictator. “Sometimes I feel the requirement of dictatorship to bring in good. If you make me dictator for a day the only thing I would like to do uproot the toddy palms in the country. I will se to it not a single tree standing,” said Gandhi. His dictatorship was aimed at prohibition of drinking alcohol and it would have not hurt anyone. Anna too is earnest in bringing in prohibition, but flogging of drunkards is not acceptable. Many of the objectives of Talibanis might possibly be noble, but their method of implementation has made them demons. How can we, rejecting Taliban, accept Anna’s intolerant attitude of flogging the sinners?

“Anger and intolerance are the enemies of correct understanding,” said Gandhi. Anna’s anger against corruption is righteous and it is respected. But, when it was vented out the form of an unreasonable verbal onslaught on Prime Minister Manmohan Singh it was clear that Anna had no correct understanding because he was in the firm grip of the two enemies.

Anna used the most effective weapon, given by Gandhi, to goad the government to the Jan Lokpal bill: fasting. But the methods adopted made people calling it blackmail. And Anna didn’t feel shy to say he would continue to blackmail, if his methods are called blackmail.
Tusha Gandhi’s observation on Anna can some-up and explain why he is not Gandhi: “Bapu’s method of fasting was completely different than that of Anna. Bapu would have not threatened anyone the way Anna has. During Bapu’s time, fasting was never used against an opponent. Rather, it was used to lead a friend to the right path.”