Great Podcast: Service on Celluloid a new Podcast from the National WWII museum in New Orleans

Twelve O’clock High poster from Wikipedia

TheNational World War II Museum is one of the great museums in the world and is well worth a special trip to New Orleans. One of the greatest benefits is the opportunity(which won’t last much longer) to meet a World War II veteran and thank him for his service.

The lectures, book signings and special events are an amazing opportunity. Check out You Tube for many of the great lectures the Museum offers.

 

From National World War II Museum

If you’re like me and you enjoy historical movies and an engrossing discussion about the real events behind the movie then you’ll love this new podcast from the WWII Museum, Service on Celluloid. This week they have a great discussion about the Gregory Peck movie, Twelve O’clock High.  Twelve O’clock High tells the story about the US Army's Eighth Air Force and their daylight bombing missions over Nazi Germany and occupied France. Those missions were so great that the death rate was higher than the marines who fought in the South Pacific. The movie was nominated for four Oscars and won two. Dean Jagger for best supporting actor and Thomas T.Moulton for Best Sound Recording. Unlike the British, the Americans flew daylight bombing raids which caused heavy casualties and psychological toll on crews. This is a fact reflected in this movie and makes for a great discussion on the podcast. I’m looking forward to some more great discussions in the future.

Here's a description of the podcast on the WWII Museum website:

Service on Celluloid is a new, captivating podcast that takes a deep look at depictions of World War II on film over the last 70-plus years. In-house experts at The National WWII Museum, along with special guests, will hold lively debates on the historical merits of treasured classics and smaller films alike. Films highlighted in this series include Fury, Midway, Saving Private Ryan, Schindler’s List, The Best Years of Our Lives, and Twelve O’Clock High. This entertaining series promises to reveal the good and bad of how Hollywood depicts the 20th century’s most dramatic event.

From National World War II Museum

The War of 1812, Canada, the US, the British and the President

The British burn Washington from: The National Museum of American History

On June 6, during a tense discussion with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, President Donald Trump reportedly told Trudeau,  "Didn't you guys burn down the White House?" referring to the War of 1812. This exchange brought caused both condemnation and amusement from news-people and commentators alike because it's common knowledge that the British burned the White House. The fact that Canada did not exist as an independent nation until 1867 reinforces the error of President Trump. 

President Trump and Prime Minister Trudeau from Axios.com

But the reality is more nuanced and complicated than most realize. Yes, the British burned the White House but the War of 1812 was a pivotal event in the formation of Canadian nationalism and pride. While the US declared war because of British maritime aggression and supposed British incitement of Native Americans, the invasion of Canada soon developed into an American war aim. Thomas Jefferson declared that American annexation of Canada merely required a march north with most Americans viewing the war as an easy victory. But back and forth fighting on the border proved fruitless. American troops invaded seven times and burned the capitol of York (now Toronto) but failed to establish a permanent north of the border. Today many Canadians view the war as their victory over an aggressive American invader. But the success in pushing Americans back across the border would prove impossible without aid from Native Americans and British regular troops. 

Battle of York. From: http://www.akimbo.ca

The American view of the war also contains selective memory. Most American accounts focus on the Star Spangled Banner and the victory at the Battle of New Orleans. While its debatable if a British victory at New Orleans would have changed the postwar situation the fact remains that Andrew Jackson's triumph took place two weeks after peace arrived when both sides signed the Treaty of Ghent. Still the victory at New Orleans framed the war in the American perspective into the Second War for American Independence and catapulted Andrew Jackson into the Presidency.  

Battle of New Orleans from History.com

What of the British perspective? The British remain largely ignorant of the war. Any remembrance of the war depicts it as a minor and unimportant skirmish on the fringes of the Napoleonic Wars. My own experience in Britain demonstrate British unawareness regarding the War of 1812. While most British remain aware about the Revolutionary War, blank stares are all one receives if you ask a British citizen about the War of 1812. For the British the struggle against Napoleon remains the 19th century war that looms large in the British conscious.                   Canadian historian Charles Stacey ably explains the confusion regarding the War of 1812:

The Americans think of it as primarily a naval war in which the pride of the Mistress of the Sea was humbled by what an imprudent Englishman had called “a few fir-built frigates, manned by a handful of bastards and outlaws.” Canadians think of it equally pridefully as a war of defence in which their brave fathers, side by side, turned back the massed might of the United States and saved the country from conquest. And the English are the happiest of all, because they don’t even know it happened.

So yes, President Trump was incorrect when he blamed Canada for the burning of Washington, since there was not even direct involvement from Canadians, still the war plays an important part in the formation of the Canadian memory. The burning of Washington still remains for Canadians retaliation for the burning of York and the war remains pivotal event in the minds of most Canadians. 

Further Reading

Everybody gets a trophy: Claiming victory in the War of 1812 by Donald E. Graves from the National Park Service

The Smithsonian Magazine: The War of 1812: 200 Years Later

The Smithsonian Magazine: Today We Celebrate the Time Canada Burned Down the White House

The Star: The War of 1812 Shaped Canada Forever, An Editorial

Hickey, Donald R. The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1989.

                                                 I Am Canadian! Molson Commercial

Freedom Summer by Doug McAdam, A Review

Freedom Summer is an important event in Civil Rights history led by people such as Bob Moses, Fannie Lou Hamer, and John Lewis. Freedom Summer by Doug McAdam makes significant contribution in his account in this milestone event but eventually the book leaves a sour taste as it places the most important players in minor roles.

McAdam, Doug. Freedom Summer. New York, Oxford University Press, 1988.

            In 1964 James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner were murdered near the town of Philadelphia, Mississippi by local members of the Ku Klux Klan with the active help of local law enforcement. Goodman and Schwerner were among the first wave of young volunteers recruited by the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) for an event called Freedom Summer. Their deaths caused a multitude of reporters to descend upon Mississippi and report on the activities of the white volunteers.  In his book, Freedom Summer, Doug McAdam examines the recruiting and use of the youthful volunteers to register African Americans to vote and to staff freedom schools in Mississippi. Doug McAdam is a professor of sociology at Stanford University and was the former Director of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. He is the author of numerous books and specializes on race in the United States, American politics, and the study of social movements. Along with Freedom Summer, his most prominent book is Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930-1970 first published in 1982.

From: PBS

           McAdam examines the Freedom Summer crusade in Mississippi and determines that the movement was the high point of new liberalism and served as a link to other liberal social movements in the 1960s. The volunteers who spent the summer of 1964 in Mississippi found themselves transformed by the experience and many became leaders of other radical movements such as the free speech movement in Berkley, the Anti-war movement, and the Feminist movement. McAdam proposes that the different social movements of the 1960s are not isolated social events, but instead they overlap through common participants and leaders with the Freedom Summer serving as the high-water mark of liberal movements.

            Using the files of the white students who applied to journey South to Mississippi, McAdam combines these with interviews, letters, and surveys to paint a picture of life during the summer of 1964. The white students recruited by the SNCC hailed from prominent northern families and attended prestigious northern and western universities. They possessed self-confidence and optimism common among the elite class from which they originated. Their self-assurance gave them the courage to pursue an adventure in Mississippi, but it also caused friction with the black SNCC leadership. While their assertiveness often developed into paternalism, that same confidence and assertiveness led to their involvement and leadership into many of the leading liberal social movements of the 1960s. Upon arriving in Mississippi, the summer volunteers experienced a part of America that they never dreamed existed. While other Southern states adapted to mechanized agriculture, Mississippi still relied upon black labor for picking cotton. The poverty in Mississippi was comparable to the Third World with infant mortality rates for blacks twice as high than white Mississippians. (26) Blacks who attempted to assert their rights faced vicious persecution and sometimes death from a white majority desperate to maintain their grip on society.

https://scholarblogs.emory.edu/woodruff/fyi/new-digital-sources-sncc-core-claude-barnett-and-robert-f-williams

             The air of oppression and violence dominated the atmosphere the young students faced when they arrived in the Magnolia state. Local law enforcement and state police prepared themselves for the arrival of the volunteers with every intention to oppose the students and preserve the Mississippi status quo. The students involved themselves in the effort to support the efforts of SNCC to bring justice to Mississippi through the ballot. The students engaged themselves in voter registration efforts and freedom schools. For many, this was their first experience interacting with blacks and the fellowship and community developed into the “beloved community.” Early in the summer, the student volunteers worked jointly with their black sponsors and black members of the SNCC for a common goal. The hope for the beloved community was a color-blind collective rooted in love and fellowship. But the beloved community fell short. The white students never understood how pervasive racism was in their culture and society. Many students developed a missionary attitude, which produced an attitude of paternalism toward those they wanted to help. The missionary attitude never escaped the notice of the black SNCC workers, who often resented the amount of press and attention the white volunteers received. Sexual relations also complicated interactions as sex between students and races caused difficulties that spread into their working relations. Sexism also spoiled the environment of the beloved community as sexual discrimination placed women into inferior tasks.

http://www.sncclegacyproject.org

            The experience in Mississippi left the white students changed forever as they returned to their homes and education. Many worked to reconstruct the community experience and purpose through further social action. For many,

the most important cultural contribution of Freedom Summer was the early behavioral expression it gave the link between personal liberation and social change. It was this connection as much as anything that gave the decade its distinctive style and ideological tone. (138)

Freedom Summer became an important road mark in the road toward social change and radical politics. For many students, the summer of 1964 was the training ground that prepared them for the social protest of the latter half of the sixties. Leaving the South, the volunteers carried the lessons learned from the Southern civil rights movements to the cities and campuses in the North, thereby diffusing those ideas to society. (235) A survey of the major social justice movements of the seventies reveals the direct and indirect influence of those young students from 1964.

            Most of the volunteers continued in a life of social activism years after their Mississippi experience. Their activism became costly as many sacrificed their personal lives for their political ideals. Isolation became the norm as they sought their political vision. With over half of the volunteers remaining single in their older years, the evidence of a solitary lifestyle in pursuit of political justice is evident. (219) The volunteers are not typical of the stereotype of the sixties hippy who transformed into the business Republican in the eighties. McAdam not only believes that the summer volunteers of 1964 were the vanguard of political liberalism in the sixties, but he also hopes that they might transform the politics and culture of the future. With the current political environment, perhaps there is the possibility that the millennial generation might receive leadership from older veterans of Freedom Summer or learn from the experience of the veteran volunteers.

            Why didn’t the volunteers have a greater impact on the culture at large? While the final goal of complete racial equality has yet to appear, progress appeared as civil rights legislation passed. Struggles remain, but many Americans assume that the battle for civil rights is over. The urgency of racial issues remains forgotten history for many. Perhaps the divisions and inability of left-wing groups to unite and form successful coalitions explain much of the failure. The racial divisions that appeared within the SNCC were a foretaste of the partitions that inhibited liberal coalitions.

Bob Moses from http://spartacus-educational.com/USAmoses.html

Bob Moses 2014 from: http://freedom50.org

            The climax of the movement was the 1964 Democratic Convention when Bob Moses and the SNCC formed the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP) and challenged the seating of the all-white Mississippi Democratic delegation. The inability of the MFDP to receive a fair hearing disillusioned both black and white members of the SNCC as many questioned the wisdom of nonviolence tactics. Tension developed from the paternalism of the white volunteers also led many of the black SNCC members to question the inclusion of the white members. The lack of concrete goals caused a crisis from which the SNCC never recovered.  The ideal of the beloved community became history as weary black workers insisted on whites leaving the SNCC. Both blacks and whites separated and became more radical.

Fannie Lou Hamer and Bob Moses represent the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party at the 1964 Democratic. From Duke University Library Blogs

                The disillusionment and involvement of the black SNCC members appear as the weakest link in McAdam’s book. The black SNCC members laid the groundwork for the work the white volunteers experienced in 1964, yet they appear as minor players in a production in which they wrote and directed. It is not surprising that they were resentful. They fought and died, yet reporters and the media pursued the experiences and struggles of the newly arrived white volunteers. Bob Moses, one of the primary SNCC architects, receives only scant mention in McAdam’s pages. While it is evident that the white volunteers are the heroes of the volume, it’s not unreasonable to wish that McAdam was more inclusive in his treatment of the Freedom Summer movement. Reading McAdam’s Freedom Summer brings one to the conclusion that the movement was predominately a story of white warriors rescuing the poor helpless black victims. McAdams rightly calls out the volunteers for their patronizing attitude and paternalism, but by leaving the black SNCC workers as minor actors, McAdams produces a well-meaning but paternalistic account of the movement. The real heroes were black students, black homemakers, black fathers, and black preachers. The idealistic white volunteers, while important were minor players in the fight for civil rights.

Fannie Lou Hamer sing at a rally. From PBS.

 For Further Reading see
Find Freedom Summer by Doug McAdam on Amazon

Watson, Bruce. Freedom Summer: The Savage Season That Made Mississippi Burn and Made America a Democracy. New York: Viking, 2010.

PBS, American Experience: Freedom Summer at https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/freedomsummer/ 

The influence of Mahatma Gandhi upon the Government of Indira Gandhi

From: The Asian Age

The Nehru/Gandhi family remain one of the most successful political dynasty in modern history. Beginning with the first prime minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, the legacy of the Nehru family continued with his daughter Indira Gandhi when she assumed the office of Prime Minister in 1966. The dynasty continues today under the leadership of Indira's daughter in law, Sonia Gandhi and her grandson Rahul Gandhi. Indira was closely involved in the independence movement alongside her father and the leadership of Mohandas Gandhi. While neither she nor her husband possessed familial ties to Mohandas the dynasty bears the name Gandhi and at least maintains symbolic ties to the Father of India. The following is a paper I wrote last year which aims to explore how the philosophy and practice of Indira Gandhi was both a continuation and departure from Gandhian political philosophy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3713631.stm

In the history of India since independence, Indira Gandhi assumes a central role in India’s development into a modern democratic nation. Her role as Prime Minister remains a controversial topic within India. She served as Prime Minister from 1966 to 1977 and then again from 1980 until her assassination by her Sikh bodyguards in 1984. Indira Gandhi’s involvement in the struggle for Indian independence began with her family’s close relationship with Mohandas Gandhi and her special working relationship with her father. The purpose of this paper is an examination of how her rule was both a continuation and a departure from the political philosophy of Mohandas Gandhi. This study will require an investigation of the political philosophy of Mohandas Gandhi, the continuity between Indira Gandhi’s political practice and Mohandas Gandhi’s philosophy, and the ways in which her government departed from that political philosophy.

From Biography.com

    Mohandas Gandhi was born on October 2, 1869, in Porbandar, Gujarat, India and pursued a law degree at the Inner Temple in London. Afterward, he returned to India and practiced law in Bombay but soon left for South Africa where he practiced law with an Indian law firm. Gandhi daily faced discrimination in South Africa because of his Indian ethnicity. It was within the setting of South Africa that Gandhi began to form his philosophy and practices against the injustices Indians encountered daily. In 1906, the Transvaal government passed a law requiring registration for its South Asian population. The law required all Indians eight or older to acquire registration along with fingerprints and whenever any authority could demand their paperwork at any time and for any reason. Gandhi led a campaign of civil disobedience for eight years which eventually led to a compromise recognizing Indian rights.1

Gandhi with supporters in South Africa. Photographer unknown. From http://gandhi.southafrica.net/

Opposition to discrimination and unjust laws led to Gandhi’s development of his political philosophy. A careful reading of Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience and Tolstoy’s The Kingdom of God Is Within You led to Gandhi’s teaching of nonviolent resistance. Gandhi returned to India in 1914 and eventually assumed leadership of the movement for Indian independence.2

Independence for India or Swaraj was central to Gandhi’s political philosophy. But Swaraj for Gandhi was not simply the absence of British rule it involved a new way of thinking for the nation and the individual. Swaraj seeks independence and self-rule for India, but it is not simply a change in government. Gandhi saw swaraj changing India as individuals experience transformation at the village level. When Gandhi returned to India from South Africa, he viewed himself more as a social worker than a national revolutionary.3  Swaraj then is not only corporate it is also individual as it changes not only the heart of the oppressed it also changes the heart of the oppressor. According to Gandhi violence corrupts the individual and the nation. Gandhi makes this clear when he says, “But my creed is non-violence under all circumstances. My method is conversion, not coercion; it is self-suffering, not the suffering of the tyrant.4” Gandhi not only wanted freedom for India from Britain but he also wanted to see the British free from their oppressive acts and join the nations as a partner.5

Respect for the individual is an essential aspect of swaraj as individual liberties and rights are respected. Freedom of association, press, and religion are just some of the rights essential for swaraj. Gandhi was well trained in Western law and could demonstrate the hypocrisy of the British with their inconsistent application of Western guarantees of liberty. Gandhi wrote, “Freedom of speech and civil liberty are the very roots of swaraj. Without these, the foundations of swaraj will remain weak.[6]”   

Gandhi’s understanding of swaraj consisted of three planks. First was equality for the Dalit community through the eradication of untouchability. It was Gandhi’s desire for India’s transformation into an egalitarian society free of caste distinctions. Secondly, Gandhi’s vision of religious liberty and unity was an essential part of swaraj. Gandhi emphasizes this freedom when he says, “those who are conscious of the spirit of nationality do not interfere with another’s religion. If they do, they are not fit to be considered a nation.[7]” But it was a Hindu-Muslim unity that Gandhi desired above all, realizing the distrust that existed between both groups. But Gandhi believed that there could be no progress for swaraj without cooperation between Hindus and Muslims.[8]The third plank of swaraj includes the practice of swadeshi which implies a reliance on one’s community. Swadeshi promoted a simple lifestyle using local products and resources. The campaign for swadeshi also led to a rejection of British goods especially textiles. Gandhi set the example with his daily practice of spinning cloth. Gandhi’s promotion of home spun khadi cloth encouraged local production, discouraged dependence on British goods, and alleviated rural poverty.[9]

If swaraj was the goal for India, then the means to accomplish that goal is satyagraha. Satyagraha uses the power of non-violence in accomplishing freedom. The use of non-violence was not a weapon of the weak according to Gandhi; rather it is a weapon of strength which insists on truth. As a method satyagraha to be more than passive resistance but as a struggle for real change in society.[10]   

Non-violence is not an easy path, but according to Gandhi, it holds fast to the truth. Gandhi explains this saying, 

In satyagraha, there is always an unflinching adherence to truth. It is never to be forsaken on any account. Even for the sake of one’s country, it does not permit resort to falsehood. It proceeds on the assumption of the ultimate triumph of truth.[11]

Those who practice satyagraha may face disappointment and opposition. Obedience in the face of injustice is not an option.  A satyagrahi can expect opposition and even suffering, but the satyagrahi dedicates himself to the truth. Obedience to the truth is more important than surrender in the face of unjust laws. Truth demands that the adherent to satyagraha disobey unjust laws and even face the consequences of disobedience. Faithfulness to satyagraha will achieve swaraj as love and truth gained victory over injustice. Gandhi believed that even the most ruthless ruler must eventually relent under the power of satyagraha. He says, “Even a heart of flint will melt in the fire kindled in the power of the soul. Even a Nero becomes a lamb when he faces love.[12]” But Gandhi rejected the idea that the satyagrahi was weak and powerless because he viewed nonviolent noncooperation as a potent weapon in the battle against injustice.[13] The principle of satyagrahi appears as a cross-cultural hybrid utilizing Western thinkers such as Tolstoy and Thoreau as well as Hindu and Jain principles of ahimsa or nonviolence toward all living things.[14]

Gandhi & The Salt March. From: http://beautifultrouble.org/case/the-salt-march/

          Sarvodaya is another important plank of Gandhian principles. Sarvodaya teaches self-reliance and the uplift of all Indians regardless of caste or religion. Gandhi first used the term in 1908 when he translated John Ruskin’s book Unto This Last into Gujarati and entitled the translation Sarvodaya. Like Ruskin Gandhi criticized the utilitarian idea of the “greatest good for the greatest number.” Gandhi argued for the uplift of all.[15] Sarvodaya links to swaraj as both extend to the entire nation as well as the individual. The goal of sarvodaya is the elevation of every individual in the nation. Gandhi compares this to utilitarianism when he says,

A votary of ahimsa cannot subscribe to the utilitarian formula. He will strive for the greatest good of all and die in the attempt to realize the ideal. He will, therefore, be willing to die so that the others may live. He will serve himself with the rest by himself dying. The greatest good of all inevitably includes the good of the greatest number, and therefore he and the utilitarian will converge in many points in their career, but there comes a time when they must part company and even work in opposite directions. The utilitarian to be logical will never sacrifice himself. The absolutist will even sacrifice himself.[16]

According to Gandhi, the duty of the state is to uplift all levels of society while also allowing a just distribution of wealth. But Gandhi makes it very clear that he does not support communism and he did not believe in taking property by force. Rather Gandhi believed that those with property held their wealth in a trusteeship.[17]Those who possess more wealth than their needs demand should consider that their wealth is a trust for the greater society. Gandhi’s idea of trusteeship stems from his belief in the oneness of humanity as well as “his conviction that economic policy and social behavior should not ignore moral values.[18]” If a property owner exploits others, then satyagraha is a tool that can educate the wealthy as even a wealthy land owner cannot till his land.[19]But the act of seizing property by force merely continues a cycle of violence.

As the daughter of Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira took part in the Independence movement from her childhood. The freedom movement often caused long periods of separation between father and daughter and often chaos in the childhood of young Indira. Indian nationalism dominated the Nehru household, and the influence of Mohandas Gandhi held sway in the family. With a mother suffering from chronic sickness and family engaged in politics as well as spending time in prison Indira assumed an unusual amount of responsibility for a young child.[20] As Indira grew, she found that even as a child she discovered that the campaign for Indian self-sufficiency impacted her when she gave up her favorite doll because it was foreign made.[21] Nehru opposed her courtship with Feroze Gandhi and sought the aid of Mohandas Gandhi. Her proposed marriage proved controversial since Feroze was Parsi while Indira was Hindu. Mohandas Gandhi who was no relation to Feroze gave his blessing and helped reconcile Indira to Nehru.[22]

Mahatma Gandhi with Indira during his 1924 Fast. From Wikipedia

When Jawaharlal Nehru assumed the office of prime minister in 1947, he was a widower, and Indira served as his social hostess. As Nehru laid the foundations of Indian democracy, Indira assisted her father and became Congress Party President in 1959. After Nehru’s death in 1964, she accepted a cabinet position under his successor Lal Bahadur Shastri. But after Shastri's sudden death in 1966, party elders offered her the prime minister’s office.

Jawaharlal Nehru from thewire.in 

Since independence, the Congress Party has consistently presented itself as the inheritor of Gandhi’s legacy. Indira Gandhi’s period as Prime Minister demonstrates both attempts at continuing Gandhian philosophy, but there are also sharp departures from Gandhi’s ideals. Like her father, Indira promoted India as a diverse ethnic and religious nation. This concern reflects Gandhi’s vision of swaraj. That is India as a free nation in which the rights and differences of all Indians receive honor.

Commitment to religious freedom appears in Mrs. Gandhi’s support for secularism. During the violence of partition Mrs Gandhi saw first hand the horrors of communal and religious violence. Mohandas Gandhi assigned her as an aid worker to the Muslim area of Delhi where many were suffering. She shared that experience saying,

Then we became absorbed in the work. The Muslims were really in a terrible state. They had no food and nobody could go out. Nothing had been cleaned out for about a month. Because it was the rainy season, some of the streets were full of water with filth floating on it… We saved several people from being killed and we got some who were making trouble arrested. My feud with the R.S.S. started then. Some innocent-looking people walked around with sticks which had swords hidden inside, or a heavy bit of metal, so that if they hit a person, his head would split open.[23]

As result of her commitment to secularism Mrs. Gandhi received widespread support from Muslims and other religious minorities. She gained a reputation as a protector of minorities reflecting the image of swaraj that Mohandas Gandhi called for in India.[24] 

            But in a quest for votes Mrs. Gandhi began a campaign for conservative Hindu votes during the 1971 campaign. In one campaign speech she claimed that Hindus were under attack in India during communal riots in 1972 she continually brushed off criticism due to the participation of police in communal violence. During her last campaign of 1980 she swept into office with strong Muslim support but within a year after her win she began a new campaign appealing to the nationalistic sensitivities of middle-class Hindu voters.[25]

            Indira Gandhi continued the socialist policies begun by her father Jawaharlal Nehru with the goal of lifting poor Indians out of the mire of poverty. Nehru believed that his socialistic economics could keep Mohandas Gandhi's promise of sarvodaya by lifting the poor of India out of poverty and as full participants in Indian democracy. India began a policy of land redistribution, socialized medicine, and social relief programs designed to empower and meet the needs of poor Indians. The goal of nationalization of banks and major industries was for the prevention of wealth accumulating in only a few hands. Despite good intentions, the poor of India remained in poverty.

Mohandas Gandhi’s principle of Sarvodaya appears in Indira’s 1971 parliamentary election. As her opponents used the campaign slogan Indira Hatao (Remove Indira), Indira struck back with the slogan Garibi Hatao (Remove Poverty).[26] Indira successfully connected to both the rural and urban poor who supported her campaign. The slogan proved to be extremely successful and allowed Indira a connection with the poor. The Indian newspaper The Hindu reports;

To this day leaders of her Congress party seek votes in remote areas of the country in the name of Indira Amma (mother). In many houses in the south of the country she’s worshipped along with religious deities.[27]

Her election victory gave her the opportunity for action against the princes. Since independence, the princes of the former princely states retained their titles and their privy purses, but with such an overwhelming victory Indira abolished all princely privileges.

            While her anti-poverty campaign increased her popularity among the poor and reminded many of Mohandas Gandhi’s elevation of the poor the reality was that Indira’s Garibi Hatao program was largely unsuccessful. While the program was an attempt at bypassing the restrictions placed by the caste system, only a small percentage of those promised aid received help. The plans required too many intermediaries between bureaucrats and the poor while also diverting needed funds for patronage and corrupt income. In all only, 4% of the needed resources reached the needy. The Garibi Hatao program achieved little and made negligible differences in lessening Indian poverty.[28]

            

Indira Gandhi campaigning. From  http://indiragandhi.in

Indira Gandhi’s use of power politics and her use of warfare demonstrates a marked departure from Gandhian ideals of non-violence. Mohandas Gandhi explains the need for non-violence when he says, “But my creed is non-violence under all circumstances. My method is conversion, not coercion; it is self-suffering not the suffering of the tyrant. I know that method to be infallible.”[29]Indira did not hesitate at using the military and force when she felt it necessary.

Pakistan Army surrenders & signs the Instrument of surrender in 1971. From Wikipedia

       In 1971 Pakistan was divided between a dominant West Pakistan and a weak East Pakistan. As Bengali-speaking East Pakistan struggled with a dominant Punjabi army refugees began pouring into India. India defeated Pakistan in a quick war which established independence for Bangladesh. Indira’s popularity soared as patriotic fervor swept India. Three years in May 1974 later India directed its first nuclear test leading to pride in India but causing damage to India’s reputation as a peace-loving nation.[30] The nuclear testing also caused consternation in Pakistan as the idea of a nuclear powered India moved the South Asian region towards a possible nuclear war. India refused to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty a refusal that led to the development of nuclear weapons in India and Pakistan. The Indian move towards nuclear weaponry appeared problematic as anti-poverty measures of the Indira Gandhi government failed in alleviating poverty.

           

Mrs. Gandhi at the Pokhran Nuclear Testing site in 1974. From:https://revisitingindia.com

       In 1974 India acquired the state of Sikkim. Sikkim operated as a “quasi-independent” state with its own flag, currency, and monarch known as the Chogyal. The Chogal asked India for aid in putting down a rebellion, and instead, India encouraged the rebellion further. After the election the pro-Indian party won forcing abdication on the Chogyal. [31]While a seemingly minor affair compared with the Indo-Pakistan War of 1971 this example still illustrates Indira’s use of the military in solving international disputes which appear as a major departure from the non-violent ideals of Mohandas Gandhi.

            

Sikkim. From: https://newsin.asia

       In 1975 Indira declared a state of emergency and Indian democracy faced its greatest challenge. Due to electoral irregularities the High Court of Allahabad declared her election as MP invalid and barred her from office for six years.[32] In response Prime Minister Gandhi declared a state of emergency. Newspapers were closed down and opposition politicians were arrested and jailed. As the emergency dragged onward Indira was faced with protests erringly similar to the protests the British faced. On November 14, 1975 a group calling itself the People’s Struggle Committee organized a satyagraha in Bombay on the birthday of her father Jawaharlal Nehru.[33]

http://vsktelangana.org/reminding-the-real-emergency/

Prime Minister Gandhi promoted the Emergency as a “programme of national regeneration.”[34]She announced a twenty-point economic plan with incentives including cancellation of debts, land reform, tax reforms, and price controls.While her plan appealed to many the Indian states lacked the infrastructure necessary for her reforms. At the urging of her younger son Sanjay, the government began a series of slum clearances and population controls. Widespread forced sterilizations began in the villages. In Muzaffarnagar, Utter Pradesh fighting broke out between police and sterilization victims and more than fifty killed after fired.[35] Government employees such as teachers, police officers, doctors, and nurses were only paid their wages unless they recruited a certain number of men or women for sterilization.[36] Despite promises the economic plans did nothing to alleviate poverty and the sterilization strategies had no impact on the population growth.

In scenes reminiscent of the worst excesses of the Brtish Raj opposition opponents faced torture and jail. But the poor suffered the greatest indignities. Beatification campaigns in Old Delhi destroyed the homes of over 70,000 mostly Muslim poor residents. Residents and shop owners were at times only given 45 minutes for clearing their shops or homes.[37]

The Emergency ended in 1977 with a call for new elections. The Emergency stands in stark contrast to Mohandas Gandhi’s call for swaraj and the uplift of the poor or sarvodaya. The use of satyagraha against her crackdown on democracy bears a sharp contrast. Indira justified the Emergency and the press crackdowns saying,

You know I have always believed in freedom of the press and I still do, but like all freedoms it has to be exercised with responsibility and restraint. In situations of internal disturbances whether they be language or communal riots, grave mischief has been done by irresponsible writing. [38]

Indira lost the election to the Janata Party and Indira worked at winning voters among the poor. The Janata party proved to be incompetent in power and Indira Gandhi returned to power in 1980. In her last term in office Gandhi’s most vexing problem was rising Sikh separatism in the Punjab state. Punjab became the scene of assassinations and acts of terrorism as bombings and shootings became the norm. Indira and the Congress Party used the communal disputes as an opportunity for securing support in Punjab. At the center of the disputes was a Sikh Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale.[39] Reportedly Indira’s son Sanjay Gandhi built Bhindranwale up as an alternative to the ruling party in Punjab.[40] But Bhindranwale refused to be a tool for Congress or any other party. He gathered a following of like-minded Sikhs and took up residence in the Golden Temple where he planned acts of terrorism.

Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale at the Golden Temple (2nd from the left)

Operation Bluestar From Indianexpress.com

 After assassinations and attacks the Prime Minister ordered the launch of Operation Bluestar. Operation Bluestar was a military campaign with te plan of driving Sikh militants and terrorists out of the Golden Temple. Using tanks the Indian Army attacked the temple at dawn damaging the temple complex and killing soldiers and terrorists. Sikh general Kuldip Singh Brar said of Operation Bluestar, “The army was used to finish a problem created by the government. This is the kind of action that is going to ruin the army”.[41]

Operation Bluestar alienated the Sikh community throughout India. Sikh soldiers deserted and distinguished Sikhs returned their medals and awards.[42]Instead of seeking reconciliation and peace with the Sikh community Indira commanded the annihilation of the Sikh succession movement by the army. The aftershocks of Operation Bluestar were costly. Friends and allies warned Prime Minister Gandhi that she needed new bodyguards as her bodyguards were Sikh. But Mrs. Gandhi rejected any suggestion at firing her Sikh bodyguards. Her reply was, “Aren't we secular?” But on October 31, 1984 Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was shot by her security guards, Satwant Singh and Beant Singh. Both admitted that their motive was revenge for Operation Bluestar. The Prime Minister had died before she arrived at the hospital. That same day her son Rajiv Gandhi took the oath as the new Prime Minister.[ii]Sadly for Sikhs the violence continued as Delhi broke out in communal violence. Mobs broke out throughout the capital shouting, ‘Finish off the sardars’ and Kill the ‘traitors.[43]’ Within a week more than a thousand Sikhs were killed in Delhi. Low caste mobs led by Congress politicians egged the mobs on towards more violence. The police stood aside while the mobs raged.   

Indira Gandhi did not hesitate the use of power politics against her political enemies. The state of emergency was a demonstration her willingness to leave the bounds of democracy against any perceived enemy. She also did not hesitate in the use of military force if she believed the security of India was at stake. She also placed India in a position of taking the nation’s place among nuclear powers. Her desire for Indian greatness necessitated India possessing nuclear weapons in spite the appearance of a conflict with the ideals of Gandhi. Finally, her conflict with Sikh militants was an effort to combat internal domestic enemies, but the use of force was also a political tool with the intention of bolstering Congress in the elections. Her willingness to use force as a political tool stands in contrast to the principles put forth by Mohandas Gandhi. This use of force eventually claimed her as a victim as well.

Indira Gandhi was among the most powerful political figures in the history of India. Her long participation in the Indian Independence Movement places her in close and often intimate proximity to Mohandas Gandhi. Her close working relationship with her father Jawaharlal Nehru points to her immediacy to the man widely regarded as India’s greatest Prime Minister. But Indira Gandhi is one of the most controversial politicians in the history of India. One would expect that she’d reflect the concerns of swaraj and sarvodaya as expressed by Gandhi. Prime Minister Gandhi reflects the concerns of an ordinary politician struggling for power. She never hesitated at using power politics as a tool for holding onto power. Her desire for passing her power onto her sons reflects the ideals of an autocratic ruler.

In many ways Indira Gandhi is very similar to a utilitarian since she is very pragmatic in her politics and acts for the greatest good for the greatest number. In this way she is very different than Mohandas Gandhi who was an idealist who was never satisfied with only helping the majority. Mrs. Gandhi settles for compromises. She explains this in her memoir My Truth when she says,

A person who is turning a wheel or a lathe has no relationship with the factory. This is where the conflict arises with some people who claim that we are not following Gandhiji’s ideas completely. In today’s world you cannot develop the village without industry. If we don’t industrialize, how can we safeguard our freedom? [45]

           

The ideals of Mohandas Gandhi were likely never far from the mind from the thoughts of Indira Gandhi. But she was no idealist like Gandhi but a hardened powerful politician willing to break the rules. Her legacy as one of the strongest and most controversial Prime Minister of India is an assurance in history.

           

Rajiv Gandhi son of Indira who became Prime Minister after the assassination of his mother

   Endnotes

---

[1]  Rajmohan Gandhi. Gandhi The Man, His People, and the Empire. (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2007),143-144.

[2] Ibid., 144.

[3] Judith M Brown. Modern India: The Origins of an Asian Democracy. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994),215.

[4 Mahatma Gandhi. Selected Political Writings. (Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, 1996),99 .     

[5] Ibid., 99.

[6] Ibid., 100.

[7 Ibid., 110.

[8 Ibid., 114.

[9] Brown, Modern India, 214.

[10] Ramin Jahanbegloo. The Gandhian Moment. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2013),20.

[11] Mahatma Gandhi. Selected Political Writings, 55.

[12] Ibid., 56.

[13] Jahanbegloo. The Ghandhian Moment, 25.

[14] Stuart Gray and Thomas M. Hughes. "Gandhi's Devotional Political Thought." Philosophy East & West, Vol. 65, no. 2, (Apr. 2015): 375-400, accessed Apr. 16, 2017. Berkeley Electronic Press

[15] Rajmohan Gandhi. Gandhi The Man, His People, and the Empire, 125.

[16]Jahanbegloo. The Ghandhian Moment, 86.

[17] Mahatma Gandhi Selected Political Writings,136.

[18] Jahanbegloo. The Ghandhian Moment,87.

[19] Mahatma Gandhi Selected Political Writings,141-142.

[20] Srinath Raghavan. "Indira Gandhi." In Makers of Modern Asia, edited by Ramachandra Guha, 213-43. (Indianapolis/Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2014),217.

[21] Katherine Frank. Indira: The Life of Indira Nehru Gandhi. (New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2002),15.

[22] Ibid., 175.

[23] Indira Gandhi. My Truth. (New Delhi: Vision Books, 1980), 54-55.

[24] A.G. Noorani. “Indira Gandhi and Indian Muslims.” Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 25, no. 44 (1990): pp. 2417–2420., www.jstor.org/stable/4396930.

[25] Paul R. Brass. The Politics of India since Independence. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 237.

[26] Frank. Indira: The Life of Indira Nehru Gandhi, 325.

[27] "Loved, hated, admired: The enduring legacy of Indira Gandhi." The Hindu, 29 Oct. 2009.

[28] Brass. The Politics of India since Independence, 297.

[29] Mahatma Gandhi Selected Political Writings,99.

[30] Raghavan. "Indira Gandhi." In Makers of Modern Asia, 237

[31] Ramachandra Guha. Gandhi Before India. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2013),483-484.

[32] Frank.  Indira: The Life of Indira Nehru Gandhi, 377.

[33] Ibid., 505.

[34] Ibid., 390.

[35] Guha, India After Gandhi, 516.

[36] Frank.  Indira: The Life of Indira Nehru Gandhi,406.

[37] Ibid., 403

[38] Indira Gandhi. My Truth, 142.

[39] Joginder Singh. "Sikhs in Independent India." In The Oxford Handbook of Sikh Studies, edited by Pashaura Singh and Louis E. Fenech, 82-93. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 91.

[40] Guha. Gandhi Before India, 559.

[41] Ibid., 568.

[42] Singh. "Sikhs in Independent India." In The Oxford Handbook of Sikh Studies, 91.

[43] Guha. Gandhi Before India, 571.

[44] Ibid., 571.

[45] Gandhi, My Truth, 157.

Bibliography

Brass, Paul R. The Politics of India since Independence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Brown, Judith M. Modern India: The Origins of an Asian Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.

Engineer, Asghar A. "A Perspective on Hindu-Muslim Conflict." In Democracy in India: A Hollow Shell, edited by Arthur Bonner, 113-43. Washington: American University Press, 1994.

 Frank, Katherine. Indira: The Life of Indira Nehru Gandhi. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2002

Gandhi, Indira. My Truth. New Delhi: Vision Books, 1980.

Gandhi, Mahatma. Selected Political Writings. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, 1996.     (This work is a compilation of different works by Gandi. The endnotes should have reflected each individual work.)

 

Gandhi, Rajmohan. Gandhi The Man, His People, and the Empire. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2007.

Gray, Stuart, and Thomas M. Hughes. "Gandhi's Devotional Political Thought." Philosophy East & West, vol. 65, no. 2, Apr. 2015, pp. 375-400. Berkeley Electronic Press. Accessed 16 Apr. 2017.

Guha, Ramachandra. Gandhi Before India. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2013.

Guha, Ramachandra. India After Gandhi. London: Macmillan, 2007.

Hankla, Charles R. "Party Linkages and Economic Policy: An Examination of Indira Gandhi's India." Business & Politics 8, no. 3 (2006): 1-29.

Jahanbegloo, Ramin. The Gandhian Moment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2013.

"Loved, hated, admired: The enduring legacy of Indira Gandhi." The Hindu, 29 Oct. 2009.

Noorani, A. G. “Indira Gandhi and Indian Muslims.” Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 25, no. 44, 1990, pp. 2417–2420., www.jstor.org/stable/4396930.

Raghavan, Srinath. "Indira Gandhi." In Makers of Modern Asia, edited by Ramachandra Guha, 213-43. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2014.

Singh, Joginder. "Sikhs in Independent India." In The Oxford Handbook of Sikh Studies, edited by Pashaura Singh and Louis E. Fenech, 82-93. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.