Mahesh D. Dholiya, Department Of English, Bhavangar University, Bhavnagar- 364001 Gujarat, India.

Imaginary Homelands- Salman Rushdie Attenboroughs Gandhi Deification is an Indian Disease. Such a controversial statement about Indian culture and various festivals may be a disease for Indian born-British writer but it may seem interesting that to name any particular day, time or place with its perfect relevance and potentiality. Someones death becomes a memorable day for all Indian citizens. Gandhi in the eyes of British Empire may be critical, praiseworthy or quite general one. Then even it does not harm Gandhis reputation and social credit. To comment on the first statement of the essay. One can say that deification is not an Indian disease but rather an addition. No one can control his self from the addiction of any tempting object. Mohandas Gandhi was deified by Richard Attenborough, producing a documentary on him. American academy wished to help him to direct the film. There is a general say in every ones case that he [or she] lives with critical period and died with praiseworthy comments. Someones presence might be blamed and accused but his/her death brings sudden sharp turn and that person is admired like Gandhi. That is what happens with Richard Attenborough who produced the film Gandhi. The reason behind making a film may be the director wanted to give a new image or the way western countries wanted to see him like an Indian Empire and its spiritual and mystical wisdom. Further in this essay, Salman Rushdie writes that it is Christian longing to have such a spiritual leader to run politics and the organization of America. Then Gandhi becomes an ideal for those who did not get a benefit of being a follower of second incarnation of Jesus Christ. He is deified by Rushdie as a crafty Gujarati lawyer who could not run his job successfully because he did not want to do evil doings. Such a deified lawyer could run an Indian Empire not being a politician but

a leader who could direct his followers to go for empty handed fight against Britishers, beaten harshly and got freedom, those who could come out from the misery of British tyrants, can be called the survival for those who are fit by in their ideas. He is a lawyer of whole Indian Territory and a frequent visitor of the British prison. Perchance, Attenborough wanted to redefine the concept of revolution in words of Rushdie, Revolution can, and should, be made purely by submission, and self-sacrifice, and non-violence alone. To be submitted by physical existence but not by mind, remaining detached and never giving a response to the white peoples stimuli, remaining non-violated by disobeying superiors orders, dropping a blood and getting independence, etc are various ideologies of Gandhi that are inter-woven in this movie. Considering him as a member of minority class bring out post-colonial view point in his writing that western people always tried to consider Asian countries to be seen, studied, observed, viewed, analysiminority regions and always to be suppressed. They wanted to mangle history of India for century. There may be an intention of selecting only Gandhi in his film, Salman Rushdie, later in his writing mentions that somewhere, it is not possible to include other freedom fighter of Indian independence, because a selection is a central idea to any work of art. He becomes romantic by writing, But artistic selection creates meanings. Thus, an artistic selection does not remain sole selection but it creates meaning and meanings. But one of the critical comments can be mentioned why did not Richard select the other followers and freedom fighters of India in his documentary? This can be a post-colonial reading of the text Gandhi that American people or rather Richard wanted to make Gandhi as a superior so others as inferior people.

To consider one as a superior and another as an inferior is a challenge put by post-colonial critics and readers. If the movie was based on his autobiography then all leaders like Bose, Poet Tagore, Sardar Patel, etc bounce to be in his movie. Was it due to the autobiography of Gandhi? Even Gandhiji mentioned all who came into contact with him, remaining himself as an objective, putting all at the centre. But the movie speaks something else. Salman Rushdie exemplifies the whole matter in terms of American massacre and the assassination of Gandhi to take very critically and suspiciously. Those innocent and zealous individuals in Amritsar were condemned by massacring and General Dyer was not condemned. He was welcomed with honor and reputation in England. These scenes were accurately staged and with passion, but why? The case of Amritsar is miscalculated, Rushdie writes in further paragraph, artistic selection has altered the meaning of the event. The assassination of Mahatma Gandhi seems a crucifixion of Jesus Christ, Considering it as not a mystical incidents but rather a political one. Who shot Gandhi, was mentioned as an act of crowd as a whole. The bullet was fired from the group of the people. Same was the case with Jesus Christ. It was needed to explain. He was crucified so that other can live. But there was a political evil that was active in the mind of those who wanted to kill Christ legally. The ugly-natured people did not want to be superior from the son of Father of paradise. So to be superior and popular amount the people itself is a voice of Post-Colonial study. Gandhi wanted people equal because they are Indians and some of the groups were representing Muslim religion. Godse did not like this. He thought that keeping Momediun people in Indian Territory is not good but rather worst matter. He was not the representative of the crowd but Attenborough changes the autobiographical element of Guajarati citizen Gandhi. He generalizes the whole matter. Considering Gandhis autobiography The Study of My Experiments with Truth as not a political work but rather it is based on the experiments that Gandhiji made on Truth and Non-Violence. The event like Brahmacharya and surrounded anecdotes were omitted by Attenborough in which Gandhi had lied with young

naked woman all night to test his will-to-abstain, are well known. Sardar who was/is known as Lokhandi Purusha portrayed as clown, Jinnah as count Dracula, etc. Nehru used to argue with Gandhiji as far as Industrialization of India is concerned. They did come to term with each other. But the portrayal of Nehru is an acolyte or as an assistant of Gandhi. The big change lies in Attenboroughs Gandhi, challenges the idea of master and slave. Subhash Chandra Bose has viewed as a violent man like Guerrilla, supporting Japanese, fighting with Britishers. There is one more controversial example regarding gaining freedom without unarmed. Gandhis massage in the movie was to gain freedom by lining up, unarmed, to march towards oppressors and to permit them to club ourselves to the ground, doing it for a long time. But what Rushdie speaks, This was worse than nonsense. It is dangerous nonsense. Non-Violence was a strategy chosen for a particular people Against a particular oppressor; to generalize from it is a Suspect act Time and people change according to the new and upcoming people and the time. Bing a moral person is not adequate. Smartens, craftsmanship, better fighting spirit against opponents are also required. Gandhiji learnt all the tricks and techniques, language, organizational skill from the oppressor and gave him the answer with these weapons which were belonged to them. To conquer someone by his arms and emanations is not everyones cup of tea. Rushdie considers a fiction the way Gandhi vanquished British Empire. Somewhere, in the writhing of Salman Rushdie, one recurring style is to praising someone who is criticized and criticizing someone who is praised. Someones heyday becomes deteriorating situation that Salman Rushdie wants to put an argument that Richard tries to build the image of Gandhi the way westerners want to see him. Pre-meditated structure of Occidental Britishers who set an idea that Indian born Gujarati crafty lawyer Gandhi is the way Richard wants to see him in his movie. Even the name of the movie is bit challenging because highlighting the name and hiding something that is fact-based matter becomes more critical and accusing. Making a documentary movie of Gandhi is all about creating new history out of pre-existing history that is not always a good matter. Such a matter of

historiography is a political process of writing history. Gandhiji was a historical figure, became a living being, having a new image in the mind of American movieproducer Richard Attenborough. On the other side, Lets kill Gandhi by Tushar Gandhi and Life of Gandhi remain something different from what Richard Attenborough has chiseled him in his movie. Salman Rushdie mentions at the end of the essay that the film, Richard has produced was opulent, lavish, overpowers and finally crushes the man from his centre. Even Post-Colonial critics think that to praise someone as far as this movie is concerned, has to pay for it. Praising and investing lot of money to create or to build a falsehood image of an Indian citizen who is considered as a genuinely true leader of India, becomes a politician in the mind of foreign citizens. It is a process of Orientalism. Generally whatever is written, produced or created by foreign countries is more authentic that is what Indians believe who are under the process of decolonization, inferiority and subalterns. Americans are Occidentals who see Eastern country like India as powerless, becomes the study of Orientalism by Edward Said. Oppressors Language that Rushdie employs in this essay is more skeptical and crafty. We do not know when the turns from praising something to criticizing something else.