So, how does change takes place, in society, for example? Is it something which happens spontaneously or gradually? Does it happen as if it 'came out of nowhere', as it were, or is it the result of a process, where different things, deliberately and/or unintentionally, come together to create or give birth to something new, such as a different way of perceiving and doing things?
This morning I had the privilege to be listening to the British Broadcasting Radio 4 news, when it reported that a group of Ghanaian academics and students are advocating for the removal of a statue of Mahatma Gandhi, on the basis that he had apparently made remarks about indigenous Africans, which were of a prejudicial nature.
Asked to explain why they are advocating the removal of the statute, the academic, who has begun the movement, began by saying that people who are responsible for social changes, are people who are able to think outside of the box, implying that, by making prejudicial comments about indigenous Africans, Gandhi was not thinking out of the box. From which we might also infer that this academic is saying Gandhi was no different from those who held racist views in his time.
So, let us pose the question: Is it possible for any person, however enlightened they are, to remain completed free of being affected - granted, to different degrees - by the prevailing values, beliefs, stereotypes, and worldviews of their time or age? Can anybody prove themselves totally impregnable to the physical, personal, familial, social and political environments in which they were born and lived their lives?
I would argue that it is not possible, unless a person lacks the capacity to interact dynamically with their social realities; in which case they would not have been able to effect changes.
It seems to me that this is the mindset which is underpinning this misguided group of Ghanaians, who are arguing for the removal of Gandhi's statue.I would have thought that any academic who wishes to lay a veritable claim to intellectual and analytical rigour, would have appreciated that change is a process, and not a 'miracle.' Where changes arising from prominent leaders are concerned, it is likely to be a process which, in the first place, required the change makers to make changes in their thinking, attitudes and actions, before reflecting them in the changes they make in society.
It is also the case that these changes would have been assisted by other people, who have become inspired and motivated by what the originator or people further back in the change-making chain had done.
So, no, do not attempt to rubbish Gandhi's legacy, because he had, like all humans, displayed his human frailties on occasions in the past. If you have to judge a person, try to judge them on the greatest good or evil they have done, and not on the smallest. The good which Gandhi had done, greatly outweigh the harm he might have done.
In living your life and aspiring to make your contribution to the greater good and happiness of your fellow humans, do not endeavour to unfairly destroy the legacies of those who have clearly made a valuable contribution towards human progress and happiness.
No comments:
Post a Comment