silence before the storm: The debate on the Gandhian Debate

My observations pertaining to the Gandhian debate, for all the time I have been absorbing it turn out to be 'pretty disappointing', at all strata.

Either the pro-Gandhians are not passionate enough, and the ones who oppose are ill informed. Another wide diaspora of the community tries to engage in this debate just for the sake of having to make or oppose a stand, without they themselves having a stand about the issue of contention, like in numerous other scenarios.

I admit that my know-hows about this debate are very minimal, and I do not think I am equipped enough to even take a stand with the little of the cognizance about this issue.

In this post I shall not be expressing my own views for/against Gandhi, but only meticulously try putting forth my observations of the people who get themselves drawn into one such debate.

By the way, this entire discussion is about Mohandas Gandhi and not his pseudo descendants.

Coming to the point, there is a lot of obscurity about the genre of people who call themselves Gandhians.
Who is a Gandhian?
Any person who adheres to "the main principles of non-violence, austerity and sacrifice as means to bring change in oneself and hence in the world", as preached by Gandhi is whom I interpret to be a Gandhian. With the increased scant of the very sense of non-violence, austerity and sacrifice exhibited as a whole by the society, it would be a rarity to come across genuine Gandhians. Although, we could very well stumble upon hypocrite Gandhians who would suddenly appear on the eve of Gandhi Jayanti, make statements to the media and disappear soon after. Also, the Indian society as it is today has outgrown the Gandhian principles which it is supposedly based on. As a consequence,the little pragmatics of the arguments made by this category of people is irrelevant in relation to the realistic conditions of the contemporary world. Much attributable to the intermittence and inconsistency exhibited by the Gandhians.

Well, coming to the opposites, the non-pro Gandhians (in attempt to avoid anti!), base their disgruntle as mere reactions to the impulsiveness of the moment, without most of the times considering the circumstances in retrospection within the frame of time of its occurrence.

I am not questioning the righteousness of the means pursued by us to gain freedom, but the ones who oppose it now have what traits in them to take such a stand without really being able to do anything in the current scenarios? People with such a temperament should have the real mettle in them to be part of the transformations in today's world, which is as bad, or worse when compared to the state of affairs in pre-independent India.

The point being made here is: A mere debate ( a futile war of words) from both sections have no value, whatsoever, if the concerned are restricting themselves to words alone!

Gandhi was a great man; maybe, not that a great statesman, or maybe he was. The point is, we should grow and improvise on the legacy handed over to us, by imparting our traits into them, tailoring it to fit the world as it is today rather than trying to mimic the past.