Friday, March 06, 2009

Possessions or Principles?

I'm speaking of Gandhi here.

Gandhi is Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi here, none else. Recently he is been in news on his possessions being auctioned. Items being

1. Gandhi's wire-rim eyeglasses,
2. worn leather sandals,
3. a pocket watch,
4. a plate and the brass bowl from which he ate his final meal.

If Gandhi were alive, this would have been cost you say, a few hundreds or thousands? The auction amount is a whopping $1.8 million US, (almost 10 crore Indian Rupees). The successful owner of the auctioned items is the one and only Liquor King, the so called King of Good Times, Dr. Vijay Mallya.

This auction happened with the constant opposition by the Indian Government.

My questions to all is:

1. How did it reach James Otis, the previous owner? Why didn't the Navjeevan trust hold the items after the death of Gandhi?

2. Instead of opposing the auction,would it be better if the government participated in the auction to take the items it considered precious?

3. There is also a point around that auctioning items belonging to a person like Gandhi, is an insult to him. Again, I pose the first question. How did it reach the auctioneer?

4. Is it fair to the government to take the auctioned items from the successful bidder after the auction?

Gandhi would have laughed to see his items auctioned for such a huge price, that too during this crucial time of recession.

Now, let me express my opinion.

James Otis should have got this, probably through some politician just the way, Jawaharlal Nehru gifted 'The Kohinoor' to Queen Elizabeth, or he should have got it through some smuggler??? Who knows?

Why is government opposing this auction? Just because Gandhi used those items? I laugh at it. Along with Gandhi, his family would have also used it. If it were not belonging to Gandhi, no one would have the least interest in it. I see nothing special in it though, Gandhi used it. These are materialistic and I have the least interest in them. I respect the values, ideals and the principles of Gandhi. That is all.

Auctioning somebody's belongings is an insult to them only if they were alive. If he lived a great life (as they say it), auction would be something special. Politicians would consider buying the auctioned items a sort of prestige issue.

To me auction, is nothing but a process for a person(auctioneer) to make money. To compensate the loss by the old owner. If the bidders find the thing auctioned so precious, its only from their POV and nothing else.

Just shouting out to the world not to hold the auction of Gandhi's belongings, not respecting the values he upheld is mere foolishness. If you're so concerned about Gandhi, bring in reforms in every village of India and make his dream come true. AFAIK, what Gandhi dreamed India to be is that

1. every village should be self sufficient,
2. A woman should walk without any tension in her mind even during 12AM.

There may be many other things, these are the two I remember. Are these filthy politicians doing anything in that direction? I see nothing. They're busy gobbling up money preserved for the 'supposed to be' projects and making private properties, filling up their world bank accounts...

These politicians do not have any right to stop the auction.

Coming to the auction, I feel James Otis has become poor and is trying to sell anything antique thats there with him. This is one of them. Looking at the high bidding, he is interested in bidding more of his items. He is not sufficient with 1.8 million USD. May be he knows that there are Indians who are rich enough to buy such things.

How many shaasanas, how many temples, how many palaces were destroyed by the intruders. Everything is gonna perish one or the other day. Do you see any materialistic belonging of Rama or Krishna? I see none.

I'm indifferent when I say that I do not oppose the auction, neither do I support. Its just a process. Just like my eating to survive. =)

If one opposes the auction, all I say is follow his principles, not his possessions. For its supporters, I say, you can earn more money in better way buddy!


Shrinidhi Hande said...

My few cents:
Mallya should first pay the fuel bill his airline owes to state run oil companies....

WE couldn't preserve the nobel prize stolen from kolkatta museum... how secure are we going to keep this?

As you said, how did it go out of India?

Sandesh said...

Yeah Good questions.

I dunno what happens to Mallya's F1 team Force India, along with his Kingfisher Airlines.

No news about the nobel prize as yet I guess. I don't know.

Manoj said...

Take for example, a student who is a good fellow(doesnt cheat, doesnt use bad language) etc. is called a "Gandhi". Here Gandhi is used in the negative manner. The student is considered, good for nothing since he follows Gandhi's principles. On the other hand, a person with a priced possession of someone so great as Gandhi is considered someone great. So possessions do matter. Principles: GO TO HELL.

Sandesh said...

@Manoj - Take the instance you gave. It is actually in the good sense but interpreted in a bad way. HE does no bad, doesn't use bad words which is actually good. He is interpreted to be a dumbo which upholds the bad in the teasers.

That last sentence can be true only for those who consider the owner of Gandhi's possessions to be great. For the rest, Only principles matter.