History and its relevance ( May 10, 2006 )

Pawan sent me this link... http://history.eserver.org/ghandi-nobody-knows.txt

Apart from the fact that the author mis-spelt Gandhi's name, there seems to be a lot wrong with his rather long essay.

It is common knowledge that History is just a widely-accepted version of what really happened. And anyway, even if Gandhi wasnt the superstar that he is made out to be in history, how does it matter ? India needed a larger-than-life figurehead to rally around, at that point of time, and Gandhi served that purpose ( and served it well ).
If glossing over some weaknesses and conveniently altering some facts can create a role-model for people to emulate, what's wrong with that ? If one were to dig deeper into any event in history, there would always be inconsistencies and controversial circumstances and conflicting points of view. Eventually, people makeup history, and people are moody, self-centred at times, have preconceptions and value systems... and anything reported by a person will always have the various flavors(!) of his personal life at that point of time.

If one sets out on an iconoclastic mission, there is no logical end to it, and when you have demolished all role-models and beacons of hope, there is very little to live for. I am reminded of the life of Nietzsche, who was an incredibly astute individual but died at the age of 44, of mental collapse, purportedly due to disillusionment with life.