Forty years ago, the famous writer, U.R. Ananthamurthy was much exercised about the origin of the word ‘fan’. When I told him it was an abbreviation of ‘fanatic’, he exclaimed ‘Eureka! Mystery solved!’I did not share his joy.I had always been distressed by the fact that there is something in the Indian psyche that makes individuals want to be fans – shifting responsibility for rational thought on to someone else, rather than engaging in it themselves. We have seen this happen throughout our history. Being a fan meant one could follow a guru blindly and avoid looking at the positive and negative sides of his teachings and deciding for oneself. Not that they did not know there are positives and negatives in every individual. But it was easier to ignore logic and opt for being blind fans.Nehru had a huge fan following, as did Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and to a lesser extent, Bhagat Singh and Chandrashekhar Azad. None of them, of course, could compare with the fan following of Mahatma Gandhi.Remember, they were fans of Gandhi and not of the non-violence which he preached. Of course, they did follow his non-violent method of protest despite great physical and mental hardship, torture, even death. They did whatever Gandhi asked them to do without any questions, even though they did not believe in it. Ironical but quintessentially Indian. This was made amply clear by the genocide which followed the partition of India on both sides of the divide. Actually, the killing started even before partition happened, in Noakhali and Calcutta. And Gandhi managed to put a stop to it there, such was his fan following.People had become non-violent against their natural instinct because Gandhi so desired and dictated. But, when Gandhi was not beside them, threatening to harm himself if they persisted in violence, they turned bestially violent.A few days ago, I was listening to a 2019 discussion between historian Sudhir Chandra and Hindi scholar Apoorvanand, in which Chandra recalled how Gandhi had admitted, during his last days, with great pain, that his preaching of non-violence and leading by example, for years, had had practically no effect on the Indian psyche.I was almost in tears as I heard the pain in Chandra’s voice, and through it, Gandhi’s own great agony.And yet, I felt or should have felt a sad pleasure for getting affirmation for what I had said in my novel Anitya, in 1980 itself. We followed Gandhi as the Mahatma or guru without imbibing what he taught us – non-violence.Chandra also affirmed another fact I had pointed out – that Nehru was not a ‘Gandhivadi‘. He followed him because he knew it was the best way to bring people together and finally gain Independence. It was expedient and wise politics.Nehru also respected the core of Gandhi’s philosophy; he truly believed in democracy and equality, and going a step further, in socialism. The environment, however, was not, unlike Gandhi, his prime concern.Nehru was a visionary, a noble person, an idealist and above everything, a staunch believer in democracy and peace. Unfortunately, idealism, political acumen and economic manoeuvring are often at loggerheads.If I say Nehru’s faith in Panchsheel blinded him to the fact that other nations did not share its spirit, though they paid lip service to it to gain their territorial and political ends, it does not mean that I do not admire other qualities in him. It only means that I am not and never was a fan but a rational follower, who could see both sides of the coin.Who but a diehard idealist would have ignored China’s incursions in Aksai Chin; who but a true dedicated democrat and pacifist would have gone to the UN to solve a border dispute with Pakistan, halfway through, when victory was almost in sight, instead of fighting the ongoing war to the end. But we are so addicted to being fans that any rational appraisal is looked upon as betrayal.With violence and fanaticism ingrained in our psyche, the degree of our bestiality and ignorance depends upon which icon forces us into fandom. Propaganda is the staple we survive on.If we could descend – as soon as we got rid of colonial rule – to sectarian and caste/religion-based violence when we were fans of highly principled and democratic people like Gandhi, imagine what we are capable of when our political icons themselves preach sectarianism.Rape and mob lynching become the order of the day. Rioting can no longer describe the brutality. The so-called “law” turns a blind eye, preferring to persecute the non-fans. In fact, not being a fan has become the prime crime today.Fans also revel in economic statistics. We know that economic statistics give averages. For example, when the data says longevity is now 61 years, it means that affluent people can merrily live up to 80+ or 90+. These are the lucky ones whose children study abroad and who rush there for treatment of minor to middling major ailments.As Joan Robinson put it so succinctly, economic theory gives us the benefit of hanging an elephant by a string from the first floor window, assuming for the moment that the elephant has no weight!Imagine how gleefully a fan would seize upon this.Today, not only fans but those in power live in a world where elephants are routinely suspended by strings from fifth floor windows, assuming that they have no weight and never will.Mridula Garg is a Hindi writer and Sahitya Akademi award winner.