Gandhi's stuff

This week James Otis auctioned off a collection of Gandhi's stuff he'd acquired over the years. There was a watch, his glasses and some other small things. The Indian government filed an (unsuccessful) injunction to stop the auction so they could work on getting the artifacts back to India. Otis said he'd consider it if India promised to increase the amount of their budget spent on the poor from 1% to 5%. 

This seems like a pretty noble, selfless action, but I really can't see it as anything but blackmail. Sure, I'd like to see poor people with more than they have. Who wouldn't? But is it really fair to hold a country's beloved historical artifacts up for ransom to get it done? What would public opinion be in America if someone from another purchased Lincoln's hat and said he would only give it back if Barack Obama guaranteed health insurance for all Americans? I would imagine people would be pretty pissed off, and rightfully so. 

This quid pro quo idea of Otis' just reeks of a superiority complex, of patronization -- you'll get your toy back if you promise to share your candy with the other children. I say that if India wants the artifacts of one of their most beloved and cherished leaders, then let them have them. And apparently they did get them -- and Indian businessman bought them and donated them to the Indian government to put on display.

However presumptuous and god-like this jackass Otis seems to be, I have to wonder -- if these artifacts are so special, why didn't the Indian government have them in the first place? Why did it have to get this far? I guess I'm not as up to speed on my history of dead people's belongings as I should be. 

Why do we care so much about these things anyway? Sure, they can serve as potent remembrances of one of the major players of Indian independence. But do they really warrant court cases, ultimatums, millions of dollars and international upheaval? I don't think so, and in my limited knowledge of Gandhi, I doubt he would either. Things didn't mean a lot to him, obviously, but action against oppression certainly did. I wonder how many people to started to death in India and America while this argument was going on. I wonder how many people died in rape camps or war prisons all over the world while we were decided who gets to keep a ratty par of sandals. Symbols are important, I realize that. But there's got to be a line concerning just how important. 

Post script: A quick not to Otis -- Stop it. You're acting like a jackass. You don't like how the Indian government is handling poverty? Give some of your more than ample paycheck to private charities and NGOs who are actually doing something about it instead of trying to politically manhandle the government of one of the biggest nations on Earth. It makes you look stupid.