Gandhi Jayanti: The actual impact of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi is still a mystery to the Indian populace 154 years after his birth. This predicament is largely attributable to the extensive propaganda that has obscured important details that would have given us a clearer understanding of the activist, leader, politician, demagogue, man, unlikely saint, and the mythology built around these concepts. and in that order.
Therefore, any sincere effort made in the direction of Gandhian un-obscurcation will be fruitful provided it continues to assess the stated legacy using the aforementioned criteria. On a more grounded level, this investigation will delve into both known and unknown truths about Mohandas Gandhi, the devoted liberation fighter, astute mass leader, cunning politician, and Christian moralist. Gandhi himself is credited with saying, “My life is my message.” Let’s assume the best and see what comes of it.
The Mahatma myth – Gandhi’s dictatorial nature
Mahatma is a single word that sums up one of the most persistent falsehoods that has persisted for almost a century. Without this myth, it is unlikely that a single dynasty could have ruled over such a sizable country and altered the course of the Hindu civilisational state for almost 40 years. another 15 years, in patches. And for another ten years, pawn off this civilisation to a Super Prime Minister who was born elsewhere.
For more than 50 years, those who dared to examine this myth critically have seen countless careers destroyed and countless lives cut short. This alone is evidence that, like all myths, the Mahatma myth too rested on shaky ground and needed concealment and obfuscation to remain in widespread use.
In order to rally the people of India, Mohandas Gandhi, a patriot, a dedicated freedom fighter, and a leader, used non-violence and Satyagraha for the first time. While leading from the front, he made sure that the Congress party and the populace never lost sight of who was in command.
It is also beyond dispute that Gandhi did not achieve India’s independence alone. The Mahatma Myth, possibly the most effective and innovative PR campaign in recent Indian history, is built on this plot point from the liberation fight epic.
In many ways, this myth was planted by Mohandas Gandhi.
Astonished nationalists and freedom fighters from Bengal and Punjab, the original birthplaces of the independence movement, listened as Gandhi roared, “so long as you choose to keep me as your leader…you must accept my conditions, you must accept dictatorship and the discipline of martial law.”
Bipin Chandra Pal, who was outraged, warned Motilal Nehru in a passionate letter that “blind reverence for Gandhiji’s leadership would kill people’s freedom of thought and would paralyse by the deadweight of unreasoning reverence their individual conscience.”
In a profoundly incisive piece published in his biweekly, Karnataka, more than ten years after giving this lecture, Gandhi’s junior contemporary and eminent journalist, editor, and philosopher, DV Gundappa, wrote the following:
“Before Gandhi’s advent, there was an open atmosphere in public discourse….debates, discussions and arguments on various subjects…went on unhindered. Every point of debate had two, three, even four differing perspectives. The public…had accepted this as healthy, and welcomed and examined such differing perspectives without any bias. Gokhale travelled on his own path. Tilak on his. Lajpat Rai on his. Surendranath Banerjee on his. People welcomed all of their views and pondered over the relative merits…of each. This was not limited merely to political matters but extended to economics, social reform and so on. [These] leaders…contemplated on such matters independently and voiced them openly…it was an age of discussing…disagreements in a climate of free exchange.
“After Gandhiji took the stage, this culture of free and open disagreement and debates vanished. It was said that the political stand of the entire country should be one, and that Gandhiji’s frontal leadership should be unhindered. It was said that if Gandhiji spoke, the nation spoke. The reasoning offered was as follows: unless the nation adopted this unquestioning mentality, we would not get freedom from the British.
“Therefore, from then onwards, no public meeting would begin without the chant of “Gandhiji ki jai!” People were prohibited from taking his name without the mandatory honorific of “Mahatma.” Gandhiji’s thought became the nation’s thought.”
The letter from Bipin Chandra Pal to Motilal Nehru had no effect. When Lokmanya Tilak passed away shortly after, Mohandas Gandhi’s ascent to political superstardom remained unabated.
Holy Trinity of Congress
The astute politician and lawyer Motilal Nehru saw the long-term potential in raising Mohandas Gandhi for his own son Jawaharlal. Additionally, Motilal’s extravagant wealth and generous donations to the Congress party were helpful. He waited patiently and veered with the wind. Jawaharlal Nehru and Motilal were elected as the leader of the opposition in the Central Legislative Assembly and the chairman of the Allahabad Municipality, respectively, in 1923. The backseat manoeuvre was performed by Mohandas Gandhi, a historical fact that is purposefully left out of popular myths. A foreign journalist who witnessed this phenomenon observed that “Indian nationalism now had its Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.”
Gandhi wanted monopoly on India’s freedom movement
Gandhi, however, fully cemented his status as the Saint of the Masses with the Dandi March. His undisputed suzerainty over the freedom struggle as well as the Congress party went hand in hand with his sainthood. A non-Congress (or non-Gandhian) freedom fighter had limited influence since Mohandas Gandhi had turned the struggle for independence into a monopoly.
Gandhi’s own innovations, the highly praised Satyagraha and the Ahimsa techniques of agitating against British colonial power, littered the path to his absolute and undeniable consolidation of the Congress leadership.
This was a genuine original genius moment.
With it, Mohandas Gandhi severed the ties between the Indian National Congress and its past. Up until that point, the organisation had been largely controlled by powerful provincial freedom fighters, and it had been a thriving nexus of intellectuals, cultural heavyweights, artists, and businesspeople. In general, there was room for everyone to be heard and respected.
As DV Gundappa noted, this tradition of open discussion and dissent, underpinned by a sincere desire for India’s liberation, was suppressed at the altar of an odd sainthood. A mysterious “inner voice” and an odd “spiritual power” in politics, whose sole steward was Mohandas Gandhi, were what made a person a saint. You could only follow him blindly. It made no difference if your sense of ethics, knowledge, integrity, morality, or common sense was better than his. Gandhi’s policies and style of leadership were fundamentally similar to those of an Abrahamic Prophet in both content and tone.
The best account of what happened to the Indian National Congress following that is provided by RC Majumdar, one of the greatest historians in history and a unique kind of liberation warrior.
“Gandhi combined in himself the dual role of a saint and an active politician…unfortunately, Gandhi’s followers did not make this distinction and gave unto the political leader what was really due to a saint. This confusion pervading all ranks of Congressmen from the highest to the lowest has…distorted public view of Indian politics since 1920 that it has now…become…impossible to make a rational historical survey of the course of events…This is best illustrated by the unquestioning obedience to Gandhi…shown by even very highly eminent persons [who]…belonged to two categories. The first comprised those who willingly surrendered their conscience and judgement to the safekeeping of the political Guru…the second consisted of those who fell a victim to the magic charm of Gandhi even though they fumed at…his irrational dogmas…
“The inevitable effect of such sentiments was that great political leaders of the Congress…[regarded] Gandhi as a superman, who was infallible and acted by instinct, not logic or reason, and therefore should not be judged by ordinary standards which we apply to other leaders.” [Emphasis added]
No more Lokmanya Tilaks, Lala Lajpat Rais, or Bipin Chandra Pals would be born under this new political saint kingdom; those that did exist were not permitted. Subhas Bose received firsthand knowledge of this unpleasant reality. Gandhi had such contempt for this saint after his persistent and meagre backstage manoeuvring to have Bose removed as the democratically elected head of the INC that he departed India.
Here is how Michael Edwardes characterises the spiteful tactics of the saint: “For any aspiring rebel, the treatment of Subhas Bose was a lesson in practicalities, a brutal reminder of the authoritarian, Gandhian truth: do not fight the Mahatma.” [Emphasis added]
Mohandas Gandhi’s tactics of regular protests, open marches, and prison invasions — all of which seemed to serve no purpose—were crucial to his transformation into the Mahatma. Or, at the very least, these were quick fixes with no discernible, overarching purpose or timetable. There is a rational case to be made for Gandhi’s leadership of the Indian liberation struggle being utterly pointless.
Aside from the Dandi March, none of Mohandas Gandhi’s best-laid plans or agitations were successful for the same reason: there was no clear description of the goal or result.
Gandhi’s strategies had been exposed to the British very quickly, it was evident. And so, following the Dandi March, they came up with what may have been the most effective strategy to defeat him: they started to make fun of him constantly. However, they appeared to take him seriously, portraying Gandhi as an annoyance that needed to be tamed. But in August 1933, when this annoyance value finally got to them, they made the decision to call Gandhi’s bluff when he declared a 21-day fast from the Yeravada prison after hearing another call from his “Inner Voice.” He was simply unconditionally released by the British. Gandhi hadn’t planned on it.
In other words, the civil disobedience movement, which is heralded as one of his greatest wins against the British, had failed as a pretext for him to enter prison and announce his fast. We now focus on Michael Edwardes.
“No one was more shocked [by this] than Gandhi. Prison was an almost essential backdrop for his personal drama…the drama now became a farce…the trivialisation of the technique was now complete and even Gandhi was aware of it.”
Gandhi was aware of his repeated failures, yet this didn’t prevent him from continuing down the same path. Another notable case is the failure of the Quit India Movement, although because to space limitations, I am unable to go into further depth about it.
Mohandas Gandhi’s self-righteous contempt for disagreement and dissent is amply demonstrated in an even worse incident.
The entire nation was filled with patriotic enthusiasm when the Subash Bose-led INA launched its triumphant onslaught against the British in 1945. George Orwell, who was then employed by the BBC’s war propaganda department, observed how the alarmed British Government stifled radio broadcasts of the INA victory.
However, the Congress and Gandhi’s attitude towards Bose and the INA was lukewarm to put it mildly. It took great care not to publicise the heroism and sacrifice and victories of the INA. In a brazen exhibition of its shamelessness, the AICC in September 1945, passed a resolution declaring that “it would be a tragedy if these [INA] officers were punished for the offence of having laboured, however mistakenly for the freedom of India.” [Emphasis added]
Gandhi – A Christian moralist
Culturally speaking, Gandhi’s leadership of the Congress party resulted in a complete break with the past. This is because to Gandhi’s dual misconception. First, he misunderstood the specifics of global colonialism as practised by imperial Britain. The second is his misunderstanding of the philosophical, spiritual, and cultural foundations of India.
The forerunners and contemporaries of Mohandas Gandhi, including Balgangadhar Tilak, Bipan Chandra Pal, Sri Aurobindo, and others, had understood the necessity of destroying British colonialism from root to branch. Even a trained Christian theologian like White American Will Durant, who travelled to India at the height of British colonial exploitation, understood the reality of the diabolism behind this rule: Englishmen were only in India temporarily, there for the opportunity it gave them to continue their unrelenting looting and exploitation, and once that opportunity ran out, they would pack up and leave.
None of the Englishmen who were in India had any aspirations of settling there permanently. William F. Buckley Jr. and Christopher Hitchens, working independently in subsequent years, came to the same conclusion as Will Durant and Michael Edwardes. Writes Edwardes:
“Only British-ruled Hindu India could have produced such a figure as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi…one effect of his western education was…the conviction that the British were a moral people believing in justice. If they could be persuaded to recognise the unrighteousness of their rule in India, they would willingly abdicate power.” [Emphasis added]
This typical Gandhian naiveté is very difficult to understand, especially considering that Mohandas Gandhi had firsthand knowledge of the horrors of British colonialism during his time in South Africa before to becoming the Mahatma. He had overheard Cecil Rhodes, a notorious racist and proponent of White supremacy, openly praising the “virtues” of the British rule “so successfully practised in India.”
Gandhi, however, really believed that he could appeal to the “innate goodness in the British heart” and persuade them to quit after returning to India and diving headfirst into the independence struggle.
This will be made clearer by comparison.
Aurobindo Ghosh benefited from a completely English-based education. He had spent time in England, had briefly adopted an English way of life, and possessed a perceptive understanding of the country and see through their true nature.
Gandhi had previously resided in England, but after a few months he developed remorse that prevented him from partaking in even the smallest “pleasures of life.” In many ways, Gandhi’s unending explorations of the truth were anchored by guilt, which he admits in his autobiography was the Aadhara Shruti (or base note, in musical jargon). The idea that we are all born with sin and are consequently eternally damned is another fundamental tenet of Christian theology. Its practical application can be observed in the humiliating Confessional, an establishment created to instill guilt in the minds of the Faithful. This is how My Experiments with Truth by Mohandas Gandhi can be seen of as a textual adaptation of his Confessional without a Padre.
No one better grasped this basic character trait of Mohandas Gandhi than Sri Aurobindo. In a reply to a disciple, he wrote:
“Gandhi is a European – truly, a Russian Christian in an Indian body… When the Europeans say that he is more Christian than many Christians…they are perfectly right. All his preaching is derived from Christianity, and though the garb is Indian the essential spirit is Christian… He is largely influenced by Tolstoy, the Bible…in his teachings; at any rate more than by the Indian scriptures – the Upanishads or the Gita…
“Many educated Indians consider him a spiritual man…because the Europeans call him spiritual. But what he preaches is not Indian spirituality but something derived from Russian Christianity, non-violence, suffering, etc.” [Emphasis added]
It is evident from his explanations of the Bhagavad Gita and Hindu Dharma that Mohandas Gandhi was aware of the primary Hindu idea of the “eternal” (or Sanatana), but he did not consider the Hindu concept of Time to be important in and of itself. This is most clearly evident in his idea of the Dharma. According to the Hindu view, Eternity is a part of Rta, or the Cosmic Order. Dharma upholds and sustains Rta in the world of human life. Dharma is hence Rta’s verb form.
Due to his lack of conceptual clarity and his naiveté regarding the goodwill of the British, Mohandas Gandhi spent his entire life pursuing one of his favourite causes: Hindu-Muslim unification at the expense of Hindu lives.
History demonstrates his abject failure in both endeavours. The Muslim community established a separate nation for themselves. India was quickly abandoned by the British because the Empire could no longer be supported.
The Muslim League won India’s political independence, and British sleight of hand ultimately won. Both directly and inadvertently, Mohandas Gandhi had made both possible.
Concluding comments
The Indian National Congress, which Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi had guided and monopolised with the help of his saviorly spiritual strength, would meet its demise.
The same Congressmen who had fawned over him and had been submissive throughout simply abandoned him by the middle of the 1940s, when it became clear that independence was within reach. Here is an eyewitness account of the event from the undisputed R C Majumdar.
”[prominent Congressmen] under Gandhi’s leadership…made no secret of the fact that they adopted Non-violent Non-cooperation as a politically expedient but not like, Gandhi, as a creed…Gandhi himself admitted…late in life…that none of his followers believed in Satyagraha as a creed…and admitted, “even 14 years of trial have failed to yield the anticipated result.”
“[Gandhi] placed the cult of non-violence above everything else—even above the independence of India…to him the Congress was a humanitarian association…for the moral and spiritual regeneration of the world…but his followers looked upon the Congress as a purely political body…
“The tragedy of Gandhi’s life was that [the] members of his inner council, who followed him for more than twenty years with unquestioned obedience, took the fatal steps leading to the partition of India without his knowledge, not to speak of his consent.” [Emphasis added]
In actuality, Gandhi’s misguided promotion of Satya (Truth), Ahimsa (Non-violence), and Satyagraha (passive resistance of injustice) is eminent proof to the spectacular failure and the natural conclusion of Majumdar’s catastrophic academic career after India gained freedom.
Jawaharlal Nehru, Gandhi’s favourite student and India’s first Prime Minister, expelled Majumdar, the towering historian who was revered all over the world, from academia. What was Majumdar’s crime? displaying the fortitude to write a fact-based, impartial history of the Indian liberation fight, in which he actively participated and made contributions.
But how else might it develop? By comparing his own personality cult to the Congress party, Mohandas Gandhi had already set the example. He had outlined the meaning of Indian nationalism by citing “his own life and commitment as the only example to be followed.” Nehru, one of his disciples, had only taken the Mahatma’s route. Unsurprisingly, it didn’t take long for the notorious phrase “Indira is India” to be created. The past is important.
In the end, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi only inspires our admiration in a few specific ways—winning India’s independence on his own is most definitely not one of them.
