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 c