"It is alarming and also nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi, a seditious middle temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well known in the east, striding half-naked up the steps of the vice regal palace, while he is still organizing and conducting a defiant campaign of civil disobedience, to parley on equal terms with the representative of the king-emperor."
-Winston Churchill, 1930-3 London, England-3
From this quotation1 we can gather that Gandhi was a man disliked by the British. People like Churchill who deplore Gandhi as not being a great leader and claim his methods resulted in more being lost then gained seem to forget that after World War 1 any moderate leadership of India may not have achieved the desired result of the nation. It is a known fact that a number of educated Indians wished not to fight directly with the government and ruling power, whilst the illiterate people in the rural areas did not care much for political issues of the country.
People began to realise that a powerful extremist wing had formed in India, it was recognised by characters such as Jawaharlal Nehru (future prime minister of India) and Subhas Chandra Bose, it is unlikely that any man other than that of Gandhi’s attitude and character could have controlled these men. Gandhi’s methods of non-violence together with his personality had sufficient strength to keep these powerful men amongst the congress fold and confine their energies to his cause. It is believed that if the Gandhi’s leadership had been more moderate natured then this group of men would have become more violent and rebellious and in effect have brought upon themselves the tyranny of the British authorities.
Gandhi’s leadership of India had a number of positive points as well as negative aspects. It was his unique personality without anyone equal to it that achieved what India wanted. The impact Gandhi had on Indian independence can be considered under three points.
1. His reorganisation of Congress.
- His impact on Hindu-Muslim relations.
- His theory and practise of non-violence (Ahimsa)
Clearly, the results of his actions were different from what he had expected. His changing of the Congress movement attracted the support of the people and seemed like the only hope they could rely on. A vast majority of the population had nothing against the British but did not approve of it either. This Lack of interest from the people created a problem for the national movement which was never overcome. The commercial and business people who injected funds into Congress believed that due to Gandhi’s power to attract people and be a dominant leader was useless against the British. They believed his views and actions were not dangerous to their
1 – By Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of Britain at the time.
interests. Gandhi was not regarded as a socialist or a radical. The people were attracted to him and he was an important part of the road to freedom for their nation. It was when Gandhi said things such as:
“The war in Europe: what is our – India’s – place in it? We are, above all, British citizens of the great British Empire. Fighting as the British people are at present in a righteous cause for the good and glory of human dignity and civilization …our duty is clear: to do our best to support the British, fight with our life and property.”
-Gandhi’s first reaction to the war, publishing a message to the people of India-4
These quotes inspired and motivated the people. To others thses quotes made them think he was going against his philosophy of non-violence and that he was two faced.
After undertaking the change of Congress he used Congress as a tool of political campaigning against the British. The goal of the people and Gandhi was Independence and he believed Congress was a means to this, though Gandhi’s conception of the purposes of Congress was also, in a way, not political, unorthodox and idealistic. The way Congress has been run and maintained is one of the main reasons democracy in India was maintained for some time after Independence. Gandhi had not seen this coming.
Gandhi was a Hindu and though it may have been by accident, or unknown to him, his shake-up of Congress was enacted around his Hindu lifestyle. This would in due course affect the Hindu-Muslim relationship. He often appeared to show as much interest in the development of Hinduism as in, the attainment Independence. Gandhi’s aims were clear to all. His goal for the people was Independence which is why many were proud of him, another historian said:
“Between the two world wars, at the heyday of colonialism, force reigned supreme. It had a suggestive power; and it was natural for the weaker to lie down before the stronger. Then came Gandhi chasing out of his country, almost single-handed, the greatest military power on earth. He taught the world that there are higher things then force, higher even then life itself; he proved that force had lost its suggestive power.”
-Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, Nobel-Laureate Historian-5
Gandhi continued to oppose division, with a growing sense of his own powerlessness in the situation, until finally he had to discard the idea of Hindu-Muslim unity. This all tragically ended in partition and the killing of many thousands. This was the tragic irony of Gandhi’s career. It may have been unknown to him but his character and personality affected events in a grave manner. Gandhi believed he was meant to carry the message of Ahimsa (non-violence) to one and all, but on the road to Independence the world was given a
show of violence to such an extent that had not been seen before. All his teachings seem to have been in vain. This leads us to the conclusion that Gandhi’s influence was not helpful.
Gandhi realised that the struggle against the British had been unproductive. Even with all the Satyagraha campaigns and Hartals (strikes) nothing had been achieved. In some way it had helped to prevent violence. As a weapon against the British, Gandhi’s methods had been successful.Thought not successful enough to drive the British out of the country. Their views on him showed they were not afraid of Gandhi. Lord Chelmsford summed up the feelings of not only the British but also most educated Indians when he wrote to Montagu:
“Dear me…what a …nuisance these saintly fanatics are! Gandhi is incapable of hurting a fly and is as honest as the day, but he enters quiet lightheartedly on a course of action which is the negation of all government and may lead to much hardship to people who are ignorant and easily led astray.”
-Lord Chlemsford in a letter to Montagu, 9th April-6
From this letter it is evident that the British were not fraid of Gandhi and his contribution to Independence so far had not been successful. Gandhi also authorised and directed mass movements which, he knew were likely to lead to violence. His view and ideas towards the British Government did not coincide with his teachings of non-violence and love, Gandhi sometimes fell short of his own standards, but he was usually well above ordinary ones. It is clear that he deceived himself about the nature of the non-violence, he authorised, and the real attitude of his followers towards it. However Satyagraha may be regarded in its ideal purity in practise; it was liable to be only another form of coercion.
Another method used by Gandhi to attempt to control the people were his fasts. Gandhi believed that by fasting he could help the people understand his wishes, but even some of his greatest fasts did not bring in sympathy from Dr. Ambedkar, Darbar Virawalaol, Lord Linlithgow; they looked upon them, as a form of blackmail. In the same way, Gandhi’s mass civil disobedience movements, though to some extent affective as demonstration’s of the strength of the people of the country, were viewed by the British as an ingenious form of political protest; they were not impressed by the way people suffered. The British often reported back to King, as Lord Wavell once did:
“ Gandhi ran entirely true to form: his influence is still great; his line of thought at any given moment and on any particular issue is as unpredictable as ever; he never makes a pronouncement that is not so qualified and so vaguely worded that it cannot be interpreted in whatever sense best suits him at a later stage…My distrust of this shrewd, conference malevolent, old politician was deep before the conference started; it is deeper then ever now.”
-Lord Wavell reporting back to the King of England-7
Tagore was one of many who disapproved of civil disobedience, drawing attention to the moral and physical dangers which were part of Gandhi’s techniques. It was wrong, he said, “to transpose moral force into force”, and he believed that “martyrdom for the cause of truth might degenerate into fanaticism for mere verbal forms, descending into self deception that hides itself behind sacred names”. This was valid criticism but was lost on Gandhi.
The main question Gandhi posed was whether his supporters and followers believed in non-violence (ahimsa). Here was one case where Gandhi was described perfectly by Lord Irwin’s phrase; he was the “victim of unconscious self-deception”. Gandhi knew they did not believe in it but let himself think they did.
To achieve Independence was so important to Gandhi that he was even willing to risk the outbreak of violence and said he would prefer to “see India freed by violence than enchained like a slave to her foreign oppressors”. He did not believe violence could set India free. Like with many other people who did not approve of Gandhi was Mohammad Ali Jinnah, he was the leader of the Muslim party and would end up fighting for partition. He never approved of Gandhi or his methods and supported the British on many occasions. When he once spoke about Gandhi he held nothing back:
“Your methods have already caused split and division in almost every institution that you have approached hitherto…not only amongst Hindus and Muslims but between Hindus and Hindus and Muslims and Muslims…your extreme programme has for the moment struck the imagination of the inexperienced…ignorant and the illiterate. All this means complete disorganisation and chaos. What the consequences of this may be, I shudder to contemplate….”
-Mohammad Ali Jinnah in a letter of resignation- 8
Many historians still have the same view on Gandhi as Jinnah did whilst others were in favour of his methods and tactics. The argument for and against Gandhi is strong. He was, for a long time, a symbol for India’s fight for freedom. Finally, Independence was gained in these conditions. It gave him more sorrow than joy, but as against the British in the main non-violently. He had always hoped to free India from, the English yoke “to deliver the… weaker races of the earth from the crushing heels of Western exploitation”. One item in Gandhi’s
‘constructive program’, the removal of untouchabilty, had a lasting effect on Hindu society and places Gandhi in the ranks of the great social reformers of modern times. The fact that Gandhi had managed to play an important role in freeing India from the iron grip of the British Empire was a great feat in itself because the attitude of the British was of such:
“We did not conquer India for the benefit of the Indians. We conquered India at the outlet of goods of Great Britain. We conquered India by the sword, and by the sword we should hold it”
-Lord Brentford, 1930- 9
The deliverance of India from British rule, which admittedly was Gandhi’s’ chief political aim, would appear also to have been the dominant purpose of his life. He himself would have denied this; the dominant purpose of his life was a religious one, and he was brought to politics by religion.
We have covered all the facts and all the important points, from this we can gather that Gandhi was a man who may have not been liked by everyone but was loved by many. Gandhi played an integral role in reliving India from the British grip but along this road he encountered many hardships which the country also faced with many people perishing. So the question of whether he brought the arrival of Independence quicker or whether he hindered the process can be seen from either side of the argument. Many historians say he was the cause of Independence and the country’s saviour whilst many others such as the Muslim leader Jinnah believe Gandhi’s tactics only brought chaos and further death. I personally believe that Gandhi did help to achieve Independence but his methods were very drastic and the question remains; was the cost of achieving Independence the death of a vast majority of the country? The original question remains unanswered because both the fact that he helped achieve Independence and that he hindered it in some way are both true. The facts tell the final story and the answer to the question can only be found by each individual depending on their views of Gandhi. Ghandi did make a great contribution, the establishment hated him simply because he was a challenge to their power and authority.
Bibliography-Books Used
- People who have helped the World –Mahatma Gandhi, Mike Nicholson
- A concise history of India, Francis Watson
- Spotlight on the British Raj, William Golant
- The British Raj, Denis Judd
- The partition of India, V.P. Kanitkar
- Gandhi, Homer Jack
- The Indian Subcontinent, Nicholas Pinfield
- India’s struggle for Independence, Bipan Chandra and Co.
9) The Proudest Day, Anthony Read and David Fisher
These were the main books used as well as the internet.