Mahatma Gandhi: life, philosophy, and legacy

Mahatma Gandhi

Mohandas Gandhi as a Leader

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi possessed many personal qualities which made him an ideal leader. He had strong faith and conviction. He had an inhuman discipline coupled with very human compassion. He was an ascetic, closely identifying with the poor and disenfranchised. He was educated in law and politics, and in his early years became experienced as an advocate of civil rights. In that time he also experienced first hand the abuse of his people, as a victim of racism in England and South Africa. But, perhaps the chief of his leadership qualities was courage; Gandhi never flinched from any suffering, hardship or fear he deemed necessary for the betterment of his people. Gandhi's courage was an inspiration; it is difficult for a man to venture into the dark alone, but easier to follow into that dark one who goes courageously.

Examining satyagraha, it is interesting to note that by an utter rejection of traditional masculine values -- violence in particular -- Gandhi became more of a man than most. If a man's duty is to turn face first into an evil wind, to drive against it despite his personal safety and comfort, to do therein what is hardest and most fearful to do because it needs to be done, Gandhi was such a man. If a man's duty is to stand on a line so that those behind him will be spared hardship, Gandhi was such a man. Men who are true to what they should be are easier to follow than false men.

From the outset of his campaign, Gandhi practiced a rigid policy of requiring of no other what he would not do himself, in keeping with his courage. At the head of the Salt March, walked Gandhi -- never a rear-echelon general but always at the forefront, always standing between the rifle barrels of the English ahead and the people of India behind. In Kheda in 1918, during Lord Willingdon's interregnum in 1931, and in Bombay in 1942 it was Gandhi who, standing at the forefront of the line -- making himself the most visible of the people's symbols -- was arrested and spent years in jail, eventually suffering the death of his wife, and the loss of his health while imprisoned.

Another aspect of his courage was displayed in Gandhi's willingness to eschew the material trappings of his station in favor of identification with his people. Gandhi would rather have died poor and free, like the untouchables of India, than rich and an English subject. Despite an affluent background, Gandhi wore only the same, homespun cloth he expected other Indians to wear in defiance of British rule. In his autobiography, Gandhi states: "I decided to live on a pure fruit diet, and that too composed of the cheapest fruit possible…" expressing that vegetarianism was not only a religious belief but also an expression of solidarity with the poor of India for whom meat was prohibitively expensive. Gandhi accounted the fear of losing a comfortable life not equal to the goal of universal freedom. In a world where "working-class" politicians get $400 haircuts, where "people's" advocates live in penthouses, where our President is considered down-to-earth because he only owns one outrageously expensive home, how refreshing would it be to find a leader who not only identifies with, but also lives the lives of his constituents as Gandhi did?

The people's love for Gandhi fueled another aspect of his courageous nature. Understanding he could not be killed but only martyred, he engineered situations where only winning outcomes were possible. Either the authorities would capitulate and he would have his way, or they would kill him and risk the wrath of hundreds of millions of Indians. He did not fear death. Rather, he embarked on innumerable fasts-unto-death, offering his life as the ransom of the people's faith and independence. In 1944, after losing his wife and contracting malaria while in prison, Gandhi was released by the authorities to avoid any backlash from the public in the situation that he should die in jail.

And, perhaps, it would be difficult for Gandhi to describe himself as courageous. Rather, like all truly courageous men he may have felt that he only did what needed to be done, what was right:

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?