Mr M.K.Gandhi

In a few more days, we will be celebrating India’s 70th Independence day (69 years). There can be no debate that Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was the person who made a very significant, if not the most contribution that resulted in us getting independence in 1947. Many others have also made significant contributions to the freedom movement and this article is not about this aspect.

This is about MK Gandhi aka as “Mahatma” or “Father of the Nation”

Some basics:

Born 2 October 1869

Went to London c 1888 (19 years)

Called to the bar 1891 and, then came back to India (22 years)

Went to South Africa 1893 (23+ years)

Natal Indian Congress formed 1894 (25 years)

Transvaal Act for registration 1906 (37 years)

Returned to India 1914 (45 years)

Champaran movement (1918) (49 years)

Non-cooperation movement (1921 onwards) (52 years)

Salt Satyagraha — 1930 (61 years)

Partition & Independence 1947 (78 years)

Death — 30 Jan 1948 (79 years)

MKG brings up mixed emotions. As a student he always was the Father of the Nation. Over a period one begins to start forming opinions and seeing flaws in his life and ideas covering his personal philosophy, decisions, his obstinacy, idealistic approach, lack of support for Subhash Chandra Bose, changing moral compass, altruistic, his neglect of family, use of moral blackmail, seen as supporting partition, etc. All these a mixture of opinions and facts. .

Yet it is not black and white and one’s opinion can go from one extreme to the other. The issue is when one is seen as a mahatma, then the flaws get magnified? So it finally depends on each of us on how we see and assess Mr. MK Gandhi. This is how I see him.

I have had all the above views and will not debate these here. Yet, there is one aspect that stands out (and I love Richard Attenborough’s “Gandhi” — mainly because of the tight direction and little Indian movie style dramatics — facts and acting). We all as individuals, and however old we are, in our own journey make decisions and live with or compromise our convictions.

Here is a person who could have led a secure life as a barrister and would have been an unknown in history, but chose to fight a cause that was not clearly defined, first in South Africa. He formulated his own ideas and approaches and defined the causes. He did so in a period when it would have taken a lot of time to assimilate ideas as one would have to read. At a time when personal and professional sacrifice would have been rare, he came up with methods and took a stance, by himself and by being able to convince people to support him just by the fact that people realized that he meant it, and not for personal gain. Remarkable, nay unthinkable. He had skills that nowadays we hear folks from the best management schools explain thick books — persuasion, management, communication, etc. He was an outstanding communicator and motivator. At age 25, he was able to get the Natal Indian Congress formed. At age 37 led the movement against registration of residents. He returned to India at age 45. In the modern day, most would look to be settled and enjoy the comforts of life.

Yet, he did not get anointed leader. He spent time with Gopal Krishna Gokhale and Bal Gangadhar Tilak (who is another great leader — clearly articulated “Swaraj is my birthright” before anyone else did), travelled across India for almost a year to understand the country and its people. Stop here — at age 45, think of yourselves, your brother, your dad, your colleague, your manager — another ordinary person — yes that was who MKG was, yet driven by his conviction, ideas, and a strong desire that he would do something for his country. Do any of us have something that would resemble this? The more you reflect, you see that he was a smart person, by itself not a rarity but a driven man, a man who created his own mental map and had a clear view of what he would do and in his own way and yet would persuade or convince people of his intentions. He did that brilliantly. Rarely in Indian history, we have had that one person that everyone recognized as the leader — certainly not in the times where communication would take weeks. This is not the modern era where all is known in a second and forgotten in two.

So in short, this was an ordinary man who adopted remarkable strategies both intellectual (communication and action discipline) — personal (diet, moral and the common touch) and also forsake all material benefits (no vested material interest) and highly driven to solve one big problem, that of India, in his own way. He got an entire nation to believe and trust him.

Salt Satyagraha at age 61? Many have retired. He is no longer young by any standards. Thinking has changed. It would have been good to have leaders who could have stepped in — yet it did not happen. So you let the leader lead and he would set the direction and take steps, not all the optimal in hindsight. Yet, how many such leaders have emerged over the past 100+ years? You will find it difficult to name a few, quickly.

So imagine — an ordinary man, at 61 is driving the strategy and taking on the Empire and using tactics and strategies that they cannot easily counter. The populace is seeing what is happening and fully support this ordinary man. We reach the end game, Quit India, World War, Attlee Mission, independence, partition, and death. We know all this.

If you look at him as an ordinary lawyer, he was so smart, yet humane but absolutely shrewd and a leader, not because of any education or riches but because he formulated all ideas by himself (yes he did read a lot and absorbed as any good student would) but took independent steps towards a goal that would have seemed impossible when he just went to South Africa. He took steps, based on his own volition, not for any gain for himself but for some ideas and his belief in those ideas. At that time it would have seemed crazy and yet he went ahead, just on the strength of his intellectual and moral capacity. Incredible and yes he was an ordinary man. Thank you, Mr. MK Gandhi.

Jai Hind