“To fight with the sword does call for bravery of a sort. But to die is braver far than to kill. He alone is truly brave, he alone is martyr in the true sense who dies without fear in his heart and without wishing hurt to his enemy, not the one who kills and dies” – Mohandas K. Gandhi, 1938 (Johnson, 105).
History is replete with examples of countries which, in their darkest hours, rose to manifest the brave and virtuous traits of their great leaders. In 19th-century America, Abraham Lincoln’s inspirational leadership galvanized resistance to calls to accommodate secession. Winston Churchill’s defiance of the Nazi threat inspired the British people to endure the blitz and the greatest threat to Britain since Napoleon. For Mohandas K. Gandhi, courage and resistance took a different form and required different things of him than other national leaders faced in times and places of great crisis and consequence. Gandhi was more than just the leader of a national independence movement. That which he led was also a social movement, a quest for equality not just in the face of British oppression and the class system it represented in India but for an Indian class system in which millions were disenfranchised. For this epochal event in human history, Gandhi’s personality, his views on courage, his piety and his political acumen were indispensable, an inspirational and animating force unlike any other in modern human history.
It was Gandhi’s conception of courage that would inform and guide the path of Indian
independence both externally, vis a vis Great Britain, and internally, concerning the social inequities within his own country. Gandhi believed that conflict is an important element in human life. “For Gandhi, the human condition is marked neither by perfectionism nor fatalism but by struggle. He wants to free people from the force of gravity that continually pulls them back to their unavoidable pride” (Terchek, 191). It was not just Gandhi’s willingness to risk conflict, both personal and as a national leader, but the panache with which he carried himself during conflict that is so inspirational. It is as though he had a concept of himself that he created specifically in order to inspire others. There is little doubt that much of what Gandhi did in his dealings with the British authorities both in India and in England was designed to elicit particular reactions from his own people, from the British and from the international community.
Gandhi’s beliefs concerning conflict and its importance in the lives of human beings were more than just reflective of a personal philosophy; they paralleled the Hindu creed and its assertion of the soul’s reincarnative struggles. “Gandhi continually and insistently links nonviolent civil disobedience with courage and a readiness to suffer. Moral courage is no ordinary virtue for Gandhi; it is one of his touchstones. He expects that every life will encounter obstacles, some large and painful, others small and negotiable” (Terchek, 191). Gandhi argues that the world will always be a place of violence, danger and fear, but that to respond in a cowardly manner, to deny the existence of such things, is nothing less than a betrayal of one’s personal convictions (Tercheck, 191). Thus, to act inspirationally was part and parcel of being human, something to be expected.
Much of Gandhi’s personal mystique, which served him so well during the latter stages of his life, was the culmination of experiences from his youth. He had, like anyone else, to determine for himself how to respond in the fact of conflict, of racism and violence. Having been educated in British institutions of higher learning, and having lived in England, Gandhi saw himself as a British citizen, with full civil rights. As a lawyer and an Indian, he found himself defending Indian workers in South Africa from travel restrictions and other infringements on their civil rights. It was during these years that Gandhi developed the abilities that would serve him so well in the struggles against British rule in India. “Drawn into political activism in South Africa by the needs of India, he developed skills that would eventually be vital to his work in India” (Brown and Parel, 4). Having learned the British governmental system from the inside out, Gandhi knew how to petition the authorities, which officials to approach and, most importantly, how to apply political pressure where it could be most effective.
After the turn of the 20th century, Gandhi was increasingly pulled away from the British-lifestyle and value system that he had once valued. His time in South Africa exposed him to a side of the British Empire that he found shallow, hypocritical and disturbing. Ironically, those very qualities he had once admired in the British, as bringers of civilization and patrons of the socio-economically disadvantaged, he came to feel the British themselves had betrayed in South Africa and, later, in India. Gandhi’s rejection of the British Empire as an exploitative and oppressive force led him toward conflict, without which he knew his native country would never be free. As a leader, displaying courage in the face of conflict was the best way to inspire his people, both Hindus and Muslims. Thus, he suffered imprisonment and risked death in hunger
strikes multiple times.
Yet in so doing, it should be noted that Gandhi did not set out to take part in widespread political movements, but to act as a figurehead, someone who acted on his own in order to derive the greatest political capital from the opportunity. “Gandhi himself rarely led mass campaigns, and later in life preferred to fight alone rather than risk mass protest” (Brown and Parel, 242). In this way he inspired other social resistance leaders who suffered oppression and punishment as powerfully independent symbols of their own movements. Cesar Chavez was one such individual. The influential leader of migrant farm workers, who represented Hispanics, Filipinos and African-Americans throughout much of the 20th century, found Gandhi’s writings and very personal approach to civil disobedience (and public relations) to be highly inspirational. Chavez was very effective at following Gandhi’s example as tactician, having staged many hunger strikes in order to draw attention to the socio-economic injustice done to migrant laborers in the United States.
Thus, Gandhi’s example proved not only inspirational but instructive for others who have sought to strike a blow for justice and equality since Gandhi’s time. His methods were effective and important because they had the effect of setting him above partisan politics, a vital necessity in a country where deep religious divisions could easily have undermined the Indian independence movement. Gandhi was inspirational in that he followed the dictates of his stated convictions. He knew that he could evince no partiality, no bias against any aspect of society, Indian or otherwise, and he remained true to that path. His message of universal human equality, in which he took up the cause of India’s lowest classes, such as the “untouchables,” resonated
powerfully in a society that had always been defined by its class divisions. “To treat
all of humanity as oneself requires an extraordinary amount of courage. This is the kind of
courage that Gandhi embodied. It is what makes a truly greater leader compassionate. Gandhi’s work for the untouchables required the courage to go against prevailing custom and power” (Nair, 52). Gandhi’s acceptance of all classes was the product of his journey of self-discovery. As a young man, he had embraced the British class system and all the physical trappings of the English gentleman. As previously discussed, Gandhi went to England expecting to become part of English society as a lawyer. The reality of the situation was brought home to Gandhi in very disillusioning terms:
“In England he believed that conformity to prevailing fashions was the quickest way to social acceptance. He considered the appropriation of imperial culture essential to an Indian’s self-esteem. In South Africa he was surprised to discover that all Indians were objects of scorn. Notwithstanding their position as subjects of the British Empire they could only imitate the English dress but not expect to be treated like the English. One way for a ‘self-respecting Indian’ to redeem himself from this stigma was disassociate himself from the shabbily dressed ‘coolie’” (Gonsalves, 12).
Gonsalves goes on to note that it took a watershed personal event in Gandhi’s young life to turn him away from the “shallowness” of British society and toward an acceptance of universal brotherhood, itself an alien concept for a young Indian (Gonsalves, 12). It was a powerful personal experience with prejudice that worked such a radical transformation on the
aspiring young lawyer. “After his close encounter with a maltreated Indian labourer, Gandhi was suddenly struck by the shallowness of his life based on prestige and appearances. He began to value simplicity, selfless service, self-reliance and community living” (Gonsalves, 12). Here one sees a description of the Gandhi that the world came to know, the courageous and inspirational leader for whom personal greatness was part of a personal evolution.
Gandhi’s personal moral code may have been transformed, but his intellect and political skills, honed during his days as a lawyer, were constants that remained with him always. The administrators of British rule in India soon found that they were up against a man of rare ability and resolve; the fact that he was a slight, short-sighted, half-dressed native made his razor-sharp sense of political strategy all the more surprising to his British opponents. They found out just how sharp he could be in 1930, when Gandhi hit upon a brilliant stratagem aimed at drawing international attention to the immorality of British rule. Convinced that any law he protested should be unjust from the objective standpoint of conscience, he targeted the salt-law tax (Nair, 123). The British salt monopoly in India meant that not even individuals could make salt for their own private use, while the tax made the purchase of salt too costly for countless poor people (123).
It was an inspired choice, on many levels. “Because it required no technology, anybody could participate in the protest by making their own salt; because of the government’s monopoly, the protest posed no threat to Indian business interests; and because everybody needed and used salt, the protest had an emotional appeal” (Nair, 123). It also set off a chain reaction of civil disobedience that led to thousands of arrests, just the sort of unwieldy reaction that Gandhi, in his
wisdom, knew the British could not possibly maintain. The salt tax protest was just the sort of intelligent, insightful and impactful move that inspired subsequent protest leaders throughout the world, not just for its moral stand but its inventiveness. One can easily call to mind images of aristocratic British officials, discounting Gandhi as a barbarian lacking in native intelligence based on his manner of dress and skin color. It is not hard to imagine their shock at finding they had been trumped by such a person, nor is it surprising that Gandhi continues to be an inspiration to a new generation of leaders, including U.S. President Barack Obama.
People like President Obama are also drawn to Gandhi by the force of his personality, and by the pristine simplicity of his appeal to the people he led. In other words, people were motivated to follow him because they knew that he was devoted to serving them. Keshavan Nair writes that Gandhi’s selflessness endowed him with authority, a moral authority that made him a formidable challenge to British control in India. “Gandhi had power, but he had none of the means we usually associate with power: wealth, official position, military might. His power was based solely on the willingness of people to follow his lead. They were willing to serve him because his life was devoted to serving them” (Nair, 89). This was the source of a power that could undermine a great colonial power like Great Britain because not only did the people he led know that his was the greater moral force; the British themselves came to know and accept that Gandhi held the higher moral ground.
Martin Luther King, Jr., who, perhaps more than any other follower of Gandhi’s non-violent creed, commented on the unique relationship between Gandhi and the people who he inspired. “They followed him because of his absolute sincerity and his absolute dedication.
Here was a man who achieved in his lifetime the bridging of the gulf between the ego and the id. Gandhi had an amazing capacity for self criticism” (Fields, 46). As such, he led by example, allowing people to see his humanity and, in so doing, he encouraged them to trust and follow him. It is this warmth and openness that still inspires admiration from people today. When Gandhi was martyred, his appeal and personal moral authority were assured for all time. Ironically, King followed in his idol’s footsteps, from sacrifice, to moral authority and finally to martyrdom.
It is a testament to Gandhi’s message of universal brotherhood that so many others have followed in his footsteps. Personal courage is a characteristic to which people are drawn, and it was this virtue that drew disparate religious and political forces from within India to Gandhi, whose moral ascendancy channeled the hopes and energy of millions of Indians. When personal courage persists, others are inspired to be courageous as well. This was Gandhi’s legacy. He stood alone, allowing himself to be a lightning rod despite the danger to himself. His integrity was the integrity of one lone man willing to risk everything to show others that there is a higher ethical plane to which all must aspire if all are to be free. It was Gandhi’s aim to achieve this aim through a combination of selflessness, courage and political savvy. Millions followed his example during the struggle for Indian independence; millions more have been inspired since that time to continue his struggle for justice, freedom and equality.
Works Cited
Brown, Judith M. and Parel, Anthony J., Eds. The Cambridge Companion to Gandhi. New
York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2011.
Fields, Rona M. Martyrdom: The Psychology, Theology, and Politics of Self Sacrifice.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing, 2004.
Gonsalves, Peter. “’Half-Naked Fakir:’ The Story of Gandhi’s Personal Search for Sartorial
Integrity.” Gandhi Marg, 31(1), 2019, pp. 5-30.
Johnson, Richard L., Ed. Gandhi’s Experiments With Truth. Lanham, MD: Rowman and
Littlefield, 2006.
Nair, Keshavan. A Higher Standard of Leadership: Lessons from the Life of Gandhi. Barrett-
Koehler Publishers, 1994.
Terchek, Ronald. Gandhi: Struggling for Autonomy. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield,
1998.
