Exactly 70 years ago, Mohandas Mahatma Gandhi, a man named among the main idols of the 20th century and the most important leaders of the first half, was killed by a terrorist. However, as a politician, Gandhi is clearly over-praised, and as a leader, he is idealized. And the fact that nonviolent resistance has not yet won over real politics is by no means accidental.
The greatest humanist, a consistent fighter for the liberation of his people from British colonial rule and an extremely religious man, Gandhi paradoxically accepted death at the hands of national radicals, and precisely when the dream of his life - the independence of India - finally came true.
This man was first named Mahatma, which means “Great Soul,” in 1915. By this time, 46-year-old Mohandas was studying in London, practicing law and actively fighting for the rights of Indians. His philosophy of nonviolent resistance (satyagraha) is well known throughout the world today. It implies a refusal to cooperate with an unjust government (including a boycott of its organs and individual representatives), violation of laws that are contrary to morality, non-payment of taxes and other forms of economic pressure (for example, a boycott of goods, in relation to India - colonial goods). But the main thing is the willingness to endure suffering for their position, not responding with violence to violence. Protest actions should not incite confrontation, but appeal to conscience. The opponent should not be defeated, but changed through an appeal to the best traits of his soul.
Violence, Gandhi emphasized, only gives rise to new violence. A principled rejection of violence can break the vicious circle.
The application of all these principles in practice in the first half of the 20th century was as discouraged by the British colonialists in India as the soldiers of the US Army in the latter half, when hippie girls in Washington called "Make love, not war" and inserted flowers into the barrels of assault rifles …
Gandhi was a consistent opponent of the caste, national and religious division of Indian society, fought against discrimination against the "untouchables", made active attempts to reconcile Hinduism and Islam. His methods of struggle have always been the power of persuasion, his own example and personal actions. He repeatedly went on a hunger strike in protest against certain decisions, and his high authority in society made it possible to reverse these decisions.
In human memory, Gandhi remained as the greatest humanist who managed to turn the history of India and enrich world civilization with invaluable experience.
Another question is that the “icon-painting” portrait of the national hero, as always happens, does not fully correspond to the real portrait.
Often the Mahatma conducted his activities (which were undoubtedly political) in isolation from real politics. So, the Salt campaign organized by him in 1930 (then hundreds of thousands of Indians made a 390-kilometer protest march, at the end of which they evaporated salt from sea water, demonstratively not paying the salt tax) turned into the arrest of 80 thousand people. From the point of view of the adherents of more active action, Gandhi, traditionally turning protest into an appeal to conscience, deprived the masses of the will to resist. If the same 80,000 who ended up behind bars had decisively opposed the colonialists, British rule would have fallen much earlier.
In 1921, Gandhi headed the Indian National Congress, the country's largest party, but chose to leave in 1934. Mahatma called for the recognition of the principle of nonviolence not only as determining for the internal political struggle in India (to which his party members eventually agreed), but also as a basic one for the future Indian independent state even in the event of external aggression (which the INC could no longer agree to). At the same time, Gandhi was still associated with Congress and had tremendous social influence, so he raised these issues before the party until the 1940s. When its Executive Committee responded to his proposal with a final refusal, the Mahatma announced a break with the INC, which forced the Congress to back down and adopt a compromise formulation that prejudges nothing for the future.
Another example: Gandhi actively fought against discrimination against the "untouchables", but was in irreconcilable conflict with their de facto leader, Dr. Ambedkar. The fact is that Gandhi fought precisely against discrimination, as they would say today - for a tolerant attitude towards the "untouchables" in Indian society, and Ambedkar - for granting this caste equal and full civil rights.
In 1932, Ambedkar knocked out from the British the decision on separate electoral districts for different castes, which allowed the "untouchables" to get representation on an equal basis with everyone else and to fight for their rights already on the political field. For a heavily caste-based Indian society, this was a perfectly reasonable approach. But Gandhi saw in him a path to social division and went on a hunger strike of protest - "until death" or until the decision was overturned. The Mahatma had a serious public authority before, and with this action he also attracted the Orthodox and religious radicals to his side. Ambedkar, faced with the choice to destroy the "Great Soul of the Indian People" or to sacrifice his life's work and the civil rights of the people he represented, was forced to submit to pressure.
Gandhi never deviated from his high principles. He forced others to do it.
At the beginning of the 20th century, Indian Muslims, worried about the predominance of Hindus in the INC, created the All India Muslim League. Its future leader Muhammad Ali Jinnah also began his political career in the INC. Like Gandhi, he was educated in London, like Gandhi, practiced law and was a supporter of the peaceful coexistence of Muslims and Hindus. At the same time, Jinnah criticized the "splitters" from the League, and when he received an offer to head it (while remaining a member of the INC), he tried to unite the two parties.
Jinnah was engaged in real politics, acting from the position of proportional representation of Muslims and Hindus in various provinces. It turned out that the majority of the Congress did not understand it: the INC proceeded from the principles of dividing electoral districts on a territorial basis without any quotas, while Muslims feared that this would lead to a violation of their rights. A series of elections gave a majority to a well-organized Congress, even in those provinces where Islam was professed by a significant part of the population. The INC could negotiate with the League, for example, on the principles of forming a government under the Viceroy - and immediately forget about the agreements. Therefore, Jinnah gradually moved on to the idea of separating Muslim and Hindu regions: over time, the League no longer demanded a federation, but a division of the state. Gandhi called this position "schismatic," although he noted that Muslims have the right to self-determination.
In September 1944, Jinnah held two weeks of talks with Gandhi over the peaceful division of India and Pakistan. In fact, they ended in nothing. Seeing a social split in the division of the country and resisting it with all his heart, Gandhi postponed the decision to the future, when, after the declaration of independence, it would be possible to organize plebiscites.
The future came soon: in 1945, Winston Churchill lost the elections, and the Laborites came to power in Great Britain, who embarked on a course of some rapprochement with the USSR and an early withdrawal from India. The end of British colonialism was accompanied by the now inevitable division of the country into India proper and Pakistan, but due to the accumulated mistrust between Hindus and Muslims, the division turned out to be extremely bloody. As a result of the mutual massacre, about a million people died, eighteen million became refugees, and four million of them were never found in subsequent censuses.
Gandhi took this outbreak of violence hard. He went on another hunger strike, saying: “Death will be a wonderful deliverance for me. Better to die than to be a helpless witness to India's self-destruction. But he soon interrupted his action, having received assurances from religious leaders about their readiness to compromise. In fact, relations between India and Pakistan are on the brink of war to this day.
Two days after Gandhi broke his hunger strike, a Punjabi refugee threw a homemade bomb at him. By a happy coincidence, the Mahatma was not injured.
He died on January 30, 1948 as a result of an attack by a terrorist from the nationalist organization Hindu Mahasabha. The conspirators blamed the Mahatma for the collapse of the country and its consequences, accusing him of supporting Pakistan. Earlier, Gandhi, using his moral authority, insisted on a fair division of the Indian treasury and payment of 550 million rupees to Islamabad, which the radicals perceived as treason and national humiliation.
Gandhi's dream of independence for India came true. But his philosophy of high humanism was unable to break the vicious circle of violence and prevent a huge blood. It is obvious that the era of idealism in politics has not yet arrived and still loses to the principle of lesser evil.
