“The government of the territories now in the possession or under the government of the [British] East India Company, and all powers in relation to government vested in or exercised by the said Company in trust for Her Majesty [then Queen Victoria], shall cease to be vested in or exercised by the said Company, and all territories in the possession or under the government of the said Company, and all rights vested in or which if this act had not been passed might have been exercised by the said Company in relation to any territories, shall become vested in Her Majesty [Queen Victoria], and be exercised in her name …”
– “Government of India Act 1858,” as passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (incidentally, India had then been ruled by the British East India Company since the 1757 Battle of Plassey – which was more than a century earlier than this act)
India owes its independence from the British Empire to people like Mahatma Gandhi
Mahatma Gandhi was able to free India from British rule, without the nation suffering anything like a full-scale war. There was some amount of violence therein on both sides, but it surely would have been much bloodier without the steadfast efforts of people like Mr. Gandhi. India had actually been ruled by the British since the 1757 Battle of Plassey. Starting in that year, they would now be ruled by a private corporation: the British East India Company. (More about that company in a later post.) But, in 1857 (nearly a century after that battle), the locals had fought a war to free India from the now-notorious rule of that company. This revolt is known by various names – from the Indian Rebellion, to the “Indian Mutiny” (a British name), to the “Sepoy” Rebellion (a local Indian name). Incidentally, the term “Sepoy” refers to a type of Indian infantryman. But, whatever one calls the uprising, the rebellion was soon crushed in 1858. This was more than a decade before Mr. Gandhi’s birth. Thus, that revolt had failed to free India from British rule. But, significantly, the rebellion did change which of the British institutions would now get to control India. That is, control passed from the British East India Company to the British Crown. Thus, Queen Victoria would now have direct control over India. This was the situation in India, when Mr. Gandhi was born there. Specifically, Mohandas K. Gandhi was born in 1869 – the year that the Suez Canal opened in Egypt. The Suez Canal (eventually) would also be controlled by the British Empire, making it easier for the British to send their troops to India. This was because British ships no longer had to go around Africa, but could take a shortcut through the Suez Canal in Egypt. (But that’s a subject for another post.) Regardless, these things would affect the relationship between Britain and its distant colony in India. Gandhi actually spent the earliest years of his life in India. But, in his mid-twenties, he would instead set sail for South Africa in 1893 – which, at that time, was yet another province of the British Empire. This is where the Ben Kingsley movie “Gandhi” begins.
His fight against segregation in South Africa, and his serving as a medic in the Boer War
The movie begins with Gandhi being on a segregated train in South Africa. There were then two segregated classes on these trains: white and “colored” (the now-hated term for non-white people). Gandhi was of Asian descent, so he was put in the non-white part of the train. People from India were (and still are) a small, but nonetheless important, part of South Africa. But the most prominent victims of this discrimination were the local Black populations of South Africa. None of the non-white groups could purchase first-class tickets on a train there. Gandhi was kicked off of this train, despite having purchased a first-class ticket there. When Gandhi challenged the segregation system, he did win a small victory for the local Asian population. But the movie omits one important aspect of what happened there. That is, the segregation continued, but there would now be three ethnic compartments on these South African trains, instead of just two. One was for Whites, a new one would be for Asians, and the other was just for Blacks. That is, Asians would now be treated better there than the local Blacks were, although they were still not treated quite as well as the Whites there (to put it mildly). However, in the context of the time, this still represented some progress against the pre-apartheid South African segregation policies. Progress on other fronts, sadly, would come more slowly there. Gandhi spent more than two decades of his life in South Africa. He was there during the entirety of Britain’s “Boer War”: which was fought there in South Africa. One other omission on the part of this movie might be worthy of note here. That is, Gandhi wanted to prove to the British that the Hindus were fit for “manly” exertions. Thus, he joined the Natal Indian Ambulance Corps, and served in the war as a sort of medic. As Wikipedia puts it, “At the Battle of Spion Kop, Gandhi and his bearers moved to the front line and had to carry wounded soldiers for miles to a field hospital since the terrain was too rough for the ambulances. Gandhi and 37 other Indians received the Queen's South Africa Medal.” (Source: Their page on “Mahatma Gandhi,” section entitled “Civil rights activist in South Africa (1893–1914)”) This was a nonviolent role, but he was still taking part in the war in a certain kind of way. However, this omission is understandable – since, as the movie makes clear in its opening segment, it could not possibly cover everything of importance in Mr. Gandhi’s interesting life. What they chose to cover is great, and it makes for a fascinating movie. Incidentally, Gandhi returned to India in 1915, as World War One was raging in Europe. More about his positions on the World Wars later on in this post.
Gandhi photographed in South Africa, 1909
Some comments on Gandhi’s education, and influences upon his nonviolent resistance
The movie mentions that Gandhi had been trained as a lawyer. But they omit mentioning that Gandhi had been influenced by reading the American writer Henry David Thoreau, and his work “On Civil Disobedience.” In that book, Thoreau had argued that one should sometimes disobey an unjust law. However (and crucially), Thoreau also argued that if one did so, one should then accept the legal consequences for doing so. Thoreau had briefly gone to prison for refusing to pay a pro-slavery, pro-imperialism tax to support a then-ongoing war in Mexico. In so doing, Thoreau had been faithful both to the laws and to his own conscience. This principle seems to go back even earlier to Ancient Greece, to the trial of Socrates. Socrates had been executed by the Athenian government on trumped-up charges of impiety and “corrupting the youth.” But Socrates’ real crime seems to have been embarrassing the powerful men of his native Athens, by making them look stupid. I currently lack information about whether or not Gandhi was aware of the trial of Socrates – although, given the standard Western education of the time, it’s likely that he was. (Much of Gandhi’s education was in England.) However, Gandhi clearly read Henry David Thoreau, and certainly agreed with Thoreau about the principle of nonviolent resistance. Both Thoreau and Gandhi would influence the later activism of Gandhi’s distant American contemporary, Martin Luther King. All of these great men used nonviolence to try to change the minds of their contemporaries. Some have concluded that this kind of nonviolent resistance could work “anywhere.” For example, Gandhi later opined that it might even work against Adolf Hitler in Germany. But that kind of thing was tried in Nazi Germany – and, in that context, it had certainly failed. The Holocaust happened anyway, as did Hitler’s aggressions against both the West and the Soviet Union. As some have pointed out, the reason that nonviolence eventually worked in India was because the British were “gentlemen.” Instead of being ruled by an absolute monarch, the British Isles were ruled (at least in part) by their own people – who could be influenced by the highly publicized events in their country’s distant colonies.
Gandhi in 1918
Nonviolent resistance only works in societies that, to one degree or another, are democratic
Thus, one thing emerges from the big names of “nonviolent resistance” that I’ve mentioned here. That is, they all emerged in societies that, to one degree or another, were democratic. Socrates was in Ancient Greece, the world’s first democracy. Even though Socrates paid for that resistance with his life, Socrates’ views could (and eventually did) win out after his death. Thoreau was living in Massachusetts, and thus benefited from American democracy. Gandhi lived in British India, whose government had been influenced by the long-standing democratic traditions of the British Isles. And Martin Luther King lived in the United States, with a Constitution that offered some measure of freedom to its people – and offered the possibility that more could later follow, even through legal means. Even though Gandhi was Asian and Dr. King was Black, their own racist societies spared them from the official use of the death penalty – and each survived until being struck down by an assassin’s bullet, in the most illegal of acts. Thus, until the actual end moment of their lives, they could often get away with nonviolent resistance towards their respective governments. Gandhi was sometimes imprisoned (as was Dr. King), but Gandhi was never executed by the British. Also, when the British once offered to temporarily release Gandhi from prison if he would again speak in favor of nonviolence, Gandhi gladly agreed to do so – as shown in the movie. The British clearly feared the violent terrorism, more than they feared the “nonviolent resistance.” And, clearly, Mr. Gandhi also feared violent terrorism. Indeed, his famous fasting was directed at those of his own people who violently resisted the British – or, in other cases, against those who engaged in religious violence in India. Remarkably, it succeeded in staying his people’s wrath – thus allowing a relatively peaceful transfer of power to the locals in 1947.
Gandhi spinning yarn
The movie shows how smart Gandhi was, in seeing the political situation in British India
What’s most remarkable about the character of the Mahatma, especially as portrayed in the movie “Gandhi,” is how smart he was. Gandhi was politically savvy in a way that has seldom been equaled, and he saw before others the potential of this kind of resistance when used against the British Raj. It certainly reaped remarkable consequences for his native India, which eventually became independent without a full-scale war. But, as you may know, Islam is the second-largest religion in India after Hinduism. Thus, when India was about to become independent, the local Muslims feared being oppressed by the Hindu majority in India. There were some, like Gandhi’s eventual assassin Nathuram Godse, who wanted Hinduism to be the official religion of India. But Gandhi wanted to avert religious violence in the region. This, possibly among some other reasons (like religious freedom), seems to have contributed to Gandhi’s desire to find peaceful compromises with the Muslims. Eventually, this led to the British creating two nations out of their former colony. One was India, and the other was Pakistan (see the footnote at the end of this blog post for the citation). Eventually, Bangladesh would also become independent from Pakistan in the 1970s – a better story for another post. Hinduism remained popular in India, but the “Hindu nationalist” movement was eventually discredited, when one of its members (the aforementioned Nathuram Godse) fired three shots into Gandhi’s chest and stomach. They could not have dreamed of a more effective propaganda item for freedom of religion, even if they had wanted to do so. They were associated with its opposite, which was now being discredited. Mr. Godse had struck down the man whose fasting had convinced his own people to avoid further violence. In other words, Mr. Godse had turned the already-popular Mahatma Gandhi into a sort of “martyr” with his people. This is part of why Mr. Gandhi is so well-remembered today. Like Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King, Gandhi had inadvertently been turned into a legend by the very man who had murdered him. And, despite a few flaws, Mr. Gandhi certainly deserved this lionization – and he certainly deserves the appropriately reverent portrayal that he justly receives in this movie.
Gandhi in 1942, the year that he launched the Quit India movement
Conclusion: An inspirational film about a truly great symbol of nonviolent resistance
Mr. Gandhi had actually recommended that Indians fight for the British Empire in World War One, as this movie acknowledges. Thus, there were some reasonable limits to his nonviolent philosophy. Again, as mentioned earlier, he had also served in a British ambulance corps during the earlier Boer War. He actually spoke out against India’s getting involved in World War Two, though. which this movie certainly acknowledges – although India nonetheless got involved on both sides of that war. (More about that in another post.) Nonetheless, Mr. Gandhi is rightly remembered today as a symbol of nonviolent resistance, and his legacy is mostly untarnished by the less realistic aspects of his views. The Mahatma had still succeeded in his campaign against the British despite these things, and brought self-rule to his native India in a relatively bloodless way. Thus, he deserves a place in the history of human achievement – and shows that nonviolence can often (if not always) work, at the times when it is given a chance. This is a legacy worth remembering today, and reminds us of the potential for organized, nonviolent political action. The ballot box can (and should) be the standard method of resolving domestic political problems. To the extent that we forget this, we lose our stability. And, to the extent that we remember it, we remain true to the principles of freedom and peace for which the Mahatma was standing. This, to me, is the real lesson of Mahatma Gandhi’s life – and that’s part of why this Ben Kingsley movie remains such an inspirational film today. It certainly deserved the eight Academy Awards that it received – including Best Actor, Best Director, and Best Picture. And the sheer human drama of this epic film has played well with audiences ever since.
“As from the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, two independent Dominions shall be set up in India, to be known respectively as India and Pakistan.”
– “Indian Independence Act 1947,” as passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (incidentally, Bangladesh would later become independent from Pakistan in its turn)
Footnote to this blog post:
Ben Kingsley received the Academy Award for Best Actor for his role as Gandhi. Mr. Kingsley certainly deserved this great honor, since he practically inhabited the role. In addition to being a great actor, Ben Kingsley is also a great narrator. Specifically, Mr. Kingsley has narrated a series of audiobooks about “Religion, Scriptures, and Spirituality.” I have not always agreed with the conclusions of these audiobooks, but I am nonetheless a fan of the ones that I have listened to (and I plan to listen to the others).
Disclosure: I am an Amazon affiliate marketer, and can sometimes make money when you buy the product using the link(s) above.
If you liked this post, you might also like:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment