Gandhi

We all know who Gandhi was. From time to time, we all had to write biographies of great leaders as part of school assignments and most of us are all too familiar with this name. We may not have written about him, but surely, we had come across many articles and books written about this great man. Having had the opportunity to view a biographical piece on Gandhi provided insight and a more elaborate understanding and imagination of the duration in which he led his nation toward freedom.

"When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it. Always."

Produced and written by Richard Attenborough, Ben Kingsley portrayed Gandhi with such frankness and quirkiness, and intertwined it all with such a sharp intellect. Such a character is sure to move its audiences far more that one would think. Although the film was a long one, the turmoils that shook the roots of Gandhi's leadership, and how he resisted all that stood in his way made me more or less glue my eyes on the screen the whole time. I was somewhat drawn to this character. He always answered a question with another question, but made perfect sense each time. He was ordinary in an extraordinary way. He had enough wit and wisdom to knock out an entire parliament. And his punch lines were always spot on. But on a more serious note, I admired his determination and willingness to self-sacrifice for the greater good. Gandhi had a vision and saw it through till he held his last breath. Like every great leader, there are bound to be devout followers, and Gandhi's fared well in that department. If you think about it, It was amazing how his followers opted for the non-violence approach when faced with the English authorities, despite getting beaten for moving forward in their march. That demonstration illustrated the deep respect and believe they held in their leader. 

I also admired how Gandhi never segregated people by their status and ranks. Whatever his workers did, he did too, and led a lifestyle that only fulfilled his most basic of needs. As I mentioned above, there was something very ordinary about him. As a young attorney, he seemed naive and gullible, his ideas were ambitious, but they seemed far-fetched to many.  However, as years passed and with an undying spirit, his goals became more attainable and he gained recognition and respect that at one time, seemed impossible to achieve. That is where extraordinary came in. In my view, Gandhi was just a regular man, who happened to experience a regular racial attack. The difference between him and thousands of others is that he decided to make a change, and a change he made.

I loved his philosophy: The only way to fight back is to not. That is the ultimate method of vengeance and getting back what was wrongfully taken. I found it spectacular how he kept finding himself in prison throughout the years, and how he could never be detained for long because of his genius arguments and stands. When he went back to his roots and visited much of India for the first time, I felt that he too had grown as an individual, and India became more and more like family to him. Despite being a Hindu, he never took favor on his Hindu followers. On the contrary, he preached oneness and unity for all religions, namely the Hindus and Muslims of India. His aim was to unite all of India, to spread fairness and peace to all, and most importantly, to obtain freedom for his people. Devastatingly, after India gained independence, riots and war broke out between the two religions. I think Gandhi was deeply disappointed by the incidences that followed the decision of creating a Muslim nation (Pakistan), which led him to his second fasting. I cannot say that I completely agree with the entire concept; it appeared a little blackmail-ish to me the extent that he went through to get the people of India to quit fighting among themselves. I suppose Gandhi was at his wits end and that seemed like the only hope. However, it did work. The dying Gandhi was informed that the war had ended and the citizens had finally agreed to stop. But was Gandhi really going to keep fasting every time something went horribly wrong? I felt that the people should owe him enough to stop on their own. Unfortunately, diversity is not always easy to come to terms with. Gandhi may have changed the mindsets of majority, but not everybody will be in favor. Aggression and violence is a cancer and after all, the simplest and fastest way to express hatred and displeasure. Take Alexander the Great. He wasn't a leader who wanted love and power all for himself. His aim was to unite people of different races, religions and backgrounds (Persians, Indians, Greeks ect) in order to eliminate disparities and to create a variety of inter-marital populations who could exist side-by-side while being ruled under one king. In fact, he himself married a Persian King's daughter to set an example. Like Gandhi, Alexander never just blundered into war in a brutal manner. Instead, he used tact, diplomacy and strategy. He also led his men with true finesse as he ate, drank and starved with them, and never acted like he was above them. Unfortunately, the people of different races and religions still hated one another and Alexander's ideals fell short. Similar can be applied to the people who did not respond positively to Gandhi's philosophies and teachings.