Biography of Mahatma Gandhi

Mohandas K. Gandhi was born in 1869, in Porbandar, India. Mohandas was

from the social cast of tradesmen. His mother was illiterate, but her common sense
and religious devotion had a lasting impact on Gandhi’s character. As a youngster,
Mohandas was a good student, but the shy young boy displayed no signs of
leadership. On the death of his father, Mohandas travelled to England to gain a
degree in law. He became involved with the Vegetarian Society and was once asked
to translate the Hindu Bhagavad Gita. This classic of Hindu literature awakened in
Gandhi a sense of pride in the Indian scriptures, of which the Gitawas the pearl.
Around this time, he also studied the Bible and was struck by the teachings of Jesus
Christ – especially the emphasis on humility and forgiveness. He remained
committed to the Bible and Bhagavad Gita throughout his life, though he was critical
of aspects of both religions.

Gandhi in South Africa

On completing his degree in Law, Gandhi returned to India, where he was

soon sent to South Africa to practice law. In South Africa, Gandhi was struck by the
level of racial discrimination and injustice often experienced by Indians. It was in
South Africa that Gandhi first experimented with campaigns of civil disobedience
and protest; he called his non-violent protests satyagraha. Despite being imprisoned
for short periods of time, he also supported the British under certain conditions. He
was decorated by the British for his efforts during the Boer War and Zulu rebellion.

Gandhi and Indian Independence

After 21 years in South Africa, Gandhi returned to India in 1915. He became

the leader of the Indian nationalist movement campaigning for home rule or Swaraj.
Gandhi successfully instigated a series of non-violent protest. This included national
strikes for one or two days. The British sought to ban opposition, but the nature of
non-violent protest and strikes made it difficult to counter.

Gandhi also encouraged his followers to practise inner discipline to get ready
for independence. Gandhi said the Indians had to prove they were deserving of
independence. This is in contrast to independence leaders such as Aurobindo Ghose,
who argued that Indian independence was not about whether India would offer
better or worse government, but that it was the right for India to have self-
government.

Gandhi also clashed with others in the Indian independence movement such
as Subhas Chandra Bose who advocated direct action to overthrow the British.
Gandhi frequently called off strikes and non-violent protest if he heard people were
rioting or violence was involved.

1
 In 1930, Gandhi led a famous march to the sea in protest at the new Salt Acts.
In the sea, they made their own salt, in violation of British regulations. Many
hundreds were arrested and Indian jails were full of Indian independence followers.

However, whilst the campaign was at its peak some Indian protesters killed
some British civilians, and as a result, Gandhi called off the independence movement
saying that India was not ready. This broke the heart of many Indians committed to
independence. It led to radicals like Bhagat Singh carrying on the campaign for
independence, which was particularly strong in Bengal.

Gandhi and the Partition of India

After the war, Britain indicated that they would give India independence.
However, with the support of the Muslims led by Jinnah, the British planned to
partition India into two: India and Pakistan. Ideologically Gandhi was opposed to
partition. He worked vigorously to show that Muslims and Hindus could live
together peacefully. At his prayer meetings, Muslim prayers were read out alongside
Hindu and Christian prayers. However, Gandhi agreed to the partition and spent
the day of Independence in prayer mourning the partition. Even Gandhi’s fasts and
appeals were insufficient to prevent the wave of sectarian violence and killing that
followed the partition.

Away from the politics of Indian independence, Gandhi was harshly critical
of the Hindu Caste system. In particular, he inveighed against the ‘untouchable’
caste, who were treated abysmally by society. He launched many campaigns to
change the status of untouchables. Although his campaigns were met with much
resistance, they did go a long way to changing century-old prejudices.

At the age of 78, Gandhi undertook another fast to try and prevent the
sectarian killing. After 5 days, the leaders agreed to stop killing. But ten days later
Gandhi was shot dead by a Hindu Brahmin opposed to Gandhi’s support for
Muslims and the untouchables.

LEADERSHIP STYLE

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADER

There are specific characteristics a person must show in order to be a

transformational leader, and Gandhi possessed them. “Transformational leaders are
inspirational, trustworthy, and charismatic role models who lead by example” (The
Pachamama Alliance). They are those who inspire team members to give their best,
which greatly motivates them, and increases the chances of succeeding. Finally, they
have a strong vision, which guides them in the process of making a change. Gandhi
led his followers greatly by example, and being humble: by living in poor

2
conditions, just like millions of people in India. They could relate to him, and this
inspired them to give their best effort in order to make a difference.

A transformational leader makes other people feel confident and powerful,

which wasn’t the case of the Indians, since they were under the rule of the British.
Gandhi empowered all these people to believe in themselves and feel influential in
the change they were trying to create. India’s independence couldn’t have happened
with one person; everyone had to be a part of it. Gandhi encouraged them to believe
in themselves in order to cause this great change in their country. At the same time,
he was open to new ideas and opinions from his followers, and some of these were
implemented in his campaigns. Without being humble and empowering, Gandhi's
change wouldn't have been that influential. Transformational leaders are those who
work together with a group of people, to make a difference, as well as leaving a
legacy of that change.

Comparison between Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi

The depth of oppression in South Africa created Nelson Mandela, a

revolutionary par excellence, and many others like him: Oliver Tambo, Walter
Sisulu, Albert Lutuli, Yusuf Dadoo and Robert Sobukwe — all men of extraordinary
courage, wisdom, and generosity. In India, too, thousands went to jail or kissed the
gallows, in their crusade for freedom from the enslavement from the British rule.

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi spent his years in prison in line with the
Biblical verse, “Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer.”
Nelson Mandela was shut off from his countrymen for 27 years, imprisoned, until
his release on February 11, 1990. Both walked that long road to freedom. Their
unwavering commitment to nationalism was not only rooted in freedom; it also
aspired towards freedom. Both of them discovered that after climbing a great hill,
one only finds many more to climb. They had little time to rest and look back on the
distance they had travelled. Both Mandela and the Mahatma believed freedom was
not pushed from behind by a blind force but that it was actively drawn by a vision.
In this respect, as in many other ways, the convergence of the Indian and South
African freedom struggles is real and striking.

Racial prejudice characterised British India before independence as it marred

colonial rule in South Africa. Gandhi entered the freedom struggle without really
comprehending the sheer scale of racial discrimination in India. When he did,
however, he did not allow himself to be rushed into reaction. The Mahatma patiently
used every opportunity that he has to defy colonial power, to highlight its
illegitimate rule. He also managed to overcome the apparently unassailable might of
British rule. Gandhi’s response to the colonial regime is marked not just by his
extraordinary charisma, but his method of harnessing “people power.”

Nelson Mandela used similar skills, measuring the consequences of his every
move. He organised an active militant wing of the African National Congress — the

3
Spear of the Nation — to sabotage government installations without causing injury
to people. He could do so because he was a rational pragmatist.

Both Mandela and Gandhi eschewed violence against the person and did not
allow social antagonisms to get out of hand. They felt the world was sick unto death
of blood-spilling, but that it was, after all, seeing a way out. At the same time, they
were not pacifists in the true sense of the word. They maintained the evils of
capitulation outweighed the evils of war. Needless to say, their ideals are relevant in
this day and age, when the advantages of non-violent means over the use of force
are manifest.
Gandhi and Mandela also demonstrated to the world they could help build inclusive
societies, in which all Indians and South Africans would have a stake and whose
strength, they argued, was a guarantee against disunity, backwardness and the
exploitation of the poor by the elites. This idea is adequately reflected in the make-
up of the “Indian” as well as the “South African” — the notion of an all-embracing
citizenship combined with the conception of the public good.

At his trial, Nelson Mandela, who had spent two decades in the harsh
conditions of Robben Island, spoke of a “democratic and free society in which all
persons live in harmony and with equal opportunities. […] It is an ideal which I
hope to live for and to achieve, but if need be, an ideal for which I am prepared to
die.”

The speed with which the bitterness between former colonial subjects and
their rulers abated in South Africa is astonishing. Mandela was an ardent champion
of “Peace with Reconciliation,” a slogan that had a profound impact on the lives of
ordinary people. He called for brotherly love and integration with whites, and a
sharing of Christian values. He did not unsettle traditional dividing lines and
dichotomies; instead, he engaged in conflict management within a system that
permitted opposing views to exist fairly.

Gandhi’s vision for independent India too extended beyond the territorial
realm. He rejected the notion of a “clash of civilizations,” and sought to build
bridges with the British. He saw no reason why cross-cultural goodwill — an idea
close to Mandela’s heart — couldn’t be revitalised and sustained. Without his global
perspective, India arguably would not have been an active participant and partner in
the Commonwealth.
This is not to say the views of Mandela and Gandhi fully converged. Gandhi had no
doubt in his mind that, by adopting the traditionally accepted form of protest, he
had mounted sufficient pressure to ease government control. Mandela, on the other
hand, believed in “a more active, militant style of protest […] - actions that punished
the authorities.” He and his brave partners at Robben Island questioned the rationale
behind hunger strikes, especially because it was next to impossible to alert people on
the outside when they were waging such a strike.

4
 Today, the India that Gandhi helped shape appears to be in disarray.
Corruption is endemic. Our institutional inefficiencies are gloriously obvious. The
political process has been fouled by the politics of caste and community. The South
Africa of Mandela’s dream is, likewise, all but shattered. Unemployment among
blacks is high. Slums still exist in the cities. Crime is rife. Fundamental obstacles to
racial reconciliation have not been removed. Still, amid the problems faced by the
two countries, the popular image of Bapu and Mandela is that of benevolent leaders,
whose actions could not always be comprehended by us ordinary mortals. After all,
history cannot be anticipated by those who make it.