Mahatma Gandhi was certainly an extremely inspirational and idealistic leader; however, not all of his ideas wee truly fair or proactive enough for a revolution. The main questions are: Is violence necessary in a revolution? Should one stick to one’s ideals at the expense of efficiency in a revolution? Is compromise really fair?
To begin with, Gandhi’s concept of satyagrapha or non- violence is extremely admirable. Obviously, I advocate for as little violence as possible, for violence can never be justified in any circumstance. I also appreciate Gandhi’s belief that a ruler’s opinions should never be swayed in response to different circumstances. Instead, they should all be completely consistent no matter what problems the country may be dealing with. Therefore, when twenty- two policemen were killed in a village in Chauri Chaura, Gandhi immediately called for a halt in the campaign in order to present his completely non- violent approach to ruling. The consistency of his ideals and his actions is truly impeccable and inspirational.
However, is non- violence always the most efficient way to bring about change? Despite the virtue that Gandhi implements in all of his actions, some of them are not proactive at all. For example, the Spinning Wheel Movement was a way to rebuild the nation from within based on concepts such as dignity and equality. While India certainly needed reconstruction, the movement was not practical at all. Gandhi took the movement even further when he decided to make submission of 2000 yards of cotton per month a requirement for membership in the Congress. While this unified all of the people, it was an extremely odd way to do so, and it drew a lot of complaints from professional people. Gandhi’s modest ideas stem from his support of Jainism and self- control (otherwise known as brahmacharya or the “realization of Brahma”), which includes fasting and other extreme measures. This type of self- harm cases humility but does not necessarily produce an effective, strong leader. For example, in response to the unexpected violent incidents during the hartal against the Rowlatt (or Black) Acts, Gandhi fasted for three days. However, he needed a couple days to recover from the incident, for the fasts left him physically and mentally vulnerable. While fasting was very noble of him and made a statement, Gandhi was unprepared for the Massacre at Amritsar, because of his intensive fasting. Gandhi’s attempt to prove a point left the 400 dead people and 1200 wounded people completely defenseless. Finally, Gandhi firmly believed in “relativity to truth”, the concept that people can only make certain decisions because of limited viewpoints. Therefore, he was a strong advocate for compromise. Nevertheless, I believe that one person is always right and the other should be punished. In a criminal case, I certainly would not want to compromise with a murderer. This “compromise method” seems like merely a way to gain supporters not to be just. Over all, Gandhi proved to be an honorable and virtuous leader, but some of his methods were odd, convoluted, and not immediately effective.
