Rediscovering Gandhi from Champaran in my childhood

 

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was a transformative figure in India's freedom struggle, despite many critics of his idea. Gandhi was not only a lawyer but also a social reformer, activist, and prolific writer who engaged with the contemporary political and social questions of his time. He was born on 2nd October 1869 in Porbandar, Gujarat, marking the beginning of a life that would leave an enduring mark on the world.

My association with Gandhi's story began in my early childhood, as my home district is close to his historic Champaran Satyagraha of 1917. His experiment, where Gandhi took up the cause of indigo farmers, who were suffering under oppressive colonial policies, was the first major act of civil disobedience in India and laid the groundwork for his non-violent resistance. My grandfather often shared stories of Gandhi’s visit to his nearby village. Through his memories, I admired Gandhi's ethics—his commitment to bodily work, cleanliness, truth, and respect for others. These were qualities that my grandfather cherished & tried to emulate, and they made a lasting impression on me.

As I began school, my understanding of Gandhi deepened. I learned more about his philosophies, including his concepts of Satyagraha (truth-force) and Ahimsa (non-violence), which became the foundation of his approach to resisting colonial rule.

One of the incidents, which were impacted in our region . The Chauri Chaura incident took place on 5th February 1922 in the Chauri Chaura area of the Gorakhpur district in Uttar Pradesh during the height of the Non-Cooperation Movement. Protesters, who were part of the movement, clashed with the police, who responded by opening fire. In retaliation, the demonstrators attacked and set fire to the local police station, resulting in the deaths of 22 policemen and three civilians.

In response to this violent turn of events, Mahatma Gandhi, a staunch advocate of non-violence, decided to call off the Non-Cooperation Movement on 12th February 1922. This decision was widespread dissatisfaction among members of the Indian National Congress, many of whom were disheartened by Gandhi's abrupt withdrawal from the movement. Jawaharlal Nehru, in particular, described the decision as a setback and deeply demoralizing, especially for Congress workers who were imprisoned at the time. However, Gandhi remained firm in his conviction that unethical methods, such as violence, should not be employed even in the pursuit of noble causes. His decision reflected his unwavering commitment to non-violence as both a principle and a strategy for India's freedom struggle.

I also encountered the term “Gandhian,” used to describe those who claimed to carry forward his ideals. However, as I grew older and became more observant, I noticed a troubling pattern: many of the individuals or groups identifying, as "Gandhian" seemed to come from the same caste background, often from privileged social groups that historically benefited from positions of power and influence. This caste dynamic was evident not just in my region, but across India, whether in the north or south, east or west.

These caste groups, often dominant in local and national politics, gained prestige and influence by associating themselves with Gandhi’s legacy, yet many appeared disconnected from the actual work of uplifting the most marginalized ( people in last line) —work that Gandhi tirelessly pursued throughout his life. Even more disheartening was the realization that many of these self-proclaimed "Gandhians" either have become silent or have shifted their loyalties to political ideologies that oppose the very values Gandhi stood for. These political forces reject non-violence, foster divisiveness, and undermine Gandhi’s principle of religious tolerance and social equity.

In today’s "New India," the voices of those who once claimed to uphold Gandhi’s mission are increasingly muted. Gandhi’s philosophy of "Sarvodaya," or the welfare of all, with a particular emphasis on the upliftment of the last person in society, seems largely forgotten by the very people who invoke his name. The political and social climate has shifted dramatically, with growing polarization, rising inequality, and a resurgence of majoritarian politics. Gandhi’s central belief—that the moral progress of a society is measured by how it treats its weakest members—appears to be lost in the current discourse.

Latter, when I started to reading Dr Ambedkar and specifically to understand the caste in India, It is true that both, Mahatma Gandhi, and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar were committed to addressing the evils of the caste system, but approaches were obviously different. While Gandhi sought to challenge the caste hierarchy through moral persuasion and a broader commitment to social reform, Ambedkar’s vision was much more radical and transformative in nature. He not only advocated for the annihilation of caste but also believed that legal and structural reforms were essential to dismantling the entrenched inequalities in Indian society.

Dr. Ambedkar understood that caste was not just a social issue but an institutionalized form of discrimination embedded within the very framework of Indian society. His fight for Dalits’ rights, and for a more egalitarian social structure, was rooted in his belief that without systemic change—through education, economic empowerment, and legal protection—true equality could never be achieved. He dedicated his life to securing legal safeguards for marginalized communities through the Indian Constitution, and his vision of social justice still resonates deeply in Indian politics and society. Here I can say about myself, I donot follow Gandhi’s ideas to address the caste topics.

Nathuram Godse, a radical Hindu nationalist, harbored deep resentment toward Gandhi for his non-violent principles and his inclusive stance towards all religions, which Godse believed undermined the dominance of his own faith. Godse later went on to assassinate Gandhi in January 1948, driven by the same ideological opposition.

We are witnessing the global rise of far-right politics, with its influence spreading across both the Global North and South. This surge in far-right ideology is characterized by nationalism, xenophobia, and divisive rhetoric aimed at marginalized groups—whether based on race, religion, ethnicity, or caste. In many countries, including our own, these forces have found a foothold in positions of power, shaping public discourse and policy in increasingly exclusionary ways.

In our country, the rhetoric of leaders aligned with far-right ideologies has become increasingly hostile, particularly toward religious and ethnic minorities. Public statements by some political figures have openly targeted these communities, sowing division and perpetuating a sense of “us vs. them.” Shockingly, there have been instances where individuals associated with these groups have even referred to the assassin of Mahatma Gandhi as a "deshbhakt" (patriot), an act that distorts historical facts and glorifies violence, all while undermining the values of tolerance, non-violence, and unity that Gandhi championed.

Gandhi’s commitment to non-violence extended not just to physical actions but also to speech and thought. He believed that words, when used recklessly, could cause profound harm, perpetuating cycles of hatred and violence. However, the larger and more pressing question is how long societies can continue to tolerate and sustain such humiliation, discrimination, and divisiveness based on skin color, religion, caste, and ethnicity.

The far-right’s strategy, both in India and globally, relies on stoking fear and resentment, often scapegoating minorities and the vulnerable for broader social and economic problems. The rhetoric dehumanizes certain groups, portraying them as outsiders or threats, and justifies exclusionary policies that deepen inequality and marginalization. This cycle of demonization not only degrades the social fabric but also normalizes violence and discrimination.

In India, this dynamic is particularly troubling given our diverse and pluralistic society. Gandhi envisioned India as a nation that embraced its multiplicity, with respect for all faiths, castes, and communities. He believed that the true strength of India lay in its unity amidst diversity, and that justice and equality for the "last person"—the most marginalized in society—should be at the heart of the nation’s ethical compass.

Yet, today we see the opposite: growing intolerance, systemic discrimination, and a political environment that often seeks to pit communities against one another. The constant humiliation of people based on their religious beliefs, skin color, caste, or ethnicity threatens the core values of humanity, eroding the principles of justice and dignity for all. Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violence (Ahimsa) was not only about resisting physical violence but also about challenging the subtle, pervasive forms of violence—such as hatred, prejudice, and humiliation—that persist in everyday life.

The larger question of "how long" such divisive forces can continue to degrade and humiliate others is deeply complex. Historically, systems of oppression often collapse under their own weight when enough people resist and demand change. While far-right ideologies may gain power in the short term by exploiting divisions, they are ultimately unsustainable because they erode the bonds of trust and solidarity that hold societies together. People from marginalized communities, as well as their allies, will continue to resist, just as they have throughout history. Social movements, both in India and globally, have always been driven by the ideals of equality, dignity, and justice.

The rise of far-right politics highlights the importance of reaffirming our commitment to these ideals. It is essential to engage in meaningful dialogue, challenge oppressive narratives, and work toward a society where differences are not just tolerated but celebrated. Gandhi’s message of non-violence, justice, and inclusion offers a guiding light in these dark times, reminding us that true progress is measured by how we treat the most vulnerable among us.

This leads me to wonder: if Gandhi were alive today, how would he respond to the realities of modern India? What strategies would he adopt to address the numerous and urgent issues we face—issues such as rising social inequality, religious intolerance, caste-based discrimination, and environmental degradation? These are challenges that demand immediate and thoughtful action, in line with Gandhi’s vision of justice and dignity for all.

Gandhi’s strategies during his lifetime were shaped by his commitment to non-violence and his insistence on ethical means to achieve just ends. Whether through his Salt March, his fasts for communal harmony, or his advocacy for rural self-sufficiency, Gandhi always sought to address systemic injustice with moral clarity. Yet, in today’s complex world, with the rise of technology, globalization, and new forms of social and economic exclusion, it is difficult to imagine how he would navigate the contemporary landscape. Would he employ new forms of civil disobedience? Would he focus on climate justice as an extension of his commitment to rural development and self-reliance? Or would he prioritize tackling the growing divide between the rich and poor, using his principles of economic justice?

Gandhi’s unwavering belief in non-violence, truth, and justice remains as relevant today as ever. His emphasis on dialogue, inclusivity, and the moral strength of the individual offers a timeless framework for confronting the many challenges we face as a civilization. However, whether today’s political and social leaders are willing or able to embody these ideals is an open question. Gandhi’s message, rooted in compassion and the pursuit of justice, calls on us to act with courage and integrity—qualities that are much needed in today’s world. The challenge lies in whether we can revive these principles and adapt them to the needs of a changing India and the world.