Everyone has heard of Mahatma Gandhi, perhaps seen his picture. Most people know that his most famous work was his work to free India, and that he protested violence.
Not many people know what sort of a man he was personally. I fall into this category.
Still, one has to wonder what such a man was like? He mobilized a revolution against one of the greatest powers of the time, and along the way he revolutionized the art of rebellion. On the other hand, many of his followers were imprisoned, injured or worse while doing what he asked of them, and, if only by his own definition, failed in what he had set out to do: a non-violent separation of India from the British Empire.
One popular point of view is that Gandhi was an amazingly strong-willed, trusting and believed strongly in the inherent goodness of an individual. He must have strongly believed in human goodness, because his entire idea of satyagraha depends on it. He must have been strong willed, because he was able to go through such abuse for what he believed in, and he was able to keep fasting when he said he would until his demands were met, even inn his old age. He must have been trusting, because satyagraha would not have worked if there was distrust present, and he had complete faith in his followers.
However, one has to realize: he went through what he did with full knowledge of what that meant for him, and that he could be imprisoned, injured or killed. More then that, through word and deed he encouraged others to do the same, or act in the same spirit: a fact not always taken into account when considering who Gandhi was. Gandhi led people into situations where they could get hurt in many different ways, but they went knowing the potential consequences and fully willing anyway. This is where the image of Gandhi, the general, appears. That statement is not perfectly accurate: Gandhi never served in the army as any sort of officer, and Gandhi himself would dislike the idea of being associated with such death and bloodshed. But the job description of a general and the description what Gandhi did are, in fact, surprisingly similar. Gandhi planned out where his protests would be and what would be done, what strategies would be used during the 'battle'. People followed him all over the country, and he led them all. He felt responsible for their actions and they felt loyalty to him, facts demonstrated by his choice to fast after the British policemen were killed and during the rioting while the Indian population was dividing into those of Pakistan and India, and the nation-wide response of the people to give him what he wanted. Even his followers are comparable to American soldiers: they all signed up willingly to 'fight', knowing the potential dangers, and yet fought anyway. They signed up because of their beliefs, like many soldiers do today.
So who was Gandhi? It is hard to say for certain. I believe he was both kindly and trusting man, and a general for a war that wasn't. He had the mind and the cunning of a professional lawyer, and had a mind for people and philosophy: there is no reason why he could not have had both facets. How interesting is it, then, that he is remembered today for one of these faces he showed the world, and not the other.
