My grandfather was not overtly young and idealistic when he first got the chance to hear Gandhi speak but he was almost boyishly "gushy" about it. He stood there- one in a crowd of diverse people. As a south Indian Brahmin from a very wealthy family, he experienced something truly alien. People of both genders, of all castes and creeds, of all classes and religions stood there together. Even some Britishers! He described the sensation as "heady, uplifting and euphoric". I asked about what Gandhi had to say.
"No idea." he replied.
"Was his message too lofty or something?" I asked.
"No. I couldn't hear a word he said." He shrugged. "But standing there with people of all ages, young, old, poor, rich...everyone...I felt that I was part of something larger than just myself. It was the first time I felt more like an INDIAN than I did a Tamilian Brahmin."
Of course, there were huge fights within the family about who they supported. His brother was a strong supporter of a lesser known but equally patriotic leader called Subash Chandra Bose.
"Gandhi was a great man, no doubt. But he was too nebulous. I mean, these people were OPPRESSING US! But he wanted to work with them, and oppose them only with passive resistance." he still says. "HIS economic policy was a joke, just a bunch of `pie in the sky' notions. If we had supported Netaji (Bose) instead, the British would have left the country much earlier and we'd have been in far better shape instead of the decades we have wandered about trying to find our way."
In a way, if you look at it dispassionately, both these leaders had similar origins that could have led them to comfortable lives instead of the freedom struggle. Gandhi was a lawyer who encountered racism himself in South Africa which turned him to the cause. Bose was a man who passed a very prestigious civil service exam that could have guaranteed him an extremely cushy job in service of the British empire. He said "screw you" and went on to work for Indian Independence. There was no doubt about the patriotism of either men.
What differed was the process. To put it bluntly, one saw the Britishers as irredeemable oppressors who had to be fought, the other saw their actions as unfair, but did not think of them as terrible. Thus, Bose was open to seeking alliances from enemies of the British empire- like Japan, and as an extension Nazi Germany...the other condemned them, choosing instead to appeal to the conscience of the British Empire. (India had one of the largest volunteer armies in WW2- my grandfather was one of them). Bose had very specific policies and a very specific plan for the process of Independence, and the other wished to unite people around one ideal.
The world knows Gandhi better because of several reasons- all of them beautiful and correct. But there are those within India who did consider him a good man but an empty suit, full of fluff, and overtly idealistic. Some people actually thought his message was downright dangerous. When the British army shot down peaceful demonstrators during the Jalliawallah Park Massacre, and when there was a bloody, brutal partition, many of his detractors faulted him for believing that the British were decent people who could be "guilt tripped" into leaving the country without destroying it.
And to be honest, when Subash Chandra Bose was less militant in his younger years, Gandhi treated him abominably, denying him a rightfully won head of congress seat. Gandhi preferred someone who was more amneable to the British - Nehru. This earned him a lot of ire from Netaji supporters who at this point started loathing him. This also cemented a growing rift between the two men. Subash formed his own party in direct opposition to the Congress.
There were those who saw the Oxford Educated, articulate Nehru having dinners with the British Viceroy Mountbatten, and being photographed with them and thought "Yes, this is how we negotiate like grown ups with diplomacy and dialogue" and there were those who seethed that he was fraternizing with the "enemy". There were also a lot of people who accused him of having an affair with Mountbatten's wife which would have been a rather literal definition of sleeping with the enemy.
It was widely feared that Gandhi would be assasinated by a radical Muslim upset about a Hindu man being the father of a nation and faulting him for the partition but it was a radical Hindu who killed him- because among other things he believed Gandhi's message of unity was pandering to Muslims. The only consolation, he died in a free India. And he accomplished that the best he could- attempting to unify people, attempting to heal the inequities in Indian society, and doing it while appealing to these so called `better angels' that people often mock.
Now, for those of you who think this is a candidate plug, you would be wrong. That would be downright ridiculous, in my mind. I wouldn't dream of such a comparison because frankly Gandhi has achieved a completely different level of accomplishment. Maybe Obama or Hillary will achieve truly great things, but they haven't done anything that even approaches what he did - yet.
This is basically an argument about how approaches vary depending on your perspective. It is about whether you believe that people can act in fundamentally decent ways when given a higher purpose, or whether you believe people who exploit others will never change. You are not wrong in believing either, but that does affect who you support and who you believe in. It could even be pragmatic. A lot of pragmatic, British loathers supported Gandhi because his popularity made them think he was more likely to achieve independence. Many idealistic people were drawn to the crusade of Bose. Or maybe people went with completely different reasoning. The point is, followers were quick to dismiss the other as fundamentally wrong and stupid, when they were not. They just supported the leader they believed in for emotional, practical or whatever reasons. These two leaders positioned their message accordingly. And it does not make the followers of either philosophy lesser in anyway.
It did not make any sense for Gandhi to speak of the British as the enemy, as much as it did for Subash. It would not have helped Gandhi to have suddenly started speaking in more "substantive" or pragmatic terms to counter people who accused him of not having a workable solution to the economic problems that would face India when she got her independence. It would not have helped Subash to start talking in terms of idealism and unity. That was not his belief, and it was fundamentally against what he and his followers believed in. His followers also felt part of a great movement, but what defined that movement was more tangible. There were many patriotic men and women who focussed on different things. Patel the nuts and bolts guy called the "Iron man", Nehru with economic policy, Ambedkar the constitution, and so on and so forth. It was around the message of peace that they gathered- and though Bose is widely credited with a lot of philosophies that drove the development of the Indian army, he died in an aircrash over Taiwan in 1945- while India was still under British rule.
Most Indians believed in Gandhi's message. If more people believed in Subash, things may have been different.
My grandfather and his brother argued to their dying day (they died a week apart) how things might have been. It has passed on to the next generation. My father is Gandhian , his cousin still dismisses him as lacking in pragmatism, and being misleaded by idealistic cult of personality and media spin. My uncle is not too impressed by idealistic notions, and my father mocks him for being a person so cynical and pragmatic, he will never truly wish for greatness and only for competence. And the silly part is despite these differences, my grandfather and his brother desired what was best for the country. I know my dad and his cousin wish the same. They just believed in different ways to get there.
You guys are no different, really. Your fights are a loss less interesting though. My father and his brother also - as boys- competed over who had the louder fart. They still do when they are sufficiently "tanked up". I haven't seen any of that from you guys, yet.