Mahatma Gandhi was truly a people's leader. As this excerpt from Bidyut Chakrabar­ty's 'M.K Gandhi: A historical Biography' shows, when Gandhiji acted, he moved the masses along with him.

Understanding Gandhi and his philos­ophy is elusive. Although Gandhi had written extensively on India's socio­economic and political scenario, there were areas in his thought process that often projected a different Gandhi altogether. In order to deconstruct Gandhian thought in the perspec­tive in which he was involved in a gigantic nationalist struggle of the twentieth century, what is probably incumbent is to assess Gandhi in two different ways. First, Gandhian political ideas are to be related to the actual anti-British onslaught that began with the 1919-22 No Cooperation movement and culminated with the 1942 Quit India campaign. In this context, Gandhi's worldview, taking into account his role as a social reformer, aimed at changing the outlook of people, was thus connected with social development. Secondly, there were events, more significant perhaps from the point of view of' anti- imperial struggle: which though drawing upon Gandhian teachings, deviated from the well-established norm of non-vio­lence. The implication of such deviations appeared disastrous to Gandhi himself. But for those who participated in these movements, which ran counter to non-violence, the means of political action seem to have been also derived from Gandhi.
Though there is no dearth of material written by Gandhi, understanding his ideology is not simple. There is neither a thesis nor any consis­tency in his arguments as the Mahatma reacted differently at different point of times in response to circumstances. Primarily, a political activist, Gandhi was probably aware of incon­sistency in his thoughts when he admitted, "At times of writing I never think what I have said before. My aim is not to be consistent with my previous statements on a given question, but to be consistent with truth as it may present itself to me at a given moment. The result has been that I have grown from truth to truth. I have saved memory from an undue strain."

On another occasion, Gandhi attributed his plan of action to his 'sixth sense'. As he argues, 'my sixth sense does wake· up, at the right moment and afterwards goes to sleep'. He fur­ther added that 'I speak under inspiration. I cannot decide as to how I shall tackle a particu­lar situation until I am faced with it.' Moreover, he once admitted himself of doing things con­trary to his previous practices. While on one occasion, he suggested the satyagrah is 'to act as model prisoners and obey every order of the officials', on another in the context of the 1942 open rebellion, he asked the participants to respond to the situation as If demanded. The volunteers responded to the situation as it demanded, and this movement became violent too. As evident, Mahatma's deeds were generally context-dependent and what appeared to be contradictory seems to be strategic.

Unlike his predecessors, Gandhi, with his well-entrenched Indianness in lifestyle and political vocabulary, mobilised the people of India and demonstrated his ability to translate popular grievances into political action. Attributing the rise of the Mahatma as an invin­cible leader in the nationalist struggle against the British to his physical and mental affinity with the traditions and temperament of the Indian masses, Sub has Chandra Bose, who opposed Gandhi and Gandhism almost throughout his active political career within the National Congress, thus commented, " ... when the Mahatma spoke, he does so in a language that (the people) comprehend not in a language of Herbert Spencer and Edmund Burke, as for instance, Sir Surendra Nath Banerjee would have done, but in that of the Bhagavad Gita and the Ramayana. When he talks to them about swaraj, he does not dilate on the virtues of provincial autonomy or federation, he reminds them of the glories of Ramrajya (the kingdom of the mythical king Rama) and they understand. And he talks of conquering through love and ahimsa (non-violence), they are reminded of the Buddha and Mahavira and they accept him.

Gandhi's ideological interaction with the mass­es was always articulated around two basic pre­cepts, namely, satyagraha and ahimsa. Most authors on Gandhi seem to conflate the two. What is rather relatively less known is the fact that during the period between his experiment in South Africa and the agitation against the Rowlatt Act, it was satyagraha - in the sense of a protest without rancour - that held the key to his, entire campaign. It was only in the after­math of the 1919 anti Rowlatt movement, that ahimsa or non-violence was included as inte­gral to Gandhi's satyagraha campaign. There is no doubt that ahimsa always remained a signifi­cant influence in the conceptualisation of satya­graha; but it was not projected as crucial a com­ponent as it became later. In other words, despite its obvious importance, ahimsa never figured prominently in Gandhian discourse of political action. As a method, satyagraha was always informed by ahimsa though its role was not vividly articulated till 1919 . From now on, the Mahatma paid enormous attention to both conceptualising and justifying the importance of ahimsa in political mobilisation by referring to the ancient scriptures in his defence. The ahimsa acquired tremendous importance fol­lowing the Rowlatt Satyagraha is also suggestive of the nature of the movement that Gandhi was contemplating in its aftermath. Gandhi was preparing for a pan-Indian Non-Cooperation Movement in the satyagraha format in which ahimsa was to playa determining role in politi­cal mobilisation. Thus, the micro-experiments of Satyagraha is Champaran, Kheda and Ahmedabad, where ahimsa was constitutive of Gandhian model of anti-imperialism were therefore decisive in formulating Gandhi's social and political thought.

Ahimsa is central to Gandhism, which he conceptualised in the following manner: (a) non-violence is the law of the human race and is infinitely greater than and superior to brute force; (b) in the last resort it does not avail to those who do not possess a living faith in the god of love; (c) non-violence affords the fullest protection to one's self-respect and sense of honour, but not always to possession of land or moveable property, though its habitual practice does prove a better bulwark than the possession of armed men to defend them. Non-violence in the very nature of things is of no assistance in the defence of ill-gotten gains and immortal acts; (d) individuals or nations who would practice non-violence must be prepared to sacrifice (nations to the last man) their all except honour. It is therefore inconsistent with the possession of other people's countries i.e., mod­ern imperialism which is frankly based on force for its defence; (e) non-violence is a power which can be wielded equally by all- children, young men and women or grown - up people ­provided they have a living faith in the god of love and have therefore equal love for all mankind. When non-violence is accepted as the law of life it must pervade the whole being and not applied to isolated acts; (f) it is a profound error to suppose that whilst the law is good enough for individuals, it is not for the masses of mankind.

For Gandhi, ahimsa meant 'both passive and active love, refraining from causing harm and destruction to living being$ as well as positively promoting their well-being: This suggests that by ahimsa, Gandhi did not mean merely 'non­ injury' to others as that was a mere negative or passive connotation; instead, ahimsa had also a positive or active meaning of love and charity, As Gandhi clarified by saying that, "In its nega­tive form, (ahimsa) means not injuring any liv-
ing being whether by body or mind. I may not, therefore, hurt the person of any wrong-doer or bear any ill-will to him and so cause him mental suffering. In its positive form, ahimsa means the largest love, the greatest charity. If I am a follow­er of ahimsa, I must love my enemy or a stranger to me as I would my wrong-doing father or son. The active ahimsa necessarily included truth and fearlessness."
As evident, Gandhi defined ahimsa in two contrasting ways: on the one hand, in its narrow sense, it simply meant avoidance of acts harm­ing others; while in its positive sense, it denoted promoting their well-being, based on 'infinite love: Non-violence was certainly not just a neg­ative force, it was not just non-resistance; it was rather non-violent resistance which was, as Jawaharlal Nehru characterized "a positive and dynamic method of action' (and) it was not meant for those who 'meekly accept the status quo'. The very purpose for which it was designed was, 'to create "a ferment in society" and thus to change existing conditions. What­ever the motives of conversion behind it, in practice, it has been' Nehru argued further, 'a powerful weapon of compulsion as well, though that compulsion is exercised in the most civilised and least objectionable manner:

Ahimsa, in its positive connotation, was based on highest moral values, epitomised in the 'unselfish self'. Gandhi thus wrote, "Our desires and motives may be divided into two classes selfish and unselfish. All selfish desires are immoral, while the desire to improve ourselves for the sake of doing good to others is truly moral.... The highest moral law is that we should unremittingly work for the good of mankind:'’

As a crucial variable in satyagraha, ahimsa not only enabled Gandhi to provide a new con­ception of anti-colonial politics, it also gave him an opportunity, by completely avoiding ill-feel­ings towards those in opposition, to politically accommodate people from all walks of life. But his approach was very cautious, as he argued, "(a) himsa with me is a creed, the breath of life. It is (however) never a creed that I placed it before India, or for that matter, before anyone.  I placed it before the Congress as a political weapon, to be employed for the solution of practical problems:' Thus, ahimsa was complementary to Gand­hi's model of conflict resolution that was cer­tainly the most original and creative model of social change and political action even under most adverse circumstances. This was a theory of politics that gradually became the dominant ideology of a national political movement in which Gandhi reigned supreme. What lay at the root of this theory of politics was ahimsa, which was 'the organising principle for a science of politics (that) was wholly different from the all current conceptions of politics (producing) the science of violence: Not only was this theory effective in mobilising people regardless of socio-economic differences, it also provided a moral framework for 'solving every practical problem of the organised politi­cal movement: