A Generative Critique of

Mahatma Gandhi
BY APRIL ROSE FALE
Having encountered stories of the lives of heroes, I have grown accustomed to powerful figures in history who wielded some sort of weapon that, in one way or another, bade good or evil upon people around them. Adolf Hitler had the Axis and the threat of annihilating anyone outside the Aryan group. Saddam Hussein had oil and military strength as his carrot and stick. Even Barack Obama holds weapons of power: his promise of change and a better America under his leadership. The enthymemes were clear: non-conformity or disobedience will bring about some drastic effect because the path that we propose is the best, if not right, way. If a leader wants to be followed, he must have right carrot and stick that significantly influences the people involved. Not surprisingly, power places the wielders in positions of almost unquestioned authority and privilege. There is, however, one man in recent history who seemed to defy the rule. Mahatma Gandhi was the most prominent political and spiritual leader of India and the Indian Resistance Movement. He pioneered resistance to tyranny through mass civil disobedience founded on total non-violence. This led to Indian independence and inspired freedom and civil rights movements across the world. He was known for his insistence on peaceful resolution of conflicts. His methods were deemed risky, ineffective and self-threatening, but towards the end of his life, his counsel was most sought. Today, all around the world, his message of non-violence still resonates. Here lies the break in the pattern: Gandhis threats were not threats to the people at all, but towards himself. Here was a figure who stood out in history books, who, other than his strong convictions, had no strong leverage of reward or punishment for the constituencies he represented. What was it about this one man that, as the world watched by, moved a whole nation to follow his actions and ideals? In this rhetorical analysis of Mahatma Gandhi, the first step looks at the most powerful features of the artifactpersonal qualities, incidents in his life, his messages. The second step is grouping these features into common rhetorical motivations. The third step is looking at the context that surrounded Gandhi and his actions of significance. The fourth and final step in the analysis is finding connections between the groupings in the second step and the powerful contextual factors in the

third step. The premise is to determine features that recur in Gandhis cultural context and also resonate universally regardless of temporal or demographic factors. This search for features of double significance is founded in the hope of explaining Gandhis rhetorical power. The following generative critique lays out each of these steps. The first step is to list down the most powerful features of the artifact. Among the many events and features that the world remembers about Gandhi is his appearance: in photographs he wore glasses and a loincloth. He was a vegetarian, and was said to have been in profound dilemma about whether or not to include goats milk in his diet. Then there were his hunger strikes, which he used both as a means of drawing attention to his messages and as a way of resolving conflicts that have to do with the struggle for independence from the British superpower. When asked by listeners about what to do when a plane is about to drop a bomb over their heads, he answered they should pray for the bomber. In response to the salt tax, he marched 248 miles to the sea to make salt himself. During the Second World War, he drafted a resolution calling for Britain to leave India. He defied the caste system by living with the untouchables and serving them, even cleaning their latrines. Once, when he was invited to counsel a government official, he refused a royal escort and chose instead to ride in a train car cramped with people and animals. He refused to join enter Christendom but made no qualms about referring to Christs teachings. Until now, his messages of peace are frequently quoted. The second step is to group these features into common rhetorical motivations. I can assert, for example, that his bare appearance and meager, vegetarian diet advocates his belief in simplicity, a life of necessity and bereft of luxuries. His defiance of the caste system by serving the untouchables and his choice of riding in public transportation over government escort speak of humility and empathy, of being one with the masses. His important involvement in politically significant movements while, at the same time, refraining from seeking government positions, show his belief in resistance to a tyrannical power. His hunger strikes and unexpected responses to questions that demand aggression as an answer promote his stand of non-violence, especially as a method of conflict resolution. At the end of this step, I have simple living, humility, empathy with the masses, resistance to tyranny and non-violence as rhetorical motivations. The third step is to look at the context surrounding Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhis lifetime was placed in such a time in history when Indian public unrest was rife. Although in 1906, he volunteered Indian soldiers for the British forces during the

Zulu War, in a twist of fate, beginning 1916, he became deeply involved in the movement for Indian independence from the British. During the first half of the twentieth century, India was in the long, fluctuating process of detaching itself from British rule. In 1918, at a time when the British militia and landlords were giving the Indians measly compensation, Gandhi led a system that not only accounted for the atrocities of British abuse but also addressed the clean-up of villages mired in poverty and the building of social institutions like schools. In Punjab, what was known as the Amritsar Massacre of civilians by British troops caused deep trauma to the nation, leading to increased public anger and acts of violence. The taxes imposed on citizens were exorbitant, one of which led to Gandhis Salt March. There exist connections between the groups of rhetorical motivations in the second step and the significant contextual factors in the third step. Where these two sets overlap should be the more important, narrowed-down set of features that account for Gandhis rhetorical strength. Gandhis overt demonstration of simplicity in lifestyle is a challenging contradiction to the British landlords and militias excesses. His humility and empathy were deeply valued by the masses who at the time were caught up in dire poverty and disease. His passionate resistance to tyranny resonated in a people crushed by the foreigners iron fist. His firm insistence on nonviolence, on peace as a means to peace, was ennobled and dignified when juxtaposed with the offhand massacre of tens of thousands of Indians who rise up against British rule.

This critique was submitted to Dr. Douglas Larche, Professor of Communication at the University of the Virgin Islands, on May 6, 2009.