Gandhi is an elusive figure with extensive writings on India’s socio-economic and political life, but parts of his thought often present different or contradictory images.

To understand Gandhian thought in the context of the 20th-century nationalist struggle, it is important to assess him in two ways: first, his political ideas related to the anti-British struggle (1920-1942), and second, the deviations from non-violence by movements influenced by but diverging from his teachings.

Gandhi’s role as a social reformer was connected to changing human nature and social development, beyond just political freedom.

Some political movements derived means of action from Gandhi but deviated from non-violence, which Gandhi found disastrous.

This chapter argues for the autonomy of political movements despite Gandhi’s overarching influence, highlighting occasions when non-violence failed to guide political action even without opposing leadership.

The Gandhi-led campaigns between 1920 and 1942 were preceded by sustained efforts to mobilize masses nationally and locally through social work and political campaigns.

Understanding Gandhi is difficult due to the untidiness of his vast material, including a partial autobiography, pamphlets, numerous articles in weeklies (Indian Opinion, Young India), contributions to Harijan, letters, and speeches.

Gandhi never aimed for a well-argued political thesis but left an enormous quantity of writings reflecting his dynamic activism.

Pyarelal described Gandhi’s phenomenal energy, precision, discipline, and efficiency, including strict standards for correspondence and organization.

Gandhi’s thought is problematic because he showed no strict consistency; he reacted differently depending on circumstances.

Gandhi admitted he did not seek to be consistent with his past statements but rather consistent with truth as it presented itself at the moment, growing “from truth to truth.”

Gandhi characterized his language as ‘apohistoric,’ lacking precision and open to multiple interpretations.

Critics accused Gandhi of opportunism due to inconsistency, but his own statements show he was a man of action sensitive to context and the environment.

Gandhi attributed his decisions to a ‘sixth sense’ that woke at the right moment and then slept, emphasizing that he acted under inspiration and adapted his tactics to specific situations.

Examples of his shifting tactics include advising satyagrahis to obey prison officials strictly in one instance but encouraging more flexible, even violent, responses during the 1942 Quit India movement.

Gandhi’s deeds were context-dependent and strategic, appearing contradictory but aimed at practical effectiveness.

Gandhian thought is best seen not as a rigid system but as a fluid response to socio-political realities, aimed at shaping people and events.

Despite inconsistencies, Gandhi’s ideas serve as both a political guide and moral inspiration.

This complexity explains why some Congress-led nationalist struggles between 1920 and 1942 resorted to violence, even under Gandhi’s leadership.

Local Congress volunteers sometimes justified violence as consistent with Gandhian principles, showing Gandhi’s influence extended to diverse and contradictory forms of political action.

Gandhi’s attempts to create a new instrument of political change introduced multiple dimensions of action shaped by socio-economic and political forces, including the Congress, British authorities, and international factors.

Gandhi’s ability to sway the masses was distinct from his predecessors due to the ‘Indianness’ of his lifestyle and political language.

This ‘Indianness’ helped him translate popular grievances into political action against imperial oppression and atrocity.

Subhas Chandra Bose, who opposed Gandhi and Gandhism, acknowledged Gandhi’s physical and mental affinity with the traditions and temperament of Indian masses as key to his rise as an invincible leader.

Bose noted Gandhi spoke in a language the people comprehended, unlike leaders who spoke in the style of Herbert Spencer or Edmund Burke.

Gandhi’s political vocabulary drew from Indian cultural and religious texts like the Bhagvad Gita and the Ramayana.

When Gandhi spoke of Swaraj, he did not focus on provincial autonomy or federation, but evoked the ideal of Ramrajya (the kingdom of King Rama), which resonated with the people.

Gandhi’s message of conquering through love and ahimsa (non-violence) reminded people of Buddha and Mahavira, making his ideas more acceptable and relatable.