Was Gandhi Regarded as Useful or Subversive by British Authorities in India?

Introduction

The question of whether British authorities in India regarded Mahatma Gandhi as a useful figure or considered him subversive has intrigued historians and scholars for decades. While popular narratives suggest that Gandhi was seen as a useful individual by the British, declassified documents and historical analysis shed light on a more complex picture. In this article, we explore the nuanced views of British officials towards Gandhi and his impact on the Indian independence movement.

British Views on Gandhi

It is widely believed that the British authorities in India did not regard Gandhi as a useful person, as indicated by the infamous attempt to eliminate him through food poisoning in 1917, which was exposed by a local man. Nonetheless, the British had a multifaceted and often conflicted view of Gandhi. According to classicist Gilbert Murray, Gandhi was a dangerous and uncomfortable enemy, as his nonviolent resistance against the repressive policies of the Boers demonstrated. Murray argued that when faced with such an individual, material power must be extremely careful as nonviolent resistance can be highly disruptive.

Nonviolent Resistance and Subversion

The British administrators on the ground found it difficult to understand the true nature of Gandhi's resistance. They struggled to bring legal charges against him since he carefully informed the authorities of his plans and activities. During the Salt Satyagraha in 1930, for example, Gandhi outlined his course of action to the viceroy, Lord Irwin, through Reginald Reynolds. This cooperation did not sway the British perception, as seen in Churchill's dismissal of Gandhi as a "seditious Middle Temple lawyer." Nevertheless, the British were often caught off guard by Gandhi's methods, especially his ability to turn any adversity to his advantage.

The Strategic Use of Nonviolent Resistance

Gandhi’s nonviolent resistance was not just a passive form of protest but a strategic approach to subvert British rule. His use of clothing, such as the Gandhi cap and traditional loincloth, as political symbols, demonstrated his deep understanding of the role of appearance in political movements. During his time in prison, Gandhi and his associates continued to read and study radical thinkers, further deepening their resolve and strategies. The British authorities attempted to isolate these individuals by putting them in jail, but in doing so, they inadvertently provided Gandhi with the precious time needed to devise new tactics.

Resistance to the Core

Gandhi’s relentless commitment to his principles and his ability to adapt made him a formidable opponent. As Millie Graham Polak noted, each phase of Gandhi's life was marked by a different style of clothing, each denoting a particular attitude. However, the "half-naked fakir" often wore these garments with a detached air. Even early in his struggle in South Africa, Gandhi recognized the power of appearance. After being arrested for failing to register under the Asian Law Amendment Act, he chose to adopt the identity of the "Natives" by cropping his hair and that of other Indians, creating a powerful image of political solidarity.

Consequences and Legacy

The British Empire, despite its initial resistance, found that Gandhi was more than just a useful figure; he was a driving force behind self-awareness and revolutionary change. As General Smuts observed, Gandhi never lost his humanity or succumbed to hate, showing a deep respect for the inherent dignity of all people. For many British thinkers, Gandhi’s resistance was not merely subversion but a profound gift, potentially awakening the best within people and promoting a more equitable society.