If Gandhi Returned to India Today

 

For many, October 2 is less about Gandhi and more about the long weekend that comes with it. 

Some remember it as a dry day. 

A few remember Gandhi's Satyagraha, his philosophy of non-violence, and his role in India's freedom struggle.

Some celebrates it as International Day of Non-Violence.

But there is an uncomfortable question that we rarely ask, what would Gandhi think if he returned to India today?

Would he be proud?… Shocked?….  Disappointed?

In 1930, before beginning the Salt March, Gandhi openly informed the British authorities of his intention to break the salt laws.

That was Gandhi's method of Satyagraha, break an unjust law openly, peacefully, and accept the consequences.

But what would happen if someone attempted the same method today?

Would Gandhi be allowed to protest peacefully?

Would he be detained?

Would he be described as an agitator, an extremist, or something worse?

We all know the answer knowing the current regime.

We can only speculate something worst, this government never fail to surprise us.

Gandhi once marched to the sea to make salt.

Today, people may simply stand with placards, no weapons, no stones, no violence, just words. .

Yet peaceful assembly has always been an important part of democratic politics. 

The Constitution recognises citizens rights to assemble peacefully, subject to “lawful restrictions”.

So where should the line be drawn?

When does maintaining public order become preventing dissent?

And when does a peaceful protest become a threat?

These are not questions that belong only to politicians or courts. They belong to every citizen.

Because democracy is not merely the right to vote once every few years.

It is also the ability to question those who govern us.

Gandhi understood something that a government must be able to tolerate criticism.

The British government considered Gandhi a problem precisely because he challenged its authority.

He was arrested repeatedly, for mass movements and civil disobedience.

Yet his greatest weapon was not a gun.

It was the willingness of ordinary people to peacefully refuse cooperation with a system they believed was unjust.

Imagine Gandhi watching a modern protest from behind a police barricade.

He might ask, “Why are my people afraid to question their government?"

And perhaps someone would answer, “Because questioning power has become dangerous."

Would Gandhi accept that answer?

We don't know.

But it is worth asking….

There is something deeply ironic about Gandhi Jayanti.

We put garlands on Gandhi's statues, posted his photographs on social media with his quotes.

But Gandhi did not ask people to remember him this way.

He asked them to act.

To resist injustice & question authority

And to remain non-violent even when provoked.

Perhaps Gandhi would be surprised by today's young Indians.

He will see students, unemployed young people and ordinary citizens questioning institutions and demanding accountability.

He will also see people carrying the national flag while protesting.

That would probably be familiar to him.

The faces have changed.

The technology has changed.

Social media has replaced many of the old pamphlets and newspapers.

But the basic question remains the same. 

Who owns democracy, the government or the people?

A democracy survives when citizens continue to participate, question and disagree.

Perhaps one of the most important things Gandhi would notice is the anxiety surrounding the electoral process.

The right to vote was central to India's democratic transformation.

Constitution of India gave every ordinary Indians something colonial rule had denied them, the ability to participate equally in choosing their representatives.

That right cannot be treated casually.

If citizens are uncertain whether their names remain on electoral rolls, they have every reason to check.

Democracy begins with the citizen.

Gandhi also understood the importance of communication.

During the freedom movement, newspapers and journals played an important role in spreading ideas and mobilising public opinion.

Today, the media landscape is dramatically different.

Television, newspapers, YouTube, X, Instagram and countless digital platforms compete to shape public opinion.

But the fundamental responsibility remains the same, tell people what is happening, ask difficult questions & hold power accountable.

The “Godi Media?” ecosystem that simply repeats what those in power say is not enough for a healthy democracy.

Neither is one that blindly opposes everything.

Democracy needs journalism that can question everyone.

India continues to remember both Gandhi and Nathuram Godse, but they represent fundamentally different approaches to political conflict.

Gandhi believed political change could be pursued through non-violence, civil disobedience and moral persuasion.

Godse chose assassination.

The distinction is not complicated.

One believed disagreement should be answered through persuasion and non-violent resistance.

The other answered disagreement with a bullet.

And yet, decades later, Gandhi's assassin continues to have admirers.

That should make us uncomfortable.

There is another uncomfortable part of the Gandhi story.

Over the years, several politicians associated with the ruling BJP have made controversial statements about Mahatma Gandhi.

While some have openly praised or defended Nathuram Godse. Pragya Thakur called Godse a “deshbhakt,” 

Anantkumar Hegde dismissed Gandhi’s freedom struggle as “drama.” 

But we should not forget one thing, Godse did not emerge from nowhere. 

His politics was rooted in the Hindu nationalist ideological environment of his time.

And that makes the question uncomfortable even today, Gandhi or Godse which idea of India do we want to remember?

Lets make this hypothetical, what would Gandhi do today?

Suppose Gandhi announced a hunger strike today, he would sit peacefully with a placard & refuse to leave.

Would authorities negotiate?

Would they impose restrictions?

Would he be detained?

Would the media support him or attack him?

Would social media turn him into a hero or a meme?

We cannot know.

Gandhi belongs to history.

But the test he represents is still relevant.

How does a democracy respond when citizens peacefully disagree with those in power?

Today 2nd October is more than a holiday.

Perhaps we have misunderstood Gandhi Jayanti.

It was never supposed to be merely about remembering an old man in a photograph.

It should be about remembering the uncomfortable principles he represented.

Non-violence.

Civil resistance.

Courage.

Truth.

Freedom.

And above all, the belief that ordinary citizens have the right to question authority.

Gandhi once picked up a handful of salt and turned it into a symbol of resistance.

Today, we do not need salt.

We need something much simpler.

A citizen who refuses to hate the person standing on the other side.

So, on October 2, perhaps we should ask ourselves one final question, If Gandhi walked into India today, would he recognise the country he fought for?

I don't know.

But perhaps the better question is, would we recognise the India he imagined?

Jai Hind.