Reflections on Gandhi
Mahatma Gandhis Influence on the Civil Rights Movement of the United States
Mahatma Gandhi’s Influence on the Civil Rights Movement of the United States
The influence of Mahatma Gandhi relating to peace movement was experienced as early as in 1920’s. His long-lasting dedication and support of passive resistance finally led to Indian gaining full independence in 1948. Gandhi fought for the Indians’ rights in South Africa in his stay there. He fought to ensure that immigrant Indians who shaped an image of African blacks in United States enjoyed equal rights during civil rights movement.
The similarity had a weighty impact on the blacks’ interests in following what Gandhi showed them in Gandhi back in south Africa, a struggle which is non violent, with an aim of extending the same to America. The United States citizens and particularly African Americans have been receiving constant flow of information concerning the Indian struggle of freedom which was led by Mahatma Gandhi. Murial Lester who was Gandhi’s friend toured America during 1930’s delivering speeches concerning non violent undertakings of Mahatma Gandhi.
The struggle for independence by Indians got many supporters and sympathizers, inside as well as outside peace movement. The undertakings of the struggle which was non violent between 1930-1933 all- India operations were being reported by united state’s newspapers by man journalists for example Webb Miller and Negley Farson. Progressives and liberals of different kinds were inspired by the struggles which were successful against imperialism and colonialism. When Gandhi was undertaking his non violent resistance concept he was inspired by advice from Henry David Thoreau’s relating to resisting things which were not right.
Thoreau gave an advice that people could defy immoral an immoral action by government by not cooperating. Mahatma Gandhi implemented many thoughts from Thoreau in developing his concept of Truth force or satyagraha (non cooperation)4. One of the most critical and tangible effects that India has had on life in America was the influence of mahatma Gandhi on Luther King who was a leader of the civil rights, who implemented the Gandhi’s thought of civil disobedience to the united states’ civil rights movement.
Luther king at all times paid tribute to Mahatma Gandhi to be one of the most significant sources of his own values. Luther king in 1959 he made a pilgrimage to India. Martin Luther king who was a Baptist minister received much of his philosophy relating to resisting evil nonviolently from the holy Bible, from the king’s undertaking of the Jesus teachings and also from particular pacifist threads in the traditions of the Christians. Nevertheless, Luther king was highly inspired by particular non- Christian ideologies.
Perhaps the most significant of these ideologies was nonviolence philosophy which was practiced by Mahatma Gandhi who was a spiritual leader who led India’s independence movement in first half of the twentieth century. Gandhi’s philosophy of non violence was not completely non-Christian since it was informed by both extensive studying of other moral and religious traditions including Christianity and also from his Hindu background.
Also Gandhi was mentored by count Leo Tolstoy, who was a famous novelist of Russian origin who supported and adopted “back -to -basics’’ pacifist version of Christianity which was radical and was based on the factual understanding of Sermon on the Mount. Throughout history many individuals have resisted using violence and have refrained participating in war. Pacifism means deciding to be ineffectual and even resisting from participating in the righteous fights. Many good individuals have deemed it necessary to balance between being warlike and too violent versus being defenseless and too passive. Greatest contribution of Mahatma Gandhi to the history and the ground his was such a great influence to Luther King was calling into question this apparent truism that becoming nonviolent means becoming passive.
Gandhi used most of his adult life experimenting with nonviolent methods purposed to be effective in the real life and also morally admirable. His argument was always prevailing over evil, resisting against injustice, standing up for oneself, living with integrity and dignity, etc. never necessitates willingness of using violence. In this regard Gandhi argued that there are many other strategies that can be used instead of violence. Martin Luther king from a tender was convinced that some things in this world are morally unacceptable. The intense racial discrimination of the Black Americans which king experienced was one example however war and poverty among other issues were very significant to him.
He perceived that these vices were morally wrong and were supposed to be opposed and curbed with all the intelligence, courage and strength by all individuals. King was very committed to Christian values and he felt obliged to even love his enemies, not to kill any one and also not to wish ill to anyone. King was faced with a dilemma, a similar dilemma that individuals of conscience have faced always. After discovering Gandhi, Luther king was able to get out of the dilemma.
This is because king was able to realize that it is possible to struggle for the rights of the Black people non violently without using bombs and guns or with propaganda and lies, but with truth and love. Under king’s leadership the civil rights movement was referred to be non violent and non passive. Luther king had always heard regarding Gandhi as a great player in the world scene from his early life however he did not notice Gandhi in a deeper way the time he attended crozer Theological seminary from 1948 to 1951. He was particularly inspired to know more about Gandhi in 1950 after he attended a talk which was delivered by, president of Howard University, Dr. Mordecai Johnson.
Johnson had returned from India where he had visited and he had a lot to say concerning the nonviolent direct action by Gandhi. King took an action where he bought several books narrating about Gandhi and engaging himself in the mission of comprehending all he could relating to the Indian leader and also his philosophy. King had believed that ‘love your enemies’ philosophy and ‘The turn the other cheek’ philosophy were only valid when people were in a disagreement with other people; when racial groups and states were in conflict, a more realistic approach deemed necessary.
As a result it was starting in 1955 when Luther king became actively engaged in planning and executing strategies to struggle against racial discrimination which is experienced in America at the time he decided absolutely to adopt the nonviolent direct action methods by Gandhi. Over many years king was influenced further by other important figures in civil rights movement who admired Gandhi and proponents of nonviolence for instance Bayard Rustin.
King followed Johnson’s footsteps by making his own pilgrimage to India in 1959.In this visit king was able to meet Gandhi’s family members and also with Jawaharlal Nehru who was the prime minister. Jawaharlal Nehru for decades had been a significant all of Gandhi in the fight for Indian independence. Andrew Young who worked in civil rights movement together with Luther king when he was asked concerning the visit to India in 1959 he mentioned of how king constantly concerning this trip and also talked regarding how Gandhi had influenced his life. He was able to learn more about the meaning of heritage which he had grown up in and also spoke about that.
He also clarified that – the March on Washington- the entire civil rights movement was a reflection and effort on their part to replicate salt march to the sea by Gandhi. Andrew Young also said that their methods and teachings that they used were all derived from the spirit and life of Mohandas Gandhi. Had Mahatma Gandhi not lived maybe Luther king would have become the leader of the American civil rights movement and also maybe he would have found other ways of embracing the Christian peace and love and also still be successful in resisting against injustice and evil.
However, it is evident that the civil rights movement and Martin Luther King would have been very different in absence of the influence of Mahatma Gandhi who was an Indian spiritual leader. After a journey to India which took him a month he returned to America where he rededicated himself to peaceful struggle without using violence for justice to which mahatma Gandhi gave his life to as India’s independence movement leader. King continued adopting Gandhi’s commitments and the Indians passionately adopted king’s campaigns since they both shared common strategies, common struggles and common values.
Although Gandhi and king lives were cut short as a result of violence up to date their values have much to teach the world relating to divisiveness, war, discrimination and terrorism. Most Americans know very little concerning Hinduism and only several of them imagine that Hinduism values had any influence concerning development of the American society. However, the little they know relating to Hinduism is probably gotten from their knowledge concerning Mahatma Gandhi. Several Americans understand that Gandhi life’s work and teachings had a tremendous effect on development of the American society all through the civil Rights movement.
Mahatma Gandhi brought a valuable gift of social justice, of non-violence and of the community service. Gandhi’s life acted as an example and this light illuminates the globe and which saved mankind from our own inhumanity to one another. The torch was handled by numerous hands. Such people included Dr. Benjamin Elijah Mays who was the Morehouse college principal, who had just returned from India being one of the increasing numbers of the African-American disciples of Gandhi. When Luther king joined Morehouse aged 15 years old, Dr. Mays emerged to be one of the huge influences in his life. Therefore, in this regard a torch was passed on.
Dr. King and coretta scott king in February 1959 spent one month in India where they studied Gandhi’s march nonviolence techniques as guests of Jawaharlal Nehru, who was a prime minister in India. The effect of the teachings of Gandhi’s teachings and illustration on the life of Dr. Kings was considerable and he carried with him to USA the Gandhi’s message.
Luther king once narrated a story Ebenezer Baptist church congregation in Atlanta concerning his visit to India. In February 2000, Mohan Gundhi arrived at Emory University as a resident fellow, Rev Andrew Young and Bishop Tutu took part in public discussion with him where they discussed concerning violence and Religion in southern states of America. Between January to April in 2000 was pronounced ‘A season for Non- violence,’ which was a public awareness campaign that was led by a group of eight kingandhian non violent fellowships and reconciliation across the nation.
The climax of the season took part over spiritual Awareness Week in between March-April in 2000 with fantastic ceremony dedicating honorary degrees posthumously for spiritual leader Gandhi and also his wife at Morehouse College, which is one of the most popular Black colleges in America. Gandhi institute for reconciliation was established at this occasion where massive plague containing the words“ I have a dream’’, Dr. kings jr’s historical speech. The reason why Gandhi was being honored and valued in a nation which is very far from his home country even 50 years following his departure was due to the clout that Gandhi had on civil rights movement and African Americans during 1950’s to 1960’s.
The leader of the American civil rights movement, martin Luther king junior who was later awarded the Nobel peace Prize was greatly influenced by the ideologies of Gandhi and he also advocated the same as a leader of the civil rights movement. The outcomes of the American civil rights movement using the ideologies of Gandhi are evident even today where African Americans are treated equally as the white Americans. There was severe racial discrimination on the Blacks and in South Africa there was an instance where an educated lawyer who was well dressed was harshly thrown out of the train’s first class cabin back in South Africa.
A similar occurrence Montgomery Bus accident in 1955 led to a revolution and his experiments with the genuineness shall be important in leading the civil rights movement. Inspired by Ruskin and Thoreau, Gandhi’s experiments have developed both in size and shape and spread via his printing press in Durban and were successfully adopted in India, south Africa and finally it reached to the Negros. This was an instantaneous event that occurred over a long period of time. Influence of Mahatma Gandhi on peace movement was experienced in early 1920’s.
John Holmes who was Unitarian minister and a popular debater who was very influential in forming NAACP(National Association for Advancement of colored people) laid down his finding of mahatma Gandhi in a sermon which was titled “The Christ of Today’’ that was circulated widely. In 1922 he gave another sermon which was titled “who is the greatest Man in World Today’’ where his description of Gandhi astonished many listeners where most of the listeners had not heard the name Gandhi before. Holmes also published “My Gandhi’’ in 1953 which was also one of his works where he described his interactions and meetings with Gandhi.
Mahatma Gandhi’s autobiography was initially published in United States in magazine unity which John Holmes was the editor. Dandi March spearheaded by Mahatma Gandhi which was a 200 mile walk to Dandi from porbandar has gained popularity and international media coverage where it served also as an inspiration source to many idealists. Inside Asia by John Gunther was widely read in United States where it gave sympathetic portraits of Nehru and Gandhi during this March heightening the significance in Indian independence movement.
Before this Gandhi attracted the world attention as he spearheaded the first successful satyagraha which was a Sanskrit word meaning firmness for the truth cause which was finalized by the south Africa’s liberation from the Apartheid reign. The movement which was undertaken simultaneously in South Africa although not fully active got constant source of inspiration from Gandhi’s ideology of active resistance which was based on the principles of non violence. In America the blacks were not fully aware of Gandhi’s initiatives until the emergence of martin Luther king who became their leader. However there was a constant flow of information which assisted in sparking the civil rights movement at times however not on large scale.
Only a small number of the colored individuals mostly educated class and included a minority of blacks who were fully aware of non violent struggle occurring in South Africa in late nineteenth century and early twentieth century in India.
Gandhi’s efforts and ideologies also influenced the religious leaders who also were social idealists where they learnt on applying religious insights to both political and social challenges. They were highly inspired by his battle against untouchability and caste.
While Holmes remained to be the leading populariser of the Gandhi’s ideologies in united states also there were also Stanley jones who was a Methodist missionary who highly influenced by his personal familiarity in India; and also Kirby page who was a key figure in peace movement for many decades.
African American started attending conferences in paris and England on coloured peoples congresses and pan-African where Gandhi’s followers expressed the illogicality of the ordinary plight of “black and brown races’’. Among the participants from the United States was Du Bois whose association as also that of Marcus Garvey who was All-African leader with expatriate Indian nationalists resulted to a stable stream of them going aboard on lecture tours of United States and conference. There were some whites apart from African Americans who promoted the campaign of equal rights to all the American citizens. These whites were very active in supporting the African Americans where they attended the conferences which were held by Gandhi’s followers.
In mid 1920’s they were joined by popular dignitaries such as Rev CF Andrews and also Mirabai who were who close English emissaries, joined by Gertrude Emerson an American journalist Activist who were sent abroad later by Mahatma Gandhi to correct deceptive polemics by British regarding the universality and motivation of the campaign he had spearheaded in India. Other many delegates of the Indian national congress also followed. Popular Negros ministers involved in peace movement were Howard Thurman and Benjamin Mays held interviews with Mahatma Gandhi and he commented to Howard that it may be via the Negros that the pure message of non violence will be delivered around the world.
Reinhold Niebuhr was another significant character to be dealt with and in his book “moral man and immoral society’’ he said that Mahatma Gandhi’s non violent technique could be of great importance to a minority group which is being oppressed such as the blacks in America3. Reinhold also added that non violent resistance although it is not an absolute solution for Black Americans, but if it is used in the Gandhi’s manner then this could result to justice which is unattainable through moral persuasion.
However it was until 1950’s when this Gandhi’s ideology was implemented in civil rights movement. Therefore each important step in the Gandhi’s struggle including his fasting, successful satyagrahas like the salt march, imprisonment, together with his powerful personal messages to the American Negroes were printed and distributed across the leading Black magazines and papers and also the independent church newsletters.
Specifically the most popular among them were crisis which was edited by Du Bois since 1910 together with Harlem Renaissance, the National council of churches, Atlanta Daily World, Christian century, The Chicago Defender, unity, Baltimore Afro-American, the American Negro Labor Council and the Norfolk Guide intensified Gandhi’s coverage in 1920’s and also 1930’s and also featured articles from the growing traffic between. American south and Gandhi’s India beginning with the opening African- American delegation, in order to meet Mahatma Gandhi in 1936.Black America joined in celebrations of India’s independence with a delegation which was led by Benjamin Mays and Mordecai Johnson leaving for New Delhi. Many writers had been greatly influenced by Mahatma Gandhi and also their writings had a significant impact beyond the peace movement. Such writers included Chester Bowles, Louis Fischer, Edmond Taylor, Vincent Sheean, Pearl Buck, Herrymon Maurer, Frances And John Gunther.
Gandhi had a great influence on martin lather king who was the leader of American civil rights movement thus this movement was operated and based on the Gandhi’s ideas and principles which had a lot of influence on many people even in America. This is because king who was the leader of the American movement of civil rights in the United States embraced Gandhi’s methodology and philosophy in struggling for justice. He became a great follower and an avid preacher of Gandhian principles.
King believed strongly that the moral justice can be acquired in the rightful approach through taking the method of non- violence. Concurrently, Luther king’s interest in Mahatma Gandhi and his principles increased. In universities and colleges there has been a constant interest in Mahatma Gandhi on part of those personalities who are interested in social justice and peace. New course which deals absolutely on Gandhian principles have started being introduced in the universities.
The success of the tested Gandhian approaches in the struggle for Indian freedom and similarities between the African American movement of civil rights and Indian freedom struggle has influenced both followers and leaders to adopt the ideologies of Gandhi in their struggle for equality. Martin Luther king was attracted to Gandhi due to the fact that he the first individual to use Jesus’ love ethics beyond personal level and also for using love ethic as a tool of effecting social change in large scale.
With many young nonviolent activists eventually king, jr mobilized non violent human barricades, mass movement, marches, civil disobedience, undertaking satyagraha-style sit-ins systematically, non cooperation pickets and strikes, spiced by use of passionate speeches while risking police beating and arrests from Montgomery to Birmingham, Atlanta to Albany and the popular Selma march on Washington D.C or else at other civil rights campaigns sites across united states using his popular phrase “ I have a dream…’’ King also spoke out also against the dangerous and distracting American participation in Vietnam War. However, it worth noting that king did not implement all methods that were preached by Gandhi. For example, he resisted using the idea of taking over the private property and refusing to pay taxes and he contemplated however he never adopted fasting. In spite of these discrepancies, king implemented Gandhi’s overall non-violent resistance philosophy.
In 2001 Martin Luther king was influenced by Gandhi’s approaches in becoming the civil rights movement leader and is forever the Africans American’s hero. Coretta scott at National civil rights museum based in Tennessee said Gandhi’s example and teachings provided a strong influence on king’s leadership. Indian ambassador in USA, Latin man singh at the same event said that king and Gandhi joined America and India together through bonds of shared struggle and suffering.
The influence of Mahatma Gandhi on civil rights movement which occurred thousand miles away from India or England, where he got his education or in South Africa where Gandhi experimented with new principles had been very deep. It is evident that Mahatma Gandhi was invisible force of civil rights movement in United States4. King Jr was not only the leader who adopted ideologies of Gandhi into the fight for equality by African Americans there were many others like the followers of Gandhi from India who played a great role in giving the non- violent protest the shape as early as in the twentieth century. After the king’s arrival the civil rights movement in United States has strict adherence to the Gandhi’s principles like satyagraha and non violent protests.
“A freedom budget for all Americans: recapturing the promise of the civil rights movement in the struggle for economic justice today.” Choice Reviews Online 51, no. 07 (2014): 51-3956-51-3956.
Brattain, M.. “JOHN A. SALMOND. Southern Struggles: The Southern Labor Movement and the Civil Rights Struggle. (New Perspectives on the History of the South.) Gainesville: University Press of Florida. 2005. Pp. xiv, 212. $55.00..” The American Historical Review 111, no. 2 (2006): 510-511.
Hughes, Richard L.. “”The Civil Rights Movement of the 1990s?”: The Anti-Abortion Movement and the Struggle for Racial Justice.” Oral History Review 33, no. 2 (2006): 1-24.
Jackson, M.. “The Civil Rights Movement and Social Change.” American Behavioral Scientist 12, no. 4 (1969): 8-17.
Larry Isaac. “Movement Of Movements: Culture Moves In The Long Civil Rights Struggle.” Social Forces 87, no. 1 (2008): 33-63.
Morris, A.. “Freedom Is a Constant Struggle: The Mississippi Civil Rights Movement and Its Legacy.” Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews 35, no. 4 (2006): 413-415.
“Northern protest: Martin Luther King, Jr., Chicago, and the civil rights movement.” Choice Reviews Online 31, no. 05 (1994): 31-2890-31-2890.
Ralph, James R., and Duncan R. Jamieson. “Northern Protest: Martin Luther King, Jr., Chicago and the Civil Rights Movement.” History: Reviews of New Books 22, no. 4 (1994): 158-158.
“Ring out freedom!: the voice of Martin Luther King, Jr. and the making of the Civil Rights Movement.” Choice Reviews Online 41, no. 09 (2004): 41-5114-41-5114.
Robnett, Belinda. “by Johnny E. Williams:African American Religion and the Civil Rights Movement in Arkansas.” American Journal of Sociology 111, no. 4 (2006): 1239-1241.
Scalmer, Sean. Gandhi in the West: the Mahatma and the Rise of Radical Protest. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
“Sisters in the struggle: African American women in the civil rights-black power movement.” Choice Reviews Online 39, no. 09 (2002): 39-5391-39-5391.
Taylor, K. W.. “Book Reviews : Southern Struggles: The Southern Labor Movement and the Civil Rights Struggle. By John A. Salmond. Gainesville, FL: The University Press of Florida, 2004. 212 pp. $55 hardback.” Labor Studies Journal 29, no. 4 (2005): 131-132.
“The Economic civil rights movement: African Americans and the struggle for economic power.” Choice Reviews Online 51, no. 01 (2013): 51-0458-51-0458.
Wallenstein, Peter. “To Sit Or Not To Sit: The Supreme Court Of The United States And The Civil Rights Movement In The Upper South.” Journal of Supreme Court History 29, no. 2 (2004): 145-162.
Willie, C. V., and J. S. Sanford. “Martin Luther King, Jr., the Civil Rights Movement, and Educational Reform.” Educational Policy 5, no. 1 (1991): 29-43.
Young, Michael P.. “by Kenneth T. Andrews:Freedom Is a Constant Struggle: The Mississippi Civil Rights Movement and Its Legacy.” American Journal of Sociology 111, no. 3 (2005): 911-913.
Charismatic leadership style of mahatma gandhi
Mahatma Gandhi was one of the most important person and charismatic leader in the history of India as he was he only one who is considered as the founder of our nation.
He was the self made leader, he was not having any career in his life, no fame was gained by him, he was also not so rich an average looking man but still he was the father of the country. Mahatma Gandhi gave right ways and positive thoughts to many people in the nation, he make them teach what he actually practice in his real life, he was called as the great symbol of truth by the public of our nation. It was due to rule of British in India which made him to fight against them and for this he needed to guide the Indian citizens to fight against them this made him to become the absolute leader and to use evil practices against the British. It was the period during which he was in South Africa working on some legal work their which he was subjected to abuse , but then he realizes how the Indians in their home land were badly treated and beaten by the British which was subjected to cruel abuse.
To fight against the British people Gandhi took many ways which he called as practices in all over India which were non violence, truth and bravery. This whole practices were named by Indians as Satyagraha and which was having a big meaning among the Indians. The practice of Satyagraha was done all over Indian was used against corruption, non- violence, civil defense. Mahatma Gandhi thought that doing such practices will only help them to have proper control over social and political rulings. It was because of his charisma that he many Indian were devoted towards Mahatma Gandhi and due to which they were following practice of Satyagraha without any fear. Through the practice of Satyagraha Gandhi Ji followed the fight for independence from British which was considered as a big fight in whole world during that period of time. During his fight for independence Gandhi Ji advice his Indian to use the non- violence fight against the British which generally consists boycotting the practices of British and not accepting the use of British products in India. It was his intelligence, leadership qualities and charm nature which helped many Indians to fight against the British by the use non- violence practice. Since Mahatma Gandhi was very devoted towards his home land and towards its country people that he was ready to die for them anytime that is why he was the main point of attraction among the hearts of Indian people and that’s why people of India were also ready to die for Gandhi Ji anytime anywhere.
HELPERT”S DIMENSIONS OF CHARISMA
President of South Africa stated bout Gandhi Ji “You produce a Lawyer and we produce a Leader out of you”. This first evident that makes him great leader was in South Africa when was thrown out of first class compartment on the basis that he was an Indian and Indians were treated as lower class people in South Africa and this is just because of color of Indian people. This intolerant behavior towards Indians opened his eyes and showed how his country people are treated. This thinking intended him to fight against racism for equal rights of Indian people. This further led him to a great fighter in India and he was also a great leader in the hearts of Indian people. According to Bass (1985) transformational leaders generally consists of distinctive attractive behavior that includes sacrificing personal gains for the advantage of the group setting common example for followers and demonstrating high model standards. Leadership style of Gandhi Ji clearly shows the presence of transformational leadership. As an example his followers were intended by him, have trust in him, love him, were loyal to him and revert him. Transformational leaders also charm to higher values like equality, freedom, right decision and peace. Gandhi Ji was mainly known for these leadership styles and fought for his entire life following these values and taken stand for these values. Gandhi ji leadership styles throughout his life encouraged his followers to follow this practice of non-violence fight and also to fight in unity. During their fight for freedom thousands of his followers were sent to jail and were also beaten badly and treated brutally. Example: Many of his followers were gathered for the Salt March which was followed by a non- violence practice but then also British officers beat them badly with sticks. Then also they did not follow the path of violence because they had a great respect of Gandhi Ji and his practices of non- violence, equality and unity. 1. According to Ferrin and Dirks transformational leadership is strongly associated with trust in the leader. According to Bass, transformational leaders consists the following behaviors:
This nature arouses active and powerful follower emotions and identification with the leader. Gandhi was successful in motivating and influencing lots of people as a result he was the person of his words, and continuously practices what he preached. He was a task model for lots of common people and won their respect and trust through his practice. He expressed hg model conducts, non-violence, cooperation (voluntary imporvinshment), commitment and endurance so as to achieve India’s independence.
This behavior will increase follower awareness of issues and forces followers to look at issues from a new view point. Gandhi Ji was perpetually supportive of his believers and inspired them to think broadly as well as frankly, raise queries and solve issues. He was willing to simply accept wrong doing and mistakes and wasn’t ashamed to discard a method that didn’t worked as plan. For example: Gandhi Ji asked for the shut off his non- violence campaign just because sum of his subordinates were using violence methods to fight against British in that case instead of going against them he asked for the closure of the campaign.
This includes giving support, training and inspiration to followers. Gandhi Ji was very supportive to his followers as an example he with patience listen to the problems and considerations of the poor with regard to their ability to keep our support because of British policies. Gandhi Ji was also
very supportive of different leaders like national leader and Vallabhbhai Patel. He nurtures them inspired them to share concepts and even authorized them to create choices, never creating them feel addicted to him.
This type of leadership includes human action and appealing vision and making use of symbols to focus subordinates effort. Gandhi Ji stood by his personal values and systematically delivered his vision of independence by openly exchanging his vision and using symbols like the Salt Satyagraha Movement, he guided his believers with the way right meaning that successfully impressed them to stay idealistic and increase their effort.
Gandhi’s Power and Influence Tactics
1. Referent Power
Referent power is also called as:
Power of personality
When a leader is respect, admired and influentially followed by others. As we have already discussed in transformational leadership Gandhi Ji was respected by his followers and having a two way relationship between him and his followers. An important leader is given respect only when two way communications is followed and Gandhi Ji believed in this way of communication that’s why he was a great leader. Gandhi ji constantly proved to be a role model and is behavior consistent with the moral principles he predicate.
Qualities of Mahatma Gandhi as a Referent Leader
Honest and considerate to others
Used the process of internalization to influence his followers Many of the followers of Gandhi Ji were influenced by stimulating their values of self respect, justice and freedom to fight against British. At certain points personal identification was also considered. For example Jawaharlal Nehru was initially influenced by Gandhi Ji as he used to western wear clothes and looking at the style and dressing sense of Gandhi Ji he also started wearing Khadi clothes. Similarly many followers of Gandhi ji boycotted the western style wearing and opted for khadi dressing like Gandhi Ji. According to (2010) power is the capacity to attract the nature and attitude of people in the direction desired. With an exclusive charming and attractive practices followed by Gandhi Ji empowered him with high referent power. He was able to maintain his power by expressing care towards the needs of the public by showing trust and treating people equally. Due to his high level of personal sincerity and persistent values allowed him to maintain his referent power.
2. Expert Power
Since Gandhi Ji was a good lawyers as he has completed hi law from South Africa and was aware of all the rules and regulations of the government. Due to his expert knowledge also the member of Indian national congress and later join the British Indian community in the Transvaal where he fought against restriction on Indian trade he always follows the rules and regulations in correct direction and his entire practices were legal there were no illegal practices followed by him. Due to his non-violence and expert power his followers were also influenced by his practices and used to follow his path.
3. Job Involvement
Gandhi Ji always encouraged for ethical practices during his lifetime which are:
Truth and love
Abolition of untouchability
Dependency(Weaving his own clothes)
Gandhi Ji always had a high influence on people because of the above mentioned characteristics of his leadership. Gandhi Ji mainly shows interest for others rather than focusing on self interest also called altruistic behavior. In order to influence his followers in the direction of non- violence he did fast for several days. During that period he not even thought about his health and food, he suffered a lot till he gets the desired result of his fast. Gandhi Ji become as a leader of masses from the leader of community when Gandhi ji was in South Africa he fought in suit and tie but when he came to India he adopted the situation realizing in India and wore clothes of a peasant, weaved his own clothes and lived in a small house. He was always under control of situations and having effective negotiation skills while dealing with British authorities.
Gandhi shows the transformation of a standard man into a legendary leader. It shows how conditions will inspire someone to fight against injustice and difference. Gandhi’s style of leadership proves that to attain a required and decent end, suggests that must be equally sensible. Gandhi had a vision that was accepted by his followers. His personal practices led to India to be free from Britishers. His involvement and interest towards the poor people of society is memorable and peerless. His teaching of non violence is extremely abundant relevant even in today’s world. For the contribution and sacrifices he created for the India’s independence, upliftment of poor people, contribution towards woman encouragement and unity among completely different religions, he has been given the title of ‘Mahatma’ by his nation and is named as ‘Bapu’ that’s Father of the nation.
http://www.youthforhumanrights.org/voices-for-human-rights/champions/mahatma-gandhi.html https://sites.google.com/site/leadershipmasters/powers-of-leadership http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080725175352AAz0Fqu http://www.unpost.org/mahatma-gandhi-soft-leadership/
Mahatma Gandhi and the national movement
Lord Birkenhead, the secretary of State for India, justified the exclusion of Indians in the Simon commission. He said that the Indians were not united and could not arrive at an ‘agreed scheme of reforms’. To refute this charge, an All Parties Conference was convened in 1928 to take up the challenge posed by Lord Birkenhead. Liberals and Radicals, leaders of the Hindu Mahasabha, the Muslim league and the depressed classes came together. Motilal Nehru was made chairman of the committee with sir tej bahadur sapru and sir N.
C. kelkar as his principal associates. The report submitted by the all parties conference is known as the Nehru report .
Recommendations of Nehru report
1. Attainment of dominion status for india at a early date.
2. A federal set-up (i.e., the linking up of the princely states with the british india)built on the provisions of provincial autonomy.
3. Abolishing separate electorates and providing for protection of minorities.
4. Proposal of joint electorates with reservation of seats for minorities in the legislatures.
5. Linguistic reorganization of the Indian british provinces
6. The governors of the provinces to act on the advice of the provincial executive council
7. Emphasis on fundamental rights, such as right to vote, freedom of conscience and freedom from arbitrary arrest, searches and seizure.
8. Parliamentary democracy for india with the Indian parliament having the following features: a) The Prime Minister was to be appointed by the Governer-General and other ministers were to be appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister. b) Executive to be made collectively responsible to the legislature. c) The Senate to be elected for seven years, having 200 members elected by the provincial council. d) The house of representatives with 500 members elected for 5 years through adult franchise. e) The Governer-General to be appointed by the British Government but paid from Indian revenues. He was to act on the advise of the executive council which was to be collectively responsible to the Parliament. f) The Provincial councils to be elected on the basis of adult franchise for five years.
Jinnah earlier a congressman now a leader of the Muslim league did not accept the Nehru report and demanded more representation for the Muslims. Jinnah thereafter drew up a list of demands the so called fourteen points which represented the minimum demands of the Muslims. His points were rejected by the all parties convention held at Kolkata in December 1928. The Congress at it’s Calcutta session(1928) resolved to launch a campaign of non co-opreation with non payment of taxes(civil disobedience), if the Nehru report was not accepted by the end of 1929. Since the British Government did not accept the Nehru report the congress passed the purna swaraj resolution at this Lahore session in 1929.
Declaration of Ramsay MacDonald
The new British labour Government headed by Ramsay MacDonald, in consultation with Viceroy Lord Irwin, declared on October 31, 1929, that the Government would consider the proposal of granting dominion status to India On December 23, 1929 when the national leaders met the Viceroy, he was vague and non-committal in his reply. Thus the stage was set for a confrontation. Lahore Session:
Demand for complete independence (Purna Swaraj)
The Calcutta session of the congress had served an ultimatum to the British Government to accept the Nehru report by the end of 1929 or to face a mass movement. Jawaharlal Nehru was made the president of the congress at the historic Lahore session of 1929. It passed a resolution declaring Purna Swaraj (complete Independence) to be the Congress objective. On the midnight of December 31st, 1929 Jawaharlal Nehru lead a procession to the banks of the river Ravi at Lahore and hoisted the tricolor flag. The Congress working committee met in January 1930 and decided the following programme: i. Preparation for civil disobedience.
ii. As per the Purna Swaraj resolution the word swaraj in the Congress constitution would thenceforth mean complete independence or purna swaraj which was set forth as the goal of the national movement. iii. Observance of 26th of January as the purna swaraj day all over the country with the hoisting of the tricolor flag. iv. Resignations by members of the legislature.
v. Withdrawal from all possible association with the British Government.
It was decided to observe January 26 as the day of independence every year a pledge was drawn up which was to be read and solemnly taken while celebrating the day. Civil Disobedience Movement (1930-1934)
The Congress working committee met from February 14 to 16, 1930 at Sabarmati ashram and vested in Gandhiji’s powers to launch the civil disobedience movement. Before starting the movement Gandhiji served on the British Government a ‘Eleven Point Ultimatum’. After waiting in vain for the Government response to his ultimatum, Gandhiji started the movement with his famous Dandi march (March 12- April 6, 1930) from the Sabarmati ashram to Dandi on the Gujarat coast.
On 12th March, Mahatma Gandhi began the historic march from Sabarmati ashram to Dandi, a village on the Gujarat seacoast. A number of people followed him. On the morning of 6th April, Gandhiji violated the salt laws at Dandi by picking up some salt left by the sea-waves. He had selected to attack the salt laws because the salt-tax effected all sections of society, especially the poor. Gandhiji’s breaking of the salt laws marked the beginning of the civil disobedience movement.
The programme of civil disobedience movement involved:
i. Defiance of salt laws.
ii. Boycott of liquor.
iii. Boycott of foreign cloth and British goods of all kinds.
iv. Non payment of taxes and revenues.
The progress of the movement:
Violation of salt laws all over the country was soon followed by defiance of forest laws in Maharashtra, Karnataka and the central provinces and refusal to pay the rural chaukidari tax in eastern India. Lakhs of Indians offered Satyagraha.
Under the leadership of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, popularly known as the frontier Gandhi, the Pathans organized the society of Khudai Khidmatgaris (or servants of God), known popularly as Red shirts. Manipuris joined the movement with great enthusiasm in Nagaland, Rani Gaidilieu, at the age of 13 responded to Gandhiji’s call and raised the banner of revolt against the British rule. Civil disobedience movement resulted in mass strikes and setting up of parallel Governments in several places. Repression by the Government
The Government resorted to firing, lathi charges and large scale imprisonment. Over 90,000 satyagrahis including Congress leaders and Gandhiji were imprisoned. The Congress was declared illegal and severe restrictions were imposed on the nationalist press. On April 23, there were demonstrations at Peshawar to protest against the arrest of Ghaffar Khan. A platoon of Gharwal troops refused to open fire on the demonstrators. The commander of the platoon, Thakur Chandrasingh and others were severely punished. Protest meetings were held everywhere. The textile and railway workers of Mumbai went on strike . There were instances of firing at Delhi and Kolkatta. Round table conference
The Indian round table conference held three sessions which are sometimes referred to as the first, second and the third round table conferences.
First Session (November 12, 1930- January 19, 1931):
The first session of the round table conference was held in London. The Congress, which was unhappy with the report of Simon commission, boycotted the conference but other political parties and interest groups were well represented. The British realized the futility of holding a conference on the question of constitutional reforms for India without the representatives of the Congress.
Since the satyagraha could not be suppressed, the Government, through Tej Bahadur Sapru and Jayakar, started negotiations with Gandhiji in jail. This resulted in the signing of a pact by Gandhiji and Lord Irwin, the Viceroy, in March 1931. This is known as the Gandhi-Irwin pact. The Government agreed to:
i. Withdraw all ordinances and end prosecutions.
ii. Release all political prisoners, except those guilty of violence.
iii. Permit peaceful ticketing of liquor and foreign cloth shops. iv. Restore the confistaced properties of the satyagrahis.
v. Permit the free collection or manufacture of salt by persons near the sea coast.
The Congress, in its turn consented to the following:
i. To suspend the civil disobedience movement.
ii. To participate in the second session of the round table conference.
iii. Not to press for investigation into police excesses.
Second Session (September 7 to December 1, 1931):
It was attended by Gandhiji as a sole representative of the congress, according to the terms of the Gandhi-Irwin pact of 1931. The British Government refused to concede the immediate grant of dominion status. Gandhiji returned to India disappointed
Renewal of civil disobedience movement:
After the failure of the talks at the second session of the round table conference, Gandhiji came back to India. The great depression of 1930’s in the world had hit the farmers of India. Gandhiji sought an interview with Viceroy Willington. The interview was refused. The Congress passed a resolution for the renewal of civil disobedience movement. The Congress was declared illegal. Congress leaders were arrested and their properties were ceased. Communalism was fanned. Gandhiji withdrew himself from active politics for a year.
Ramsay MacDonald, the then Prime Minister of England, gave his communal award in 1932 through which he extended the system of separate electorates to depressed classes as well. The depressed classes were assigned a number of seats, to be filled in by elections from special constituencies in which voters belonging to the depressed classes could only vote. A compromise formula put forward by Dr B.R. Ambedkar, the leader of the depressed classes, save the situation. The outcome was the Poona pact. By this pact, the system of separate electorates for Harijans was replaced by reservation of seats for them. The British Government accepted the pact and Gandhiji ended his fast. Gandhiji was released from jail in May 1933. Third session of the round table conference:
The third session of the round table conference was held at London from November 17 to December 24, 1932, The Congress boycotted it.
End of the movement
The civil disobedience movement was suspended temporarily because of the brutal repression of the satyagrahis and the atrocities against Harijans by some sections of the Indians. In October 1934, Gandhiji decided to withdraw himself from active politics to devote all his time to the cause of Harijans.
Importance of the civil disobedience movement
The civil disobedience did not succeed immediately in winning freedom. But it played a significant role by deepening the social roots of the freedom struggle. The importance of the movement can be summed up as follows: i. The Government withdrew the ban on the Congress in June 1934. The suspension of the movement did not mean that people had abandoned their struggle for freedom. ii. A large number of social groups like merchants and shopkeepers, peasants, tribals and workers in different parts of the country were mobilized for the Indian national movement. iii. It made people understand the significance of the principles of non violence iv. The movement also popularized new methods of propaganda. Prabhat Pheris, in which hundreds of men and women went around singing patriotic songs in the early morning became popular in towns and villages.
Hand written patrikas or news sheets were issued in large numbers. Even children were organized into Vanara sena and girls had their own separate Manjari sena or cat army. v. The depressed classes were given entry into temples and access to wells, which was earlier denied to them. vi. It brought women out of their homes to participate in politics and to make them equal partners in the freedom struggle. vii. The Government of India act, 1935, introduced the principle of a federation and the principle of provincial autonomy; i.e., responsible Government in the provinces. viii. In 1937, the Congress took part in the elections to the Central legislative assembly and achieved positive results. It was also successful in the elections to the provincial legislative assemblies except in Punjab. Gandhiji’s contribution to the freedom movement:
Mahatma Gandhi entered the Indian political life in 1919. He led the country to swarajya by non violent means. His contribution to India’s freedom can be understood through various movements and programmes he launched. These include the following: i. Champaran, Kheda and Ahmedabad: It was through involvement in three local disputes- in Champaran (in North Bihar), in Kheda & Ahmedabad (in Gujarat)- In 1917-18 that Mahatma Gandhi emerged as an influential political leader. In Champaran he took up the cause of peasants against landlords, in Kheda he worked for the farmers against revenue officials and in Ahmedabad fought for mill workers against mill owners. ii. The non co-operation movement: The anti Rowlatt satyagraha was a country wide movement launched by Gandhiji.
He started the non co-operation movement and along with the issues of Rowlatt act and Jalianwala bagh tragedy, he also combined the issue of Khilafat. iii. Gandhiji’s constructive programmes: From 1924 to 1929 Gandhiji devoted hjmself to the constructive programmes of spinning and encouraging Khadi, Hindu-Muslim unity, prohibition and village upliftment. iv. Hindu-Muslim unity: In 1920 he combined the Khilafat issue with the non co-operation movement and succeeded in getting the non co-operation movement accepted first by the Muslims and then by the whole country. Gandhiji started his peace mission to Noakhali in October 1946 during the communal riots. Similarly, he undertook indefinite period of fast after the communal riots which broke out in the wake of the partition of India. v. Harijan Uplift: Gandhiji dedicated his life for the uplift of the untouchables, whom he called Harijans (children of God). He organized the ‘Harijan Sewak Sangh’ with the objective of eradicating the evil of untouchability.
Mohandas Gandhi: A Moral/Economic Progress
In Mohandas Gandhi’s speech “Economic and Moral Progress” emphasis is placed on distinguishing the difference between economic and moral progress.
From Gandhi’s experience and studies he recognizes that economic and moral progress are often opposing and interchangeable. Gandhi states that he knows little of economics but was more that happy to speak on the topic because of his strong belief in the importance of moral progress over economic progress. Gandhi relies primarily on religious text coupled with all three rhetoric devices to exemplify his argument.
Gandhi quotes the bible in saying “Take no thought for the morrow” meaning one should seek morality over material advantage, an idea prevalent “in almost all the religious scriptures in the world”(Gandhi 334) and it is this very idea with which Gandhi argues. Gandhi views economic progress and moral progress as two singular properties.
Gandhi makes the assumption at the beginning of his speech that economic progress refers to one’s materialistic wealth while moral progress refers to “real progress” (Gandhi 334) Gandhi introduces his idea of what defines moral progress by asking “Does not moral progress increase in the same proportion as material progress?” (Gandhi 334) In this question Gandhi is examining the relationship between economic and moral progress. Gandhi states that it is popular belief that “material progress does not clash with moral progress”, so it must necessarily advance the latter. Gandhi exemplifies this popular idea and applies it to the “case of thirty millions of India stated by the late Sir William Wilson Hunter to be living on one meal a day” this case built on the idea that before attending to one’s moral welfare their daily needs must first be satisfied.
Gandhi continues on state how absurd this idea it is, it is his belief that every human has the right to life, food, clothing and shelter but to obtain these things “we need no assistance from economists”(Gandhi 334) It is Gandhi’s belief that the “test of orderliness in a country is not the number of millionaires it owns, but the absence of starvation among its masses”. Gandhi’s argument relies heavily on his use of ethos in quoting religious texts as well as historical figures. It is Gandhi’s idea that economic progress does not necessarily clash or assist in moral progress, but rather acts a vehicle, which holds the possibility for either outcome. Gandhi illustrates the potential for economic progression leading to moral growth when he recalls his time in South Africa. Gandhi had observed that the people of South Africa believed that “the greater possession of riches, the greater was their moral turpitude”(Gandhi 335) meaning that the societal norms frowned upon living in excess and not sharing wealth.
Though in contrast, Gandhi exemplifies economic progress leading to moral decay when he addresses the decline and fall of Rome, Egypt and even the Hindu deity Krishna, “with them material gain has not necessarily meant moral gain”(Gandhi 335) Gandhi is not opposing the pursuit of wealth, but the pursuit of wealth for material advantage. Gandhi applies pathos to religious ideals, evident when he describes what he believes to be symbolic of material progress, he states “It is not possible to conceive gods inhabiting a land which is made hideous by the smoke and the din of mill chimneys and factories and whose roadways are traversed by rushing engines dragging numerous cars crowded with men who know not what they are after”(Gandhi 337) Gandhi’s vivid imagery successfully conveys his idea that material wealth has corrupted the values of society and stunted moral progression.
Gandhi’s speech is strongly driven by his use of ethics and emotion, but his speech also appeals to the logical mind. Gandhi’s use of logos is evident during his quotation of “the great scientist”(Gandhi 337) Alfred Wallace. Wallace, a British naturalist states that his country has put power and wealth before nature and Christianity and describes “…how as the country has rapidly advanced in riches, it has gone down in morality”(Wallace 338) Gandhi’s speech is largely based on the idea that society today upholds a distorted set of values, placing emphasis on material advantage and economic gain over moral growth and progress. Gandhi’s use of rhetoric devices appeal to a diverse audience using logic, ethics and emotion to prove that moral progress trumps economic progress.
Management style of Mahatma Gandhi
The name, Mahatma Gandhiji stimulates the image of truth personified, who has been revered by masses and classes similarly. Who is understood to be thinker, thinker, leader, political leader, saint and much more functions for which he donned the caps all at once. The management principles that his life shows, are fundamental part of modern-day management practices. 1. Walk the talk:
Mahatma Gandhiji lived easy life. He believed in “do as you state”. Practice and preach was not various for him. His life had actually been open book for anyone to check out.
Irrespective of the situations he constantly held up to his ethical values that he used to preach to one and all. His “stroll the talk” had lots of admirers in British camp, and numerous swear by his truthfulness. In today’s organizations, individuals honor and follow leaders whose words are no different than their actions. Companies, who have deep rooted culture of walk the talk, win over clients and prosper beyond expectations.
2. Lead by Example:
Mahatma Gandhiji has been a fantastic leader who led by example. Be it smaller efforts like living easy life, battle for untouchables; or bigger movements like non cooperation, salt march, gave up India, he has actually led by example. He led from front. People thought him since he did himself what he anticipated from them to do. We have faith and rely on leaders and managers who lead by example. Who tread the path themselves initially on which they want other to follow. Faith is the fundamental requisite in the companies and those who lead by example commands enough of it. Lead by example; command respect, do not require respect. 3. Build impeccable and truthful brand name:
The brand “Mahatma Gandhiji” is one of the best brands which has been informing and moving individuals given that years together. This brand name has actually been constructed on integrity, openness, quality, truthfulness and connectivity with every single individual. It has emotional connect instead of reasonable link with its audience. Excellent brands commands emotional get in touch with its customers. The terrific brand names build on the remarkable platform of transparency and truthfulness. Even you are also a brand name personified; the Brand name You. 4. Strategize in line with readily available resources:
The entire freedom motion of Mahatma was based upon the principle of non violence. There was no other way he could grapple with the mighty British Empire. The biggest resource was empty handed, inspired masses. He utilized this resource in the most efficient way. He strategized every action on non violence and moved masses to fulfill the objectives. Managing and excelling with available resources is the key to success for the organizations. Efficiency in every aspect of business and utilizing the available resources diligently is the hall mark of great management teams. Strategy must be made and implemented looking into the resources available. 5. Build great team and work for a common cause:
Mahatma Gandhiji had built a great team of leaders from diverse beliefs and principles. Jawaharlal Nehru, C. Rajgopalachari, Valabbh Bhai Patel, Jinnah and many others worked in tandem for a common cause; freedom of India. They complemented each other. The team also had a great bench strength. Great leaders build great teams with members who complement each other. It has leadership at all levels. It has great bench strength which grabs the baton and continue the race for common cause. Organizations with great teams have potent force to conquer the market. 6. Engage people:
Mahatma Gandhiji enthralled and engaged people like a magician. He was apt in the art of making people devote everything for the cause. In every single movement he led for India’s freedom, he pulled the people together for a common mission. Every one of them was so engaged that they are ready to go to any extent to achieve the goal of India’s freedom. Gallup Inc., a research-based performance-management consulting company, has shown that engaged employees are more productive and more likely to stay with the organization. Engage them with common cause, a common goal, a common mission which must be lived every moment by them. Engaged employees are key to greatness for organizations. Mahatma Gandhiji exhibited this lesson long ago. It is still as much relevant as was at that time. There are many priceless gems in Mahatma Gandhiji’s life. His philosophy is applicable in every facet of life. You only require getting one step underneath and digging the gems out for yourselves.
Social Orientation- Interdependence on teams
For Gandhiji, the interests of the group are of high importance. He believed that the needs of the community and the service of the poor should always override every selfish or individual interest. (Alexander, 1984) His wish was that every village in India to become a self-supporting and self-contained entity, much like a team environment in today’s corporations. These villages would share information or commodities with other villages where they are not locally producible. (Andrews, 1949) Teams in today’s organizations often must share information with other teams in order to work more efficiently. Take for example, the Information Engineering Associates (IEA) department within DuPont Corporation. Because of internal marketing within the company and sharing of their expertise, the IEA department was able to move from team to team, sharing their knowledge and improving the information technology service within the corporation. No discrimination-Hiring Policies
Gandhiji believed in the ancient caste system, but he entirely refused to have anything to do with the idea of “untouchability”. He refused to regard any caste as superior in rank. He regarded men and women equally as his brothers and sisters, treating them in every single act of life as equals. Even today, an organisation is not supposed to discriminate while hiring candidates. Gandhijiji’s philosophy of no discrimination is seen in the hiring policies of an organisation.
Before launching a public campaign or action that will impinge on society, it is vital to bring to your mind “the face of the poorest and the weakest man whom you may have seen, and ask yourself, if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him” — this has always been the advice of Gandhijiji. Compare this with what often happens in the business world. The grievances of individuals — whether they are of employees or customers — are called into question and denied redress by citing the “company policy” or by contending that the company’s “image” would be adversely affected in the long run. Non cooperation:
The doctrine of non-cooperation was the genius of Mahatma Gandhiji. He believed that even the most oppressive government derived its authority from the consent, implicit though, of the oppressed. If only the people showed resistance and turned their backs on the government, it would collapse and be pauperised, sooner or later. For the chief executive of a company, non-cooperation is a stark reminder of the imperative to win the loyalty and goodwill of his employees. A business enterprise cannot be run by coercion and compulsion. Voluntary cooperation by the employees can be secured only by providing adequate opportunities for their self-development and self-management. Transperancy
Truth and transparency are the hallmark of Gandhijian philosophy. This holds good eminently for the business world too. For a management to be effective and enduring, it has to be an open book, subjecting itself to public scrutiny. Ethics and honesty, by which Gandhijiji set store.
Time – long-term outlook:
Gandhi believed that economic growth should proceed in harmony with nature and between people, even if that growth was slower and more gradual than growth brought on by heavy industry and high technology. (Prabhu, 2001) Gandhi was always more concerned with the means then about the ends. (Alexander, 1984) Building a learning organization takes time and effort. The leader responsible with incorporating change within an organization must have a complete view of the big picture. Promoting any type of change can be difficult, but the leader must always keep site of the final destination.
Building trust in an organization takes time. Team members must trust the leader and believe what s/he says in order for them to willingly follow. Gandhi believed that the rule of community behavior must be found through long practice. This was the best for all involved. (Alexander, 1984) Gandhi rated character building higher than book learning. He had no use for an educational system that was geared to moneymaking. (Nanda, 1985) Within an organization, open communication and honesty is highly valued. A leader with a strong character has integrity and integrity is important within an organization. Gandhi felt it was important to understand that the perception of truth undergoes an ongoing process of refinement, which is evolutionary in nature. (Murphy, 1991) He felt that the process of learning was evolving. Learning within an organization evolves with time. The learning curve may be slow at first, but as more people learn they become confident in their abilities and are content with their work.
Gandhijiji the leader:
Gandhijiji was one of the best leaders that India ever had. Now, what is it that made Gandhijiji so great and successful? What made his leadership successful was a steadfast purpose and his listening to his inner calling. Both, purpose and calling were built on values like truth, justice, love, non-violence, and charity. He neither benefited of personality development- nor communication-, organization-, management- or leadership-trainings nor good looks. What made him strong was his inner voice, his beliefs and convictions, which were giving him guidance and credibility, because he lived what he preached: one man can make a difference; strength comes not from physical capacity but from an indomitable will; leadership by example is the most effective. He believed in the following few concepts when it came to leadership or life in general:
· Gandhiji was known for the trust he was granting everyone. He saw the good in people and believed in them. · What he developed were caring relationships which – aside trust – were built on mutual respect and non-violence. · While managing relationships Gandhiji showed an immense integrity – towards himself and towards others, who were sometimes harshly opposing stakeholders. Like this he remained transparent, credible, and trustworthy. · Hence, he could openly, freely follow his path and his purpose. · And he was a master in changing small things with an enormous effect for the big picture. This is how he reached his vision: with short term targets and a great patience.
Many of his sayings are praised by Westerners, because they are so close to Western leadership teachings about solution-oriented managing which allows mistakes – “Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes” – or what Americans use to say by “Walk the talk” seems to be included in Gandhiji´s “Happiness is when what you think, what you say and what you do are in harmony.” Gandhiji´s values, beliefs and convictions are a clue to a leader´s attitude shaped by care and by deep motivation. They are also a powerful means for conflict management, a basically daily reality of every manager or leader around the world. Leaders in today’s volatile environment must also possess these characteristics for which Gandhiji believed in. A leader today must be honest, forward-looking, inspiring, and competent.
Kouzes and Posner (1996) state that the first law of leadership is, “If you don’t believe in the messenger, you won’t believe the message”. A leader must be truthful and honest in order for people to follow. As many have said, a leader must walk the talk. But without followers there would be no leaders, therefore the first milestone toward earning leadership credibility is clarity in personal values. Hierarchal organizational structures operate from the top down. The workers at the bottom are dominated and told what to do and when to do it. Gandhiji felt that the people should control their own destiny in small-scale groups. He believed that independence must begin at the bottom, that self-rule could not be imposed on people from above. He believed that self-rule or self-government must first be nurtured, through education and example. This education must start at the local or village level and then be encouraged to spread out into larger communities.
Leaders in today’s organizations must have strong values and a belief in the capacity of individuals to grow. In other words, they empower others within the organization. They envision a society in which they wish to see their organizations and themselves live. They are visionaries and believe strongly in their ability in shaping the future and they do not hesitate to act on these beliefs through their own personal behavior and actions. They energize the organization as a whole. When compared to Gandhiji’s leadership principles, you can see that Gandhiji had a rock-solid value system and he wanted to make major changes in society. He had a totally interdependent relationship with his followers, as he was often seen walking with “commoners” as well as having high tea with “dignitaries”. He leadership style incorporated the four “E’s”: Envision, Enable, Empower, and Energize.
Gandhiji believed that one must not offend or harbor any uncharitable thoughts toward anything or anyone even when one considers themselves your enemy. This principle is not unlike the value system that leaders of today should have. A leader in today’s organization must be honest and patient when dealing with customers and fellow workers.
Generally people will not willingly follow a dishonest person especially through a crisis period, which is not all that uncommon throughout a project lifecycle. A leader should also respect other people, and value different ideas and opinions. Because organizations are becoming increasingly diverse and expanding across cultural boundaries, a leader should be aware of and respect these differences.
Satyagraha begins with reasoning with ones opponent or adversary in an attempt to arrive at a just solution. Neither a person has a monopoly on the truth nor is either side wholly correct. The purpose is to work out a rational compromise that is agreeable to both sides. A leader must have the ability to communicate and diffuse disagreeable situations. Conflicts naturally occur between individuals who are passionate about something. Often a leader must stand the neutral ground and help facility a win-win situation when dealing with conflicts.
Article 21 of the Constitution of India After Maneka Gandhi’s Case
To a great degree, the Supreme Court of India finds its strength in Article 21 of the Constitution, for the factor that much of its judicial activism has been based upon translating the scope of this Post. Majority of the PIL cases have actually been submitted under this Article only. The Supreme Court is now called an activist court. There has actually been no change in the words used in Short article 21, but there has actually been a modification in the method it has been interpreted.
The scope of the Post has expanded considerably post the Maneka Gandhi decision. This will be seriously evaluated in the following couple of pages. ARTICLE 21
The Article reads- “No individual shall be deprived of his life or individual liberty except according to procedure developed by law.” Constituent Assembly Argument Over Post 21 India’s constitutional system was rooted in the traditions of British parliamentary sovereignty and legal positivism. Therefore, the development of a strong Supreme Court challenging parliamentary legislation through substantive due process was not likely given this conventional historic context.
However aside from the historical tradition of British rule and legal positivism, 2 particular historic factors directly influenced the Constituent Assembly to clearly leave out a due procedure provision in the section on Essential Rights.
The very first was the impact of United States Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter on Constitutional Adviser B.N. Rau, who traveled to Britain, Ireland, the United States and Canada in 1947 to meet jurists relating to the drafting and framing of the Indian Constitution. The 2nd factor was the turbulent and disorderly period of common violence that gripped Northern India as a result of the partition of Muslim Pakistan from Hindu India, which led the of the Indian Constitution to remove the due process clause from their draft constitution for the defense of individual liberty.1 The Constituent Assembly of India initially included a due process provision in the Essential Rights provisions connected with preventive detention and specific liberty in the initial draft variation adopted and released in October of 1947.
At this point, a majority of members of the Constituent Assembly favored inclusion of a due process clause, because it would provide procedural safeguards against detention of individuals without cause by the government. However, Rau had succeeded in qualifying the phrase liberty with the word “personal,” effectively limiting the scope of this clause as applying to individual liberties, and not property rights. After this draft version was published, Rau embarked upon a multi-nation trip to the United States, Canada, and Ireland to meet with jurists, constitutional scholars, and other statesmen.
In the United States, Rau met with American Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, a student of Harvard Law professor James Bradley Thayer, whose writings about the pitfalls of due process as weakening the democratic process had already impressed Rau prior to the visit. In his meeting with Rau, Frankfurter indicated that he believed that the power of judicial review implied in the due process clause was both undemocratic and burdensome to the judiciary, because it empowered judges to invalidate legislation enacted by democratic majorities.
2 Frankfurter had a lasting impression on Rau, who upon his return to India, became a forceful proponent for removing the due process clause, ultimately convincing the Drafting Committee to reconsider the language of draft Article 15 (now Article 21) in January 1948. In these meetings Rau apparently was able to convince Ayyar, the crucial swing vote on the committee, of the potential pitfalls associated with substantive interpretation of due process, which Frankfurter had discussed extensively with Rau. Ayyar, in ultimately upholding the new position on the floor of the Assembly in December 1948, supported removing the due process clause on the grounds that substantive due process could “impede social legislation.”
With the switch in Ayyar’s vote, the Drafting Committee endorsed Rau’s new preferred language-replacing the due process clause with the phrase “according to the procedure established by law,” which was apparently borrowed from the Japanese Constitution.3 Protection of Life and Personal Liberty
Immediately after the Constitution became effective, the question of interpretation of the words “life and personal liberty” arose before the court in the case A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras.4 In this case, the Petitioner had been detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. The petitioner challenged the validity of his detention on the ground that it was violative of his Right to freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(d), which is the very essence of personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.
He argued that (i) the words ‘personal liberty’ include the freedom of movement also and therefore the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 must also satisfy the requirements of Article 19(5). (ii) It was further argued that Article 21 and Article 19 should be read together as Article 19 laid out the substantive rights while Article 21 provided procedural rights. (iii) It was also argued that the words “procedure established by law” actually meant “due process of law” from the American Constitution which includes principles of natural justice and the impugned law does not satisfy that requirement.
Thus the main question was whether Article 21 envisaged any procedure laid down by a law enacted by a legislature, or whether the procedure should be just, fair and reasonable. On behalf of Gopalan, an argument was made to persuade the Supreme Court to hold that the courts could adjudicate upon the reasonableness of the Preventive Detention Act, or for that matter, any law depriving a person of his personal liberty. Majority Decision in Gopalan
The Supreme Court ruled by majority that the word ‘law’ in Article 21 could not be read as meaning rules of natural justice. These rules were vague and indefinite and the Constitution could not be read as laying down a vague standard. The Court further interpreted the term ‘law’ as ‘State made law’ and rejected the plea that the term ‘law’ in Article 21 meant jus naturale or principles of natural justice. Justice Fazl Ali’s Dissenting Judgment
Justicle Fazl Ali in his dissenting judgment observed that preventive detention is a direct infringement of the right guaranteed in Art. 19 (1) (d), even if a narrow construction is placed on the said sub-clause, and a lawrelating to preventive detention is therefore subject to such limited judicial review as is permitted by Art. 19 (5). There is nothing revolutionary in the view that “procedure established by law “must include the four principles of elementary justice which inhere in and are at the root of all civilized systems of law, and which have been stated by the American Courts and jurists as consisting in (1) notice, (2) opportunity to be heard, (3) impartial tribunal and (4) orderly course of procedure.
These four principles are really different aspects of the same right, namely, the right to be heard before one is condemned. Hence the words “procedure established by law “, whatever its exact meaning be, must necessarily include the principle that no person shall be condemned without hearing by an impartial tribunal. Relationship among Articles 21, 22 and 19
An attempt was made in Gopalan to establish a link between these three Articles. The underlying purpose was to persuade the Court to adjudge the reasonableness of the Preventive Detention Act. It was therefore argued that when a person was detained, his several rights under Article 19 were affected and thus, the reasonableness of the law, and the procedure contained therein (regarding reasonable restrictions), should be justiciable with reference to Arts. 19(2) to (6). Rejecting the argument, the Court pointed out that the word ‘personal liberty’ under Article 21 in itself had a comprehensive content and ordinarily, if left alone, would include not only freedom from arrest or detention, but also various freedoms guaranteed by Art. 19.
However, reading Articles 19 and 21 together , Article 19 must be held to deal with a few specific freedoms mentioned therein and not with freedom from detention whether punitive or preventive. Similarly, Art. 21 should be held as excluding the freedoms dealt with in Article 19. The Court ruled that Arts. 20 and 22 constituted a comprehensive code and embodied the entire constitutional protection in relation to life and personal liberty and was not controlled by Article 19.
Thus, a law depriving personal liberty had to conform with Arts. 20 and 22 and not with Art. 19, which covered a separate and distinct ground. Article 19 could be invoked only by a freeman and not one under arrest. Further, Article 19 could be invoked only when a law directly attempted to control a right mentioned under it. Thus, a law directly controlling a citizen’s right to freedom of speech and expression could be tested under the exception given under Art. 19(2); and a law that does not directly control the fundamental freedoms under Article 19, could not be tested under the clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19. This judicial approach meant that a preventive detention law would be valid, and be within the terms of Article 21, so long as it conformed to Article 22. Due Process of Law
The V Amendment of the US Constitution lays down inter alia that “no person shall be deprived of his life, liberty or property, without due process of law.” The use of the word ‘due’ in this clause is interpreted to mean ‘just’, ‘proper’ or ‘reasonable’ according to judicial review. The courts can pronounce whether a law affecting a person’s life, liberty or property is reasonable or not. The court may declare a law invalid if it does not accord with its notions of what is just, fair and reasonable. Thus, this clause known as the ‘due process clause’ has been the most significant single source of judicial review in the US.
It was contended in Gopalan that the expression procedure established by law in Art. 21 was synonymous with the American concept of ‘procedural due process’, and therefore, the reasonableness of the Preventive Detention Act, or for that matter, of any law affecting a person’s life or personal liberty, should comply with the principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court rejected this contention giving several reasons: i) The word ‘due’ was absent from Article 21.
ii) The fact that the words ‘due process’ were dropped from draft Article 15 (present Article 21), signified the intention of the Constituent Assembly, that was to avoid the uncertainty surrounding the due process concept in the USA. iii) The American doctrine generated the countervailing but complicated doctrine of police power to restrict the ambit of due process, i.e., the doctrine of governmental power to regulate private rights in public interest. If the doctrine of due process was imported into India, then the doctrine of police power might also have to be imported, and which would make things very complicated. The ruling thus meant that to deprive a person of his life or personal liberty- i) There must be a law
ii) It should lay down a procedure
iii) The executive should follow this procedure while depriving a person of his life or personal liberty. Criticism
Gopalan was characterized as the ‘high-water mark of legal positivism.’ Court’s approach was very static, mechanical, purely literal and was coloured by the positivist or imperative theory of law, which studies the law as it is. Article 21 was interpreted by the majority to mean that Art. 21 constituted a restriction only on the executive which could not act without law and that it was not applicable against legislative power, which could make any law to impose restraints on personal liberty, however arbitrary they may be.
GOPALAN TO MANEKA: 1950-1977
Gopalan held the field for almost three decades. It can be observed during this period from the court decisions that the two major points settled in the case [that is, firstly that Articles 19, 21 and 22 are mutually exclusive and independent of each other, and secondly that Article 19 was not to apply to a law affecting personal liberty to which Article 21 would apply] got diluted to a great extent until finally in Maneka Gandhi’s case this position was reversed. The decisions immediately proceeding Gopalan’s case were decided on the same basis.
For example, in Ram Singh v. Delhi5, where a person was detained under the Preventive Detention Act for making speeches prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, at a time when public order was not contained under Article 19(2), the Supreme Court refused to assess the validity of preventive detention under Article 22 with reference to Article 19(1)(a) read with Article 19(2) stating that even if a right under Art. 19(1)(a) was abridged, the validity of the preventive detention order could not be considered with reference to Art. 19(2) because of the Gopalan decision that legislation authorizing deprivation of personal liberty did not fall under Art. 19 and its validity was not to be judged by the criteria in Art. 19.
The beginning of the new trend can be found in RC Cooper v. Union of India6, where Article 31(2) which had been amended to dilute the protection to property, the Court established a link between Article 19(1)(f) (right to property) and Article 31(2). But the draconian Gopalan ruling found its way back and reached the lowest point in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla7, remembered as the black day in Indian Constitutional history.
In this case the political dissenters of the Indira Gandhi government were arrested and Shivkant Shukla contended that this was in violation of their right to life and personal liberty and so the writ of habeas corpus should be issued. Court held that during the period of emergency, a person could be detained and his right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 could be suspended, and such suspension could not be challenged and the writ of habeas corpus could not be issued during the emergency. This case showed that Article 21 could not play any role in providing any protection against any harsh law seeking to deprive a person of his life or liberty. It is the dissenting judgment of Fazl Ali J that was subsequently applied in the decision in Maneka Gandhi’s case and the cases after that, regarding the right to life and personal liberty. MANEKA GANDHI’S CASE
In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India8 and ever since, the Supreme Court has shown greater sensitivity to the protection of personal liberty. The court has reinterpreted Article 21 and overruled its Gopalan decision and which, in the words of MP Jain, can be regarded as a highly creative judicial pronouncement on the part of the Supreme Court. In this case, Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded by the Central Government under the Passport Act in the interest of the general public, as was provided under S. 103(c) of the Passport Act. This was challenged on the ground of being arbitrary to Article 21 and also because this was done without affording her a chance to be heard.
The Court observed that as the right to travel abroad falls under Article 21, principles of natural justice must be observed and the right of hearing should be given, even though not expressly provided for under the statute. Some of the main propositions laid down by the court in this case are as follows: 1. The court reiterated the proposition that Articles 14, 19 and 21 are inter-related and not mutually exclusive.
This means that a law prescribing a procedure to deprive a person of their personal liberty, should conform to the provisions under Article 19. Moreover, the procedure established by law under Article 21 must meet the requirements of Article 14. According to K. Iyer, J, no Article in the Constitution pertaining to a Fundamental Right is an island in itself. Just as a man is not dissectible into separate limbs, cardinal rights in an organic constitution have a synthesis. Here, the dissenting judgment of Justice Fazl Ali in Gopalan’s case was followed.
2. The court emphasized that the expression ‘personal liberty’ was of the widest amplitude covering a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of man. Some of these attributes have been raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection under
3. The most significant aspect of Maneka’s decision is the reinterpretation by the court of the expression ‘procedure established by law’ used in Article 21. It now means that the procedure must satisfy certain requisites in the sense of being fair and reasonable. The procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable. The reasonableness must be projected in the procedure contemplated by Article 21.
IMPACT OF MANEKA GANDHI’S DECISION
Article 21 which had lain dormant for nearly three decades was brought to life by the Maneka Gandhi decision. Since then Article 21 has been on its way to emerge as the Indian version of the American concept of due process. It has become the source of many substantive rights and procedural safeguards to the people. Some of the broad fields of this impact will be discussed as below: 1. Interpretation of the Word Life
In Francis Coralie9 the Supreme Court, following the principle laid down in Maneka Gandhi’s case, has interpreted the meaning of life as has been interpreted by the US Supreme Court in Munn v. Illinois10, and held that the expression ‘life’ under Article 21 does not connote merely physical or animal existence but embraces something more.
As recently as 2006, the Supreme Court has observed that Article 21 embraces within its sweep not only physical existence but also the quality of life. These cases only reflect a part of the scope and ambit of the word ‘life’ under Article 21, which has been extended widely by the Supreme Court over the years proceeding Maneka. There have been a number of areas in which the Supreme Court has related some of the Directive Principles of State Policies to the word ‘life’ under Article 21 and made it enforceable as a fundamental right. A classic example of this is the large number of environment related cases filed by MC Mehta.
2. Personal Liberty
It does not mean merely the liberty of body, i.e., freedom from physical restraint or freedom from confinement within the bounds of a prison. The expression ‘personal liberty’ is not used in a narrow sense but as a compendious term to include within it all those variety of rights of a person which go to make personal liberty of a man.
To begin with, the expression ‘personal liberty’ in Art. 21 was interpreted so as to exclude the rights mentioned under Article 19. The view was expressed in Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh11 that while Art. 19(1) dealt with particular species of that freedom, ‘personal liberty’ in Art. 21 would take in the residue. This view was followed in Gopalan’s case as well. But the minority view expressed by Justice Subba Rao adopted a much wider concept of ‘personal liberty’. He differed from the majority view that Art. 21 excluded what was guaranteed by Art. 19. He pleaded for an overlapping approach of Arts. 21 and 19. In a recent judgment of 2009, Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration12, the Supreme Court asserted the strict boundaries of ‘personal liberty’ but that such liberty must also accommodate public interest. A woman’s right to make reproductive choice has been held to be a dimension of ‘personal liberty’ within the meaning of Art. 21.
Ordinarily, the word law in Article 21 denotes an enacted law, i.e., a law made by the Legislature. But in AK Roy v. Union of India13, the question was whether an ordinance in the context of National Security Ordinance, 1980, promulgated by the President to provide for preventive detention in certain cases and connected matters, a law? The petitioner argued that since this was made by an executive it was not law and could not, thus, deprive a person of their ‘personal liberty’. The Supreme Court held that an ordinance passed by an executive is well within the meaning of ‘law’ and must therefore, also be subject to Fundamental Rights, just like an Act of the Legislature.
After Maneka Gandhi, it is now established that the procedure for purposes of Art. 21 has to be reasonable, fair and just. The Supreme Court has reasserted in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab14 that the procedure contemplated by Art. 21 is that it must be ‘right, just and fair’ and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. In re The Special Courts Bill, 1978, the Special Courts Bill proposed that a special court would be constituted to try certain persons holding high political offices during the emergency of 1975-1977. The special Court was to be presided over by a sitting or retired Judge of a High Court, to be appointed by the Central Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of India.
The accused could appeal to the Supreme Court against the verdict of the special Court. For the procedure to be just, fair and reasonable, the Court suggested certain modifications: There should be a provision for transferring a case from one special court to another so as to avoid the possibility of a trial where a judge may be biased against the accused Only a sitting High Court Judge ought to be appointed, for the retired Judge would hold the office as a Judge of the special court during the pleasure of the government, and the “pleasure doctrine was subversive of judicial independence.” Instead of mere consultation, the Chief Justice’s concurrence should be there, which would inspire confidence not only of the accused but also of the entire community in the special Court. CRIMINAL JUSTICE AFTER MANEKA
In Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh15, the Supreme Court has observed that an arrest can cause incalculable harm to a person’s reputation and self-esteem. Arrest should be made not merely on suspicion but only after a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of the complaint and a reasonable belief to the person’s complicity and even as to the need to effect arrest. Speedy Trial
Speedy trial has not been mentioned as a fundamental right in the Constitution. Yet the Court has declared this as a fundamental right in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (I).16 In this case, the undertrials were in prison for a long period of time, awaiting their trials. Bhagwati, J. held that although, unlike the American Constitution speedy trial is not specifically enumerated as a fundamental right, it is implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21 as interpreted in Maneka Gandhi’s case.
This position was reiterated in Hussainara Khatoon(No. 2) and Hussainara Khatoon(No. 3). In a significant judgment in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. RS Nayak17, the Supreme Court has laid down guidelines for the speedy trial of an accused: i) Fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily. Right to speedy trial is the right of the accused. The fact that a speedy trial is also in public interest or that it serves the societal interest also, does not make it any-the-less the right of the accused. ii) Right to Speedy Trial flowing from Article 21 encompasses all the stages, namely the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial. That is how, this Court has understood this right and there is no reason to take a restricted view. iii)
The concerns underlying the Right to speedy trial from the point of view of the accused are: (a) the period of remand and pre-conviction detention should be as short as possible. In other words, the accused should not be subjected to unnecessary or unduly long incarceration prior to his conviction; (b) the worry, anxiety, expense and disturbance to his vocation and peace, resulting from an unduly prolonged investigation, inquiry or trial should be minimal; and (c) undue delay may well result in impairment of the ability of the accused to defend himself, whether on account of death, disappearance or non-availability of witnesses or otherwise. In Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi Administration18, it was held that the practice of keeping undertrials with convicts in jails offended the test of reasonableness in Art. 19 and fairness in Art. 21. Prison Administration
In Sunil Batra (I) v. Delhi Administration19, the important question before the court was whether solitary confinement imposed upon prisoners who were under sentence of death, was violative of Articles 14, 19, 20 and 21. It was held that under Sections 73 and 74 of the IPC, solitary confinement is a substantive punishment, which can be imposed by a court of law, and it cannot be left within the caprice of prison authorities. It further observed that if by imposing solitary confinement there is total deprivation of camaraderie amongst co-prisoners, comingling and talking and being talked to, it would offend Article 21 of the Constitution.
The liberty to move, mix mingle, talk, share company with co-prisoners if substantially curtailed, would be violative of Article 21 unless curtailment has the backing of law. Here we see the high regard that the Supreme Court gives to human life and personal liberty, notwithstanding a person’s jail sentence. In Prem Shankar
v. Delhi Administration20, the Supreme Court has held that handcuffing should be resorted to only when there is clear and present danger of escape. Even when in extreme cases, handcuffing is to be put on the prisoner, the escorting authority must record simultaneously the reasons for doing so, otherwise the procedure would be unfair and bad in law. This is implicit in Article 21 which insists upon fairness, reasonableness and justice in the procedure for deprivation of life and liberty. Legal Aid
In Hussainara21, the Supreme Court has observed that it is an essential ingredient of reasonable, fair and just procedure to a prisoner who is to seek his liberation through the court’s process that he should have legal services available to him. Providing free legal service to the poor and the needy is an essential element of any reasonable, fair and just procedure. In Suk Das22, the Court quashed the conviction of the appellant because the accused remained unrepresented by a lawyer and so the trial became vitiated on account of a fatal constitutional infirmity. The court held that free legal assistance at the cost of the State is a Fundamental Right of a person accused of an offence and this requirement is implicit in the requirement of a fair, just and reasonable procedure prescribed by Article 21. Public Interest Litigation
One of the most effective instruments evolved by the Supreme Court for attaining social justice is Public Interest Litigation (PIL). Any person with a sufficient interest and acting bona fide can file a PIL in the Supreme Court under Art. 32 or Art. 226. If there is a violation of any fundamental right or legal duties and there is legal injury to a person or a class of persons who are unable to approach the court by ignorance, poverty or by any disability, social or economic, any member of the public can make an application for an appropriate direction or order or writ before the High Court under Article 226 and before the Supreme Court under Article 32 for redressal. This was the gist of the principle laid down in SP Gupta v.
Union of India23, in which the Court has given considerable relaxation to the doctrine of locus standi. PILs have played an important role in the fields of prison reforms, gender justice, environment protection, child rights, education, wherein the court has constantly made an attempt to uphold the value of a dignified human life, which is not merely confined to access to food, shelter and clothing, but goes much beyond. For instance, in Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan24, an incident of rape was held to be violative of not only the right to gender equality under Art. 14, but also of the right to life under Article 21.
The Supreme Court has laid down specific guidelines as to what constitutes sexual harassment at workplace, placing the responsibility on the employer to ensure the safety of their employees, also making it mandatory for all public offices to have a Women’s Cell, where the women employees could take their grievances. These guidelines can also be found in the Criminal Law Amendment Act 2013. In MC Mehta v. Union of India25, the Supreme Court has developed the concept of absolute liability regarding the payment of compensation by an enterprise engaged in dangerous and hazardous activities. The Supreme Court has also exercised epistolary jurisdiction, wherein a letter has been treated as a petition before the court.
In Labourers Working on Salal Hydroelectric Project v. State of Jammu and Kashmir26, litigation was started on the basis of a letter addressed by the People’s Union for Democratic Rights to Mr. Justice D.A. Desai enclosing a copy of the news item which appeared in the issue of Indian Express pointing out that a large number of workmen working on the Salal Hydro Electric Project were denied the benefit of various labour laws and were subjected to exploitation by the contractors to whom different portions of the work were entrusted by the Central Government. In all of these cases, and a number of others, a reflection of Maneka’s decision can be found, wherein the Court has tried to uphold the sanctity of a dignified human life.
CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF MANEKA’S DECISION
The kind of wide interpretation that has been given to Article 21 post Maneka, has not been given to any other provision. Article 21 read with Articles 32 and 226, has become the most important weapon of judicial activism. By relating Directive Principles of State Policy with Fundamental Rights, court is granting remedies on an ever increasing scale. But it must be remembered that Directive Principles are non-justiciable in nature and cannot be enforced. Yet, the Supreme Court has gone to great lengths to enforce these by relating them to right to life. But balancing of conflicting interests is an important function of law. Function of law is
social engineering. This has to be performed by both, the Legislator as well as the Judiciary.
Justice Cardozo also says that the court can evolve a process for dealing with the social ills. Thus, where legislators fail to balance the interests, it is the Court which must do it. The court will be criticized for judicial over-reach, that is, for undertaking the power of the legislator and laying down a law, as it happened in Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan. But it must be realized that where the Legislators fail, the court has to step in. The gaps need to be filled. Thus, from the perspective of Roscoe Pound’s social engineering theory, which is very relevant in the present scenario, court’s actions cannot be termed as judicial overreach. CONCLUSION
Thus, the decision of the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi’s case became the basis of the court’s decisions in subsequent cases pertaining to not only Article 21 expressly, but wherever the court found a relation between life and another aspect of it. The Court developed a theory of ‘inter-relationship of rights’ to hold that governmental action which curtailed either of these rights should meet the designated threshold for restraints on all of them. In this manner, the Courts incorporated the guarantee of ‘substantive due process’ into the language of Article
21. This was followed by a series of decisions, where the conceptions of ‘life’ and ‘personal liberty’ were interpreted liberally to include rights which had not been expressly enumerated in Part III.27 The width of Article 21 will keep expanding as long as our Supreme Court upholds its title of the activist court, and intervenes dutifully to preserve the fundamental rights of the people. The Court has, thus, played the role of a social engineer, constantly making an effort to balance the conflicting interests of the state with those of the society and the individuals.
1. Indian Constitutional Law, M.P. Jain, Sixth Edition (2013). 2. Constitutional Law of India, J.N. Pandey, Forty Third Edition (2006).
Mahatma Gandhi: Influence, integrity, and Tide of Social change
Mahatma Gandhi- Influence, Integrity and Tide of Social Change The past has witnessed eminent men in the form of kings, political leaders and sages who made the world a better place to live. Only few were able to lead an entire nation and bring a significant change to millions. Many established power and authority and relied on the strength of armies. While, there was a man in India who explored the power of one; he raised consciousness without raising his voice.
Mahatma Gandhi, a political and spiritual leader who led the way of non-violence and truth did significant contribution to humanity and people of India. Gandhi’s ultimate leadership principles and struggle set India free from 200 years old British reign. Gandhi, with his impeccable influence and integrity, brought a positive change formulating a new India.
In South Africa, when Gandhi politely asked his followers to help him volunteer for the victims of pneumonic plague (in spite of knowing the risk of infection, by the contagious disease) they agreed and said, “We go where you go” (Barnabas & Clifford, 2012, p.
143, ¶ 4). With his credibility as notable humanitarian and leader, he influenced a group of Pathans to pledge for non-violence. He worked behind the scenes willingly, without the need for constant recognition or approval from others. In South Africa, he used to walk past the president Kryer’s house in Johannesburg. One day there was a guard change; the new guard pushed and kicked Gandhi into the street. One of his influential friends saw this and asked him to go to court. Gandhi felt no resentment for the under-estimation of his self by the guard. Instead, he had forgiven his abuser. Gandhi preached forgiveness and always had the consistency in his words and actions.
He practiced service-leadership and voluntary subordination. When Zulu rebellion took place, in South Africa, it injured many Zulus with no one to attend their injuries. Gandhi along with 23 of his volunteers nursed them back to health (Barnabas & Clifford, 2012). Unlike other leaders, who identified with the symbol of power, Gandhi identified with the symbol of service to humanity. He was people-centric and symbolized the people he served.
Gandhi had an ability to empower people and truly believed in staff-development. He tried to mound a new free Indian who could stand on his own, to fight for freedom. Eventually, he developed a self-help culture in shining India. Wherever Gandhi went, he remained available for his followers and built real genuine relationships. He willingly spent his time with workers and carried out clerical work of the Congress office. Heath, the chairman of Indian Conciliation Group, London in 1939 wrote about Gandhi, ”He is also the man of much physical work, very approachable, lovable and humorous” (Barnabas & Clifford, 2012, p. 140, ¶ 2).
With Qualities like integrity, people-centric, influence and self-discipline Gandhi brought out a positive change in people across the globe. Even though, Gandhi was the leader of the Indian National Congress on its formation, he did not seek after influential posts. Instead, when young leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru rose up he chose him his successor; even after independence he did not take any position in the government but remained humble as a servant to mankind. His deeds and fundamentals got him inscribed with golden words in the pages of history. The father of the Nation unheedingly ignited people with non-violence, truth and patriotism.
Barnabas, A., & Clifford, P. S. (2012). Mahatma gandhi- an indian model of
servant leadership. International journal of leadership studies, 7(2), 132-152. Retrieved from http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/ijls/new/vol7iss2/IJLS_Vol7Iss2_Barnabas_pp132-150.pdf
Book, N. (n.d.). Ncert book english flamingo class xii. Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/14329823/NCERT-Book-English-Flamingo-Class-XII
Court Verdict Published in Dailies: SC set aside Karnataka … (n.d.). Retrieved from http://courtverdict.blogspot.com/2011/05/sc-set-aside-karnataka-mlas.html
Palshikar, K. (2012). Charismatic leadership. Unpublished manuscript, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, Retrieved from http://www.unc.edu/~ketan/documents/Charismatic Leadership.pdf
Mahatma Gandhi Biography Speech
“An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”. This is a quote said by Mahatma Gandhi, an Indian revolutionary and religious leader who used his religious power for political and social reform and was the main force behind the second-largest nation in the world’s struggle for independence. Gandhi was born on October 2nd 1869 in Probandar, India. Him and his family lived in a self-sufficient residential community and only ate simple vegetarian food and undertook long fasts. He was the fourth child in the family and often had it the worse when it came to his education for his parents wanted him to follow in his father’s footsteps of becoming a lawyer.
He eventually became a lawyer and trained in law in London and was employed in South America during the revolution from British control in India. At the age of 15 he married his wife Kasturba and had 4 children named Hirlal, Manilal, Ramdas, and Devdas.
It was at this age that Mahatma first helped protest excessive land-tax and discrimination on the poorer people of India.
What made him different from other protesters was that he created the concept of Satyagraha which is a nonviolent way of protesting injustices. He also spent 20 years of his life in South Africa fighting discrimination. He is also majorly known for leading the Indians in the Dandi Salt March of 1930 challenging the British-imposed salt tax. For many of his nonviolent protest though, he and many of his followers were often imprisoned in both South Africa and India. But weirdly enough, even after getting arrested many times, he never reacted in any violent ways for his vision of a free India was based off religion and pluralism. He was often described by many Indians as “The Father of The Nation”.
On August 15th 1947, India attained independence after a great political and social struggle. Mahatma had achieved his goal but only enjoyed it for a short period of time. Mahatma Gandhi died on January 30th 1948, at the age of 78 in New Delhi after being assassinated by Nathuram Gadse. However, Mahatma’s legacy still continues for he inspired many movements for civil rights and freedom across the world. I decided to choose Mahatma Gandhi for my biography speech because he had a dramatic influence on the Indian Independence movement and achieved it in all nonviolent ways while never giving in to the evil that so many people do today.
One of India’s most important men in history was Mahatma Gandhi. In this interpretation I wish to discuss Mahatma Gandhi’s writing’s on India’s Independence. As discussed in “Indian Home Rule” written in 1909. Born Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi but known as Mahatma Gandhi lived from the year 1869 to the year 1948. He was the primary leader for India’s independence and one of the most successful users of civil disobedience in history. He was a spiritual and political leader in India, and he used his position and voice to make his country better.
Mahatma Gandhi believed in satyagraha or ” resistance through mass non-violent civil disobedience. Satyagraha remains one of the most potent philosophies in freedom struggles throughout the world today,” (bio.com) . Gandhi spent most of his life fighting for Indian Liberation from outside influences and he was assassinated trying to stop a Hindu-Muslim conflict by a Hindu fanatic on January 30, 1948. His death was unfortunate but he is remember by the world as one of the most successful spiritual leaders.
Gandhi’s most fundamental criticism of British rule in India lies in the fact modernization that has been incorporated into their society by the British has caused India to turn away from their founding principles and religion. Mahatma Gandhi mentions that his people “should set limit to worldly ambition..’ and ‘make religious ambition be illimitable,” (Strayer, p. 920). This thought reflected his belief that the British concern was merely worldly ambition and that was not what his country should have set their sights upon. In his work, Gandhi defines civilization in his country’s sense and the British’s definition of civilization both of which differed dramatically. Gandhi’s concept of civilization center around a simple lifestyle not dependent on modernization and industrial characteristics. He believed civilization was their past lifestyle before railroads and British imperialism where his people lived in huts and plowed their own land the same way as their previous fathers did. His definition of British civilization was highly diluted and biased when he lists their idea of what it is.
His definition of their civilization mentions “women who should be queens of households, wandering in the streets or slaving away in factories’, men being ‘enslaved by temptations of money and the luxuries that it buys’, and ‘that their business is not to teach religion” (Strayer, p. 920). He goes on to say that their civilization will eventually be self destroyed whereas India’s will just keep continuing. Gandhi reconciles with the idea of India as a single nation even though the obvious religion division between Hindus and Muslims because he is speaking merely on India versus outsiders, not in any way distinguishing India as having separate divisions within itself. Gandhi seeks a future where India is that of its native culture handed down to them. Not in anyway seeking the advice of outsiders, yet instead living as they did in the past and sticking instead to elevate others moral being. With Gandhi’s ideas, he probably met criticisms from India’s increasing nationalist politicians who did not want to go back to the old way of life and who loved the power they gained from the British.
Mahatma Gandhi said that the tendency of Western civilization is to propagate immorality. I think he says that because the history of Western Colonization is that of spreading their culture and way of life wherever they travel, and he feel that their culture is immoral and corrupted. I think it is impossible for colonialism to be moral because more times than not the outsiders were intruding upon the natives and causing a severe disruption to their lifestyles that probably resulted in their demise or downfall. The history of colonialism does not lend itself to being a moral topic.
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. (2014). The Biography.com website. Retrieved 04:39, Jul 27, 2014, from http://www.biography.com/people/mahatma-gandhi-9305898.
Mohandas K. Gandhi: The Story of My Experiments with Truth
“Truth is like a vast tree, which yields more and more fruit, the more you nurture it. The deeper the search in the mine of truth the richer the discovery of gems buried there, in the shape of openings for an ever greater variety of service” (Gandhi 191). Mohandas K. Gandhi was born on October 2, 1869, and ever since that day has dedicated his life to the search for truth. During this quest, he became a leader of the Indian Nationalist Movement against British rule and to this day remains a highly influential figure in political activism and social progress.
In his autobiography The Story of My Experiments with Truth, Gandhi shares stories of his triumphs and falls while trying to free India from British rule, all the while trying to stay true to his vows to his mother and to himself. The point that shows through brightly in Gandhi’s autobiography is that his values and morals about life coincide with his political philosophy.
Gandhi’s main view on business and politics is the strictness to truth. He explains this well when he states: Business, they say, is a very practical affair, and truth a matter of religion; and they argue that practical affairs are one thing, while religion is quite another.
Pure truth, they hold, is out of the question in business, one can speak it only so far as is suitable. I strongly contested the position in my speech and awakened the merchants to a sense of their duty, which was two-fold. Their responsibility to be truthful was all the greater in a foreign land, because the conduct of a few Indians was the measure of that of the millions of their fellow-countrymen” (109).
Gandhi’s devotion to truth begins as far back as his high school days. During a spelling examination Gandhi has trouble spelling the word “kettle”. Seeing this the teacher tries to prompt Gandhi with the point of his boot to copy his neighbors answer, with which Gandhi does not respond cooperatively and was the only one in the class to misspell the word. He explains, “I never could learn the art of ‘copying’”(4). His devotion to truth only is strengthened as he matures eventually he states that he is a, “Worshiper of Truth”(6) and that, “The passion for truth was innate in me”(9).
Gandhi shows an admiration for truth that runs deep in his blood. Most likely he obtained this ideology from the devotion his mother held within her. He explains of the impact of his mother while stating, “The outstanding impression my mother has left on my memory is that of saintliness. She was deeply religious. She would not think of taking her meals without her daily prayers”(2). Clearly Gandhi received his committed, religious mindset from his mother; the exception was that Gandhi’s religion was his search for ultimate truth. To begin his odyssey Gandhi travels to London for training to become a barrister.
The profession of barrister comes with the reputation of being filled with lies and trickery, which one might say disputes the purpose of Gandhi’s existence. However, Gandhi does not believe this is so explaining, “As a student I had heard that the lawyer’s profession was a liar’s profession. But this did not influence me, as I had no intention of earning either position or money by lying”(324). Gandhi’s pure heart could not be tainted by even the most corrupted of professions. After school he returned to India in 1891 and in 1893 accepted a job at an Indian law firm in Durban, South Africa.
Gandhi was appalled by the treatment of Indian immigrants there, and joined the struggle to obtain basic rights for them. Gandhi’s determination to honesty and truth combined with his uprising political stance granted him great respect in the political community. He realizes this when he states, “I also saw that my devotion to truth enhanced my reputation amongst the members of the profession, and in spite of the handicap of colour I was able in some cases to win even their affection”(328). Not only is he gaining enough prestige to win the cases he is doing it despite the nonwhite color of his skin.
The honor he earns in and out of the court room allows him to put up a valiant effort in his fight for Indian rights. His values in his political war are synonymous with the strict values he holds in his real life. One of the main aspects of his life is religion. To prove this he states, “It is that faith which sustains me”(335). Faith and religion holds a deep place in his heart and coincides with how he feels politics should be handled. He states, “I can say without the slightest hesitation, and yet in all humility, that those who say that religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion means”(454).
For instance, when Gandhi goes to experience the Bengal religion he is deeply troubled by the tradition of sacrificing a lamb and explains “To my mind the life of a lamb is no less precious that that of a human being. I hold that, the more helpless a creature, the more entitle it is to protection by man from the cruelty of man”(208). In Gandhi’s eyes it is not moral to kill any life including one that is less powerful than a human being. This religious view that he holds translates to how he deals with issues in society. Such as the terrible Zulu rebellion, a rebellion in South Africa against British rule.
Hearing of the rebellion Gandhi did not fight back or fight with the South Africans he simply set up an Ambulance Corps and helped the South African victims. Through out all of his life Gandhi never once harmed anyone to get his political point across, for that was not in his religion to do so. Just as religion affected the way he viewed politics, so did his diet. For a majority of his life Gandhi has been a vegetarian, which was all started by a vow that he promised to his mother in his young adult life. The main value that his strict diet has taught him is self restraint in the rest of his life.
He mentions this saying, “One should eat not in order to please the palate, but just to keep the body going”(287). When Gandhi gives up the pleasure one gets from eating he leaves it simply to the biological need of the task. He explains the difference between his life and of others when he states “The diet of a man of self-restraint must be different from that of a man of pleasure, just as their ways of life must be different” (292). He uses his value of self restraint to his political advantage when he makes his stance simply by being controlled and not reacting to the situation.
For example, while him and some of his followers are retrieving water from the well they are faced with great abuse and are told that they would pollute the water. To combat this, Gandhi uses great self restraint and simply tells everyone, “put up with the abuse and continue drawing water at any cost”, this works beautifully, later “when he saw that we did not return his abuse, the man became ashamed and ceased to bother us”(356). Gandhi’s use of self restraint and self control give him up the upper hand in any political fight and like this one, always almost end up in a victory for him in the end.
Both his self restraint and non violence values come in to play in Gandhi’s main political weapon, civil disobedience. Civil Disobedience involves making a stand and taking action against a social injustice, however, using complete peace and never once resorting to violence. Gandhi explains it best when he says, “A nation that wants to come into its own ought to know all the ways and means to freedom. Usually they include violence as the last remedy,[civil disobedience], on the other hand, is an absolutely non-violent weapon. ” (339).
An instance where this strategy is used is while the government is trying to force its Indian citizens to pay an unnecessary tax on their crops with no exceptions, even in a famine. Gandhi forms a pledge to be signed by all the affected citizens that simply states that they will not pay the taxes anymore. No violence is used and no emotional or physical pain comes in to play. While Gandhi does not share the consequences of the pledge in his autobiography the reader realizes the courage it takes to stand up to authority calmly and not defensively.
A more famous example where there was a beautiful demonstration of civil disobedience is the salt march that Gandhi led his followers on. When the citizens were being taxed excessively on salt, Gandhi leads them on a march to the sea to make their own salt in protest to the government’s taxes. Gandhi explains the powerful affect this has on the people when he states, “The people had for the moment lost all fear of punishment and yielded obedience to the power of love which their new friend exercised”(367).
Civil disobedience not only works magically to solve social problems it does it without causing harm to either party involved and causes a strong community atmosphere to develop, which works faster to solve difficult political issues. Civil disobedience is a contribution to today’s society that will never be forgotten and never taken for granted. Gandhi will forever leave an impact in every person’s heart. He used his extraordinary values and morals to free the Indian citizens from harsh British rule.
His politics never deterred from what he held deep in his heart. He answered the tough questions such as, ‘What if everything is pointing me to do something I do not believe in? ’ and ‘Where do you step aside from your values for the betterment of your community? ’. His answer to these questions are always follow your heart and follow what you believe is true. Gandhi dealt with extreme turmoil and through out every obstacle never stopped on his quest for the truth. While not every step there was smooth, it was a determined path none the less.
When Gandhi explains the symbol of a Court of Justice he states that it “is a pair of scales held evenly by an impartial and blind but sagacious woman. Fate has purposely made her blind, in order that she may not judge a person from his exterior but from his intrinsic worth”(127). This is comparable to Gandhi’s view on life and politics. He does not judge the people around him, he takes the situation for what it is, truly, and does what he believes in his heart is right. While Gandhi has had an incredible impact in politics forever his real lessons begin in finding ourselves, and the truth within ourselves.