RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW,

PATIALA, PUNJAB

POLITICAL SCIENCE PROJECT

Topic: European Imperialism
Subtopic: British Colonialism: Gandhi Movie Review

Submitted by: - Submitted to: -

Bhavleen Kaur Mr. Saurav Samrah
Roll No. 21178 Professor of Pol. Sc.,
Group no. 16 RGNUL
 BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE
This certificate is to declare that this project based upon “Gandhi: Movie Review”
is an original work of Bhavleen Kaur who is a Bonafide student of the Rajiv Gandhi
National University of Law, Punjab.
Signature
Bhavleen Kaur
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Saurav sir, our political science teacher, who enabled me to complete this project,
with his constant encouragement. His valuable help and guidance were instrumental
in the project and resolving all the doubts encountered during the making of this
project.
I am thankful to Dr. G.S. Bajpai, Vice-Chancellor, Rajiv Gandhi National University
for providing me with the opportunity of doing this project. The library staff which
aided me in my research for the project through the usage of the online databases
and journal collections available in the library.
Lastly, I would like to sincerely appreciate my parents and friends for their constant
encouragement and moral support to enable me to complete this project.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 5
Gandhi: Critical Synopsis................................................................................................................................ 5
Imperialism in the Movie Gandhi .................................................................................................................. 9
State of Imperialism in India ...................................................................................................................... 9
Codes of conduct of Britishers and Indians ............................................................................................. 11
Subversion of Imperialism ....................................................................................................................... 12
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................. 14
 1. Introduction
At the outset, I would like to begin this essay by making the meaning of the terms involved in the
topic clear in the context of this essay. The term Imperialism might be defined as "a type of
regime that promoted racial superiority and segregation of the whites in an effort to promote
their control of their colonies”. 1

Imperialism has helped several nations grow into enormous empires throughout history.
Imperialism happens when a powerful country or region takes control of or dominates an inferior
country or region. The Age of Imperialism encompasses the era from the 18th to the 20th
centuries.2 Britain, France, and Germany were the three most powerful European imperialist
countries at the time.

Colonialism is a special type of imperialism in which a colonizing power uses military,

economic, and political tactics to impose direct control over a colonized state. 3

The primary distinction between Imperialism and Colonialism is that colonialism occurs when
one country exercises complete physical authority over another, whereas imperialism occurs
when one country exercises formal or informal economic and political dominance over another.
In an essence, colonialism is the practice of dominance, while imperialism is the ideology that
underpins the activity.

2. Gandhi: Critical Synopsis

1
Mack, A. (1974). Theories of Imperialism: The European Perspective [Review of Unequal Exchange: A Study of the
Imperialism of Trade; The European Community: A Superpower in the Making; Studies in the Theory of Imperialism,
by A. Emmanuel, J. Galtung, R. Owen, & R. Sutcliffe]. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 18(3), 514–535.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/173484

2 "John Haywood, Atlas of world history (1997)".

3Margaret Kohn (29 August 2017). "Colonialism". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. Retrieved 25th april
2022.
Quite interestingly, the movie, like most dramatic biopics, begins at the end. In January of 1948,
in New Delhi, India, Mahatma Gandhi (played by Ben Kingsley), accompanied by both of his
daughters, is approached by a portentous stranger in a garden where many have gathered to see
the renowned man. Gandhi is assassinated in an instant for an unidentified as of yet reason.
Following that, there is a funeral, perhaps the grandest of its kind, at which it appears that the
entire country of India is present.

The film's commencement statement reveals director Richard Attenborough's admiration for
Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869-1948): "No man's life can be encompassed in one telling. There is
no way to give each year its allotted weight, to include each event, each person who helped to
shape a lifetime. What can be done is to be faithful in spirit to the record and try to find one's
way to the heart of the man."

This opening statement also demonstrated how portraying over 50 years of Mahatma Gandhi's
life in only one film – stretched over three hours, documenting Mahatma Gandhi's complete
journey as a prominent focus of the Indian independence struggle, from his origins as a civil
rights lawyer in 1890s South Africa to his assassination in 1948 – was an admittedly flawed
approach.4 It was evident that covering all aspects of such a remarkable man's life would be
difficult, and this was already stressed at the outset.

Nevertheless, the film moves its way via five decades of arrests and fasts; gatherings with Hindu
and Muslim Indian representatives; horrifying violent attacks on all ends; innovative strategies of
civil disobedience, such as the Salt March and the incinerating of English-made clothing;
negotiations and deliberations with British officials; and a lot of Gandhi's gentle, yet slashing,
and undisputable preaching against British rule and, later, religious intolerance.

The film also accomplishes addressing all significant events with purpose, but without
embellishment or considerable depth. The catastrophic Amritsar massacre, in which General
Dyer ordered his forces to fire on defenseless men, women, and children; the significance of salt
production; and the everlasting consequences of civil disobedience were all landmarks in India's

4 Ethics on film: Discussion of. Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs. (n.d.). Retrieved April 25, 2022,
from https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/ethics_onfilm/0016
fight for independence. All of these occurrences have tremendous power in themselves.
However, as previously stated, not everything could have been covered. Many major aspects,
such as martial law, censorship, women's rights, untouchables, martyrdom, and the aftermath of
Gandhi's death, are allowed to be relatively disregarded. Action-oriented ideas like riots tend to
get more media, but even the most visually stunning events can't compare to Gandhi's calmer
achievements. Perhaps his unagitated suffering and tolerance reverberate louder than any of the
raucous demonstrations.

Gandhi is indeed a flawed film—the middle section, with the aforesaid cycle of violence, arrest,
fasting, and negotiating, is mind-numbing in its repetition—but, in the end, you know and love
Bapu. Kingsley deserves the great majority of the credit in this case. He not only has an eerie
likeness to Gandhi, but he also portrays him with the manner you'd expect of someone who
fought the British Empire by fasting and manufacturing salt. He always has a sly grin and a
naughty glimmer in his eyes.

Continual suffering, incarceration, violence a befuddled administration in flux, the growth of his
fame, and ultimate positions of advantage for talks endure across decades as Gandhi's mission
fires the nation. Director Richard Attenborough succeeds in weaving a captivating tale (authored
by John Briley) of an admirable, relatable man first – and a national treasure second – despite
familial problems, complex politics, and many groups of incongruous demonstrators. Every
move appears to be intended to be as pure and virtuous as possible; he's imperfect (and only
human, as his wife constantly reminds him), but inexorably good. His character is unrivalled in
terms of brilliance and inspiration — a figure ripe for a big-screen translation.5

Gandhi rests by the Indian Ocean in his hometown of Porbandar in the middle of the film, talking
longingly about his youth with an American journalist Martin Sheen. He claims to have been
reared Hindu, although his temple's priest would also recite from the Quran. Gandhi was deeply
affected by this; at one point, he tells his supporters, "I am a Muslim, a Hindu, a Christian, and a
Jew, and so are all of you." As a result, it is particularly tragic when the Indian subcontinent is

5 Gandhi (1982) - movie review / film essay. Gone With The Twins. (2018, August 18). Retrieved April 25, 2022,
from https://gonewiththetwins.com/new/gandhi-1982/
partitioned along religious lines when the British depart in 1947. It's even more devastating when
the divide leads to a civil war-like situation.

Gandhi did everything in his power to keep the Indian subcontinent together. Before the
partition, when he saw a glimmer of hope, he even declared that Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the
Muslim pioneer and subsequent founder of Pakistan, should be Prime Minister, offending many
Hindus at the same time. To oppose the violence and brutality, he even pledged to "fast unto
death." The near-death of a national treasure eventually drove the Hindu and Muslim
demagogues to reconcile. However, the harm had already been done. Over 15 million people
were displaced, between 1 and 2 million people were killed, and 75,000 women were raped,
according to some estimates. 6 As a result, Gandhi's nonviolent approach to religious intolerance
ultimately failed.

Finally, India's long-awaited freedom introduced additional instability, as Hindus and Muslims
remain irreversibly divided, India and Pakistan gained independence, and Gandhi became a
national, then worldwide, treasure. He spent most of his time meditating on a modest loom,
weaving plain cotton garments, yet his simple yet powerful philosophy of human decency,
nonviolence, pacifism and self-determination continues to attract followers from all walks of life.

To conclude I would like to cite what Roger Ebert says in his review of Gandhi when it was
released in 1982, “What is important about this film is not that it serves as a history lesson
(although it does) but that, at a time when the threat of nuclear holocaust hangs ominously in the
air, it reminds us that we are, after all, human, and thus capable of the most extraordinary and
wonderful achievements, simply through the use of our imagination, our will, and our sense of
right.”7

6 Dalrymple, W., Mishra, P., & Coll, S. (2015, June 22). The mutual genocide of Indian partition. The New Yorker.
Retrieved April 29, 2022, from https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/06/29/the-great-divide-books-
dalrymple

7 Ebert, R. (n.d.). Gandhi Movie Review & Film Summary (1982): Roger Ebert. movie review & film summary (1982)
| Roger Ebert. Retrieved April 25, 2022, from https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/gandhi-1982
 3. Imperialism in the Movie Gandhi
While the Gandhi film celebrates the "Mahatma's" life and philosophy, it is set against the
subjugation of Indians under British imperialism. As a result, this film may be used to learn
about the strategies used by the British Empire to impose authority, as well as the ways used by
the people of India to reject such force via nonviolence under the leadership of Mr. Gandhi. This
part of the essay will be focusing on this backdrop.

British colonialism is, without a doubt, an important part of modern history. The British
Empire's myriad of actions of domination and/or discrimination, and therefore the oppression of
Indians supplied the essential munitions for the Indian people to wage a protracted war for
independence from the mid-nineteenth to the mid-twentieth centuries in India. Violence was
occasionally used in the conflict, which resulted in the adoption of tougher policies, which led to
more oppression.

Mr. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (the "Mahatma"), the man recognized by most scholars as
the major architect of the Indian fight for independence, presented a fresh strategy to the fight
during the final phases of the campaign for independence. The "Mahatma" offered a new strategy
that urged for the adoption of the "Satyagraha" (nonviolence) ideology. Never before in the
history of the Indian struggle for independence has nonviolence been utilized to combat
imperialism elsewhere in the world.

In this section of the essay, I will touch upon three essential elements: the first part will discuss
the state of imperialism in India during the early twentieth century; the second section will
discuss the standards of conduct demonstrated both by British imperial powers and the Indian
people during this timeframe as depicted in the film; and the third section will discuss how the
film depicted imperialism subversion.

A. State of Imperialism in India

The state of British Imperialism in India is depicted in various scenes throughout the film.
Mahatma Gandhi was presented in the opening of the film somebody who wanted to be loyal to
the British but just desired that everyone would be treated fairly under the British Empire. Even
his actions in South Africa were aimed at improving the British's treatment of the country rather
than achieving full independence. Only after the gruesome episode of the Jallianwala Bagh
massacre did the director depict Gandhi's resolution to fight the British and force them to depart
from India. Attenborough shows how imperialistic rule affected the transition of a social activist
into a freedom warrior. This transition, presented in the film shortly after the Amritsar tragedy is
depicted as follows:

“Brigadier: You don’t think we’re just going to walk out of India!

Gandhi: Yes. In the end you will walk out. Because 100,000 Englishmen simply cannot control
350 million Indians, if those Indians refuse to cooperate” 8

The film illustrated the gradual fall of British strength in terms of preserving their rule in colonial
India, as it was only at this time that Mr. Gandhi's Congress party began its struggle for
independence. The director demonstrates how the British Empire became desperate in its tactics
by demonstrating their proclivity to imprison thousands of nonviolent, peaceful liberation
fighters. Even when Mr. Gandhi was asked to discuss the potential of Indian independence, it
was done in a way that recommended handing over power to the elites and establishing an
authoritarian system comparable to that of the British. Throughout the film, the director portrays
British imperialism as repressive and focused at draining India's resources until they were
depleted.

Another powerful point delivered by Attenborough in connection to imperialism was how

nonviolence was a resounding success that brought the British rule to a stop. As previously
established, nonviolence was a Gandhian movement in which Indians would parade in protest
but would not lift a finger against British forces, would suffer imprisonment and bashings, and
would remain constant in civil disobedience. This sort of campaign produced difficulties for the
British, and Britain's transgressions were exposed thanks to Mr. Gandhi's excellent use of the
press both within India and throughout the world. The movie depicted the employment of the
press as an efficient technique for exposing the British because the only casualties were on the
Indian side and none on the British. The film depicts Gandhi as an international symbol as a
result of this, during a time when the British were perceived as an invader, dictator, and unjust

8 Attenborough, R. (Director). (1982). Gandhi 1982 [Motion Picture]

force. This compelled the British to handle Mr. Gandhi with caution, even while punishing him
for nonviolent protests.

B. Codes of conduct of Britishers and Indians

Both the British and the Indians adhered to a number of norms of behavior as can be inferred
from the film. speaking for the Britishers, they practiced segregating Europeans and others, as
well as a program of divide and conquer, in which they backed the minority group, which in
India was the Muslim population. The majority of Indians and whites in Britain were separated
by a variety of regulations. For the whites, India was a settlement colony. Indian peasants were
frequently pushed to plant cash crops in order to benefit Britain in terms of commerce,
impoverishing the crops and communities until they had nothing to offer back. this became
evident when Gandhi is summoned to Champaran township in the film, where the residents are
compelled to plant indigo, a cash crop that is damaging to the town's survival.

Segregation rules were frequently expressed in numerous ways – an Indian could not walk on the
same sidewalk as a white person, an Indian could not afford to buy and sit in a first-class seat, as
Gandhi was driven out of South Africa, and they did not have the right to own land. Except for a
limited few, the elites, several rules prevented Indians from achieving a higher social rank
despite their education. The usage of disparaging words like "coolie" and "Sami" indicated the
act of segregation and supremacy. The divide and rule strategy adopted by the British to separate
Hindus and Muslims was the second factor.

Indians, on the other hand, had their own system of discrimination, including the untouchables
and women, which was also prevalent in the society. In India, the untouchables, also known as
Dalits, were frequently discriminated against and assigned menial occupations such as cleaning
toilets. The phrase "untouchables" refers to the idea that persons in this social class must not be
touched by those who are socially superior. This is beautifully represented in a scene in which
Gandhi has an argument with his wife Ba, who declines to clean the bathroom because it is an
untouchables' task.

“Kasturba: Sora was sent to me to tell me I must rake and cover the latrine
Gandhi: Everyone takes his turn, Kasturba: It is the work of untouchables! Gandhi: In this place,
no work is beneath us”9

Gandhi was a strong supporter of women's rights and the abolition of "sati," however this is not
overemphasized in the film. Women were seen as men's possessions, and children were
frequently wedded at a young age. Mr. Gandhi pushed for education for women, the abolition of
child marriage, and the abolition of slavery.

There was also a significant separation between the rich and the poor, which the film vividly
depicted. The scenario in which Gandhi is presented to the Congress party takes place at a
luxurious reception where the state's issues are discussed in exquisite teacups and western attire.
Gandhi had witnessed the poverty and scarcity that existed in the majority of India as he
travelled the highways in that same scenario exhibiting beautiful irony in the contrast. There
existed a prominent wealth gap between the wealthy and the poor. The wealthy were subsidized
by the British and permitted to retain their position in exchange for British control, while the
poor struggled to exist and were reliant on the British for resources. In this moment, one of the
independence fighters, Gokule, implored Gandhi to visit the countryside and see the real India.
The disparity between the rich and the poor was prevalent under empire, and those who were
educated, rather than the poor whose sole concern was survival, nurtured ideas of independence.

C. Subversion of Imperialism
The movie Gandhi employed civil disobedience, non-cooperation, and a self-sufficient economy
to undermine imperialism's ideology. Gandhi was portrayed as an ideal young fellow who defied
British control in South Africa and used peaceful methods to promote his civil disobedience. The
British have the military and technological means to put down any Indian rebellions. However,
by declining to use violence and cooperating with the British, they not only rendered their army
ineffectual, but their reputation as a noble conqueror or the "white man's burden" was tarnished
across the world.

Gandhi utilized American media to preach the message of non-cooperation through non-violence
to depict the Indian battle against British oppression, forcing the British to make adjustments and
eventually leave India. “Whatever moral ascendency the West once held was lost here today.

9 id
India is free, for she has taken all that steel and cruelty can give and she has neither cringed nor
retreated”10

By trading things that people would wear, the British were able to keep the economy under
control and prevent domestic goods from proliferating. Gandhi used the self-sufficiency strategy
to encourage Indians to not only make their own cloth, but also to burn all British imported
goods, thereby making India self-sufficient. “They may torture my body, break my bones, even
kill me, then they will have my dead body. Not my obedience”11

The film Gandhi depicted the end of British empire. It depicted the era as one of a domineering
and authoritarian dictatorship that was losing influence in the wake of nonviolent civil resistance.
While India grappled with its own difficulties of class and religion, the British often utilized
severe prejudiced techniques of segregation to assert their dominance. While the British were
successful in bridging the Hindu-Muslim split, imperialism lost influence as Gandhi utilized the
British army, image, and economics against them.

10 id
11 id
Bibliography
1. Attenborough, R. (Director). (1982). Gandhi 1982 [Motion Picture].

2. Ebert, R. (n.d.). Gandhi Movie Review & Film Summary (1982): Roger Ebert. movie
review & film summary (1982) | Roger Ebert. Retrieved April 25, 2022, from
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/gandhi-1982
3. Mack, A. (1974). Theories of Imperialism: The European Perspective [Review of
Unequal Exchange: A Study of the Imperialism of Trade; The European Community: A
Superpower in the Making; Studies in the Theory of Imperialism, by A. Emmanuel, J.
Galtung, R. Owen, & R. Sutcliffe]. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 18(3), 514–535.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/173484

4. Margaret Kohn (29 August 2017). "Colonialism". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Stanford University. Retrieved 25th april 2022.
5. Ethics on film: Discussion of. Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs. (n.d.).
Retrieved April 25, 2022, from
https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/ethics_onfilm/0016
6. Gandhi (1982) - movie review / film essay. Gone With The Twins. (2018, August 18).
Retrieved April 25, 2022, from https://gonewiththetwins.com/new/gandhi-1982/
7. Dalrymple, W., Mishra, P., & Coll, S. (2015, June 22). The mutual genocide of Indian
partition. The New Yorker. Retrieved April 29, 2022, from
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/06/29/the-great-divide-books-dalrymple