Exclusive Look Inside Mahatma Gandhi's Private Ashram and His Personal Room

On the morning of the 6th of April 1930, Mahatma Gandhi made his way to this remote beach. It was the end of a grueling month-long march in the fight for independence. He knew that the police were waiting for him because what Gandhi intended to do next was illegal. He wanted to provoke India's British rulers with a simple but powerful statement, scooping up sea salt from the beach. But Indians were forbidden to collect salt without paying a tax. For Gandhi, that was little more than theft from the poor. This pilgrimage to the sea was a superb political gesture. It's no exaggeration to say that the eyes of the world were watching this beach. No one knew what to

expect. Would he be arrested or his followers attacked? As my journey continues, I uncover a different Gandhi from the saintly Hollywood version. anything but inevitable. In these crucial years, Gandhi had to endure British jails, insults from opponents and supporters, and years as a political irrelevance. He was almost a footnote in history. And I discover the radical philosophy that brought him fame is not as straightforward as it seems. Truth? Yeah. Non-violence or love? Gandhi is a pacifist, and yet his campaigns need violence to succeed. And he's an outspoken critic of those who die for his cause.

Gandhi came home to India in January 1915 as a stranger. He'd been away in South Africa for 22 years fighting for the rights of his fellow Indians. This London-trained lawyer was now fired by a belief that he had a god-given mission to change India. At the time, India was part of the British Empire. Gandhi wanted nothing less than home rule for his people. In South Africa, he developed an effective political tool, a form of nonviolent protest that he called Satyagraha. It means truth force. By 1914, Gandhi felt that Satyagraha could bring about change in India.

Gandhi realized that he was out of touch with his homeland, so he decided to spend a year traveling in an unknown world. Then as now, the train was the best way to see India. Gandhi decided that he and his wife Kasturba would travel in third class. What they found shocked them. The carriages were overcrowded, the food was covered in flies, the lavatories were horrifying, and the tea was undrinkable. And it wasn't just the trains. As he crisscrossed the country, Gandhi saw the rural poverty, what he believed to be fake Hindu practices, and the corrupting influence of Western ideas. Clearly, there would be plenty to occupy him here.

What Gandhi saw on his travels convinced him that India needed social, but also profound spiritual change. It had to earn home rule by becoming a more morally pure nation. It was a vision he hoped would be shared by India's politicians, who knew the country better than he did. But his ideas weren't met with much enthusiasm. Soon after Gandhi arrived back in India, a number of receptions were laid on for him by leading political figures. Gandhi spoke about his beliefs and his aims, but he was no orator, and his audience, dressed mostly in European clothes, were

rather embarrassed by this unimpressive hero from South Africa in traditional Gujarati clothes. But Gandhi had a plan to create a spiritual base to transform society, a plan that didn't need the snooty political elite. It was the start of a long, turbulent journey. There would be notable triumphs, but surprising setbacks, too. Gandhi could be in the thick of it one moment, leading the struggle for an India free from colonial rule, and isolated the next, languishing in the political wilderness. It's a miracle that he kept on fighting at all. Gandhi's quest to shake off the British Raj began in his home state of Gujarat.

He decided to found an ashram or religious community that would be at the heart of his political work and an inspiration for Indian society. But he had few followers and not much money. This wasn't to be a community set in a rural idyll. Gandhi chose a location here in Ahmedabad, one of India's most industrialized cities. Its many textile mills had given it the nickname the Manchester of India. The ashram was built on waste ground on the banks of a river just outside Ahmedabad and soon grew into an organized community of about 300 people.

Gandhi wanted it to return to the virtues of simple village life, especially the spinning and weaving of cloth that he believed could make Indians self-sufficient. Today, the ashram is a museum paying tribute to its remarkable founder. I don't know when I came here first because I must have been about a month old when I've brought back to the ashram Narayan Desai. He grew up here in the 1920s with Gandhi as a friend and inspiration. Narayan's father, Mahadev Desai, was Gandhi's secretary and trusted adviser for over 25 years.

Today, Narayan is one of the few remaining people who can claim to have known Mahatma Gandhi. While a pupil at the ashram school, he had his own views on Gandhi's philosophies. My teacher very often came from behind and just caught hold of my ear and dragged me like that. That gave me an opportunity to write a letter to Gandhi saying, "Well, this is what is happening in your ashram. You talk about non-violence." So, you think Gandhi told her, "No more pulling children's ears." Gandhi might have pulled her. Pulled her ear. Maybe not literally.

No, no. I'll follow you. Even before the ashram opened, Gandhi had drawn up rules for the community to follow. They're fascinating, encapsulating the philosophy that would guide him for the rest of his life. Truth. Yeah. Non-violence or love, chastity, not stealing, non-possession or poverty. So, you should give up your worldly goods. Fearlessness. One cannot follow truth or love so long as one is subject to fear. So, it was really important for him that people should not be afraid of anything.

Yeah. That was the revolutionary part of it, you see. At the heart of the ashram, and opened especially for us, is Gandhi's room, a place full of memories for Narayan. So, this is where he used to sit. drawing room as well as his study. Do you remember him sitting here? I could more remember my father sitting over there, taking dictations, sometimes showing him the uh papers, etc. How do you feel when you're in this room? I feel as if I come back to my old house. Yeah, because this is something like my own place.

He was 56 years older than me. But, there was no distinction of age between him and me. he entered your heart with his book. Looking at the spot where Gandhi used to sit and receive so many of his guests, listening to Narayan who essentially grew up at his feet, it's all brought alive the story of Gandhi in a way I didn't expect. For the first time, I feel I have a better sense of his full personality, of this human being who managed to attract so many people to his cause.

The ashram was soon a place of pilgrimage. People came here believing that just a glimpse of Gandhi would give them a spiritual blessing. He began to be called Mahatma, great soul. The ashram worked well as a base from which Gandhi organized politically unfashionable campaigns supporting peasant farmers and striking textile workers. Gradually his reputation grew as a champion of the poor. And events were unfolding back in London that would transform Gandhi's fortunes. In the summer of 1918, the British judge Sir Sydney Rowlatt released a report into the danger of Indian seditious

behavior. He recommended that highly unpopular wartime legislation designed to curb unrest should be extended into peacetime. Gandhi was furious, denouncing it as a harsh betrayal of India's support for the war. It made him more determined than ever to be free from colonial rule. He prepared for what he called the greatest battle of my life. When Gandhi heard that the Viceroy had approved and signed the Rowlatt Act, he moved decisively while other politicians dithered. Until now, he had been engaged

in regional campaigns. This was a single issue on which he could launch a nationwide nonviolent movement deliberately opposing British authority in India. It was the start of a 28-year struggle. The leaders of the country's largest political organization, the Indian National Congress, were lukewarm towards Gandhi and his political tactics. They warned him that the protest would get violent. But Gandhi trusted the Indian people to grasp the religious dimension to Satyagraha. That they had to be pure in their motives and even full of love for their oppressor. With Congress unwilling to support any act of disobedience, Gandhi assembled his own team to coordinate

opposition to the Rowlatt Act. In March 1919, Gandhi called for a nationwide hartal, a day of protest. All shops, offices, and businesses were asked to close. He wrote to the Viceroy saying the protest would show that physical force was nothing compared to moral force, and moral force never fails. It was a bold statement, but after the earlier setbacks, the protest would be the first real test of Gandhi's leadership and support. On the streets of Delhi, I met up with Professor Mridula Mukherjee, who has studied the campaign of 1919. I wanted to know just how successful it was. Remarkably so, almost beyond everybody's expectations.

It was the first nationwide political protest in Indian history. In many cities, there were meetings of over 100,000 people. So, while normal activity came to a standstill, it was not that the streets were deserted. People were out on the streets, but they were in political protest. From Gandhi's perspective, was the hartal successful? I think immensely so, because the notion that people all over India could get together with minimal organization around a moral issue and protest, this was the answer he needed for his subsequent movements.

The protest may have been successful in terms of turnout, but to remain true to Satyagraha, Gandhi also needed it to be peaceful. Only then would it compel the British to repeal the Rowlatt legislation. But the dynamic of the protest soon changed. It turned violent. The disturbances had contradicted the spirit of Satyagraha. But far from undermining Gandhi, they would propel him into the center of Indian politics.

The violence began here at the main railway station in Delhi. A large crowd supporting the protest arrived to persuade the sweet vendors on the platforms to close their stalls. The police moved in, arresting some of the demonstrators, and the crowd responded by throwing bricks. The police then opened fire, and five people were killed. The violence shocked Gandhi. But the situation was even worse outside Delhi. I'm on my way to the Punjab, the scene of the most violent disturbances following the day of protest.

Gandhi attempted to make this same journey to calm the situation there. But his train was stopped by the British authorities, and he was forcibly removed. He tried to convince them that he was traveling to stop unrest, not start it. Had he got through and succeeded in halting the violence, the course of Indian history might have been very different. At the heart of the Punjab is the city of Amritsar, home to the Golden Temple, the holiest of all Sikh shrines. The protest in Amritsar got out of hand. Mobs ran through the city.

They headed for the banks here in the main street. One British bank manager tried to defend himself with his revolver, but he was murdered by the crowd. Two others were dragged out into the street and killed. The British response was swift. Martial law was declared, and a general named Reginald Dyer was given control of the city. General Dyer arrived at Amritsar convinced that he had to suppress a rebellion. On the morning of the 13th of April, he issued a proclamation banning all processions and meetings. But there were many areas where Dyer didn't venture, so most people simply didn't know about the ban. That afternoon, Dyer heard that a demonstration was taking place at Jallianwala Bagh, a park in the center of the city.

He headed there with 50 Indian troops. Access to the open ground in front was through just a few of these narrow alleys. General Dyer and his men would have walked down here. They would have left their armored cars back at the entrance where there was space for them. And as they came to the end of the alley, they would immediately have seen the crowd gathered in front of them. There was a demonstration in the park against the Rowlatt Act. But there were also many families enjoying a religious holiday.

Dyer's troops lined up in front of about 20,000 people. Without any warning, he gave the order to shoot. His men fired on where the crowd was thickest, and again at those who were trying to flee to make their way to the few exits. There was a desperate crush of thousands of people at these exit points, and you can still see the bullet holes. The firing lasted for about 10 minutes. The noise of the guns and the screaming was so loud that Dyer had trouble making his ceasefire order heard. One of the few structures here at the time was a well, which has now been completely covered over and turned into a memorial.

In their desperation, people headed for it, but many drowned inside, and others were suffocated under the weight of the bodies. About 400 had been killed, and 1,300 people wounded. Dyer and his troops left the city without helping the casualties. He said he didn't want to jeopardize what he called his victory. It didn't seem possible that Dyer could humiliate Indians any further, but he had a point to prove. On the day the bank managers were killed, a British school teacher called Miss Sherwood had been attacked here and left for dead until she was rescued by

the father of one of her Indian pupils. Dyer ordered that anyone walking down this street who passed what he called the sacred spot where Miss Sherwood was assaulted would have to crawl on all fours. His soldiers took it a step further and forced people to crawl on their stomachs. Everyone had to crawl, even those who lived in this street, even those who had rescued Miss Sherwood. Although Dyer was eventually made to leave the army, Indian anger was inflamed yet further when 26,000 pounds was raised for him, a retirement present from a grateful British public. And the Rowlatt Act remained law, another reminder of Britain's treachery.

This year is the 90th anniversary of the massacre, and amazingly, I've been given the name of a survivor of Jallianwala Bagh who's returned from his home in Australia specially to mark the event. I'm Michelle. Hello, nice to meet Bapu Singh was a little boy of four when Dyer arrived to crush his imagined mutiny. The massacre transformed his family's politics and their hopes for India. When they started firing, people were running helter-skelter and I was crying and my grandfather took me in his arms and he they ran and but we were lucky actually to escape all that holocaust.

How do you feel when you reflect on the events of that day? How do I feel? Well, I've got such a dramatic effect that I'm just shaken by those feelings and by recollections. My family take some part in the freedom movement. We felt that so many people have sacrificed their lives on that day, we were sure that their sacrifices would be fruitful one day. The massacre was a turning point for the country. Gandhi's radical philosophy now seemed to make sense. In just four years, he'd traveled from the margins of Indian politics to its very center.

Even moderates now agreed with his plans for total non-cooperation with the British. The most notable converts were Motilal Nehru, a leading figure in Congress politics, and his Harrow-educated son, Jawaharlal, who would become India's first Prime Minister. Historians who've written on the events of 90 years ago have been struck by the complex nature of Gandhi's philosophy of non-violence. This non-violent campaigner had won power and influence thanks to the brutality of the British. Violence seemed to give Satyagraha the moral high ground. And that wasn't the only paradox of Gandhi's pacifism. In an extraordinary speech, he declared

that those who died at Jallianwala Bagh were neither martyrs nor heroes. Because instead of showing any defiance to General Dyer, they ran away. This goes to the heart of Gandhi's concept of non-violence. For him, Satyagraha was an act of bravery, not meekness. That's why he invented the word because its meaning, truth force, was stronger and more powerful than passive resistance. The speech was typical Gandhi idealism, straight out of the ashram. But it failed to acknowledge the harsh reality of Amritsar.

The defenseless people in the park that day probably didn't have a clue about Satyagraha. They were just running for their lives. With increased support in both Congress and country, in 1920, Gandhi launched a new campaign of non-violence. This time aimed at securing not home rule, but full independence from Britain. He promised a fight to the finish. But of course, freedom was still 27 years away. In reality, his so-called fight to the finish would collapse. And it would consign Gandhi to the political wilderness. This time, for nearly a decade. And yet, the campaign had all started so well. Leading the Satyagraha, Gandhi showed amazing stamina for a man in his 50s. For almost a year, he worked tirelessly, traveling the country in his usual

third-class railway carriages, writing articles, speaking at meetings, appealing to Indian lawyers and policemen to leave their jobs, to teachers to leave their government-run schools, and to peasants to stop paying taxes. From what I can gather from eyewitness reports and photographs taken at the time, Gandhi's public meetings were fairly simple. He had no microphones at this point, so few people could actually hear what he said. One American journalist said that his voice was rather thin, and that there were no elaborate hand gestures. But such was his charisma and the respect for what he'd achieved that people were content simply to see him and be blessed.

The response to the Satyagraha was heartening. The jails soon began to fill with workers and peasants prepared to break the law for the nationalist cause. There were even stories of people who were not arrested freely climbing into prison vans. The momentum was with Gandhi. His aim of independence for India suddenly seemed achievable, his tactics vindicated. But then, a single incident sent his political career into a tailspin. In February 1922 in a town called Chauri Chaura, a Satyagraha demonstration got out of control.

A crowd set upon and killed 22 Indian policemen. They were shouting, "Victory to Mahatma Gandhi." Understandably, he was appalled. Instead of simply reining in the rioters, Gandhi suspended the entire nation-wide campaign. The decision dismayed many of his followers. But Gandhi said that the violence was a sin against God and that India was not ready for self-government. He admitted the decision was politically unwise, but insisted it was religiously sound. The means couldn't be divorced from the end. But many of Gandhi's supporters in Congress were unimpressed.

Jawaharlal Nehru was devastated. He wanted religion to be kept out of the independence campaign. [bell] But Gandhi's faith directed all his actions. Because he said his political ideas were derived from his religious beliefs, it meant he was free to make decisions according to his inner voice, which he said was from God. When you look at his political career, it means his decisions often appear erratic and inconsistent. But he didn't see consistency as a virtue for a seeker of truth. Is this a fair assessment? I met up with Tridip Sarod, one of India's leading Gandhi scholars, who's currently writing a major biography.

He believes that India's destiny was being shaped not just by Gandhi's public quest for independence, but also by his private search for God. This desire to see God face-to-face, to realize the truth that lies within him, is something which moves him. Uh and I think that movement begins in South Africa and continues throughout his life. How does Gandhi compare with other political leaders in Congress, for instance, at that time? No, I think uh Gandhi is very unique uh in the entire tradition of politics because he says a nation has to be a moral entity. Nation is not a political

entity. And that's why when people say he's the father of the nation, he's the father of the nation because he constitutes and creates and constructs this nation on moral principles. I can see how Gandhi thought that suspending the campaign in the aftermath of Chauri Chaura, and therefore sacrificing short-term political advantage, would pay off in the end. The moral virtue of his campaign could make it unstoppable. But at the time, it struck his supporters as the height of folly. And sure enough, within a month, Gandhi was under arrest, facing trial, and a long spell away from politics.

With Gandhi's support ebbing, the British had seized the initiative. On the evening of Friday, the 10th of March, 1922, Ahmedabad Superintendent of Police stopped his car a short distance from the Ashram and sent word that the Mahatma should consider himself under arrest and come out as soon as he was ready. As he would have wished, there were no riots or demonstrations by his supporters. In fact, the Viceroy, Lord Reading, would say with satisfaction, "Not even a dog barked." He wasn't alone in thinking that Gandhi's political career was finished. He was charged with writing seditious articles against His Majesty's government.

Gandhi's trial was to take place here in Ahmedabad just a week after his arrest. The judge, Mr. Justice Broomfield, clearly believed that it wouldn't take very long. He had just two reminders on his calendar for that day, play golf and try Gandhi. Gandhi relished the prospect of a trial. He knew that he would go to prison and he used the courtroom as an opportunity to defend his actions and promote Satyagraha. Although Gandhi was out of the political spotlight, international interest grew in the holy man who'd stood up to the empire. Gandhi's growing international reputation masked a decline in influence at home.

Indian politics had moved on in the 1920s. Congress, now in moderate hands, favored working for change with the British rather than campaigning against them. I've come to realize that there was nothing inevitable or smooth about Gandhi's rise to power. Indeed, when he was finally released from prison, his views were unchanged. He was still convinced of the value of spinning and marching. But the British saw him as a spent force and Gandhi himself believed that he mightn't return to the political arena. In 1928, he said, "I have a scheme for the country's freedom, but my time may

never come." This marks a real low point in Gandhi's career. And it was in danger of plunging even lower. Gandhi's vision for a new India was out of touch with political reality because of another grave development. A growing rift between Hindus and Muslims. This would become the great fault line of Indian politics. It's also the moment when my grandparents' story becomes intertwined with Gandhi's. So, they had to go to I'm at one of Delhi's hidden treasures, the summer palace of the last Mughal emperor, with best-selling author William Dalrymple. My family are Muslims originally from this part of India, and their difficulty with Gandhi seems to have been that they didn't feel he represented them. Would

that have been a commonly held view for Muslims, do you think? I think it was very common, and I think it grew increasingly common as the 1920s progressed. Because exactly the sort of measures that Gandhi took to try and make Congress more Indian, all had, in the eyes of many Muslims, a specifically Hindu character. Many Muslims regarded him as sort of taking on the persona of a Hindu holy man. But he was a Hindu, he's entitled to adopt that persona as part of him. Yes, but Western lawyers dress is kind of is religiously neutral. As soon as he adopts the garb of a Hindu peasant, he immediately becomes something that Indian Muslims are not. So, the effect was to exclude Muslims from Congress or from the from the movement?

I think exclude is very complex. On one hand, he has Quranic recitations at his prayer meetings. He's got fasting and working for Hindu-Muslim unity. On the other hand, while he's all for Hindu-Muslim unity, he's not perhaps adequately sensitive to the fears of Indian Muslims. One of the leading Muslim politicians was Muhammad Ali Jinnah. The future founder of Pakistan was a London-trained lawyer like Gandhi and had joined the Indian National Congress as a strong believer in Hindu-Muslim unity. But William explained how that changed as Congress came under Gandhi's influence.

The ideologies that Gandhi adopts um appear to Jinnah to be dotty. Jinnah was thought of himself as an English gentleman. He liked nicely cut tweed suits. And a man who likes tweed suits is not a man who's automatically going to embrace Gandhi. As the 1920s progressed, Jinnah would in fact throw his energies behind the Muslim League, which was fighting to secure rights for its community. Jinnah once said Gandhi was in politics to promote a Hindu revival. But I think that Gandhi genuinely believed in the importance of Hindu-Muslim harmony, illustrated by his many fasts for unity and public readings of the Quran.

He simply failed to recognize how he was being perceived by India's Muslims. Talking to William also helped me understand my family's history. My overriding feeling was relief. The critical views of Gandhi I'd heard from them were not untypical. William helped me see why my grandparents would have been drawn towards a separate homeland. The Hindu overtones of the campaign must have made them nervous about what an independent India would be like. By leaving, they would be safeguarding their future. As the 1920s drew to a close and with Gandhi nearing 60, a betting man might well have given up on the Mahatma. In the wilderness for half a decade and seemingly out of touch with

the realities of Indian politics, Gandhi himself acknowledged that independence seemed a world away. Fortunately for him, the British once again showed a skill for crass political decisions. The result was that once again, India turned to the Mahatma for a miracle. In 1928, the British government announced that India's future was to be decided by a commission headed by the MP Sir John Simon, but it would be made up entirely of British parliamentarians. To the fury of Congress, Indians would not be allowed to shape their own destiny. They turned to Gandhi to organize a mass protest against British rule. He rose to the challenge with possibly the greatest political campaign of the 20th century.

It would impress not only Congress, but the whole world. All those who thought that Gandhi was a spent force were in for a surprise. His tactic was simple. He would walk 240 miles from the Ashram to the sea. There he would collect salt from a beach, boil it and purify it. This was how the Mahatma planned to dislodge the British from India. Gandhi's political allies took some convincing that this was the right issue. Even Nehru, now president of Congress, was unimpressed, unable to see what common salt had to do with a national struggle. But for Gandhi, it was clear the British tax on salt was immoral as it penalized the poor.

I asked Narayan Desai, who lived on the Ashram at the time, to take me on the salt march route. I want to find out what made this campaign so successful. Of course, Gandhi would not approve of the fact that we're traveling in a car. I have traveled in a car with Gandhi and he had never disapproved of it. As dawn broke on the morning of the 12th of March, Gandhi set off from the Ashram followed by 78 carefully selected marchers. A few days out from the Ashram, Gandhi passed close to this village. Narayan shows me a thriving project inspired by Gandhi's belief in self-sufficiency.

It proves that while his campaigns were sometimes derided as old-fashioned, history shows that his instincts were often spot on. I'm Michelle. Hello, very nice Ela Bhatt is known throughout India as the founder of SEWA, a trade union that's transformed the lives of thousands of women. The union owes its origins to Gandhi's 1917 campaign in support of striking textile workers, a campaign ignored by Congress. In this village, the skills of spinning and weaving have been revived to give the women regular employment.

So, this what they're actually producing is khadi, exactly what Gandhi taught campaigns to encourage people to wear. This is yeah, very much a khadi cloth. That's really beautiful. The reason that Gandhi was so concerned for the poor is the same reason that motivates Ela. I think poverty is unacceptable. It is man-made. It is not given by God. And it has to be removed. Because poverty is an ongoing violence. Uh it strips off the people from their dignity. So, I saw this as injustice. So, they're both wearing saris that they made themselves here. themselves.

On the very route of Gandhi's salt march of eight decades ago, his spirit can be found in villages like this. These women have the self-sufficiency and self-respect that he so wished for the whole of India. Gandhi was extraordinarily fit for a 61-year-old who ate little more than nuts and fruit. Obsessively punctual, he constantly consulted the pocket watch that hung from his waist, and he expected his marchers to be equally disciplined. We've been told of a location that has barely changed since the marchers stayed there 80 years ago. This is a school in the village of Borsad.

I'll just introduce you to Narayan Bhai. We're met by the school principal, who shows us around. In this classroom, the desks were removed so that Gandhi could spend the night here. But before he slept, he spoke to a crowd of over a thousand people from this balcony, declaring that to be loyal to the British Empire was a sin. He addressed the crowd here. So, the whole of Borsad came to hear him speak. It's a special moment to be able to stand here and imagine the excitement of that day when the Mahatma came to this small school.

The principal is Asnarayan to speak to one of her classes about his life with Gandhi. But, despite their school's history, his audience is rather shy and reluctant. Gandhi wasn't a politician. Bapu, or a Mahatma, he was our friend. What sort of friend? We all used to bathe in the Sabarmati River and splash water in his face. And he used to splash water in ours. That's the type of friends we were. As Narayan spoke, it was amazing to watch these girls become transfixed as he brought Gandhi to life. I could type, so I used to type his letters.

Have you heard of Hitler? Yes? Gandhi wrote a letter to Hitler saying, "If you wish, you can stop the fighting in the world." I typed that letter. When Bapu died, I was 24 years old. He once gave me a book and he had written in it, "The hopes I have for you, you must fulfill them." So, I've spent 60 years wondering what hopes Gandhi had for me. You've got another 60 years to think about what hopes Bapu has for you. As our day on the salt march ends, Narayan and I rest under a mango tree in the village of Vasna. The same tree that Gandhi himself rested under all those years ago.

Do you wish that you had been old enough to go on the salt march with Gandhi? Uh not today. At that time probably. Because I spent 10 years with him. Almost all 24 hours of the day. You didn't need to go on a salt march to be close to Gandhi. No, because all the time I was marching along with him. On the 5th of April, a month after leaving the Ashram, the marchers reached the outskirts of their destination, Dandi, a small village on the Gujarati coast. There were already scores of journalists waiting to see the final act of this remarkable drama.

Showing a very modern flair for the sound bite, Gandhi scribbled a note to them. I want world sympathy in this battle of right against might. And he showed an equally modern flair for the media gesture. The following morning, after bathing in the sea, Gandhi walked back to the beach. He scooped up some salt and showed it to the crowd. "With this," he said, "I'm shaking the foundations of the British Empire." The marchers then headed into the sea with pots and pans, boiled the water, and made their own illegal salt. That was provocation enough. But with the world press watching, Gandhi seized the advantage.

Gandhi decided that the nearby commercial salt works at Tarasana, still in use today, would be the target for a Satyagraha protest. He wrote to Lord Irwin saying that unless the salt tax was removed, he and his marchers would demand possession of the salt works. He had just finished the letter when he was arrested at midnight by 30 armed policemen. With Gandhi on his way to a Bombay jail, it was his wife Kasturba who blessed the marchers as they set off for Tarasana.

This time, there was no undefended beach. Waiting for them were 400 Indian policemen, some with rifles, all with steel-tipped sticks called lathis. Some journalists were already there, warned of what might happen next. One of the correspondents watching was an American journalist called Webb Miller. This is his account of what happened next. In complete silence, the Gandhi men drew up and halted a hundred yards from the stockade. Suddenly, at a word of command, scores of native police rushed upon the advancing marchers and rained blows on their heads with their steel-shod lathis.

Not one of the marchers even raised an arm to fend off the blows. They went down like tenpins. From where I stood, I heard the sickening whacks of the clubs on unprotected skulls. In two or three minutes, the ground was quilted with bodies. Although everyone knew that within a few minutes he would be beaten down, perhaps killed, I could detect no signs of wavering or fear. The police rushed out and methodically and mechanically beat down the second column. There was no fight, no struggle. The marchers simply walked forward until struck down.

Webb Miller counted two dead and 320 injured. His report was printed in a thousand newspapers around the world. For me, this bloody episode has helped clarify my thoughts about Gandhi and his non-violent campaigns. I wonder, was this act the bravery that Gandhi so admired and had been looking for in his own followers? The manliness that he thought was lacking in Amritsar? The fearlessness that he wanted from the ashram? Was this truth force in action? Certainly, the followers of Satyagraha here showed unbelievable courage. You would hope that their injuries weren't in vain. So, what was achieved by the salt march

and the violent confrontation at Dharasana? In the eyes of the world, Britain had suffered a severe blow to its moral authority, just as Gandhi had hoped it would. Within a year, Gandhi would be out of prison and embraced by adorning followers and invited by Lord Irwin to hold talks in the grandeur of Imperial Delhi. In a defiant touch, Gandhi took some illegal salt with him and used it in front of the Viceroy. But what they discussed was not as important as the symbolism of those talks. For 3 weeks, the former prisoner was treated as an equal by the Viceroy of India.

Gandhi's rise to power was far from straightforward. Yet he dominates the 1920s. It's the charisma and determination he shows on the salt march that propels him and India into the next decade. After the march, Nehru had congratulated Gandhi on the new India you've created by your magic touch. In 15 years, Gandhi had launched a mass movement from almost nothing and transformed Congress. But it was too early to talk of a new India. Gandhi and Nehru would now not only have to battle the British, but also those the Mahatma had alienated, notably Jinnah and the Muslim League. Jinnah, Nehru, and Gandhi, these three London-trained lawyers would fight for the destiny of India. The seeds of partition had been sown.

On the final stage of my journey, Gandhi takes his fight to the heart of the empire. And I discover how my family's lives were changed forever by Gandhi's greatest triumph and his greatest disappointment.