Raajeev Aggerwhil
By Raajeev Aggerwhil
When Mahatma Gandhi and Rabindranath Tagore first met in 1915, their friendship embodied the meeting of two towering minds who sought the soul of India in very different ways. Tagore, the poet and philosopher, enriched the world with his vision of universal humanism, while Gandhi, the leader of the masses and a reformer, forged a path of mass mobilization and direct action. Their exchanges reflected two contrasting yet complementary approaches: one seeking salvation in beauty and universality, the other in simplicity and discipline.
Their friendship was warm, though never without friction. Tagore bestowed upon Gandhi the title of Mahatma—great soul—while Gandhi reverently called him Gurudev, the revered teacher. One particular incident, often retold, captures the philosophical difference between the two great men. In the early morning at Santiniketan, Tagore’s beloved school, Gandhi, draped in his simple white khadi, waited on the veranda for his friend, Tagore, for their walk. Inside, Tagore was preparing for the meeting. He stood before a long mirror, his flowing beard brushed neatly, his elegant robe draped with care. To Tagore, appearance was not vanity; it was a reflection of beauty, dignity, and respect for the moment.
Gandhi grew impatient, slightly annoyed while Tagore kept combing his hair and taking his time preparing. When Tagore finally emerged in his flowing robe, Gandhi questioned him why he had taken so long to prepare. Gandhi gave his own example of simplicity and his plain dhoti and may have questioned Tagore’s motive and obsession about his own appearance. At that point, Tagore replied to Gandhi that he did not wish to give to this world anything that is not beautiful. In this gentle clash—simplicity against beauty, austerity against artistry—lay the essence of their relationship: not hostility, but respectful debate.
Gandhi and Tagore both believed in the universality of truth but had different perspectives. Gandhi believed in the simplicity of truth and its absoluteness. Tagore came from aesthetics, beauty and worldly appearance. They both were right in their own ways. However, their disagreements were less about putting each other down than but respecting and understanding each other’s point of view. That itself is a valuable lesson in today’s world, so fractured by polarization. Their example reminds us that that truth can be found not in terms of absoluteness but may vary from an individual’s perspectives and an honest exchange to understand that perspective is the right approach.
Unlike most leaders of his age, Gandhi conceived leadership not as power over others. He once said that he wished to be a “leader of zero.” Though the precise wording has been retold in many forms, the essence remains unmistakably Gandhian: true leadership requires annihilating one’s ego and putting the interests of the masses above oneself. To Gandhi, leadership was not about conquering the minds of the masses by force but about winning their hearts. By calling himself a leader of zero, Gandhi believed that greatness can never arise from domination but from humility. That humility stems from the ability to erase one’s own identity, where only the cause is of paramount importance.
This vision of leadership is especially urgent today. Across societies, leadership is too often equated with the accumulation of wealth and power. Gandhi reminds us that real strength lies in serving the cause. His model suggests that the most enduring leaders are not those who demand obedience, but those who inspire trust through selflessness. Such leadership resists the forces of arrogance and polarization.
It is leadership that listens, acknowledges error, and seeks consensus rather than conquest. In an era marked by deep divisions, Gandhi’s idea of being a “leader of zero” points us toward leaders who build unity by placing themselves last, not first.
If Gandhi is remembered most for one principle, it is nonviolence—ahimsa—which he called “the greatest force at the disposal of mankind.” Unlike many who treat peace as a temporary truce, Gandhi insisted that nonviolence must be a way of life, a discipline of the heart. His rejection of violence was not naïve idealism. Gandhi saw clearly that violence, even when committed for noble causes, yields only ephemeral results. In his words, “I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.”
For Gandhi, nonviolence was not weakness but courage. He believed, and often repeated, “Nonviolence is not a weapon of the weak. It is a weapon of the strongest and the bravest.” To refrain from striking back when provoked, to resist oppression without hatred requires not passivity but immense strength of will. It is easier to wield a sword than to bear an insult; easier to retaliate than to endure. Gandhi saw in nonviolence the highest form of heroism.
His words echo hauntingly in times of conflict and destruction: “What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?” By stripping away the banners under which wars are waged, Gandhi exposed the universal human cost.
Even in despair, he held to hope: “When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it—always.” These words remind us that force and violence do not work in the long term. Only truth and love endure.
The friendship between Tagore and Gandhi shows us the value of respectful debate in the pursuit of truth. Gandhi’s vision of leadership as humility challenges our notions of power. His philosophy of nonviolence offers a weapon stronger than any arsenal.
The ongoing wars in the world remind us of the terrible cost of aggression and the fragility of peace. Cities reduced to rubble, families torn apart, and millions displaced show that even in the name of security or pride, violence leaves scars far deeper than any temporary gain. Gandhi’s words echo across this landscape: “Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary.” His insistence that lasting peace can never be built on conquest but only on reconciliation offers a moral compass in a time when brute force is too often mistaken for strength. The challenge is to remember that true security does not come from domination but from the dignity we extend to one another.
Raajeev Aggerwhil is a Los Angeles-based comedian. Follow his latest work on Instagram, YouTube and TikTok @Mr.CheapGupta. He can be reached at raajeev24@gmail.com.
