Gandhi lost to British empire

Recently I was watching a documentary on Mahatma Gandhi that reminded me of his becoming Mahatma from a ordinary London educated barrister. He was a sincere and obedient subject of the British empire until 1906 when a draft law, Asiatic Law Amendment, fumed him. He could not bear the insult this new law was going to do to the people, of Asian origin, of British empire. He, as a lawyer, wanted equal rights for everyone and saw this law as a discrimination of people based on their origin. Amendment made this mandatory for every Asian living in Traansval region of South Africa to go to the office of registrar and get a identity card that would carry his (it was for male only) fingerprints. At that time only criminals were supposed to give their fingerprints to the authorities. Gandhi thought that this law would equate all the Asian people in that region to the criminals. It was a insult to him.

This was the single event that forced him to become political and he developed his fighting tool, Satyagraha (it loosely means, a resistance using truth and non-violence. Though Gandhi objected English translation of the word as "Civil disobedience or "Civil resistance". What Gandhi meant by this word was more moral power to resist the might and it is difficult to have English word for this.). He convinced thousands of Asians, mainly Indians, not to register. He started marching in Johannesburg against this law and he went to jail for this cause. This law was repealed, again applied and again repealed. Overall Gandhi won his first fight against the British empire. People resisted and, finally, they could live there without carrying fingerprints in pocket.

But the situation has changed in last 100 years. All the people coming to UK (and USA and some other countries as well but Gandhi fought against British empire so I would use UK that still, though only a fraction, represent British empire.) have to give their finger prints and immigration office would check that at the UK borders. So, in future, carrying valid visa is not enough. People will have to show fingerprints to prove they are who they say they are. You think this is humiliating. Not at all. Police plans to give digital devices to their cops on the streets so that they can catch anyone and police can confirm their fingerprints against the database on the street (other countries would use similar devices in future). The argument is that they want to control the illegal immigration and crime but this is the same argument given 100 years back and they had to repeal this similar law. And now UK would even share this data with other countries. Only difference is that this time they would have fingerprints of everyone, in the original Asiatic law in South Africa only male above the age of 8 were supposed to provide fingerprints.

After 100 years, his fight has become irrelevant and he has lost his first battle that made him Mahatma. Should we still call him Mahatma?