Y'know, I can't figure out what Gandhi was after, either.
Years ago, a gori casually informed me that Gandhi was the first leader (PM/ prez) of (modern) India. I was shocked, and hastened to inform her that was not the case. While I was pretty annoyed at her casual presumption that Gandhi would have automatically become the first leader of independent India, I guess it was an understandable error. Pretty much every liberator in every other part of the world has gone on to be the political leader as well. Ho Chi Minh, de Gaulle, Mandela, Bolivar. So what was different about Gandhi?
Seemed like he was genuinely disinterested in political power. He stepped out of the way and let a younger guy take that mantle. That the younger guy was the bandit chacha, is of course India's misfortune. Was it age? Not really, Advani in his 90's couldn't resist the temptation. Gandhi seems like a very paradoxical person.
Just last night, talking to my kids - who both grew up here - the topic of Gandhi and Nehru came up. They both said they thought IG was Gandhi's daughter or otherwise related to him. When I told them she was Nehru's daughter (and explained that still unclear mystery of Feroz's origins), they were shocked. They know about Bose and his INA but did not know that it was he who was responsible for throwing the Britshits out and not Gandhi. There has been so much disinformation over the years that it is not surprising people know so little.
Perhaps it is my fault, not having taught them Indian history. But it is a sign that most people in the world outside of India are clueless about Gandhi the 'Mahatma' and the Die-nasty that bears the same name.