Gandhi had his quirks and foibles to be sure.
One thing he had was a deep concern for fellow Indians.
His symbol was the spinning wheel. He promoted cottage industry as a way to get independent from the Brits economically.
He was no arm chair moralist or philodoher.
A bit off topic.
Calling Gandhi just a middle class lawyer is like callig MLK jusr a middle class preacher.
Bot gave up what would have been a comfortable noddle class life, and both were assassinated. Both new they were not likey to die of natural causes.
Wokes have deep concern for minorities. They still mostly end up hurting minorities. Environmentalists have a deep concern for the environment, but tend to focus on the wrong thing and usually end up making the problem worse. The road to hell is paved with good intention. A persons deep concern is a good start. But will not get you the whole way.
Gandhi was a Hindu fanatic. If you understand hinduism, you'll understand that guy. He didn't care how many people got hurt, as long as he succeeded. The thing with Gandhi is that, as a lawyer he understood the contradition underpinning the British empire. You can't claim to be a proponent of liberalism, human rights and free trade while simultaneously taking part in the imperialistic project of stripping their colonies bare of resources. These two stories are in direct contradition.
*British imperialism footnote*
As opposed to other imperial nations the British empire was mostly created by accident. Due to an accident in history (the British civil war) the Brits made private property sacred and outside the reach of the British crown. Which forced the crown to use funds wisely and not fight wars they couldn't afford. As the first nation in history to do this (together with the Netherlands) their merchants became fabulously wealthy. In order to open up overseas markets British merchants used guns. Since these were motivated 100% by greed/market forces, the British government would sooner or later inevitably have to get involved (to protect the natives). Taking possesion over the colony.
So the British governments narrative of having the natives interest at heart, could be used against them, if the natives managed to prove to the British public that the colonial rule, wasn't in fact in the interest of the natives, then they could get the government to retreat. Which is exactly what happened.
This can be contrasted with the Portuguese, Belgian or Dutch colonial empires, where there was never any pretence of anything but maximum resource extraction. In these cases non-violent peaceful protests were a non-starter. South Africa is another good example.
* End British imperialism footnote*
MLK could use the same tactic in USA since USA is also founded on a narrative supposedly protecting human rights and all people's freedom and equality. So the US civil rights movement worked in the same way Gandhi's did.