TIME Know Right Now

Obama Pushes for Tariff-Busting Trade Agreement in China

“We're here because we believe that our shared future is here in Asia”

President Barack Obama is in China for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit. The last time he was in China was 2009.

While there, he will be pushing for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a U.S.-led agreement that encompasses 11 countries, which would eliminate tariffs on high-tech goods. China, however, is in favor of the Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP).

“We’re here because we believe that our shared future is here in Asia,” Obama said in his speech at the summit Monday.

TIME world affairs

Germany’s Wall That Didn’t Fall

A crowd in front of the Berlin Wall on Nov. 11, 1989 watches border guards demolish a section of the wall in order to open a new crossing point between East and West Berlin in Germany.
A crowd in front of the Berlin Wall on Nov. 11, 1989 watches border guards demolish a section of the wall in order to open a new crossing point between East and West Berlin in Germany. AFP—AFP/Getty Images

25 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, a divide remains in Germany that threatens the stability of the European continent—the separation between native and non-native Germans

Twenty-five years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, a different wall has taken its place. But instead of separating East and West, this other “wall” is the partition between those who are in German society and those who are on its fringes – namely, non-Western immigrants.

Understanding the origins of this modern wall, which undermines cultural and social stability in Germany as well as in other parts of Europe, requires a look back at the past few decades.

On the one hand, Germany isn’t all that different from other European countries in grappling with growing right-wing populism, which often targets immigrants and has racist undertones. But on the other hand, it is, and in a very obvious way: No other country in Europe knows better than Germany does how racially motivated hatred can lead to violence.

That’s partly why the latest resurgence in anti-immigration and anti-Semitism is surprising, especially to outsiders. Between 2000 and 2007, the neo-Nazi terror cell National Socialist Underground (NSU) carried out a series of racist crimes, including murdering eight Turks and one Greek, all of whom were living in Germany. Thilo Sarrazin’s 2010 runaway bestseller Germany Does Itself In let the genie further out of the bottle, cautioning that immigrants have been steadily destroying German society. In September of this year, Germany’s upper house of parliament approved tighter rules for immigrants from Balkan states, which critics argue will hurt the Roma, also called “gypsies,” who still face government-sanctioned discrimination all across Europe. And this year has already seen more anti-Semitic crimes committed than in 2013, leading some commentators to dub these the worst times since the Nazi era.

So why, in a country that has long since regained respectability in the international political system by coming to terms with National Socialism’s destructive racism, is discrimination against and the exclusion of supposedly “non-German” others still so problematic?

Unsurprisingly, the answers to this question are anything but clear-cut, but they perhaps begin with what was largely poor forethought on the part of policymakers in the mid-twentieth century.

Germany didn’t expect its guest workers, chiefly Turkish laborers who were brought in for the booming post-war economy, to stay permanently. Because Germany kidded itself into believing that it’d never become a country of immigration, there was no serious attention paid to how to integrate immigrants and, eventually, their families. And after the fall of the wall, East Germans, who had lived in a regime that sought to keep contract workers and immigrants separated from civil society (despite the fact that East Germany had a professed commitment to global solidarity), were suddenly expected to have an eye to multiculturalism under an imperfect West German model. So, the government’s focus on the return readiness of its foreign laborers, coupled with the historical burden of even putting a name to racial abuses, have provided some of the necessary ingredients for racist sentiments to take root.

But on a more fundamental level, structural racism, or the normalization of cultural as well as institutional dynamics that privilege whites over people of color, is at play. This isn’t to suggest that Germany doesn’t take the issue of racism seriously; in light of how its dark past still guides and shapes its political culture, this is decidedly untrue. Laws forbid anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial, and Holocaust education is required in all German schools. But is Germany effectively confronting racism, including, in particular, day-to-day racism, both in word and in deed?

The answer is a resounding “no.”

For instance, one would be hard-pressed to chalk up the fact that the violence that was perpetrated by the NSU went unchecked for as long as it did to the incompetence of the police. Rather, the issue is a widespread but rarely discussed problem: For those who don’t fit the bill of what it means to be (or, as is more often the case, look) German, racist tendencies still abound. Indeed, it was an undercurrent of racism against the non-white victims that blinded the police, who believed that the victims were probably criminals themselves, to a lack of evidence for their faulty logic. As for the perpetrators, the police stated in a report that “against the background that the killing of people is a strict taboo in our culture, you can assume that, with regard to their behavioral patterns, the perpetrators must have been socialized far from our local system of norms and values” and that they were likely “from eastern or southeastern Europe (non-Western European background).” It wasn’t until two members of the NSU killed themselves in a chance joint suicide pact near their German hometown of Zwickau that the police connected the dots.

Prejudice aimed at Germans who aren’t of discernable Western European descent isn’t only limited to the criminal justice system, however. Germany’s tiered school system and housing market also draw criticism for discriminating against minority groups. In short, racist assumptions, reflected in state institutions and often sustained by government officials’ lack of political will to limit racial discrimination in multiple arenas, haven’t yet been remedied, and they hardly take center stage on the national agenda – even when they produce murder sprees.

Racism doesn’t just happen on the fringes, and it isn’t merely an individual phenomenon. Even though the German government has worked for decades to own its racist history, racism doesn’t need to be overt to be systemic. Structures are perpetuated in daily culture, education, and media and fuel people to view certain groups of people as “not like us.” Germany, as Europe’s de facto hegemon, has made great strides since the fall of the Berlin Wall only 25 years ago. But only by seeing and confronting the very real problem of racism can it start creating a culture of acceptance and breaking this other wall to tiny bits.

Brandon Tensley is an M.Phil. candidate in European Politics & Society at the University of Oxford, where his research focuses on minority politics and nationalism in Europe. This piece was originally published in New America’s digital magazine, The Weekly Wonk. Sign up to get it delivered to your inbox each Thursday here, and follow @New America on Twitter.

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.

TIME politics

It’s Not Obama, It’s Just the Sixth Year

American flag
Getty Images

What does President Obama have in common with George W. Bush?

If you want to know who to blame for any number of global and domestic crises, there is one simple answer, according to many critics: Barack Obama. The tide turned against many Democratic Congressional candidates in this year’s mid-term elections largely, some claim, because of President Obama’s relatively low approval ratings. Critics have charged Obama with indecision in the face of crises ranging from ISIS to Ebola. The seeming drift began soon after his second inaugural address – delivered only last year – when his ambitious call to collective action was quickly overtaken by a series of controversies ranging from the NSA surveillance leaks to the botched rollout of healthcare.gov. Yet a quick look back at history complicates the notion that these challenges are rooted in President Obama’s individual leadership deficiencies. It also illuminates a factor that does, indeed, make this president’s situation unique: the often-ignored fact that he is America’s first black president.

Every two-term president since Franklin Roosevelt has faced controversy over his leadership or diminishing popularity – and sometimes both – by his sixth year in office. The examples are so familiar that one hardly has to name them – the Iraq War and the economic downturn for George W. Bush, impeachment for Bill Clinton, and Iran-contra for Reagan, just to cite a few. Some call this the second-term “curse,” which is probably too strong a statement. But this history should at least make us pause before attributing Obama’s difficulties to any unique set of personal shortcomings – for instance, his lack of executive experience before assuming the Presidency.

There are many real reasons that any modern president is likely to be perceived as less popular and drifting in his second term (as polling data show quite clearly). One example: Presidents put together winning coalitions to attain office; over time, those coalitions fray as some supporters inevitably become dissatisfied with specific decisions and policy initiatives. That fraying is strengthened by long-term political trends – like the polarization of Congressional Republicans and Democrats, which has recently reached levels not seen in a century. A first term President might use his initial popularity to achieve substantial objectives as Obama did. But over time the opposition party is very likely to re-mobilize itself, and its supporters, into a unified block of opposition – as the Republicans have done this year, and as the Democrats did in 2006. Senator Mitch McConnell has come in for much criticism for his much-debated statement that he wanted to make Obama a “one-term president.” However one interprets it, McConnell was largely acknowledging reality. In addition, the growth of modern presidential power has led Americans to expect their President to take responsibility for problems that are particularly intractable – international crises and economic downturns. It is unlikely that eight years will pass without economic trouble and a proliferation of foreign policy crises. President Obama, for instance, is in the somewhat unique position of being able to claim responsibility for averting another Great Depression, while still navigating the expectations that come with a fragile economic recovery.

The irony of all this is that, after six years in office, President Obama finds himself in as a situation with many parallels to that of the President who was, in many ways, his polar opposite: George W. Bush. By the middle of Bush’s second term, domestic and international crises—from the recession of 2007 to the war in Iraq – seemed beyond his control. Like Obama, he had inaugurated his second term with a full-throated inaugural address but had been unable to gain traction for his core domestic program – the privatization of social security – as the political opposition unified itself. To be sure, some of Bush’s difficulties had to do with his own spectacular policy failures that far outstrip any of his successor’s – the ill-fated Iraq invasion for instance, which continues to roil Middle East politics to this day. But it is also a reminder that while Presidents, like other great men and women, make history, the longer they stay in office the more they may become subject to longer-term historical trends.

In truth, however, there is one circumstance that makes it difficult to make any comparison between Obama and his predecessors: race. The initial talk of a “post-racial” America that accompanied Obama’s first election has largely disappeared. Indeed, it would be hard to maintain it under the weight of a series of controversies ranging from Trayvon Martin to Ferguson, Missouri, as well as the slow realization that such talk was motivated by the understandable euphoria that accompanied the election of the first African American president. In the intervening years, reality has set in. Even Obama’s seemingly innocuous pronouncements – like his expression of empathy for Martin’s distraught parents – have provoked angry backlash. Initial scholarly studies have concluded that reactions to Obama and his policies have hardly transcended race, even on topics that seem to have nothing to do with racial issues. The election and reelection of a black president is certainly a signal achievement, and a marker of how far America has come from its troubled racial past. But the voting blocks that one would expect to balk at the election of an African American President have remained largely true to form. Only time and careful study will show how much Obama’s opportunity structure has been constrained by race, and allow us to more fully assess how bold – or cautious – a decision maker he has turned out to be.

What, then, should one make of the present difficulties that face President Obama, and his party? There will be understandable post-midterm calls for the President to shake up his top-level advisors and to refocus his priorities. Presidents must take, and be held responsible for, both political and policy victories and defeats. President Obama has certainly marked off victories, as even his detractors concede – from the Recovery Act, to health care reform, to financial regulation, to his more recent administrative actions addressing climate change, immigration and other matters. It is possible that history will eventually recognize these achievements as ranking Obama among the truly great modern Presidents. It is possible that it will not. With regard to his second term difficulties, however, it is very possible that this President will eventually be remembered as doing about as well as expected.

Kenneth W. Mack is the Lawrence D. Biele Professor of Law at Harvard University and the author of Representing the Race: The Creation of the Civil Rights Lawyer. This piece was originally published in New America’s digital magazine, The Weekly Wonk. Sign up to get it delivered to your inbox each Thursday here, and follow @New America on Twitter.

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.

TIME politics

Who Is Loretta Lynch?

She might be the next Attorney General

New York U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch is President Obama’s pick for the next Attorney General, and if she’s appointed, she’ll be the first African-American woman to hold the position. But who is Loretta Lynch?

She’s the U.S. Attorney for New York’s eastern district, which includes Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island and Nassau and Suffolk county on Long Island, and is known for her toughness and low-key style.

Before she was an appointed to the top job, she worked within the U.S. Attorney’s office to helped convict the NYPD cop who assaulted Haitian immigrant Abner Louima with a broom handle, in one of the highest-profile police brutality cases of the 1990s. Louima is black and the arrested officers were white, but Lynch said she didn’t want the case to become “a referendum on race.”

President Bill Clinton first appointed to be a U.S. Attorney in 1999, and she served until 2001. She was appointed again by Obama in 2010. In between her terms, she was a partner at Hogan & Hartson, which has since been renamed Hogan Lowells, focusing on criminal litigation and white collar criminal defense.

When she returned to the U.S. Attorney’s office for the second time in 2010, she noticed that the job had changed, to include more work fighting terrorism–her office helped convict the masterminds of the thwarted al-Qaeda scheme to attack the New York subway system. But even though the job has expanded, “the energy, dedication and commitment of the people in my office has not changed,” she wrote in her Harvard 30th Reunion Class Report in 2011. “I truly love coming to work every day.”

Earlier this year, Lynch charged Rep. Michael Grimm, a Republican congressman from Staten Island, with perjury, wire fraud, obstruction of justice, and tax evasion for his dealings in a health-food restaurant he had operated before he ran for office. Lynch said Grimm was operating a “very simple scheme,” that allegedly involved under-reporting wages and earnings when filing his taxes. Grimm has pleaded not guilty.

Lynch also found time for pro bono work–in 2005, she traveled to Rwanda to teach a trial advocacy workshop for the prosecutors at the Rwandan war crimes tribunal, to help restore justice after the genocide. “I listened to the genocide survivors as they told me how they were forced to hide under the dead to avoid capture, and watched as they showed me the machete scars they still carried,” she wrote in the Class Report. “But I learned the most as I saw how they carried on with life, reaching out to orphans to create new families, knitting together a future out of the scars of the past.”

Lynch grew up in North Carolina, and was one of the only black students in her elementary school. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, she recalls being asked to re-take a standardized test after she scored higher than administrators expected. She went on to Harvard, where she studied English and loved Chaucer, and then to Harvard Law School. After graduation she went into corporate law, but took a massive pay cut to take a job at the Eastern District, because she wanted to do something “meaningful.” She lives in Brooklyn with her husband and two step-children.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District declined comment for this story.

TIME Government

Lynch Emerges as Lead Attorney General Candidate

Loretta Lynch
Loretta Lynch, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, speaks during a news conference in New York, Monday, April 28, 2014. Seth Wenig—AP

(WASHINGTON) — U.S. attorney Loretta Lynch has emerged as the leading choice to be the next attorney general, but President Barack Obama does not plan to make a nomination until after a trip to Asia next week.

People with knowledge of his plans say Obama has decided against pushing for confirmation in the lame duck and instead will leave it up to the Republican-controlled Senate next year.

The White House would not comment on whom Obama plans to name. But the people with knowledge of his thinking say Loretta Lynch, the U.S. attorney for Eastern New York, has risen to the top of his list in the past couple of weeks. If selected, she would be the first black female attorney general. Florida’s Janet Reno was the first woman attorney general.

TIME 2014 Election

Republican Wave Floods States

Republicans hold a record number of seats in state legislature as a result of 2014 election

To say it was a good night for Republicans on the state level would be an understatement. Republicans now control 23 state governments outright and are on track to hold more state seats than they have since the late 1920s, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

After Tuesday, the GOP has the upper hand in 69 of the 99 country’s legislative chambers. In Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and West Virginia at least one chamber flipped from Democratic to Republican majorities. Results have yet to come down in Colorado, where Gov. John Hickenlooper was barely able to stave off a Republican challenge to his reelection. In many states Republicans are not simply the majority, they’ve secured a veto-proof supermajority, including in Florida and Missouri.

“Voters overwhelmingly voted for a new, open, innovative future for their families by electing state level Republicans in record numbers across the nation, including in traditionally blue states,” said Matt Walter, the president of the Republican State Leadership Committee in a statement. Walters said Republicans were successful largely thanks to their recruitment of a diverse set of candidates, including the youngest lawmaker in the U.S.

The payoffs for the GOP victories the state-level could be substantial. In states where the Republicans have single-party control they have shown willingness to advance aggressive party agendas: think North Carolina during the 2013 session. Come 2020, when state lawmakers will again be tasked with redrawing electoral maps, party control will be crucial.

Democrats haven’t lost hope.“Republicans had a great night,” director of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC) Michael Sargeant says. “But our operations were able to make sure we limited the damage in some places. ”

Democrats raised a reported $17 million and made about 2 million voter contacts this cycle. Sargeant says that work resulted in Democrats holding on to majorities in key states including the Maine House, the Iowa Senate, and the Kentucky House, which he says will ensure Republican agendas don’t sail through in those states.

“Those victories along with some others were critical to make sure they’re still balances,” Sargeant says.

TIME The Brief

#TheBrief: Why Even Red States Want a Higher Minimum Wage

The first minimum wage was $0.25. Today, that’s $4.22

San Francisco and Oakland voted Tuesday to increase their minimum wages, and so did four states that roundly backed Republicans. Rising standards of living and inflation may be what triggered this increase, but is paying workers more the one issue we can all agree on?

Watch #TheBrief to find out what’s driving the push to pay their workers more.

TIME politics

The Midterms’ Real Winner? Independents and Fiscal Sanity (Maybe)

Nick Gillespie is the editor in chief of Reason.com and Reason.tv.

The next two years are the Republicans’ time—if they use it wisely.

You can forgive Republicans for thinking the midterm elections were all about them. Hell, they picked up seven Senate seats — and legislative control — from Democrats and added at least 10 seats to their House majority (some races are not yet finalized). Controversial GOP governors such as Wisconsin’s Scott Walker and Florida’s Rick Scott withstood tough re-election challenges and more state legislatures are in Republican hands than ever before.

Yet Republicans mistake the meaning of the midterms at their own peril. These elections were a particularly frank repudiation of Barack Obama and the past six years of failed stimulus, disastrous foreign policy, and rotten economic news. Even the President’s historic health-care reform remains a negative with voters. But if the GOP thinks it has a mandate to return to the equally unpopular bailout economics and social conservatism of the George W. Bush years, it too will be sent packing as early as the next election.

A few days before the midterms, just 33% of respondents in an ABC News/Washington Post poll gave the GOP a “favorable” rating, which was 6 percentage points lower than what they gave the Democrats. A whopping 60% said that President Obama had no “clear plan for governing,” but even more (66%) said the Republicans lacked one.

Even as the Republican “wave” was cresting in real time on Election Night, reports my Reason colleague Matt Welch, GOP-friendly Fox News analysts such as Brit Hume, George Will, and Charles Krauthammer didn’t pretend this was a vindication of the party’s agenda for America. “It’s striking how unanimous they are that this election really doesn’t have much to do with Republicans suddenly waking up and smelling the vision,” wrote Welch. “They just didn’t get in the way of a restive electorate during a particularly painful six-year-itch.”

The long-term trends in voter self-identification underscore the electorate’s lack of trust or confidence in either party, but especially the Republicans. In 1988, according to Gallup, 36% of Americans called themselves Democrats. Now only 31% do. Nowadays, just 25% of us cop to being Republicans, down from about 32%. At the same time, a record-high 42% define themselves as politically independent.

As can be gleaned from some of the midterms’ other results, voters want a government that keeps its nose out of our private lives and morality. Alaska, Oregon, and Washington, D.C. all legalized recreational pot and staunchly anti-abortion “fetal personhood” initiatives were voted down in the two states that put the matter before voters (support for Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that guarantees a woman’s right to a first-trimester abortion, has remained above 50% for decades). Gallup finds fewer and fewer Americans think the state should “promote traditional values.” Currently, 48% agree with that notion, while an equal number says “the government should not favor any particular set of values.”

At the same time, twice as many Americans think there’s too much regulation of business and the economy as believe there’s too little and 59% think the government has “too much power.” That’s up 17 percentage points from a decade ago.

If the Republicans are actually listening to the voters, they would do well to drop the social issues that they have harped on in the past and focus instead on reducing the size, scope and spending of government. Unfortunately, there’s every reason to believe that the new GOP Congress will be ready to increase spending on the military and old-age entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare. Headlines like “Election Outcome Is Good News for Defense Industry” pretty much tell you all you need to know about Republican attitudes toward the former.

And when it comes to programs that disproportionately benefit seniors while beggaring the rest of us, remember that it was a Republican President and Congress that forced through Medicare Part D, the prescription-drug plan that was as unnecessary as it was expensive. A survey of the campaign websites of incoming Republican Senators found very little in the way of specific promises to cut specific programs but lots of verbiage declaring undying support to “protect” and “preserve” Medicare and Social Security, two of the biggest ticket items in the federal budget.

In his 2012 bestseller The People’s Money, pollster Scott Rasmussen reported that after a prolonged, bipartisan spending binge in which federal outlays grew by 55% in inflation-adjusted dollars, fully two-thirds of Americans supported “finding spending cuts in all government programs. Every budget item, Americans emphatically believe, needs to be on the table.” A week before the midterms, fully 57% of voters were on board for cuts, but only 19% “trust the federal government to do the right thing most of the time.”

The next two years are the Republicans’ time. If they use it wisely, they may well be at the start of a long-term ascendancy. But if they disrespect the rising numbers of independent voters, they will be back in the minority faster than they realize.

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.

TIME Innovation

Five Best Ideas of the Day: November 6

The Aspen Institute is an educational and policy studies organization based in Washington, D.C.

1. How do you frighten political strongmen? Teach journalism.

By Thomas Fiedler in the Conversation

2. Far from policing free will, taxes on sugary drinks make sense in the context of subsidies for corn syrup and the Medicaid and Medicare expense of 29 million Americans with diabetes.

By Kenneth Davis and Ronald Tamler in the Huffington Post

3. Palm oil production has a devastating impact on the environment, but smart science and better farming could reduce the harm.

By Michael Kodas in Ensia

4. We shouldn’t let Ebola panic squelch civil liberties.

By Erwin Chemerinsky in the Orange County Register

5. What we learn from video games: Giving military robots controls like “Call of Duty” could save lives on the (real) battlefield.

By Patrick Tucker in Defense One

The Aspen Institute is an educational and policy studies organization based in Washington, D.C.

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.

TIME Civil Rights

How Gandhi’s Time in Jail Helped His Cause

Mahatma Gandhi TIME Cover 1930
Mahatma Gandhi on the cover of TIME, Mar. 31, 1930 TIME

Nov. 6, 1913: Mahatma Gandhi is arrested in South Africa while leading a march to oppose a racist policy

Before he was the pioneering civil rights activist called by the honorific “Mahatma” (“great soul,” in Sanskrit), Mohandas Gandhi was a young attorney just trying to take his seat on a train.

Not long after moving to South Africa in 1893 to help an Indian merchant with a legal problem, he was kicked out of the first-class section of a train — despite having bought a ticket for it — after being told, “This is for whites only,” according to Ramachandra Guha, the author of Gandhi Before India. “He had just come from England, where — at least in London in the 1890s — professionals who were colored did not face discrimination,” Guha said in an interview with NPR. The experience was both humiliating and eye-opening, and set the stage for the civil disobedience that would become Gandhi’s legacy.

He paid a price — including four periods in jail during his 21 years in South Africa — for demonstrating against discrimination, but continued with protests, such as leading Indian expats in opposing a racist law requiring all Indians to register with the “Asiatic Department” and to carry their registration cards at all times or risk deportation. His final stint in a South African prison began with his arrest on this day 101 years ago — Nov. 6, 1913 — for leading a march of more than 2,000 people to protest a tax on Indian immigrants.

While he left South Africa for good the following year, his arrest record was far from complete.

Going to jail was, in fact, one of the sharpest tools in Gandhi’s nonviolent tool belt, along with fasting (or a combination of the two). According to TIME’s 1948 report on his assassination, British authorities often freed him from jail when he began to fast, “lest a massive anger at his death in their hands engulf India.” Gandhi himself once said, according to the story, “I always get my best bargains behind prison bars.”

The lessons he learned about the effectiveness of peaceful protest in South Africa formed the basis for his efforts to end British oppression in India. In the book Satyagraha in South Africa, Gandhi relates a conversation with a tailor in 1915, just after returning to India.

He gave me some account of the hardships inflicted on the people in Viramgam, and said:

“Please do something to end this trouble…”

“Are you ready to go to jail?” I asked.

“We are ready to march to the gallows,” was the quick reply.

“Jail will do for me,” I said. “But see that you do not leave me in the lurch.”

Read TIME’s original coverage of Gandhi’s assassination, here in the archives: Saints & Heroes: Of Truth and Shame

Your browser, Internet Explorer 8 or below, is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites.

Learn how to update your browser