Ideally speaking, one of the most important figures in the Indian independence struggle is surely Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. So many to add were his achievements like – Non-cooperation, Civil Disobedience and Quit India Movements. Yesterday I was watching the news where a live discussion was going on about “Congress Cultures” in our country. That was when somebody spoke up about Gandhian principles, and that resonated within me like anything…determined to make out how exactly did Gandhi contribute to Indian independence, I did some elementary research and finally I’ve some substantial thoughts to write about…
Gandhiji is attributed to one of the key figures of our Indian History, and I truly respect him as a philosopher, not as an independence fighter. His attitude about Religion and his lifestyle is something that should be boasted off like anything. Gandhi has always lived in his orthodox ways of maintaining pure vegetarian food and other things, even when he toured to Europe for law studies, and came back to India as a Barrister. Having failed to get much success in India, he took off to South Africa to assist an Indian firm in a legal case. It was during his tour in South Africa, that he got kicked out from a train even though he had purchased a first-class ticket to travel – and that was the time when he took a turn from practicing law to freedom struggle.
So in a way, when all the revolutionaries were being tortured upon, when at least 5 million people were starved to death in Bengal – Gandhi remained silent., only when he was insulted and humiliated in public, did he go on to preach his “revolutionary ideas”. Now for those, who idolize Gandhi as the “key figure of Indian Independence”, please go through the below jotted points
- At preliminary stages, Gandhi demanded partial independence with other Congress members, like the countries of Ireland, Scotland and Australia. Unlike the likes of Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, Tilak and the great Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, Gandhi was more-than-happy to serve under partial British Rule. At a time, when the young blood of India were sacrificing their valuable lives, Gandhi’s thought of partial independence was nothing more than an urge for “personal revenge” than anything else.
- Did non-violence really work? Were the British doing charity over here seeing the Gandhian principle of “give your other cheek for another slap on your face“? Many say that Gandhi’s Non-Cooperation movement brought about a revolution, in that case how could Burma, Ceylon, Ghana, Malaysia, British Guyana gain independence without any such movement? I’ll come to non-violence as followed by Gandhi a bit later.
- Nirad Chaudhuri rightly called Gandhi a worse dictator than Hitler! Gandhi’s concept of fast-unto-death is dangerous for democratic proceedings. Such things can literally make the Government and Administrative bodies bend down to your goals and make them do what you want them to do. All rational human minds can visualise the dangerous prospects of national uprisings in case of deaths caused by such fasts, and would normally and reasonably try to avoid them. This way of coercing the Government by going on to fasts is thus one, to be used with extreme caution!
- Gandhi’s kind and moral approach to freedom movements was welcomed by the British officials. When the world war broke out in 1939, the British urged the Indian leaders to stop all agitation for some time till they got respite from the war proceedings, happily and strangely enough, Gandhi with the Dadabhai Nauroji-s along with other Congress members nodded in glee and agreed to stop all agitations. This again proves that Gandhi with the other members never wanted to go against the British and wanted to keep them pleased at all times.
- Partition of India – While Gandhi was equally inclined towards all Religions, he wanted a nation with a Hindu Majority, unlike Md. Ali Jinnah who wanted a nation with a Muslim Majority. This was what led to the historical tragic event of partitioning the country into India and Pakistan. Many think that under those circumstances of wild riots running across the country, partition was the only way out, well let me tell them that this disunity between Hindus and Muslims actually started with the Khilafat Movement being launched in our country – there again, with the active support of Gandhi. For more information on this topic, please read this.
The book, ‘The White Tiger‘ puts Gandhi as the main villain responsible for corruption in modern times; I’m not commenting on this, since I haven’t gone through that book yet.
Elaborating the second point about Non-Violence as followed by Gandhi, somewhere I read that Gandhi asks us to practice forgiveness when and where applicable, in the sense that he asks us to show tolerance and respect, along with to forgive those who are weaker than us. This the main reason along with his concepts of Harijans, and a few other writings of him (Adishakti Yog for example – which he composed in Kausani, Uttarakhand. An Ashram stands at that place in his name today) that I prefer to see him only as a philosopher, not in the light of a politician. That may be a certain reason why truly he is a Mahatma for us.
As of his political affluence concerning non-violence, you cannot expect to show forgiveness to an advanced community who has come to colonize our country and bring it down to ruins by inhuman torture on our people. He would be a big fool to show tolerance and respect with non-violence to them.
The key reason/reasons for which the British left India had nothing to do with the Satyagraha movement or the fact that Great Britain’s economy was affected by the “Cottage-Industry” concept that Gandhi brought about. The main reason why Britain had to give India independence is rightfully attributed to the World War II, which concluded in 1945. Winston Churchill had wanted to cling on to India because the British saw India as an economic and labor-hub. It was during the ongoing world war that Netaji Subhas Bose formed the INA and mercilessly attacked the British Regime – something that the Gandhian followers never wanted to. Already with a war-torn economy, Britain was losing its ability to hold on to its colonies, to top it, Netaji and a few others were fighting aggressively against them – all these headed by the loss of Churchill to Clement Atlee in 1945 elections brought about the Indian Independence. Additionally, American President Franklin D. Roosevelt needed India”s help in World War II against Japan. He had been pressurizing Great Britain to give independence to India in exchange for Indian soldiers. All these were responsible for the Grand Event of 1947. So in a way, the INA attack headed by Subhas Bose played its part – so the key deciding factor was Violence and not non-violence with Satyagraha to yield us freedom. This was approximately the same time when Burma, Malaysia along with a few other British colonies were given independence.
The idea that non-violence was what gave India independence was used as a propaganda by the British, just to show how great they were! They had used it to show how much they respected Gandhian philosophies. However this is a propaganda, which has nothing to do with the truth, for Churchill had always hated Gandhi with his life. Apparantly Gandhi loved Indians, whereas Churchill’s view of the same people were
I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion
So much to it, one can never undermine Gandhi’s philosophies and struggle against injustice along with his profound divine sacrifice which has and supposedly will always remain unparalleled in History.
Jai Hind