Courtesy: https://twitter.com/sheshapatangi1/status/1619887046163857410?s=46&t=yVfz8HOSMZswFOtMtTIdCg
Before going inside, let us not forget this fact that, Gandhi never moved, nor Congress never passed, a resolution condemning brutalities on revolutionaries.
British enhanced Gandhi’s stature worldwide through publicity, encomiums, awards and velvet glove handling . This in turn fed into the personality cult surrounding him, thanks to the susceptibility of Indian masses to personae who appear as avatars, and in due course facilitated the subversion of national goals.
This series explores Gandhi & I will leave it to the readers as they are better judges…
Did MKG truly believe in Ahimsa or it was stage managed only to protect British from revolutionary freedom fighters?
He called the revolutionaries who had risked their everything to serve their motherland as enemies of the country, simply because they differed from his views and methods.
This entire series will cover Gandhi’s war on Bharatiya Revolutionaries from the time British sent him to India & also his 1 sided Ahimsa tatva.
Ahimsa Paramo Dharma Dharma himsa tathaiva cha (Non-violence is the ultimate dharma. So too is violence in service of Dharma)
Gandhi preached “Ahimsa Paramo Dharma” to Hindus and made them forget the continuing phrase “Dharma Himsa Tathaiva Cha” making the gullible Hindus to surrender to forces who loved nothing but extreme violence.
Gandhi was not doctrinally opposed to violence as he had enlisted soldiers for the British during the first world war. He had also stated that he felt morally bound to help, using non-violent means, those who further a just cause even if they do not shun violence.
The Moplah massacre started in August 1921, and on June 1921, he made this destructive speech.
“I would be untrue to my faith, if I refuse to assist in a just cause any men or measures that did not entirely coincide with the principle of non-violence.
I would be promoting violence, if finding the Mussalmans to be in the right, I did not assist them by means strictly non-violent against those who had treacherously plotted the destruction of the dignity of Islam. Even when both parties believe in violence, there is often such a thing as justice on one side
or the other. A robbed man has justice on his side, even though he may be preparing to regain the lost property by force.” (Ref M K Gandhi.org)
Yet, Gandhi and his closest lieutenants opposed violence directed against the British forgetting his own dictum highlighted in the thread above, as also the fact that robbed of their freedom, the revolutionaries of an enslaved nation had justice on their side, he repeatedly equated the violence they perpetrated with those of the colonial occupiers (despite substantial difference in scale)
“I know, however, that my appeal to the violent revolutionaries be just as fruitless as any such appeal to the violent and anarchical Govt is likely to be. We must therefore find the remedy and demonstrate to both the violent Govt and the violent revolutionaries that there is a force that is more effective than their violence”
Gandhi had in fact launched a Satyagraha against the repressive Rowlatt Act primarily to prevent the “Little Bengal Cult of Violence” from spreading – that is to nip in the bud the possibility of a violent nationwide uprising against the British. (Ref M K Gandhi.org)
Remember Jallianwala Bagh & the genocide of innocent Hindus, Sikhs?
On April 6, 1921, Gandhi wrote in the Young India: “I would not punish or procure punishment even of General Dyer for his massacre, but I would not call it voluntarily doing injury to him to refuse to give him pension, or to condemn his action in fitting language. ” (Ref M K Gandhi.org)
Thus, Gandhi’s ability to condone British violence carried him as far as not calling for any punishment for Dyer. Later he went on to castigate (on March 12, 1925) the revolutionaries as guilty of “the exciting and unquenchable thirst for the blood of English officials and those who are assisting them. ” (Ref Revolution and Non-Violence in Tolstoy, Gandhi, and Mandela)
He also offered moral support to, while his lieutenants actively collaborated with, the British in suppressing the revolutionaries. Gandhi’s lieutenants also relegated the revolutionaries to oblivion post independence while generously commending the erstwhile rulers.
The only conclusion that emerges then is that Gandhi would not countenance a violent overthrow of the British, not because of his doctrinaire opposition to violence, but because he was not keen on their departure & wanted a continuity of regimes with Dominion Status, which would allow them to retain indirect control.
In contrast, Subhas Chandra Bose was open to securing independence by any means as his concept of independence consistently involved complete dismantling of the authority wielded by the British.
In the words of his ardent devotee, JB Kriplani,
Gandhi was “always anxious to accommodate his opponents” to the detriment of his own, we should add. He was intolerant of opposing opinions emerging from within Indian political spectrum.
