As Indians, we’ve all heard and grew up with the sentiment that Gandhi was a great man and that by standing up to the British empire with nothing more than powerful words, he was braver than the bravest knight in all of Britain, blah, blah!! Those who know me personally know that I, to put it mildly, am not a big fan of the guy. Which is to say that I hate the coward and place a big part of the blame for India’s delayed Independence and it’s slow start as a new nation squarely on him. And as for his famous weapon of non-violence, it’s caused more deaths than most people would care to admit. Want proof? I’ll give you 5:
1. Supporting the British war effort in WWI between 1914 – 1918: Gandhi agreed to support the British by recruiting thousands of Indian soldiers in order to solicit some sort of goodwill from Britain. But he failed to negotiate any terms with the British for this deal making this the dumbest exhibition of political skill by a man said to be a trained lawyer! Not to mention a pacifist signing up thousands of his countrymen to go die in a war that didn’t benefit them in any way.
2. The Gandhi-Irwin pact of 1931: for a simple man with no real political title, Gandhi made an autocratic decision to call off the mass agitation in 1931 by his close lieutenants and instead negotiated a “deal” with the then Viceroy of India, Lord Irwin. There was a chance we could have kicked out the British by 1931, but instead we listened to Gandhi and called off the troops and let him make this deal. In short, the British agreed to give some of our basic freedoms back (like conducting peaceful protests!) and releasing most of our political prisoners and in return, we would support the British at the Round Table conference. Well, guess who didn’t keep their end of the bargain! Again, for a lawyer, he sure made some sucky deals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhi%E2%80%93Irwin_Pact
3. Supporting the British in WWII: At first, Gandhi refused to agree to sending Indian soldiers again to fight alongside the British, but it wasn’t for pacifist reasons… it was simply because the British had committed Indian troops to fight without the consent of the native leadership, which made Gandhi look bad. However, under pressure, he succumbed and eventually ended up sending 2.5 million soldiers of the INA (Indian National Army) to fight the Nazis when Germany had no intention of invading India. 2.5 million troops??? There weren’t nearly that many Brits in India at that time… how about using those troops to drive out these bastards instead?
4. India-Pakistan partition: yes… I place the blame squarely on Gandhi. If you’re the unofficial leader of this new country and your #2 is asking you to split the country into two against your will, it’s your job to get him to shut up. For someone who “bravely opposed the mighty Brits”, he caved like a bitch when it came to opposing Jinnah. Under his watch, 25 million people crossed borders from either side… more than 1 million of them never made it. Not so good on a non-violent pacifist’s resume, is it? Even if he gave into the political pressures of the time, there was surely a more efficient way to execute the exchange. If you couldn’t care enough to organize this properly, then why should you be called a great humanitarian?
5. Finally, why he really was murdered by a fellow Hindu: most people only remember his last words as he was being shot and call him a great man. Sure, that was very noble of him to pardon his shooter; personally, I would asked for his ass to be roasted over a grill for 48 hours! Anyway, the reason some of the Hindus turned against Gandhi was after the Indo-Pak war of 1947 when Pakistan invaded Kashmir, the Indian congress sought to freeze the 55 crore rupees in payment from the British-Indian treasury to the Pakistani government… seems like the logical thing to do, right? But Gandhi fought against it and went so far as staging a “fast until death” protest against the Indian government until they paid out the cash to Pakistan. They just attacked your country and you fast to get them money from your own treasury??? Brilliant!!
Now why am I so against the guy? Well, I hate it when people say “at least he did something when everyone else was just simply bowing down to the British”. Well, not exactly true. There were other true leaders, more pragmatic leaders, who sought the kick the British out of the country, but they never got the support of the masses because of people like Gandhi. So there is such a thing as bad leadership, especially when you shape the entire future of a country based on your stupid ideologies. And yes, non-violence as a foreign policy in any political environment or country is a stupid idea. Now, there’s a big difference between non-aggressive and non-violence; the former says “I won’t attack you unless” and the latter says “I won’t attack you no matter what”. Big freakin’ difference.
Not convinced yet? Well, let’s play a game. You play Gandhi and I’ll play the British. You sit there and fast while I rape your wife, steal your wealth and beat the crap out of you. And while I’m doing that, we’ll see if you continue to sit there and tell me “please sir, stop raping my wife; stop stealing from me; stop beating me… otherwise I won’t eat until you do!!”. Or, even if you’re out-numbered and out-powered, we’ll see if you try to at least kick me in the nuts once, even if you don’t manage to kill me.
7 comments:
I agree with you for the most part. Gandhi had good intentions, but didn't have the best ideas. I'm just curious to know whether you have the same feelings towards Martin Luther King Jr. since he followed Gandhi's example of non-violence. I think his idea of the bus boycotts was brilliant and it forced the hands of the whites to stop the discrimination atleast in the buses and such. What about Nelson Mandela- all big Gandhi followers; I wonder why all these great men looked up to Gandhi if he really and truly was a coward like you say. Just something to ponder!!
Okay, that was a tough question; never really thought of MLK Jr. and Gandhi in the same way. But here's why their policies, though similar, are very different: MLK didn't use it as a country's foreign policy while Gandhi did. That is one of my biggest gripes with Gandhi; that a foreigner comes to our country, takes over the land and law and tells us what we can and cannot do and instead of rising up against them and kicking them out, we took the pacifist approach. In MLK's case, or I should say, in the case of slavery, the premise is different. They were not fighting off a foreigner; they were fighting for equal rights.
Now, I don't claim to know much about the civil rights movement or the works of MLK Jr., but in terms of how he is different from Gandhi, I think the main difference here is that he was trying to fight for the rights of an oppressed set of minorities, where force was not an option. India could have risen 10 to 1 against the British and kicked them out with sticks and stones if we had to, whereas during the civil rights movement, black people were not trying to drive anyone out; they were trying to bring to light the fact that all men should have equal rights irrespective of color. Violence, in this case, would have had the opposite effect.
I guess my point is, MLK drove a very strong message across the country by demonstrating his non-violence policies at very strategic times and made it stick; he actually achieved something. I can't think of a way he could have done the same by using violence, but that's not what can be said about Gandhi in the case of the freedom struggle for India.
You gave 5 reasons .. let me give just one to counter your arguement. India-Pak partition. I am going to blame him too,(pun intended) for the partition. He should have ensured that every single Muslim was moved out of India (including Christians & converts to be sent back to England) and only the Hindus remained in India. If they had done that way back in 1947, India would have been a better place to live today.
GV - I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or opposing me :). By saying that Gandhi should have kicked out all of the muslims and christians out of India back in 1947, you are in a way agreeing with me that Gandhi should have been more forceful with his views and beliefs instead of being such a pussy about it. But if he had done that, that would have also gone against all of his teachings of brotherhood and non-discrimination. India was and still is a secular country. By agreeing (though people will argue that he never agreed, but to me, being a silent party to something is as good as agreeing) to the partition, he violated the secular aspect of our freedom. And by asking him to grow a pair and kick everyone else out of the country, you are agreeing with me at least about the fact that he should have been more of a "do-er" than a preacher.
Nelson Mandela isn't that great either. The ANC bombed/ killed many innocent civilians during the struggle against apartheid, while he was in charge.
Guerrilla activities
In 1961, Mandela became the leader of the ANC's armed wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe (translated as Spear of the Nation, also abbreviated as MK), which he co-founded. He coordinated a sabotage campaign against military and government targets, and made plans for a possible guerrilla war if sabotage failed to end apartheid. A few decades later, MK did wage a guerrilla war against the regime, especially during the 1980s, in which many civilians were killed. Mandela also raised funds for MK abroad, and arranged for paramilitary training, visiting various African governments.
Mandela explains the move to embark on armed struggle as a last resort, when increasing repression and violence from the state convinced him that many years of non-violent protest against apartheid had achieved nothing and could not succeed.[6][2]
Mandela later admitted that the ANC, in its struggle against apartheid, also violated human rights, and has sharply criticised attempts by parts of his party to remove statements supporting this fact from the reports of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.[7]
Thanks for your comment Mr.Haider. If you read any of my other posts, you'll see that I had given up religion a long time ago and in fact am an active atheist. So when you say "Muslims and Hindus should try and find a way to live in peace", I couldn't agree more! However, my approach to that problem is the eradication of religion... all religions and not simple separation of people in different countries based on religion. India and Pakistan are like cousins that grew up together, but since their parents had a fight, they are now separated. And for some reason, they've been conditioned to hate each other as well! I live in the US and I have some good friends who are from Pakistan and if you saw us outside, you'd think we're brothers! Why people who live in India and Pakistan still hold so much hatred is beyond me!
Anyway, thanks for reading my post and taking the time to comment.
Wholeheartedly agree with you. If it hadn't been for Gandhi, partition would not have taken place, Subhas Bose won't have been murdered, Congress couldn't have siphoned off 90% of India's wealth to Switzerland and USA would have had a lesser business playing Narada among India and Pakistan.
Post a Comment