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.
