Two Mistakes of the Mahatma

Gandhiji and his team of non-violent freedom fighters, have caused much more harm to India and the Hindu community than what those "so-called" violent freedom fighters would have caused, had India got independent through a violent revolution. (To be continued) 

It's increasingly getting clearer to me that Congress leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru definitely had a plan in their mind, when they saw India getting closer and closer to independence. The plan was to take the most possible advantage of the humungous influence that Gandhiji carried upon the people of India. After the Salt Satyagraha of 1930, his image grew bigger and bigger. Most Indians started believing that it was only through him, that India would achieve independence from the British Raj. He was everywhere - in the newspapers, on the radio, in public discussions. By mid 1930s he had already gained the status of a cult figure, of an undisputed unanimous leader of India. That image still gained furthermore stature when he declared that he has no desire to rule the country as a Prime Minister and that he would be happy to serve it rather than rule it. After that, that tag of "Mahatma" got attached to his name permanently, as people started believing him truly as a great ...

The more I study the struggle for Indian independence from the Britishers, the more I come to certain conclusions. They initially start as a hypothesis but then gradually gain substantial ground and get converted into solid evidence based conclusions. Here are some of them: The Indian struggle for independence was not a combined effort of everybody as what most of the Indians would so much like to believe. It was actually divided into clear fragments: those supporting non-violence and those supporting violence. The former one included stalwarts like Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Maulana Aazad to be the prominent names. However the latter too had some big names also: Shahid Bhagat singh, Sukhdev, Rajyaguru, Chandrashekhar Aazad, Subhashchandra Bose to be the prominent names. The non-violent group of freedom fighters, (henceforth referred to as those with Gandhian ideology) strictly believed that use of weapons to kill or even injured the ruling Britishers i...

Several people, especially those supporting the right wing hindu ideology claim that “Despite the denial of Lord Irwin for changing of the punishment of Bhagatsinh and his comrades from a Death sentence to Life imprisonment, Gandhiji was still in a strong position to force Irwin to change the punishment of Bhagatsinh. But he chose not to do so, because he actually wanted the freedom movement to be entirely carried forward by only non-violent protestors like himself and hence wished for all the violent freedom fighters to “go silent” one way of the other. As Irwin denied, he saw there an opportunity to show to the whole world, especially to the Indian public that “Look, I tried to change the punishment on Bhagat singh from a Death sentence to a Life imprisonment but Lord Irwin did not agree.” By this drama, he escaped his moral duty of freeing an Indian freedom fighter, alike himself from a certain death and instead chose to carry out a dirty political game of removing those with a miss...