Two different types of freedom fighters

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 is against what they desire. Their desire stemmed from the thought that violence is a sin. India is and at that time too it was a Hindu majority state. In the Hindu holy book "The Bhagvad Geeta" Lord Krishna has clearly endorsed violence against the unrighteous. In fact, when the very brave and highly skilled warrior Arjuna breaks down into tears and asks for non violence, it is the supreme God Krishna Himself, who reprimands Arjuna for his sudden change of heart and for favouring non-violence against his arch rivals, the Kauravas. He asks Arjuna to take up his bow & arrow and kill all his enemies including those who were supporting them. That would amount to an act of huge violence yet Krishna orders his student Arjuna to go for it. Why? Because if your enemy is violent and you stay non-violent, he will kill you, thrive and create his own empire! That too when you and everyone else know that you are right and he is wrong. That can not happen, under any circumstances. 

So violence is unavoidable when such a situation arises and just as I described in the above paragraph, even Lord Krishna advocates it, though only under special circumstances. And here we had Gandhiji - who for once and for all denied the usage of any sort of weapons anywhere, asking for complete non-violence. That too till the extent of telling us "If your enemy hits your one cheek, don't hit him back. Instead lend him your 2nd cheek! He himself will realize his mistake, stop hitting you and catch your feet asking to get forgiven..!" 

Talking of this day and age, only one response to this comes to my mind: "What nonsense!" If in 2025, if someone slaps you on 1st cheek, you lend him your 2nd cheek, then he will not stop there. He will keep hitting you endlessly until the point you fall down on the ground. Those times when people used to regret their violent acts are long gone, much as per the predictions of several pundits in criminology and sociology in the times when Gandhiji was alive. Non-violence is an obsolete concept now, not just in India but everywhere in the world. Even during the times of Gandhiji, it was prevalent only in India, that too because it was the brain child of the great Mahatma, who had such a humungous impact on every thing India was doing, when he was alive. India was so mesmerized by him that the 30 crore+ Indians living in the late 1930s and then 1940s were ready to do any thing that he wanted, without giving it a personal thought! So when he proclaimed "Non violence as a big virtue" and "Violence as a huge crime", every one nodded "Yes." When he proclaimed those freedom fighters who used violence as a means to get freedom from the Britishers as "incorrect people", everyone nodded "yes" again. That directly drew a thick line of division between the people whose basic desire was actually the same - to make India independent from the British Raj. Had there been no such line of division, the struggle for freedom would have been much unified and free from internal tensions. But it was not to be. 

Those supporting non-violence started calling the violent freedom fighters as "unofficial freedom fighters." For them Gandhiji was the Messiah, (and perhaps the only Messiah) whose ideology and policies were correct, socially and politically. Any other ideology, howsoever effect it might have proven over the years, was incorrect, in their eyes. Violence was the main weapon used in previous freedom struggles all over the world. For example, during the French Revolution and the American independence struggle, the captains that had advocates violence had won freedoms. Elsewhere in the world too, violence had been the chief tool through which freedom struggles/wars had been fought and won convincingly. It was a proven method, where results came out quickly and the period of peace that followed lasted for a long, long time, where generations that followed very well recognised and understood the value of independence and democracy. This was all because they knew how much blood had poured out from the bodies of their fathers and forefathers, to regain the freedom of their motherland. 

Despite such mammoth proofs, it's rather shocking that the people of India blindly followed a person, who was strictly against violence of any form. Gandhiji made non-violence a part of the lives of each and every Indian, as if it was a very great virtue. It was and still is a great virtue but not to the level Gandhiji magnified it to be. So those freedom fighters who were actually much more passionate and much more willing to do "any thing" for their motherland, compared to those following the Gandhian model, got marginalized and sidelined everywhere. This included the likes of Bhagatsingh and Subhash Chandra Bose. Bhagatsingh was ready to do anything for this country, even give away his life, which he eventually did. How many of those who were following the Gandhian model, ready to give away their lives for this country? None. Not even Gandhiji. Remember Gandhiji did not want to die but got assassinated, that means he was forced to die. So he can not be called "a martyr." A martyr is the one who chooses death or a path that is very likely to bring death, all my himself. He is mentally and physically ready to die any moment. Bhagatsingh knew it very well that the path he had chosen was very dangerous and can terminate his life any time. But he hated the Britishers from within and wanted India to be freed from those monsters as early as possible. He wanted to scare them away. So he threw that bomb in the legislative assembly. No doubt it was an act of violence but the Britishers got so scared that they stopped going to any place around Bhagatsingh's home, even after he was arrested for throwing the bomb. Imagine what would have happened if India had just 500 Bhagatsinghs at that time, ie in the late 1920s. The Britishers would have gotten extremely scared not just to rule India but even to be present in this country. Suppose one says they would have arrested those courageous men. How many would have they managed to arrest? 10, 20, 50? So what? This would have been a revolution and when a revolution starts, it has its own unstoppable momentum. India could have had more and more of such brave, courageous men like Bhagatsingh, like a chain reaction, coming out from so many Indian homes. Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians - all would have sent atleast one Bhagatsingh from their homes. Collect a thousand such young soldiers and the Britishers would have gotten scared thoroughly. They would have fled  with shivers running through their spines, in no big time, say not more than 2 years. India would have been a newly born brave, independent country not as late as 1947 but somewhere in 1933. Those 14 years shouldn't have been wasted, the ones Gandhiji and his sluggish supporters wasted, under the garb of a non-violent struggle. 

People like Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Subhash Chandra Bose, Bhagatsingh were more worthy of being the first Prime Minister of India and not that lady lover called Jawaharlal Nehru. People like Chandrashekhar Aazad, Sukhdev, Ramprasad Bismil, were worthy of being first cabinet ministers, because love for our nation was in their blood.