Gandhiji's big mistake

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 mission ideology that was opposite to his own mission ideology.Did Gandhiji escape that moral duty and chose to adopt politics for a brief period of time? 

Had he chose the right path, for which he was so famous, Bhagatsinh would have lived beyond his age of 23. Bhagatsinh's extended life would have had a very intense effect on those freedom fighters who wanted to get the independence from the British through violence. Perhaps India could have obtained Independence much earlier from the British after a brief period of intense violence. Afterall, almost 90% of erstwhile British colonies have got their freedom through violence only and personally I see nothing wrong in that, looking at the speedy evolution of circumstances. What Gandhiji taught this nation actually eliminated the factor of bravery from the minds and hearts of the people. He asked them to extend the 2nd cheek to the guy who hits  you on the first one. At that time, the experts in the field of criminology and sociology had already ridiculed that idea and had forecasted that this Gandhian philosophy will get outdated in within a hundred years and here we are. Just after 78 years of our Independence from the Britishers, if someone talks about extending his 2nd chick to the guy who slapped you on the 1st one, people will laugh at him and call him insane. It's gone totally obsolete now and rightly so. Regardless of which period of history one is living, human societies are witness to the proof that only those who can dominate, can rule. That domination can easily be achieved by hitting. Here I am not advocating violence. No. I am trying to talk practical things. In a strong argument that has suddenly turned violent, if you just back off the other guy will dominate you, may cause severe and irreparable physical damage or even kill you! Non-violence is not at all effective there. 

I personally believe if Gandhiji had chosen the morally correct path of relinquishing Bhagatsinh from a Death sentence, the struggle for Indian independence would have lasted much shorter (atleast a decade), the procedure for freeing India would have been fast-tracked and India would have been freed from the Britishers at the most by 1933, which is a clear 14 years ahead of 1947, in which they actually got it. Apart from the that and more importantly, the Indian public would have known the value of democracy and independence, because of the awareness of the physical damage inflicted upon their forefathers by the British, because of the amount of blood that had flown from the bodies of their own ancestors.