Gandhian Farce called Non-violence

Generations to come, it may well be, will scarce believe that such a man as this one ever in flesh and blood walked upon this Earth", Albert Einstein stated on the occasion of Gandhi's 70th birthday (1939). There is no cruel intention of defaming two famous human beings in the history of mankind. It is to shade some light over factual things looked from a different angle. Probably, it was Einstein who lauded Gandhi for non-violence and his apparent success against bringing the downfall of British Empire in India. We all forget that same Einstein who was a renowned scientist those times ran for his life leaving for United States. Didn't Einstein or someone of that era thought of employing non-violence against Nazis? So if non-violence was a kiss of death to be practiced against Hitler why it was "successfully" employed against British foreign power in India. Does that mean British were civilized oppressive power than Germans? Concentration camps were first used by the British in the IInd Boer War in Africa around 1900. At least 30,000 people, mostly children, died in these camps from sickness or hunger. Shortly after 1857 rebellion was crushed, the British sent thousands to the gallows, hung them up from trees, or tied them to cannons and blew them up. Those who survived were exiled for life to the Andamans to sever their connections with their families and their country. Did Congress regime allowed fellow Indians to know about concentration camp called Kala Pani at Andaman cellular jail? When the revolutionary group at India house, London paid tribute over silver jubilee of 1857 war of independence there was one person who had nothing to do with this group. Mr. Nehru was probably been occupied in hosting toasts while joining the British who were celebrating triumph over 1857 revolutionaries.

I strongly believe non-violence was a Gandhian political agenda sided by British that worked for his benefit, for his sole political mileage and misused for the cause of independence. Gandhi asked people to not to fight while taking self-inflicted violence on them with any line of defense. He tried becoming another Jesus Christ to die for people without a punch. Only difference Jesus acted by setting an example. On contrary, British soldiers never touched Gandhi as if there was some special understanding behind the protested scene. What response Gandhi had for General Dyer massacring more than thousands innocent Sikhs in Jalianwalla Bagh? Contradictory, why did Gandhi condemned some extremists Indian attacking British? Why did Gandhi ignored and failed to bring teachings of Chanakya in his principles? Why didn't he practice what Krishn played role while siding the good-side Pandav against bad side Kaurav at any cost? Krishn didn't preach morality or ideals but worked relentlessly in bringing defeat to bad Kauravs. When Duryodhan cursed Krishn for cheating and maneuvering victory against Kaurav's every front leader; be it Dron, Krupa, Karn. Krishn simply replied back saying " He was fighting for good side and not demostrating any morality". On moral ground, Kaurav's military strength would have roled over every Pandav. Infact "Abhimanyu" was a victim of an immoral act.

Why did Gandhi simply failed to understand Hindu's base preaching. Numerous Hindu Gods are decoated with every kind of weapons in hand. May it be Durga Kaali, Dashaavtaar Vishnu, Angry Shiva, the list goes endless. What does Hindu mythology demostrate through these weapons in Gods' own hands? Is it the violence or self-defiance? Gandhi succeeded in playing sentiments with raw illeterate masses whose hope for independence was blunt and damp due to severe mass exploitation of lower class and brain-white-washing of upper class. If he considered "the messiah" of mankind, why he didn’t asked or taught British the "ahimsa". Back in history, when a Hindu ruler embraced Buddha's "non-violence", the other neighbour states took disadvantage and dethrone the ruler and soon Budhism became extinct from India. Ashoka's self realization of "ahimsa" was based on his own violent actions. Non-violence is a preventive step before causing any hurtful action and cannot be considered the basis for reaction when someone is inflicting repeatative hurt and pain upon you. If Gandhi was "Mahatma", why did he fail in teaching non-violence to British officers? Why did he choose innocent, illiterate Indians? And those who were literates like Nehru, Sardar and others were nothing but band of political soldiers only becoming active after independence for the pound of flesh. Where was Gandhi principle hiding underneath violent sheet of World-War I when he paraded himself in villages asking Indians to join British army? Didn't he know that he was sending these men to die in battlefield for his own political mileage, for building his relations with British? Where was same Gandhi when Bose was recruiting men for building INA? We all say because Gandhi had his differences with Bose. Does that mean Gandhi was close to British than Bose's agenda of "Total freedom"? No nation can be built on the hypocrisy of truth and non-violence. Nations are built on the sheer military strength, mass industrialization and national will-power.

Gandhi wanted freedom but only by his own way, without comprising his mediocre philosophy. He was blinded and guided by his own principles. Had his primary vision was for "Purna Swaraj" he would have sided anyone fighting for independence?After all what is non-violence according to Gandhi? Some texts say the elements of Gandhi’s non-violence philosophy were rooted in the Indian religions of Jainism and Buddhism. Both of these religions advocate ahimsa (non-violence), which is “absence of the desire to kill or harm”. The Acaranga Sutra, a Jainist text, describes the fundamental need for non-violence: To all, life is dear” . Ahimsa (non-violence) is a way of living and thinking which respects this deeply. These two religions came in existence when Indian land was politically stable and prosperous. On the other hand Buddhism primarily got extinct within few centuries due to its fractured practical sense. History repeats. If we believe Gandhi taught non-violence then why his principle was trashed aftermath partition times. There was a huge slaughter on both sides with no accurate records kept so estimates vary wildly from a low of 200,000 to a high of 1,000,000. Gandhi being a Hindu didn’t employ "Bhagwat Gita" in his actions rather he tried creating his own version of false Gita. How could someone think about some outdated principles against an oppressive power that inflicted war after war before finally making a colony out of your motherland? Why on the planet, India is the only country that didn’t win freedom on the face of battlefront? Was it Gandhi who freed India or the British government rusted with World War II had lost control on International politics and supremacy?

Practicing Non-violence against an oppressive power brings nothing but the violence. If the country is ruled by its own democratic, people-elected government then employing non-violence makes all the best sense. British attacked, beaten, tortured protestors who were on streets by the orders of "Mahatma" got nothing but violence. In fact when Gandhi fasted on the name of disagreement, he inflicted violence on his body. Didn’t he caused a big violence on himself and his inner being while bringing composure to his face? Why did Gandhi mislead Indians when the most developed nations were busy in Industrialization and militarization? What examples he put forth that we Indian see them fruitful and practical even after 50 years? We are still developing country competing for our lost International existence. Why did he put "charkha" as an obsolete symbol for development? Why did he bring confused masses to pray than take the arms in the war of independence? How many times he publically lauded the efforts from 1857 freedom fighters? On purpose he did not. Because by his theory they inflicted violence on British.It was all his Congress who misled the country and still doing so. With Lokmanya Tilak' s death, Gandhi came to political platform. I shall credit Gandhi for fighting for freedom but reverse he politically plotted for the Independence. When someone noted like V.D Savarkar who was equally highly ranked intellectual, was put into prison and then exiled out of politics with the helping hand from British. Why Gandhi didn’t side Savarkar? Why Gandhi didn’t side Subhashchandra Bose? Because he was all violently blinded by his practice called the stupid non-violence. If he was a barrister and studied law school, why he didn’t fight against British's oppressive policies against those 1857 revolts' soldiers and many others who has extremist ideas. Instead of siding to his fellow Indians who had the same objective of gaining Independence why did he compromised with British. Is it because these extermist, "freedom figheters" didn’t align to his crazy, nonsense principles? On the contrary he tried to become Mahatma at wrong times. In any case, I do not wish to discredit Gandhi for what he has done for India. In Gandhi I do see the successful political player but failed nation builder. I think Gandhi should have been born after independence that his principles could have been very effective against India's corrupt Congress Government. We Indians on a majority still don’t know who killed Subhashchandra Bose. We still don’t have answer why Gandhi didn’t fight for Savarkar's jail terms. In this times a stateman like Gandhi could inspire people to fight for the better governance but alas its very unfortunate for him to be born when someone like Tilak, Savarkar, Bose could have lead the country in the most valiant way. Munnabhai MBBS movie exhibits the same notion how Gandhian principles can be effective but in today's times but not when we were colonized and brutally forced into slavery on our own lands.

What Einstein stated in the first line still holds true. Because any literate self confidence patriot will not believe that someone with such a upright principles but applied them at wrong time has walked on this earth with a farce story of independence. The cost for his "non-violence" was rampant on violent scale. 1 million had already perished in 1857, hundreds of thousands hanged tortured prisoner, 1 million died in partition plus two wars with Pakistan. It was far from the likes of Garibaldi, Napolean, Washington, Shivaji etc. It’s not long time until one day someone will tell a different story about Gandhi' reality and his hidden political agenda and thy shall shock the nation and bring shame to the Congree ruling party.