ANYONE who wants to wade through Gandhi's endless ruminations about himsa and ahimsa (violence and nonviolence) is welcome to do so, but it is impossible for the skeptical reader to avoid the conclusion--let us say in 1920, when swaraj (home rule) was all the rage and Gandhi's inner voice started telling him that ahimsa was the thing--that this inner voice knew what it was talking about. By this I mean that, though Gandhi talked with the tongue of Hindu gods and sacred scriptures, his inner voice had a strong sense of expediency. Britain, if only comparatively speaking, was a moral nation, and nonviolent civil disobedience was plainly the best and most effective way of achieving Indian independence. Skeptics might also not be surprised to learn that as independence approached, Gandhi's inner voice began to change its tune. It has been reported that Gandhi "half-welcomed" the civil war that broke out in the last days. Even a fratricidal "bloodbath" (Gandhi's word) would be preferable to the British.
And suddenly Gandhi began endorsing violence left, right, and center. During the fearsome rioting in Calcutta he gave his approval to men "using violence in a moral cause." How could he tell them that violence was wrong, he asked, "unless I demonstrate that nonviolence is more effective?" He blessed the Nawab of Maler Kotla when he gave orders to shoot ten Muslims for every Hindu killed in his state. He sang the praises of Subhas Chandra Bose, who, sponsored by first the Nazis and then the Japanese, organized in Singapore an Indian National Army with which he hoped to conquer India with Japanese support, establishing a totalitarian dictatorship. Meanwhile, after independence in 1947, the armies of the India that Gandhi had created immediately marched into battle, incorporating the state of Hyderabad by force and making war in Kashmir on secessionist Pakistan. When Gandhi was assassinated by a Hindu extremist in January 1948 he was honored by the new state with a vast military funeral--in my view by no means inapposite.
This Gandhi is no relation to Mahatma Gandhi.
Sure Gandhi endorsed the use of violence when it suited his beliefs & interests.Like most sensible politicians.He offered unconditional support to the British war effort against the Nazis if they gave dominion status .
About supporting Subash Chandra Bose,most people will tell you that Gandhi virtually expelled Bose from the Congress party years before he tied up with the Axis.Do you seriously think that if Gandhi supported him,he wouldn’t have called for an uprising in India-which would have virtually frozen the war effort in Asia?????????Gandhi was a shrewd politician who understood Bose’s popularity,but opposed his strategies.
The fellow who wrote this piece seriously needs to do his research.Gandhi was dead months before the Indian army took Hyderabad with very little bloodshed.& The whole world knows that the Indian army was sent to Kashmir after it was invaded by Pakistan.