gandhi-a real mahatma

8/8/2019 Gandhi-A Real Mahatma

1/29

---------------------------------------------------------------------

UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGY STUDIES

---------------------------------------------------------------------

College of legal studies

Gandhi - A real

Mahatma

?Project-i

Submitted to Submitted by

Sam Babu K.C. Vatsal Kishore

Asst. Prof. B.A. /LL.B

COLS, UPES 500012344


2/29

Table of ContentsGandhi: A R eal Mahatma? .................................................................................................................... 3

WHOS AND HOWS of GANDHI ........................................................................................................... 4

Gandhian Principles ............................................................................................................................. 6

Satya ............................................................................................................................................... 6

Ahimsa ............................................................................................................................................ 7

Brahmacharya ................................................................................................................................. 7

Simplicity ......................................................................................................................................... 8

Equality ............................................................................................................................................... 8

Love, Faith and Hope ....................................................................................................................... 9

Bhagat Singh (Shaheed-e-Azam): A Biography.................................................................................... 11

Bhagat Singh Gandhi (The Discontentment) .................................................................................... 13

Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose (The Legend) ....................................................................................... 18

Gandhi-Bose and Indian Independence ......................... .......................... ......................... .................. 19

Gandhi Did he really want Independent India? ....................... .......................... .......................... ..... 25

Dominion Status: The concept ........................................................................................................... 26

Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 27

FOOTNOTES....................................................................................................................................... 28

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................... 29


3/29

Gandhi: A Real Mahatma ?When a person makes a project he has to be a good researcher, adept in writing skills and aboveall unbiased. At the time of choosing this project, I knew that Im putting my hands into a kiln,which has got very less probability of coming out un-burnt. I dont think that it would bepossible for me to come out unbiased, because here I will be judging on the basis of facts andfinally concluding it, which will either move for the great soul Mahatma or a wicked Traitor.So those who remain against the concept please bear with me, though appreciation is welcomed.

A person appears before the society in the way he lets himself to be portrayed before thesociety. This portraying turns into notions among the people lastly resulting into a frame underwhich he is observed. Every person born; inherits both good and bad aspects; its just the matter of wit, which side he chooses to flash more.

Year 1920, came up with a new face in Indian Freedom Struggle. A face which was going to turn

the tables for the Indian Freedom Struggle with a new spark which was hard to be believed to bea tool in a revolution. Gandhi neither erupted with violence nor remained soft like a flower, butadopted a moderate tarmac directed towards the aim of Independence; which was conceived byeveryone; only in the dreams till then. Gandhi led India to the road of independence, skipping theobstructions and bringing awe for the British with his every step. Apart from emerging as thesoul of the movement, his path of ahimsa garnered him a lot of respect around the globe. StillGandhian impact can be cited in places of South Africa, United States, Canada etc. even thoughGandhi had hardly any nexus with these countries; his principles were honored all around. Even2nd of October is celebrated is a non-violence day all across the globe.

In spite of the popularity, respect garnered by Gandhi, and the reputation preceding him, Gandhihasnt got a complete rosy picture. Now and then, several people come forward with their criti calopinions and allegations against Gandhi. Some call him a coward; some term him to be a traitorwhile some describe him as self centered. Why is it so? A person who brought the flavor of honor, elation and independence how can he be termed in such a disgraceful manner? There hasto be a strong backing to this concept.

I hope my efforts yield in brushing aside the ambiguity in the interpretation of the connotationattached with the word; name; the famous public figure, Gandhi.

Its necessary to get a clasp of Gandhi before entering into the researching issues. Who wasGandhi; how was he; what he did and why he did, clearing all the interrogatory marks.


4/29

WHOS AND HOWS of GANDHI

The greatest luminary in the Indian Freedom Struggle; respectfully tagged as Mahatma i.e.

great spirit and lovingly called as Bapu i.e. father. He pioneered Satyagraha i.e. defiance to

tyranny through mass civil disobedience. He patronized Ahimsa (non-violence) as his basicprinciple. Born on 2 nd October, 1869; commemorated as World Non-Violence Day; Gandhi is

still memorized as a great inspirer for a world free from violence and weapons . Gandhi first

employed civil disobedience while an expatriate lawyer in South Africa, during the resident

Indian community's struggle there for civil rights. During this time, he wrote articles for Indian

newspapers about black people that some modern readers consider racist. After his return to

India in 1915, he organized protests by peasants, farmers, and urban laborers concerning

excessive land-tax and discrimination. After assuming leadership of the Indian National

Congress in 1921, Gandhi led nationwide campaigns to ease poverty, expand women's rights,build religious and ethnic amity, end untouchability, and increase economic self-reliance. Above

all, he aimed to achieve Swaraj or the independence of India from foreign domination. Gandhi

famously led his followers in the Non-cooperation movement that protested the British-imposed

salt tax with the 400 km (240 mi) Dandi Salt March in 1930. Later, in 1942, he launched the Quit

India civil disobedience movement demanding immediate independence for India. Gandhi spent

a number of years in jail in both South Africa and India.

As a practitioner of ahimsa , Gandhi swore to speak the truth and advocated that others do the

same. He lived modestly in a self-sufficient residential community and wore the traditional

Indian dhoti and shawl, woven from yarn that he had spun by hand himself. He ate simple

vegetarian food, experimented for a time with a fruitarian diet, and undertook long fasts as a

means of both self-purification and social protest.

Gandhi put his foot into the revolutionary roads when he was in South Africa. Three events are

famously known for igniting him. At Pietermaritzburg Gandhi faced the discrimination directed

towards Indians for the first time, when he was thrown out of the first class of train for denying

moving to the third class; as he was a black even when he was carrying a first class ticket.

Travelling farther on by stagecoach he was beaten by a driver for refusing to travel on the foot

board to make room for a European passenger. Moreover in another incident, the magistrate of

a Durban court ordered Gandhi to remove his turban; this command was a blow to Gandhis

religious sentiments which he refused to act upon. These events were a turning point in his life,

awakening him to social injustice and influencing his subsequent social activism. It was through

witnessing firsthand the racism; prejudice and injustice against Indians in South Africa that


5/29

Gandhi started to question his people's status within the British Empire, and his own place in

society . He understood the strength of satyagraha in the period of his South African

inhabitation. In 1906, the Transvaal government promulgated a new Act compelling registration

of the colony's Indian population. At a mass protest meeting held in Johannesburg on 11

September that year, Gandhi adopted his still evolving methodology of satyagraha (devotion to

the truth), or non-violent protest, for the first time, calling on his fellow Indians to defy the new

law and suffer the punishments for doing so, rather than resist through violent means. Though

Gandh i couldnt restrain the passage of the bill; but he successfully managed the Christian Smuts

to negotiate a compromise with Gandhi.

Gandhi made a political entry in the Indian Freedom Struggle with his Champaran agitation and

Kheda Satyagraha . In the former the aim was to demolish the suzerainty of the feudal lords who

were exploiting every bit of the toil of farmers while in the latter the farmers were forced to plant

indigo and other cash crops instead of the food crops which were essential for their survival. The

period from 1919-1947 is also known as Gandhian Era in Indian Freedom Struggle. Gandhi

became the President of All India Congress Committee very soon and actively came up with his

famous aggressive moves such as Non-Cooperation Movement, Civil Disobedience Movement,

Salt Satyagraha and Quit India Movement which got massive support of the public.

Gandhi featured himself mainly on two attributes, non-violence and truth. Gandhi dedicated his

life to the wider purpose of discovering truth, or Satya. Gandhi stated that the most important

battle to fight was overcoming his own demons, fears, and insecurities. Gandhi summarized his

beliefs first when he said "God is Truth". He would later change this statement to "Truth is God".

Thus, Satya (Truth) in Gandhi's philosophy is "God".

Although Mahatama Gandhi was not the originator of the principle of non-violence, he was the

first to apply it in the political field on a huge scale. The concept of nonviolence ( ahimsa ) and

nonresistance has a long history in Indian religious thought and has had many revivals in Hindu,

Buddhist, Jain, Jewish and Christian contexts. Gandhi explains his philosophy and way of life in

his autobiography The Story of My Experiments with Truth . He was quoted as saying:

"When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won.

There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible, but in the end, they

always fall think of it, always."

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad

destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and

democracy?"

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."


6/29

"There are many causes that I am prepared to die for but no causes that I am prepared to kill

for .1

In applying these principles, Gandhi did not balk from taking them to their most logical extremes

in envisioning a world where even government, police and armies were nonviolent.

Gandhian Principles

SatyaThe principle of Satya, as conceived by Gandhi, consists of a notion that transcends all levels andaspects of human comprehension. Gandhi did not consider himself to be a pacifist, socialist or onany definable spectrum of politics, yet only proclaimed that he adhered to the truth, or Satya, of life, a trait of his derived from which were his perseverant and ardent Satyagrahas non-violentprotests advocating Satya through Ahimsa. Nonetheless, Gandhi does not perceive of truth as theabsolute solution to metaphysical matters, but truth that influences and involves one from onessubjective perspective. Gandhi demands and requires that his disciples do not necessarily abide

by his truths by word, yet by spirit should one genuinely and authentically evaluates thatviolence is, under certain occasions, mandatory and inevitable, it is truthful, and righteouslycorresponding to Satya to believe in it. Gandhis lifestyle constituted his constantexperimentations with truth; he was prepared to learn through trial and error, often conceding tohave committed mistakes and altering his behavior accordingly. He would prioritize truth overpolitical independence believing that Indians should not become murderers and commit the

very malevolence they were accusing th e British of perpetrating in India. Gandhis mostprominent beliefs also encapsulated and comprised his pursuit of truth, which actually consistedof the main core of his notions, Gandhi conceiving of his life as a journey to discovering hissubjective, ar bitrary, yet righteous truth. Satya consisted of Gandhis teachings, and the intentof his whole life - to examine and comprehend for oneself, acknowledging the significance of

1 Gandhi M.K., The Story of My Experiments with Truth, Navajivan Trust

Satya Ahimsa Brahmacharya

Equality Love, Faithand Hope


7/29

others, and of truth, which, according to Gandhi, connoted a force greater than any mechanismsor forces. Gandhis philosophy encompassed ontology and its association with truth. For Gandhi,"to be" did not mean to exist within the realm of time, as it has in the past with the Greek philosophers yet the ontological perception of Gandhi consisted of the existence within theconstituency of truth, within the realm of Satya, and under the protection of God Truth,which, in congruence to the Hindu beliefs regarding Brahmans omnipotence, omniscience, andsupreme identity, and the Atmas , resembling Brahmas existence in all mortals, theoreticallyexists within every mortal. With such perceptions and values regarding Satya, Gandhi pursuedthis notion through his Satyagrahas, in which the conscientious and virtuous Satya wasassiduously followed and adhered to. Extending past the conventional perception of passiveresistance under Gandhis interpretation, the Satyagrahas of Gandhi truly resembled their literalimplications of insistence on truth: With an initiative approach, Gandhi instigated a notion thatpassive resistance differed from his Satyagraha mass civil disobedience, according to theallegedly valid beliefs that Satyagrahas adhere to the truth, are solely deployed for benignintents, and do not, under all circumstances, employ violence. One of the most prominent notions

of Satyagraha consists of the notion that, instead of coercing ones opponent, one needs to co -operate with the opponent to achieve a mutual compromise and the preliminarily set goal. Inaddition, no violence or untruthful acts should be perpetuated in the course of any Satyagraha,for the means shall subsequently controvert the aims, defying the original intent of achievingAhimsa and Satya.

AhimsaElaborating on the conventional Hindu and Jain notion of Ahimsa, Gandhi implemented ahimsaonto politics; he was the pioneer of employing non-violence in political protests, conceiving that

non- violence would rid me of ones obstreperousness, contempt, and belligerence, suppressingones anger. Gandhi pursued the notion that the killing of mortals consisted of a highly unmoraland malevolent act, hence his advocating of vegetarianism. Deploying Satyagrahas based onnotions of non-violence (Ahimsa), and non-resistance, Gandhi urged the orthodox Hindu-Jainnotion of ahimsa to another, comparatively political and substantial level. Gandhi also pursuedmost resolutely the notion of vegetarianism, he himself not consuming any meat at all, for herecognized the Jain belief of vegetarianism as a foundation for his non-violence belief, and amost economically practical conception. Nonetheless, Gandhi perceived and acknowledged thatAhimsa required an abundance of audacity and resilience, and hence advocated a vicious yetintrepid defense, in contrary to chivalrous cowardice.

BrahmacharyaGandhi conceived of the significance of Brahmacharya when he was 16; while his fathercontracted a disease and deteriorated in health rapidly. Being very dedicated to his parents, heattended to his father at all times during his illness. Nonetheless, Gandhi was relieved and


8/29

exempt from his duty when his uncle came to replace Gandhis vigil over his father. Havingretired to his room, Gandhi imprudently and impetuously committed carnal acts with his wife.Subsequently, a servant entered the room and reported to Gandhi that his father had just died.Subjectively perceiving himself culpable, and being substantially influenced by the incident,Gandhi became celibate at the age of 36, while still married. This decision was deeply influencedby the philosophy of Brahmacharya spiritual and practical purity substantially associatedwith celibacy and asceticism, one of the five significant beliefs constituting Jainism, a religionfrom which Gandhi had and would acquire his insights and beliefs. Gandhi conceived of Brahmacharya as a means to near God, transcendence realism, purity, realisation, and truth; headmitted to having once possessed lustful urges with his childhood bride, Kasturba. Inclined tocontrol his originally impetuous love through restraining his lustful love to solely pure love,Gandhi hence perceived of Brahmacharya as his monitoring of senses. Gandhi even elaboratedhis conceptions to implementing his Brahmacharya practices through intentionally endeavouringto resist lust, by sleeping next to a woman on the same bed while maintaining and restrictinghimself to not conduct sexual intercourse with her.

SimplicityIn correspondence to the aforementioned, conventional, and general perception of simplicity as

being empty, pure, and aloof, and constituting one of Jainisms five prominent notions Aparigraha the detachment from others. Gandhi also refuted that success was based onexuberant pompousness, for he, as a political figure, possessed the attire of the allegedly inferioruntouchables, without his western suits. He wore the clothes of the poorest inhabitants of thesocial hierarchy in India, employing his home-spun cloth, while concurrently encouraging othersto spin their own clothes, plant, and avoid the exuberant ostentation of westerners, and, hence,

their clothes. Avoiding all unnecessary expenditures and gifts, Gandhi endeavored to reducehimself to such divine and infinite simplicity that he was, according to himself, trying to reducehimself to zero. Gandhi spent one day of each week in silence, conceiving that abstaining fromspeaking brought him inner harmony a tranquil yet simple state of peace of mind.

Equality Gandhi perceived of equality as a means to reach simplicity and agape love, through whichpurity could be attained. Conceiving of the notion of untouchability as ludicrous as unjust for allmen were allegedly equal, Gandhi enunciated the significance of acknowledging the equality of all humans, regardless of races Blacks or Whites, ethnic groups, nationalities English orIndians, religious groups, social class Untouchables or Royals, for Gandhi was inclined toimpart the fact that all men were equal, according to the Satya and the notion of Simplicity.


9/29

Love, Faith and HopeGandhi conceived of love and truth as the two most prominent sectors of his beliefs, and, ingeneral, of religions. Through the Christian Agape love and Sacrificial love, Gandhi was inclinedto save his fellows through non-violent, yet, consequently, precarious means; should one notpossess agape love (charity), and sacrificial love, how could one, in congruence to Gandhi,

proclaim that one would be willing to sacrifice ones life in exchange for justice? In addition,Gandhi also advocated the notion of faith, as he insisted on the significance of his being anHindu, and not actually converting to other religions, notwithstanding his not conceding thetranscendence, omniscience, and the omnipotence of Brahman the ultimate Hindu deity: Incontrary to allegedly blindly pursuing Gods, Gandhi treated religions as symbols of portmanteau collections of notions and beliefs, from which, and regardless of which religions,Gandhi would select beliefs to practice upon in accordance to him, every different religion hasits advantages and drawbacks. He held no preference over religions, for he recognized and lovedall religions, hence promoting universalism. In addition, Gandhi also evaluated the belief of hopeas highly significant and indispensable in his resistance for the hope for Indias independence

was apparently required to be substantial, so substantial that derived from which was sufficientaudacity and resilience to overthrow a prominent empire. 2

Gandhian ideals are s till cherished by people all around the globe. His gestation of ahimsa isstill the most famous and unique tool ever used in any freedom struggle. People like MartinLuther King Jr. and James Lawson- the civil rights leaders drew from Gandhian ideals for thedevelopment of their own principles, Nelson Mandela-the anti Apartheid leader, Albert Einstein-the great physicist, once said, Gandhi is a role model for the generations to come, Britishmusician John Lennon, admitted that his music had the influence of Gandhi, former US VicePresident Al Gore acknowledged Gandhis influence on him, and in the most recent example; thecontemporary US President Barack Obama uttered in his election campaign, Throughout mylife, I have always looked to Mahatma Gandhi as an inspiration, because he embodies the kind of transformational change that can be made when ordinary people come together to doextraordinary things. That is why his portrait hangs in my Senate office: to remind me that realresults will come not just from Washington they will come from the people. Amongst other world leaders who found inspiration and hope in Gandhi and his works includeKhan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Burmese leader Aung San Suu Kyi and Philippine leader BenignoAquino, Jr. 3

There were umpteen credits bagged by Gandhi, but criticisms also tailed them. His non-violentmeasures of fighting back gained popularity not only because they yielded much but alsobecause of the uniqueness possessed in them. This uniqueness also framed a brigadediscontented by his leadership. Subhash Chandra Bose, Bhagat Singh, Sachindra Nath Sanyal,

2 Brown M. J., Gandhis Rise to Power: Indian Politics 1915 -1922, p 1943 Walker M. Donna, http://gandhiking.ning.com/forum/topics/others-who-were-influenced-by , 25/09/2010
http://gandhiking.ning.com/forum/topics/others-who-were-influenced-byhttp://gandhiking.ning.com/forum/topics/others-who-were-influenced-byhttp://gandhiking.ning.com/forum/topics/others-who-were-influenced-byhttp://gandhiking.ning.com/forum/topics/others-who-were-influenced-by


10/29

Chandrashekhar Azad adopted a completely different path to embrace independence. Thesepeople advocated the path which was tramped in the Russian Revolution influenced by thesocialistic structure. They believed in action which also contained violent means.

Apart from all the conceptions and reverences for Gandhi, he is a person; universally honored,but little understood and much less followed. People do cheer his principles, but hardlyunderstand it. Though they all get the gist, but the Gandhian interpretations are quite differentfrom the real meaning of those words and are thus wrongly understood. In spite of the largebrigade of the people appreciating him, very few people could be cited tracing his path. Why is itso? Isnt the Gandhian path good enough to be tramped?

During my research for the project I went through various books, novels, articles, newspaperclippings etc. to refine whatever idea I had in my mind. Various controversial aspects came tothe surface bringing a question mark for the image, Gandhi pursued publicly. Effectiveness of hisprinciple of ahimsa , his aspirations for India, his view towards women etc.

Before moving into the controversies, I want to spot the light on some other great martyrs whoare still respected and honored for the courage they possessed in their hearts. Theyre also goingto play a major role in this project in the forthcoming events.


11/29

Bhagat Singh (Shaheed-e-Azam): A Biography

Life is the biggest struggle as claimed by many but people still fear death. Even death is said to be the biggest fear of a mans life. Sir Francis Bacon, a great English philosopher once said,Men fear death as children fear to go in the dark; and as that natural fear in children is increased

by tales, so is the other . But for people like Bhagat Singh, death was their embraced destiny.

Bhagat Singh hailed from a small village of Punjab named Lyallpur. Born to a Jat Sikh familywhich had earlier been involved in revolutionary activities against the British Raj, Singh, as ateenager, had studied European revolutionary movements and was attractedto anarchism and communism. He became involved in numerous revolutionary organizations.His participation in the freedom struggle invoked the youth, primarily of Punjab where his partyNaujawan Bharat Sabha got massive support. He appealed for Hindu-Muslim unity, wroterevolutionary articles, and staged plays to ignite the spark of revolution. He became very famousin Lahore. His influential and motivational oratory garnered him support all over. Bhagat Singh

was seeking a bigger stage to propagate his thoughts. He soon joined Hindustan RepublicanAssociation. An aggressive revolutionary party centered at Cawnpore. The party was founded byan active revolutionary figure Sachindra Nath Sanyal. Chandrashekhar Azad, Ajay Ghosh, RamPrasad Bismil, Ashfaq Ulla Khan etc. were the other popular leaders of the party. Soon afterBhagat Singh joined the party the Kakori dacoity was performed. Unfortunately, all therevolutionaries participating in the dacoity were caught except Chandrashekhar Azad. BhagatSingh rejuvenated the party with his extraordinary thoughts. He soon became one of the foremostleaders of the party. Bhagat Singh called for a huge conference at Feroz Shah Kotla in NewDelhi. Revolutionaries from all over the country joined the meet except those from West Bengal,as they had abandoned the path of violence. In the meet Bhagat Singh well elucidated themeaning and importance of socialism as the theme of the freedom movement and thus added thecaption in the partys name, thus making Hindustan Socialist Republican Association.Bhagat Singh was a big follower Vladimir Lenin 4, the Marxist Russian Revolutionary. He wasvery much influenced by the incidents of the Russian Revolution and hoped for a replica inIndia. Bhagat Singh was an ardent reader. He was mainly focused towards the revolutionarybooks which invoked the spirit of revolution in him and also poured him with ideas for staginghis protests.

His first public appearance as a member of HSRA was at the protest led by Lala Lajpat Rai when

John Simon arrived with his commission to study constitutional reform in the Indian colony. Thediscontentment was on the issue of not including any Indian member in the commission. Later inthe incident Lala Lajpat Rai was hit hard on his head during the lathicharge on the order of aBritish police official, Scott. Lalaji succumbed to the severe blow. Bhagat Singh felt bedeviledby the incident. He decided to avenge the murder of Lalaji. A plan was formulated by the HSRA

4 Anonymous, http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSlenin.htm , 25/10/2010
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSlenin.htmhttp://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSlenin.htmhttp://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSlenin.htmhttp://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSlenin.htm


12/29

members to kill Scott. Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, Chandrashekhar Azad, Jaigopal executed the plan.Though by mistake Saunders, another British officer was killed in the homicide. Bhagat Singhand Rajguru bored several bullets in the body of Saunders who died at the spot. Bhagat Singhand Rajguru successfully absconded after the killing and reached Calcutta to re-integrate andpopularize the party.The next stride of Bhagat Singh had something much bigger and comprehensive. HSRA neitherlacked the enthusiasm nor the efforts; what it lacked was the support of people. Being forthright,HSRA had gone exasperated by the tagging they got and the countrywide popularity of theCongress party. They were seeking a stage to showcase their ardency. Those days theexploitation of the labor and farmer class was at its peak. Revenues were high, powers of unionswere abolished, and several factories were shut down. New laws were brought up by theGovernment to censor settlers from staging their discontentment and thus management was givencomplete authority over the employees. On the day of passing of the Public Safety Bill whichwas going to wind up the voice of the laborers, Bhagat Singh accompanied by Batukeshwar Dutt;another HSRA revolutionary threw bombs as the bill was presented in the National Assembly

yelling Long lives the revolution -down live imperialism. Bhagat Singh didnt run after performing the act rather surrendered himself to the police. This wasnt something which wasincidental; but was well planned. This act was condemned all over. Congress declared the act tobe preposterous and so did the British Government and other regional parties. BritishGovernment had smelled the stuff cooking in Bhagat Singhs mind. Therefore they projected thesurrender as a catch to block the attention he could ve got by the act. But Bhagat Singh was wayahead of their range of thinking. During his case presentations, he used the court as a propagandaoffice to spread his views and aims. His impressive oratory soon acquired plenty of followers forhim. It seemed as Bhagat Singh wanted to immerse in the revolutionary spirits. It was onlyrevolution, he cheered for, he toiled for and he lived for. In the jails; the facilities, food andhygienic conditions of Indians and British varied to a great extent. B hagat Singh couldnt digestthe discrimination. His refute of the jail regulations was again a tool of revolution. He deniedfood for continuous 62 days. This hunger strike was completely adopted by all other HSRAmembers who were jailed then. British Government took severe measures to break the strike, butsurrendered before the zeal of Bhagat Singh and party. The strike followed deaths of the greatspirits but none of them stopped. Consequently, for the first time in the history of Indianrevolution, British Government had to bow before the spirit of India. All the demands were dulygranted. The British efforts to make him infamous were landing in vain. A very unique andunjust law was passed by the then Viceroy of India, Lord Irwin, to stop Bhagat Singh. The new

law permitted the case to be carried out even in the absence of the convicts. Most of the HSRAmembers were sentenced to life imprisonment while the Saunders murder committers , BhagatSingh, Sukhdev and Rajguru were sentenced to death. It was the popularity of Bhagat Singhwhich brought millions of appeals from all over the world demanding the commutation of hissentence. Even many British MPs appealed for the same. Subhash Chandra Bose actively stagedseveral protests to get the hanging cancelled. But lastly on 23 rd March, 1931, the great


13/29

revolutionary embraced death at the scaffold. Sukhdev and Rajguru were also executed on thesame date. British were afraid of the reactions the hanging could have brought; therefore thecorpses of all the three were cut into pieces and burnt, to make them unrecognizable.

Bhagat Singh all through his life was considered and claimed to be a person, very violent,lacking proper knowledge and a goon desiring popularity, by many national leaders. Even hisways which generally remained contrary to the track of ahimsa shown by Mahatma Gandhibro ught him criticisms as he didnt belong to the gen eral flock. Bhagat Singh faced criticismsand allegations all through his life, but the truth is that he was a revolutionary with greatintellect, innovative and effective measures and firm ambition. He devoted his life for a freeIndia and ignited the youths for the same.

Bhagat Singh Gandhi (The Discontentment)Bhagat Singh was a huge fan of Gandhi. At the age of 11 when Non-Cooperation Movement was

convened, Bhagat Singh enthusiastically participated in all its events. He became very famousfor his participation in the events in the whole of Lyallpur. But he got badly distressed when themovement was called off on the account of Chauri Chaura incident. Bhagat Singh found itcompletely indigestible. He failed to understand the policy of ahimsa followed by Gandhi.Hundreds of people were killed in the incident, while 30-40 policemen also died in the arson. Butthe movement was called off on the grounds of death of the 30 policemen ignoring the sacrificeof the people. People who had sacrificed their jobs, education, life just for the faith they had inMahatma Gandhi, remained of nowhere. The schools and workplaces they had abandoned didnttake them back. Their career was at stake. For safeguarding the interests of youth Lala Lajpat Raiopened National College at Lahore, which became the refuge for all. Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and

many others of HSRA were the students of National College only.The discontentment of Bhagat Singh seems to be justified when it comes to his belief which wasstruck hard by the incomprehensible Gandhian methods.It is implicit, that until the country wouldve stood in unity, independence was inconceivable.Bhagat Singh, all through his life remained a big advocator of unity at all grounds, whether it becommunal or religional while at several places Gandhi was found to be quite indifferent with theIslamic ways. If he wanted to go secular, he shouldnt have emphasized on the Hindu and Jainpolicies, but many of his speeches can be cited to be filled with religional and communalbabbles.Another controversy which raises doubts in Gandhi is his effort to save Bhagat Singh. Onaccount of this I would like to bring forward a research performed by Paresh R. Vaidya, ascholar from the Banaras Hindu University.

It is 70 years since Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev were hanged to death at the LahoreCentral Prison. That was on March 23, 1931. The same month witnessed another event of importance in the freedom struggle, that is, the Gandhi-Irwin Pact. The pact was signed on


14/29

March 5, 1931 after a long discussion. The executions and truce between the Congress and theRaj after an intense spell of satyagraha in 1930 did not merely coincide in history but almostcollided. They influenced each other to some extent. A controversy was generated aboutMahatma Gandhi not getting an amnesty for Bhagat Singh under the pact, and it put him on thedefensive. The controversy also created a strong debate about the inter-relationship between thepeaceful and violent means employed in the freedom struggle. In fact, reviewing the events nowin perspective, one suspects that the British might have timed the execution to create an uneasysituation for the Congress. It will be interesting to review both the events independently and thenin conjunction. Bhagat Singh. Mahatma Gandhi did plead for the commutation of the deathsentence imposed on Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev, but he did not succeed in the bidbecause the Viceroy's moves were governed from England and the three were considered achallenge to the Raj. The chain of events started with the death of Lala Lajpat Rai whiledemonstrating against the Simon Commission. Lalaji was injured in a lathicharge; he died onNovember 17, 1928, probably owing to shock. This drew many youth closer to the conclusionthat violence is the only means to fight the British. In fact, inspired by the success of the

Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917, many militant groups had been functioning in India.Bhagat Singh was a member of one such group called the Ghadar Party. Some of these militantskilled Assistant Superintendent of Police John Poyantz Saunders , who was supposed to havebeaten Lala Lajpat Rai. Four months after Saunders was shot, that is, on April 8, 1929, twoyoung men were arrested for throwing bombs at the treasury benches of the Central LegislativeAssembly in Delhi. One of them was Bhagat Singh. It was possibly this incident that promptedthe police to suspect his involvement in the so-called Lahore Conspiracy Case. The case isfamous because of the draconian provisions incorporated by the British in this context in theotherwise reasonable laws of criminal procedure. Those detained under the case resorted tohunger strikes and boycotts in jails. Many a time the accused had to be brought to the courtroomon stretchers because of physical weakness. It is believed that Jatin Das, a young man, diedduring an attempt to feed him forcibly after he had completed 63 days of fasting. Bhagat Singh ismore in the public memory than many other martyrs probably because of the attention this trialattracted. The trial was discussed so much that the witnesses started turning hostile. Even aBritish policeman refused to identify Bhagat Singh as a person present at the time of the murder.As a result, the government came out with the Lahore Conspiracy Case Ordinance, 1930, whichdispensed with the need of defense counsel, defence witnesses and the presence of the accusedduring the trial. After this new-style trial that lasted five months, the judgment came on October7, 1930. An appeal was made to the Privy Council but to no avail. Some people feel that Bhagat

Singh could have been saved under the Gandhi-Irwin agreement, which evolved during the sameperiod. This feeling prevailed especially among the leftists who presumed that Gandhiji did notattempt for amnesty because he hated violence. It will be proper to sit in judgment on the matteronly after knowing the background of the Gandhi-Irwin pact. This first ever agreement betweenthe Raj and the Congress came after two years of turmoil in the country in the form of a non-violent civil disobedience struggle. After the Congress passed its Poorna Swaraj resolution in


15/29

December 1929, Gandhiji devised the 450-kilometre Dandi March to shake the rural people outof inaction and break the Salt Law, as a token of disobedience. The chain of events that followedshowed that the extent of sacrifice needed for a non-violent struggle was no less than what wasrequired for a violent struggle. Apart from making monetary and career sacrifices, theparticipants showed, in the face of police torture, a level of physical courage that would havebeen required in a violent struggle. By December that year almost all leaders, including Gandhiji,were rounded up and jails in the country were full. Finally, thanks to the mediation of moderateslike Tej Bahadur Sapru, the government came forward to talk to the satyagrahis. As aprecondition the leaders were released in January 1931. Gandhiji stayed in Delhi where later heconvened a meeting of the Congress Working Committee. Accounts of the parleys between theCongress and the government between February 17 and March 5 indicate that frequently therewere delicate moments of stalemate, long arguments over a phrase or a word, objections fromcolleagues and so on. Many a time Gandhiji was seen off by the Viceroy after midnight and theformer would walk down to his residence at Dr. Mukhtar Ahmad Ansari's house, which was 8km away. It was on this occasion that Winston Churchill made the nasty remark describing

Gandhiji as a half-naked fakir. Disturbed by the endless discussions, he had said: "It is alarmingand nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of atype well known in the East, striding half-naked up the steps of the Viceregal Palace to parley onequal terms with the representative of the King Emperor." The outcome of the talks was a mixedone. Each leader was unhappy about specific parts of the pact. Subhas Chandra Bose, forexample, told the leftists among Congressmen: "Between us and the British lies an ocean of blood and a mountain of corpses. Nothing on earth can induce us to accept this compromisewhich Gandhiji had signed." On the whole, the Congress had to accept the pact because theWorking Committee was with Gandhiji at every stage of the discussions. But the militants andtheir supporters would not have it. What is the use of a truce that does not get amnesty forBhagat Singh and his colleagues? Wherever Gandhiji went, youngsters with red flagsencountered him with questions; sometimes he was even manhandled. At the All India CongressCommittee (AICC) meeting in Karachi they shouted: "Gandhi's truce sent Bhagat Singh to thegallows." WHILE parading through history, it would be unfair to Gandhiji if one does not recordhis efforts in this case. He was not a mere politician but a humanist at the core. He got 90,000political prisoners other than satyagrahis released under the pretext of "relieving politicaltension". He did plead for the commutation of the death sentence of the three heroes, BhagatSingh, Rajguru and Sukhdev, also. But he did not succeed because the Viceroy's moves weregoverned from England and these three were a challenge to the Raj and thus were not thought fit

for pardon. In fact, he wrote a letter to the Viceroy on the day of their execution, pleadingfervently for commutation, not knowing that the letter would be too late. A point to be placed onGandhiji's side of the balance is that he was already weak in the truce with the Raj, owing toincomprehensible reasons. Probably, Irwin was a better bargainer than he; otherwise a leaderwho spearheaded a successful, unique, non-violent agitation that attracted the attention of thepress the world over and drew millions, including women and children who showed a rare spirit


16/29

of sacrifice, need not have made so many concessions to the government. In such a situation hecould not have been expected to win on the major issue of commutation of death sentences. Hesaid in Karachi: "I might have done one more thing, you say. I might have made thecommutation a term of settlement. It could not be done so. And to threaten withdrawal nowwould be a breach of faith." But this should not be taken as a manifestation of a lukewarmfeeling towards Bhagat Singh. Records are replete with Gandhiji's speeches commending thespirit of sacrifice of all such youth and their nationalistic spirit. He once said: "I am not referringto the frothy eloquence that passes muster for patriotism; I have in mind that secret, silent,persevering band of young men and women who want to see their country free at any cost." Hediffered with them only on the merit of their path. He said in Karachi: "If I had an opportunity tospeak to Bhagat Singh and his comrades, I should have told them that the way they pursued waswrong and futile. We cannot win Swaraj for our famishing millions by sword. The way of violence can only lead to disaster, perdition. I shall explain to you why. Do you think that allwomen and children who covered themselves with glory during the last campaign would havedone so if we had pursued the path of violence? Would our women known as the meekest on

earth have done the unique service they did, if we had violence in us? And our children - ourVanar Sena; how could you have had these innocent ones who renounced their toys, their kites,their crackers and joined as soldiers of Swaraj - how could you have enlisted them in a violentstruggle?" It is worth pondering over these words. It is the mass support that decides the successor failure of a method of struggle. The people of India chose non-violent means over violent onesso clearly that even after this controversy, whenever Gandhiji gave a call he had millionsresponding to it. Perhaps it was this mass support to Gandhiji that made prominent Left-leaningyouth like M.R. Masani, Ram Manohar Lohia and Jayaprakash Narayan to stay in his company.In any case, a violent struggle for Independence could have succeeded only with external armedhelp, which came as late as 1942 with Subhas Bose's efforts; by then independence, had alreadybeen conceded in principle. It may take too long to discuss the Mahatma's arguments andcompare the merits and demerits of violent and non-violent means of struggle, but it wouldsuffice to note that it was not his creed of ahimsa that would turn to violence even "to punish adacoit, or even a murderer". Perhaps the following words of Lord Irwin himself might explainwhy Gandhiji must have failed to persuade him to commute the sentence: "As I listened to Mr.Gandhi putting the case for commutation before me, I reflected first on what significance itsurely was that the apostle of non-violence should so earnestly be pleading the cause of thedevotees of a creed so fundamentally opposed to his own, but I should regard it as wholly wrongto allow my judgment to be influenced by purely political considerations. I could not imagine a

case in which under the law, penalty had been more directly deserved." He has referred toGandhiji's personal visit to meet him on March 19. Interestingly enough, on the same day,Bhagat Singh and two others had sent off a letter to the Viceroy because their friends coaxedthem to do so. But in that letter they had not asked for clemency. Instead they asked the Viceroyto treat them as prisoners of war and hence to shoot them rather than hang them. With this letternow available, it is no use lamenting on Gandhiji's stand, whatever that was, because Bhagat


17/29

Singh did not relish the idea of asking for a pardon. This is evident from the fact that a friend of his (Prannath Mehta) visited him in the jail on March 20 with a draft letter for clemency but hedeclined to sign it. Four days later the three were executed in Lahore, on the eve of the AICCsession in Karachi. On hearing the news, Gandhiji said that the sudden execution under thecircumstances was like cutting the ground underneath his feet, however technically unconnectedit might be with the terms of the truce. It probably was a cunning move by the Raj to order theexecution just a night before the Karachi session. It was done in the knowledge that theemotiveness of the issue would put Gandhiji and the Congress in an awkward position at theAICC as the heat was anyway directed against them. Indeed, that was what happened.

No doubt, it was a queer combination of circumstances that two streams of the freedom struggleshould thus meet in one incident, namely, the Gandhi-Irwin Pact. But queerer yet is the fact thatpeople who never believed in satyagraha as a tool to achieve freedom should be irked at thewithdrawal of satyagraha by those who started it. 5

Moreover, in addition to the research I would also like to bring a press notification brought out

by Congress Party, which was an official statement made by Mahatma Gandhi after the hangingof the three revolutionaries.

Bhagat Singh and his two associates have been hanged. The Congress made many attempts tosave their lives and the Government entertained many hopes of it, but all has been in a vain.

Bhagat Singh did not wish to live. He refused to apologize, or even file an appeal. Bhagat Singhwas not a devotee of non-violence, but he did not subscribe to the religion of violence. He took to violence due to helplessness and to defend his homeland. In his last letter, Bhagat Singh wrote--" I have been arrested while waging a war. For me there can be no gallows. Put me intothe mouth of cannon and blow me off." These heroes had conquered the fear of death. Let us

bow to them a thousand times for their heroism.

But we should not imitate their act. In our land of millions of destitute and crippled people, if we take to the practice of seeking justice through murder, there will be a terrifying situation. Ourpoor people will become victims of our atrocities. By making a dharma of violence, we shall bereaping the fruit of our own actions.

Hence, though we praise the courage of these brave men, we should never countenance theiractivities. Our dharma is to swallow our anger, abide by the discipline of non-violence and carryout our duty.

March 29, 1931 6

I completely accept the fact that Gandhi laid efforts to save Bhagat Singh and his friends, but is itconceivable that a pact, on which everything is contingent, is signed without free and willfulconsent. There were demands not to ink Irwin Pact unless the sentences were commuted, and

5 Vaidya P.R., Gandhi-In and Out , Vol XXIII No. 8, 20016 http://www.kamat.com/mmgandhi/gandhi.htm
http://www.kamat.com/mmgandhi/gandhi.htmhttp://www.kamat.com/mmgandhi/gandhi.htmhttp://www.kamat.com/mmgandhi/gandhi.htmhttp://www.kamat.com/mmgandhi/gandhi.htm


18/29

everybody understood the desperation of British to get the pact signed, and then Gandhi goesthere asks for commutation and returns back blank. Is it acceptable in the conditions whichprevailed then? Moreover the words destitute and crippled signifying Bhagat Singh, are they

justified anyway for the greatest martyrs ever, Shaheed -E- Azam?

Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose (The Legend)

Born on 23 rd January, 1897, was one of the greatest Indian revolutionary who led an Indiannational political and military force against Britain and Western Powers during World War-II.Popularly known as Netaji, Bose is a legendary figure for India even today.

Bose advocated complete independence for India at the earliest, whereas the All-India Congress

Committee wanted it in phases, through Dominion status. Finally at the historic Lahore Congress

convention, the Congress adopted Purna Swaraj (complete independence) as its motto. Bhagat

Singh's martyrdom and the inability of the Congress leaders to save his life infuriated Bose andhe started a movement opposing the Gandhi-Irwin Pact. He was imprisoned and expelled from

India. Defying the ban, he came back to India and was imprisoned again.

Bose was elected president of the Indian National Congress for two consecutive terms, but had to

resign from the post following ideological conflicts with Mohandas K. Gandhi and after openly

attacking the Congress' foreign and internal policies. Bose believed that Gandhi's tactics of non-

violence would never be sufficient to secure India's independence, and advocated violent

resistance. He established a separate political party, the All India Forward Bloc and continued to

call for the full and immediate independence of India from British rule. He was imprisoned bythe British authorities eleven times. His famous motto was "Give me blood and I will give you

freedom".

His stance did not change with the outbreak of the Second World War, which he saw as an

opportunity to take advantage of British weakness. At the outset of the war, he left India,

travelling to the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, seeking an alliance with each

of them to attack the British government in India. With Imperial Japanese assistance, he re-

organised and later led the Azad Hind Fauj or Indian National Army (INA), formed with Indian

prisoners-of-war and plantation workers from British Malaya, Singapore, and other parts of Southeast Asia, against British forces. With Japanese monetary, political, diplomatic and military

assistance, he formed the Azad Hind Government in exile, and regrouped and led the INA in

failed military campaigns against the allies at Imphal and in Burma.


19/29

His political views and the alliances he made with Nazi and other militarist regimes at war with

Britain have been the cause of arguments among historians and politicians, with some accusing

him of fascist sympathies, while others in India have been more sympathetic towards the real

politik that guided his social and political choices.

He is presumed to have died on 18 August 1945 in a plane crash in Taiwan, though the evidencefor his death in such an accident has not been universally accepted. 7

Gandhi-Bose and Indian Independence

After Bhagat Singh I would like to move to another controversy related to the credit of independence gained by us. Whether there was really Gandhi who consecrated himself andbrought independence to us or some other factors can also be duly projected as the reasons.

I would like to present a research performed by Dr. N.C. Rajaram to find the contribution of Subhash Chandra Bose in Indian independence.

There is a story that the late Mao Zedong, when ask ed his opinion about Napoleon as a leaderreplied: How can I say? He is too recent. Napoleons career ended in the Battle of Waterloo in1815 and Mao died only in 1976. So what could Mao have meant when he said that Napoleonwas too recent? He meant that a certain amount of time has to pass before we can view historicalevents and personalities objectively. Our reading of recent events is bound to be colored by ourcloseness to them. This truth was brought home to me a few years ago when I was visitingPenang in Malaysia as the guest of some veterans of World War II, but first some background.

In India, people are brought up on the story that Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru withothers receive grudging notice if at all led a heroic struggle freeing India from the British rule.Miraculously, the whole thing was accomplished without resort to violence, by the application of a mighty spiritual force called ahimsa (non-violence) unleashed by the Mahatma. If true it is atribute not only to the power of Gand his (and Nehrus) spiritual vision, but also a lasting tributeto the spiritual sensitivity of the British rulers. Like the tiger in the childrens poem ( govinakathe in Kannada), which killed itself rather than eat the calf, the British gave up the empire andleft.

This received a jolt during a recent trip to Southeast Asia where I had occasion to visit somepeople who had served with my late father during World War II. Their account of theirexperience in the period from 1942 to 45 casts serious doubt on this beautiful story. Here we arefaced with a dilemma the conflict between what we read in history books and what the peopleactually saw on the ground. The usual story is that after some initial reverses the British defeatedthe Japanese. But those who actually served there, now in their late 70s and 80s, remember itquite differently. Uniformly, this is what I heard everywhere and from everyone.

7 Marshall J. Getz, Subhash Chandra Bose: A Biography , 2002


20/29

When the Japanese attacked, the British ran away. They were very clever. They had awonderful life with bungalows and butlers and cooks and all that, but as soon as the Japanesecame, they ran away. And once they got back to India, they sent Gurkhas, Sikhs, Marathas andother Indians to fight the Japanese. They knew it was too dangerous for them. That is how we gotindependence in Malaya. Malaysia was then called Malaya and Singapore was its capital.

Not one of them remembered the British fighting the Japanese only running away. Theyremember also Indian soldiers coming and fighting; some of them stayed back in countries likeMalaya (as it was then called), Singapore and other places. One man, who as a youngster had

been my fathers orderly during the War, invited me to his home in Penang for the 60thanniversary of the liberation of Singapore. What he told me took my breath away.

That is why the British left India also. When the war was over, all the Indian soldiers who haddefeated the Japanese returned to India, and the British got scared. They didnt want to fight theIndians who had just fought and defea ted the Japanese. So they ran away from India also.

I tried to explain to him that Gandhijis nonviolence was the force that convinced the British toleave. But this man, not an intellectual but a battle-hardened soldier with sound commonsensewould have none of it. If it was non-violence, why didnt they leave earlier? Gandhi and thenonviolence were there before the war also. Did they have to wait for the Japanese to come andteach them non- violence?

One may smile at this simple way of looking at history, but as will be seen later, this revisionistview has good support. The authorized version with Gandhi and Nehru as central figurescontinues to be taught in India because it benefits those in power. It shows the British also infavorable light as a m agnanimous and even spiritual people, which of course they dont mind.But history shows a different picture.
http://folks.co.in/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Report-on-INA.gif


21/29

The year 1942 was momentous. It was the year in which the British Empire suffered a massivedefeat at the hands of an Asiatic people (Japanese); it was also the year in which MahatmaGandhi launched his famous but ill-fated Quit India Movement. Subhash Bose also entered thepicture at about that time, first in Germany and later in Southeast Asia. But first it is necessary toget an idea of the momentous impact of the Japanese victory on the psyche of the colonizedpeople as well as on that of the colonizing powers. What triggered it was the Fall of Singapore.

The fall of Singapore in 1942 heralded the end of the British Empire and of Europeancolonialism in general. Indian independence came in 1947, but what really ended the Empire wasthe fall of Singapore. This has received scant notice by Indian historians who remain trapped inEurocentric thinking, but there is ample evidence supporting it. Among Indian historians, onlyR.C. Majumdar has seen its significance: the fall of Singapore broke the spirit of ImperialBritain. As we shall soon see British historians have themselves admitted it. Let us look at whatreally happened to the British in 1942.

When the Japanese attacked Singapore in February 1942, its large and well-equipped Britishgarrison surrendered without a fight. These well- attended pukka sahibs used to good living

had little stomach for war. For decades, the ruling authorities had avoided facing the truth thatthey were not a fighting force. They had deluded themselves with resounding slogans callingSingapore the Bastion of the Empire, Impregnable Fortress, Gibraltar of the East and such.None of it helped when Singapore fell to a Japanese army less than a third the size of thedefending forces.

Yet, so far removed from reality were Singapores British residents, that even on the verge of surrender, a gunnery officer was refused permission to mount guns on the golf links fordefending the city. He was told that he needed permission from the golf club committee. And thegolf club committee would not be meeting for at least a week, so he better hold off!

In the fall of Singapore, its symbolic significance was infinitely greater than the militarydefeat. It destroyed the myth of European superiority over the Asiatics once and forall. Historian James Leasor wrote in his Singapore, the battle that changed the world:

Dazed by the incredible superiority of the Japanese, the defenders will to win had withered. The psychological damage was even greater than the military defeat and this had beengrotesque enough. Under the lowering Singapore sky lit by the funeral pyres of the BritishEmpire a door closed on centuries of white supremacy Actually the Japanese hadplanned it that way to break the sense of superiority exuded by the Europeans, by the British inparticular, in their dealings with the Asiatics. Leasor wrote:

At the start of the campaign, each Japanese soldier had been issued with a pamphlet that set outJapans reasons for fighting the British and the Americans. Her [Japans] claim was that shewould liberate East Asia from white rule and oppression, for since We Japanese, as an Easternpeople, have ourselves for long been classed alongside the Chinese and the Indians as an inferiorrace, and treated as such, we must at the very least, here in Asia, beat these Westerners tosubmission, that they may change their arrogant and ill- mannered attitude.


22/29

The Japanese attack on Singapore accomplished much more: it ended the British Empire to befollowed swiftly by the end of European imperialism itself. To return to the fall of Singapore, aswith the fall of Hong Kong a few weeks earlier, the only worthwhile resistance had come fromthe Indian garrisons the Sikh and the Gurkha regiments. The prestige and the mystiqueassociated with the British Empire were shattered by these ignominious defeats.

And this is how my gracious host in Penang and his friends, men who had seen it at first hand,remember it. As they saw it, the massive defeat destroyed the British morale. It was the specterof the whole nightmare being reenacted in India, with nearly three million Indian soldiers justreturned from war, which made the British leave India. They ran away, the old soldier kepttelling me repeatedly.

I may point out that this is also the view of many Indians who saw action in the war both inthe Indian Army and those who fought in Subhash Boses INA. Indian soldiers saw that their British officers were frightened to death of the Japanese, while they themselves were prepared tofight them.

After the War, the British defeat in Singapore was followed by the French defeat in Dien BienPhu at the hands of Ho Chi Mins soldiers in Vietnam. This laid the groundwork for theAmerican defeat in all of Vietnam and their inglorious flight from Saigon. No one today talksabout the superiority of the White Race. The first nail in coffin was driven by the Japanese inMalaya in 1942.

It was this changed perception, that the British were just ordinary mortals like the rest thatallowed Netaji Subhas Bose to recruit Indians in Southeast Asia into the Indian National Army(Azad Hind Fauz or the INA). Subhas Bose saw that the Indian armed forces were the prop of the Empire not just in India but everywhere the British went. But Gandhi and Nehru,preoccupied with their utopian dreams of nonviolence failed to realize its significance. When the

opportunity arose, Bose seized it to transform the armed forces into a nationalist force, whileGandhi and Nehru started the Quit India Movement which collapsed in a few weeks.

Before we look further, we need to ask: what support do we have for this revisionist view, thatSubhas Bose and the INA brought freedom to India? The evidence is ample and impeccable.Several have noted it, but the most distinguished his torian to highlight Boses contribution wasthe late R.C. Majumdar, one of modern Indias greatest historians. In his monumental, three -volume History of the Freedom Movement in India (Firma KLM, Calcutta) Majumdar providedthe following extraordinary evidence:

It seldom falls to the lot of a historian to have his views, differing radically from those generally

accepted without demur, confirmed by such an unimpeachable authority. As far back as 1948 I wrote in an article that the contribution made by Netaji Subas Chandra Bose towards theachievement of freedom in 1947 was no less, and perhaps, far more important than that of Mahatma Gandhi

The unimpeachable authority he cited happened to be Clement Attlee, the Prime Minister of Britain at the time of Ind ias independence. Since this is of fundamental importance, and


23/29

Majumdars conclusion so greatly at variance with the conventional history, it is worth placing iton record (Volume III, pages 609 10).

When B.P. Chakravarti was acting as Governor of West Bengal, Lord Attlee visited India andstayed as his guest at the Raj Bhavan for three days. Chakravarti asked Attlee about the realgrounds for granting independence to India. Specifically, his question was, when the Quit India

movement lay in shambles years before 1947, where was the need for the British to leave in sucha hurry. Attlees response is most illuminating and important for history. Here is Governor Chakrabartis account of what Attlee told him:

In reply Attlee cited several reasons, the most important were the activities of Netaji SubhasChandra Bose which weakened the very foundation of the attachment of the Indian landand naval forces to the British Government. Towards the end, I asked Lord Attlee about theextent to which the British decisi on to quit India was influenced by Gandhis activities. Onhearing this question Attlees lips widened in a smile of disdain and he uttered, slowly, puttingemphasis on each single letter mi -ni- mal . (Emphasis added.)

Another point worth noting: after the fall of Singapore that ended the British Empire, the mostdramatic national event was the INA Trial at the Red Fort not any movement by Gandhi orNehru. This led to the mutiny of the naval ratings, which, more than anything helped the Britishmake up their minds to leave India in a hurry. They sensed that it was only a matter of timebefore the mutiny spread to other parts of the armed forces and the Government. None of thiswould have happened without Subhash Bose and the INA.

The crucial point to note is that thanks to Subhash Boses activities, the Indian Armed Forcesbegan to see themselves as defenders of India rather than of the British Empire. This, more thananything else, was what led to Indias freedom. This is also the reason why the British E mpiredisappeared from the face of the earth within an astonishingly short space of twenty years. Indian

soldiers, who were the main prop of the Empire, were no longer willing to fight to hold ittogether. This is the essence of leadership.

This brings us back to Maos half joking reply that it takes time to get the proper historicalperspective. It is now more than sixty years since India became free. We can afford to look back and see the real reasons for British leaving India in a hurry. To sum up, by the end of the War,Gandhi was a spent force, and Subhash Bose was Indias most popular leader.

Now, sixty years and more later it is time to recognize the truth: first, it was the Fall of Singaporein 1942, not the Quit India Movement that was the beginning of the end of the British Empire;and finally, it was Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose more than anyone else who was responsible for

Indias freedom in 1947.8

8 Rajaram N.S., Who Brought Freedom-Gandhiji or Netaji, Folks Magazine, 10/10/2009


24/29

I would like to quote two statements of Gandhiji from his autobiography to make his views aboutthe independence and his attitude towards the British comprehensible.

"I would give up the finest sons of India to save the British Empire in its dying hour.""We [Indians] can only be granted the responsibility of freedom once we learn to civilizeourselves first. [like the British]"

Do you think it acceptable to fight for your own captors and exploiters as was done in W.W.II?Can you logically conclude that we should lay down our lives for the same people that whippedour people, raped our women and pillaged our country? Do you regard Indian philosophy of thatera so backward that we should strive to become "British" before we are granted freedom? Whydoes Gandhi regard freedom not a right! He himself recruited troops for the British army duringW.W.II. Where was his preaching of non-violence then? His hypocrisy by endorsing so callednon-violence for the purpose of suffocating Indian revolt is clearly demonstrated by his suddenchange in philosophy to recruit troops for the British army during W.W.II. His values, beliefsand views are clearly hypocritical.

Moreover some facts, which sketch him better. Gandhi's writing, compiled in an uncensoredseries of volumes by the Government of India, is liberally sprinkled with verbal violence againstthe black South African natives, who he termed "Kaffirs." His animosity towards black people is almost tangible and his racism is undeniable. A brief but shocking example illustratesGandhi's racism. He lived in South Africa prior to Apartheid, but at a time when the nationstill suffered segregation. In the city of Durban, there was a post office with two doors - one forblacks and Indians and another for whites. Gandhi, of course, was required to use the door forblacks and Indians. This deeply offended him, not because of the segregation, but because hewas "forced" to share a door with blacks, which he felt was beneath him. Gandhi successfullylobbied to correct this "problem" by building a third entrance for Indians, thus furtherentrenching the South African policy of segregation.

In his Collected Works (CWMG) 9, Gandhi wrote: "For the present our efforts are concentratedtowards preventing and getting repealed fresh legislation. Before referring to that, I may furtherillustrate the proposition that the Indian is put on the same level with the native in many otherways also. Lavatories are marked 'natives and Asiatics' at the railway stations. In the Durban Postand telegraph offices there were separate entrances for natives and Asiatics and Europeans. Wefelt the indignity too much and many respectable Indians were insulted and called all sorts of names by the clerks at the counter. We petitioned the authorities to do away with the invidiousdistinction and they have now provided three separate entrances for natives, Asiatics,and Europeans. "When it came to pacifism, the quality for which Gandhi is most admired, hewas no better. Shortly before his assassination, as documented in his "Last Phase," Vol. II, p.

326, he said, "If we [India] had the atom bomb, we would have used it against the British." Wecan definitely say that the main principle which can be credited for all the popularity garnered byGandhi was ahimsa , then how was he of such an opinion of bombing British? There might bebubbles of surfacing up as this statement seems contradictory to my earlier conceptualization of Gandhi where I showed Gandhi to be indifferent to the real feature of independence, as a counter

9 Collection of Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Publications Division Government of India, Vol I, 1999, p 367-368


25/29

I would like to state if a person can talk about bombing a state, how can he criticize a person likeBhagat Singh who hardly went up to such violence stuff and never killed even any Britishinnocent (which Saunders wasnt).

Gandhi's pacifism was eagerly abandoned whenever expedient. Although he once said there were"no causes that I am prepared to kill for," in 1920 he wrote, "When my eldest son asked me what

he should have done, had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whetherhe should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical forcewhich he could and wanted to use, and defended me, I told him that it was his duty to defend meeven by using violence." 10

Gandhi Did he really want Independent India?The Simon Commission setup for reforms in the constitution faced protests all over as it didnthave any Indian national. Congress though didnt stage protests but brought a parallel completelyIndian commission to seek reforms. The report brought out by the committee was named asNehru Report. Nehru Report demanded for complete independence. The demand lacked supportfrom Indian Liberal Party and All India Muslim League. The British didnt accept the legitimacyof the setup of the commission and the report brought out by it. But the Nehru Report was alsocontroversial within the Congress. Younger nationalist leaders like Subhash Chandra Bose andJawaharlal Nehru (Motilal Nehru's son) demanded that the Congress resolve to make a completeand explicit break from all ties with the British Empire. Jawaharlal Nehru had introduced aresolution demanding "complete national independence" in 1927, which was rejected because of Gandhi's opposition. Now Bose and Nehru opposed dominion status, which would retainthe Monarch of the United Kingdom as the constitutional head of state of India (although in theseparate capacity as King of India), and preserve political powers for the British Parliament inIndian constitutional affairs. They were supported in their stand by a large number of rank-and-

file Congressmen.

In December 1928, Congress held in Calcutta, Mohandas Gandhi proposed a resolution that

called for the British to grant dominion status to India within two years. If the British failed to

meet the deadline, the Congress would call upon all Indians to fight for complete independence.

Bose and Nehru objected to the time given to the British - they pressed Gandhi to demand

immediate action from the British. Gandhi brokered a further compromise by reducing the time

given from two years to one. Jawaharlal Nehru voted for the new resolution, while Subhash Bose

told his supporters that he would not oppose the resolution, and abstained from voting himself.

The All India Congress Committee voted 118 to 45 in its favor (the 45 votes came fromsupporters of a complete break from the British). However, when Bose introduced an

amendment during the open session of Congress that sought a complete break with the British,

Gandhi admonished the move saying:-

10 Collection of Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Publications Division Government of India, Vol XXII, 1999 p 133


26/29

"You may take the name of independence on your lips but all your muttering will be an empty

formula if there is no honor behind it. If you are not prepared to stand by your words, where will

independence be?" 11

The reason behind the outcome of election can be understood in relation with the Gandhianconcept. As I discussed previously the blindfolded following of Gandhi, similarly theiradherence towards Gandhi made them go in the favor of the will of Gandhi.I would like anyone who is through my project to give me a proper justification for the demandof dominion status by Gandhi. If this was the aim Gandhi wanted to bag, then how was he thereacting as a leader of the people convincing all by projecting himsel f as the independencepaladin.Though later in 1930, Gandhi had to vote in favor of complete independence amidst the pressurefrom his Congress colleagues and consistently increasing popularity of leaders such as BhagatSingh and Subhash Chandra Bose who were demanding complete independence JawaharlalNehru in the session held at the banks of Ravi river, Lahore declared the resolution of Poorna

Swaraj.

Moreover to highlight the aim Gandhi wanted to derive from his demand of dominion status, Iwill be discussing what dominion status exactly means.

Dominion Status: The concept Dominion status was officially defined in the Balfour Declaration (1926) and in the Statute of Westminster (1931), which recognized these territories as "autonomous Communities within theBritish Empire," establishing these states as equals to the United Kingdom, making them

essentially independent members of what was then called the British Commonwealth. The stateswere granted pseudo sovereignty, i.e. the Government was composed of the national of the samecountry while the final authority of the Government yet remained with the British Government.

The true work of a Government remains to rule the state and give it a political sovereignty. Itacts both as an agency to the state and also a governor considering the welfare of the state, whilethe dominion status meant a Government which neither had political sovereignty nor autonomywhich wouldve resulted in an unstable and unreliable body possessing pseudo political andauthoritative powers.

Just conceive the political aim a person may be trying to derive out from the demand of adominion status. I believe any venture cant lead to a success unless the target is unambiguousand achievable. Complete dedication and no compromise with the target remains the sole of success every time. I dont think the efforts of the great Indian leaders ever seemed to be goingin vain which couldve led to such an unsatisfactory deviation from the goal. Gandhis deviati on

11 Anonymous, Gandhi and Independence of India, Press Releases of Gandhi


27/29

showed how indecisive he was. He justified his steps to achieve independence in steps, as hedidnt consider India to be eligible for independence that time. He always emphasized oncivilization of Indian people just as the British were. Even if we accept the concept, it is impliedthat if a person will not remain firm on his motives, how can he even conceive of achieving that,and could he have explained what he wanted to achieve with the bagging of dominion status, justthe Governmental seat and author ities? I dont think this was the aim thousands of ma rtyrssacrificed their life for and people abandoned their education and families.

ConclusionGandhi is an ideal for many. His principles, sayings and experiences are widely accepted andcherished. But with this project Ive landed into a doubt on the authenticity of such beliefs andnotions of people. I dont think theyve been formulated on good researches. I know, Imimplicitly claiming mine to be a good one, but I would really like to name it as an honesteffort. It might seem that in this project Ive projected the grey shades of Gandhi more than his

bright shades, but honestly the brighter shades didnt appeal me in context of the Indianindependence, whether it be, the aims he was having, the principles he propounded or the actionshe executed.

As I said at the start of this project, that Ive hardly any hope of coming out without the hands burnt. After the research made I am unable to digest a title of Father of the Nation forMahatma Gandhi. Gandhi definitely made efforts to yield something good, but those effortsdidnt make him eligible enough to be on the currency, represent the country as a father andcherished as a Mahatma.


28/29

FOOTNOTES

Gandhi M.K., The Story of My Experiments with Truth, Navajivan TrustBrown M. J., Gandhis Rise to Power: Indian Politics 1915 -1922, p 194Walker M. Donna, http://gandhiking.ning.com/forum/topics/others-who-were-influenced-by , 25/09/2010Anonymous, http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSlenin.htm , 25/10/2010Vaidya P.R., Gandhi-In and Out , Vol XXIII No. 8, 2001http://www.kamat.com/mmgandhi/gandhi.htm Marshall J. Getz, Subhash Chandra Bose: A Biography , 2002Rajaram N.S., Who Brought Freedom-Gandhiji or Netaji, Folks Magazine, 10/10/2009Collection of Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Publications Division Government of India, Vol I,1999, p 367-368Collection of Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Publications Division Government of India, Vol

XXII, 1999 p 133Anonymous, Gandhi and Independence of India, Press Releases of Gandhi
http://gandhiking.ning.com/forum/topics/others-who-were-influenced-byhttp://gandhiking.ning.com/forum/topics/others-who-were-influenced-byhttp://gandhiking.ning.com/forum/topics/others-who-were-influenced-byhttp://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSlenin.htmhttp://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSlenin.htmhttp://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSlenin.htmhttp://www.kamat.com/mmgandhi/gandhi.htmhttp://www.kamat.com/mmgandhi/gandhi.htmhttp://www.kamat.com/mmgandhi/gandhi.htmhttp://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSlenin.htmhttp://gandhiking.ning.com/forum/topics/others-who-were-influenced-by


29/29

BIBLIOGRAPHY Encyclopedia BritannicaWikipedia

The Story of My Experiments with TruthGandhi and Independence of India (Press Releases)Collection of Works of Mahatma GandhiFolks MagazineSchool - net of United Kingdom

Researches by P.N. Vaidya and N.S. RajaramThe Martyr: Bhagat Singh (Kuldip Nayyar)Subhash Chandra Bose: A Biography, Marshall J. GetzMy NING (Gandhi King)

gandhi-a real mahatma

Documents