I REFER to the letter, “Practise principles of non-violence”, by S. Sundareson (NST, Oct 3). He stated that Gandhi proved to the world the might of non-violence and passive resistance by achieving India’s independence from British rule in 1947 and he urged us to resolve disputes the Gandhian way.
Who was actually responsible for India’s independence? Before Gandhi, there were already leaders who were fighting for freedom. Sadly, none of these patriots — Rani of Jhansi, Veerapandiya Kattabomman, Bhagat Singh, Madan Lal Dhingra, Veer Savarkar, Mangal Pandey, Aurobindo and many more — were given much credit for their sacrifices.
In a book titled The 100: A Ranking Of Most Influential Persons In History by Michael Hart, Gandhi is not ranked among the 100.
According to the author, “… Gandhi was not the founder of the movement for Indian independence nor was he the main political leader at the time independence was finally achieved.”
New evidence derived from the declassified files of freedom fighter Subhas Chandra Bose, may displace the long accepted view of Gandhi as India’s Father of Independence.
It has been argued that Gandhi was responsible for the delay in achieving freedom — he rejected Chandra Bose’s six-month ultimatum for the British to leave India.
According to historian Dr R.C. Majumdar’s book, A History of Bengal, British prime minister Clement Atlee stated it was Bose’s military activities that actually made the British leave India. One must exercise caution
when implementing Gandhi’s methods.
Sri Naturam Godse opined that Gandhi’s non-violence would weaken a nation and make it vulnerable to destruction.
It has also been argued that Gandhi’s understanding of ahimsa had led to the deaths of many innocent people.
French historian Alain Danielou in Les Quatre Sens de la vie stated: “The use made by Mahatma Gandhi of the theory of non-violence as a political weapon has nothing to do with Hindu tradition. Non-violence is a strictly individual technique of personal improvement.
“It cannot serve political ends and cannot play a role in the governing of states. Gandhi was, in fact, thanks to his theories on non-violence, the instrument of massacres on a scale almost without historical precedent, which preceded and followed the partition of India, which he had accepted.”
Gandhi’s model of non-violence differs from the Vedas. The Vedas do not permit murder, slaughter or war for ordinary things. However, in order to protect society, the Vedas declared that war and violence may be justified.
Indians must realise that although freedom was achieved, the Hindu religion is still bound to the shackles of colonial interpretations which they must discard to fully appreciate the Vedas.
ARIFF SHAH R.K., Penang