India has been independent almost seventy years now. Its great struggle has been a searing reminder of British imperialism and colonialism but has also reflected pleasantly on the great freedom fighters of the country, who laid down their lives for others. In today’s time, it is almost unthinkable, as people often hesitate even to give other people access to their mobile hotspots. When we say “independence”, probably the first name that pops up is MK Gandhi. The Father of the Nation is truly an iconic and incomprehensible figure, not only in India’s glorious and tainted history but also in the founding principles of many great personalities of many great countries. Right from Nelson Mandela, to the former President of the United States, Barack Obama, all have time and again quoted the preachings of the great man and his blind belief in ‘ahimsa’ and ‘satyagrah’. All Indian history textbooks monopolize in proclaiming him as the hero of India’s struggle. But is there another side to this chapter of Indian history? Can Gandhi ji be held accountable and guilty of delaying India’s independence? I’ll present my side of the same.

 

 

Now before you smear me as an “anti-nationalist” without skipping a beat, let me explain. The pointer that I am trying you to take towards is the aftermath of the miserably unsuccessful Civil Disobedience Movement, and the burgeoning and coagulating nationalism arousing among the masses. I judiciously believe that you never get what you deserve in life: you get what you take. Please try to avoid the negative connotations of the phrase. Call me a narcissist, but the kind of drive and ambition that someone like a Frank Underwood ( see: House of Cards) shows is both appealing and inspiring to me. This idea of waiting out the Britishers without resorting to violence was an inefficient tool to incite nationalism and propagate a revolution. The reason for the same is the fact that revolutions are not built on silence and character. They are built on a boisterous mob-mentality. Take a quick gander at the history books of Colonial nations. The French hoi polloi got liberation from the despotic regime of King Louis XVI through a revolution. Blood was shed, as is always the case, but they got what they wanted. Numerous other examples point towards the employment of physical force and tout mental strength to wither away foreign and imperialist rulers and throw them out of our territory. Just after the Chaura-Chauri incident, India became a cohesive and ignited group of individuals, who had the numbers and the resources to bring the British down to their knees. With the nationalism fever in full grip, coming over and overwhelming Indians with a hysteria to become self-dependent, and the country seemed to be heading towards a prosperous future. It finally seemed like the British were intimidated by our stature, and for once considered us to be equals, if not in mentality, but in person. There were no fears of communal segregation or violence hindering our journey. Imagine an India that big. The economic and pecuniary condition today would have been sublime. We would have been a superpower without a doubt in the East, and probably a major player in the international arena. Maybe India would also have had a veto vote in the UN General Assembly. Maybe, the current condition that we find ourselves in could have been so much better. But as was the case numerous times before, the nation bowed down to the whims and fancies of one stubborn individual. And it all went South. I wish Star Wars would have come earlier into being. Spock’s golden words,  “The need of the many outweigh the need of the few, or one.” would have aptly sufficed and perhaps put some sense into the old man.

 

With both the fronts united and the people craving for ‘Swaraj’, India could have woken to independence much earlier that it eventually did. This isn’t a polemic attack on Gandhi ji’s tactics and principles. I just feel that they didn’t fit at the time. We needed a young and exuberant face, like a Bhagat Singh, to lead the revolution, and essentially extract revenge on the Britishers for their years of brutality and atrocities against Indians. We needed someone who would act, someone who could draw out the Britishers out of the country with fear and send them scurrying back home with utter shame and intimidation. I just think violence would have been fitting in the scenario, and perhaps could have driven us towards independence.