The factors to reevaluate

I have gone through various sources and worked out on “Karam Chand Gandhi and his journey to 1947”, “British empire and history – including the Second World War”. The sources include Google, blogs, discovery channel, BBC – British history and others about British Empire and here is what I got to know about our independence and role of respective leaders from India and rest of the world.

I must start with a statement – “we must not forget the role of the revolutionaries in the freedom movement of India has called for a re-examination of the role of Mahatma Gandhi and his Satyagraha.”

Satyagraha means non-co-operation and civil resistance, are nothing but new name for the law of suffering. Let’s watch what it did:

Satyagraha 1 

Gandhi started his Satyagraha from South Africa when he been there to serve Gujrati merchants as barrister and to entertain Europeans in 1890s and finally found the Natal Indian Congress organization for rich and the empire loyalists.

Gandhi visited India couple of times during his stay in Africa, to get the support from Indian politicians / leaders to redress Indians in South Africa. And in 1901-02, he met G K Gokhale, a loyalist to the British and was against the idea of the freedom movement of Lal, Bal, Pal (Lapat Rai, Tilak and Vipin Chand Pal) and others. Gandhi joined Gokhale an empire loyalist camp within congress. It was his first political movement.

Gandhi then went back to South Africa and started his first so called Satyagraha by dramatically burning the passes. These passes were in law for the Asians, Arabs etc. to carry it with them and that was not a big issue as in most of the countries even today, a foreigner has to carry such document anyway. Gandhi was doing all this stating “for the honor of the motherland”, but which motherland – it was not specified by him. Burning the passes and this Satyagraha did not help Indians but it resulted in negative impact on them. They were rounded up, beaten, Jailed & deported in many cases.

When General Smut met Gandhi, it was made very clear to stop immigration for Indians to SA. Passes were withdrawn. Loads of restrictions applied and finally a legal racial discrimination started as a result of the movement. So it was a failure of Gandhi there in SA but still English Language media propagate him as a winner against the racist govt of British origin for whom Gandhi had worked as a ‘ward assistance’ in the war against the Dutch settlers in SA.

Gandhi had no contact with the Africans and their liberal movement but he helped white minority to rule in SA through such divisive segregationist policies. They enforced racial segregation and differential policies, no matter what Satyagraha says, and attempted to degrade Indians against Africans by giving the status as coolies.

Gandhi was back to Indian in 1914 as nothing was left for him in SA. His impact had no significant in African movement.

African Nation Congress was not at all influenced with Gandhi’s Satyagraha but in-fact was strongly influenced with the neighbors (Mozambique and Angola) who were strongly supported by the Soviet Union with finance and being armed. In 1964, Nelson Mandela also pointed out that he and his mates have decided to organize underground and armed resistance against the govt (So No PEACE).

Returning to India in 1914, Gandhi served twice for the British in First World War in France and then to in Mesopotamia because he had convinced himself that he owed the empire that sacrifice in return for its military protection (stated in Martin Green, Gandhi: Voice of a New Age Revolutionary).

Satyagraha 2

With an extraordinary good fortune, Gandhi in an extraordinary political coup was elected himself (its English they wanted him there) as the president of the All-India Home Rule League after the deaths of Tilak by September 1920. He steered a resolution as Non-Cooperation to preserve the Khilafat bypassing the freedom movement in the Congress session in Calcutta. Later all the important leaders of the Congress, Bipin Pal, Surendranath Banerjee, Ajit Singh were either expelled or neutralized by Gandhi.

Tilak had gathered huge money about Rs.10 lakhs, to finance his freedom movement and Gandhi used that up to please the followers of Turkish Khalifa, who was defied by the Muslims in the Turkish occupied Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Syria and in Turkey itself by the reforming leader Kamal Attaturk. Gandhi and the Muslim leaders of India were ignorant about these political developments in the Middle East.

This agitation was initiated by Khilafat leadership and not by Congress. As usual, Gandhi picked those issues without consulting the other leaders (Nathuram Godse expressed his anger on such decisions and that happened at times) and started his programme of peaceful non co-operation with the British included boycotts of British goods and institutions to protect the Turkish Sultan, leading to arrests of thousands of the people for defying British laws. This was nothing to do with Freedom movement of India.

The Khilafat movement went wrong and Muslims restored a massive violence to slaughter the Hindus in Kearala and Mysore. Gandhi called off the Khilafat movement after the Chauri Chaura violence without even consulting his Muslim allies. Gandhi’s decision created deep confusion in Congress circles. Subhas Chandra Bose wrote: To sound the order of retreat just when public enthusiasm was reaching the boiling point was nothing short of a national disaster. The principal lieutenants of the Mahatma, Deshbandhu Das, Pandit Motilal Nehru and Lala Lajpat Rai, who were all in prison, shared the popular resentment. I was with the Deshbandu at the time, and I could see that he was beside himself with anger and sorrow. (Quoted from Indian Struggle by Subhas Chandra Bose)

The jailed leaders sent from prison, long and indignant letters to Gandhi protesting at his decision to which Gandhi replied that men in prison were civilly dead and had no claim to any say in policy.

In March 1922, Gandhi was sentenced to six years imprisonment. He was released after two years, but by then the political landscape had changed dramatically. Bose, who resigned from ICS in 1921, was now in his activities. Also the Congress Party had split and Hindu-Muslim unity had disintegrated. Sri Aurobindo said: When Gandhi’s movement was started, I said that this movement would lead either to a fiasco or to great confusion. And I see no reason to change my opinion. Only I would like to add that it has led to both.

Satyagraha 3

Gandhi was loosing the hold on Congress for sometime… so something he was looking for to take himself out of the wardrobe. He found a day in Dec 1928 during Culcutta Congress where he demanded dominion (ruling and controlling) status for India while Srinivas Iyenger, Subhas Bose and other leaders were looking for complete freedom. Gandhi never looked for complete freedom and so Iyenger that time and later, same reasons, Bose in 1939 with other 200 leaders were expelled from Congress. Everyone who had approaching a strong hold for any movement where Gandhi is absent, was expelled at times. Gandhi was always backed by British as they had no trouble handling him.

In March 1930, Dandi yatra launched to break the law (I would say to be in lime light) and to make own salt while it was symbolic for Indians as they never used to make salt in anyway. This movement came to be known as Civil Disobedience Movement. Within a few weeks about a hundred thousand men and women, thinking mistakenly that it was the beginning of the freedom movement, were in jail, throwing mighty machinery of the British Government out of gear.

Gandhi was arrested in May 1930. This could be right time to fight as it was spread countrywide and people were out on the road for freedom BUT Gandhi withdrew his name from the movement and sacrifice of the people was in vain. Why that movement happened? The end result was – British never withdraw tax on salt.

Then Gandhi-Irwin pact came in picture with end of the Congresss civil disobedience. There were some points agreed by British Govt but on what cost? – 23^rd March 1931. This had to happen only if Govt agrees on his terms. None of the terms were any relation to get the freedom. One of the terms was to represent INC to the world and Gandhi been to London to represent but that could not happen and he came back to India empty handed and decided to go for civil disobedience again in 1932.

The viceroy Lord Willingdon outlawed Congress and due to other circumstances, Gandhi completely suspended it in 1934. Thus, Gandhi’s third Satyagraha also could not achieve anything much because Gandhi as usual refused to continue it. That was Gandhi¹s last and the only Satyagraha as a mass political movement for so called freedom movement.

While this all going, Bose was all set to scrap the INC as he thought its history relates to British and he needs a full fledge party with 10 clear and strong points to rule and rebuild India with full freedom. Why he was so sure to be free from British rule? He was building a base to bring people with him for this movement. Nehru called him Fascism and Nazi, but for the betterment of India, Bose was happy to be like that as he was clear with his movements and in thoughts that British enemies are Indian friends.

Throughout his political career, India's liberation from British rule remained Bose's foremost political goal; indeed, it was a lifelong obsession. As he explained in his most important work, The Indian Struggle, the political party he envisioned "will stand for the complete political and economic liberation of the Indian people”. He was forced to resign from INC in 1939 as Gandhi didn’t like his fame.

Quit India movement (Not a Satyagraha – read the definition at top please)

Andman and Nikobar was liberated by Japanies in 1942 and Bose hoisted Indian flag there. Free India government in exile or Azad Hind Government was recognized by the Soviet Union, Japan, Germany, Italy, Hungary, and Imperial China. Indian national army and Imperial Japanese army was on the doorstep of the British India.

Gandhi refused to be outsmarted by Netaji and started his last mass movement, which was not a Satyagraha. This all can be easily learnt from the historic channels broadcasting the truth of World War 2. Hitler was making the trouble in Europe, Japanies shook hands with Bose coming close to India routing from Burma. The Second WW was a terrible experience for British on the economic conditions too. Indians in the British army were now with Bose.

In a radio address broadcast from Berlin on March 1, 1943, Bose exclaimed that Britain's demise was near, and predicted that it would be “India's privilege to end that Satanic Empire.” The fundamental principle of his foreign policy, Bose declared in a May 1945 speech in Bangkok, is that "Britain's enemy is India's friend."

Gandhi was loosing the pride again so planned Quit India Movement in 1942 but no plan to execute it. Congress passed resolution with the help of UN to end the British Rule in India. British were already in a bad shape in Europe so they have to gain the power back at home instead. Next day the resolution was passed, all congress leaders were arrested including Gandhi and that provoked the violent demonstration which was not a Satyagraha of-course. British still not ready to accept all this and they used full force to end this and they succeeded. As usual Gandhi already withdrew himself from that movement within a few days after it has started.

All the Satyagraha were failed inclusive this because of mistakes and non wide leadership plan. People were mistaken as they thought these all are freedom movements but got nothing in the end.

In another occasions, Gandhi fasted for Ahmedabad Mill to bring mill owners to be responsible for any death in the mill, they compromised but went back to their initial thoughts once they found the situation back to normal. Same happened in Africa. Once he is back, the situations worsen for the Indians. – Sri Aurobindo.

Since 1942, Gandhi was busy making plans to partition India to create Pakistan, the idea of which Gandhi has accepted even in 1940, according to both B.R.Ambedkar and Sri Aurobindo, Nehru and Patel as representative of Gandhi, were in regular consultations with the Vice-Roy of India on how best to help the British war efforts against Japan and the Azad Hind Fauz. Freedom movement was not in their mind.

Indian soldiers of the Royal Indian Navy have started their revolt at Bombay harbour on 18 February 1946 in association with the growing unrest in India when the British had started mass executions of the members of the Azad Hind Fauz, as reported in The Hindustan Times, 2 November 1945. From the initial flashpoint in Bombay, the mutiny spread and found support all over India, from Karachi to Calcutta and involved 78 ships, 20 shore establishments and 20,000 soldiers. Industrial workers in Bombay area joined in. In Madras and Pune the British garrisons had to face revolts within the ranks of the Indian army. However, both the Congress and the Muslim League betrayed that revolt.

Although both Gandhi and Jinnah condemned it, but it had a decisive role for the independence of India by forcing the British to realize they cannot depend on the Indian in the army, navy or in the air force.

It is a common belief in India and in the Western world that Gandhi, through his non-violence Satyagraha has gave India independence from the British rule. The truth is somehow very different.

According to the British Prime Minister Clement Attlee, during whose regime India became free, the creation of the INA (Indian National Army) and mutiny the RIN (Royal Indian Navy) of February 18­23, 1946 made the British realise that their time was up in India. An extract from a letter written by P.V. Chuckraborty, former Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court, on March 30 1976, reads thus:

When I was acting as Governor of West Bengal in 1956, Lord Clement
Attlee, who as the British Prime Minister in post war years was
responsible for India¹s freedom, visited India and stayed in Raj Bhavan
Calcutta for two days. I put it straight to him like this: "The Quit
India Movement of Gandhi practically died out long before 1947 and
there was nothing in the Indian situation at that time which made it
necessary for the British to leave India in a hurry. Why then did they
do so? In reply Attlee cited several reasons, the most important of
which were the INA activities of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, which
weakened the very foundation of the British Empire in India, and the
RIN Mutiny which made the British realise that the Indian armed forces
could no longer be trusted to prop up the British. When asked about the
extent to which the British decision to quit India was influenced by
Mahatma Gandhi¹s 1942 movement, Attlee’s lips widened in smile of
disdain and he uttered, slowly, “Minimal”.
To add on what P.V. Chuckraborty mention about Attlee, In reply Attlee cited several reasons, another major reason was: Britain was in crisis after First World War with 900 million GBP in debt to US, his worldwide investments wiped out, cotton and coal export market was collapsed. That was the underlying reality for Britain and they could no longer afford to build the bases or ships to defend its empire as it had before 1914. 1929, it was Wall Street collapse and US stopped aid to Europe. Hitler came to the power in 1933 and he did the rest. Bose shook hands with Germans and Italian to overcome.

Lord Mountbatten had described India in 1946 as a burning ship in the mid-ocean.

Famous historian Ramesh Chadra Majumdar dismissed the contribution of Satyagraha to the eventual independence of India. He said, “The campaigns of Gandhi came to an ignoble end about fourteen years before India achieved independence. In particular, the revelations made by the INA trial, and the reaction it produced in India, made it quite plain to the British, already exhausted by the war, that they could no longer depend upon the loyalty of the sepoys for maintaining their authority in India. This had probably the greatest influence upon their final decision to quit India.
(Majumdar, R.C., Three Phases of Indias Struggle for Freedom, Bombay, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan).

According to BBC history page which reads:
“But the greatest cloud on the horizon was Nazi Germany, which in 1938 seized Austria and Czechoslovakia. The late 1930s are often known as the 'age of appeasement', for Britain found any excuse not to fight a war, though it had reluctantly begun to re-arm.”

Also
“It took World War Two and the Japanese take-over of Burma to extract Britain's assurance of post-war independence, failing which India threatened to welcome in Japanese troops to 'liberate' them.”
British were in no mood of leaving India till mid of 30’s as it was major economic resource for them and that’s why they build such a beautiful area in Delhi called, India Gate, Rastrapati and Sansad Bhawan. Not for any Gandhi or Nehru. Nehru was already enjoying his life with English people.

Thus, one should not just believe in the official version of the recent Indian history, which has propagated that only Gandhi and Nehru through the Satyagraha has brought freedom to India. The reality is quite different, but was hidden so far due the massive state power to advertise Satyagraha, which as a mass movement has failed everywhere whether in India or in South Africa.