This article is my theory on why Gandhi choose the peaceful path, by no means is there scientific nor correlating evidence to support my theory(at least yet)
Gandhi ji or Mahatma Gandhi is how he is addressed in Indian sub continent. The father of the nation is known across the world for his non-violent and peaceful protest against the British rule, ultimately leading to India’s independence.
The true genius of Gandhi is not in preaching and following non-violence but actually the reason why he choose the path of non-violence? Truly speaking even in Gita – the Hindu religious book that describes the way of life for a Hindu, Krishna says to Arjuna not to hesitate in killing your own blood relatives when they stand opposed to Dharma.
So why did Gandhi follow non-violence? In simple words he was a smart man who understood the odds and logistics going against a sophisticated army with bare min modern war skills and armaments.
Development in twentieth century India did not take place at the same pace as in the west. Actually if not anything Indian sub continent were a centuries behind. If not for the British, India wouldn’t have had exposure to locomotives, cars, English language and most important modern weapons.
Gandhi understood the sheer economics involved in fighting the British, if Indians would have revolted against British head on - in a battle with modern weaponry there was little doubt that Indians had any chance of coming out alive let alone successful. Gandhi understood that if Indians fought head on – the dependence on guns and am munitions would be 100% through smuggled means, as there was no ammunition / arms factory that Indians owned/controlled. Neither did the Indians have the required technology to build hand guns, bullets or advanced military weapons required to meet the British might.
Also, true victory in a head on battle involved far too many variables like – trained men who could use the modern weapons, generals who had knowledge of modern warfare, supply of weapons etc., India without doubt had not one variable in this equation that it excelled. Other than may be the sheer number of the men willing to fight. But modern era battles could hardly be won based on size of the army.
Gandhi was resilient and figured a better approach would be non-violence – this approach would not only test the patience of British Raj but without having to rely on arms make every weapon in British garrison become futile and worthless. Also, this approach turned out to be so new to British Raj that they did not have a work around it. Never have they faced a situation as this and did not have any true means to fight non-violence. Non-violence was completely a foreign concept to Algo-Saxon-Viking Descend. Thanks to advent of radio news traveled fast and if not anything the prude Victorians could never live with having killed a man practicing non-violence(though they did kill few thousands before this realization came). If only they had a way out were in they could still maintain their chin up and vanquish Gandhi’s tactics they would have. But alas British Raj had to withdraw irrespective of their mighty weapons.
I am not sure what transformed Gandhi to rely on non-violent methods of revolt but in my limited capacity when I put myself in his shoes above listed is a conclusive thought process. The fact that Gandhi understood this and was able to successfully follow through his methodology better than anyone else makes him a true genius and a Mahatma.
Note: British having ruled India for 200 years and looted its wealth ultimately bowed to Gandhi’s non-violent methods of protest. They made sure that the future generation of Indians had to rely on arms and foreign diplomacy – they divided the country before they left. Today we are left with two nations battling to gain supremacy in Kashmir while both India and Pakistan spend millions to increase their military might – it is the west that’s still profiting from this. Even in their absence they have created a divide so wide the ripples would be felt for generations to endure.
Posts
