11-25-2005, 12:06 PM
I think it ws unnecessary to call Gandhi a wimp to make the point that many of his actions which were considered courageous or deemed to be such by a gullible public taken in by his sartorial habits (e.g. loincloth and not much else), do not stand deeper scrutiny. For example he was generally incarcerated in the Agha Khan palace which was far more luxurious than his permanent abode.
Now if he was incarcerated in the Andamans like Savarkar and constantly beaten on a daily basis ,that would have required far more courage.
As for the INC (and by inference Gandhi) claiming all credit for independence, it must be remembered that Congress was a creature created by the Brits (founded by an Englishman by the name of Allan Octavian Hume) so that they could channel nationalist actvity into modes of conduct they could deal with in an easy manner. Further, they were of course right in their expectation, that Indians would not revolt in great numbers even if they incarcerated Gandhi as long as they did not humiliate him excessively(and perhaps not even then).
The real revolutionaries they were afraid of were the Savarkars and the Aurobindos, because if the average Indian discovered that with a little bit of spine they could send the Brits packing, and discover that the Emperor (the real one in London) had no clothes and could be driven out of the subcontinet with relative ease. But the Brits gaged the Indian very precisely, that long centuries of submissive behavior nurtured by invading marauders had robbed him of any self respect and respect for his own countrymen and leaders, and they wagered that they could easily deal with the pusillanimous pussyfooting by the likes of Gandhi for an indefinite period. The success of the enormous con job they pulled on the Indians should be gaged by the fact that they ruled India for 170 years ,a land of more than 100 million inhabitants with less than 100,000 englishman at any given time during that period .
My point is let us stop fixating on Gandhi.The fault dear Brutus,(if i may corrupt Shakespeare) lies in us for not having the guts to throw the rascals out much. earlier
Now if he was incarcerated in the Andamans like Savarkar and constantly beaten on a daily basis ,that would have required far more courage.
As for the INC (and by inference Gandhi) claiming all credit for independence, it must be remembered that Congress was a creature created by the Brits (founded by an Englishman by the name of Allan Octavian Hume) so that they could channel nationalist actvity into modes of conduct they could deal with in an easy manner. Further, they were of course right in their expectation, that Indians would not revolt in great numbers even if they incarcerated Gandhi as long as they did not humiliate him excessively(and perhaps not even then).
The real revolutionaries they were afraid of were the Savarkars and the Aurobindos, because if the average Indian discovered that with a little bit of spine they could send the Brits packing, and discover that the Emperor (the real one in London) had no clothes and could be driven out of the subcontinet with relative ease. But the Brits gaged the Indian very precisely, that long centuries of submissive behavior nurtured by invading marauders had robbed him of any self respect and respect for his own countrymen and leaders, and they wagered that they could easily deal with the pusillanimous pussyfooting by the likes of Gandhi for an indefinite period. The success of the enormous con job they pulled on the Indians should be gaged by the fact that they ruled India for 170 years ,a land of more than 100 million inhabitants with less than 100,000 englishman at any given time during that period .
My point is let us stop fixating on Gandhi.The fault dear Brutus,(if i may corrupt Shakespeare) lies in us for not having the guts to throw the rascals out much. earlier