MY GOD IS MY MOTHERLAND ... 2

Gandhi's movement lacked manhood. It emasculated our freedom struggle and would have finished it off but for the revolutionaries who thwarted his attempts and carried on the struggle, nonetheless, till India was free. At every bend and turn Gandhi opposed the development of the armed struggle for freedom and effectively undermined it, thus helping the British to prolong their reign in India and eventually do what they did to her at the time of the Transfer of Power in 1947. India was partitioned and if anybody was squarely responsible for this dastardly deed of the British beyond the colonists themselves and their puppets in the form of Jinnah and the like, it was Tagore's 'Mahatma' and Netaji's 'Father of the Nation' who had ever played his political cards deftly to wipe out all traces of masculine modes to liberate our motherland which could have averted her eventual doom.

Tagore's folly in offering, through an overreach of poetic propensity, the honorific, 'Mahatma', to a man thoroughly undeserving of such an epithet, and Netaji's gullibility or, perhaps, political sagacity, considering the fissiparous state of the Indian polity then, in addressing Gandhi as 'Father of the Nation' over his overseas radio broadcast, despite the perfidies the patriarch of political expediency had perpetrated against him and a host of other extreme revolutionaries, have stuck to generations of deluded Indians and induced them into absorbing the falsities and the fabrications fed into their bloodstream by independent India's dynastic dispensation over decades of diabolical myth-making and the erasing of essential truth.

The question then arises : How far was Gandhi instrumental in emasculating dependent India's virile aspirations for freedom and how far, eventually, was he responsible for the destruction of the tradition of kshatraveerya (martial valour) that had been the fundamental feature of India's response to repression through millenia? Did Gandhi inadvertently or with a fair degree of awareness play to the British cards simply because he was constitutionally incapable of the vigour, the valour and the complexity of armed struggle and had to, thus, resort to more effeminate means of passive resistance which was hardly much of a resistance, after all, as it was capriciously switched on and off as and when it suited the man and the British masters who kept him alive and kicking, never punishing him too hard or deporting him across the seas to serve the sentence that he duly deserved for waging war against Crown and Empire?