The name Mahatma Gandhi generally evokes either reverence or rejection, depending on the mindset or bend of mind of the person.
Is it possible for us to consider him a human being who had his own positive and negative traits?
On this birth anniversary of his, here is a small portion of his activities, which will help us understand the person better.
The date was July 23, 1909. Madan Lal Dhingra was facing trial at Old Bailey, England for killing a Briton called Curzon Wyllie. The 26 year old patriot Dhingra's statement in his defence included:
I maintain that if it is patriotic in an Englishman to fight against the Germans if they were to occupy this country, it is much more justifiable and patriotic in my case to fight against the English. I hold the English people responsible for the murder of 80 millions of Indian people in the last fifty years, and they are also responsible for taking away ₤100, 000, 000 every year from India to this country. I also hold them responsible for the hanging and deportation of my patriotic countrymen, who did just the same as the English people here are advising their countrymen to do. And the Englishman who goes out to India and gets, say, ₤100 a month, that simply means that he passes a sentence of death on a thousand of my poor countrymen, because these thousand people could easily live on this ₤100, which the Englishman spends mostly on his frivolities and pleasures. Just as the Germans have no right to occupy this country, so the English people have no right to occupy India, and it is perfectly justifiable on our part to kill the Englishman who is polluting our sacred land. I am surprised at the terrible hypocrisy, the farce, and the mockery of the English people. They pose as the champions of oppressed humanity—the peoples of the Congo and the people of Russia—when there is terrible oppression and horrible atrocities committed in India; for example, the killing of two millions of people every year and the outraging of our women. In case this country is occupied by Germans, and the Englishman, not bearing to see the Germans walking with the insolence of conquerors in the streets of London, goes and kills one or two Germans, and that Englishman is held as a patriot by the people of this country, then certainly I am prepared to work for the emancipation of my Motherland.
At this time (1909), Gandhi was still in South Africa and was almost a non entity compared to the stature of Sri Aurobindo Ghosh, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and Bal Gangadhar Tilak. All these three were votaries of armed resistance, a line on which Chapekar brothers, Madan Lal Dhingra, acted and which was to be later followed by Bhagat Singh, Udham Singh, Netaji Subhash Bose and many other brave patriots.
Gandhi was smartly positioning himself in the eyes of Britishers as someone who could give a different direction to the freedom movement. Here is what Gandhi wrote about Madan Lal Dhingra in 'Indian Opinion':-
It is being said in defence of Sir Curzon Wyllie's assassination that it is the British who are responsible for India' ruin, and that, just as the British would kill every German if Germany invaded Britain, so too it is the right of any Indian to kill any Englishman. Every Indian should reflect thoughtfully on this murder. It has done India much harm: the deputation's efforts have also received a setback. But that need not be taken into consideration. It is the ultimate result that we must think of. Mr. Dhingra's defence is inadmissible. In my view, he has acted like a coward. All the same, one can only pity the man. He was egged on to do this act by ill digested reading of worthless writings. His defence of himself, too, appears to have been learnt by rote. It is those who incited him to this that deserve to be punished. In my view, Mr. Dhingra himself is innocent. The murder was committed in a state of intoxication. It is not merely wine or bhang that makes one drunk; a mad idea also can do so.
Indian Opinion, 14/08/1909, pp 428 vol. 9, Collected Works of MG
In views of Gandhi, a man in the prime of his youth, who knows that he will be put to death, performs a wonderful deed for his motherland and is fearless in the face of death is a coward. A coward. Today we know that these are the words of a man who said that partition of India will be over his dead body as he will sit for a fast unto death to oppose the partition. We know what this 'brave' man did.
Secondly, he is trying to portray Dhingra as someone who is so immature that he can not distinguish between worthy and 'worthless writings'. Thirdly, Dhingra was so low on IQ that he had to learn his defence by 'rote'.
Don't these words reek of the arrogance of a person who thinks himself as the greatest intellectual?
We don't know if he was the greatest intellectual or not but what is sure is that he was a very smart politician. Just look at his choice of words - 'worthless writings' and 'those who incited him to this that deserve to be punished'.
He is referring to the writings of Savarkar, Tilak and Aurobindo Ghosh.
His words would have sounded as music to the ears of the Britishers. Combine it with the sugar coated letters that he used to write to British Officers, one can understand that he was positioning himself in the eyes of Britons as a better replacement of the current leaders.
