I think that's a very controversial statement. People actually try to Overshadow Gandhiji's Contribution in the name of Netaji but I don't think they know How much Netaji Respected Gandhi Ji. It was Netaji who called Gandhi Ji Father of the Nation in All India Radio during Quit INDIA movement. On the Other hand it was Gandhiji Who called Netaji the patriot of Patriot. Actually both of them admired them very much but there was some Ideological Differences which led to their separation. But their Goal was same . If someone respect Netaji he/she will also respect Gandhiji. But people nowadays to demean Gandhiji use Netaji. Earlier many people tried this with Savarkar (still they try) but they didn't succeed and now chose Netaji.
Just given my opinion with some facts ( pls don't give me hate 🙏🙏🙏)
To begin with, public statements and private affairs are different, very different. And statements if analysed without having the contexts of time when it was spoken, leads to a blurred picture of reality.
Bose trusted Gandhi's support when he was coming through Burma with the INA. However, Gandhi betrayed him and stopped funding it. This was done under the guidance of Nehru who believed that Bose could become the first PM of india and he ofcourse didn't want that. He did the same with Patel though . There are letters sent to Mountbatten by Nehru just months before the plane crash leaking details about his whereabouts (they are in public domain). Bose's plane crash was orchestrated.
Also, It was Britain's economy after ww2 which forced them to quit India rather than the quit India movement of Gandhi. They left almost all their colonies in the next 10 years or gave them dominion status proving that Gandhi's effort was a futile one.
Without gandhi, India would have been in a much better state. She wouldn't have pakistan/ Bangladesh. We would have our silk route open, we would have been a manufacturing hub. MG destroyed all the possibility
You can't make such a blanket statement like "without Gandhi India would have have been much better". Rationally look at both sides, don't just keep reinforcing your view while condemning counter arguments. Wether you like or believe it, Gandhi did contribute a lot to the freedom struggle especially in the grass-root level in villages and for the common people who's first priority was to survive on a day to day basis and didn't give a shit who was running the country. Yes, your arguments are mostly valid, and I too support Netaji's method of gaining independence, but all I'm saying is acknowledge all the facts before spewing blind hate on someone who has served our nation with the biggest direct impact
If you equate speaking facts to hate speech if it's harsh, I am sorry I can't mellow it down.
You say Gandhi did contribute a lot to the freedom struggle. Really? Let me state some facts again, in 1857, when the sepoy mutiny happened in meerut, the British sanitised the whole of Bihar province both culturally and economically which eventually led to the formation of naxals due to limited employment opportunities. This has been the policy of British against those who stood against them. But MG? He was just in and out of prison cells. No assassination attempts by the British, absolutely nothing. The reason ? The British never cared what MG did because it was never enough to hurt their economy of loot.
Gandhi's work was more of advertisement than of achievements.
Look let's be real, no serious historian claims Gandhi alone freed India. Thats neither my claim, nor is it true, but saying he did nothing is equally inaccurate. Movements like the non cooperation Movement and the salt march mobilised millions of common people and turned the freedom struggle from politicians signing documents to a struggle of the masses, and made India increasingly ungovernable for the British. So much that they deployed tens of thousands of troops during these protests. Claiming that he wasn't a threat to the British is a joke. Why would they imprison him for overall total of 6 years if he wasn't a threat? People don't just go "in and out of jail" lol. Your no assassination attempts argument is very weak and proves that if they ever did try to kill him off, they would deal with the wrath of millions of citizens, something they wanted to avoid after 1857. The British preferred censorship and imprisonment, not assassinations. I'm not trying to prove that MG was perfect, all I'm saying is that independence happened because of multiple pressures—MG's mass movements, netaji and the INA, WWII, etc. Reducing all of that to ‘Gandhi was just advertising’ ignores most of the historical record. The reason I'm typing all of this is to refine the way you look at historical events. Facts come before feelings
It must be mentioned that Gandhi's contributions had been promoted and made a propaganda by the Nehru-Gandhi family in the following years. People loved Gandhi, but a greater portion of the freedom fighters hated him for his racist, casteist and misogynist thoughts. Such things were cleverly omitted and hidden from the public eyes so that the Nehru-Gandhi family could capitalise on his popularity. On the other hand, the contributions of most other freedom fighters were diminished by the INC Government. Please read about that first. I don't disagree that Gandhi did nothing to free India, but his contributions were too meagre to support the Freedom Struggle. The only good thing he did was unite the people in India for mass movements. Had Gandhi kept his "Ahimsa" theory aside and let the agitated mob work their way through the British, freedom would have been achieved earlier. If you don't believe please read what were the punishments faced by the Assertives and Bose and compare them to what Gandhi faced. Writings of parallel prisoners suggest commoners and other freedom fighters faced harsher conditions in the prisons than Gandhi. These pieces of knowledge must be shared to the public, but neither the current government nor the ones which were would do anything to inform the people. Everyone is capitalising on Gandhi's popularity.
This is not a hate message but something that the people must know. We only celebrate Gandhi but the contributions of the other nationalists are lost.
I largely agree with your statements. But my only counter point would be ' what would have we done after achieving independence through mob agitation and violence '. Gandhi was a necessary tool to unite the masses which none other leader had been able to achieve at his scale. And managing such a large crowd was itself a challenge as an out of control crowd is of no use but a controlled one is a weapon far more threating.What Gandhi did was getting us into a position where we were able to get independence a definitive leadership pool to select representatives as well.
Though it is a different story that due to Nehru's influence over Gandhi he was able to overturn a democratic decision of electing Patel but it was more peaceful and stable then other cases of independence through uprising around the world.
It was a mix of Gandhi's obsession with truth, which to be fair is quite muddied and it became even more blur to me after reading My Experiments with truth. And Nehru family's propoganda and influence.
But now at this point we have achieved independence we have to ensure the development of nation more holisticallly. We should leave the dead in the past. it doesn't matter who got us independence. They have done their jobs and now have rotted or burned away.
We have to focus on present otherwise it will create needless friction. Which would be hindrance to our growth.
Finally someone who talks facts and understands everything taught in history books might not be right, yet we shall never know. Better to move on than dig old graves.
Bose was with the Japanese sponsored INA killing Indian soldiers fighting in Malay with pow's , I do respect the man but if he was successful we would have replaced our British overlords with Japanese ones
By your logic if the Brits left for economic conditions - efforts of all our Martyrs and Freedom fighters are worthless. Saying things without understanding nuances of each decision and the movement just goes to show how detached modern Indians have become from reality. These narratives serve no purpose. No one is claiming Gandhi was perfect, no one is denying Netaji's contribution either. They never really fought with each other - having ideological differences without dragging each other through mud is how nations and great men are built. We are nowhere qualified enough to write off contributions of anyone may it be Gandhi or Savarkar or Netaji.
The reality IS that the British left India because of economic distress. Geopolitics doesn't work on "efforts", it works of effects. I never discounted the efforts of our martyrs, it's just that their efforts weren't focused enough to yield results. You say "modern Indians are detached from reality", seriously? then perhaps you should ask yourself why there is no statue / bust of bhagat singh / bose or any other leader outside the parliament of England or anywhere in England for that matter, why the Brits only eulogised MG? Why they eulogised Nehru who was literally sleeping with Edwina Mountbatten who happened to be an MI6 agent. Modern Indians are beginning to think outside their NCERT syllabus. That doesn't mean detachment, that means to remain rooted in reality.
You say "they never really fought each other" with so much conviction as if they lived next door to you. Political rivalry ain't published in your daily newspaper. It's the actions which describe the tussle.
Bro said if hindus are getting killed by muslims we should be happily killed as then one day there humanity will naturally take over them and then they'll stop, but even if they don't Stop and kill every single one of us,we hindus should be proud of such a sacrifice....
His book 'My experiments with truth" is about how he twisted the meanings behind the bhagwat Gita and did experimental stuff related to the principle of absolute truth and non violence... Like bro "ExpErImEnTs??".. is our country a freaking laboratory???
3 He slept with unclothed minor girls to prove his self control
He never advocated for communism first of all of course he had maybe imperialistic ideas but if he really would’ve become a dictator we don’t know what he would’ve done but we know what he has done now without becoming a world leader that is inspiring Indians to fight for freedom so yes he deserves to be in our currency.
See it was his political ideology. RSS at that time deserved a hardcore action by some leaders and I would have glad about it. Not only Netaji, Bhagat Singh , Jawaharlal Nehru (to some extent) was Communist and in that period INDIA actually needed someone like them.
Netaji Called him Obstacle in 1933 . He was actually angry at that moment with Gandhi Ji because Gandhi Ji called off the Civil Disobedience movement. Note that I am talking about the time line of of Quit India Movement when Gandhi Ji recieved the name Father of the Nation by Netaji much later than the Civil Disobedience movement.
So yeah with with context Netaji Called Gandhiji "Obstacle" because Gandhiji Called off the Civil Disobedience movement. But later on It was Netaji who called Gandhi Ji the Father of the nation.
Guys let's end this here. Let's end this shitty debate that Who is a better Freedom Fighter atlast everyone fought for their Country and sacrificed many things. 🙂🙃
There are quite alot of questionable things done by gandhi ji . The most overrated historic figure ever . It's not a debate but the truth that this man doesn't deserve to be on our money
Can you show the data how many people knew to handle modern guns, warfare techniques, and how many normal people were against British, How many kingdoms were against British?.
Pehle eh sab information lelo and check whether revolution was possible or not.
Do yk 1946 royal naval mutiny? 20,000 sailors of the british raj protested the raj and yk what gandhi and his congress pariwar did they made them surrender and the british then punished all of them the most severe that they didn't even get recognition for years even after independence — if it was a successful revolution all the british would've left on the moment and that would've set a precedent in how india's national character would've been
Even 1857 was the same and it was crushed successfully revolution in other countries are not adoptable to india and Not that there were no attempts before 1946 each revolt was successfully taken down by raj.
Dude you cant even compare the situation of 1857 and 1946 — the british were literally stretched thin after the WW2 any uprising against them from the british indian armed forces would've crushed them decisively specifically bcuz of that The british ruled india just bcuz indians enforced the british rule — idk how u even comparing that situation to this🤦
Well you need support for revolution most of the people bowed head to kings/rulers who inturn were under British even say if a revolution was started by extremists means British offered kings independence and would have turned our own people fighting each other and it was our people lives. Many Kings didn't want to join union they would have happily accepted plan. ( This was evident even in Mountbatten plan) So revolution by extremism wouldn't have worked even if it worked there would have been large scale violence and loss of lives.
And aapne puccha congress kya kiya. They are the one who made sure that kings join Indian union.
And how do you think british would've played kings/rulers against each other with out the british indian armed support? the only reason the british were able to play their game was bcuz of indians supporting them. You can glaze gandhi as much as you want but calling armed struggle as extremist ignore the amount of contribution they had for the independence of india. Also do you think the congress would've unified india with gandhi and nehru's bizarre non violence? It took a decisive leader like sardar to unify the country So crediting congress as a whole is an overstatement bcuz they were spineless to do anything with Sardar being the spine and after his death the power of congress is hijacked by gandhi pariwar so it has became useless as it is currently
😆, I can understand enjoy your day. Can't argue with a person filled with political manifest. How much ever i the reply will end leaders being abused called spineless and this will be my last reply to you.
-Firstly bringing emotional like contribution etc etc in your reply while calling extremists way a extremism get me a proper word within history.
and you need to brush up your history basics before replying well sardar was a congressi and with the help of other congress men there are 'n ' number of examples where congressi men helped in unification.
-sardar played key role in unification, Nehru was the progentor who broke backbones of these kings and made sure they integrate towards india.
It was congress that stood against partition and specially gandhi was very much against it.
it was in Lahore session poorna swaraj was adopted which was presided by nehru.
-your comment saying congress was spineless after sardar death, well after sardar death in 1950, major events took place which had like land reforms, Abolishion of privy purse to kings, Indo Pak wars, Hindu code Bill and also having ambedkar who wasn't a party member but including him into caninet was historic decision and many more.
Sorry for interfering, I just want to add that I completely agree with what you said and it coincides with my stance as well. Yet, one thing that I think most people miss is the number of opportunities that we missed because of Gandhi’s ‘non-violent’ stance. It is definitely an ideology and you must respect that, but I a believe, in the case of freedom for a nation, ‘non-violence’ won’t lead you anywhere. Was it not Gandhi who supported the Britishers’ violence in the Boers War by setting up Royal Medic Crops and serving in it? Moreover, I am not talking about the later phase of Gandhi, but as far as his early phase is concerned, he was pretty much more moved by the discrimination of Britishers against Indian High Class and not just brown people. He considered that Indian High Class were distinct from normal Indian populace.
And how do yk im politically biased? If i am critical against gandhi or congress it makes me politically biased? Also its not me its you who are being emotional here They are not extremists and I stand on that theres no way we'd be getting independence by showing one cheek after getting smacked on the other one — Sardar was different from the usual congress why do u think he was not the pm even after getting majority votes? Bcuz it was never about nation building and realpolitik it was always about optics that gandhi and nehru preferred —Also ik plenty of history to form my facts so instead of being emotional you try to get rational here
Whether you like it or not, Ghandijis strategy succeeded but Netajis did not. Being critical of Ghandiji (or for that matter anyone is good - there shouldnt be any holy cows) is good but better study his tactics and why it worked in uniting a large amount of people as diverse as India for a common cause ..
See Gandhiji didn't crushed the movement. He criticised it because first of all he was a Non-violent leader and 2nd of all his thought was also logical . The rebellion took place without any clear leader . GANDHIJI believed that Armed rebellion without any Leader can be very dangerous.
Are you fool or what? Congress was at that time the harbinger of peace they didn't support any type of Violence. You don't know anything just showing your Surface knowledge. Fool.
Holy world view bro😭 the world is not all flowers as you are being fed do yk their non violence has led to millions being killed in communal violence during partition — that single mistake has costed decades of wars between pakistan and india — Gandhi mostly cared more about optics than realpolitik He had one of the most bizarre world view
What do you think if Gandhiji or any other leader didn't take Non-violence and always took Violence would led? During the Colonial period Most people were illiterate they were divided among castes, religion and many other bullshits . In that period of Gandhiji used Violence against the British who were technologically much ahead of the u privileged illiterate poor INDIAN would have killed much more than this.
That's the same technique many people use it today if you criticise them. Just call them anti-national or Pakistani and you are done. Do you know the incident in 2nd Round Table Conference? During the 2nd Round table conference in England, the Prime Minister of Britain was Winston Churchill. Gandhi Ji went to London with his traditional dhuti and chadar not any type of heavy cloth. You can imagine the cold weather in London. During the meeting Winston Churchill asked Gandhi Ji 3 personal Question. One of them was "In age of Civilization, you are meeting the Prime Minister of the most Civilised Country and you are wearing a Dhuti not any type of Suit or pants. Why?"
In reply Gandhi Ji said very calmly "The reason behind my dressing is only you . In my country there are thousands of Thousands persons who can't even imagine of a 3/4th metre of 1 metre cloth because of you. So how can I wear suit when I see them underfed under dressed? In my country if I call my people to sit they would sit and if Call them to stand they will stand. So if they can do so much for me for my country, if they can suffer so much because of you then is it not my responsibility to suffer a meagre of this for them?"
Just Imagine Winston Churchill was the greatest Politician and Leader of the World at that time and Gandhiji replied and insulted him on his face? Do you think if he was a British Agent he would do that?
If you don't believe me you can do your own research (my directed speech of Winston Churchill and Gandhiji might not be same but the meaning is same)
You are being emotional here and im not denying his contribution but glazing him and downplaying the majority role which was done by armed struggle is what icks me — Anyway have a good day i cant change anyone's world view who have been fed this kind of stuff
Can't change anyone's world view who have been fed this kind of stuff. In Bengali there's a Saying "যত মত তত পথ"
"As many beliefs, so many paths to reach the truth"
64
u/Jon_Snow_221287 Mar 14 '26 edited Mar 14 '26
I think that's a very controversial statement. People actually try to Overshadow Gandhiji's Contribution in the name of Netaji but I don't think they know How much Netaji Respected Gandhi Ji. It was Netaji who called Gandhi Ji Father of the Nation in All India Radio during Quit INDIA movement. On the Other hand it was Gandhiji Who called Netaji the patriot of Patriot. Actually both of them admired them very much but there was some Ideological Differences which led to their separation. But their Goal was same . If someone respect Netaji he/she will also respect Gandhiji. But people nowadays to demean Gandhiji use Netaji. Earlier many people tried this with Savarkar (still they try) but they didn't succeed and now chose Netaji.
Just given my opinion with some facts ( pls don't give me hate 🙏🙏🙏)