all the points given by maitree are facts and well known things, ..... i think no one can give reasonable and valid answers in support of some of gandhi's acts,principles...and those failures proved to be too costly .
@mumbai momentum :
Lord Clement Atlee , the British Prime Minister responsible for conceding independence to India, gave a shattering blow to the myth sought to be perpetuated by gandhians, that Gandhi and his movement had led the country to freedom.
In pursuing their personal ambition, Gandhi and Nehru, both accustomed to similar British sensibilities, acted the same game of deception and destruction with the Indian nation as the British. This is clear from the clash of ideologies they had with great freedom fighters like Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Bhagat Singh, all of whom we Indians hold in higher esteem than the Gandhi-Nehru egoist pair. When Chief Justice P.B. Chakrabarty of Calcutta High Court asked Atlee what was the extent of Gandhi’s influence upon the British decision to quit India, Atlee’s lips became twisted in a sarcastic smile as he slowly chewed out the word, "m-i-n-i-m-a-l!". In his reply Atlee cited several reasons, the principal among them being the erosion of loyalty to the British Crown among the Indian army and navy personnel as a result of the military activities of Netaji .
more info ...
http://folks.co.in/2009/10/who-brought-freedom-gandhi-or-netaji/
source : R.C.Majumdar (History of Bengal)
http://www.kamat.com/kalranga/itihas/rc_majumdar.htm
Gandhi was so close to britishers than the rest of the indian leaders that he got few provisions in the name of satyagraha, to establish himself as the key representative to negotiate with britishers.
The fall of Singapore in 1942 heralded the end of the British Empire and of European colonialism in general. It was this changed perception, that the British were just ordinary mortals like the rest that allowed Netaji Subhas Bose to recruit Indians in Southeast Asia into the Indian National Army --Azad Hind Fauz or the INA. When the opportunity arose, netaji seized it to transform the armed forces into a nationalist force, while Gandhi and Nehru started the Quit India Movement which collapsed in a few weeks.....but due to surrender of japan, INA failed and most of the INA soldiers were captured as prisoners. The brutal torture of the INA prisoners had caused dissent in Indian army, and after WW2 ended, there was a naval mutiny, popularly called as Bombay Mutiny.....
Adding to it, there were many cases where indian officers did not obey the commands of their british superiors. All these, gave a clear indication to britain, that the trust quotient of indian army is at the very low, and that there may be another mutiny or rebellion waiting to happen at any time in the indian army. Also the WW2 had exhausted the economy of much of europe,UK and the wealth of india had already been sucked out with no more to extract, the britishers found that disbanding the indian army and creating a new one, would be a costly thing.Hence, the britain decided to leave india.
Khilafat - non cooperation movements :
"muslims of india had been plunged into pain and resentment by the behavour of british .in their sorrow and search for remedies it was morally incumbent upon the hindus to give unstinted support to muslims" - gandhi (1st khilafat conference)
"If you wish to cultivate eternal friendship with mussalmans you must perish with them in the attempt to vindicate the honour of islam" ----Gandhi- Khilafat conference ,karachi ,june-1921
Declaration : it is unlawful for a muslim to continue in the british army;announcement of breaking of law.
August 1921 - genocide of hindus - the moplah riots (kerala)
Hindus sacrificing lives in the khilafat movement for the sake of muslims in some parts and muslims committing genocides on
hindus in some parts.This was the khilafat movement under the leadership of gandhi.
Birth of pseudo secularism in indian politics --- religious character of the khilafat was an opportunity of a life time to pseudo secularists for gaining political mileage.
Neither congress nor the Indian Khilafatists realised that their objective was neither politically practicable nor wholly justified . Mughal rule since 16th century refused to recognize the caliphate of turkish sultans .
when and why some muslims in india accepted caliph ---
1.out of fear!...british revengefulness and hostilty towards muslims after 1857 revolt.
2.oppurtuntiy...in 1876,British empire anxious to maintain the influence and power of sultan(caliph-turkey) as a barrier against russian advance towards med.sea...persuaded some indian muslims to accept the turkish caliphate.
Till the late 19th century muslims had no concern in the affairs of turkey,they did not recognize ottoman sultan as caliph.
Failure of movement - turks in 1922-23 dropped the question of suzerainty over the holy places and on march 1924 abolished the caliphate itself. With these developments the indians were mortified.Historians agree that khalifatists under leadership of gandhi became jokers of that decade.
surpising feature of the movement : This movement was confined to the muslims of india ,no other muslim people in asia or muslims of africa gave their material or moral support . Indian muslims who opted to emigrate to afgan were kicked out by the Amir of afghanistan .In november -1921 Afghan government and british government signed an agreement.
Using religion for political motives back fired , Later led to increased islamic fundametalism,separatism....ultimately leading to partition.
also read...
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/fascism/gandhimistake.html
Gandhi can think only in extremes-either extreme eroticism or asceticism --- Nehru
@ms:you can nevr answer some questions...even the dynasty cannot answer .... you can just pass the buck on tothers or else prefer to choose the safest way....by being silent ! he is an over rated leader......congress politics since independence had distorted history as you have said and it made people to think that he was a supernaturl being . You haven't answered my first question...why nehru was favoured by gandhi when others supported sardar patel for PM/congress president?
@MS: this is one of my sources....
http://india.gov.in/govt/publications/dec07/history.php
(4volumes)
thanks for the link...i have seen the best answer there .... very good answer... that shows foreigners have better knowledge about gandhi than congress fans .....bad
@MS:i am very sorry if u were hurt by my 'skipper' comment . i am taking it back .