The wane of Indian trust in Gandhi

 There is a statement from Albert Einstein on Gandhi, which always made me think. "generations to come will scarcely believe a man like this walked on earth. " I have always wondered why it would be true. Since Gandhi lived a much more recorded life, I thought it would always be easy to appreciate his efforts for Indian independence. But there is a catch: as we continue to rejoice in peace and independence, we often discount the grief caused by the lack of these. 

Gandhi preached a different policy in a world dominated by wars and violence, where armies saw war as the inevitable means to take back or take control. Even in the current world order, deterrence is considered a soft stand, and imagine a century earlier preaching for non-violence. Gandhi saw non-violence as a means of getting attention and could use it to create a voice. He did so for 40 years, giving the Britishers a negotiation, while most other independence movements were based on armed rebellion. While India's partition is blamed on Gandhi, he was past his political prime and thus was more of an advisor. It was Nehru, his protege, who bears much of the blame.

But even in his leadership, Gandhi was often questioned. Subash, when he felt that negotiations had made the British believe the upper class and Indian politicians had become puppets of the British regime rather than being a voice of the oppressed. While he respected Gandhi for putting India as a forerunner for independence, he believed it was high time they raised some noise for an independence/dominion status. In his approach to religion, Savarkar conveyed to Gandhi that Islam had been forced on the Indians and that by appeasing the minority, Gandhi was keeping the wounds of invasions alive for another day. 

Despite this, he remains one of the world's truest leaders, with the discipline and perseverance to steer a country to independence without violence. In terms of modern-day negotiations
: a positive sum game.