I agree with you. Infact, when Gandhi died - the condolence message from Jinnah categorically called him "a great leader of Hindus" rather than Indians. Jinnah was never comfortable with Gandhi mixing religion with politics and his talks of "Mother India", "Ram Rajya" etc. But then, before Gandhi - talks about independence were only between intellectuals in Delhi, Calcutta and Bombay. Gandhi, for all his faults did bring the idea of independence to the masses. Initially, he did inspire the likes of Bhagat Singh and even Bose had a "Gandhi Brigade" in his INA. Ironic because the methods of these 2 were anathema to Gandhi but both Bhagat Singh and Bose respected Gandhi for his views. I personally don't agree with many aspects of Gandhi's visions - like prohibition for one. Or his ridiculous economic thought process. But I do think he genuinely meant well and brought the Indian freedom movement to the forefront of the world.
He was good i will give you that, but he was very unrealistic in his expectations.To expect people to give up Violence completely and turn into Meek sheep.That never happens in a sudden instant because Gandhi preached non-violece but change will come gradually.
The idea of Complete Swaraj was taken from Bhagat singh by Gandhi,before Bhagat singh Gandhi was ok with Limited Powers given to Indian people by British while the Important decisions were to be taken by British.Only after Bhagat singhs death did the idea of "Poorna Swaraj" went viral.
Subhas Chandra Bose disliked Gandhi for his too pacifist approach,not to mention Nehru filling Gandhis ears with gossip and propaganda against Bose,which led him to quitting National Congress.The rest you know is History.Each are great in their own right,but Gandhi was too morally unrealistic, I mean he called for the whole Jewish race to jump off a cliff to somehow induce guilt in Hitler
and his letters to Hitler if you read will bring a laugh on your face.
Read the history not the hindu history filled with lies and distortions. Read some neutral history not your school text books taught by Pundits.
Again we see the distortion of history through hindu lens but to your utter dismay the history have been well documented and chronicled which your illogical RSS brainwashed saffronised mind cannot comprehend. 83% or whatever percent of Hindu survived actually is the testament to the tolerance of Muslim rulers of India because if they carried massacres on the style of RSS terrorists and Murdoodi facist, there would be very small hindu minority left after a thousand years of persecution.
I read the history well unlike Pakistani textbooks which proclaim 1 momeen=10 hindus.
Tolerance of Muslim rulers? Yeah right! How tolerant were you in Egypt,Iran and other Middle eastern nations when Muslim rulers conquered and changed them to Islamic states completely.
It tells me the Muslim rulers are neither tolerant as you seek to portray but they failed miserably to convert Bharat to Islam either by Book or Sword.We are the living testament where Islam has failed by using Sword as they did in other nations, because we always fought against such invaders and the resistance put up simply meant, muslim rulers had no choice but to live with the prospect they cannot convert people to Islam by force.
No matter what history book you say etc. We are a living testament of 1Billion Hindus 83% of Bharat is still Hindu.
