historically incorrect..

      Apart from mugged up text books people scarcely know anything about Gandhi and are largely ignorant and/or misinformed about him. Here are a few popular opinions that I think don't go well with facts.

1. Gandhi was responsible for the partition of India.

      I have encountered this allegation several times but, as a rule, it is never followed by supportive evidence. Ask an RSS ideologue and he would perhaps be of this opinion. Ramchandra Guha-an eminent historian attributes the partition of India to three factors first, Jinnah and muslim league, second British Raj, third Congress itself. Congress, because of it's lack of foresight in tackling Jinnah, it undermined Jinnah and his influence. But Guha also notes that 'some moves of Jinnah defied every other explanation for partition except his own will'. So responsibility of partition mainly rests upon the shoulders of Jinnah(not even Muslim league because all lower ranks of Muslim league were not so staunch believers as Jinnah in two nation theory). Even when it comes to congress Gandhi himself, against the opinion of Congress, had always sought to persuade Jinnah. Few examples might suffice here. First, when Gandhi-Irwin pact was signed(around 1931 after dandi-march) he made sure that Jinnah is released from jail. Second, when quit India movement took place he approached Jinnah for conciliation between league and Congress(which Jinnah denied). Apart from this there are glaringly conspicuous facts which supports that far away from being a cause of partition he was, on the contrary, the most vehement opponent of partition plan to the effect that he even proposed that Jinnah be made the prime minister of united independent India if he abandoned partition. He even broke up with congress when it supported partition plan.

2. He choose Nehru over Patel for the Prime ministerial post of India out of his personal preference.

      Yes there was an element of personal preference but there were also serious considerations behind it. Rajmohan Gandhi in his biography of Patel throws light on some of it.

(1).Nehru had more public appeal than Patel especially among Muslims and youth, clearly Nehru was more popular.

(2). Only Patel could have accepted second place not Nehru, Nehru could potentially have seceded from Congress and made his separate party if he had not been made the prime minister. And in that turbulent times political stability was much essensial.

      Apart from that Nehru over Patel controversy is given more attention than necessary, Nehru was made PM in the cabinet of Interim Government only and thereafter in all subsequent elections he was voted by 'people' not by Gandhi as the PM. But the speculations will never end as to the alternative flow of history that might have taken place had Patel been chosen by Gandhi. But the speculations are not the part of history let it be handled by fairy-tale makers and astrologers.

3. India become Independent not by the struggles of Indians but because of the decolonization policy of the Britain.

      This is a half-truth. Britain was almost bankrupt after the world war 2, and as a result she was unable to handle the countries that where not economically beneficial so she wound up from the countries that were not fruitful. But India was not a bankrupt country like zimbabwe or other African countries, it was a country full of resources. True that after world war Britain was not much interested in colonies, but that doesn't automatically lead to her overnight departures from colonies. See the chronology of decolonization, the last colony Hong Kong was handed over to china as late as in 1997/98 and many other were freed in sixties also. So it can be safely said that while India didn't cause the departure of Raj it definitely hastened it.

      Then there is another myth that Britan left India not due to quit India movement but due to the naval mutiny that took place in the February of 1946. A difference of date might clear the the confusion, the announcement of the arrival of a delegation of three persons to handle the issue of India(it was a foreshadow of British departure) was telegrammed from England on 14th Jan,1946 and the mutiny broke out in the second week of February.

      Apart from this whole mumbo-jumbo there is some value of indian struggle in itself not just as a means to achieve independence. In 1857 mutiny, the fighters were mainly soldiers not common man and those soldiers too had fought not out of nationalistic vigor but out of purely religious sentiments. i.e. enfield riffle. A common farmer,a merchant,a businessman was not mobilized in this mutiny, they didn't sought the freedom, freedom was not much awaited, much sought after and much valued. A majority of Indians was unperturbed by the mutiny. The mass behavior was totally different in 1947, millions had participated in civil disobedience, dandi march,quit india(more than one lakh had gone to jail in quit India only). This time the underlying current was mainly nationalistic. And in this situation when independance arrived it was like a feast for the hungry. And this mass transformation, If I've understood correctly, we owe to Gandhi.

4. He used his weapon of fast against India when he fasted for the release of 55 crores which India withheld against Pakistan.

few things to say..(keep in mind that the money had to be given sooner or later to Pak because it was theirs after all)

(1) To compel the government for the release of money was not the main reason for his fast, the main reason was to restore Hindu-Muslim unity in Delhi. And the issue of 55 crore was greatly magnified due to the stereotyped love of sensationalism in Indians. That the government conceded to Gandhi's demand over money on 14th Jan 1946, but he broke his fast on 17th Jan only, testifies the above contention.

(2) Going by purely utilitarian way of thinking(which majority do) it can be maintained that his fast didn't really make any difference to Indian status quo. Because Pakistan was really on the verge of bankruptcy and after receiving the money it did not use it to resume the war against India(which was the main concern of government), so the fear of Congress was eventually turned out to be baseless. And even the idea of blackmailing Pakistan over Kashmir issue was futile given the furor over the issue in Pakistani mindset. And many scholars also argue that it was ethically/diplomatically wrong to withhold their share(including erstwhile governor general Mountbatten).

(3) One objective of his fast was also that all the mosques and homes of Muslims who have fled Pakistan and who wanted to return, should be vacated by Sikh refugees who had occupied them. This made him quite notorious among Sikhs and by many he was regarded as a pro-Muslim and it provided one more reason to his assassin to kill him. Now another side of the coin. He also wanted to restore all the refugees fled from Pakistan, he endeavored to march into Pakistan by foot followed by all the refugees. But Jinnah, his biggest enemy denied him entry into his country. His newspaper dawn said that people would kill him if he stepped on Pakistani soil. Now see the turn of events, Gandhi fasted for the release of money and it created great sympathy for him in Pakistan, telegrams flooded in Delhi from Pakistan asking what they could do to save fasting Gandhi. Jinnah softened though reluctant, allowed his enemy an entry into his country. He was resolved to leave for Pakistan just after few days of his death and live there forever to ensure the safety of his fellow countrymen(read Hindus). But before he could embark upon his great endeavor he was alas, killed. It can never be said surely whether this consideration was in his mind or not but it surely helped him in achieving his goal.

PS: I can point out the source of all the factual information given above if doubted.