Thank you. The thing I can agree with is that non-violence has historical merit as a form of protest against an occupying force. I studied Gandhi a great deal (too much, probably) since my dissertation was on the partition between India and Pakistan, a time during which Gandhi, Nehru, and Jinnah were critical characters.

I did read your post. Thank you for directing me to it. If you get a chance, I think this post is very enlightening: https://medium.com/@dalitdiva/why-it-is-time-to-dump-gandhi-b59c7399fe66

It’s no secret that women have not historically had access to a culture of consent and autonomy. While the understanding of basic human rights might be a function of the times, basic human rights themselves are not. As we move toward equality and basic human rights for women, we’re gonna have to look at the legacies of sexism and how it’s deemed acceptable to brush that under the rug for “greater purposes”. This keeps happening. An un-evaluated history continues to repeat itself.

Gandhi was a very powerful man. He thus also had great responsibility to wield his influence ethically. He chose to recruit “volunteers”, young girls, to be in his bed unclothed with him. Some of these girls were his relatives. This is not a justifiable position.

I feel compelled to add that I’m not even touching upon his racist views, which strengthened the chokehold of caste-ideology. The writer, Dalit Diva, whose post I’ve linked above, talks more about that.