I am against violence due to my upbringing and my culture. In
Gujarat where I grew up, there was a lot of influence of the Jain
religion, which was formed solely based on non-violence.
I am not against violence; I am against injustice. In fact, I
have done my part in the World Wars, thus being a willing party to
Of course, India being the country of the poor and the exploited
had no means of fighting the British enterprise. But a handful of
army, however powerful, cannot rule millions of citizens who are
uncooperative. So as long as we fought against the British (violent
or non-violent means) we would have won the freedom.
India could have won freedom about ten years earlier than it did
through some violence against the British. But we were not only
fighting the British, but also our own causes of poverty,
unemployment, and untouchability. A nation becoming free after a
violent struggle is bound to capture power in few hands and the
suffering of India's large masses would not have changed if we
became free by violent means. I wanted people of India to
partner with the English people after independence, so a peaceful
transfer of power was necessary.