He was far less dangerous alive than dead for starters, murder him and he comes a marter. You also need to take into account that where as Gandhi represented trouble for the British he represented non violence, the Indians with the guns were in background waiting their chance. I have no idea what they could chanre and then pin on him to have them do this.
As a BTW having Hitler suggest that shooting Gahdhi is sure proof that the idea in wrong![]()
Besides that it would be ridiculous to kill him, if they would have wanted him dead they would not even have to execute him. They could simply wait for an episode where he would starve himself to dead. But of course, the British wanted to avoid even that, as they would be blamed for his death.
No one is going to believe for a second that it was an accident. If Gandhi dies, particularly if he dies while in British captivity, it doesn't matter if he decided to light himself on fire and run up and down Bombay screaming "I am the Human Torch"; the British are still getting blamed for his death.Or, you know.. accident happens.
States are certainly no stranger at this kind of play.
No doubt more than a few Britons would be horrified by such a move.
No one is going to believe for a second that it was an accident. If Gandhi dies, particularly if he dies while in British captivity, it doesn't matter if he decided to light himself on fire and run up and down Bombay screaming "I am the Human Torch"; the British are still getting blamed for his death.
Why didn't the British in India execute Gandhi?
No one is going to believe for a second that it was an accident. If Gandhi dies, particularly if he dies while in British captivity, it doesn't matter if he decided to light himself on fire and run up and down Bombay screaming "I am the Human Torch"; the British are still getting blamed for his death.
We know that amount of trouble (pun intended) the british and the protestant northern irelanders went thru to keep the catholics down
Or, you know.. accident happens.
Possible accidents:
a muslim kills Gandhi, start of a hindu-muslim civil war (not a beautiful sight), hard liners at the helm of indian protest;
a "lonely madman" kills Gandhi, everybody in India thinks that this is a british conspiracy, heavy protests, again hard liners at the helm;
Gandhi "commits suicide", as above;
Gandhi "vanishes", as above;
Gandhi has a transportation "accident", as above.
There is no "accident" scenario that ends positevely for the british. In any case, Gandhi successor would not be wheel-spinning ascetics but always a hard line militant, with all the entailing consequences. Gandhi was allowed to live because the was the less bad option the brits had.
And yet, despite Winston Churchill being Prime minister of the UK for five years during WW2, and having ample opportunity to dispose of him in any way that he wished, Gandhi remained miraculously untrampled by an elephant...Hitler was not exactly the only one to have such an idea.
Winston Churchill infamously suggested in 1920 that Gandhi "ought to be lain bound hand and foot at the gates of Delhi, and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new Viceroy seated on its back."
And yet, despite Winston Churchill being Prime minister of the UK for five years during WW2, and having ample opportunity to dispose of him in any way that he wished, Gandhi remained miraculously untrampled by an elephant...![]()
I guess he was dumb enough to say things like that, but not quite dumb enough to go through with them.![]()