That Ghandi had a positive influence towards peacefulness in the civil disobedience in his immediate environment is clear.
Am I missing a joke here to the effect that the Peace prize should be awarded even, or especially, to those who promoted peaceful efforts despite the horrific consequences of such peacefulness (in both examples I gave, the Holocaust and the megadeaths accompanying Indian independence - which might not have happened at all without Ghandi and so can be laid at his door)?
It's a peace prize and World War II wasn't a time for being peaceful. Peaceful strategies were contraindicated.
Which is exactly what Ghandi suggested, yet the inclusion of this point suggests you think that it somehow makes Ghandi look good. ??? Again, I suspect I'm missing some subtle joke you're making.
Close to a million people were horribly murdered in partition. Indian independence, like American independence, was a mixed bag. But It's not clear that the British could have prevented it, they were dead broke at the end of WW2.
Of course that leads one to wonder how influential Gandhi and Quit India actually were.
A reminder for everyone: on this day in 1983, Stanislav Petrov saved the world.
It occurs to me this time around that there's an interesting relationship here - 9/26 is forgotten, while 9/11 is remembered. Do something charitable, and not patriotic, sometime today.