He tried his utmost to convert, I.e., influence people to attempt peaceful means to accomplish their goals.
You are shifting goal-posts. We are talking about religious conversions. Gandhi was completely against member of one religion trying to convert members of another religion and opposed all who did this. Therefore Gandhi would be opposed to JW.
You are free to disagree with Gandhi, say he was wrong etc. But my point is that Gandhi would have clubbed you with all the Christians he opposed because like them JW consider other religions (or even other denominations) as false and try to convert people from them. Gandhi considered all (at least most) religions as equally efficacious in their ability to connect a person to God and hence considered all conversion attempts as misguided, a symptom of human ego, and a contributor to human suffering.
""I disbelieve in the conversion of one person by another.
My effort should never be to undermine another's faith but to make him a better follower of his own faith. This implies belief in the truth of all religions and therefore respect for them. It again implies true humility, a recognition of the fact that the divine light having been vouchsafed to all religions through an imperfect medium of flesh, they must share in more or less degree the imperfection of the vehicle." - Young India (1929)
""Regarding conversion, I don't mean that it is never justified.
But no one should invite another person to change his or her religion. In my view, the belief which underlines such practice, namely, that one's own religion is true and another's is false is an error." (Letter 1932)
But, as for preaching to others, Jesus did it. Gandhi apparently read about Jesus' life and his preaching in the Bible, and he liked Jesus! We do it just like Jesus did.
. As Gandhi correctly noted, Jesus, a Jew, was seeking to reform Judaism itself and calling
all Jews to leave legalistic interpretations and to move to a moral and spiritual reformation from within. He, pointedly, had nothing at all to say in the later understanding of the "preaching and proselytization" commission of a supposedly "risen" Jesus or the later activities in Paul or Acts.
But I asked you first. (And my question is easy for anyone to understand. What's moksha?) I guess you're not willing to answer?
No I would not be satisfied with that of course. A mere youthful life in some sort of an earthly heaven would be pale in comparison with being in the state of moksha.
Of course I am happy with describing moksha.
Brihadaranyaka Upanisad:-
Moksha as the State of Unconditioned Identity with Brahman
21. That is his form—
beyond desires, free from evils, and fearless. As a man, fully embraced by his beloved wife, does not know àṅything at all, either external or internal,
so does this infinite being (self), fully embraced by the Supreme Self, not know anything at all, either external or internal. That is his form—
in which all objects of desire have been attained and are but the self, and which is free from desires and devoid of grief.
22. In this state a father is no father, a mother no mother, the worlds no worlds, the gods no gods, the Vedas no Vedas. In this state a thief is no thief, the killer of a noble no killer, a Caṇḍāla no Caṇḍāla, a Pulkasa no Pulkasa, a monk no monk, a hermit no hermit. (This form of his) is untouched by good work and untouched by evil work, for he is then beyond all the woes of his heart (intellect).
23. That it does not see in that state is because, although seeing then, it does not see; for the vision of the witness can never be lost, because it is immortal. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can see.
...
28. That it does not think in that state is because, although thinking then, it does not think; for the thinker’s function of thinking can never be lost, because it is immortal. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can think.
31. When there is something else, as it were, then one can see something, one can smell some-thing, one can taste something, one can speak something, one can hear something, one can think something, one can touch something, or one can know something.
32.
It becomes (transparent) like water, one, the witness, and without a second. This is the world (state) of Brahman, O Emperor. Thus did Yājñavalkya instruct Janaka: This is its supreme attainment, this is its supreme glory, this is its highest world, this is its supreme bliss. On a particle of this very bliss other beings live.
The nature of Bliss is incomparably greater than anything that can be enjoyed even in a heaven as you describe
33. He who is perfect of body and prosperous among men, the ruler of others, and most lavishly supplied with all human enjoyments, represents the greatest joy among men. This human joy multiplied a hundred times makes one unit of joy for the Manes who have won that world of theirs. The joy of these Manes who have won that world multiplied a hundred times makes one unit of joy in the world of the celestial minstrels. This joy in the world of the celestial minstrels multiplied a hundred times makes one unit of joy for the gods by action—those who attain their godhead by their actions. This joy of the gods by action multiplied a hundred times makes one unit of joy for the gods by birth, as well as of one who is versed in the Vedas, sinless and free from desire. This joy of the gods by birth multiplied a hundred times makes one unit of joy in the world of Prajāpati (Creator), as well as of one who is versed in the Vedas, sinless and free from desire. This joy in the world of Prajāpati (Creator) multiplied a hundred times makes one unit of joy in the world of Brahman, as well as of one who is versed in the Vedas, sinless and free from desire. This indeed is the supreme bliss. This is the state of Brahman, O Emperor, said Yājñavalkya.
----------------------------------------------
This is not the correct forum area to discuss and quote religious doctrines. So I will minimize such quotations further. Suffice to say that Hindu metaphysics is quite well-defined and I certainly consider it much better formulated than anything in Christianity.
