Adhidaivik apada or taap, doesn't ordinarily seem any thing so convincing during normal times, as to give it a serious thought.
These terms become relevant when human logic is put by the nature at it's wit's end. That is to say at the exhausted limit of one's resources or power to think or respond.
When Patna faced a near deluge in the 70s, the then CM, Dr. Jagannath Mishra called it an Adhidaivik Apada, and so did Bhagwat Jha Azad as CM when Bihar was shaken by earthquake, worse than the one perhaps, which visited Bihsr to-day .
Is the term Adhidaivik , just an ornamental escape terminology that has been coined just to console man's handicaps against nature which keeps expressing its fury by inundating, ravaging and devastating human dreams in ways one would refuse to anticipate in worst of dreams?
Devi or Devta, means what, after all and where does such purported meanings , as one may discover or interpret, fit into the scientific format?
Will some one oblige, giving or discovering an answer?

Gandhi, the Mahatma.

Mahaputush or mahatman are terms we causally use for stature zandu Gandhi or the likes attained in history  of mankind , but the actual import of the terms are rarely endeavoured to be traced.
The eighteen Yogas that the Gita defines includes a Yoga named Mahapurush Yoga, in the 15th chapter. Read in conjunction with other Sutras, into which Gandhi has aptly delved from a practitioner's standpoint, it tells us about an inverted sacred  (peepal) tree having its branches spread all over, especially and notably on the downside even.
It refers to the human mind (consciousness) wherein that entity is seated , called Mahapurush, the Supreme Being.
The entire systems of Yoga, including those in the preceding chapters that Gandhi embraced as a way of life, promises emancipation.
The term emancipation has synonyms which different systems name as Nirvana, Samadhi, salvation, etc., approachable from that very point where the practitioner is presently stationed.
Karma Yoga, integrated with Bhakti and Gyan Yoga, Gandhi applied for himself, and visibly succeeded too.
However, failure lies in the perception of those who admire Gandhi , but oblivious his prime mover, hovering around the extrinsic moral codes that fell out,  in isolation of or bereft of its intrinsic substance.
Any Yoga or practice or principle or philosophy has one and the only stuff to address, the human Mind. Nothing works, or can work, unless this tiny unit of the Universe is accessed and dealt with. Gandhi I did it for himself. What practices he followed is Yoga, but the moral code, perceived as a philosophy in its own right is unattainable unless the human mind is subjected to the practices Gandhi followed to tame the mind. All the Yogas target the individual mind of the practitioner. Being good, doing good, and states like equanimity, non-violence, tolerance, etc. , are impossible to be imposed on the mind, or even to be inculcated, unless the mind itself is tuned , trained , purified and tamed by the application of any of the eighteen Yogic  principles, like some, just some and not all or even many, which Gandhi himself endeared. 

Coming back to Gandhi and his treatise on Gita, let me state what often leaves me wondering.
Why and what people admire about something . This question might seem funny, but it is material.
I, for one , like so many people and so many things. But a liking is founded on an express or even unclear reason. Like, I don't know why I always admired some film stars whom I still like to repeatedly see on TV screen, singing evergreen songs from the play back. But I would never over define my liking. What is over definition? One may ask. Over definition is that credit or discredit one may give to one's icon, for what the one admired or despised is/was never accountable.
I take this audacity to put our illustrious leaders in that category.
Gandhi, Nehru, Indira, Rajiv, and numerous others, including those still around, come in that bracket. All these leaders attained pinnacle of glory. Such attainment itself is praiseworthy . But error lies in extending or compressing the intrinsic value of each, by over glorification or by unreasoned undermining .
Gandhi, the Mahatma, was an offbeat leader of his time and was a Mahatma in generic, rather than, specific sense. The principles he practiced were unimpeachable, but the thoughts he was perceived by his followers as mandating were in the form  of  moral code. Who would follow it and how, is the practice part which Gandhi himself was perfecting but the same were not imparted, nor could it have been.
Error lies in the fact that the peripheral admiration of Gandhi, without delving into the mechanics of what he followed and why, Gandhi has been run all over like a currency that is bereft if any intrinsic value Gandhi would have contribute if he had survived.
Instead of harping on principles coined in the name of Gandhi, it would be preferable to develop Gandhi's interpretation of his principal doctrine, Gita, so as to make it clear and intelligible within the framework of the present day Science and technology.

Instead of propounding the Law, it may serve a better cause if one elicits some simple answers. An act may be an act of commission or even omission.
Each act has its own potential. It is that potential that manifests into a result, materialised or in materialised yet. That which stays in abeyance, lying in store , in the womb of time is a yet-to-materialise consequence of the act. A seed is sown whereas another one is simultaneously burnt and reduced into ashes. The former stays in abeyance in the womb of the soil. The other is transformed into other forms of element or energy. Consequence or outcome in the latter is instant. The former is slow . In other cases it may be even slower , so much so that it may turn out of sight, elusive, as if the action is inconsequential, though it is not.
What happens to such purported consequence that lie in such staggered abeyance, without manifestly coming back in the shape of an effect . This is an issue that modern psychology would answer. But Gita is all about it, and do is the Karma zygomatic principle that Gandhi not just ardently practiced, but also prescribed which constituted only a peripheral application of Gita.
The Gandhian thought has generally been applied and appreciated entirely bereft of the doctrine that formed its core. As a result, these thoughts stayed as offshoots strayed from, better say, divorced from or in corroborated by, its parent doctrine.

Read the Gita according to Gandhi. Karma means what?
The very definition of Karma that Gandhi imports , speaks volumes that his own treatise is contained in an abbreviated form.
Karma is not just an action, as many believe.
Karma has twin meanings. Besides an 'Act', Karma also means its consequence.
This definition constitutes the very foundation of the ancient belief systems of which the Gita is just an abridged version, whereas Gandhi's own thoughts are peripheral excerpt, so to say, thereof.
The Karma principle is more substantial than just philosophical or ideological. Why not test it scientifically? One takes a jump into a river in spate. That action by one's personal volition might be an individual Karma. Its consequence is imperative. The consequence does not end up necessarily in death. Consequence of the Karma triggers further actions, in the shape of fight or flight. Each action, either in fight or in flight or whatever, would constitute further series of Karmas, each predicting consequences in its minutest nuances. What ultimately results , would appear in the firm of rescue or death of the original Karma, constituted by the jump in the river , but it is for the researcher, not bereft of scientific temper, to trace back that element constituting Karma which originally prompted the jump that we are talking about.
Gandhi being a practitioner, neither a researcher in this field nor an adept , has gone as far as words could permit the practitioner addressing followers having limited receptivity.

The cause and effect principle of the Law of Karma, has subtle definitional nuances which are not easy to sink into the scientific format, unless it's each steps are systematically detailed and enunciated.
Such a treatise would seem too technical to endure, unless one is a serious aspirant, like it is not easy to define even small and generally understood terms, such as, say speed, velocity and vector. All these are not synonymical as are the two variants of Karma.
What is speed? Even an illiterate understands.
What is velocity? Even a literate might stumble, when asked to explain.
What is vector? Unless one understands physics, the question leaves one gaping.
But it should be enough to say that all these three belong to the same genre, but bearing varying definitional implications.
( To a lay man, it is futile to state that Velocity is a vector physical quantity; both magnitude and direction are required to define it. The scalar absolute value (magnitude) of velocity is called "speed", a quantity that is measured in metres per second (m/s or m.)

Churchill was Britain's saviour against Hitler whose troops would have crushed Britain, but Churchill's war diplomacy turned Hitler towards Soviet Union .
Its two pronged outcome  became an epoch making event. Britain was saved and the German troops were devoured by, not the Russians, but by the Siberian terrains which the German troops failed to endure.
The above story or episode is neither news nor information, but is indeed a backdrop in which the wisdom or imprudence, whatever one may opine it to be, of the Britons must be seen. After the war had been won, Churchill emerged  as a Hero, like  Gandhi, Nehru, and many more. had emerged after India won its battle against the British rule.
But see the prudence or imprudence of the Britons and the Indians in their respective post-war and post-independence phase.
Churchill as a war leader wouldn't suit Britain's peace time governance, was how Britons mandated.
Indians did just the opposite, and they continue to stick to the same reverential view toward those who chased the. British away by a peaceful means, and earned India its freedom which would have eluded it for everlasting years to come.
Coming back to Churchill, who had detested India getting freedom, to consequentially become slaves in the captive hands of scoundrels, is thus relevant, in two ways.
Churchill's presentiments prove him to be a statesman with or without a foresight?
Britons exhibited wisdom or imprudence, in going the India way in continuing to revere the leaders who espoused the freedom struggle, rightly or wrongly considering them competent even on offering good governance.
Facts are sacred, opinions are free. But a misconceived public opinion is that which predicates either emancipation or doom for a nation.