Mahatma Gandhi's Ideology

[Husky]

Post 20: Bodhi you wrote that? You're a magnificent national treasure. Even I would refrain from trying to steal you to make a quick buck.

[Capt M Kumar]

<!--emo&:ind--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/india.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='india.gif' /><!--endemo--> Anil Gupta, a teacher at IIMAhmedabad and the chairman of National Innovation Foundation, says: “The revival of Gujarat Vidyapith comes at a very good time. Most of our initial discoveries of grassroots innovators came with the help of these Gandhian students from Vidyapith colleges and institutions.”
'balancing act is very evident on Iyengar’s desk—a high-end laptop placed right next to a charkha.'
http://www.indiatoday.digitaltoday.in/inde...=1&limitstart=1

[ramana]

Two x-posts..
<!--QuoteBegin-"sanjaychoudhry"+-->QUOTE("sanjaychoudhry")<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm sure you also agree whole-heartedly with the Pakistani propagation that Jinnah was the tallest pre-Independence leader that India produced because he only recognised that Hindus and Muslims were two separate people and hence there was a need for a homeland for Muslims.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Well, bro, Gandhi himself agreed to divide the country between the two religions. Patel too agreed to the Partition, saying that if a single Pakistan is not created, there will be a 1,000 pakistans within India itself. On hind sight, partition was a good thing, otherwise Indian army would currently have been busy in FATA and Waziristan in worse conditions than Kashmir with no solution in sight to the civilisational fault-lines. <b>Patel urged Gandhi that having agreed to gift away 1/3 of the land, he should now accept population transfer but he was over-ruled by Gandhi. So we ended up losing the land but still retaining most of the Muslims of UP and Bihar who had created a bloodbath in the name of partition. Worse, people who got stuck with Paksitan -- Balochs and Pathans -- never asked for it in the first place!! Abdul Gaffar Khan publicly saying in rallies that "we have been thrown to the wolves."</b>

My grouse with Gandhi is, either accept the two nation theory and agree to full transfer of land and partition, or do not accept the two nation theory and refuse to divide either the land or the people. But he agreed with the two nation theory to the extent of giving away one-third of India's land but did not agree with it to the extent of not allowing full population transfer. Can anything be more stupid? Either go that way or this way. What is this thing of sitting between two stools till your arse hits the ground?

Hindus have never understood the importance of land for a race, even though in Arthashastra, Chanakya defined statecraft as "the art of acquiring and retaining land." So agreeing to one-third of land transfer to Muslims, abandoning Tibet, gifting away Coco Islands to Burma on a whim, abandoning half of Jammu and Kashmir and recalling the victorious army mid-way .... Nehru and Gandhi could never understand this basic principle of statecraft. As a result, the Hindu race lost immense territory. Every 100 years, the boundaries of Hindu home shrinks further. Eventually HIndus will find there is no place left for them to stand on. Contrast this with massive gains in territory made by Whites (American continent, Australia), Muslims (51 countries of the world are officially Islamic) and even China (capture of Tibet, thus doubling the size of the country overnight).

The principle of statecraft is: "You never agree to give your land away. If you do agree eventually, then you extract your pound of flesh from the reciever." What pound of flesh did Nehru extract from China for abandoning Tibet, or for recalling Indian army from Kashmir mid-way? What concessions did Gandhi extract from Jinnah for agreeing to creation of Pakistan? Every thing went for free!! We are liberal only -- free free, everything is for free!!

As for Gandhi's philosophy of "we will give away land but not the people" it reminds me of a story that is often recited in my Haryana village. There was a man who committed a crime. The punishment pronounced by the panchayat was, either be beaten by shoes a hundred times, or eat at one go hundred onions. Choose any of these."

The man chose eating onions. After about 10 onions, his eyes started to water and he said "I cannot take this any more. I think it is better to be beaten with the shoes." After about 10 whacks of the shoe on his backside, he said: "I cannot take this any more. I think it is better to go back to the onions." After eating ten more onions, he again said he would prefer to be beaten by the shoes. The cycle continued. Ultimately, he ended up eating 100 onions as well as being beaten by shoes 100 times.

<b>This is what happened to Hindus when Gandhi did not agree to population transfer but agreed to give away land. This is because after such as huge sacrifice that the Hindu race made in terms of land, they still ended up with the problem not being solved. They had it both ways truly, like the man with onions and shoes.</b>

What you are seeing currently is only a taste of things to come. Police security, busting sleeper cells, CCTVs, arrests .. everything will be useless once the Muslim population reaches about 30 percent. I know where we are heading in about 50 years and what will be logical conclusion of the Muslim radicalism and increase in population, but I don't want to talk about it here.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->





and

<!--QuoteBegin-"surinder"+-->QUOTE("surinder")<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-"sanjaychoudhry"+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("sanjaychoudhry")<!--QuoteEBegin-->Agree with this totally. <b>Gandhi and Nehru both had feet of clay. The more I read about them, the more I consider them hollow from inside and full of self-importance. Both lacked the strength of character to rise above their petty likes and dislikes and both were eccentric and failures as family men. Both in their youth wanted to be whiter than the whites and both suffered from a low self-esteem and self-hatred throughout their lives. Both rejected their own people and walked over to the camp of the Muslims and started defending Muslim interests instead of Hindu interests. Both betrayed the millions of Hindus who supported them and made them their leaders.</b>

None of their solutions could stand the test of time. All their "insights" collapsed within three decades of their deaths. <b>And I consider both as products of backroom British support at the cost of nationalists who were hounded brutally</b>.

By not allowing population exchange despite giving away 1/3rd of land and despite Jinnah and Patel pleading with them for a full population transfer, the two gas bags did not budge an inch from their cuckoo land. As representatives of Hindus, they snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and ensured that 100 years down the line, the third generation of Hindus will face exactly the same issues that was faced by Hindus in 1947.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Sanjay C,

Good insight and honest portrayal of Gandhi-Nehru. (also other follow up posts were great reads.) <b>I too cannot shake away the feeling that Gandhi-Nehru were, as you said, "products of backroom British support". Brits knew that in any system you have to allow the people to let off steam. </b> Heck, even Musharraf understood that and let press be free. (He admitted it in an interview accidently.) <b> Gandhi and Nehru represented the best choice. Congres was established by an Englishman, by the way O.E. Hume (if my NCERT/ICSE history classes have not failed me.) The genuince salt-of-the-earth nationalists were severely and brutally treated. Savarkar was sent into a debilitating Kala paani. Lala Lajpat Rai was so brutally beaten by British laathis that he died in a few days. Bhagat Singh, immensely popular was hanged regardless. Nehru and Gandhi were never touched even remotely. Gandhi was a staunch British supporter quite late. Their jail terms were never too severe. Just enough to make the popular amongst Indians, never enough to really punish them. If the British found Nehru/gandhi to be so dangerous, then they could have had "accidents" happen. Even after Tilak had called for "Independence is my Birthright", Gandhi proclaimed his loyalty to the British</b>. Someone had mentioned a quote about Gandhi on Germany, which said that Gandhi had said that had he lived under the Germans he would have taken to guns. It shows a sad reality that Gandhi would not consider fighting the Britis, but Germans, who had done no harm to him or India. That Germans were a threat to British, not to India, seems not to have crossed his mind. That ultimately is the hall mark of Gandhian thinking, fighting distant non-exitent problems and ignoring your own real problems. When great solid men rose, like Subhash C. Bose, they were exiled and forgotten in our manufactured history classes. The INA did not get a single reginement named (what to ask that the whole IA be called INA.) That Bose had managed such dramatic effort and secured the independence of a slice of India (in Andaman Nicobar) before 1947 seems to be deliberately ignored. Other nations would make a million monuments to that brave bold act of securing independence.

The self-delusion of the Gandhi clan is so great that as kids we were made to recite "Dey di azadi bina khadag bina dhaal" ... we were given azaadi by Gandh without bloodshed. It fails to tell us that German blood gave us non-violent Indians our azaadi.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Knowing the contents of the Caroe book by Brobst, did Gandhi give the Brits their Great Game area (TSP) to let the other rest of India to be free?

[ramana]

Link to Gandhi-Churchill Rivalry that destroyed an Empire

[Guest]

Disband Congress, said Gandhi. Act on the guidance
-Dr S Kalayanaraman

[ramana]

From Princeton Uty:

Gandhi, Mandela and the African Modern

Enjoy!

[Bodhi]

Gandhiji' letter to Puran Chandra Joshi, General Secretary of the Communist Party of India (In backdrop of CPI having taken side of the British, when entire nation, including those opposed to Congress, were strongly united in Quit India Movement. In 1942 Stalin, CPI financer, was on British side):

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->JUHU,
June 11, 1944

MY DEAR JOSHI,

I had expected a prompt reply to the questions I had raised at our meeting.

Meanwhile some additional questions have arisen which please, answer when you answer my first questions.

1. What is the meaning of “people” in “people’s war”? Does it mean war on behalf of India’s millions, or the Negroes in East, South or West Africa, or the Negroes of America, or all of them? Are the Allies engaged in such a war?

2. Are the finances of the Communist Party, represented by you, subject to public audit? If they are, may I see them?

3. It is stated that the Communist Party has actively helped the authorities to arrest leaders and organizers of labour strikes during the last two years.

4. The Communist Party is said to have adopted the policy of infiltrating the congress oranization with a hostile intent.

5. Is not the policy of the Communist Party dictated from outside?

Yours sincerely,
M. K. GANDHI<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

P C Joshi's answer in next post. Here is the next response from Gandhiji:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->AS AT SEVAGRAM,
CAMP PANCHGANI,
July 30, 1944

DEAR FRIEND,
I had duly received your letter1 of 14th June and also your letter
of 26th of July sent with Shri Kumaramangalam.

Your answer to my first question provokes further question for
your reply. I understand that although the chief actors among the
Allied powers are by no means inclined towards real democracy, you
think that by the time the war ends, their designs will be confounded
and that the people all the world over will suddenly find
self-expression and overthrow the present leaders. In the peoples,
according to answer, I am entitled to include us, other Asiatics and
Negroes, for that matter perhaps, also the proletariat of Japan and
Germany. If such is your belief, I must confess that I do not share it
but I keep myself open to conviction. Meanwhile I suggest that the
title ‘people’s war’ is highly misleading. It enables the Government in
India to claim that at least one popular party considers this as people’s
war. <span style='color:red'>I suggest, too, that Russia’s limited alliance with the Allied powers
cannot by any stretch of imagination convert what was before an
imperialistic war against that Nazi combine, into a people’s war.</span>

Holding the view I do, it is superfluous for me now to answer
your argument that “this war has split the world into two camps”.
Between Scylla and Charybdis, if I sail in either direction, I suffer
shipwreck. Therefore I have to be in the midst of the storm. I
suggested a way out. Naturally it has been rejected because the powers
that be do not want to relax their grip on India. As I am composing
this letter to you, I have read and re-read your argument. Every
paragraph offends; for, to me, it lacks reality. Please believe me that
my prejudice against your party has nothing to do with my
examination of your answer to the first question.

...
...

If I have been inordinately long in dealing with your answers
which you sent me so promptly, it was because, as you are aware, I was
preoccupied and also because I was examining the evidence that was
pouring in upon me unsolicited against your party.5 I asked them to
let me use their names and they have given me the permission. I take
the latest first, i.e., Babu Manoranjan Chaudhary. I did not even know
that he was coming and when he did ask for an appointment3, it was in
connection with my acceptance of the Rajaji Formula4. Butreally he
took the greater part of my time to tell me that the communists had
done great injury to the national cause. I am using a milder term than
was really used before me. He has left papers which I have not been
able to study. And he has also left with me a printed book5 which I
have glanced through personally and it makes bad reading. The
printed book can be seen by any deputy you may choose to send.
Probably you have seen it yourself.6

The other is Sh. Kaleswara Rao of Bezwada. He also sent me a
long letter from which I quote the salient passages7 (see enclosure).
Add to this the numerous letters I have received from correspondents,
known and unknown, all impeaching the party. I understand, too, that
Shri Jayaprakash Narayan is also ‘disillusioned’.

...
...

Lastly, I ask you to believe me that I want to impress the
services of every one of you for the cause of independence to be
fought along the lines that I have chalked out for myself and the
whole country. And if I am convinced that I am going astray and that
yours is the correct method, I would like to be won over by you
toyour side and I will sincerely and gladly serve as an apprentice
wanting to be enlisted as a unit in your ranks.

Yours sincerely,
M. K. GANDHI

1 Referring to this, the addressee, in his reply dated September 12, said: “It
hurts us more than you can imagine to read that our nation’s leader pleads prejudices
as standing in the way of examining slander against a young patriotic party.”

2 In his reply, the addressee said: “Mudslinging at political opponents is an
old weapon of those who have lost faith in the people and given up all moral values.”

3 Manoranjan Chaudhary was asked (vide “Letter to Manoranjan Chaudhary”,
24-7-1944) by Gandhiji to meet him on July 27. Dealing with this, Joshi said in his
reply that Manoranjan Chaudhary was the agent of Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee who
was bitterly anti-communist as he had been exposed by the communists.

4Vide Appendix “C. Rajagopalachari’s Formula”, after 5-8-1942.

5 War Against the People, by Kalyani Bhattacharya. Joshi alleged that she was
not the author, but Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee got it written and paid for its
publication.

6 Joshi said that he had not read it but glanced through it. Immediately on
receiving it, he had asked the Bengal Committee of Communist Party whether he
should answer it in People’s War to which they replied: “Need not bother because it
had been withdrawn from circulation as all decent Bengalees who read it felt disgusted
over it.”

7 Regarding Kaleswara Rao’s accusation, Joshi asked Gandhiji to call
Sundarayya, the Andhra Communist leader, and Kaleswara Rao together and judge or
to hold a trial in public with C. Rajagopalachari and Mrs. Sarojini Naidu as judges.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Letters of M K Gandhi (downloadable pdf)

[Bodhi]

Alright, here was the P C Joshi's letter, to be read between the above two:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->LETTER FROM P. C. JOSHI

BOMBAY,
June 14, 1944
DEAR GANDHIJI,
Your small chit came as a pleasant surprise that you were so eager to know
more about us. . . .
I am answering your points in a very brief manner. . . .

1. People in people’s war means all peoples the world over without exception.
It, of course, includes India’s millions and also the Negroes wherever they be. . . .
This war has split the world into two camps. On the one side . . . Fascists are fighting
the war for the imperialist domination of the world. . . . On the other side are the
freedom-loving peoples of the world. . . the camp of freedom and democracy. . .
fighting Fascism is the only path of national liberation from imperialist domination
for us today. . . . The more we unite our patriotic parties, the weaker and more isolated
becomes the alien Government and the more irresistible our national and other
demands, the greater our capacity to save and serve our people. The more our patriotic
parties engage themselves in those tasks which any war-time government should
successfully lead, but an alien Government cannot, the more speedily we get the
united intervention of all the peoples of the world behind our national demand for
national government in the common interest of fighting the common enemy.

2. If you desire to examine the accounts personally, they will present
themselves with all the registers where and when you desire. If you decide to appoint a
representative, he should besuch whom we also know to be an honest man and
notalready prejudiced against us. You will not find our accounts as well kept as by a
commercial firm but I am sure you will give us a pass. . . . You will find some
anonymous donors, but I believe that you also accept anonymous donors. But to
dispel any suspicion that “anonymous” may be code for Government cash, I am
prepared to give you (not your representative) the names. . . .
If you have yet any doubts left and in any case, I give you some references. . .
. Iftikharuddin and his Begum, Shaukat Ansari and Zohra, N. M. Joshi. You can ask
Dr. and Mrs. Subbaroyan as to what they think is going to happen to their property
when Mohan and Parvati (their children and our comrades) get it, and in fact what they
know happens to the property of the whole-time workers of the party. . . .

3. I know it is easy enough to make such a vile charge but very difficult to
prove it. . . . Firstly, I believe, if you find that we are not paid by the Government,
you will easily believe that we are not likely to hand over labour leaders to the police.
Secondly, our party, except in Ahmedabad and Jamshedpur, is as much the
unquestioned leader of the working class as the great Congress is of the Indian people
as a whole. . . . We gave up our strike policy because we considered it anti-national in
the conditions of today, aiding the Jap aggressors on the one hand and intensifying
the economic crisis for our own people on the other. That we successfully prevented
the Indian working class from resorting to strikes even in a period of their worsening
material conditions is the measure not only of our influence over it but its capacity to
understand national interests as its own.

4. There is no question of our “adopting the policy of infiltrating the
Congress organization”. We have been in the Congress ever since we were born as a
party. . . . Whether our intent is hostile or not, it is for our fellow Congressmen to
judge and for us to prove otherwise through our practice. . . . We are inside the
Congress on our right, as patriotic sons and daughters of the people who join the
common national organization, so that we may be able to fight our hardest and best
in realization of the common goal of national emancipation and no slanders can ever
provoke us to give up this stand and forgo the glorious privilege.

5. The Communist Party decides its own policy as it understands the interests
of its own people and of the peoples of the world. As long as the Communist
International was there, we were dubbed as ‘Moscow Agents’. It is rather surprising
to come across the same insinuation even after its dissolution. . . . The Communist
Party is one great revolutionary brotherhood. It exists in every country of the world.
All have the same ideology and are moved by the common aims of fighting for the
liberation of their own and all peoples. I can send you the journals and documents of the
Communist Parties of Britain, U.S.A., South Africa, Australia, which have nailed down
Amery & Co. as slanderers and provocateurs after August 9 and which have
unfalteringly demanded the release of the Congress leaders and settlement with India
on the basis of a real national government. . . .

P. C. JOSHI<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

To the Point # 2, I wish Gandhiji persisted in seeing the accounts. Metrokhin Archives has exposed CPI, including pre-independence funding of CPI by Moscow.

[Husky]

<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+Feb 4 2008, 10:01 PM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Feb 4 2008, 10:01 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->But how can then one excuse his pro muslim fasts even after independence was guaranteed and even after partition and the massacres of Hindus+Sikhs happened.[right][snapback]78036[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Seems like the textbook description of the militantly psecular Hindu: he believed himself to be very Hindu, and obviously believed that it is very Hindu to sacrifice his own kind in order to help our enemies exterminate us. (While in reality that's not Hindu, but *Gandhian*.)


Anyways, from V Sundaram's blog page:
http://wordpress.com/tag/vsundaram/
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->A Duratma — father of Hindu genocide — II

janamejayan wrote 7 months ago: Thursday, 10 April, 2008 , 03:39 PM . The British … more →

A Duratma — father of Hindu genocide— I — 2 comments

janamejayan wrote 7 months ago: Wednesday, 09 April, 2008 , 02:21 PM . It is a wel … more →

Tags: Gandhi, India, Persecuted Hindus, Terrorism in subcontinent, The farce of Indian Secularism
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Bodhi]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><span style='color:red'>Gandhi's Muslim Appeasement, Part - I </span>
Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari

It is now well known that Muslim appeasement was an inseparable part of Gandhi’s quack doctrine of Non-violence. But many do not know why he, while he was in South Africa, adopted, or compelled to adopt this dirty policy in 1908. At that time the South African government imposed an unjust tax of £ 3 on every Indian living in South Africa and Gandhi initiated talks with South African government on this matter. But the Muslims did not support this move and were displeased with Gandhi. In addition to that Gandhi, in one occasion, made some critical comments on Islam while he was speaking at a gathering. Furthermore, he tried to make a comparative estimate of Hinduism, Islam and Christianity, which made the Muslims furious.

A few days later, <b>on 10th February 1908, a group of Muslims under the leadership of a Pathan called Mir Alam entered Gandhi’s house and beat him mercilessly. When Gandhi fell on the ground the Muslim attackers kicked him right and left and beat him with sticks. They also threatened to kill him. From this incident onward, Gandhi stopped to make any critical comment on Muslims as well as on Islam.</b> According to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, this incident was a milestone in Gandhi’s life and afterwards Gandhi began to over look even the most heinous crime committed by the Muslims.

An example would help the reader to understand the matter. On 23rd December 1926, a Muslim assassin called Abdul Rashid stabbed Swami Shraddhananda to death, when the swami was ill and lying on his bed. The reader may recall that Swami Shraddhananda was a pracharak (whole time worker) of Arya Samaj and he started a Suddhai Yajna to bring the converted Muslims of this country back to Hinduism. But his activity was detested by the Muslims. A couple of months earlier a Muslim woman came to the Swami and expressed her desire to return to Hinduism with her children. However her husband brought an allegation of abduction in the court of law against the Swami. But the court quashed the allegation and set the Swami free. The incident turned the Muslims extremely furious and within a few days Abdul Rashid assassinated him.

After a few days of this incident, Gandhi went to Gauhati to deliver his speech at the national conference of Indian National Congress. The atmosphere was depressed and gloomy due to unusual death of Shraddhananda. But Gandhi made everyone dumbfounded and began his speech by addressing the assassin Abdul Rashid as “Bhai Abdul Rashid”. Without caring for the reaction of the listeners, he continued, “Now you will perhaps understand why I have called Abdul Rashid a brother, and I repeat it. I do not even regard him as guilty of Swami’s murder. Guilty indeed are those who excited feeling of hatred against one another.” Thus he indirectly held Swami Shraddhananda responsible for his murder, as he was propagating hatred through his Suddhi Yajna. Moreover, he wrote in the obituary note, “He (the Swami) lived a hero. He died a hero.” In other words, if a Hindu falls victim to the knife of a Muslim’s assassin, Hindus should consider it a heroic death.

It should be pointed out here that the said policy of Muslim appeasement originated by Gandhi, under the garb of (pseudo) secularism was responsible for the Partition of the country in 1947. Many of our countrymen, still today, firmly believe that Gandhi was against partition as in the public meetings, he used to say, “Vivisect me, before you vivisect India”. When he was saying this in public meetings, he was expressing just the opposite view through his writings. The reader may recall that, on March 26, 1940, the leaders of the Muslim League raised the issue of creation of Pakistan as a separate homeland for them. Hardly a couple of weeks later, supporting demand, Gandhi wrote, “Like other group of people in this country, Muslims also have the right of self determination. We are living here as a joint family and hence any member  has the right to get separated.” (Harijan, April 6, 1940). A couple of years later, he also wrote, “If majority of the Muslims of this country maintain that they are a different nation and there is nothing common with the Hindus and other communities, there is no force on the earth that can alter their view. And if on that basis, they demand partition that must be carried out. If Hindus dislike it, they may oppose it”, (Harijan, April 18, 1942).               

The reader should also recall that the Congress Working Committee, in its session on June 12, 1947, decided to place the partition issue to be placed before the All India Congress Committee (AICC) for a debate and the AICC approved the issue in its session held on June 14-15, 1947. In the beginning of the debate, veteran Congress leaders like Purusottamdas Tandon, Govindaballav Panth, Chaitram Gidwani and Dr S Kichlu etc. placed their very convincing speeches against the motiom. Then Gandhi, setting aside all other speakers, spoke for 45 minutes supporting partition. The main theme of his deliberation was that, if Congress did not accept partition (1) other group of people or leaders would avail the opportunity and throw the Congress out of power and (2) a chaotic situation would prevail throughout the country. Many believe that, in the name of ‘chaotic condition’, he tacitly asked the Muslims to begin countrywide communal riot, if the Congress did not accept the partition. Till then, Sardar Ballavbhat Patel was on the fence regarding the partition. But Gandhi’s speech turned him into a firm supporter of partition and he influenced other confused members to support the issue. In this way, Congress approved the partition issue (History of Freedom Movement in India, R C Majumdar, Vol-III, p-670).

It may appear to many that, up to partition, Gandhi’s policy of nonviolence and Muslim appeasement in the name of secularism indeed harmed the country a lot. But a close look will reveal, it has done severe damage even after partition, or to speak the truth, it is causing serious damage even today. During independence, the Muslim population in undivided India was 23 per cent and this 23 per cent Muslims, got 32 per cent land area as Pakistan. The most appropriate step after partition was to carry out population transfer, or send the entire Muslim population of the divided India to Pakistan and bring all Hindus from Pakistan to India. This population transfer was included in the proposal for Pakistan by the Muslim League and after communal riot in Bihar, M A Jinnah requested the Government of India to carry out population transfer as early as possible. But Gandhi was hell bent not to undertake out the process and said that it was an impractical and fictitious proposal.

Mount Batten, the then Governor General of India, was a staunch supporter of the said population exchange and advised Jawaharlal Nehru to do the same without delay. But Nehru submitted to the will of Gandhi and refrained from doing so. It is needless to say that, from the practical point of view, the said population exchange was urgently necessary and had it been carried out at that time, many problems of today would not have arisen. But due to the policy of Muslim appeasement of Gandhi, Muslims happily stayed back in this country, while Hindus had no alternative but to come to India as refugees or penniless beggars. 

Many of us perhaps do not know that due to strong opposition by Gandhi, “Bande Mataram” could not be accepted as  the National Anthem” of this country. In his early life, Gandhi had a great affinity for the song and while he was in South Africa, he wrote “It is nobler in sentiment and sweeter than the songs of other nations. While other anthems contain sentiments that are derogatory to others, Bande Mataram is quite free from such faults. Its only aim is to arouse in us a sense of patriotism. It regards India as the mother and sings her praise.” But later on when he could discover that the Muslims dislike the song, he at once stopped singing or reciting the same at public places. Hence ultimately the “Jana Mana Gana” was selected as the National Anthem. During the debate over the matter in the Constituent Assembly, Nehru argued that Bande Mataram is not suitable to sing along with military band while Jana Gana Mana is free from this difficulty.

In the present context, it should also be pointed out that Gandhi was not pleased with Tri Color, the National Flag of today’s India because the Muslims disliked the same. In this regard, Sri Nathuram Godse has narrated an incident in his “Why I Assassinated Gandhi”, which deserves to be noted in this context. <b>During his Noakhali tour in 1946, a Congress worker put a tricolor over the temporary house where Gandhi was staying. One day an ordinary Muslim passer by objected to it and Gandhi immediately ordered his men to bring flag down.</b> So, to please an ordinary Muslim, Gandhi did not hesitate to disgrace and dishonor the flag revered by millions of Congress workers. (pp-75-76).

<b>It should also be pointed out here that in his early life, Gahdhi was very fond of the Hindi language and used to say that it was the only language having the potentiality to play the role of the national language. But to please the Muslim, he, later on tried his best to make Urdu, under the garb of Hindustani, the National Language of India. (Koenrad Elst, Gandhi and Godse, Voice of India, p – 89).</b>


A few months before the partition, when Hindu and Sikh refugees started to come from West Punjab in droves and crowding the refugee camps of Delhi, one day Gandhi visited a refugee camp and said, “Hindus should never be angry against the Muslims even if the latter might make up their minds to undo their (Hindus’) existence. If they put all of us to the sword, we should court death bravely. … We are destined to be born and die, then why need we feel gloomy over it?” (speech delivered on April 6, 1947).

In a similar occasion he said, “The few gentlemen from Rawalpindi who called upon me, asked me, “What about those who still remain in Pakistan?” I asked, why they all came here (Delhi)? Why they did not die there? I still hold on to the belief that we should stick to the place where we happen to live, even if we are cruelly treated, and even killed. Let us die if the people kill us, but we should die bravely with the name of God on our tongue.” He also said, “Even if our men are killed, why should we feel angry with anybody? You should realize that even if they are killed, they have had a good and proper end” (speech delivered on November 23, 1947)

In this context, Gandhi also said, “If those killed have died bravely, they have not lost anything but earned something. … They should not be afraid of death. After all, the killers will be none other than our Muslim brothers.” (Shri Nathuram Godse, Why I Assassinated Gandhi, p-92,93; as quoted by Koenrad Elst in Gandhi versus Godse, Voice of India, p-121).  In another occasion when he was talking to a group of refugees, said, "If all the Punjabis were to die to the last man without killing (a single Muslim), Punjab will be immortal. Offer yourselves as nonviolent willing sacrifices." (Collins and Lapierre, Freedom at Midnight, p-385). There is no doubt that if someone reads all these utterances of Gandhi, he would take him  either a fool or a lunatic, but we are worshiping him as a Mahatma or a Great Soul.

Gandhi believed that Muslims were brothers of the Hindus and hence they should never take arms or wage a war against the Muslims. He used to say that the foreign policy of independent India should always be respectful to Islam and the Muslims. Moreover, independent India should never invade a Muslim country like Arabia, Turkey etc. Gandhi also said that Rana Pratap, Guru Govinda Singh, Raja Ranjit Singh and Raja Shivaji were misguided patriots because they fought war with the Muslims. In his eyes Goerge Washington, Garibaldi, Kamal Pasha, D Valera, Lenin etc. were misguided patriots as they encouraged violence.

 

Gandhi’s utterances painting respected Hindu heroes as misguided patriots aroused widespread commotion among the Hindus. Most importantly, calling Raja Shivaji a misguided patriots put entire Maharastra on boil. Later on, Nehru could pacify their anger partially by begging apology on behalf of Gandhi.

 

The Muslims whenever attack a Hindu settlement, they, in addition killing innocent people, setting their houses on fire, loot and burglary as their routine work, rape Hindu women. It is evident that, they commit all such oppressions according to the instructions of the Koran, revealed by Allah. During the Muslim rule that lasted for nearly 800 years, raping Hindu women became a common affair. To save their honour and sanctity from the lecherous Muslims, millions of Hindu women used to sacrific their lives in flames. In the wake of partition most of the Hindu families became victims of Muslim oppression and raping Hindu women was an inseparable part of their attacks. When Hindus were butchered in Noakhali in 1946, thousands of Hindu women were raped by the Muslims.

 

Many Hindus of this country do not know, what Gandhi, the Great Soul and the Apostle of nonviolence, thought about this behavior of the Muslims. In the 6th July, 1926, edition of the Navajivan, Gandhi wrote that “He would kiss the feet of the (Muslim) violator of the modesty of a sister” (Mahatma Gandhi, D Keer, Popular Prakashan, p-473). Just before the partition, both Hindu and Sikh women were being raped by the Muslims in large numbers. Gandhi advised them that if a Muslim expressed his desire to rape a Hindu or a Sikh lady, she should never refuse him but cooperate with him. She should lie down like a dead with her tongue in between her teeth. Thus the rapist Muslim will be satisfied soon and sooner he leave her. (D Lapierre and L Collins, Freedom at Midnight, Vikas, 1997, p-479).

 

            From the above narrations, it becomes evident that Gandhi was never moved by the sufferings and miseries of the Hindus and, on the contrary, he used to shed tears for the Muslims. His idea of Hindu-Muslim amity was also extremely biased and prejudiced. Only Hindus are supposed to make all sacrifices for it and they should endure all the oppressions and heinous crimes of the Muslims without protest. And that was the basis of  Gandhian nonviolence and secularism. So a Muslim called Khlifa Haji Mehmud of Lurwani, Sind, once said “Gandhi was really a Mohammedan” (D Keer, ibid, p-237).

 

                                                              (To be continued)
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Husky]

< Entire post a must read on the <b>Religion of Cowardice</b> (aka pacificism=Gandhism=anti-Hinduism)

<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Dec 26 2008, 07:32 PM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Dec 26 2008, 07:32 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><span style='color:red'>Gandhi's Muslim Appeasement, Part - I </span>
Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari

It is now well known that Muslim appeasement was an inseparable part of Gandhi’s quack doctrine of Non-violence. But many do not know why he, while he was in South Africa, adopted, or compelled to adopt this dirty policy in 1908. At that time the South African government imposed an unjust tax of £ 3 on every Indian living in South Africa and Gandhi initiated talks with South African government on this matter. But the Muslims did not support this move and were displeased with Gandhi. In addition to that Gandhi, in one occasion, made some critical comments on Islam while he was speaking at a gathering. Furthermore, he tried to make a comparative estimate of Hinduism, Islam and Christianity, which made the Muslims furious.

A few days later, <b>on 10th February 1908, a group of Muslims under the leadership of a Pathan called Mir Alam entered Gandhi’s house and beat him mercilessly. When Gandhi fell on the ground the Muslim attackers kicked him right and left and beat him with sticks. They also threatened to kill him. From this incident onward, Gandhi stopped to make any critical comment on Muslims as well as on Islam.</b> According to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, this incident was a milestone in Gandhi’s life and afterwards Gandhi began to over look even the most heinous crime committed by the Muslims. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->[right][snapback]92259[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Thoroughly explains why Gandhi then started seeing all Hindus as "cowards" even as he understated his beloved islamaniacs as being no more than "bullies". Sorry, but by far most Hindus are *not* cowards.
I don't know why Gandhi, instead of responding to his being terrorised by islamania by plotting complete revenge, chose rather to plot complete annihilation of all Dharmics at the hands of islamic jihad. Did he want others to be reduced to his own level, that all Dharmics give up resisting and capitulate, just as he did? And I see the answer to this is an incontestable Yes - as also clearly stressed in these later paras of the same article:

<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Dec 26 2008, 07:32 PM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Dec 26 2008, 07:32 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><span style='color:red'>Gandhi's Muslim Appeasement, Part - I </span>
Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari
[...]
The Muslims whenever attack a Hindu settlement, they, in addition killing innocent people, setting their houses on fire, loot and burglary as their routine work, rape Hindu women. It is evident that, they commit all such oppressions according to the instructions of the Koran, revealed by Allah. During the Muslim rule that lasted for nearly 800 years, raping Hindu women became a common affair. To save their honour and sanctity from the lecherous Muslims, millions of Hindu women used to sacrific their lives in flames. In the wake of partition most of the Hindu families became victims of Muslim oppression and raping Hindu women was an inseparable part of their attacks. When Hindus were butchered in Noakhali in 1946, thousands of Hindu women were raped by the Muslims.

Many Hindus of this country do not know, what Gandhi, the Great Soul and the Apostle of nonviolence, thought about this behavior of the Muslims. In the 6th July, 1926, edition of the Navajivan, <b>Gandhi wrote that “He would kiss the feet of the (Muslim) violator of the modesty of a sister”</b> (Mahatma Gandhi, D Keer, Popular Prakashan, p-473). Just before the partition, both Hindu and Sikh women were being raped by the Muslims in large numbers. Gandhi advised them that if a Muslim expressed his desire to rape a Hindu or a Sikh lady, she should never refuse him but cooperate with him. She should lie down like a dead with her tongue in between her teeth. Thus the rapist Muslim will be satisfied soon and sooner he leave her. (D Lapierre and L Collins, Freedom at Midnight, Vikas, 1997, p-479).
(What? Like Gandhi himself did? He wants his cowardice to become standard behaviour even for those not suffering from the same? Total loser.)

              From the above narrations, it becomes evident that Gandhi was never moved by the sufferings and miseries of the Hindus and, on the contrary, he used to shed tears for the Muslims. His idea of Hindu-Muslim amity was also extremely biased and prejudiced. Only Hindus are supposed to make all sacrifices for it and they should endure all the oppressions and heinous crimes of the Muslims without protest. And that was the basis of  Gandhian nonviolence and secularism. So a Muslim called Khlifa Haji Mehmud of Lurwani, Sind, once said “Gandhi was really a Mohammedan” (D Keer, ibid, p-237).
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->[right][snapback]92259[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Beyond disgusting. It may take two buckets to finish processing this junk.

I take back anything I ever said that was positive about Gandhi. I was unforgiveably wrong. All I can see remaining to his 'credit' is that he had a way with words which gave them popular appeal. Otherwise he was little more than a cowed terrorist-lover, who was trying to cover the blood (of others) he helped spill by mouthing deep-sounding platitudes which he attempted to pass off as Hindu Dharma. Worst of all, instead of realising he was the last person in India who should be leading Hindus in any capacity, he still vainly took to power.
Weaker people exist and fear is a natural part of life - and <i>as long as they are not cowards who will sacrifice others in order to save themselves</i> - all Hindus have a duty to look after them, but they should NEVER be allowed in charge. Otherwise they inevitably turn all of a strong wholesome society into a weakminded one that reflects only themselves.

People who are cowards, anti-Hindus, "pseculars" should never lead Hindus. The consequences are unimaginable misery, as happened when Gandhi was accorded any position of importance. In contrasting him with Aurobindo I find that even light takes significant time to cover the distance between the two.
Hindus should only ever allow Kshatriyas - those who are capable, just and have a powerful and daring mind that cannot be daunted - to become our leaders. Our choice in who we look to for leadership is *our* responsibility. But if we pick our leaders well, and then <i>protect them</i> even as they protect us, we may find we will thrive very easily.

It does not matter what the world thinks or says about us (after all, many will be only too happy to have us extincted), but Hindus should completely cease to think psecularly or even secularly: think only of Dharma and Dharmics first. Ever. When our collective existence and success is made foremost in our minds, we will act accordingly. And when we do that, we stand more than a fair chance to defeat all terrorisms and to no longer live the desperate lives of self-defeatist people trying to survive for a little while longer under increasingly compromising circumstances, but to become a *live* people again.

[Guest]

Gandhi was a Raakshasa whom the secularists extol as their "Mahathma". He is Dhuraathma par excellence! Godse is my hero.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=319

<b>Sri Sri as Gandhi</b>

Radha Rajan

1 Jan 2009

Ordinary Indians who responded to Gandhi's call and took to the streets for satyagraha and became victims of British repressive state power, did not know that they had suffered great physical abuse and pain, imprisonment, even death, not for political independence, but only for Gandhi's swaraj-as-self-rule which was equal to inner self-liberation. The stalwarts of the freedom movement, the leaders of the INC and Gandhi himself did not think they needed to spell out their goal explicitly to ordinary Indians.

This was tragic because in the Hindu tradition, Hindus do not have to suffer the repressive power of the state to achieve self-liberation. There were other, more fulfilling and less painful ways to attain the same, though Gandhi indulges in considerable Portian quality-of-mercy eloquence to sell his idea on self-suffering passive resistance:

Passive resistance is a method of securing rights by personal suffering; it is the reverse of resistance by arms. Everybody admits that sacrifice of self is infinitely superior to sacrifice of others.

Passive resistance is an all-sided sword, it can be used anyhow; it blesses him who uses it and him against whom it is used.

Real home-rule is possible only where passive resistance is the guiding force of the people. Any other rule is foreign rule.

It is not clear how and when passive resistance acquired the capacity to 'bless' people while the last is a snide reference to the Nationalists who were prepared, if need be, to also take to arms. Gandhi cleverly uses the Love-is-blind, God-is-love, therefore God-is-blind reasoning.

According to Gandhi (with no supportive historical reference to substantiate his claim) only passive resistance can lead to self-rule; use of active resistance or force is therefore not self-rule, but foreign rule. Therefore, says Gandhi, the Nationalists who say they want to end foreign rule when they advocate armed resistance, which is the antithesis to passive resistance, are not enabling self-rule but its antithesis, foreign rule!

Gandhi concluded his astonishing dissertation on passive resistance with the astounding, bordering-on-the-juvenile story about facing a lion:

It may be as well here to note that a physical-force man has to have many other useless qualities which a passive resister never needs. And you will find that whatever extra effort a swordsman needs is due to lack of fearlessness. If he is an embodiment of the latter, the sword will drop from his hand that very moment. He does not need its support. One who is free from hatred requires no sword. A man with a stick suddenly came face to face with a lion; and instinctively raised his weapon in self-defence. The man saw that he had only prated about fearlessness when there was none in him. That moment he dropped the stick, and found himself free of fear.

In the above story of the man and the lion Gandhi surprisingly uses hatred and fear interchangeably; if one were to accept Gandhi's opinions as the last word on any issue, it seems there can be no other weighty, compelling reason than fear and hatred, to take up arms.

This is not in line with Hindu ithihasa. If anything, the defining war in the Ramayana and the war at Kurukshetra teach us that sometimes people will have to take up arms and wage war to remove forces inimical to dharma. Hindu nationalists do not need to look anywhere else except at their own history and tradition for lessons on how to protect and defend the Hindu nation.

Gandhi also did not tell his readers about the story's end: was it happy for the man or the lion? It seems surprising how Indians particularly, and the world at large, accepted these self-defeating and self-destructive Gandhian arguments for absolute, unqualified and un-nuanced non-violence, even when world history and the history of the victims of Islam and Christianity and other deadly political ideologies have proved repeatedly that violence has never been checked or defeated by professions of love or peace or use of unequal force of arms. Gandhi advocated passive resistance not only to man against lion, but to Hindus against their aggressors, native Australians against White Christian invaders, and Jews against Nazis.

He even advocated passive resistance to the Allies against Nazi Germany and offered his services to mediate actively between Hitler and the Allies!

Those people who have been warred against have disappeared, as, for instance, the natives of Australia, of whom hardly a man was left alive by the intruders. Mark please, that these natives did not use soul-force in self-defence, and it does not require much foresight to know that the Australians will share the same fate as their victims.

Gandhi prescribed the same solution to the British fighting the Nazis:

I venture to present you with a nobler and a braver way, worthy of the bravest soldiers. I want you to fight Nazism without arms or... with non-violent arms. I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions... If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourself, man, woman and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them.

And for the Hindus against jihad:

Hindus should not harbour anger in their hearts against Muslims even if the latter wanted to destroy them. Even if the Muslims want to kill us all we should face death bravely. If they established their rule after killing Hindus we would be ushering in a new world by sacrificing our lives. None should fear death. Birth and death are inevitable for every human being. Why should we then rejoice or grieve?  If we die with a smile we shall enter into a new life, we shall be ushering in a new India.

That nation is great which rests its head upon death as its pillow. Those who defy death are free from all fear.

Gandhi's explicit injunction that evil should not be ended at any cost was standing Hindu dharma on its head.
<i>
The author is Editor, www.vigilonline.com. This is an excerpt from her forthcoming book, “Gandhi and his legacy. Eclipse and Rise of Hindu nationalism.” </i><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

What did spiritual businessman and nobel peace prize seeking godman, actually say?

[G.Subramaniam]

The above article refers to sri-sri whatever

Sri Sri whatever, has made numerous speeches saying he is not a hindu
he is simply a vedic, whatever that means

Sri sri is also an ego maniac wanting to go on inter faith blah blahs

he is the guest hindu on zakir naiks tv show,
where zakir naik uses sri sri to diss hinduism

[Pandyan]

Sri sri is a useless coward guy just like the thousands of other effete swamis and fake mendicants roaming around. No wonder Xtians and Muslims run circles around Hindus, when Hindus are as dumb as they are to believe all these fake bearded babas. With all the power and influence they have, they could create hardcore Hindus, yet they're just looking to become famous and milk money out of naive Hindus and dumb goras.

[Husky]

http://hamsa.org/dharmahimsa.htm
<b>Ahimsa paramo dharmaha, dharma himsa tathaiva cha.
Non-violence is the greatest dharma, so to is all righteous violence.</b>

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Dharma Himsa Tathaiva Ca</b>
by Swami Chinmayananda

Personally, I am no advocate of violence. But violence, too, has its rightful place in life, life does not preclude death. The average Indian has been moulded into a particular national mentality of quixotic tolerance. His attitude is shaped into its distinct pattern by the ideologies and moralities preached in our national literature. And no single work in our classics has gained such a wide influence on our people as the <b>Bhagawad Gita</b>: and in, this century, no other single message had such a universal appeal to our countrymen as the single line, “Ahimsa Paramo Dharmah” - “Non-Violence is the greatest Dharma.”

This line in its over-emphasis, has sapped both initiative and energy in our millions, and, instead of making us all irresistible moral giants, we have been reduced to poltroons and cowards. And banking on this cowardly resignation of the majority, a handful of fanatics have been perpetrating crimes which even the most barbarous cave dwellers would have avenged. To clothe our weaknesses, we attribute to them glorious names and purposefully persuade ourselves to believe that they are brilliant ideologists!

<b>Let us for a moment go to the original sacred verse and investigate the significances of the moral precept: Ahimsa Paramo Dharmah. This is the opening line of a stanza, and the very next line reads: Dharma himsaa tathaiva cha. “So too is all righteous violence.”</b> Indeed, non-violence is the supreme policy to be adopted by man to foster enduring peace in the world; but there are certain dire moments in the life of individuals, as of nations, when we will have to meet force with force in order that justice be done.

To every individual his mother, wife and children are the nearest dependents and to guard their honour and life is the unavoidable first moral duty of each head of the family. This is an obligation whether the victim be a member of the majority or of the minority class within a country, province or city.

By the over-emphasis laid on non-violence we have come to witness the pathetic situation of today, when thousands, in cowardly fear take to precipitate flight, leaving their innocent children to be butchered and their unarmed helpless women to be dishonoured or converted or killed. Under the cloak of glorified non-violence, an entire nation of cowards fly from their homes, when a small sect of fanatic barbarians boldly stalk in and out of their open undefended thresholds to kill, to rape, and to loot. When will we learn to fully to interpret   our   Vedas, Scriptures  and Upanishads? If only we all learn that dharma-himsa is equally noble as ahimsa.

To me it seems that the only solution for the day’s internal chaos is to bring home to the people the significance of the much neglected teaching of dharma-himsa. As it is, a misled and over-excited minority in the country has the sole monopoly of violence; and non-violence is a dangerous folly. However ideal a moral precept may be, so long as, in a society, innocent children, to be butchered dishonoured and tortured, while the youth of the land is made to watch impassionately the hellish scene, of we are to conclude that either the idea is a dangerous one, or that we have not rightly understood the full meaning of the precept.

Under the present available scheme of chaos in this country, when under the planned instigation of a few power blind, reckless men, a minority community is rendered into a murderous gang of fanatics, it is the duty of the majority to win back the erring thousands. The cure depends upon the disease; the potency of the medicine is decided upon the virulence of the illness. Today when looting, arson and rape are the dharma of a few, it is rank cowardice for the many to suffer the tyranny of the unprovoked violence in meek submission. In the battlefield, when violence is rampant, it is the dharma of everyone to meet that maniacal violence with determined, restrained, violence not only in self-defence but also to convince the aggressive vicious few that it rarely pays to be violent.
<b>Ahimsa paramo dharmaha, dharma himsa tathaiva cha. Non-violence is the greatest dharma, so too is all righteous violence.</b>

Courtesy: Hindu Voice   -   Vol.7, Issue No.8   -   November 2008   -   Page 27<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dereliction of Dharma is a crime in Hindu Dharma. A rigid adherence to Gandhian non-violence in those instances that demand defence, retaliation and offence to safeguard our future is a terrible crime.
To uniformly apply Gandhianism (known as pacificism in the western world) regardless of the circumstances is to be guided by Tamas. It lays the foundation for further destruction and violence and harm in the future.

[Pandyan]

^ Related:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->On one occasion, Krishna tells Yudhishthira: "Sometimes one protects dharma by forgetting it." <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

http://ssubbanna.sulekha.com/blog/post/200...arma-2-of-3.htm

Does anyone know where that is in Mbh?

[G.Subramaniam]

Gandhi belonged to the pranami sect

The pranami sect reveres both the koran and the gita

His mothers body guard was a muslim
and it is rumored that his real father was this muslim

Besides, Gandhi got into politics in South Africa where muslims and hindus were not in direct competion and hindu-muslim unity ( temperory )
had a useful purpose

He foolishly transplanted this to India

[Bodhi]

related to #36.

"ahiMsA paramo dharmaH" had a parallel presence in almost all the sources where vasudhaiva kuTumbakam was, and both had a comparable usage, including in hitopadesha, where the villain jackal recites VK, villain cat dIrghakarNa recites ahimsA paramodharmaH.

[Pandyan]

<img src='http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/7153/image/im_n_godse.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Born in a devotional Brahmin family, I instinctively came to revere Hindu
religion, Hindu history and Hindu culture. I had, therefore, been intensely
proud of Hinduism as a whole. As I grew up I developed a tendency to free
thinking unfettered by any superstitious allegiance to any isms, political
or religious. That is why I worked actively for the eradication of
untouchability and the caste system based on birth alone. I openly joined
anti-caste movements and maintained that all Hindus were of equal status as
to rights, social and religious and should be considered high or low on merit
alone and not through the accident of birth in a particular caste or
profession. I used publicly to take part in organized anti-caste dinners
in which thousands of Hindus, Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, Chamars
and Bhangis participated. We broke the caste rules and dined in the
company of each other.

I have read the speeches and writings of Dadabhai Naoroji, Vivekanand,
Gokhale, Tilak, along with the books of ancient and modern history of
India and some prominent countries like England, France, America and'
Russia. Moreover I studied the tenets of Socialism and Marxism. But above
all I studied very closely whatever Veer Savarkar and Gandhiji had written
and spoken, as to my mind these two ideologies have contributed more to
the moulding of the thought and action of the Indian people during the last
thirty years or so, than any other single factor has done.

All this reading and thinking led me to believe it was my first duty to
serve Hindudom and Hindus both as a patriot and as a world citizen.
To secure the freedom and to safeguard the just interests of some thirty
crores (300 million) of Hindus would automatically constitute the freedom
and the well-being of all India, one fifth of human race. This conviction
led me naturally to devote myself to the Hindu Sanghtanist ideology
and programme, which alone, I came to believe, could win and preserve
the national independence of Hindustan, my Motherland, and enable her to
render true service to humanity as well.

Since the year 1920, that is, after the demise of Lokamanya Tilak,
Gandhiji's influence in the Congress first increased and then became
supreme. His activities for public awakening were phenomenal in their
intensity and were reinforced by the slogan of truth and non-violence
which he paraded ostentatiously before the country. No sensible or
enlightened person could object to those slogans. In fact there is nothing
new or original in them. They are implicit in every constitutional
public movement. But it is nothing but a mere dream if you imagine
that the bulk of mankind is, or can ever become, capable of scrupulous
adherence to these lofty principles in its normal life from day to day.
In fact, hunour, duty and love of one's own kith and kin and country might
often compel us to disregard non-violence and to use force. I could never
conceive that an armed resistance to an aggression is unjust. I would
consider it a religious and moral duty to resist and, if possible, to
overpower such an enemy by use of force. [In the Ramayana] Rama killed
Ravana in a tumultuous fight and relieved Sita. [In the Mahabharata],
Krishna killed Kansa to end his wickedness; and Arjuna had to fight
and slay quite a number of his friends and relations including the
revered Bhishma because the latter was on the side of the aggressor.
It is my firm belief that in dubbing Rama, Krishna and Arjuna as guilty
of violence, the Mahatma betrayed a total ignorance of the springs of
human action.

In more recent history, it was the heroic fight put up by Chhatrapati
Shivaji that first checked and eventually destroyed the Muslim tyranny
in India. It was absolutely essentially for Shivaji to overpower and kill
an aggressive Afzal Khan, failing which he would have lost his own life.
In condemning history's towering warriors like Shivaji, Rana Pratap and
Guru Gobind Singh as misguided patriots, Gandhiji has merely exposed his
self-conceit. He was, paradoxical as it may appear, a violent pacifist
who brought untold calamities on the country in the name of truth and
non-violence, while Rana Pratap, Shivaji and the Guru will remain
enshrined in the hearts of their countrymen for ever for the freedom
they brought to them.

The accumulating provocation of thirty-two years, culminating in his last
pro-Muslim fast, at last goaded me to the conclusion that the existence
of Gandhi should be brought to an end immediately. Gandhi had done very
good in South Africa to uphold the rights and well-being of the Indian
community there. But when he finally returned to India he developed a
subjective mentality under which he alone was to be the final judge of
what was right or wrong. If the country wanted his leadership, it had to
accept his infallibility; if it did not, he would stand aloof from the
Congress and carry on his own way. Against such an attitude there can be
no halfway house. Either Congress had to surrender its will to his and had
to be content with playing second fiddle to all his eccentricity,
whimsicality, metaphysics and primitive vision, or it had to carry on
without him. He alone was the Judge of everyone and every thing; he was
the master brain guiding the civil disobedience movement; no other
could know the technique of that movement. He alone knew when to begin
and when to withdraw it. The movement might succeed or fail, it might
bring untold disaster and political reverses but that could make no
difference to the Mahatma's infallibility. 'A Satyagrahi can never fail'
was his formula for declaring his own infallibility and nobody except
himself knew what a Satyagrahi is.

Thus, the Mahatma became the judge and jury in his own cause. These
childish insanities and obstinacies, coupled with a most severe austerity
of life, ceaseless work and lofty character made Gandhi formidable and
irresistible. Many people thought that his politics were irrational
but they had either to withdraw from the Congress or place their
intelligence at his feet to do with as he liked. In a position of such
absolute irresponsibility Gandhi was guilty of blunder after blunder,
failure after failure, disaster after disaster.

Gandhi's pro-Muslim policy is blatantly in his perverse attitude on
the question of the national language of India. It is quite obvious
that Hindi has the most prior claim to be accepted as the premier
language. In the beginning of his career in India, Gandhi gave a great
impetus to Hindi but as he found that the Muslims did not like it, he
became a champion of what is called Hindustani. Everybody in India
knows that there is no language called Hindustani; it has no grammar; it
has no vocabulary. It is a mere dialect, it is spoken, but not written.
It is a b@st@rd tongue and cross-breed between Hindi and Urdu, and
not even the Mahatma's sophistry could make it popular. But in his
desire to please the Muslims he insisted that Hindustani alone should be
the national language of India. His blind followers, of course,
supported him and the so-called hybrid language began to be used.
The charm and purity of the Hindi language was to be prostituted to
please the Muslims. All his experiments were at the expense of the
Hindus.

From August 1946 onwards the private armies of the Muslim League began
a massacre of the Hindus. The then Viceroy, Lord Wavell, though
distressed at what was happening, would not use his powers under the
Government of India Act of 1935 to prevent the rape, murder and arson.
The Hindu blood began to flow from Bengal to Karachi with some
retaliation by the Hindus. The Interim Government formed in September
was sabotaged by its Muslim League members right from its inception,
but the more they became disloyal and treasonable to the government of
which they were a part, the greater was Gandhi's infatuation for them.
Lord Wavell had to resign as he could not bring about a settlement and
he was succeeded by Lord Mountbatten. King Log was followed by King
Stork.

The Congress which had boasted of its nationalism and socialism
secretly accepted Pakistan literally at the point of the bayonet and
abjectly surrendered to Jinnah. India was vivisected and one-third of
the Indian territory became foreign land to us from August 15, 1947.
Lord Mountbatten came to be described in Congress circles as the greatest
Viceroy and Governor-General this country ever had. The official date
for handing over power was fixed for June 30, 1948, but
Mountbatten with his ruthless surgery gave us a gift of vivisected
India ten months in advance. This is what Gandhi had achieved after
thirty years of undisputed dictatorship and this is what Congress party
calls 'freedom' and 'peaceful transfer of power'. The Hindu-Muslim
unity bubble was finally burst and a theocratic state was established
with the consent of Nehru and his crowd and they have called 'freedom
won by them with sacrifice' - whose sacrifice? When top leaders of
Congress, with the consent of Gandhi, divided and tore the country -
which we consider a deity of worship - my mind was filled with direful
anger.

One of the conditions imposed by Gandhi for his breaking of the fast
unto death related to the mosques in Delhi occupied by the Hindu
refugees. But when Hindus in Pakistan were subjected to violent attacks
he did not so much as utter a single word to protest and censure the
Pakistan Government or the Muslims concerned. Gandhi was shrewd enough
to know that while undertaking a fast unto death, had he imposed for
its break some condition on the Muslims in Pakistan, there would have
been found hardly any Muslims who could have shown some grief if the
fast had ended in his death. It was for this reason that he purposely
avoided imposing any condition on the Muslims. He was fully aware of
from the experience that Jinnah was not at all perturbed or influenced
by his fast and the Muslim League hardly attached any value to the
inner voice of Gandhi.

Gandhi is being referred to as the Father of the Nation. But if that
is so, he had failed his paternal duty inasmuch as he has acted very
treacherously to the nation by his consenting to the partitioning of it.
I stoutly maintain that Gandhi has failed in his duty. He has proved
to be the Father of Pakistan. His inner-voice, his spiritual power and
his doctrine of non-violence of which so much is made of, all crumbled
before Jinnah's iron will and proved to be powerless.

Briefly speaking, I thought to myself and foresaw I shall be totally
ruined, and the only thing I could expect from the people would be
nothing but hatred and that I shall have lost all my honour, even more
valuable than my life, if I were to kill Gandhiji. But at the same time
I felt that the Indian politics in the absence of Gandhiji would surely
be proved practical, able to retaliate, and would be powerful with
armed forces. No doubt, my own future would be totally ruined, but the
nation would be saved from the inroads of Pakistan. People may even
call me and dub me as devoid of any sense or foolish, but the nation
would be free to follow the course founded on the reason which I consider
to be necessary for sound nation-building. After having fully considered
the question, I took the final decision in the matter, but I did not
speak about it to anyone whatsoever. I took courage in both my hands
and I did fire the shots at Gandhiji on 30th January 1948, on the
prayer-grounds of Birla House. 

I do say that my shots were fired at the person whose policy and action
had brought rack and ruin and destruction to millions of Hindus.
There was no legal machinery by which such an offender could be
brought to book and for this reason I fired those fatal shots.

I bear no ill will towards anyone individually but I do say that I had
no respect for the present government owing to their policy which was
unfairly favourable towards the Muslims. But at the same time I could
clearly see that the policy was entirely due to the presence of Gandhi.
I have to say with great regret that Prime Minister Nehru quite forgets
that his preachings and deeds are at times at variances with each other
when he talks about India as a secular state in season and out of
season, because it is significant to note that Nehru has played a
leading role in the establishment of the theocratic state of Pakistan,
and his job was made easier by Gandhi's persistent policy of
appeasement towards the Muslims. 

I now stand before the court to accept the full share of my responsibility
for what I have done and the judge would, of course, pass against me
such orders of sentence as may be considered proper. But I would like
to add that I do not desire any mercy to be shown to me, nor do I wish
that anyone else should beg for mercy on my behalf. My confidence about
the moral side of my action has not been shaken even by the criticism
levelled against it on all sides. I have no doubt that honest writers of
history will weigh my act and find the true value thereof some day
in future.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->