• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
M K Gandhi And The Gandhian Legacy
The Mahatma as a Hindu Coward
From Deccan.com , 9 feb., 2005
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Kamaladevi’s legacy
By H Y Sharada Prasad

Fame came early to Kamaladevi. Her intellect, her many-sided talents, her self-assurance and daring and her dazzling good looks combined to make her one of the best known younger leaders of the freedom movement. <b>She was one of the six or seven women whose photographs appeared along with the portraits of the national leaders even in the early Thirties. She shared the honour with Kasturba Gandhi, Annie Besant, Sarojini Naidu, Swarup Rani and Kamala Nehru, Nellie Sengupta and Basanti Devi.</b>

<b>Kamaladevi was born in 1903 in Mangalore </b>which was then part of the Madras Presidency. She was married at 14 but was widowed a year later. But the enlightened family encouraged her to continue her studies. <b>She came under the spell of Gandhi, hawked copies of his banned book Hind Swaraj and gave proof of her tremendous organising abilities in the Seva Dal.</b> Sarojini Naidu’s brother, Harindranath Chattopadhyaya, fell in love with her and married her.
“The gods would envy us,” he wrote in poetic flourish. But he lacked the constancy of temperament to make it work.

Kamaladevi plunged even deeper into political work. <b>She became general secretary of the All India Women’s Conference when barely 21. </b>Her work as leader of the team of volunteers at the Madras session of the Congress in 1927 won high praise. <b>She argued with Gandhi himself and made him revise his decision to exclude women from the Salt Satyagraha.</b>

She was jailed in the Satyagrahas of 1930 and 1933. She threw in her lot with the socialist wing of the Congress and presided over the annual conference of the Congress Socialist Party held at Meerut in 1936. She travelled and wrote widely. She was recognised as one of the few leaders in national politics who was interested in the theatre and had thought deeply about the arts in general.

<b>When freedom came, she stayed with those socialists who spurned office like Narendra Deva, Jayaprakash Narayan, Yusuf Meherally, Achyut Patwardhan and Rammanohar Lohia, </b>while people like Minoo Masani accepted Nehru’s invitation. But the upheaval caused by partition and the uprooting of millions of people provided Ka-maladevi the challenge and the opportunity that her immense organisational gifts were waiting for.

Vast numbers had to be provided shelter and food at the refugee camps. But that was not the end of the problem. Means of livelihood had to be provided so that they could stand on their own feet. Kamaladevi gathered a young band of workers who conducted a survey of the vocations that the refugees had followed.<b> A telling instance throws light on her method of work. She found that there were several thousand acre of vacant land near the Qutab Minar but that officials had allotted that to their own favourites.

She asked the refugees in the camp to occupy the land. She and Sucheta Kripalani followed it up with an all-party conference which adopted the slogan “Land for the tiller and tools for the artisan.” A letter went to Nehru, who promptly ordered the cancellation of the bureaucrats’ plans to grab the lands. As for people who were no agriculturists but knew some craft or other, arrangements were made to provide them with tools and materials and their products were sold through a refugee handicraft shop.

This was the origin of the Central Cottage Industries Emporium which in later years came to be called the most attractive shop in the world and ensured that the most precious craft traditions of our land were preserved and gained worldwide fame.  Kamaladevi also became fairy godmother to the Indian Co-operative Union, and the All-India Handicrafts Board. </b>

The full story of these two organisations as also of the Faridabad township which owes its origin to the efforts of Sarojini Naidu, Mridula Sarabhai and Kamaladevi has been told by L C Jain in his books. Jain also says that when once she thought that Indira Gandhi was needlessly interfering in a matter, Kamaladevi wrote to Nehru, “You ask her to keep herself away from my areas of operation. It is none of her business.”

There was always something of the lioness in her. But when dealing with innocent artisans, she was all mother. A colleague recalls how when a potter fell ill she went all the way to his hut to give him money for his treatment.
“We walked the bylanes of Delhi to visit him and other craft persons, not minding the filth or the state of the streets. She would not think twice of hitching her sari to wade through the water even in her autumnal years.”

Another former aide recalls, “Each journey with her was a voyage of discovery and an education in the fullest sense. While touring Bengal, during the day we visited the craft centres and in the evening the jatra performances, the old puppets in Murshidabad and the patta painters and singers. In Orissa while searching for weaving centres, jewellery makers and visiting the painters of Raghurajpur we also saw the Sahi Jatra at Puri, the puppeteers of Orissa at Kantil and Cuttack and visited the NGO working on fibre research and adivasi welfare.

At Sonepur in Bihar we saw the thick Bhagalpuri waste silk chaddars used by the villagers as an inexpensive wrap during winter. We tracked down the producers and, for the first time, Kamaladevi ordered the producers to make yardage. A waste cloth became an important export item.”

The extracts I have given are from a publication brought out by the Crafts Council of Karnataka a few months ago by way of a “tribute to the mother of handicrafts on her birth centenary.” It contains articles in both English and Kannada. <b>My inquiries show that no comparable book was brought out at the all-India level on a person to whom the nation owes so much.  Was at least a commemorative stamp brought out, which is a common form of tokenism? </b>

The Kamaladevi centenary and the golden jubilee of the Indian Handicrafts Board would have been a wonderful occasion for bringing out a set of stamps in various denominations of some of the most eye-catching and colourful handicrafts of our land.  Come to think of it, crafts constituted only a small portion of her world. <b>Her political contributions and the work she did for the theatre and the Sangeet Natak Akademi and for individual institutions like the India International Centre all need to be celebrated. </b>
(H Y Sharada Prasad was adviser to Prime Ministers Indira Gandhi and  Rajiv Gandhi)

Caste in the Middle

Next in the series on Gandhi on sulekha.
From Good News India

1. A Gandhi education pays off

2. That Gandhi may not be born again
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>India's man of destiny </b>
IK Vidyarathi
Apropos some recent articles in The Pioneer denigrating the contributions of Mahatma Gandhi, I will like to say that it was Gandhi who transformed India into a virile nation. He instilled the countrymen with a sense of fearlessness and optimism. He made them confront the British tyranny without arms, and brave their lathis and bullets.

The people courted imprisonment with smiles, and faced police repression with arms across their chests shouting "Bharat mata ki jai" and singing "jhanda uncha rahey hamara". Unfurling the tricolour on Government buildings and police stations was a sport courageously played by these young satyagrahis. To most freedom fighters, jails were their second homes; and hartals, protest-marches, picketings and fasts were their most potent weapons. Indeed, Gandhi was the "invisible ruler of India".

Gandhi's constructive programmes endeared him to the masses. He articulated the voice of the dumb, oppressed and semi-starved millions scattered in huts, edge of bylanes, street-corners, mud-houses, forests, etc. It was done through the eradication of untouchability, uplift of harijans, revival of khadi-industry, adoption of hand-spun and hand-woven cloth as the national uniform. Besides, he established the Udyog Sangh, Cow Protection Association, Jalimi Sangh Education and Adim Jati Sangh. Gandhi dreamt of a peasant society that was self-reliant, self-supporting and self-fulfilling. He himself lived in Seva Gram at Wardha for many years, and advocated purity and simplicity in life. The image of Gandhi in his peasant's loin cloth and shawl, sitting at the spinning wheel, writing notes on his weekly days of silence (maun vrat), sitting lost in contemplation, lying exhausted during fast and cutting jokes with his toothless smile, are still imprinted on the hearts and minds of his countless admirers.

A striking feature of the Gandhian movement was the emergence of Hindu women - Kasturba Gandhi, Sarojini Naidu, Vijay Laxmi Pandit, Kamla Nehru, Sucheta Kripalani - in the vanguard of the freedom struggle. They courted imprisonment, led marches, addressed assembled crowds, picketed wine shops, etc. In short, they actively participated in the non-cooperation and civil disobedience movements along with their male counterparts. Not since Ashoka the great had the Indian women lifted the oppressive veil of orthodoxy on such a scale. They established a foot-hold in public life, which has broadened magnificently over the years. Since then, women have held high posts as the Prime Minister, chief ministers, governors, social reformers, distinguished scholars, poets, writers, novelists, vice-chancellors, business magnates and technical experts. Who can forget Kalpana Chawla's exploits in the universe?

In short, Gandhi became the destiny of India. That India won the freedom, though truncated, is chiefly the result of his stewardship. On the basis of his conversation with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, King George VI noted in his diary on July 20, 1942: "He (Churchill) amazed me by saying that his colleagues, all three parties in Parliament, were quite prepared to give up India to Indians after the War. He felt they had already been talked into giving up India. Cripps, the Press and the US public opinion have all contributed to make their minds up that our rule in India is wrong and has always been wrong for India" (King George VI: His Life and Reign, JW Wheeler, p-703). It should now be evident that the Gandhian method of fighting oppression with non-violence and without any malice has changed the ruler's heart. The transfer of power was its inevitable consequence. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Subash Kak's article: What Would Gandhi Do In Kashmir?

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Mahatma Gandhi was the apostle of non-violence, so what would he have done in Kashmir? His life shows that he did not walk away from violence. During the Boer War in South Africa he raised a volunteer non-combatant force of Indians to aid the British. The reason why he limited the offer to a non-combatant role was that the Indians did not have constitutional rights in South Africa indicating thereby that once this rights were granted the Indian would fight along side the English.
Elsewhere Gandhi clearly stated that he preferred violence to cowardice although he preferred non-violence to violence. He was clearly against walking away from defending one's natural rights. He said: ``There is real ahimsa in defending my wife and children even at the risk of striking down the wrongdoer.'' He repeated on countless occasion that non-violence was the way of the strong. He wished for people to become strong not only in body but also in mind so that they would renounce violence.

In 1896 the whites in South Africa wished to lynch him; he was badly beaten up and saved by the police from a certain death. Yet he refused to be cowed down and his courage earned him the respect of his opponents.

We celebrate the one twenty fifth anniversary of Gandhi's birth, but we have made him into an icon and forgotten how to think like him. He was a critic of a mindless repetition of the slogan of non-violence. Speaking of avoiding physical confrontation he said:
What we have taken as dharma is not dharma. We commit violence on a large scale in the name of non-violence. Fearing to shed blood, we torment people every day and dry up their blood. (See Complete Works, vol. 14, page 499)
<b>We see that the manner in which the Government of India has walked away from its duty to protect the homes and hearths of the Kashmiri refugees is precisely the cowardice that Mahatma Gandhi considered worse than violence. </b>

In his famous book, GANDHI'S TRUTH, Erik Erikson's analysis suggests that the worst response to terrorism of the kind we have seen in Kashmir is to leave the field open to them. Says Erik Erikson about the parallels that the West has seen:
<b>We in the West have experienced an analogous problem in the dispersed descendents of the Jewish nation, who became over-specialized in mercantile and intellectual pursuits, and, for centuries, had to leave their own defense to the the warriors of the host countries, who often turned in sadistic disgust against those who could not or would not defend themselves. The mere suspicion that the Jews would not fight because they could not fight has, no doubt, been a strong factor in popular anti-semitism.</b> (page 375)
Gandhi himself was looking for strengthening the character of the Indian who would either join in mob violence or shirk from defending his rights related to property and dignity. Said he: ``Today I find that everybody is desirous of killing but most are afraid of doing so or powerless to do so. Whatever is to be the result I feel certain that the power must be restored to India. The result may be carnage. Then India must go through it. Today's condition is intolerable.'' (See Complete Works, vol. 14, page 520)

Yes, today's condition related to the refugee camps is intolerable. Gandhi would have sent the Kashmiri refugees back to their homes, provided them security, and also provided them arms and training so that they would be able to defend themselves.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dont know whether this is related or not. I will let other mods decide if this post should be in this thread or not. I was just wondering what if Gandhi were alive today. How would his dandi yatra be ?


Dandi March with a touch of 2005 (Diwanji)

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Seventy-five years after the march, the Ashram is spruced up to relive history. Tushar Gandhi, great grandson of Mohandas and Kasturba Gandhi, and head of the Mahatma Gandhi Foundation, is holding the Dandi Yatra. Some 75-odd Congress workers from all over India will join him.

With the Congress party's involvement, there is no doubt the march, which was initially conceived as a platinum anniversary march, has acquired a political colour.

Congress party President Sonia Gandhi will flag off the march and may attend the final day's event. If she does not, the organisers expect Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh to attend it.

The Congress march and the Tushar Gandhi march were to be separate. "Since we are both doing the same thing for the same reasons, we saw no reason to hold separate marches," explained Minister of Sports Sunil Dutt, who is in charge of the Congress participants.

But the difference is patent. The Congress marchers are party workers. Tushar Gandhi's event is eclectic, drawing people from all over India and the world.

On the eve of the march, his office, opposite the Ashram, is making passes for the hundreds of those keen to participate.

Not all participants plan to walk the entire route.

The 75th anniversary march hopes to recreate the spirit of the 1930s. The marchers will take the same route at the same time and observe the three halts Gandhi made.

The yatris will spend the nights in tents and subsist on frugal, vegetarian meals.

But 2005 is not 1930.

Accompanying the yatris will be vehicles to carry bags, so the marchers only need to carry the bare minimum stuff, including water (summer starts early in Gujarat!).

More importantly, to allow people to stay in touch with home, the yatris will have access to a mobile Internet café.

Reliance Infocomm will send a wireless Internet-enabled van along with the yatris. "A foreign participant told us she needed to e-mail her mother. We told her not to worry," explained an organiser.

It remains to be seen whether it is a 1930 march with a touch of 2005, or vice versa.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Mahatma Gandhi on The Christian Missionary Menace</b>
Posted May 12, 2004
Compiled by Swami Aksharananda
(Track No. 010119.1, Jan. 19, 2001)

I Call Myself a Sanatani Hindu

I call myself a Sanatani Hindu, because I believe in the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Puranas, and all that goes by the name of Hindu scripture, and therefore in avataras and rebirth; I believe in the varnashrama dharma in a sense, in my opinion strictly Vedic but not in its presently popular crude sense; I believe in the protection of cow … I do not disbelieve in murti puja. (Young India: June 10, 1921)

Why I am Not a Convert

Hinduism as I know it entirely satisfies my soul, fills my whole being … When doubts haunt me, when disappointments stare me in the face, and when I see not one ray of light on the horizon, I turn to the Bhagavad Gita, and find a verse to comfort me; and I immediately begin to smile in the midst of overwhelming sorrow. My life has been full of tragedies and if they have not left any visible and indelible effect on me, I owe it to the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita. (Young India: June 8, 1925)

I Disbelieve in Conversion

I disbelieve in the conversion of one person by another. My effort should never to be to undermine another’s faith. This implies belief in the truth of all religions and, therefore, respect for them. It implies true humility. (Young India: April 23, 1931)

Conversion: Impediment to Peace

It is impossible for me to reconcile myself to the idea of conversion after the style that goes on in India and elsewhere today. It is an error which is perhaps the greatest impediment to the world’s progress toward peace … Why should a Christian want to convert a Hindu to Christianity? Why should he not be satisfied if the Hindu is a good or godly man? (Harijan: January 30, 1937)

No Such Thing as Conversion

I believe that there is no such thing as conversion from one faith to another in the accepted sense of the word. It is a highly personal matter for the individual and his God. I may not have any design upon my neighbour as to his faith which I must honour even as I honour my own. Having reverently studied the scriptures of the world I could no more think of asking a Christian or a Musalman, or a Parsi or a Jew to change his faith than I would think of changing my own. (Harijan: September 9, 1935)

No Conversion Designs Upon Me

I am not interested in weaning you from Christianity and making you Hindu, and I do not relish your designs upon me, if you had any, to convert me to Christianity. I would also dispute your claim that Christianity is the only true religion. (Harijan: June 3, 1937)


Conversion must not mean denationalization. Conversion should mean a definite giving up of the evil of the old, adoption of all the good of the new and a scrupulous avoidance of everything evil in the new. Conversion, therefore, should mean a life of greater dedication to one’s country, greater surrender to God, greater self-purification. (Young India: August 20, 1925)

Aping of Europeans and Americans

As I wander about through the length and breath of India I see many Christian Indians almost ashamed of their birth, certainly of their ancestral religion, and of their ancestral dress. The aping of Europeans by Anglo-Indians is bad enough, but the aping of them by Indian converts is a violence done to their country and, shall I say, even to their new religion. (Young India: August 8, 1925)

Why Should I Change My Religion

I hold that proselytisation under the cloak of humanitarian work is unhealthy to say the least. It is most resented by people here. Religion after all is a deeply personal thing. It touches the heart. Why should I change my religion because the doctor who professes Christianity as his religion has cured me of some disease, or why should the doctor expect me to change whilst I am under his influence? (Young India: April 23, 1931)

Missionary Aim: Uprooting Hinduism

My fear is that though Christian friends nowadays do not say or admit it that Hindu religion is untrue, they must harbour in their breast that Hinduism is an error and that Christianity, as they believe it, is the only true religion…so far as one can understand the present (Christian) effort, it is to uproot Hinduism from her very foundation and replace it by another faith. (Harijan: March 13, 1937)

Undermining People’s Faith

The first distinction I would like to make … between your missionary work and mine is that while I am strengthening the faith of people, you (missionaries) are undermining it. (Young India: November 8, 1927)

Physician Heal Yourself

Conversion nowadays has become a matter of business, like any other…India (Hindus) is in no need of conversion of this kind… Conversion in the sense of self-purification, self-realisation is the crying need of the times. That however is never what is meant by proselytisation. To those who would convert India (Hindus), might it not be said, "Physician, heal yourself." (Young India: April 23, 1931)

Missionaries: Vendors of Goods

When the missionary of another religion goes to them, he goes like a vendor of goods. He has no special spiritual merit that will distinguish him from those to whom he goes. He does however possess material goods which he promises to those who will come to his fold. (Harijan: April 3, 1937)

If I had the Power and Could Legislate …

If I had the power and could legislate, I should stop all proselytizing … In Hindu households the advent of a missionary has meant the disruption of the family coming in the wake of change of dress, manners, language, food and drink … (November 5, 1935)

The Only Begotten Son of God?

I regard Jesus as a great teacher of humanity, but I do not regard him as the only begotten son of God. That epithet in its material interpretation is quite unacceptable. Metaphorically we are all sons of God, but for each of us there may be different sons of God in a special sense. Thus for me Chaitanya may be the only begotten son of God … God cannot be the exclusive Father and I cannot ascribe exclusive divinity to Jesus. (Harijan: June 3, 1937)

Western Christianity Today

It is my firm opinion that Europe (and the United States) does not represent the spirit of God or Christianity but the spirit of Satan. And Satan’s successes are the greatest when appears with the name of God on his lips. (Young India: September 8, 1920)

Western Christianity (cont’d)

I consider western Christianity in its practical working a negation of Christ’s Christianity. I cannot conceive Jesus, if he was living in flesh in our midst, approving of modern Christian organizations, public worship, or ministry. (Young India: September 22, 1921)

Christianity and Imperialistic Exploitation

Christianity in India has been inextricably mixed up for the last one hundred and fifty years with British rule. It appears to us as synonymous with materialistic civilization and imperialistic exploitation by the stronger white races of the weaker races of the world. Its contribution to India has been, therefore, largely negative. (Young India: March 21, 1929)

No Room For Them

In the manner in which they are working there would seem to be no room for them. Quite unconsciously they do harm to themselves and also to us. It is perhaps impertinent to say that they do harm to themselves, but quite pertinent to say that they do harm to us. They do harm to those amongst whom they work and those amongst whom they do not work, i.e., the harm is done to the whole of India… The more I study their activities the more sorry I become… It is a tragedy that such a thing should happen to the human family. (Harijan: December 12, 1936)


Only the other day a missionary descended on a famine area with money in his pocket, distributed it among the famine stricken, converted them to his fold, took charge of their temple, and demolished it. This is outrageous. (Harijan: November 5, 1937)

Let the Hindu be a Better Hindu

I came to the conclusion long ago … that all religions were true and also that all had some error in them, and whilst I hold by my own, I should hold others as dear as Hinduism. So we can only pray, if we are Hindus, not that a Christian should become a Hindu … But our innermost prayer should be a Hindu should be a better Hindu, a Muslim a better Muslim, a Christian a better Christian. (Young India: January 19, 1928)

Welcome Them Back

If a person through fear, compulsion, starvation, or for material gain or consideration goes over to another faith, it is a misnomer to call it conversion. Most cases of conversion … have been to my mind false coin … I would therefore unhesitatingly re-admit to the Hindu fold all such repentants without much ado … If a man comes back to the original branch he deserves to be welcomed … in so far as he may deem to have erred, he has sufficiently purged himself of it when he repents his error and retraces his steps. (Collected Works: Vol. 66, pp. 163-164)

Nathuram Godse

“If devotion to one’s country amounts to a sin, I admit I have committed that sin. If it is meritorious, I humbly claim the merit thereof. I fully and confidently believe that if there be any other court of justice beyond the one founded by the mortals my act will not be taken as unjust. If after the death there be no such place to reach or to go, there is nothing to be said. I have resorted to the action I did purely for the benefit of the humanity. I do say that my shots were fired at the person whose policy and action had brought rack and ruin and destruction to lakhs of Hindus.”

(Courtesy and Copyright Shri Gopal Godse. These excerpts are verbatim from the book, May it Please your Honor.)

It is obvious that the High Court was struck by the conduct and ability of Nathuram. It has made a special reference to it while recording the judgement. Says Justice Achhru Ram :

"Of all the appellants Nathuram V. Godse has not challenged his conviction under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, nor has he appealed from the sentence of death passed on him in respect of the offence. He has confined his appeal and also his arguments at the Bar only to the other charges, which have been found, proved against him--- He personally argued his appeal, I must say, with conspicuous ability evidencing a mastery of facts which would have done credit to any counsel."

As regards Nathuram's power of thinking, the Judge noted:

"Although he failed in his matriculation examination, he is widely read. While arguing his Appeal, he showed a fair knowledge of the English language and a remarkable capacity for clear thinking."

In the course of arguments, Nathuram had made a plea that on January 20, 1948 he was not present at the Birla House. The judges rejected the plea. In support of their rejection, they referred to their observations of the strong will power of Nathuram. Shri Achhru Ram says:

"We have seen quite enough of Nathuram during the period of more than five weeks we were hearing these appeals and particularly during the eight or nine days while he was arguing his own case, and I cannot imagine that a man of his caliber could have even entertained the idea (of remaining behind)."

Justice Khosla after retirement, in a pen picture of the Court scene as it then passed before his mind's eye has said:

“The highlight of the appeal before us was the discourse delivered by Nathuram Godse in his defence. He spoke for several hours, discussing, in the first instance, the facts of the case and then the motive, which had prompted him to take Mahatma Gandhi's life--

The audience was visibly and audibly moved. There was a deep silence when he ceased speaking. Many women were in tears and men coughing and searching for their handkerchiefs. The silence was accentuated and made deeper by the sound of an occasional subdued sniff or a muffled cough-

I have however, no doubt that had the audience of that day been constituted into a jury and entrusted with the task of deciding Godse's appeal. They would have brought in a verdict of 'not guilty' by an over-whelming majority.”

Nathuram had displayed the same ability while arguing his case before Shri Atma Charan Agrawal, the Judge of the Special Court, Red Fort, Delhi. These are excerpts of his defence before Judge Agrawal.

The number 15, 16,.. is the para number as it appears in the book.

The statement in the following pages is a part of the record of the Gandhi murder case, which can be found in Printed Volume II, Criminal Appeals Nos 66 to 72 of the 1949 Punjab High Court (then at) Simla.

2.1 Answer to Charge-sheet

15 - I have never made a secret about the fact that I supported the ideology, which was opposed to that of Gandhiji. I firmly believed that the teachings of absolute Ahimsa as advocated by Gandhiji would ultimately result in the emasculation of the Hindu community incapable of resisting the aggression of other communities especially the Muslims.

To counter this evil I decided to enter public life and as a part of the propaganda started a daily newspaper Agrani. I might mention that is not so much Gandhi's Ahimsa that we were opposed to but his bias for Muslims, prejudicial and detrimental to the Hindu Community and its interests. I have fully described my point of view and have quoted instances when how Gandhi became responsible for a number of calamities which the Hindu community had to suffer and undergo.

16. On 13th of January 1948. I learnt that Gandhiji had decided to go on fast unto death. The reason given for such fast was that he wanted an assurance of Hindu-Muslim unity in Indian Dominion. But I and many others could easily see that the real motive behind the fast was not merely the so-called Hindu-Muslim Unity, but to compel the Dominion Government to pay the sum of Rs. 55 crores to Pakistan, the payment of which was emphatically refused by the Government.

25. Having reached Delhi in great despair, I visited the refugee camps at Delhi. While moving in the camps my thoughts took a definite and final turn. Chancely I came across a refugee who was dealing in arms and he showed me the pistol. I was tempted to have it and I bought it from him. It is the pistol which I later used in the shots I fired. On coming to the Delhi Railway station I spent the night of 29th thinking and re-thinking about my resolve to end the present chaos and further destruction of the Hindus. I shall now deal about my relations with Veer Savarkar in political and other matters of which the prosecution has made so much.

26. Born in a devotional Brahmin family, I instinctitively came to revere Hindu religion, history and culture. I had been instinctively proud of Hinduism as a whole. Nevertheless as I grew up I developed a tendency to free unthinking unfettered by a superstitious allegiance to any ism political or religious. That is why I worked actively for the eradication of untouchability and the caste system based on birth alone. I publicly joined anti-caste movements and maintained all that Hindus should be treated with equal status as to rights social and religious, and should be high or low on merit alone, and not through the accident of birth in a particular caste or profession. I used to take part in organized anti-caste dinners in which of Hindus broke caste rules and dined the company of each other.

27. I have read the works of Dadabhai Naoraji, Vivekanand, Gokhale, Tilak with the books of ancient and modern history of India and some prominent countries in the world like England, France, America and Russia. Not only that I studied tolerably well the current tenets of socialism and Communism too. But above all I studied very closely whatever Veer Savarkar and Gji had written or spoken, as to my mind, these two ideologies had contributed more to the thought and action of modern India during the last fifty years or so, than any other any single factor had done.

28. All this reading and thinking brought me to believe me that above all it was my first duty to serve Hindudom and the Hindu people.

29. I have worked for several years in the R.S.S. and later joined the Hindu Mahasabha and volunteered myself to fight as a soldier under its pan-Hindu flag. About this time Savarkar was elected as the president of the Sabha. The movement got electrified and millions of sanghatanists looked up to him as the chosen hero, as the ablest and most faithful advocate of the Hindu cause. I too was one of them, in the process came to be personally acquainted with Savarkarji.

30. Later on my friend Apte and myself decided to start a daily paper devoted to Hindu Sanghatan Movement. After securing sympathy and financial help from a number of Sanghatanist we met Savarkar as the President of the Mahasabha. He advanced a sum of Rs 15,000/ as his quota of the capital required, on the condition that a limited company should be registered at the earliest and his advance should be transformed into so many shares.

31. Accordingly, we started the Daily Marathi paper, Daily Agrani. The sums advanced by Savarkar and others were converted into shares of Rs 500 each. Among the directors and donors were such leading men as Seth Gulab Chand (brother of Seth Walchand Hirachandji), Mr Shingre, an ex-Minister of Bhor, Shreeman Bhalji Pendharkar, the film magnate of Kolhapur and others. I was the editor with Apte and myself being Managing Directors of the company.

33. But it must be specifically noted that our casual visits to Savarkar Sadan were restricted generally to this Hindu Sanghatan office, situated on the ground floor. Savarkar was residing on the first floor. It was rarely that we could meet Savarkar personally and that too by personal appointment.

34. Some three years ago, Savarkar's health got seriously impaired and since then he was confined to bed. Thus deprived of his virile leadership the activities and influence of the Mahasabha got crippled and when Dr Mookerjee became its President it was reduced to the position of a handmaid to the Congress. It became quite incapable of counteracting the dangerous anti-Hindu activities of Gandhite cabal on the one hand and the Muslim League on the other. Seeing this I lost all hope in the efficiency of the policy of running the Sanghatan movement on the constitutional lines of the Mahasabha and began to shift myself. I determined to organized a youthful group of Sanghatanists and adopt a fighting program against the Congress and the League without consulting any of those prominent but old leaders of the Mahasabha.

35. I shall just mention here two striking instances only out of a number of them which painfully opened my eyes about this time to the fact that Veer Savarkar and other old leaders of Mahasabha could no longer be relied upon by me and the Hindu youths of my persuasion to guide or even to appreciate the fighting program with which we aimed to counteract Gandhiji's activities inside and the Muslim League outside. In 1946 or thereabout the Muslim atrocities perpetrated on the Hindus under the Government patronage of Surhawardy in Noakhali, made our blood boil. Our shame and indignation knew no bounds, when we saw that Gandhiji had come forward to shield that very Surhawardy and began to style him as ‘Shahid Saheb-a Martyr Soul (!) even in his prayer meetings. Not only that but after coming to Delhi, Gandhiji began to hold his prayer meetings in a Hindu temple in Bhangi Colony and persisted in reading passages from Quoran as a part of the prayer in that Hindu temple in spite of the protest of the Hindu worshippers there. Of course he dared not read the Geeta in a mosque in the teeth of Muslim reaction would have been if he had done so. But he could safely trample over the feelings of the tolerant Hindu. To belie this belief I determined to prove to Gandhiji that the Hindu too could be intolerant when his honor was insulted.

36 to 39 - Apte and I decided to stage a series of demonstrations in Delhi at his meeting and make it impossible for him to hold such prayers. Seeing the protest Gandhi slyly took shelter behind barred and guarded doors. But when Savarkar read about the report of this demonstration he blamed me for such anarchical tactics. Another incident was the treatment of the post Independence Indian government by the Mahasabhaites. Savarkar felt that the government needed all support to prevent a Civil War and enable Muslims to realize their mission to turn the whole of India into Pakistan. My friends and others were unconvinced. We felt that time had come to bid good-bye to Savarkar and cease to consult him in our future policy and programs, nor should we confide in him our plans.

40. Just after that followed the terrible outburst of Muslim fanaticism in the Punjab and other parts of India. The Congress Government began to persecute, prosecute, and shoot the Hindus themselves who dared to resist the Muslim forces in Bihar, Calcutta, Punjab and other places. Our worst fears seemed to be coming true; and yet how painful and disgraceful it was for us to find that the 15th of August 1947 was celebrated with illumination and festivities, while the whole of the Punjab was set by the Muslims in flames and Hindu blood ran rivers. The Hindu Mahasabhaites of my persuasion decided to boycott the festivities and the Congressite Government and to launch a fighting program to check Muslim onslaughts.

45. I began to criticize the Mahasabha and the policy of its old leaders in my daily paper Agrani.

47. I would not have referred to the above details in his statement but for the learned prosecutor's opening speech in which he painted me as a mere tool in the hands of Savarkar.

2.2 Gandhiji's Politics X-rayed

51. In my writings and speeches I have always advocated that the religious and communal consideration should be entirely eschewed in the public affairs of the country. At elections, inside and outside the legislatures and in the making and unmaking of Cabinets I have throughout stood for a secular State with joint electorates and to my mind this is the only sensible thing to do. (Here I read parts of the resolutions passed at the Bilaspur Session of the Hindu Mahasabha held in December, 1994. Annexure Pages 12 and 13), Under the influence of the Congress this ideal was steadily making headway amongst the Hindus. But the Muslims as a community first stood aloof and later on under the corroding influence of the Divide and Rule Policy of the foreign masters were encouraged to cherish the ambition of dominating the Hindus. The first indication of this outlook was the demand for separate electorates (conceded by the Congress firstly by the Lucknow Pact of 1916 and at each successive revision of the constitution thereafter) instigated by the then Viceroy Lord Minto in 1906. The British Government accepted this demand under the excuse of minority protection. While the Congress party offered a verbal opposition, it progressively supported separatism by ultimately adopting the notorious formula of neither accepting nor rejecting in 1934.

52. Thus had originated and intensified the demand for the disintegration of this country. What was the thin end of the wedge in the beginning became Pakistan in the end.

54. Under the inspiration of our British masters on one hand and encouragement under G's leadership on the other, the Muslim League went on increasing its demands on Communal basis. The Muslim community continuously backed the League, each successive election proved that the League was able to bank on the fanaticism and ignorance of the Muslim masses and the League was those encouraged, in its policy of separatisms on an ever-increasing scale year after year.

56. I will consider it a religious and moral duty to resist and if possible to overpower such an enemy by the use of force. Shree Ramchandra killed Ravan in a tumultuous fight and relieved Sita. Shree Krishna killed Kansa to end his wickedness. In the Mahabharat Arjun 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 is to betray a total ignorance of the springs of human action. It was the heroic fight put up by the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj that first checked and eventually destroyed Muslim tyranny: in India. It was absolutely correct tactics for Shivaji to kill Afzul Khan as the latter would otherwise have surely killed him. In condemning Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Govind as misguided patriots, Gandhiji has merely exposed his self-conceit.

59. As pointed out herein below Gandhi's political activities can be conveniently divided under three heads. He returned to India from Emgland sometime about the end of 1914 and plunged into the public life of the country almost immediately. Unfortunately after his arrival Sir Pherozeshah Mehta and G.K. Gokhale, Gandhi called the latter his Guru, died within a short span of time. Gandhi's began his work by starting an Ashram in Ahmedabad on the banks of the Sabarmati river, and made Truth and Non-Violence his slogans. He had often acted contrary to his professed principles and it was for the appeasing the Muslim he hardly had any scruple in doing so. Truth and non-violence are excellent as an ideal, to be practiced in day-today-life and not in the air. I am showing later on that Gandhiji himself was guilty of glaring breaches of his much-vaunted ideals.

61. When Gandhiji returned to India at the end of 1914, he brought with him a very high reputation for courageous leadership of Indians in South Africa. He had placed himself at the head of the struggle for the assertion and vindication of the national self-respect of India and for our rights of citizenship against white tyranny in that country. He was honored by Hindus, Muslims and Parsis alike and was universally acclaimed as the leader of all Indians in South Africa. His simplicity, devotion, self-sacrifice etc had raised the prestige of Indians. In India he had endeared himself to all.

62. In South Africa Indians had claimed nothing but elementary rights of citizenship, which were denied to them. Hindus, Muslims and Parsis therefore stood united against the common enemy. The Indian problem at home was quite different.

We were fighting for home-rule, self-government and independence. We were determined to overthrow an Imperial Power, which was determined to continue its sway over us by using all possible means including the policy of Divide and Rule which had intensified the cleavage between the Hindus and Muslims. Gandhiji was thus confronted at the very outset with a problem the like of which he had never encountered in South Africa. But in India communal franchise, separate electorates and the like had already undermined the solidarity of the nation. Gandhiji, therefore found it most difficult to obtain the unquestioned leadership of the Hindus and the Muslims in India as in South Africa. It was absurd for his honest mind to think of accepting the generalship of an army divided against itself.

63. For the first five years there was not much hope for the attainment by him of supreme leadership in Indian politics. The stalwarts Tilak, Naoroji others were still alive and Gandhi was still a junior compared to them in age and experience. But an inexplorable fate removed all of them in five years and with the death of Tilak in 1920, Gandhiji was at once thrown into the front line.

64. He saw that the foreign rulers by the policy of ‘Divide and Rule' were corrupting the patriotism of the Muslim and that there was little chance of his leading a united host to the battle for Freedom unless he was able to cement fellow feeling and common devotion to the Motherland. He, therefore, made Hindu-Muslim Unity the foundation of his polities. As a counter to the British tactics he started making the most friendly approaches to the Muslim community and reinforced them by making generous and extravagant promises to the Muslims. This, of course, was not wrong in itself so long as it was done consistently with India's struggle for democratic national freedom; but Gandhiji completely forgot this, the most essential aspect of his campaign for unity, with what results we all know by now.

65. Our British masters were able to make concessions to Muslims and to keep the various communities divided. By 1919 Gandhiji had become desperate in his endeavor to get Muslims to trust him and went from one absurd promise to another. He backed the Khilafat Movement in this country and was able to enlist the full support of the National Congress in that policy. For a time Gandhi appeared to succeed and prominent Muslim leaders became his followers. Jinnah was nowhere in 1920-21 and the Ali Brothers became defacto Muslim leaders. He made the most of the Ali Brothers, raised them to the skies by flattery and unending concessions. The Muslims ran the Khilafat Committee as a distinct political religious organization and throughout maintained it as a separate identity from the Congress, very soon the Moplah Rebellion showed that the Muslims had not the slightest idea of national unity on which Gandhiji had set his heart and had staked so much. There followed as usual in such cases, a huge slaughter of Hindus, forcible conversion and rape.

By the Act of 1919 separate electorates were enlarged and communal representation was continued not merely in the legislature and the local bodies but even extended within the Cabinet. The services began to be distributed on the communal basis and the Muslims obtained high jobs from our British Masters not on merit but by remaining aloof from the struggle for freedom and because of their being the followers of Islam.

Government patronage to Muslims in the name of Minority protection penetrated throughout the body politic of the Indian State and the Mahatma's meaningless slogans were no match against this wholesale corruption of the Muslim mind. By 1925 it had become clear that the Government won all the time but like the proverbial gambler Gandhiji increased his stake.

He agreed to the separation of Sind and to the creation of a separate province in the N.W.Frontier. He also went on conceding one demand after to another to the Muslim League in the vain hope of enlisting its support in the national struggle. By this time the stock of the Ali Brothers had gone down and Mr Jinnah who had staged a comeback was having the best of both the worlds. Whatever concessions the Government and the Congress made, Mr Jinnah accepted and asked for more.

Separation of Sind from Bombay and the creation of the N. W. Frontier were followed by the Round Table Conference in which the minority question loomed large. Mr. Jinnah stood out against the federation until Gandhiji himself requested Mr. Mc Donald, the Labour Premier, to give the Communal Award. Further seeds were thereby sown for the disintegration of this country. The communal principle became deeply imbeded in the Reforms of 1935. Mr Jinnah took the fullest advantage of every situation. The Federation of India, which was to consolidate Indian Nationhood, was in fact, defeated; Mr. Jinnah had never taken kindly to it.

The Congress continued to support the Communal Award neither supporting nor rejecting it, which really meant its tactical acceptance. During the War 1939-44, Mr. Jinnah took up openly one attitude - a sort of benevolent neutrality - and promised to support the war as soon as the Muslims rights were conceded, in April 1940, within six months of the War; Jinnah came out with the demand for Pakistan on the basis of the two-nation theory.

66. The Mahasabha realized that the War was an opportunity for our young men to have military training. The result was that nearly ½ million Hindus learnt the art of war and mastered the mechanized aspect of modern warfare. The troops being used today in Kashmir and Hyderabad would have not have been there ready made but for the effort of men with such outlook.

67. The 'Quit India' campaign of 1942 had completely failed. Britishers had triumphed and the Congress leaders decided to come to terms with them. Indeed in the subsequent years the Congress policy can be quite correctly described as 'Peace at any Price' and 'Congress in Office at all costs.' The Congress compromised with the British who placed it in office and in return the Congress surrendered to the violence of Mr. Jinnah, carved out one-third of India to him an explicitly racial and theological State and destroyed two million human beings in the process,

68. This section summarizes the background of the agony of India's partition and the tragedy of Gandhiji assassination. Neither the one nor the other gives me any pleasure to record or to remember, but the Indian people and the world at large need to know the history of the last thirty years during which Indian has been torn into pieces by the Imperialist Policy of the British and under a mistaken policy of communal amity. One hundred and ten millions of people have become homeless of which 4 million are Muslims and when I found that even after such terrible results Gandhiji continued to pursue the same policy of appeasement, my blood boiled, and I could not tolerate him any longer. Gandhiji in fact successed in doing what the British always wanted to do in pursuance of their policy of Divide and Rule. He helped them in dividing India and it is not yet certain whether their rule has ceased.

2.3 Gandhiji's Politics X-Rayed

69. The accumulating provocation of 32 years culminating in his latest pro-Muslim fast at last goaded me to the conclusion that the existence of Gandhiji should be brought to an end. On coming back 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 in his own way. He alone was the judge of everyone and everything, he was the master brain behind guiding the civil disobedience movement, nobody else knew the technique of that movement, he alone knew when to begin and when to withdraw it. The movement may successed or fail, bring untold disasters and political reverses but that could make no difference to the Mahatma's infallibility. Many people thought his politics were irrational but had to either withdraw from the Congress or place their intelligence at his feet to do what he liked with it. In such a position of such irresponsibility Gandhiji was guilty of blunder after blunder. Not one single political victory can be claimed to his credit during 33 years of his political predominance. Herein below I mention in some details the series of blunders, which he committed during 32 years of his undisputed leadership.

70. In the moment of opportunism the Mahatma misconceived the idea that by helping the Khilafat Movement he would become the leader of the Muslims in India as the already was of the Hindus and that with the Hindu-Muslim Unity thus achieved the British would soon have to concede Swaraj. But again, Gandhiji miscalculated and by leading the Indian National Congress to identify itself with the Khilafat Movement, he quite gratuitously introduced theological element. Which has proved a tragic and expensive calamity. For the moment the movement for the revival of the Khilafat appeared to be succeeding. The Muslims who were not with the Khilafat Movement soon became out of date and the Ali Brothers who were its foremen leaders swam on the crest of a wave of popularity and carried everything before them. Mr. Jinnha found himself a lonely figure and was of no consideration for a few years. The movement however failed.

Our British Masters were not unduly shaken and as a combined result of repression and the Montague Chelmsford Reforms they were able to tide over the Khilafat Movement in a few years time. The Muslims had kept the Khilafat Movement distinct from the Congress all along; they welcomed the Congress support but they did not merge with it. When failure came the Muslims became desperate with disappointment and their anger was sited on the Hindus. Innumerable riots in the various parts of India followed. The chief victims being the Hindus everywhere. The Hindu-Muslim Unity of the Mahatma became a mirage.

The Moplah rebellion as it was called was the most prolonged and concentrated attack on the Hindu religion, Hindu honor, Hindu life and Hindu property; hundreds of Hindus were forcibly converted to Islam, women were outraged. The Mahatma who had brought about all this calamity on India by his communal policy kept mum. He never uttered a single word of reproach against the aggressors nor did he allow the Congress to take any active steps whereby repetition of such outrages could be prevented. On the other hand he went to the length of denying the numerous cases of forcible conversions in Malabar and actually published in his paper 'Young India' that there was only one case of forcible conversion.

Afghan Amir Intrigue - "I cannot understand why the Ali Brothers are going to be arrested as the rumors go, and why I am to remain free. They have done nothing, which I would not do. If they had sent a message to Amir, I also would send one to inform the Amir that if he came, no Indian so long as I can help it would help the Government to drive him back."

Attack on Arya Samaj - Gandhiji ostentatiously displayed his love for Muslims by a most unworthy and unprovoked attack on the Arya Samaj in 1924. He publicly denounced the Samaj for its supposed sins of omission and commission; it was an utterly unwarranted reckless and discreditable attack, but whatever would please the Mohammedans was the heart's desire of Gandhiji

The late Lala Lajpat Rai, and Swami Shradhanand to mention only two names were staunch Arya Samajists but they were foremost amongst the leaders of the Congress till the end of their life. They did not stand for blind support to Gandhi, but were definitely opposed to his pro-Muslim policy, and openly fought him on that issue.

Gandhiji's attack did not improve his popularity with the Muslims but it provoked a Muslim youth to murder Swami Shraddhanandji within a few months.

Separation of Sind - By 1928 Mr. Jinnah's stock had risen very high and the Mahatma had already conceded many unfair and improper demands of Mr. Jinnah at the expense of Indian democracy and the Indian nation and the Hindus. The Mahatma even supported the separation of Sind from the Bombay Presidency and threw the Hindus of Sind to the communal wolves. Numerous riots took place in Sind- Karachi, Sukkur, Shikapur and other places in which the Hindus were the only sufferers and the Hindu-Muslim Unity receded further from the horizon.

League's Good Bye to Congress - With each defeat Gandhiji became even more keen on his method of achieving Hindu-Muslim Unity. Like the gambler who had lost heavily he became more desperate increasing his stakes each time and indulged in the most irrational concessions if only they could placate Mr. Jinnah and enlist his support under the Mahatma's leadership in the fight for freedom. But the aloofness of the Muslim from the Congress increased with the advance of years and the Muslim League refused to have anything to do with the Congress after 1928. The resolution of Independence passed by the Congress at its Lahore Session in 1929 found the Muslims conspicuous by their absence and strongly aloof from the Congress organization. The hope of Hindu Muslim Unity was hardly entertained by anybody thereafter; but Gandhiji continued to be resolutely optimistic and surrendered more and more to Muslim communalism.

Round -Table Conference and Communal Award - The British authorities both in India and in England, had realized that the demand for a bigger and truer installment of constitutional reforms was most insistent and clamant in India and that in spite of their unscrupulous policy of 'Divide and Rule' and the communal discord which it had generated, the resulting situation had brought them no permanence and security so far as British Rule in India was concerned.

The Congress however soon regretted its boycott of the First Round Table Conference and at the Karachi Congress of 1931 it was decided to send Gandhiji alone as the Congress Representative to Second Session of Round Table Conference. Anybody who reads the proceedings of that Session will realize that Gandhiji was the biggest factor in bringing about the total failure of the Conference. Not one of the decisions of the Round Table Conference was in support of democracy or nationalism and the Mahatma went to the length of inviting Mr. Ramsay McDonald to give what was called the communal Award, there by strengthening the disintegrating forces of communalism which had already corroded the body politic for 24 years past The Mahatma was thus responsible for a direct and substantial intrusion of communal electorate and communal franchise in the future Parliament of India.

No wonder under the garb of minority protection we got in the Government of India Act of 1935 a permanent statutory recognition of communal franchise, communal electorate and even weightage for the minorities especially the Muslim, both in the provinces and in the Centre. Those elected on the communal franchise would be naturally communal minded and would have no interest in bridging the gulf between communalism and nationalism.

Acceptance of Office and Resigning in Huff - Provincial Autonomy was introduced from the 1st of April, 1937 under the Government of India Act 1935. The act was bristling with safeguards, special powers, and protection to British personnel in the various services intact. The Congress therefore would not accept office at first but soon found out that in every Province a Ministry was constituted and that at least in five Provinces they were functioning in the normal manner.

In the other six Provinces the Ministers were in a minority but they were forging ahead with their nation building program and the Congress felt that it would be left out in the cold if it persisted in its policy of barren negation. It therefore decided to accept office in July, 1937; in doing so it committed a serious blunder in excluding the members of the Muslim League from effective participation in the Cabinet They only admitted into the Cabinet such Muslims as were congress-men.

Rejection of Muslim League Members as Ministers gave Mr. Jinnah a tactical advantage, which he utilized to the full and in 1939 when the Congress resigned Office in a huff; it completely played in the hand of the Muslim League and British Imperialism. Under Section 93 of the Government of India Act 1935 the Governments of the Congress Provinces were taken over by the Governors and the Muslim League Ministries remained in power and authority in the remaining Provinces. The Governors carried on the administration with a definite leaning towards the Muslims as an imperial policy of Britain and communalism reigned throughout the country through the Muslim Ministries on one hand and pro-Muslim Governors on the other.

The Hindu-Muslim Unity of Gandhiji became a dream, if it were ever anything else; but Gandhiji never cared. His ambition was to become the leader of Hindu and Muslims alike and in resigning the ministries the congress again sacrificed democracy and nationalism.

League taking Advantage of War - The congress opposed the war in one way or another. Mr. Jinnah and the League had a very clear policy. They remained neutral and created no trouble for the Government; but in the year following, the Lahore Session of the Muslim League passed a resolution for the partition of India as a condition for their co-operation in the war. Lord Linlithgow within a few months of the Lahore Resolution gave full support to the Muslims in their policy of separation by a declaration of Government Policy, which assured the Muslims that no change in the political constitution of India will be made without the consent of all the elements in India's national life. The Muslim League and Mr. Jinnah were thus vested with a veto over the political progress of this country by the pledge given by the Viceroy of India.

Quit-India' by Congress and Divide and Quit by League - Out of sheer desperation Gandhiji evolved the 'Quit India' policy which was endorsed by the Congress. It was supposed to be the greatest national rebellion against foreign rule. Gandhiji had ordered the people to 'do or die' But except that the leaders were quickly arrested and detained behind the prison bars some furtive acts of violence were practiced by Congressmen for some weeks. But in less than three months the whole movement was throttled by Government with firmness and discretion. The movement soon collapsed.

Hindi Versus Hindustani - Absurdly pro Muslim policy of Gandhiji is nowhere more blatantly illustrated than in his perverse attitude on the question of the National Language of India. By all the tests of a scientific language, Hindi has the most prior claim to be accepted as the National Language of this country.

In the beginning of his career in India, Gandhiji gave a great impetus to Hindi but as he found that the Muslim did not like it, he became a turncoat and blossomed forth as the champion of what is called Hindustani. Every body 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 a crossbreed 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 supporters of course blindly supported him and the so-called hybrid tongue began to be used. Words like 'Badshah Ram' and 'Begum Sita' were spoken and written but the Mahatma never dared to speak at Mr. Jinnah as Sita Jinnah and Maulana Azad Pandit Azad. All his experiments were at the expense of the Hindus.

The bulk of the Hindus however proved to be stronger and more loyal to their culture and to their mother tongue and refused to bow down to the Mahatmic fiat. The result was that Gandhiji did not prevail in the Hindi Parishad and had to resign from that body; his pernicious influence however remains and the Congress Governments in India still hesitate whether to select Hindi or Hindustani as the National Language of India.

Vande Mataram not to be sung - It is notorious that some Muslim disliked the celebrated song of 'Vande Mataram' and the Mahatma forthwith stopped its singing or recital wherever he could. This song has been honored for a century as the most inspiring exhortation to the Bengalees to stand up like one man for their nation. In the anti-partition agitation of 1905 in Bengal the song came to a special prominence and popularity. The Bengalees swore by it and dedicated themselves to the Motherland at countless meetings where this song was sung. The British Administrator did not understand the true meaning of the song 'which simply meant 'Hail Motherland' Government therefore banned its singing forty years ago for some time, that only led to its increased popularity all over the country It continued to be sung at all Congress and other national gatherings but as soon as one Muslim objected to it Gandhiji utterly disregarded the national sentiment behind it and persuaded the Congress also not to insist upon the singing as the national song.

Quote from book The Tragic Story of Partition "It was at the Kakinada session of the Congress in 1923, that its President Mohammed Ali objected to the singing of the song on the premise that music was taboo in Islam. The singer V P Paluskar said - You have no authority from singing the Vande Mataram. Moreover, if singing in this place is against your religion, how is it that you tolerate music in your presidential procession? In 1922 it had adopted Iqbal's Sare jahanse see accha Hindustan hamara as the associate national anthem to satisfy the Muslims. In 1937 the League condemned the Congress for foisting Vande Mataram as the national song. Accordingly the Congress decided to cut those portions of the song that were likely to offend Muslim susceptibilities".

Shiva Bavani Banned - Gandhiji banned the public recital or perusal of Shiva Bavani a beautiful collection of 52 verses by a Hindu poet in which he had extolled the great power of Shivaji and the protection which he brought to the Hindu community and the Hindu religion. The refrain of that collection says if there were no Shivaji, the entire country would have been converted to Islam.

Quote from the book The Tragic Story of Partition " Bhajans were also not spared. The soul elevating chanting of ‘Raghupati Raja Rama patita pavana Sita Rama was intoned on the lips of millions of our countrymen for the last several centuries. A new line 'Ishwar Allah tere nam, sab so sanmati de Bhagavan' was added to the original".

Suhrawardy Patronized - When the Muslim League refused to join the provisional Government, which Lord Wavell invited Pandit Nehru to form; the League started a Council of Direct Action against any Government farmed by Pandit Nehru, On the 15th of August 1946. A little more than two weeks before Pandit Nehru was to take office, there broke out in Calcutta an open massacre of the Hindus which continued for three days unchecked

Gandhiji however went to Calcutta and contracted a strange friendship with the author of these massacres; in fact he intervened on behalf of Suhrawardy and the Muslim League. During the three days that the massacre of Hindus took place, the police in Calcutta did not interfere for the protection of life or property, innumerable outrages were practiced under the very eyes and nose of the guardians of law, but nothing mattered to Gandhiji. To him Suhrawardy was an object of admiration from which he could not be diverted and publicly described Suhrawardy as a Martyr. No wonder two months later there was the most virulent outbreak of Muslim fanaticism in Noakhali and Tipperah 30,000 Hindu women were forcibly converted according to a report of Arya Samaj, the total number of Hindus killed or wounded was three lacs not to say the crores of rupees worth of property looted and destroyed Gandhiji then undertook, ostensibly alone, a tour of Noakhali District

Attitude towards Hindu and Muslim Princes - Gandhiji's followers successfully humiliated the Jaipur, Bhavnagar and Rajkot States. They enthusiastically supported even a rebellion in Kashmir State against the Hindu Prince. This attitude strangely enough contrasts with what Gandhiji did about the affairs in Muslim States. There was a Muslim League intrigue in Gwalior States as a result of which the Maharaja was compelled to abandon the celebrations of the second millennium of the Vikram Calendar four years ago: the Muslim agitation was based on pure communalism The Maharaja is the liberal and impartial Ruler with a far sighted outlook. In a recent casual Hindu Muslim clash in Gwalior because the Musalmans suffered some casualties Gandhiji came down upon the Maharaja with a vitriolic attack wholly undeserved.

Gandhiji On Fast to Capacity - In 1943 while Gandhiji was on fast to capacity and nobody was allowed to interview him on political affairs, only the nearest and the dearest had the permission to go and enquire of his health.

Mr. C. Rajagopalachari smuggled himself into Gandhiji's room and hatched a plot of conceding Pakistan which Gandhiji allowed him to negotiate with Jinnah. Gandhiji later on discussed this matter for three weeks with Mr. Jinnah in the later part of 1944 and offered Mr. Jinnah virtually what is now called Pakistan. Gandhiji went every day to Mr. Jinnah's house, flattered him. Praised him, embraced him, but Mr Jinnah could not be cajoled out of his demand for the Pakistan pound of flesh. Hindu Muslim Unity was making progress in the negative direction,

In 1945 came the notorious Desai - Liaquat Agreement - It put one more, almost the last, nail on the coffin of the Congress as a National democratic body. Under that agreement, the late Mr. Bhulabhai Desai the then leader of the Congress party in the Central Legislative Assembly at Delhi entered into an agreement with Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan, the League Leader in the Assembly, jointly to demand a Conference from the British Government for the solution of the stalemate in Indian politics which was growing since the beginning of the War. Mr. Desai was understood to have taken that step without consulting anybody of any importance in the Congress circle, as almost all the Congress leaders had been detained since the. Quit India' Resolution in 1942. Mr. Desai offered equal representation to the Muslims with Congress at the said Conference and this was the basis on which the Viceroy was approached to convene the Conference. The then Viceroy Lord Wavell flew to London on receipt of this joint request and brought back the consent of the Labor Government for the holding of the Conference.

The Viceroy also laid down other conditions for the holding of the Conference. The important ones were:

An unqualified undertaking on the part of the Congress and all political parties to support the war against Japan until victory was won.
A coalition Government would be formed in which the Congress and the Muslims would each have five representatives. There will besides be a representative of the depressed classes, of the Sikhs and other Minorities.
Cabinet Mission Plan - Early in the year 1946 the so-called Cabinet Mission arrived in India. It consisted of the then Secretary of State for India now Lord Lawrence, Mr. Alexander, the minister for War and Sir Stafford Cripps. Its arrival was heralded by a speech in Parliament by Mr. Atlee, the prime Minister. Mr. Atlee announced in most eloquent terms the determination of the British Government to transfer power to India if only the latter agreed upon common plan.

In paragrah 15 of the proposals the mission introduced six conditions under which the British Government would be prepared to convene a Constituent Assembly invested with the right of framing a Constitution of Free India. Each of these six proposals was calculated to prevent the unity of India being maintained or full freedom being attained even if the Constituent Assembly was an elected body.

The Congress party was so utterly exhausted by the failure of 'Quit India' that after some smoke screen about its unflinching nationalism it virtually submitted to Pakistan by accepting the mission's proposals, which made certain the dismemberment of India although in a roundabout manner. The Congress accepted the scheme but did not agree to form a Government. The long and short of it was that the Congress was called upon to form a Government and accept the whole scheme unconditionally. Mr. Jinnah denounced the British Government for treachery and started a direct action council of the Muslim League. The Bengal, the Punjab, the Bihar, the Bombay, and other places in various parts of India became scenes of bloodshed, arson, loot and rape on a scale unprecedented in history. The overwhelming members of victims were Hindus.

Ambiguous Statement about Pakistan - In one of his articles, Gandhiji while nominally ostensibly opposed to Pakistan, openly declared that if the Muslims wanted Pakistan at any cost, there was nothing to prevent them from achieving it. Only the Mahatma could understand what that declaration meant. Was it a prophecy or a declaration or disapproval of the demand for Pakistan?

Advice to Kashmir Maharaja - About Kashmir, Gandhiji again and again declared that Sheikh Abdullah should be entrusted the charge of the state and that the Maharaja of Kashmir should retire to Benares for no particular reason than that the Muslims formed the bulk of the Kashmir population. This also stands out in contrast with his attitude on Hyderbad where although the bulk of the population is Hindu, Gandhiji never called upon the Nizam to retire to Mecca.

Mountbatten vivisects India - Lord Wavell had to resign, as he could not bring about a settlement. He had some conscience, which prevented him from supporting the partition of India. He had openly declared it to be unnecessary and undesirable. But his retirement was followed by the appointment of Mountbatten. King Log was followed by King Stork This Supreme Commander of the South East Asia was a purely Military man and he had a great reputation for daring, and tenacity. He came to India with a determination to do or die and he ''did'' namely he vivisected India. He was more indifferent to human slaughter. Rivers of blood flowed under his very eyes and nose. He apparently was thinking that by the slaughter of Hindus so many opponents of his mission were killed. The greater the slaughter of the enemies greater the victory, and he pursued his aim relentlessly to its logical conclusion. Long before June 1948 the official date for handing over power, the wholesale murders of the Hindus had their full effect. The Congress, which had boasted of its nationalism and democracy, secretly accepted Pakistan literally at the point of the bayonet and abjectly surrendered to Mr. Jinnah. India was vivisected. One third of the Indian territory became foreign land to us from the 15th of august 1947.

Hindu Muslim Unity bubble was finally burst and a theocratic and communal State dissociated from everything that smacked of United India was established with the consent of Nehru and his crowd and they have called it 'Freedom won by them at sacrifice' Whose sacrifice?

Gandhiji on Cow-slaughter - ‘Today Rajendra Babu informed me that he had received some fifty thousand postcards, 20-30 thousand telegrams urging prohibition of cow slaughter by law. In this connection I have spoken to you before also. After all why are so many letters and telegrams sent to me. They have not served any purpose. No law prohibiting cow slaughter in India can be enacted. How can I impose my will upon a person who does not wish voluntarily to abandon cow-slaughter? India does not belong exclusively to the Hindus. Muslims, Parsees, Christians also live here. The claim of the Hindus that India has become the land of the Hindus is totally incorrect. This land belongs to all who live here. I know an orthodox Vaishnava Hindu. He used to give beef soup to his child.

Quote from the book The Tragic Story of Partition " In the Muslim All Parties Congress held in January 1929, Aga Khan pointed out that in the home of islam-Arabia there was no custom of cow sacrifice. It was also pointed out that in other Muslim countries no one took religious objection to the playing of music before mosques. Said Dr Ambedkar: Islamic Law does not insist upon the slaughter of the cow for sacrificial purposes and no Muslim, when he goes to Haj, sacrifices the cow in Mecca or Medina. In a letter to Jinnah 6-4-1938 Nehru assured him that the Congress does not wish to undertake any legislative action in this matter to restrict the established rights of the Muslims".

Removal of Tri-Color Flag - The tricolour flag with Charkha on it was adopted by the Congress as the National Flag out of deference to Gandhiji. There were flag salutations on innumerable occasions. The flag was unfurled at every Congress meeting. It fluttered in hundreds at every session of National Congress, The Prabhat Pheries were never complete unless the flag was carried while the march was on. On the occasion of every imaginary or real success of the Congress Party, public buildings, shops and private residences were decorated with that flag. If any Hindu attached any importance to Shivaji's Hindu flag, "Bhagva Zenda" the flag which freed India from the Muslim - domination it was considered communal. Gandhiji's tri-colored flag never protected any Hindu woman from outrage or a Hindu temple from desecration, yet the late Bhai Parmanand was once mobbed by enthusiastic Congressmen for not paying homage to that flag.

When the Mahatma was touring Noakhali and Tipperah in 1946 after the beastly outrages on the Hindus, the flag was flying on his temporary hut. But when a Muslim came there and objected to the presence of the flag on his head, Gandhiji quickly directed its removal. All the reverential sentiments of millions of Congressmen towards that flag were affronted in a minute, because that would please an isolated muslim fanatic yet the so-called Hindu-Muslim unity never took shape.

Quote from the book The Tragic Story of Partition "The Flag Committee in 1931 consisted of Patel, Nehru, Maulana Azad, Master Tara Singh, D B Kalelkar, N S Hardikar and Pattabhi Sitaramayya recommended that the National Flag should be of kesari or saffron color having on it at the left top quarter the Charkha in blue. However, the A.I.C.C. dare not differ from Gandhi's choice of the tricolor scheme, simply okayed his decision.

2.4 Gandhiji and Independence

71. Some good number of people are laboring under the delusion that the freedom movement in India started with the advent of Gandhiji in 1914-15. There has always been alive in India a freedom movement that was never suppressed. When the Maratha Empire was finally subdued in 1818 as the British thought the forces of freedom were lying low in some part but elsewhere the supremacy of the British was being challenged through the rise of Sikh power. And when by 1848 the Sikhs were defeated the rebellion of 1857 was being actively organized. By the time the British had established full control the Congress was established in 1885 to challenge British domination. This developed into armed resistance which openly asserted itself through the bomb of Khudi Ram Bose in 1906.

72. Gandhiji arrived in India in 1914-15. After his arrival, initial fads of Ahimsa the movement began to suffer eclipse. Thanks however to Subhash Bose and the revolutionaries in Maharashtra, Punjab and Bengal the movement continued to flourish parallel to Gandhiji's rise to leadership after the death of Tilak.

75. I have already mentioned the revolutionary party, which existed independent of the Congress. Amongst its sympathizers were many active Congressmen. This latter section was never reconciled to the yoke of Britain. During the First World War between 1914-19 the Congress began to turn left and the terrorist movement outside was running parallel to the leftist party within. The Gadar Party was operating simultaneously in Europe and America in an effort to overthrow British Rule in India with the help of the Axis Powers. The 'Comagata Maru' incident is well known, and it is by no means clear that the "Emden" incident on the Madras beach was not due to the knowledge of the German Commander that India was seething with discontent. But from 1920 upwards Gandhiji discouraged, put his foot down on the use of force although he himself had carried on an active campaign for recruitment for soldiers of Britain only a few years earlier.

The Rowlatt Repert described at length the strength of the revolutionaries in India, From 1906 till 1918 one Britisher after another and his Indian stooges were shot dead by the revolutionary nationalists and the British authorities were trembling about their very existence. It was then that Mr. Montague came to his country as Secretary of State for India and promised the introduction of responsibility; even he was only partially successful to stern the tide of revolutionary fervor.

The Government of India Act 1919 was over-shadowed by the Jallianwalla Bagh Tragedy in which hundreds of Indians were shot dead by General Dyer at a public meeting for the crime of holding a protest against the Rowlatt Act. Sir Michael O'Dwyer became notorious for callous and unscrupulous reprisals against those who had denounced the Rowlatt Act. Twenty years later he had to pay for it, when Udham Singh shot him dead in London Chafekar brothers of Maharashtra, Pt. Shamji Krishna Verma the back bone of the Revolutionaries, Lala Hardayal, Virendranath Chatopadhyaya, Rash Behari Bose, Babu Arvind Ghosh Khudiram Bose, Ulhaskar Datta, Madanlal Dhingra, Kanhere, Bhagatsingh, Rajguru, Sukhdeo, Chandrashekhar Azad were the living protest by Indian youth against the alien yoke. They had unfurled and held aloft the flag of Independence, some of them long before Gandhiji's name was heard of an even when he was the accepted leader of the constitutional movement of the Indian National Congress.

77. And the more the Mahatma condemned the use of force in the country's battle for freedom the more popular it became. This fact was amply demonstrated at the Karachi Session of the Congress in March 1931; in the teeth of Gandhiji's opposition a resolution was passed in the open Session admiring the courage and the spirit of sacrifice of Bhagat Singh when he threw the bomb in the Legislative Assembly in 1929. Gandhiji never forgot this defeat and when a few months later Mr. Hotson, the Acting Governor of Bombay was shot at by Gogate, Gandhiji returned to the charge at an All-India Congress Committee meeting and asserted that the admiration expressed by the Karachi Congress for Bhagat Singh was at the bottom of Gogate's action in shooting at Hotson. This astounding statement was challenged by Subash Chandra Bose. He immediately came into disfavor with Gandhiji. To sum up, the share of revolutionary youth in the fight for Indian Freedom, is by no means negligible and those who talk of India's freedom having been secured by Gandhiji are not only ungrateful but trying to write false history

78. An outrageous example of his dislike of people with whom he did not agree is furnished by the case of Subash Chandra Bose. So far as I am aware no protest was ever made by Gandhiji against the deportation of Subash for six years and Bose's election to the Presidential Chair of the Congress was rendered possible only after he had personally disavowed any sympathy for violence. In actual practice however Subash never toed the line that Gandhiji wanted during his term of office. And yet Subash was so popular in the country that against the declared wishes of Gandhiji in favor of Dr. Pattabhai he was elected president of the Congress for a second time with a substantial majority even from the Andhra Desha, the province of Dr. Pattabhi himself. This upset Gandhiji beyond endurance and the expressed his anger in the Mahatmic manner full of concentrated venom by stating that the success of Subash was his defeat and not that of Dr. Pattabhi. Even after this declaration, his anger against Subash Bose was not gratified. Out of sheer cussedness he absented him-self from the Tripuri Congress Session, staged a rival show at Rajkot by a wholly mischievous fast and not until Subhas was overthrown from the Congress Gadi that the venom of Gandhiji became completely gutted.

80. In the Quit India Movement launched by the Congress, on 8/8/1942 the statement of Gandhi exhorting people to do or die was interpreted by that section as giving them full scope for all kinds of sabotage and obstruction. In fact they did everything to paralyze the war effort of the Government to the fullest extent. In North Bihar and other places, nearly 900 railway stations were wither burnt or destroyed.

81. These activities were directly opposed to the Congress creed of non-violence and to the Satyagrah technique.

Meanwhile Subhash escaped from the country in January 1941. He went to Germany and then to Japan who agreed to assist him against the British in the invasion of the country.

83. Subhash Chandra Bose was thereby enabled to start a provisional Indian Republican Government on Indian territory. By 1944 he was equipped to start on an invasion of India with the help of the Japanese. Pandit Nehru had declared that if Subhash Chandra Bose came into India with the support of the Japanese he would fight Subhash. Early in 1944, Japanese and the Indian National Army organized by Subash were thundering at the gates of India and they had already entered Manipur State and some part of the Assam Frontier. The I. N. A. consisted of volunteers from the Indian population of the Far East and of those Indians who had deserted to the I. N. A. from the Japanese prisons. That the campaign eventually failed was no fault of Subhash; his men fought like the Trojans. But his difficulties were far too great and his army was not sufficiently equipped with modern armaments. The I. N. A. had no aeroplanes and their supply-line was weak. Many died of starvation and illness, as there was no adequate medical treatment available to them. But the spirit which Subhash engendered in them was wonderful

84. But Gandhiji was again more lucky. Lokmanya Tilak died in 1920 and Gandhiji became the unchallenged leader. Success of Subhash Chandra would have a crushing defeat for Gandhiji, but luck was again on his side and Subhash Chandra died outside India. It then became easy for the Congress party to profess love and admiration for Subhash Chandra Bose and the I. N. A. and even to defend some of its officers and men in the Great State Trial in 1946. They even adopted 'Jai Hind' as the slogan which Subhash had introduced in the East. They traded on the name of Subhash and the I. N. A. and the two issues, which led them to victory during the election in 1945-46, were their hypocritical homage to Subhash's memory. More over the Congress party had promised they were opposed to Pakistan and would resist it all costs.

85. All this time the Muslim League was carrying on treasonable activities, disturbing the peace and tranquility of India carrying on a murderous campaign against the Hindus. The Congress would not venture to condemn or to stop these wholesale massacres in pursuit of its policy of appeasement at all costs. Gandhiji suppressed everything which did not fit in with his pattern of public activities. I am therefore surprised when claims are made over and again the winning of the freedom was due to Gandhiji. My own view is that constant pandering of the Muslim League was not the way to winning freedom. It only created a Frankenstein, which ultimately devoured its own creator-swallowing one third of hostile, unfriendly and aggressive Indian territory, and permanently stationing a neighbor on what was once Indian territory. About the winning of Swaraj and freedom, I maintain the Mahatma's contribution was negligible. But I am prepared to give him a place as a sincere patriot. His teachings however have produced opposite result and his leadership has stultified the nation. In my opinion S. C. Bose is the supreme hero and martyr of modern India. He kept alive and fostered the revolutionary mentality of the masses, advocating all honorable means, Including the use of force when necessary for the liberation of India. Gandhiji and his crowed of self seekers tried to destroy him. It is thus entirely incorrect to represent the Mahatma as the architect of Indian Independence.

86. The real cause of the British leaving India was three fold and it does not include the Gandhian method. One - the movements of the Indian Revolutionaries from 1857 to 1932 i.e. up to the death of Chandra Shekhar Azad at Allahabad, then next, the movement of revolutionary character not that of Gandhian type in the countrywide rebellion of 1942, and an armed revolt put by Subhash Bose the result of which was a spread of the revolutionary mentality in the armed forces of India are the real factors that shattered the very foundation of the British rule in India. And all these effective efforts to freedom were opposed by Gandhi.

Two - a good deal of credit must be given to those, who imbibed with a spirit of patriotisms, fought with the Britishers strictly on constitutional lines on the Assembly floors and made a notable progress in Indian politics. Names are Tilak, N C Kelkar, C R Das, Vithalbhai Patel, Pandit Malaviya, Bhai Parmanand and during the last ten years by prominent Hindu Mahasabha leaders. But these people were also ridiculed by Gandhiji himself and his followers by calling them as job hunters or power seekers.

Three - is the advent of the Labor Government and an overthrow of Mr Churchill, superimposed by frightful economic conditions and financial bankruptcy to which the war had reduced Britain.

2.5 Frustration of an Ideal
I read this sometime last year or the year before. It is an eye opener on how much facts are whitewashed, and how far a "Democracy" can go to gag the other side of the story. By calling for a 'ban' on the wrongfully-vilified Godse, the Nehruvian govt thought it was being secular. The only thing it managed to do is keep the *world* in the dark about the real Gandhi/Freedom Struggle & make hindus meek sheeps who chanted "Ishwar Allah thero naam, Sabko sanmathi dhe bhagvaan".
Nothing makes me more angry than to see this man's photos in every Govt building.
"Gandhi" in Arabic Screened in West Bank
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Wed Apr 6, 3:56 PM ET   Middle East - AP

By RAVI NESSMAN, Associated Press Writer

RAMALLAH, West Bank - Actor Ben Kingsley and U.S. philanthropists unveiled an Arabic version of the film "Gandhi" on Wednesday, hoping to bring the legendary Indian revolutionary's message of nonviolent resistance to Palestinian towns, villages and refugee camps.


<b>But Palestinians who saw the film were skeptical about applying its nonviolent message to their conflict with Israel. </b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mahatma Gandhi on Christian Missionaries


  • </li>
  • My quarrel with missionaries is that they think no religion other than Christianity is true.

  • If Jesus came to earth again, he would disown many things that are being done in the name of Christianity.

  • If instead of confining themselves purely to humanitarian work such as education, medical services to the poor and the like, they would use these activities of their for the purpose of proselytising, I would certainly like them to withdraw. Every nation considers its own faith to be as good as that of any other. Certainly the great faiths held by the people of India are adequate for her people. India stands in no need of conversion from one faith to another.

  • It is not unusual to find Christianity synonymous with denationalization and Europeanization.

  • Though I admire much in Christianity, I am unable to identify myself with orthodox Christianity. I must tell you in all humility that Hinduism, as I know it, entirely satisfies my soul, fills my whole being, and I find a solace in the Bhagvadgita and Upanishads that I miss even in the Sermon on the Mount.

  • If a person, through fear, compulsion, starvation or for material gain or consideration, goes over to another faith, it is misnomer to call it conversion... Real conversion springs from the heart and at the prompting of God, not a stranger. The voice of God can always be distinguished from the voice of man.

  • It was more than I could believe that Jesus was the only incarnate son of God, and that only he who believed in Him would have everlasting life..... I could accept Jesus as a martyr, an embodiment of sacrifice and a divine teacher, but not the most perfect man ever born. His death on the Cross was a great example to the world, but that there was anything like a mysterious or miraculous virtue in it, my heart could not accept. The pious lives of Christians did not give me anything that the lives of men of other faiths had failed to give. I had seen in other lives just the same reformation that I had heard of among Christians. Philosophically there was nothing extraordinary in Christian principles. From the point of view of sacrifice, it seemed to me that the Hindus greatly surpassed the Christians. It was impossible for me to regard Christianity as a perfect religion or the greatest of all religions.

  • Just now Christianity comes to yearning mankind in a tainted form. Fancy bishops supporting slaughter in the name of Christianity.

  • Is it not super-arrogation to assume that you alone possess the key to spiritual joy and peace, and that an adherent of a different faith cannot get the same in equal measure from a study of his scriptures? I enjoy a peace and equanimity of spirit which has excited the envy of many Christian friends. I have got it principally through the Gita.

  • You cannot serve God and Mammon both. And my fear is that Mammon has been sent to serve India and God has remained behind, with the result that He will one day have His vengeance.

  • If you feel that India has a message to give to the world, that India's religions too are true and you come as fellow-helpers and fellow-seekers, there is a place for you here. But if you come as preachers of the 'true gospel' to a people who are wandering in darkness; so far as I am concerned, you have no place.

  • If I had power and could legislate, I should certainly stop all proselytising. In Hindu households, the advent of a missionary has meant the disruption of the family, coming in the wake of change of dress, manners, language, food and drink.

  • I hold that proselytising under the cloak of humanitarian work is, to say the least, unhealthy...Conversion nowadays has become a matter of business, like any other. I remember having read a missionary report saying how much it cost per head to convert and then presenting a budget for 'the next harvest'. 

  • As I wander about throughout the length and breadth of India, I see many Christian Indians ashamed of their birth, certainly of their ancestral religion, and of their ancestral dress. The aping of Europeans by Anglo-Indians is bad enough, but the aping of them by the Indian converts is a violence done to their country and, shall I say, even to their new religion. Is it not truly deplorable that many Christian Indians discard their own mother tongue, bring up their children only to speak in English? Do they not thereby completely cut themselves adrift from the nation in whose midst they have to live?

  • Today, I rebel against orthodox Christianity, as I am convinced that it has distorted the message of Jesus. He was an Asiatic, whose message was delivered through many media; and when it had the backing of a Roman Emperor it became an imperialist faith as it remains to this day.

Unscientific science of secularism
by Balbir K Punj
22nd Apr 2005

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->What an irony! When the country is paying homage to Mahatma  Gandhi on the 75th year of the historic Dandi Salt March, a <b>text  prescribed by Campus of Open Learning, Delhi University, holds him an  accomplice in 'Hindu communalism' leading to Partition</b>. That the text is  authored by Zahoor Siddiqui, a Leftist, is a sufficient indication of the  motive. Siddiqui feels that since Gandhi's theories on secularism were  not 'scientific', their appeal was lost on the Muslim populace.
It perhaps suggests some great rational spirit and scientific temper amongst Muslims to which Gandhi failed to live up to! He botched up secularism with his political semantics moored in Hindu ethos. Thus, while the RSS was affirmatively 'Hindu communalist', Gandhi was equally so in a negative manner. For a Leftist, what could be a more convenient way of bailing out the Muslim League and the Communist Party of India which shared a symbiotic relationship in the run-up to the Partition?
No doubt, Gandhi remained a devout Hindu in his personal life. <b>He even disowned his eldest son Hiralal Gandhi when he became a Muslim and assumed the name Abdullah</b>. Gandhi was a quintessential and down-to-earth Indian. <b>He often spoke of Ram Rajya </b>though falling short of describing it in concrete terms. <b>He openly criticised the misdeeds of the Christian missionaries.</b>
But he also insisted that Hindus should recite the Quran, even though Muslims couldn't care less to read the Ramayan. He hyphenated Ishwar-Allah tero nam in the bhajan Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram. He frantically espoused the Khilafat cause that surprised even many Muslims.
He condoned the Moplah massacres; rationalised the assassination of Swami Shraddhanand by Abdul Rashid; withdrew Congress support from the Hyderabad Agitation (1938) waged by Hindus and Sikhs against a tyrant Nizam; he practically never opposed cow slaughter even after asserting that cow protection was more important to him than Independence; he undertook fast unto death at the height of Kashmir incursion (1948) to pressurise the Indian Government to release for Pakistan, the outstanding amount of 55 million sterling pounds.
He tried to stop Hindus and Sikhs from migrating to India from the inferno of western Punjab; and admonished the refugees taking shelter in mosques and houses evacuated by Muslims in Delhi. In short, he did everything to undermine the interests and security of Hindu community; demoralised the Hindu spirit; and crushed any attempt of Hindu assertion by emotional blackmailing.
Despite that, Hindus continued to hold him in the highest esteem. He was viewed as a demigod rather than a political leader. Gandhi took his Hindu support base for granted. But despite all his appeasing measures, he could not enlist the support of four per cent of Muslims. They remained aloof from the Congress. But they responded as one body to Jinnah's call of Ladke Lenge Pakistan (We shall wrest Pakistan through force). While nationalists (and rationalists) would view this fiasco as Muslim intransigence, Siddiqui suggests this was due to Gandhi's "unscientific secularism".
If by 'scientific' one means rationality, then the Muslim community in India presents a dismal scenario even today. It is well-known that Muslims, whether in Uttar Pradesh or West Bengal, avoid polio vaccines.  <!--emo&:o--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ohmy.gif' /><!--endemo-->  <!--emo&:o--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ohmy.gif' /><!--endemo--> To target Muslims in particular, televised appeals had to be phrased in politically correct language like: "Polio doesn't distinguish between caste, creed or religion." Actually it is neither caste nor religion, but one particular religion that is the problem. When Amitabh Bachchan, Aishwarya Rai and Sachin Tendulkar have failed in their appeals in the television promos, Shahrukh Khan had to be introduced so that Muslims could recognise one of theirs, and heed to his advice of getting vaccinated. It is another issue that the Muslim masses will still obey the
ulema rather than Shahrukh, Salman, Javed or Shabana.
Now if by 'scientific' one means Marxism (since Marxists always claim their theory is scientific), one would be disappointed further. Although some eminent comrades have been Muslims, communism could hardly penetrate the Muslim masses. How else could one explain the complete annihilation of communists from Pakistan, when communists had provided Jinnah with all the intellectual arsenal he needed to justify its creation on the flimsy ground of right to self-determination? In the Marxist bastion of West Bengal, grants amounting to hundreds of crores of rupees are extended to madarsas. What a scientific act!
It is true that Gandhi fuelled Muslim intransigence. But it was by emboldening them through his appeasement rather than his Hindu political semantics. Muslims, deeply under the influence of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, kept aloof from the Congress even before Gandhi arrived on the scene. According to Sir Syed, "The Congress (movement) was, in reality, a civil war without arms" and he looked upon the party as a machinery devised by the Hindus to further their own interests at the cost of Muslims
Surendra Nath Banerji wrote, "The Mohammedan community, under the leadership of Sir Syed Ahmed, had held itself aloof from the Congress. They were working under the auspices of the Patriotic Association in direct opposition to the national movement. Our critics regarded the National Congress as a Hindu Congress, and the opposition papers described it as such. We were straining every nerve to secure the cooperation of our Mohammedan fellow-countrymen in this great national work. <b>We sometimes paid the fares of Mohammedan delegates and offered them other facilities. </b>Even Gokhale remarked in one of his letters, "Seventy million Mohammedans were more or less hostile to national aspirations" (The History and Culture of Indian People, RC Mazumdar, pp 315-316, Vol 10 [2]).

All leading Muslim institutions and personalities joined hands in their indignation against Indian National Congress. Resolutions condemning the Congress were passed by Muslims of Allahabad, Lucknow, Meerut, Lahore, Madras and other places. The Mohammedan Observer, The Victoria Paper, The Muslim Herald, The Rafiq-i-Hind and The Imperial Paper all spoke in one voice against the Indian National Congress. The Central National Mohammedan Association of Bengal, the Mohammedan Literary Society of Calcutta, the Anjuman-i-Islamia of Madras, the Dindigal Anjuman and the Mohammedan Central Association, Punjab denounced in the strongest possible terms the Congress aims and activities. <b>Sir Syed himself set up United India Patriotic Association and Mohammedan Anglo-Oriental Defence Association to checkmate the success of the Congress</b> (ibid, p 317).
The earlier leaders of the Congress (most of them barristers) were Anglophiles. Though sincerely patriotic, they were European in their outlook. They could understand each other only through the medium of English even when someone said, "I am an Indian!" Sir Syed was also an avowed Anglophile who wanted to extricate the Muslim community out of its medievalist orthodoxy. He was the first Indian Muslim to visit Europe. He urged the Muslims to follow the same line of development which was chalked out by Raja Rammohan Roy almost half a century before. In 1865, he founded the "Scientific Society" for translating useful English
books on various subjects into Urdu and circulating them among the Muslims.
Yet we see an Anglophile Sir Syed opposing the Indian National Congress lorded over by 'Europeanised' Indians. Though Sir Syed was loosening the grip of orthodoxy from over the Muslim community, he was bolstering its alienation like never before. Was this an example of "scientific secularism"? He was the first to refer to two nationalities, Hindus and Muslims, in India. His policies materialised in the form of the birth of the Muslim League in 1906 in Dacca (Dhaka). That was almost a decade before Gandhi set foot on Indian soil in 1915. Muslims abhorred the Congress because they were not interested in living as equals in an independent country. They wanted not equality, but superiority, as prevailed during the Islamic ages in India.     

(The writer, a Rajya Sabha MP, and the Convenor of BJP's Think Tank can be contacted at bpunj@email.com)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Gandhi and Britain: Loyalty, Disillusionment, Longing
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Gandhi would more assertively use the argument of Indians being of the same racial stock as Europeans, to justify his agitations for franchise to Indians, as he wrote to the Colonial Secretary:

      With the greatest respect to Your Honour, we beg to point out that both the Anglo-Saxon and the Indian races belong to the same stock. We read Your Honour's eloquent speech at the time of the second reading of the bill with rapt attention and took great pains to ascertain if any writer of authority gave countenance to the view expressed by Your Honour about the difference of the stocks from which both the races have sprung up. Max Muller, Morris, Greene, and a host of other writers with one voice seem to show very clearly that both the races have sprung from the same Aryan stock, or rather the Indo-European as many call it. We have no wish to thrust ourselves as members of a brother nation on a nation that would be unwilling to receive us as such, but we may be pardoned if we state the real facts, the alleged absence of which has been put forward as an argument to pronounce us as unfit for the exercise of the franchise...It has given us no small satisfaction to know that, however unjust Your Honour's speech may have appeared to us from our point of view, it breathed truest sentiments of justice, morality and, what is more, Christianity. So long as such a spirit is noticeable among the chosen of the land, we would never despair of right being done in every case.(7)

The more history books Gandhi read, the stronger his acceptance became of the tale of “white Aryans" of colonizing India, the obvious implication of such a tale being, that the British colonists were now just one of the many lighter-skinned foreign colonists of the subcontinent. Indoctrinating that belief into Indians was the prime purpose of the Aryan Invasion Theory, in order to generate acceptance of colonial rule. Gandhi was the type of subject Lord Macaulay would have dreamed of – someone with an average intelligence likely to accept at face value even the most absurd theory without doing much thinking on the subject:

      History says that the Aryans' home was not India but they came from Central Asia, and one family migrated to India and colonized it, the others to Europe...It is true England "wafts her scepter" over India. The Indians are not ashamed of that fact. They are proud to be under the British crown, because they think that England will prove India's deliverer.(8)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of Sabarmati secularism & non-violence

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Of Sabarmati secularism & non-violence
Arvind Lavakare.

After his world-famous satyagraha in apartheid South Africa, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi returned to India towards the end of 1914 and almost immediately plunged into the country's public life by starting an ashram in Ahmedabad on the banks of the Sabarmati river, with 'Truth' and 'Non-violence' as his slogans. The recent fracas in that ashram entailing a physical assault on Medha Patkar of the Narmada Bachao Andolan by a group allegedly led by a BJP youth leader was grist to the mill of our 'secularists' in the media and elsewhere.

<b>Baying for the blood of the Hindutva brigade and the Gujarat government for the sustained militancy against Muslims there while totally ignoring the latter's retaliation in select pockets, these 'secularists' used the Sabarmati Ashram incident to rub salt into the wounded Hindu psyche by proclaiming the irony of sustained communal violence in Gandhi country. </b>

That derision provokes a retrospective look at Gandhi's concept of Hindu-Muslim unity, religious tolerance and non-violence.

Let's go back then to Gandhi's role in the Khilafat Movement. That movement, remember, was sparked by Kemal Pasha's decision at the end of the First World War to finish off the regime of the autocratic and dynastic Sultan of Turkey, who was titled the Caliph and was looked upon as the temporal representative of Allah as well as the religious head of the entire Islamic world.

Unwilling to free themselves from the chains of mullahs and maulvis, the anger of the Muslims in India against the British rule assumed a new edge. For the first time, these Muslims remembered the Hindus. The Muslim League session of December 1919 discussed what was believed to be Khilafat injustice and invited the Congress leaders to join hands with them. Gandhi jumped at the offer.

"If the Hindus wish to cultivate eternal friendship with Mussalmans," said Gandhi, "they must perish with them in the attempt to vindicate the honour of Islam" (V B Kulkarni in his India And Pakistan, page 219). Gandhi decided to lead the Khilafat agitation himself even before the Congress called for the Non-cooperation Movement on the Khilafat issue in its emergency session in Calcutta in August 1920. Thus had Gandhi let religion enter the political domain - 'secularists', please note.

Occupying the position of the "right hand and left hand" of Gandhi in his Khilafat agitation were two brothers: Maulana Mohammed Ali and Maulana Shaukat Ali. Why were two Muslims chosen? As Gandhi himself explained, he was "seeking the friendship of good Mussalmans... to understand the Mussalman through contact with their purest and most patriotic representatives". (A Hindu Nationalist in Gandhi-Muslim Conspiracy, page 70).

These two blue-eyed Muslims of Gandhi, today's 'secularists' must note, were the ones who later wrote a letter to the Amir of Afghanistan inviting him to invade Bharat. The letter was followed by a telegram urging him not to enter into any kind of peace arrangement with the British. The telegram's draft was written in the distinctive handwriting of... Gandhi himself. Yes, Gandhi was willing to assist the Amir in staging a war against the British on Indian soil. He wrote as much in Young India in May 1921.

Although the Khilafat Movement fizzled out in 1921 itself, propaganda was set afloat among Kerala's local Muslims -- the Moplahs -- that the British regime had ended and Khilafat had been reinstated. The time to eliminate all kafirs had come, they were told. The Moplahs followed it up by anointing one Mohommed Haji as their Caliph and proclaimed jihad -- against the British first and, after being defeated by the colonialists, against the Hindus. According to the Report of the Enquiry Committee of the Servants of India Society, the number of Hindus murdered was 1,500, the number of those forcibly converted was 20,000 and property looted was assessed at about Rs 30 million, while the molestation and abduction of Hindu women was apparently endless. In The Future of Indian Politics, page 252, Dr Annie Besant wrote, "They murdered and plundered abundantly, and killed or drove away all Hindus who would not apostatise. Somewhere about a lakh (100,000) of people were driven from their homes with nothing but their clothes they had on, stripped of everything."

Today's 'secularists' and today's Gandhi must note the resolution of the Congress Working Committee on the Moplah carnage. While condemning their violence, it stated that "the Working Committee desires it to be known that the evidence in its possession shows that provocation beyond endurance was given to the Moplahs". Ah, "provocation" was defensible then but not now after Godhra! Incidentally, despite Dr Besant's account, the CWC put the figure of conversions at just three.

Gandhi's reaction to the Moplah carnage must also be noted by today's 'secularists'. According to B R Ambedkar's book, Pakistan, page 148, Gandhi's comment on the Moplah marauders was: "They are brave and god-fearing people who were fighting for what they consider as religion, and in a manner which they consider as religion." And, in a Young India issue of 1924, Gandhi wrote, "My own experience but confirms the opinion that the Mussalman as a rule is a bully, and the Hindu as a rule is a coward. Need the Hindus blame the Mussalman for his cowardice?" In the context of the latter 'logic', today's 'secularists' must tell us what their Sabarmati practitioner of non-violence would have said of the boiling Hindu blood, post-Godhra, having spilt beyond 'cowardice'.

Here's another instance of Gandhi's 'logic' in defence of his Mussalman. On December 23, 1926, Swami Shraddhananda, an eminent Congress as well as Arya Samaj leader who had launched a campaign to bring back the converted into the Hindu fold, was shot four times in his sick bed by a Muslim youth, Abdul Rashid. Although hanged for that crime, Rashid was treated by the Muslim community as some sort of martyr deserving of a special namaaz in the masjids and five complete recitations of the Koran. And in the Congress session in Guwahati, 1926, Gandhi himself said, "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." (History of Congress, page 516, by Pattabhi Sitaramayya, a prominent Congress leader.) Today's 'secularists' -- who are, post-Godhra, simply itching to hang Narendra Modi in the public square -- must note what Gandhi's concept of 'guilty' was.

These 'secular' chappies must also note that Gandhi, who had such a soft corner for the likes of Abdul Rashid, the Ali brothers and the Moplahs, was the one who refused to sign a petition for saving the life of Bhagat Singh, and he was also the one who condemned Chhatrapati Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Gobind as misguided patriots (The Tragic Story of Partition, page 82, Jagaran Publication, 2nd edition, 1984, by H V Seshadri).

And yes, these 'secularists' must also note how the Ali brothers -- those "purest representatives of the Mussalman mind" -- reciprocated Gandhi's affection for them after they had no need of him once the Khilafat Movement became history. In 1924, Maulana Mohammed Ali stated: "However pure Mr Gandhi's character may be, he must appear to me, from the point of religion, inferior to any Mussalman even though he be without character." A year later, the Maulana 'improved' upon that statement by saying "Yes, according to my religion and creed, I do hold an adulterous and a fallen Mussalman to be better than Mr Gandhi" (History of the Freedom Movement by R C Majumdar).

But Gandhi was sold on his brand of communal harmony and on his Mussalmans, whatever they said about him in the Islamic context. Thus, in his post-prayer speech at Birla Mandir, New Delhi, on April 6, 1947, Gandhi said, "<b>Hindus should never be angry against the Muslims even if the latter might make up their minds to undo even their existence.</b>" In another post-prayer speech asking the Partition-inflicted Hindus not to seek refuge in India, he said, "<b>They should not be afraid of death. After all, the killers will be none other than our Muslim brothers.</b>"

If the 'secularists' in the media and elsewhere want the Hindus of 2002 to accept those Sabarmati shibboleths of non-violence and amity with the Muslims at any cost, they ought to also demand that the red carpet be laid for Pakistan to just stride into Srinagar and all the way down into Sabarimalai -- via Sabarmati, if you please.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It does not matter what Gandhi really was. For the future of India it matters, what Gandhi is remembered as. Gandhi is compared to Christ. Christ believed in offering another chick if some one slaps on one. so did Gandhi. Do devoted Christians follow that? do devoted Christians criticize Christ? Would Christianity have survived if it was followed according to Christ's beliefs? But it did. and it is the largest religion in the world. And Christ is still its prophet.


History has Gandhi=greatness=India. Play along fellows. Spreading hate for Gandhi is not going to undo what he did. Gandhi and his team are in the foundation of 'modern India'. good men or not they are in the foundation of independent India. All of them are no more. What wrong they did could not be undone by critisizing them today. If we critisize them today a feeling of distrust will follow for our 'founding fathers'. we will stay divided and bitter towards our history and our own. Read Gita any one? we only have right on what we are given.

So let us take Gandhis, Nehrus(yes even Nehrus), Patels let us adorn them with gold and garlands let us sing their praise and what great they did for our country. let us repeat and flaunt what was good about them, let us down play what was not so good. Let us know the history. But let us decide what it means. A meaning that is for the good of the future of our country.

No great heroes of the history lived the way history says they did. Churchill is respected as Britain’s greatest patriot. the Leader who brought Britain out of world war, winner, but he was not even elected to the office soon after WWII. how often is that said about Churchill?

Let me offer my garland to Gandhi. Believe this to be true.

"Legacy of Gandhi is not non violence, but Pride. Gandhi had no doubt about his rights to freedom. He did not wanted to behave like a thief to ask what was his. Therefore he did not support violence. He believed India was his country and he will go to the British look him in the eye and tell him to leave. To stand staring at the barrel of the loaded gun is bravery, to stand in the line of dandi march in bravery. Gandhi or his followers were not coward but they decide to fight with honor. that is their legacy. He did not wanted to fight like Palestinians are doing today. throwing stones and running away. He was like laxmi bai of jhansi. Laxmi bai was like Gandhi. She did avoided violence till the end. and then fought bravely when every possible effort of peace failed. If Gandhi had a legitimate army and a kingdom he would have fought bravely like Laxmi bai. He was a leader of honorable men and a proud culture and we shall all be thankful to him and his followers to give us a history clean of any guilt or misdoing. And let us make that important."
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Play along fellows. Spreading hate for Gandhi is not going to undo what he did.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So what you are advising people to do is to allow false history to be preached to Indians about Gandhi by asking us to play along, no one is spreading hate here, what we are doing is spreading the truth about Gandhi, if u cannot differentiate between truth and hate then its not our fault.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->If we critisize them today a feeling of distrust will follow for our 'founding fathers'. we will stay divided and bitter towards our history and our own. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So according to you criticism of Gandhi is wrong even though the criticism is valid and based on facts, on this pretext false history is being drummed into the heads of Hindu children in India which you want us to ignore because according to you spreading the truth will create division, sorry but I prefer a divided country that knows the truth rather than a united country which is kept in the dark about true history.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->So let us take Gandhis, Nehrus(yes even Nehrus), Patels let us adorn them with gold and garlands let us sing their praise and what great they did for our country. let us repeat and flaunt what was good about them, let us down play what was not so good. Let us know the history. But let us decide what it means. A meaning that is for the good of the future of our country. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You selectively only want to highlight the good in those people but want to playdown the enormous blunders they committed, I do not know of any reputable historian who will agree with this philosophy of supressing the truth. It is precisely this policy of highlighting only the good done by Gandhi that led to his deification in India so much so that today Gandhian goons can try to supress the Marathi play on Nathuram Godse a couple of years ago, highlight both the good and bad done by him and don't cherrypick what u like while supressing what u don't like.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)