Blunders Of Mahatma Gandhi Mahatma Gandhi , the man who captured everyone‟s imagination during his life time. The man who took jainism‟s non violence, Lord Ram‟s moral ethos , Jesus‟s trust on humanity and implemented implemented it to mass mobilize humans in numbers unseen,unheard in quest of freedom of India. What is significance of Mahatma Gandhi?…The best sum up of what it means was given by albert einstein which is as follows : Mahatma Gandhi’s life achievement stands unique in political history. He has invented a completely new and humane means for the liberation war of an oppressed country, and practised it with greatest energy and devotion. The moral influence he had on the consciously thinking human being of the entire civilized world will probably be much more lasting than it seems in our time with its overestimation of brutal violent forces. Because lasting will only be the work of such statesmen who wake up and strengthen the moral power of their people through their example and educational works.We may all be happy and grateful that destiny gifted us with such an enlightened contemporary, a role model for the generations to come. Generations to come will scarce believe that such a one as this walked the earth in flesh and blood. There is no doubt in my mind about how gandhi was impact world in future. I dare say human race of future would be most influenced by gandhi because there lies possibility of what it means of being human.
My today‟s article is not on greatness or impact of mahatma gandhi but blunders of man called mohandas karamchand gandhi. Mahatma means great soul but great soul doesnot mean being god and as human being Mahatma too erred and erred in big big way. In democracy none is above criticism be it be b r ambedkar , mahatma gandhi , nehru or vajpayee. Today I am going to write what in my view are big blunders of mahatma gandhi. Blunder which perhaps changed course of subcontinent subcontinent.. 1) Khilafat Movement : Begaani shaadi mein abdullah deewana… What the hell Indian Muslims to do with Turkey ruler also caliph and had one of biggest empire ever and one of great dynasties that humans have seen. Yup ruler was muslim and ottoman empire was perhaps greatest muslim empire in the world but still what it has to do with Indian muslims?. Muslim league understood this but ali brothers didnt. They started the movement and appealed to mahatma who supported. It was example of hindu-muslim unity as per believers in movement but one man understood its consequences. The man was Muhammad ali jinnah who opposed the movement. Deeply secular at that time he was concerned about mixing religion and politics and he warned mahatma against side effects of the same. The movement collapsed with mahatma withdrawing after chori chora incident and ali brothers distancing themselves from it. Promoters of Pakistan consider it as significant movement in formation of pakistan . Jinnah himself later used religion as tool for formation of Pakistan.
My today‟s article is not on greatness or impact of mahatma gandhi but blunders of man called mohandas karamchand gandhi. Mahatma means great soul but great soul doesnot mean being god and as human being Mahatma too erred and erred in big big way. In democracy none is above criticism be it be b r ambedkar , mahatma gandhi , nehru or vajpayee. Today I am going to write what in my view are big blunders of mahatma gandhi. Blunder which perhaps changed course of subcontinent subcontinent.. 1) Khilafat Movement : Begaani shaadi mein abdullah deewana… What the hell Indian Muslims to do with Turkey ruler also caliph and had one of biggest empire ever and one of great dynasties that humans have seen. Yup ruler was muslim and ottoman empire was perhaps greatest muslim empire in the world but still what it has to do with Indian muslims?. Muslim league understood this but ali brothers didnt. They started the movement and appealed to mahatma who supported. It was example of hindu-muslim unity as per believers in movement but one man understood its consequences. The man was Muhammad ali jinnah who opposed the movement. Deeply secular at that time he was concerned about mixing religion and politics and he warned mahatma against side effects of the same. The movement collapsed with mahatma withdrawing after chori chora incident and ali brothers distancing themselves from it. Promoters of Pakistan consider it as significant movement in formation of pakistan . Jinnah himself later used religion as tool for formation of Pakistan.
According to me it was blunder of mahatma . If mahatma wanted to bring muslims on board it should have been indigenous as well as something which equally effected Indians irrespective of fate. Salt movement which mahatma later did is example of something which effected all. 2) Not Letting Subhash Chandra Bose Head Congress : Impact of this has been huge because it did set precedent of preference of authoritativeness over democracy. It was mahatma who inspired subash to join congress . It was mahatma who had huge influence on subhash and it was subhash who gave mahatma title of „father of nation‟. nation‟. Inspite of they being close personally , both had lot of differences in their respective point of views. Nehru too had difference of opinion with mahatma but unlike nehru , subhash decided to resign from congress presidentship and form his own party and later leave nation to form Indian National Army. It can only be speculated about how things would have been if subhash was allowed to continue as congress chief . Jinnah too in one of his interviews said that had he to negotiate with subhash instead of nehru , things would have been different… 3) Making Nehru As Prime Minister : Now I differ from views which is becoming popular among many in recent times and that view is blaming nehru and even questioning his way of life ,his vision etc. I strongly believe that nehru‟s contribution in nation building has been huge. He did what first prime minister of India should have done and that is building institutes . IITs, IIMs, ISC, ISRO,ATIRA and even navratnas.
Then why I consider mahatma‟s decision to make nehru as prime minister as blunder?. Mahatma by over ruling congress‟s decision of making sardar patel as prime minister of India ,undermined democracy. The mistake he repeated after doing in justice to subhash. This choosing prime minister is still followed as seen in congress of today. Now sonia gandhi is not even 1% of mahatma but following „I CHOOSE‟ tradition , she chose dr manmohan singh. In next opportunity she may chose rahul baba …This „I Choose‟ concept is blunder. In democracy only votes can choose and that applies to political parties too. Thrill of the chaste: The truth about Gandhi’s sex life With religious chastity under scrutiny, a new n ew book throws light on Gandhi’s practice of sleeping next to naked girls. In fact, he was sex-mad, writes biographer Jad Adams It was no secret that Mohandas Gandhi had an unusual sex life. He spoke constantly of sex and gave detailed, often provocative, instructions to his followers as to how to they might best observe chastity. And his views were not always popular; “abnormal and unnatural” was how the first Prime Minister of independent i ndependent India, Jawaharlal Nehru, described Gandhi‟s advice to newlyweds to stay celibate for the sake of their souls. But was there something more complex than a pious plea for chastity at play in Gandhi‟s beliefs, preachings and even his unusual personal practices pra ctices (which included, alongside his famed chastity, sleeping naked next to nubile, naked women to test his restraint)? In the course of researching my new book on Gandhi, going through a hundred volumes of his complete works and many tomes
of eye-witness material, details became apparent which add up to a more bizarre sexual history.
Much of this material was known during his lifetime, but was distorted or suppressed after his death during the process of elevating Gandhi into the “Father of the Nation” Was the Mahatma, in fact, as the prepre independence independenc e prime minister of the Indian state of Travancore called him, “a most dangerous, semisemi repressed sex maniac”? Gandhi was born in the Indian state of Gujarat and married at 13 in 1883; his wife Kasturba was 14, not early by the standards of Gujarat at that time. The young couple had a normal sex life, sharing a bed in a separate room in his family home, and Kasturba was soon pregnant.
Two years later, as his father lay dying, Gandhi left his bedside to have sex with Kasturba. Meanwhile, his father drew his last breath. The young man compounded his grief with guilt that he had not been present, and represented his subsequent revulsion towards “lustful love” as being related to his father‟s death. However, Gandhi and Kasturba‟s last child wasn‟t born until fifteen years later, in 1900. In fact, Gandhi did not develop his censorious attitude to sex (and certainly not to marital sex) until he was in his 30s, while a volunteer in the ambulance corps, assisting the British Empire in its wars in Southern Africa. On long marches in sparsely populated land in the Boer War and the Zulu uprisings, Gandhi considered how he could best “give service” to humanity and decided it must be by embracing poverty and chastity. At the age of 38, in 1906, he took a vow of brahmacharya, which meant living a spiritual life but is normally referred to as chastity, without which such a life is deemed impossible by Hindus. Gandhi found it easy to embrace poverty. It was chastity that eluded him. So he worked out a series of complex rules which meant he could say he was chaste while still engaging in the most explicit sexual conversation, letters and behaviour. With the zeal of the convert, within a year of his vow, he told readers of his newspaper Indian Opinion: “It is the duty of every thoughtful Indian not to marry. In case he
is helpless in regard to marriage, he should abstain from sexual intercourse with his wife.” Meanwhile, Gandhi was challenging that abstinence in his own way. He set up ashrams in which he began his first “experiments” with sex; boys and girls were to bathe and sleep together, chastely, but were punished for any sexual talk. Men and women were segregated, and Gandhi‟s advice was that husbands should not be alone with their wives, and, when they felt passion, should take a cold bath. The rules did not, however, apply to him. Sushila Nayar, the attractive sister of Gandhi‟s secretary, also his personal physician, attended Gandhi from girlhood. She used to sleep and bathe with Gandhi. When challenged, he explained how he ensured decency was not offended. “While she is bathing I keep my eyes tightly shut,” he said, “I do not know … whether she bathes naked or with her underwear on. I can tell from the sound that she uses soap.” The provision of such personal services to Gandhi was a much sought-after sign of his favour and aroused jealousy among the ashram inmates. As he grew older (and following Kasturba‟s death) he was to have more women around him and would oblige women to sleep with him whom – according to his segregated ashram rules – were forbidden to sleep with their own husbands. Gandhi would have women in his bed, engaging in his “experiments” which seem to have been, from a reading of his letters, an exercise in striptease or other non-contact sexual activity. Much explicit material has been destroyed but tantalising remarks in Gandhi‟s letters remain such as: “Vina‟s sleeping with me
might be called an accident. All that can be said is that she slept close to me.” One might assume, then, that getting into the spirit of the Gandhian experiment meant something more than just sleeping close to him. It can‟t, one imagines, can have helped with the “involuntary discharges” which Gandhi complained of experiencing more frequently since his return to India. He had an almost magical belief in the power of semen: “One who conserves his vital fluid acquires unfailing power,” he said. Meanwhile, it seemed that challenging times required greater efforts of spiritual fortitude, and for that, more attractive women were required: Sushila, who in 1947 was 33, was now due to be supplanted in the bed of the 77-year-old Gandhi by a woman almost half her age. While in Bengal to see what comfort he could offer in times of inter-communal violence in the run-up to independence, Gandhi called for his 18-year-old grandniece Manu to join him – and sleep with him. “We both may be killed by the Muslims,” he told her, “and must put our purity to the ultimate test, so that we know that we are offering the purest of sacrifices, and we should now both start sleeping naked.” Such behaviour was no part of the accepted practice of bramacharya. He, by now, described his reinvented concept of a brahmachari as: “One who never has any lustful intention, who, by constant attendance upon God, has become proof against conscious or unconscious emissions, who is capable of lying naked with naked women, however beautiful, without being in any manner whatsoever sexually excited … who is making daily and
steady progress towards God and whose every act is done in pursuance of that end and no other.” That is, he could do whatever he wished, so long as there was no apparent “lustful intention”. He had effectively redefined the concept of chastity to fit his personal practices. Thus far, his reasoning was spiritual, but in the maelstrom that was India approaching independence he took it upon himself to see his sex experiments as having national importance: “I hold that true service of the country demands this observance,” he stated. But while he was becoming bolder in his selfrighteousness, Gandhi‟s behaviour was widely discussed and criticised by family members and leading politicians. Some members of his staff resigned, including two editors of his newspaper who left after refusing to print parts of Gandhi‟s sermons dealing with his sleeping arrangements. But Gandhi found a way of regarding the objections as a further reason tocontinue. “If I don‟t let Manu sleep with me, though I regard it as essential that she should,” he announced, “wouldn‟t that be a sign of weakness in me?” Eighteen-year-old Abha, the wife of Gandhi‟s grandnephew Kanu Gandhi, rejoined Gandhi‟s entourage in the run-up to independence in 1947 and by the end of August he was sleeping with both Manu and Abha at the same time. When he was assassinated in January 1948, it was with Manu and Abha by his side. Despite her having been his constant companion in his last years, family members,
tellingly, removed Manu from the scene. Gandhi had written to his son: “I have asked her to write about her sharing the bed with me,” but the protectors of his image were eager to eliminate this element of the great leader‟s life. Devdas, Gandhi‟s son, accompanied Manu to Delhi station where he took the opportunity of instructing her to keep quiet. Questioned in the 1970s, Sushila revealingly placed the elevation of this lifestyle to a brahmacharya experiment was a response to criticism of this behaviour. “Later on, when people started asking questions about his physical contact with women – with Manu, with Abha, with me – the idea of brahmacharya experiments was developed … in the early days, there was no question of calling this a brahmacharya experiment.” It seems that Gandhi lived as he wished, and only when challenged did he turn his own preferences into a cosmic system of rewards and benefits. Like many great men, Gandhi made up the rules as he went along. While it was commonly discussed as damaging his reputation when he was alive, Gandhi‟s sexual behaviour was ignored for a long time after his death. It is only now that we can piece together information for a rounded picture of Gandhi‟s excessive self -belief in the power of his own sexuality. Tragically for him, he was already being sidelined by the politicians at the time of independence. The preservation of his vital fluid did not keep India intact, and it was the power-brokers of the Congress Party who negotiated the terms of India‟s freedom.
Gandhi: Naked Ambition is published by Quercus (£20). To order a copy for the special price of £18 (free P&P) call Independent Books Direct on 08430 600 030, or visit www.independentbooksdirect.co.uk
Resistance to the Soul : Gandhi and His Critics By Michael F. Plotkin Looking back at the twentieth century, as it is almost at its end, it has been marked by the bloodiest conflicts ever known to Humankind. From the death and destruction, the annals of history will forever manifest those who contributed to the barbarous events and those who attempted to resist the inhumane acts of aggressors. Belonging to the latter, one personality seems to stand out amongst the lot of humanitarians and peace loving peopleMohandas K. Gandhi. Although Gandhi was a remarkable nationalist leader, he was less concerned with the ends of his actions and more with the means of achieving independence for India. Gandhi believed in the idea of non-violent resistance and civil disobedience. These two elements of Gandhi‟s plan for Indian Independence , stemmed from his philosophy of Satyagraha or soul force. When most nationalist movements of the twentieth century were being executed through the use of violence, Gandhi sought to employ a method that opposed the practice or the advocacy of violence to achieve political goals. His method was based on "Truth, Love and Self-suffering". It was through this method that any adversity could be conquered. By sacrificing
one‟s self to your opponent‟s wrath without violent retaliation, your opponent would give in because of the commitment to self-sacrifice on the part of the Satyagrahis (Person practicing Satyagraha). Gandhi utilized this method of Soul Force to achieve political reform in South Africa, independence in India and to transform himself into the person that he wanted to be. Gandhi‟s methods gained him tremendous praise from people worldwide, including his adversaries and served as a catalyst for the mass movement towards ending the British Raj. Long after Gandhi‟s assassination, Gandhi and his ideas are still admired for their humanitarian and almost saintly attributes. Some revere Gandhi "…as perhaps the greatest figure of the last nineteen hundred years", while others have made serious criticisms of his ideas and methods. Rajani Palme Dutt, saw Gandhi‟ s actions as a method of protecting the interests of the Bourgeoisie in India during a time of uncertainty. K. Sarwar Hasan contests that Gandhi‟s political ideas and actions based on Hindu doctrine alienated the Muslims of India. Hindu Nationalist V. D. Savarkar , thought that Gandhi‟s methods contradicted the religious outlook of Hinduism and jeopardized Hindu political interests as well. The leader of The All Indian Depressed Class Federation and "Untouchable" , B. R. Ambedkar contends that Gandhi was a proponent of the Caste System and an antagonist towards progress that would have benefited all of India, especially the depressed classes. These men set forth a plethora of strong criticism against a man who was simply searching
for the truth. It will be the goal of this work to answer these criticisms, when possible, through the use of Gandhi‟s ideas and historical fact. Dutt construes a Marxist view of Gandhism and contends that Gandhi‟s methods were not as altruistic as they appeared to be. These methods were a means of protecting the privileges of Indian landlords and Bourgeoisie that were being jeopardized by the unbridled force of the common masses. "Non-violence" is seen as a design , constructed and utilized to restrain this force that struck fear into the hearts of the landed class and to harness the force of the masses to compel the British to make concessions. When the Rowlette act was passed in 1919 it added to the atmosphere of dissatisfaction among the Indian people. At the end of World War I many Indian people expected civil liberties to be restored . The Rowlatt act was in favor of continuing the "war time vigors".1 This act caused widespread unrest and strikes in India. Dutt claims that it was Gandhi‟s primary intention to utilize civil disobedience and non-violence to stop the civil unrest and strikes. The Rowlatt act and its reforms had at first been accepted by Gandhi and the Congress. Once the violence erupted, Gandhi and congress shifted their positions and assumed the leadership role of the mass movement. This was done because the members of Congress , the Bourgeoisie, were worried about the violent masses turning against them. So, Gandhi planned a program of "Non-violent non-cooperation" to cope with this matter. It would be the middle-class that would
spear-head the movement while the masses were supposed to resort hand spinning, weaving and nonpayment of taxes. This plan is perceived by Dutt as a scheme to eliminate the possibility of the masses posing a threat to the landed class. The change in the position of Congress in reference to the Rowlatt, was accompanied by another phenomenon. Congress ceased to be just an organization of self-government with in the British empire but it transformed itself into a modern political party that was leading the masses into a struggle against the British. Like any other political party, Congress was bent on protecting their interests. Non-violent rhetoric "was an attempt to conciliate the interests of the masses with the big bourgeoisie and landlord interests which were opposed to any decisive mass struggle."2 Dutt believes this became more obvious after the Chauri Chaura incident in which peasant rioters killed a group of policemen and Gandhi subsequently withdrew his support for the movement. The fact that Gandhi withdraws his commitment to the movement by calling off the entire campaign and then substitute his original strategy with the "Constructive Program" indicates to Dutt that the Bourgeoisie was losing control of the movement and would attempt to regain it by calming the masses.3 Dutt is critical of Gandhi‟s actions that resulted in the suspension of the mass movement. Gandhi claims that he suspended the movement to end the violent outbreaks associated with it. Dutt believes that the Bardoli decision/resolution had an economic
motive. Since the movement was cancelled at " the height of public enthusiasm" it is an indication to the Marxist that the interests of the Bourgeoisie were being jeopardized. The enthusiasm and force of the masses at this time was potent enough to sweep away imperialism and might have done the same to landlordism in the process. This opinion is supported by the fact that the Ryots (peasants) had been instructed to resume the payment of taxes and rent once the mass civil disobedience movement was suspended. Dutt thinks that the resolution instituted by the Working Committee at Bardoli has little relation to the outbreak of violence. Three of its seven clauses specifically refer to the payment of rents by the peasants to the landlords. His conclusion is that this was a question of class interest and not a matter of suppressing the violence for its own sake. Non-violence is held to be disguise for class interest and to serve as a leash for the masses‟ activities that might have been counter productive to the interests of the propertied class. The keystone to this argument is that the payment or non-payment of taxes and rents is totally unrelated to the presence of mass hysteria, yet it was a major issue in the aftermath of this movement. Dutt sees Gandhi as " an ascetic defender of property…" because he uses "…the most religious principles of humanity and love to disguise his support of the property class." Gandhi is reduced to a " tool or mascot of the Bourgeoisie in every wave of the Indian struggle" It was Gandhi who was able
to attracted and guide the masses when the Bourgeoisie leadership failed to do so. He was able to harness the enthusiasm of the people in order to gain concessions from the British and also keep the masses in check by preventing a class revolution in India through the use of his non-violent philosophy. 4 Further evidence to support Dutt‟s opinion that non-violence was not a means of achieving independence but a method of maintaining leadership and bourgeois position is the salt march of March 1930. Gandhi limited this campaign to himself and his chosen disciples. It was by his instruction that the masses , including industrial workers were asked to be patient and continue the work of the "Constructive Program". In short, Dutt believes that Gandhi manipulated the masses by calling them to action when favorable to the bourgeoisie and then withdrawing his support if things got out of hand. Dutt claims this was the case in 1932, when Gandhi abandoned the movement once more to tend to the cause of the Harijans. It is easy to discern why a Marxist would oppose Gandhian philosophy. A Marxist such as Dutt, advocates the violent over turning of society by the masses and the establishment of a state based on Marxist doctrine. Gandhi was opposed to violence in general, especially as a means of bringing about political change. To Gandhi, the only acceptable method of attaining freedom was through nonviolence and civil disobedience. Through this method true Swaraj could be achieved. This did not mean the mere ousting of the British imperialists from
India but that Indians, through Gandhi‟s methods, would first learn how to master themselves. This was the purpose of the " Constructive Program" as proposed by Gandhi in the 1920‟s , to help the Indian people achieve independence by first creating " an atmosphere of perfect calm", unity among all Indians and to give up foreign cloth by producing their own.5 It was through this program that Gandhi thought people could learn how to rule themselves as individuals. To sum it up -Inward freedom must come before outward freedom. To Gandhi Swaraj was more than just political, economic and social freedom , it was a continuous movement of spiritual liberation and self-purification. This explains why Gandhi called for peaceful protest even though many others utilized violence. "If India was to achieve independence without violence and coercion that is how India would govern herself…once the Britis h are gone." 6 It is no lie that Gandhi suspended the mass movement, as Dutt claimed. In light of the occurrences at Chauri Chaura, Gandhi felt that the people were not ready for mass disobedience, since a prerequisite of a movement of mass disobedience is a law abiding citizenry. This was not the case at Chauri Chaura. The murder of the constables , who were defenseless at the hands of the crowd, was a blow to Gandhi who believed that " no provocation could have justified such an act." He believed that "… India was not ready for self-government until Indians were able to restrain themselves and have succeeded in getting control over the hooligans of
India."7 The notion that Gandhi was a spokesman or spin doctor for the Bourgeoisie seems absurd. Gandhi was simply a spokesman for all of humanity. He sought to help the "Untouchables" as well as the wealthy Hindus. Dutt claimed that Gandhi was guilty of manipulating the Ryots but Gandhi‟s actions show differently-they show that he had a genuine concern for them. Farmers in the village of Champaran were required , by law to plant three out of twenty parts of land with Indigo for their landlords. One peasant asked Gandhi to travel to Champaran and to inquire into the conditions of the Ryots there. Gandhi‟s inquiry led to an official investigation that found in favor of the Ryots. They were refunded a portion of the money , but the greater benefit was that this tithe was abolished.8 Another example of Gandhi‟s concern for the common folk was his actions in Ahmedabad. Mill hands were discontented with the low wages they were receiving from the mill owners. Gandhi first suggested arbitration between the two groups but that did not resolve the problem. Gandhi advises the laborers to strike and provides them with further advice on how to make the strike a success. In the end, a mutual agreement was reached and the strikers returned to work.9 If Gandhi did remove his support from any civil disobedience movement it was only because it became marred with acts of violence perpetrated by his fellow countrymen. Gandhi best explains his own actions by stating " if I can have nothing to do with the organized violence of the government, I can
have even less to do with the unorganized violence of the people."10 Non-violent non-cooperation was not just a method of achieving Swaraj but a method of resisting evil . Gandhi did not distinguish between violent acts committed by Indians or Englishmen, to him they are equally evil. It is obvious that a Marxist would be an opponent of Gandhism, and it come as no surprise that K. Sarwar Hasan, a Pakistani Muslim would also portray Gandhi‟s ideas and actions in a negative light. Gandhi‟s failure to attract a large Muslim following was his downfall according to Hasan. This deficiency was due to Gandhi‟s inability to understand and gratify the needs of the Muslim population in India. This became evident in 1919 when the terms of the Treaty of Sevres became known to India‟s Muslims. This treaty proposed a dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire and caused general unrest amongst Muslims in India. Hasan‟s contention is that Gandhi only took action on this matter because he felt forced to do so and it was an opportunity to address issues that concerned Hindus as well. "Gandhi consolidated joint grievances and proposed that congress should launch a campaign of mass noncooperation."11 Gandhi‟s proposal received opposition from Muslims, like Jinnah who saw Gandhi‟s "soul force" as a tree that would bear no fruit. The slow going pace of Gandhi‟s methods would only increase the divide between Muslims and Hindus since his method possessed an ideological foundation based on Hinduism. Muslims like Jinnah believed if mass support was to be gathered for the
cause of independence, it had to be done quickly. Hasan‟s most stalwart criticism is that Gandhi utilized the Hindu religion and traditions to guide the quest for India‟s independence. Gandhi‟s inspiration and language, that was associated with the movement, were products of Hindu scriptures like the Gita. India‟s independence was referred to as Ram Raj (Rule of God-Hindu god Rama) and the struggle itself was referred to as dharma yudh (Hindu religious war). These associations with Hinduism coupled with the fact that Gandhi was a Hindu repelled Muslims. According to Hasan it was Gandhi‟s desire to establish an independent India that was free of western models. This ruled out the possibility of independent India becoming a secular state. The Muslims wanted a secular state established to ensure that their religious rights would not be trampled on. Hasan believes that Gandhi could have done more to solidify HinduMuslim relations. He sees Gandhi‟s actions as futile attempts to appease Muslims and contends that nothing concrete was ever offered to Muslims. The fact that Gandhi was unable to rally enough Muslim support is not his downfall alone. Culpability can be found with the Muslims themselves. The fact that the Muslim community disapproved of Jinnah‟s joining of the Indian National Congress is proof enough that the divisions were not caused by Gandhi‟s actions alone, not to mention the historical rivalry. Gandhi‟s intentions and actions illustrate that he did not just placate the Muslims but truly desired to form a united India.
Gandhi treated Muslims as his equals. This was evident in South Africa as well as India. A main provision of his Triple Program was his commitment to strengthen Hindu-Muslim unity. He was a firm believer in the philosophy of the majority having respect for the minority. He considered Hindus and Muslims "natural brothers of India" and thought that it was more surprising to see them feud than if they should unite. His entire equation of a free India was based upon the notion of a "brotherhood of man". No distinctions were made between Hindus or Muslims or any other religion or race for that matter. On the eve of partition, Gandhi still advocated brotherhood between the two groups even though the splitting of India was the cause of severe disappointment for him.12 Hasan‟s claim that Gandhi saw the independence movement as a Hindu Holy war is a nearsighted judgement. Gandhi was simply expressing his feeling and ideas in a medium that he was most familiar with-Hinduism. If Gandhi did disagree with Muslim opinions at times it was only because they contradicted his creed of Ahisma and Satyagraha and his vision of an independent India. Not to mention that it was not only Muslims that Gandhi disagreed with. Hindu nationalists as well as Muslim nationalists set forth staunch opposition to Gandhi‟s plans and ideas. Gandhi‟s actions seemed extremely unorthodox to many Hindus. V. D. Savarkar, a Hindu nationalist, saw Gandhi as a threat to the existence of Hindus in India. Savarkar believed that Gandhi‟s influence over Congress hurt the Hindu cause, because Gandhi
gave in to Muslim demands. Gandhi supposedly jeopardized Swaraj by taking up the Khilafat issue. Muslim leaders in India tried to coerce Amir Nuillakhan of Afghanistan to invade India. Gandhi was aware of this vision to establish an Afghanistanian kingdom in India, yet did not distance himself from those that supported this invasion. In short, Gandhi‟s continual appeasement of the Muslims endangered the interests of Hindus according to Savarkar. This criticism serves to calcify the previous argument that Gandhi was in favor of a united India and had no ill will towards the Muslims or their interests. Gandhi probably would not have minded if a Muslim was head of the government as long as he shared the same views on brotherhood and equality among all people as Gandhi did. Gandhi did say that "Muslims in India were once Hindus, they just accepted Islam."13 Savarkar‟s criticisms stems from the criticisms that Gandhi made about Hindus that suggested that they were too closed minded to accept Muslims as their brothers and fellow countrymen. Criticism directed at Gandhi seems expected from the three previous sources, criticism from an Untouchable seems surprising. B.R. Ambedkar is under the impression that Gandhi was an advocate of the caste system. Gandhi saw the caste system as the backbone of Hindu society and did nothing to put an end to this evil practice even though it was the cause of misery for the Untouchables that Gandhi was supposedly trying to help. Ambedkar attempted
to support his claims by stating that Gandhi believes that "intermarriages were not necessarily for national unity, that dining together does not create peace and that the abandonment of the caste system in favor of a social system based on western ideals was a detriment to all. Ambedkar assumes that Gandhi is undemocratic in thought because he opposes a social system similar to that of western nations that made discrimination illegal. Ambedkar interprets Gandhi‟s views as conservative, reactionary, downright archaic and unrealistic. Gandhi‟s opposition to machinery and his commitment to Charka (the spinning wheel) is rejected by Ambedkar who believes that such modern devices will end economic and social ills in so far as progress will liberate the depressed classes of India not Gandhi‟s idealism. Gandhi‟s views will never be able to help the common man , so states Ambedkar. The only thing that will elevate him is culture. Culture advances and liberates humanity. It is the only thing that divorces humans from animals. But culture cannot be transmitted if people do not possess leisure time. Leisure time will only become available if the toils of life are lessened. In Ambedkar‟s opinion machines would produce leisure time by reducing the labor of the common person and this leisure time could be used for a "life of culture". 14 Gandhi saw the caste system as a blemish to Hinduism. If he ever said that the caste system possessed positive attributes it was only because he was in search of the truth. Which means he thought
it was to this end that the both the positive and negatives of the caste system should be examined. Gandhi was a friend to the Untouchables and despised their plight. He fought against the system of Untouchability by admitting Untouchables into the Ashram. Even though he was criticized for doing this and lost monetary support from many Hindus, he stuck to his guns. Gandhi believed that "it was a sin to believe anyone else is inferior to ourselves… Sin pollutes us not another human‟s touch… Caste is a blot to Hinduism that must be ended". 15 Gandhi criticizes his fellow Hindus for treating the Untouchables the same way the British treated Indians. His assumption was that , if the British were incorrect in their conduct then Hindus must be as well. Untouchables should be "treated as blood brothers as they are in fact…We (India) must free ourselves from this miserable condition then true Swaraj can be achieved". 16 Gandhi was correct in his assumption that peace and brotherhood would not be a product of intermarriages, dining together and the adoption of a social system based on a western model. In Gandhi‟s view all these things were useless if there was not a change in the conscience of Hindus. No law can force someone not to discriminate, only one‟s own convictions could do that. Ambedkar‟s assumption that a social system based on western ideals would bring about "civilization" in India was held in contempt by Gandhi. To Gandhi, civilization was equated with good conduct. Western culture was plagued by various maladies such as
materialism, competition and overindulgence. An assimilation in that direction would only hurt India and the depressed classes. Industrialization as advocated by Ambedkar would only cause the further exploitation of the Untouchables. Labor saving machines would result in more unemployment, further starvation, poverty and homelessness. It would provide benefits for the few and suffering for the many. Gandhi believed progress would not be thwarted by the refusal of labor saving machines because the only progress that mattered was that that considered all people. To Gandhi, progress is only progress if all Indians progressed together. The only device that considered the needs of all Indians was the spinning wheel. With it people could become self sufficient and labor for their benefit. Gandhi was an ordinary man who had great ideas. These critics misunderstood many of Gandhi‟s ideas. Their lack of comprehension is the cause of their criticisms. Their lack of vision is the cause of these criticisms. Gandhi was a dreamer and these men did not share the same dreams as Gandhi. It is no secret that Gandhi‟s ultimate dream did not come true- an independent united India. Does this mean that "the method" failed? Gandhi believed "the method" could never fail since it was a method of truth and love. If anything failed, he admitted "…I did." 17 In his life long search for the truth he like any other human being made mistakes and attracted criticisms. Even if these criticisms were all true, does that negate what Gandhi did for India and
humanity?
Mahatma Gandhi: Why did some people hate Mahatma Gandhi? Gandhi was a brilliant statesman, a master strategist and possibly one of the greatest leaders India has ever had. Since this question focuses on the negative side of the Mahatma, I'd not bring up the positive aspects of his personality. But that should not dilute his role in India's freedom struggle. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I've focused on the 1910 - 1947 era, but it still does not address some of the other controversial aspects of Gandhi's work, notably (a) Post independence policies (b) Economic policies (c) Pre-1921 work in South Africa (d) Sundry aspects around personal life (experiments with brahmcharya, treatment of his wife Kasturba, etc) (e) Gandhian influence on India's foreign policy and work in India
A. Non violence and its extreme application 1. Gandhi and the Jews 2. Rejection (and ridicule) of the revolutionaries 3. Failure of the non cooperation movement B. Forcing undemocratic changes within Congress 1. Crisis at Tripuri - the ousting of Netaji
2. Foisting Nehru as the leader of the Congress and India's first Prime Minister 3. Fasts as a method of blackmail C. Gandhi and the overall struggle for independence 1. Why wasn't Gandhi given a harsher punishment by the British? 2. Was Gandhi really successful in getting India independence - Supposed failure of the Quit India movement and the impact of Royal Indian Navy ratings 3. Supporting the Khilafat and rise of Muslim (and later Hindu) fundamentalism 4. Prematurely calling off two movements D. Personal life 1. Frugal living? 2. Views on the Hindu caste system E. The unfortunate killing of the Mahatma and Godse's critique (See http://www.esamskriti.com/essay-... for detailed text) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------A. Non violence and its extreme application Gandhi promoted non-violence, but went to great extremes to defend the system no matter how impractical the advice was or how badly it hit those who were working towards achieving the same objectives but by following different methods. 1. Gandhi and the Jews According to Gandhi, Jews should have given a "heroic response" to Hitler by committing mass suicide. This would have aroused the world and the Germans against Hitler.
Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs. As it is, they succumbed anyway in their millions. The Life of Mahatma Gandhi by Louis Fischer 2. Rejection (and ridicule) of the revolutionaries (a) Madan Lal Dhingra One of the absolutely smartest brains of India's freedom struggle is a relatively unknown person by the name of Madan Lal Dhingra. Together with Har Dayal, his thoughts and writings were to influence the Indian revolutionary struggle for the next 30 years.
[
Madan Lal Dhingra]
In 1909, he assassinated Sir Curzon Wyllie, an aide to the Secretary of State in India in London. He confessed to the killing, refused a defense counsel and made the following statement in the Court -
... I maintain that if it is patriotic for an Englishman to fight against the Germans if they were to occupy this country, it is much more justifiable and patriotic in my case to fight against the English. I hold the English people responsible for the murder of 80 millions of Indian people in the last fifty years, and they are also responsible for taking away ₤100,000,000 every year from India to this country. I also hold them responsible for the hanging and deportation of my patriotic countrymen, who did just the same as the English people here are advising their countrymen to do. ... Just as the Germans have no right to occupy this country, so the English people have no right to occupy India, and it is perfectly justifiable on our part to kill the Englishman ... I am surprised at the terrible hypocrisy, the farce, and the mockery of the English people. They pose as the champions of oppressed humanity—the peoples of the Congo and the people of Russia —when there is terrible oppression and horrible atrocities committed in India; for example, the killing of two millions of people every year ... In case this country is occupied by Germans, and the Englishman, not bearing to see the Germans walking with the insolence of conquerors in the streets of London, goes and kills one or two Germans, and that Englishman is held as a patriot by the people of this country, then certainly I am prepared to work for the emancipation of my Motherland. ... I wish that English people should sentence me to death, for in that case the vengeance of my countrymen will be all the more keen.
Source: Old Bailey records His parting thoughts, with echos of Nathan Hale -
I believe that a nation held down by foreign bayonets is in a perpetual state of war. Since open battle is rendered impossible to a disarmed race, I attacked by surprise. Since guns were denied to me I drew forth my pistol and fired. Poor in wealth and intellect, a son like myself has nothing else to offer to the mother but his own blood. And so I have sacrificed the same on her altar. The only lesson required in India at present is to learn how to die, and the only way to teach it is by dying ourselves. My only prayer to God is that I may be re-born of the same mother and I may redie in the same sacred cause till the cause is successful. Even the British held Dhingra in regard. Winston Churchill, then president of the Board of Trade was so impressed that he committed Dhingra's words to memory and said "they were the finest in the name of patriotism". Source: Gandhi & Churchill: The Epic Rivalry That Destroyed an Empire and Forged Our Age On the other hand, Gandhi's reaction in such situations wasn't silence, but a vocal, often highly contemptuous and many times an almost vitriolic critique.
It is being said in defence of Sir Curzon Wyllie’s assassination that...just as the British would kill every German if Germany invaded Britain, so too it is the right of any Indian to kill any Englishman.... The analogy...is fallacious. If the Germans were to invade Britain, the British would kill only the invaders. They would
not kill every German whom they met.... They would not kill an unsuspecting German... Even should the British leave in consequence of such murderous acts, who will rule in their place? ... India can gain nothing from the rule of murderers—no matter whether they are black or white. Under such a rule, India will be utterly ruined and laid waste.
(b) Hanging of Bhagat Singh One of the most romanticized episodes of India's revolutionary freedom struggle has been the execution of Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev. On April 8, 1929, Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt threw two bombs inside the central assembly protesting against two new draconian laws. They voluntarily surrendered with the objective of using their trial to inspire and lead the masses towards a revolution.
If the deaf are to hear, the sound has to be very loud. When we dropped the bomb, it was not our intention to kill anybody. We have bombed the British Government. The British must quit India and make her free. After a short trial, Bhagat Singh was hanged.
[The Tribune, March 25, 1931] Seven days later, Gandhi wrote in Young India
These heroes had conquered the fear of death. Let us bow to them a thousand times for their heroism. But we should not imitate their act. In our land of millions of destitute and crippled people, if we take to the practice of seeking justice through murder, there will be a terrifying situation. Our poor people will become victims of our atrocities. By making a dharma of violence, we shall be reaping the fruit of our own actions. When the countryside was seething with anger, Gandhi's words came almost as a shocker. A more serious allegation is that Gandhi never forced the British to commute Bhagat Singh's sentence. To give a brief about the background, these were no ordinary
times. By early 1931, the Congress struggle had gained momentum. Then came the Gandhi Irwin Pact, which restored confiscated land and freed political prisoners. Gandhi had allegedly signaled that he would not break the post civil disobedience truce to stop Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev's hanging. And the government promptly sent the three to the gallows. This led to an immense wave of anger against the Congress leadership and specifically Gandhi. Congressmen waived black flags against Gandhi when he left the train at Karachi. About 15 years back, an aged freedom fighter closely associated with the freedom struggle had mentioned to me that Gandhi could have stopped Bhagat Singh's execution. According to him, the sticky situation in which the British had found themselves is unimaginable in today's era and Gandhi simply did not do enough. That for me is enough of an evidence. Gandhi, however, could not prevent radicalization of Congress elements. 3. Failures of the non cooperation movement From 1920 - 1947, Gandhi prematurely ended two of the three big struggles that he launched - (a) Non Cooperation Movement (b) Civil Disobedience Movement (third one was the Quit India Movement) The Non - Cooperation Movement was hastily called off as it was begining to gather some momentum due to the Chauri Chaura incident. Wikipedia has a nice summary -
Around the first of February, 1922, volunteers participating in the Non-cooperation Movement protested for a fair price for meat in
the marketplace. The demonstrators were beaten back by local police. In response, a protest against the police was called for February 5, to be held in the local marketplace. February 5, 1922, arrived, approximately 2000 protesters assembled and began marching towards the Chauri Chaura bazaar. Armed police were dispatched to control the situation while the crowd marched towards the market and started shouting anti-government slogans. In an attempt to frighten and disperse the crowd, the police fired warning shots into the air but this only agitated the crowd who began to throw stones at the police. With the situation getting out of control, the subinspector ordered the police to open fire on the advancing crowd, killing three and wounding several others. Reports vary on the reason for the police retreat with some claiming that the police ran out of ammunition while others claim that fear of the crowd's unexpectedly courageous and angry reaction to the gunfire were the cause but whatever the case, in the ensuing chaos, the heavily outnumbered police fell back to the shelter of the police chowki while the angry mob advanced. Infuriated by the gunfire into their ranks, the crowd took revenge by setting the chowki ablaze, killing the 23 officers trapped inside. ... Appalled at the outrage, Gandhi went on a five-day fast as penance for what he perceived as his culpability in the bloodshed. ... On February 12, 1922, the Indian National Congress halted the Non-cooperation Movement on the national level as a direct result of the Chauri Chaura tragedy. The failure of the Non Cooperation movement led to a direct rise of militant nationalism in the decade of 1920s.
B. Forcing undemocratic changes within Congress
1. Crisis at Tripuri - the ousting of Netaji
[Gandhi with Netaji] In 1938, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, a charismatic leader from the left had been the choice as the president of the Congress. In 1939, he decided to contest elections again, bringing in radical ideas into the Congress. Instead of Gandhi's non violent and long term struggle, Subhas and his associates had been advocated a more radical and direct confrontation with the British. However, the top leadership of the Congress Working Committee decided to counter Subhas' radical thinking. With Gandhi's support, the leadership decided to put up Pattabhi Sitaramayya as a candidate against Subhas. Despite the full might of the Congress' top leadership, Subhas won the election. Gandhi declared: "Pattabhi's defeat is my defeat." Soon Gandhi's supporters resigned from the Working Committee and Subhas found himself isolated from the top Congress leadership. With no cooperation from Gandhi, Subhas resigned within a few months and decided to launch his own front.
2. Foisting Nehru as the leader of the Congress and India's first Prime Minister (a) Background
Everything started in early 1946 when the Indian National Congress had to elect a new President. It was an accepted fact that the leader chosen as the President would become the first Prime Minister of independent India. Three candidates were in the race - Acharya Kripalani, Pandit Nehru and Sardar Patel.
[Nehru, Kriplani and Patel]
Sardar Patel was easily the most popular. Everyone knew his efficiency and toughness for tackling difficult problems. 12 out of 19 State Congress Committees nominated him; none nominated Nehru. From the start, Gandhi had indicated that he favored Nehru. His reasoning was that his British education was an asset: "Jawaharlal cannot be replaced while the charge is being taken from the British. He, a Harrow boy, a Cambridge graduate and a
barrister is wanted to carry on the negotiations with the Englishmen." Another point Gandhi made was that while Sardar Patel would agree to work as Nehru's deputy, the reverse might not happen. He also felt that Nehru was better known abroad and could help India play a role in international affairs. Eventually in deference to Gandhi, Kripalani nominated Nehru and withdrew from the race. Patel had no choice but to follow his colleague, so that Nehru could be elected unopposed. Dr. Rajendra Prasad (India's first President) later stated: "Gandhi has once again sacrificed his trusted lieutenant for the sake of the glamorous Nehru." Source: India and her neighbors: A French Observers view, Claude Alpi, verified from other secondary sources. (b) There's a broad consensus that having Patel instead of Nehru at the helm of affairs would have been better for the nascent nation. This has been well documented - from the Hyderabad and Kashmir problems to the Chinese occupation of Tibet. [Can be expanded if folks feel like it]
3. Fasts as a method of blackmail Again well documented. But impacted Congress leadership more than the others. C. Gandhi and the overall struggle for independence 1. Why wasn't Gandhi given a harsher punishment by the British?
Most of the Indian revolutionaries were sentenced to very harsh punishments. However, the moderate Congress leadership was rarely subjected to such treatment. Those exiled to the harshest terms at the Andaman Cellular Jail were Batukeshwar Dutt, Lokmanya Tilak, Fazl-ul-Haq, VD Savarkar, Sohan Singh. However, Gandhi and other top Congress leaders were never subject to such harsh terms. While the revolutionaries were being hunted down and mercilessly executed, the Congress leadership would always end up in a prison.
[Andaman Cellular Jail] If the British thought that Gandhi was as dangerous as say a Bhagat Singh, why wasn't he tried under IPC for waging war against the country and subsequently hanged? Herein comes another theory, popularly known as the 'Safety valve theory'. In fact, the 1885 birth of the Indian National
Congress has been alleged to providing Indians with a platform to bring out their resentment vocally. Its aim was to "divert the minds of Indians from any sort of violence and further the British rule in India." Gandhi and the political leadership of the Congress could be seen as an extension of this safety valve and keeping the British rule immune from violence and any real threat from anarchy.
2. Was Gandhi really successful in getting India independence - Supposed failure of the Quit India movement and the impact of Royal Indian Navy ratings In 1942, Congress passed a resolution in Wardha demanding complete independence from the British. In his Quit India speech, Gandhi told Indians to follow non-violent civil disobedience. Although his call found support among a large amount of Indians, the mobilization at the national level faded. The top leadership of the Congress was quickly sent to secret locations by the British. There were over 100,000 mass arrests.
And by early 1944, the movement was all but over, with India back to being peaceful and its leaders still in jail. However, another unexpected turn of events took place. Subhas Chandra Bose, the exiled Congress leader had escaped India and formed an army of combatants who had surrendered to the Japanese in South East Asia. At its peak, the strength of the Indian National Army (INA) reached 43,000 men.
[Netaji and the INA]
The original plan was to work with the Congress to instigate an internal rebellion while in the INA. Gandhi was opposed to the idea as it involved an armed struggle and aligning with the Axis powers. Soon, the Axis powers lost and the military rout of the INA was near complete. At the conclusion of the war, the British Indian government brought captured INA soldiers to trial at the Red Fort on treason
charges. The historic Red Fort trials generated a wave of anger and the armed forces became sympathetic to the cause. For instance, the Royal Indian Navy staged a mutiny that spread and found support throughout British India, and came to involve 78 ships, 20 shore establishments and 20,000 sailors. Soldiers at Jabalpur staged another revolt. It was only after appeals from the Congress, League and CPI leaders that the strikes were called off. The British now increasingly realized that the Indian army, unlike in 1942, could not be used to suppress a revival of the Quit India movement owing largely to nationalistic and political consciousness in the forces which was ascribed to the INA. In fact, the INA news was so inflamatory that the BBC was forbidden from broadcasting the story. An ever popular view amongst the some historians is the alleged statement by Clement Attlee. PB Chakroborty then the Chief Justice of of the Calcutta High Court had asked Attlee about the role of Subhas Chandra Bose in India's freedom struggle.
Speech by Nathuram Godse (Assassinated Mahatma Gandhi)
in
the
court
JANUARY 30th, 1949 - The Mahatma was assassinated by a man called Naturam Godse. After he shot him, instead of running away, he stood his ground and surrounded. He said, "No one should think that Gandhi was killed by
a madman" One of the best speeches of All time, which is compared to Socrates's speech in his trial. The Judge was astonished by his speech and commented that if India had followed the Jury system of giving judgments, Godse would have been adjudicated as "Not Guilty" by the Jury, cause after the speech, the whole audience was in tears. This is the speech given by Nathuram Godse in the court in his last trial for the murder of Mahatma Gandhi Born in a devotional Brahmin family, I instinctively came to revere Hindu religion, Hindu history and Hindu culture. I had, therefore, been intensely proud of Hinduism as a whole. As I grew up I developed a tendency to free thinking unfettered by any superstitious allegiance to any isms, political or religious. That is why I worked actively for the eradication of untouchability and the caste system based on birth alone. I openly joined anti-caste movements and maintained that all Hindus were of equal status as to rights, social and religious and should be considered high or low on merit alone and not through the accident of birth in a particular caste or profession. I used publicly to take part in organized anti-caste dinners in which thousands of Hindus, Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, Chamars and Bhangis participated. We broke the caste rules and dined in the company of each other.
I have read the speeches and writings of Dadabhai Nairoji, Vivekanand, Gokhale, Tilak, along with the books of ancient and modern history of India and some
prominent countries like England, France, America and' Russia. Moreover I studied the tenets of Socialism and Marxism. But above all I studied very closely whatever Veer Savarkar and Gandhiji had written and spoken, as to my mind these two ideologies have contributed more to the moulding of the thought and action of the Indian people during the last thirty years or so, than any other single factor has done.
All this reading and thinking led me to believe it was my first duty to serve Hindudom and Hindus both as a patriot and as a world citizen. To secure the freedom and to safeguard the just interests of some thirty crores (300 million) of Hindus would automatically constitute the freedom and the well being of all India, one fifth of human race. This conviction led me naturally to devote myself to the Hindu Sanghtanist ideology and programme, which alone, I came to believe, could win and preserve the national independence of Hindustan, my Motherland, and enable her to render true service to humanity as well.
Since the year 1920, that is, after the demise of Lokamanya Tilak, Gandhiji's influence in the Congress first increased and then became supreme. His activities for public awakening were phenomenal in their intensity and were reinforced by the slogan of truth and nonviolence, which he paraded ostentatiously before the country. No sensible or enlightened person could object to those slogans. In fact there is nothing new or original in them. They are implicit in every constitutional public
movement. But it is nothing but a mere dream if you imagine that the bulk of mankind is, or can ever become, capable of scrupulous adherence to these lofty principles in its normal life from day to day. In fact, honour, duty and love of one's own kith and kin and country might often compel us to disregard non-violence and to use force. I could never conceive that an armed resistance to an aggression is unjust. I would consider it a religious and moral duty to resist and, if possible, to overpower such an enemy by use of force. [In the Ramayana] Rama killed Ravana in a tumultuous fight and relieved Sita. [In the Mahabharata], Krishna killed Kansa to end his wickedness; and Arjuna had to fight and slay quite a number of his friends and relations including the revered Bhishma because the latter was on the side of the aggressor. It is my firm belief that in dubbing Rama, Krishna and Arjuna as guilty of violence, the Mahatma betrayed a total ignorance of the springs of human action.
In more recent history, it was the heroic fight put up by Chhatrapati Shivaji that first checked and eventually destroyed the Muslim tyranny in India. It was absolutely essentially for Shivaji to overpower and kill an aggressive Afzal Khan, failing which he would have lost his own life. In condemning history's towering warriors like Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Gobind Singh as misguided patriots, Gandhiji has merely exposed his self-conceit. He was, paradoxical, as it may appear, a violent pacifist who brought untold calamities on the country in the name of truth and non-violence, while Rana Pratap, Shivaji and the Guru will remain enshrined in the hearts of
their countrymen forever for the freedom they brought to them.
The accumulating provocation of thirty-two years, culminating in his last pro-Muslim fast, at last goaded me to the conclusion that the existence of Gandhi should be brought to an end immediately. Gandhi had done very well in South Africa to uphold the rights and well being of the Indian community there. But when he finally returned to India he developed a subjective mentality under which he alone was to be the final judge of what was right or wrong. If the country wanted his leadership, it had to accept his infallibility; if it did not, he would stand aloof from the Congress and carry on his own way. Against such an attitude there can be no halfway house. Either Congress had to surrender its will to his and had to be content with playing second fiddle to all his eccentricity, whimsicality, metaphysics and primitive vision, or it had to carry on without him. He alone was the Judge of everyone and everything; he was the master brain guiding the civil disobedience movement; no other could know the technique of that movement. He alone knew when to begin and when to withdraw it. The movement might succeed or fail, it might bring untold disaster and political reverses but that could make no difference to the Mahatma's infallibility. 'A Satyagrahi can never fail' was his formula for declaring his own infallibility and nobody except himself knew what a Satyagrahi is.
Thus, the Mahatma became the judge and jury in his own
cause. These childish insanities and obstinacies, coupled with a most severe austerity of life, ceaseless work and lofty character made Gandhi formidable and irresistible. Many people thought that his politics were irrational but they had either to withdraw from the Congress or place their intelligence at his feet to do with, as he liked. In a position of such absolute irresponsibility Gandhi was guilty of blunder after blunder, failure after failure, disaster after disaster.
Gandhi's pro-Muslim policy is blatantly in his perverse attitude on the question of the national language of India. It is quite obvious that Hindi has the most prior claim to be accepted as the premier language. In the beginning of his career in India, Gandhi gave a great impetus to Hindi but as he found that the Muslims did not like it, he became a champion of what is called Hindustani. Everybody in India knows that there is no language called Hindustani; it has no grammar; it has no vocabulary. It is a mere dialect; it is spoken, but not written. It is a b*st*rd tongue and 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 followers, of course, supported him and the so-called hybrid language began to be used. The charm and purity of the Hindi language was to be prostituted to please the Muslims. All his experiments were at the expense of the Hindus.
From August 1946 onwards the private armies of the Muslim League began a massacre of the Hindus. The then Viceroy, Lord Wavell, though distressed at what was happening, would not use his powers under the Government of India Act of 1935 to prevent the rape, murder and arson. The Hindu blood began to flow from Bengal to Karachi with some retaliation by the Hindus. The Interim Government formed in September was sabotaged by its Muslim League members right from its inception, but the more they became disloyal and treasonable to the government of which they were a part, the greater was Gandhi's infatuation for them. Lord Wavell had to resign as he could not bring about a settlement and he was succeeded by Lord Mountbatten. King Log was followed by King Stork.
The Congress, which had boasted of its nationalism and socialism, secretly accepted Pakistan literally at the point of the bayonet and abjectly surrendered to Jinnah. India was vivisected and one-third of the Indian territory became foreign land to us from August 15, 1947. Lord Mountbatten came to be described in Congress circles as the greatest Viceroy and Governor-General this country ever had. The official date for handing over power was fixed for June 30, 1948, but Mountbatten with his ruthless surgery gave us a gift of vivisected India ten months in advance. This is what Gandhi had achieved after thirty years of undisputed dictatorship and this is what Congress party calls 'freedom' and 'peaceful transfer of power'. The Hindu- Muslim unity bubble was finally burst and a theocratic state was established with
the consent of Nehru and his crowd and they have called 'freedom won by them with sacrifice' - whose sacrifice? When top leaders of Congress, with the consent of Gandhi, divided and tore the country - which we consider a deity of worship - my mind was filled with direful anger.
One of the conditions imposed by Gandhi for his breaking of the fast unto death related to the mosques in Delhi occupied by the Hindu refugees. But when Hindus in Pakistan were subjected to violent attacks he did not so much as utter a single word to protest and censure the Pakistan Government or the Muslims concerned. Gandhi was shrewd enough to know that while undertaking a fast unto death, had he imposed for its break some condition on the Muslims in Pakistan, there would have been found hardly any Muslims who could have shown some grief if the fast had ended in his death. It was for this reason that he purposely avoided imposing any condition on the Muslims. He was fully aware of from the experience that Jinnah was not at all perturbed or influenced by his fast and the Muslim League hardly attached any value to the inner voice of Gandhi.
Gandhi is being referred to as the Father of the Nation. But if that is so, he had failed his paternal duty inasmuch as he has acted very treacherously to the nation by his consenting to the partitioning of it. I stoutly maintain that Gandhi has failed in his duty. He has proved to be the Father of Pakistan. His inner-voice, his spiritual power and his doctrine of non-violence of which so much is
made of, all crumbled before Jinnah's iron will and proved to be powerless.
Briefly speaking, I thought to myself and foresaw I shall be totally ruined, and the only thing I could expect from the people would be nothing but hatred and that I shall have lost all my honour, even more valuable than my life, if I were to kill Gandhiji. But at the same time I felt that the Indian politics in the absence of Gandhiji would surely be proved practical, able to retaliate, and would be powerful with armed forces. No doubt, my own future would be totally ruined, but the nation would be saved from the inroads of Pakistan. People may even call me and dub me as devoid of any sense or foolish, but the nation would be free to follow the course founded on the reason which I consider to be necessary for sound nation-building. After having fully considered the question, I took the final decision in the matter, but I did not speak about it to anyone whatsoever. I took courage in both my hands and I did fire the shots at Gandhiji on 30th January 1948, on the prayer-grounds of Birla House.
I do say that my shots were fired at the person whose policy and action had brought rack and ruin and destruction to millions of Hindus. There was no legal machinery by which such an offender could be brought to book and for this reason I fired those fatal shots.
I bear no ill will towards anyone individually but I do say that I had no respect for the present government owing to their policy, which was unfairly favourable towards the Muslims. But at the same time I could clearly see that the policy was entirely due to the presence of Gandhi. I have to say with great regret that Prime Minister Nehru quite forgets that his preachings and deeds are at times at variances with each other when he talks about India as a secular state in season and out of season, because it is significant to note that Nehru has played a leading role in the establishment of the theocratic state of Pakistan, and his job was made easier by Gandhi's persistent policy of appeasement towards the Muslims.
I now stand before the court to accept the full share of my responsibility for what I have done and the judge would, of course, pass against me such orders of sentence as may be considered proper. But I would like to add that I do not desire any mercy to be shown to me, nor do I wish that anyone else should beg for mercy on my behalf. My confidence about the moral side of my action has not been shaken even by the criticism levelled against it on all sides. I have no doubt that honest writers of history will weigh my act and find the true value thereof some day in future.
Gandhi, the moulana of Muslim appeasement-II Dr B R Ambedkar paid his tribute to the Muslim Appeasement Bible of Moulana Mahatma Gandhi in these brilliant words:
'Gandhi has never called the Muslims to account even when they have been guilty of gross crimes against Hindus. It is a notorious fact that many prominent Hindus who had offended the religious susceptibilities of the Muslims either by their writings or by their part in the Shudhi Movement have been murdered by some fanatic Musalmans. The leading Muslims never condemned these criminals. On the contrary, they were hailed as religious martyrs.... This attitude of the Muslims is understandable. What is not understandable is the attitude of Mr Gandhi.' Dr Ambedkar was not talking through his hat about the anti-Hindu and pro-Muslim attitude of Mahatma Gandhi. When thousands of women were raped and many of them killed by the Moplah Muslims during the Moplah rebellion in 1921, the brutalised women of Malabar led by the senior Rani of Nilambur gave a heart-rending petition to Lady Reading, the wife of the then Viceroy of India. I am quoting only the first two paragraphs from this historic petition: 'We, the Hindu women of Malabar of varying ranks and stations in life who have recently been overwhelmed by the tremendous catastrophe known as the Moplah rebellion, take the liberty to supplicate your Ladyship for sympathy and succour.' 'Your Ladyship is doubtless aware that though our unhappy district has witnessed many Moplah outbreaks in the course of the last 100 years, the present rebellion is unexampled in its magnitude as well as unprecedented in its ferocity. But it is possible that your Ladyship is not fully appraised of all the horrors and atrocities perpetrated by the fiendish rebels of the many wells and tanks filled up with the mutilated, but often only half dead bodies of our nearest and dearest ones who refused to abandon the faith of our fathers; of pregnant women cut to pieces and left on the roadsides and in the jungles, with the unborn babies protruding from the mangled corpses; of our innocent and
helpless children torn from our arms and done to death before our eyes and of our husbands and fathers tortured, flayed and burnt alive; of our helpless sisters forcibly carried away from the midst of kith and kin and subjected to every shame and outrage which the vile and brutal imagination of these inhuman hellhounds could conceive of; of thousands of our homesteads reduced to circular mounds out of sheer savagery in a wanton spirit of destruction; of our places of worship desecrated and destroyed and of the images of the deity shamefully insulted by putting the entrails of slaughtered cows where flower garlands used to lie, or else smashed to pieces; of the wholesale looting of hard earned wealth of generations reducing many who were formerly rich and prosperous to publicly beg for a pie or two in the streets of Calicut, to buy salt or betal leaf rice being mercifully provided by the various relief agencies of Government. These are not fables. The wells full of rotting skeletons, the ruins which once were our dear homes, the heaps of stones which once were our places of worship these are still here to attest to the truth. The cries of our murdered children in their death agonies are still ringing in our ears and will continue to haunt our memory till our own death brings us peace.' The atrocities committed by the Moplah rebels were widely reported in the English and vernacular newspapers of the day throughout India and the British Empire. Mahatma Gandhi was fully aware of every development in Malabar during this time. But his overweening egoism blinded his eyes to such an extent that he was unable to see the realities on the ground. A Peoples' Conference presided over by the Zamorin, Maharaja of Malabar, was held in 1921. The following resolution was passed at this Conference: 'This Conference views with indignation and sorrow the attempts made in various quarters by interested parties to ignore or minimise the crimes committed by the Moplah rebels such as:
a)Brutality
dishonouring
b)Flaying c)
Wholesale
d)Burning
women
people slaughter alive
of
men,
alive women entire
and
children families
e) Forcibly converting people in thousands and slaying those who refused to get converted f) Throwing half dead people into wells and leaving the victims for hours to struggle for escape till finally released from their suffering by death g) Burning a great many and looting practically all Hindu and Christian houses in the disturbed areas in which even Moplah women and children took part and robbing women of even the garments on their bodies, in short, reducing the whole non-Muslim population to abject destitution. h) Cruelly insulting the religious sentiments of the Hindus by desecrating and destroying numerous temples in the disturbed areas, killing cows within the temple precincts, putting their entrails on the holy image and hanging the skulls on the walls and roofs. Annie Besant was a fearless and impartial woman quite unlike Mahatma Gandhi. Mahatma Gandhi was a double talking, multiple tongued Moulana layer upon layer of orchestrated fraud, dissemblance and deceit. Annie Besant had been elected President of the Indian National Congress in 1913 two years before the final return of Mahatma Gandhi to India from South Africa. She was one of the tallest leaders of India at that time and
loved by the masses of India. She created a new public awakening about the intentions of the Moplah marauders. Annie Besant visited the affected areas of Malabar soon after the Moplah rebellion in 1921 and wrote a series of powerful articles about the carnage let loose by the Moplah Muslims which opened the eyes of the government of India and that of Britain. I am quoting below a few words from Annie Besant's article titled Malabar's Agony in New India of 29 November, 1921: 'It would be well if Mr M K Gandhi could be taken into Malabar to see with his own eyes the ghastly horrors which have been created by the preaching of himself and his 'LOVED BROTHERS' Muhommad and Shaukat Ali. The Khilafat Raj is established there; on 1 August, 1921, sharp to the date first announced by Gandhi for the beginning of Swaraj and the vanishing of British Rule, a Police Inspector was surrounded by Moplahs, revolting against that Rule. From that date onwards thousands of the forbidden war knives were secretly made and hidden away and on 20 August, the rebellion broke out. Khilafat flags were hoisted on Police Stations and Government Offices. .... Eyes full of appeal, and agonised despair, of hopeless entreaty of helpless anguish, thousands of them camp after camp which I visited. Mr Gandhi says 'Shameful Inhumanity'. Shameful inhumanity indeed, wrought by the Moplahs, and these are the victims saved from extermination by British and Indian Swords. For be it remembered the Moplahs began the whole horrible business; the Government intervened to save their victims and these thousands have been saved. Mr Gandhi would have hostilities suspended so that the Moplahs may swoop down on the refugee camps and finish their work! Mahatma Gandhi was least concerned about the Hindu victims of Moplah violence in Malabar at that time. Annie Besant exposed the atrocities committed by the Moplah rebels in Malabar as a fearless journalist. Let us hear her describe an act and scene of rape in Malabar: 'Words fail to express my feelings of indignation and abhorrence which I experienced when
