Another Face of Gandhi
.jpg)
Gandhi was a pivotal figure in Indian history during the 20th century. Many claim, he won freedom for India from the Raj. But there is a line of thought that postulates that Mahatma Gandhi was 'a British agent 'who did great harm to India.
This line of thought appears bizarre and bound to draw a lot of flak. Nevertheless I write such things as I believe that there must be a healthy discussion on such matters. I would like to submit that in my view the actions of Gandhi only served the cause of British rule and their ultimate agenda for the sub continent. In that respect, perhaps unwittingly he became a British agent who did great harm to India. How did this happen? Read on.
Firstly we must remember that India has tremendous diversity, so many religions, castes, races, languages, etc . Such diversity helped the British
In their policy of divide and rule. Gandhi served the cause of British interest
by constantly injecting religion into politics for many decades. Thus Gandhi furthered the British policy of divide and rule.
Gandhi's public speeches and writings as read now in various magazines bring out that right from 1915 , when he came to India from South Africa till his death in 1948, he would emphasize Hindu religious ideas e.g. Ramrajya, Go Raksha ( cow protection ), brahmacharya ( celibacy ), varnashram dharma ( caste system ), etc ( see Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi ). This cannot be denied.
Gandhi wrote in ' Young India ' on 10.6.1921 " I am a Sanatani Hindu. I believe in the varnashram dharma. I believe in protection of the cow ". In his public meetings the Hindu bhajan ' Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram ' would be loudly sung.
Indians by nature are a religious people. A sadhu or swami may preach such ideas to his followers in his ashram, but when they are preached by a political leader, what effect will these speeches and writings have on an orthodox Muslims? It will drive him towards a Muslim organization like the Muslim League, and this is exactly what happened. Was this not serving the British policy of divide and rule ? By constantly injecting religion into politics for several decades, Gandhi perhaps unwittingly acted as a British agent ?
In India a revolutionary movement against British rule had started in the early 20th century under the Anushilan Samiti, Jugantar, and revolutionaries like Surya Sen, Ramprasad Bismil ( who wrote the song ' Sarfaroshi ki tamanna ab hamare dil mein hai ), Chandrashekhar Azad, Ashfaqulla, Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, etc ( who were all hanged by the British ). Gandhi successfully diverted the freedom struggle from this revolutionary direction to a harmless nonsensical channel called Satyagraha. This also served British interests.
Gandhi's economic ideas were thoroughly reactionary. He was against industrialization, and preached hand spinning by charkha and other such reactionary nonsense.
The 1947 Hindu, Sikh -Muslim riots in Punjab brings out his bias. With millions killed and women raped, Gandhi never ventured to Punjab. Why? Nobody, even his apologists can answer. In effect his action or inaction served British interests and helped divide India. The British created Pakistan. Its another matter that Pakistan the British creation became an en fante terrible fomenting terror groups.
.jpg)
Gandhi was a pivotal figure in Indian history during the 20th century. Many claim, he won freedom for India from the Raj. But there is a line of thought that postulates that Mahatma Gandhi was 'a British agent 'who did great harm to India.
This line of thought appears bizarre and bound to draw a lot of flak. Nevertheless I write such things as I believe that there must be a healthy discussion on such matters. I would like to submit that in my view the actions of Gandhi only served the cause of British rule and their ultimate agenda for the sub continent. In that respect, perhaps unwittingly he became a British agent who did great harm to India. How did this happen? Read on.
Firstly we must remember that India has tremendous diversity, so many religions, castes, races, languages, etc . Such diversity helped the British
In their policy of divide and rule. Gandhi served the cause of British interest
by constantly injecting religion into politics for many decades. Thus Gandhi furthered the British policy of divide and rule.
Gandhi's public speeches and writings as read now in various magazines bring out that right from 1915 , when he came to India from South Africa till his death in 1948, he would emphasize Hindu religious ideas e.g. Ramrajya, Go Raksha ( cow protection ), brahmacharya ( celibacy ), varnashram dharma ( caste system ), etc ( see Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi ). This cannot be denied.
Gandhi wrote in ' Young India ' on 10.6.1921 " I am a Sanatani Hindu. I believe in the varnashram dharma. I believe in protection of the cow ". In his public meetings the Hindu bhajan ' Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram ' would be loudly sung.
Indians by nature are a religious people. A sadhu or swami may preach such ideas to his followers in his ashram, but when they are preached by a political leader, what effect will these speeches and writings have on an orthodox Muslims? It will drive him towards a Muslim organization like the Muslim League, and this is exactly what happened. Was this not serving the British policy of divide and rule ? By constantly injecting religion into politics for several decades, Gandhi perhaps unwittingly acted as a British agent ?
In India a revolutionary movement against British rule had started in the early 20th century under the Anushilan Samiti, Jugantar, and revolutionaries like Surya Sen, Ramprasad Bismil ( who wrote the song ' Sarfaroshi ki tamanna ab hamare dil mein hai ), Chandrashekhar Azad, Ashfaqulla, Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, etc ( who were all hanged by the British ). Gandhi successfully diverted the freedom struggle from this revolutionary direction to a harmless nonsensical channel called Satyagraha. This also served British interests.
Gandhi's economic ideas were thoroughly reactionary. He was against industrialization, and preached hand spinning by charkha and other such reactionary nonsense.
The 1947 Hindu, Sikh -Muslim riots in Punjab brings out his bias. With millions killed and women raped, Gandhi never ventured to Punjab. Why? Nobody, even his apologists can answer. In effect his action or inaction served British interests and helped divide India. The British created Pakistan. Its another matter that Pakistan the British creation became an en fante terrible fomenting terror groups.
No comments:
Post a Comment